How to choose between creation and evolution.

[AV1611VET]

Yes... thats someting alright, but it in no way supports a worldwide flood.

By themselves, no.

Mother Nature can't do those things in a single year.

God can.

 

[VirOptimus]

You're the one mything the point then.Genetics can take a hike.

How did Jacob get his flock?

Hint: It certainly wasn't by genetics.

Relying on magic (god(s))to make a point about science is an auto-loss.

 

[VirOptimus]

By themselves, no.

Mother Nature can't do those things in a single year.

God can.

Se my post above.

 

[AV1611VET]

Relying on magic (god(s))to make a point about science is an auto-loss.

And what is relying on miracles?

And here's the only point I wish to make about science: Science can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Se my post above.

Se mine too.

 

[VirOptimus]

And what is relying on miracles?

And here's the only point I wish to make about science: Science can take a hike.

Miracles is synonymous with magic.

 

[tas8831]

From a population of eight? I don't think so. I thought that you were extolling the virtues of "logic" and "evidence", I suppose if you applied those to the flood story the whole thing would come tumbling down like a house of cards.



There is a great explanation..... There was no worldwide flood 5500 years ago. Call it allegory, a lesson, an exaggeration of local events, but there was no worldwide flood wiping out life on Earth (except for a boatful of course).

The only "inquiring" some creationists are concerned with is how to avoid being competent and honest while still being condescending jerks.

 

[tas8831]

Septuagint chronology puts the flood at about 3300 BC, which is 600 years before Egypt's Old Kingdom.

Such a chronology is nonsense.

And why no mention of a worldwide flood in ANY Egyptian lore that even comes close to the Noah fairy tale??

Weird how your "inquiring mind" simply accepts bible lore at face value despite it's patent absurdity.

 

[inquiring mind]

The only "inquiring" some creationists are concerned with is how to avoid being competent and honest while still being condescending jerks.

Maybe you're just having a bad day.

 

[tas8831]

Was the process of transforming silicates into biologically-necessary organic molecules via tribal deity magic tall tales observable?

Hello?
Inquiring creationist? Nothing logical or evidence-based to offer?

 

[tas8831]

Maybe you're just having a bad day.

I am having a great day - watching creationists make fools of themselves even as they are pretentious and condescending is very entertaining to me.

 

[tas8831]

"Terminology and charts"... LOL!! Sad Dunning-Krugerites.

 

[AV1611VET]

Miracles is synonymous with magic.

Then why don't you use it?

 

[inquiring mind]

And why no mention of a worldwide flood in ANY Egyptian lore that even comes close to the Noah fairy tale??

They forgot about the ten plagues pretty quick too.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why don't you use it?

I use the terms I want, not the ones you want.

 

[AV1611VET]

I use the terms I want, not the ones you want.

I understand that.

I'm just curious why you prefer the one over the other.

 

[tas8831]

They forgot about the ten plagues pretty quick too.

Probably because they didn't happen.

And funny thing - why did the Hebrews have to mark their doors? Couldn't Jehovah the Great just KNOW who was who?

Your middle eastern tall tales fall apart upon the most cursory of examinations. Yet people with self-aggrandizing monikers just take them at face value. How child-like and precious!

"Inquiring Mind? Why did God have to kill all the first-born of Egypt? Couldn't He have just made Pharaoh change his mind? Or used some of his God powers to zap the Israelites out of Egypt? And what was with all those silly parlor tricks that God did that Pharaoh's magicians could duplicate? Didn't that make God look stupid and weak?"

"No, no - you see, these stories are in the BIBLE, and are thus 100% true no matter what, and beyond question."

"Oh... right... And you call yourself 'Inquiring Mind' why?"​

Bye bye - back on ignore you go. I can only deal with so much pompous ignorance and self-righteousness...

Seems like I've done this before...

Now where was I...

... and that you have poor judgment, which you’ve once again proved with this post.

One will note that at no point do you highlight an example of this 'poor judgement' and then explain why it shows 'poor judgement.'

As in nearly always the case with your type, you merely assert, and expect others to take your groundless nonsense at face value. I'm sure the pew-warmers comply, but sensible adults will not.

I don’t seem to have any problem with your generally googled info and opinions

Funny stuff from the fellow that believes YEC sources are reliable.

In reality, I first read that Atchley and Fitch paper when I was a graduate student in the mid 1990s. Same with the Hillis papers. I cited them in my dissertation, even. Knew of 2 of the others in the later 1990s, as well. But as I acknowledged the first time I posted it, it was on here that I saw all of those papers presented as a group.
So, no google, thanks. I get that you must project your own 'research' activities onto others, but it makes you look rather... petty.

when and if I can get you out of the ‘cut & paste’ posts, which only serve the purpose of boring everyone to death and laying the trap of causing someone to have to compose a research paper for an answer.

