How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Hieronymus]

Other species differ from the human genome due to mutations.

Nope, the evidence does not support that.
Nor does logic and you can forget about the chances either.

So are they degraded versions of humans?

You know the answer.

Sir, i am a creationist.
The origin of species lies with the Creator.
Hence all life is full of purposefull traits (like all organs).

 

[Loudmouth]

So it's illegal to not teach a poor conjecture that; s been completely bankrupt since man discovered DNA.

It is illegal to teach religion in public school science class, which is why creationism is not a part of science classes in high schools.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope, the evidence does not support that.

Yep, it does support it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Nor does logic and you can forget about the chances either.

What logic are you using to arrive at the conclusion that random mutations can not result in increased fitness?

Sir, i am a creationist.
The origin of species lies with the Creator.
Hence all life is full of purposefull traits (like all organs).

Then how could a creator change genomes without causing disease?

 

[Hieronymus]

Yep, it does support it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

i do not subscribe to their conclusions and premises.

What logic are you using to arrive at the conclusion that random mutations can not result in increased fitness?

Like i said many times: data corruption
You have data that works, you corrupt it with purposeless mutations.
Some will still work, but not improve, obviously.
The chance it will are next to nothing.
Only a fool would build an idea on those facts, suggesting purposeful traits will arise often and consistently enough to get speciation and specialisation.
At least, that's my opinion / conclusion....

Then how could a creator change genomes without causing disease?

MADE, not change.
Creation means making, constructing.
It does not mean changing stuff.

 

[Hieronymus]

It is illegal to teach religion in public school science class, which is why creationism is not a part of science classes in high schools.

Then why is it allowed to teach God does not exist or can't do a thing?
Can you prove it? No...

Creationism is not religion.
But you probably wouldn't understand that either....

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe it's time to consolidate?

 

[Loudmouth]

i do not subscribe to their conclusions and premises.

Facts do not need your permission to be facts.

Like i said many times: data corruption
You have data that works, you corrupt it with purposeless mutations.
Some will still work, but not improve, obviously.

It isn't obvious at all. Please tell me why changes in DNA sequence can not increase fitness?

The chance it will are next to nothing.

Can I please see your math?

Only a fool would build an idea on those facts, suggesting purposeful traits will arise often and consistently enough to get speciation and specialisation.
At least, that's my opinion / conclusion....MADE, not change.
Creation means making, constructing.
It does not mean changing stuff.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then why is it allowed to teach God does not exist or can't do a thing?

They don't. It is only creationists who claim that evolution disproves the existence of God.

Can you prove it? No...

Yes.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Creationism is not religion.
But you probably wouldn't understand that either....

Creationism is the faith based belief that a deity created the universe. How is that not a religion?

 

[Hieronymus]

They don't. It is only creationists who claim that evolution disproves the existence of God.



Yes.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

I don't agree with these premises and conclusions.
No time to get into now, maybe later, sorry.

Creationism is the faith based belief that a deity created the universe. How is that not a religion?

Why does it have to be a deity?
What if the evidence makes a better case for creation non the less?
Why is not religious to say it is not created when you can never prove it isn't?
How is it science to teach it isn't, when Occam's razor is creation?

 

[Hieronymus]

Can I please see your math?

Are you serious or oblivious?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't agree with these premises and conclusions.

Reality doesn't require your agreement. You could refuse to agree that the Moon is made of rock. It is still made of rock.

No time to get into now, maybe later, sorry.Why does it have to be a deity?

You don't believe it is a deity who created the universe?

What if the evidence makes a better case for creation non the less?

You have already rejected the evidence. Too late to try and claim your position is supported by the very evidence you refuse to address.

Why is not religious to say it is not created when you can never prove it isn't?

It is not religious to say that life evolved because it is supported by scientific evidence.

 

[Hieronymus]

gotta go, bye

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you serious or oblivious?

Are you making it up, or not?

 

[Hieronymus]

Reality doesn't require your agreement.

Hahaha!

 

[Hieronymus]

Are you making it up, or not?

Oblivious it is....
Surely, you are aware of the other side of the story, being a member here.
Bye, clock ticking...

 

[Loudmouth]

Hahaha!

Do you really think evolution is false simply because you close your eyes to the evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oblivious it is....
Surely, you are aware of the other side of the story, being a member here.
Bye, clock ticking...

Your side of the story is never able to produce the probabilities you claim to have. That is what I am aware of.

Like the others, you are making stuff up.

 

[Hoghead1]

Creationism is in fact a religion, largely because it is based almost exclusively on conservative Christian dogmas. For example, at the very bottom of the creationists rejection of creation is the dogma that God is wholly immutable and that creation is then over, finite. Hence, there can be no evolution, a s God is not continually creative. God does not change and so neither does the world. However, this notion of an immutable Deity is largely due to the early influx of Hellenic metaphysics into Christianity, more so than Scripture, which does in fact allow for a changing God and sees God as continually striving to evolve a better world. The other issue here concerns the status of Scripture, not science, Scripture. Here, the inerrancy of Scripture is taken as a dogma that in no way can ever be questioned. However, as I have said before and will say again, the inerrancy theory of Scripture can and has been seriously challenged by modern biblical scholarship. So it is beyond doubt that creationism is founded largely on conservative religious values.

 

[Hoghead1]

The reason why God enters the picture here is that science dos not answer all questing. Science does a very poor job of answering questions about values and the meaningfulness of life. granted we evolve, but toes this have to mean we are at the mercy of blind mechanical forces and impersonal natural laws? In short, bringing God into the picture enables individuals to see the evolutionary process as meaningful, guarantees there is an ultimate purpose to their lives, and delivers us from the tyranny of cold, impersonal mechanical forces.

 

[Loudmouth]

The reason why God enters the picture here is that science dos not answer all questing. Science does a very poor job of answering questions about values and the meaningfulness of life. granted we evolve, but toes this have to mean we are at the mercy of blind mechanical forces and impersonal natural laws? In short, bringing God into the picture enables individuals to see the evolutionary process as meaningful, guarantees there is an ultimate purpose to their lives, and delivers us from the tyranny of cold, impersonal mechanical forces.

What may ultimately separate atheists from theists is accepting comforting answers vs. wanting to know the truth. An answer may be comforting, but is it true? I think that we can all agree that one does not necessarily lead to the other.