If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

Heissonear said:

They also miss the essential point that He chose to make the Earth have an Apparent Mature Age, when He Created the world less than 10,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

So God lied then.

Heissonear said:

As you well know, life on Earth is much more complex than a car. And natural processes cannot make a car. It is impossible.

Many do not see such blind spot in thinking life on Earth evolved by natural processes. How it is impossible.

It is fossils in the rock record sequenced immature to more complex life forms they lean up. By faith in such they stand. They know not that God would make scientific evidence lead one to error without Him. It is the rock record and science they have turned to and Exalt. They want others to do the same.

From speculation that the rock record shows evolution of life over time they stand. Yet the rock record only shows Kinds. The rock record - with billions of fossils found - shows zero transition fossils - as you pointed out earlier.

They have placed faith in something that they have no evidence to support. The way natural history would have happened before God over time is ignored by modern man. The Way He would have things deposited, particularly life forms He Created, over eons of time they set aside.

God shows in the rock record His Ways of Creating, which is Creating immature life forms first, and a sequence of Creating more complex life forms over time. There would be zero transition fossils in the rock record in His Way of Creating Earth. Many stumble at this very point - the Creator and His Ways of Creating.

They also miss the essential point that He chose to make the Earth have an Apparent Mature Age, when He Created the world less than 10,000 years ago. Many stumble at how the Earth looked like after Creation Week. Even how Genesis list Earth's Creation process.

Click to expand...

You're arrogantly confident in your ignorance. I'll give you that.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

So God lied then.

Click to expand...

This is the only reasonable conclusion.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

So God lied then.

Click to expand...

Is this what your intellect has concluded - or are you led into Truth by the Holy Spirit, and your conclusions through Him, even by Living Water from your innermost?





I think it is your intellect based conclusion.

Heissonear said:

Is this what your intellect has concluded - or are you led into Truth by the Holy Spirit, and your conclusions through Him, even by Living Water from your innermost?

View attachment 219972

View attachment 219973

I think it is your intellect based conclusion.

Click to expand...

Yes, the intellect that God gave me led me to conclude that in your ignorance, you are casting God as a liar.

xianghua said:

you can say the same for a car motor. so you will conclude the same if you will see a car motor?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think the two cases have to be the same. Seems to me you're just continuing to find a way to leave evolution out of the explanation basket. Its not going to work. People know about evolution now and you can't remove that knowledge from the earth.

Heissonear said:

I think it is your intellect based conclusion.

Click to expand...

If God did not intend I should think, why did he give me a thinker?

eleos1954 said:

I do look at science in relation to evolution, age of the earth etc. and ... a lot of things.I also look at the creation side as well (scientifically).

Click to expand...

What "scientifically creation side"?
There's no such thing. There's just the science (evolution) on the one hand, and fundamentalist religion (creation) on the other.

newsflash: if history has learned us anything, if science and fundamentalist religion go head to head... religion never wins.

Why would I waste my time doing that?

Click to expand...

There are credible scientists, who through science bring forth "science" that supports creation.

Click to expand...

Not a single scientific paper shows that to be the case.
And I love how you put quotes around "science". Ironic.

If one is a "believer" in science, why wouldn't one be interested in what they have to say as well?

Click to expand...

Because they are really preaching a religion while misrepresenting science, instead of actually talking about science.

I do not believe there is a high percentage to support either way

Click to expand...

Sorry to inform you (well, not really), but evolution is a wildely established theory. Perhaps the most established theory in all of science, supported by mountains of evidence from various different independent fields and contradicted by none.

but think it "prudent" and also interesting to look at both sides --- evolution verses creation .... so that is "why" it is not a "waste of time"

Click to expand...

It is a waste of time to. You speak of "both" sides. In reality, if you are going to also include religious origin stories, then there aren't just 2 sides. Then there are hundreds, thousands of sides. Because you see... while you think your particular religion is special, it really isn't. If we are to include religious creation stories, then we need to include all of them.

So it's not "science vs creation". It's really "science vs christian creation vs islamic creation vs hindu creation vs scientology creation vs ........................"

But off course... there isn't a single reason why we should look to religious stories as alternatives for science. At all. And likely, you agree to that, as long as the religious stories come from other religions. Amirite?

Otherwise, by not looking at both ... one is putting themselves in "one box"

Click to expand...

Yes. The box of reality and evidence based reasoning.
I kinda like that box. It results in accurate beliefs.

by means of preference of a already pre-formed bias one way or another.

Click to expand...

Says the theist who argues for to include his religious creation story, simply because he already happens to believe that by being part of a religion denomination which actually likely demands believing that on faith (regardless of the evidence).

If one only looks at one thing .... that's all you see.

Click to expand...

I DO look at only one thing and I will acknowledge that proudly.
That one thing I look at is......-drumroll-.......... the evidence.

And I'll go wherever that evidence leads me.
See, *I* am not the one who decides before hand where I want my beliefs to end up....
That would be you.

Like I said .... I look at both .... knowing this mystery will never be solved by mankind.

Click to expand...

So you just decided before hand that it will never be solved....
But *I* am the one with the "pre-formed bias", ey?

Uhu.

eleos1954 said:

Things change as (scientific) knowlege increases. No one can ... or should put a "period" on scientific discoveries. Pursuing science is important, many discoveries are made .... but science is not the end all answer to all things. Yes, scientifically things are "proven", until they are disproven as knowledge increases through technology. You can't put a period on science. Like I said, science is progressive and things change over time. Nobody has all the answers .... but we do pursue "answers" and learn many things in the process and will continue to do so.