No, they serve as a direct refutation of the typical uninformed creationist mantra about there being "no evidence" for evolution, which even your great "inquiring mind" has foolishly made. Your 'inquiring mind' has produced the following quotes (in no particular order, all from this forum (just 2 threads), all easily searched for in case you doubt your own words). I do like the excessive amount of unwarranted condescension and a rather blatant lack of self-awareness in many of your erroneous claims - pretty common among your ilk; the laughable arrogance premised on ignorance (willful, it seems) is sometimes staggering. I also enjoy the arrogance of dismissing anyone's "interpretation" of evidence if it contradicts your favorite tall tales from the ancient middle east:

"I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out."

"Yes, some Christians can and often do allow themselves to be duped by Godless, well-cloaked doctrines of all sorts, and without even really realizing it... trust in man over God."

"Simply put, I think it is your interpretation of the evidence that is inadequate."

"...it is much more probable to me that God could have created all the different “kinds”, plant and animal, in stages since there is no convincing evidence of a complete progressive transformation as macroevolution would have it."

"No such evidence will be submitted, because no such evidence exists."

"You mean the smoke screens for lack of actual evidence for a change from one kind to another."
​

I really like this lie - lies like this are why I paste my "google" stuff :

"Any evidence you present as macro evolution is indeed false."

"But, you believe your evidence is interpreted 100% accurately."
​

And especially relevant to my "google" knowledge:

"Genetic evidence can be argued as much for Creation and a Designer as for Evolution... come on, you know that."

"in fact, I think our Creator designed micro evolution parameters, but I do not believe there is evidence to support macro evolution, either in the scientific field or His written word."
​

I especially like how no evidence "convinces" you of 'macroevolution' - yet you make it quite clear, Ken Ham-like, that you would not accept ANY evidence that counters your religious myths in the first place. All rather disingenuous.


But sure, I can see why you consider scientific evidence that refutes your mendacious mantras to be 'boring.' It is a way of dismissing that which you have no answer for. Pretty transparent, really.

I think if you even came close to understanding science as much as you claim, you’d be able to discuss it with entertaining dialogue. I won’t hold my breath on that one.

I find your desire for "entertainment" very informative. I once had a freshman say something similar to me in BI 101. Of course, he was just 18, and was used to being entertained because, you know, learning and paying attention is hard.

Of course, unlike you, my scientific knowledge is not pretend, and also unlike you, I do not present myself as having knowledge that I do not.

I will interpret your latest sad attempt at face-saving as an unwitting admission of intellectual defeat and simply laugh at your unwarranted over-estimation of your own intellectual worth.

More evidence of your poor judgment.

No, more evidence of the validity of my conclusion.
If you could actually understand and discuss the evidence that I and others have wasted time presenting to you, you would not be reduced to these condescending cop-outs.

Beaten? That certainly doesn’t sound like someone interested in ‘inquiring’ or exchanging ideas.

I am not interesting in the sort of "inquiring" you engage in, this is true. Your "inquiring" seems to consist entirely of unwarranted mockery, condescension premised on your own ignorance, and an unyielding desire to prop up you preferred ancient middle eastern numerology myths.

So much for your humility.

MY humility?

I am not the one presenting myself as possessing sufficient knowledge to overturn the conclusions of thousands of far more intelligent and honest people than yourself - those studying, researching finding evidence for, etc. a scientific field that just so happens to up-end your precious pre-technological beliefs.

I am simply providing evidence that you clearly cannot grasp the significance of, but also cannot bring yourself to admit to.

You are good at projection, that is true. But science? Not so much.

Who would've figured?

Indeed. Creationists with little to no science knowledge have a documented history of being insufferable buffoons when pretending to be able to address scientific evidence.

I had you on ignore for a few months. Now I remember why.​

 

[inquiring mind]

Probably because they didn't happen.

And funny thing - why did the Hebrews have to mark their doors? Couldn't Jehovah the Great just KNOW who was who?

Your middle eastern tall tales fall apart upon the most cursory of examinations. Yet people with self-aggrandizing monikers just take them at face value. How child-like and precious!

"Inquiring Mind? Why did God have to kill all the first-born of Egypt? Couldn't He have just made Pharaoh change his mind? Or used some of his God powers to zap the Israelites out of Egypt? And what was with all those silly parlor tricks that God did that Pharaoh's magicians could duplicate? Didn't that make God look stupid and weak?"

"No, no - you see, these stories are in the BIBLE, and are thus 100% true no matter what, and beyond question."

"Oh... right... And you call yourself 'Inquiring Mind' why?"​

Bye bye - back on ignore you go. I can only deal with so much pompous ignorance and self-righteousness...

Seems like I've done this before...

Now where was I...
One will note that at no point do you highlight an example of this 'poor judgement' and then explain why it shows 'poor judgement.'

As in nearly always the case with your type, you merely assert, and expect others to take your groundless nonsense at face value. I'm sure the pew-warmers comply, but sensible adults will not.


Funny stuff from the fellow that believes YEC sources are reliable.

In reality, I first read that Atchley and Fitch paper when I was a graduate student in the mid 1990s. Same with the Hillis papers. I cited them in my dissertation, even. Knew of 2 of the others in the later 1990s, as well. But as I acknowledged the first time I posted it, it was on here that I saw all of those papers presented as a group.
So, no google, thanks. I get that you must project your own 'research' activities onto others, but it makes you look rather... petty.

No, they serve as a direct refutation of the typical uninformed creationist mantra about there being "no evidence" for evolution, which even your great "inquiring mind" has foolishly made. Your 'inquiring mind' has produced the following quotes (in no particular order, all from this forum (just 2 threads), all easily searched for in case you doubt your own words). I do like the excessive amount of unwarranted condescension and a rather blatant lack of self-awareness in many of your erroneous claims - pretty common among your ilk; the laughable arrogance premised on ignorance (willful, it seems) is sometimes staggering. I also enjoy the arrogance of dismissing anyone's "interpretation" of evidence if it contradicts your favorite tall tales from the ancient middle east:

"I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out."

"Yes, some Christians can and often do allow themselves to be duped by Godless, well-cloaked doctrines of all sorts, and without even really realizing it... trust in man over God."

"Simply put, I think it is your interpretation of the evidence that is inadequate."

"...it is much more probable to me that God could have created all the different “kinds”, plant and animal, in stages since there is no convincing evidence of a complete progressive transformation as macroevolution would have it."

"No such evidence will be submitted, because no such evidence exists."

"You mean the smoke screens for lack of actual evidence for a change from one kind to another."
​

I really like this lie - lies like this are why I paste my "google" stuff :

"Any evidence you present as macro evolution is indeed false."

"But, you believe your evidence is interpreted 100% accurately."
​

And especially relevant to my "google" knowledge:

"Genetic evidence can be argued as much for Creation and a Designer as for Evolution... come on, you know that."

"in fact, I think our Creator designed micro evolution parameters, but I do not believe there is evidence to support macro evolution, either in the scientific field or His written word."
​

I especially like how no evidence "convinces" you of 'macroevolution' - yet you make it quite clear, Ken Ham-like, that you would not accept ANY evidence that counters your religious myths in the first place. All rather disingenuous.


But sure, I can see why you consider scientific evidence that refutes your mendacious mantras to be 'boring.' It is a way of dismissing that which you have no answer for. Pretty transparent, really.


I find your desire for "entertainment" very informative. I once had a freshman say something similar to me in BI 101. Of course, he was just 18, and was used to being entertained because, you know, learning and paying attention is hard.

Of course, unlike you, my scientific knowledge is not pretend, and also unlike you, I do not present myself as having knowledge that I do not.

No, more evidence of the validity of my conclusion.
If you could actually understand and discuss the evidence that I and others have wasted time presenting to you, you would not be reduced to these condescending cop-outs.

I am not interesting in the sort of "inquiring" you engage in, this is true. Your "inquiring" seems to consist entirely of unwarranted mockery, condescension premised on your own ignorance, and an unyielding desire to prop up you preferred ancient middle eastern numerology myths.

MY humility?

I am not the one presenting myself as possessing sufficient knowledge to overturn the conclusions of thousands of far more intelligent and honest people than yourself - those studying, researching finding evidence for, etc. a scientific field that just so happens to up-end your precious pre-technological beliefs.

I am simply providing evidence that you clearly cannot grasp the significance of, but also cannot bring yourself to admit to.

You are good at projection, that is true. But science? Not so much.


Indeed. Creationists with little to no science knowledge have a documented history of being insufferable buffoons when pretending to be able to address scientific evidence.

I had you on ignore for a few months. Now I remember why.​

Okay

 

[VirOptimus]

I understand that.

I'm just curious why you prefer the one over the other.

Ok. You will have to keep wondering.

 

[Jimmy D]

A few more than eight... but it began with just one boatload.

A lot more than eight, plus all the other boatloads, plus the locals.

They didn't develop a whole civilization - language, architecture, writing, cities, armies etc from nothing.

What do you suppose the population of the middle East and North Africa was at that time?