Click to expand...

Sure.

But ideas that have been discarded / disproven / falsified.... there's no reason to continue to entertain them.

Your creation nonsense is such an idea.

In fact, geology as a field can be said to have been kickstarted by christians who set out to find evidence of Noah's Flood. Their conclusion was that no such flood every occured.
This was at the dawn of the field of geology as we know it today. That's how long it's been known that this story can not be literally true.

Yet here we are.... still having people trying to claim otherwise.

xianghua said:

why its not a motor? please explain...

basically even scientists consider it to be a motor:

The bacterial flagellar motor: structure and function of a complex molecular machine. - PubMed - NCBI

The bacterial flagella motor. - PubMed - NCBI

A Rotary Motor Drives Bacterial Motion - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf

so why we should not?

Click to expand...

I suppose I should have said it differently, a flagellum is not a man-made motor. It is similar to a man-made motor.

eleos1954 said:

ok ... who are the creation scientists you consider not credible?

Click to expand...

There are no "creation scientists", because there is no such thing as "creation science".
There is just "science".

Creationists calling themselves scientists, doesn't make them scientists.
Doing science, makes you a scientist.

And "doing science", means doing research and publishing your findings in appropriate journals.

Not a single creationist does that on the topic of creation.
And no, organizing their own journals where they can all agree with eachother and completely circumvent that actual scientific channels and the harsh scientific scrutiny that all other actual scientists must face, does not count.

xianghua said:

thanks. so the blind spot is not an issue. and the claim about bad design is a bad claim.

Click to expand...

It's clear that you are not an engineer or similar.
Acknowledging that it isn't necessarily a problem IS NOT THE SAME as saying that it is a good design!

Let me give you an example... I'm a software engineer.
There are criteria that make a certain software design "good" or "bad".

I can write you 2 identical looking programs with the exact same user interface and the exact same performance.

As in, install those 2 applications on 2 computers and have 1 user use them both and this useage will leave them completely convinced that it is the exact same code.

However... it is not.
The one program will be a spaghetti mess of code, dead code, duplicate code, unecessary background processes,...
While the other's build up will be very clean, very elegant, nicely compartamentalized, nicely refactored, no dead code, no unecessary background processes, etc etc.

The second program will use an objectively better design.
The first would be objectively bad.

If the assignment would be graded as a school project, the author of the first app might even fail the class!

But, user wise, would it be a problem? Nope....

However, there are consequences. The first program will consume more energy, due to unecessary background processes. The same goes for our eyes. Our brains need to consume extra energy to rectify the image due to the blind spots.

And even if we ignore those ineficiencies, there still is the notion that one can have 2 products with identical output/performance/etc, while one is better designed then the other.

Software wise, take dead code for example. This has no consequences, other then taking up more disk space. Neglectable. A couple KB on a disk of 500 GB won't be making any difference, nore will it consume more energy.

But software without dead code is objectively better then software with dead code.

since you already admit that the blind spot doesnt make any problem this claim is incorrect.

Click to expand...

I just explained how that claim most definatly IS correct.

you cant realy know if there is no connection between having a blind spot and colorblindness.

Click to expand...

Then you can't use it as an argument either.

they can also claim that a car evolved by a natural process. so what?

Click to expand...

They can't and they didn't.

Heissonear said:

As you well know, life on Earth is much more complex than a car. And natural processes cannot make a car. It is impossible.

Click to expand...

Cars aren't living things that reproduce with modification and are in competition for limited resources.

Many do not see such blind spot in thinking life on Earth evolved by natural processes. How it is impossible.

Click to expand...

Things that reproduce with modification and compete with peers for limited resources, inevitably evolve or go extinct.

It is fossils in the rock record sequenced immature to more complex life forms they lean up.

Click to expand...

You can remove all fossils from existance and evolution would still be as solid as ever thanks to the genetic record.

It is the rock record and science they have turned to and Exalt. They want others to do the same.

Click to expand...

Science leads to accurate answers. Whenever science and religion go head to head, religion never wins.

They have placed faith in something that they have no evidence to support.

Click to expand...

Only if you ignore
- the fossil record
- the genetic record
- observed speciation (wild and lab)
- phylogenies
- comparative anatomy
- geographic distribution of species, cross referenced with geology
- ...

The way natural history would have happened before God over time is ignored by modern man. The Way He would have things deposited, particularly life forms He Created, over eons of time they set aside.

Click to expand...

Science doesn't really care about "just so" religious stories and claims.
And rightfully so.

They also miss the essential point that He chose to make the Earth have an Apparent Mature Age, when He Created the world less than 10,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

And an apparant history. A track record of events that apparatnly never actually took place.
Essentially the equivalent of Last Thursdayism.

Many stumble at how the Earth looked like after Creation Week. Even how Genesis list Earth's Creation process.

Click to expand...

Just like you overlook how the hindu scriptures claim the earth began.

Jjmcubbin said:

I suppose I should have said it differently, a flagellum is not a man-made motor. It is similar to a man-made motor.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Here's what a man-made motor looks like:



It's full of plastics, copper wires, rubbers, metals,... It likely also has engravings, brand/manufacturer stamps, ... They are mechanical devices.

The only thing this really has in common with a flagellum, is the function of "spinning".

Which is what a scientist refers to when calling a flagellum a "motor": it spins.

DogmaHunter said:

Just like you overlook how the hindu scriptures claim the earth began.

Click to expand...

Actually you could argue that Hinduism more closely matches modern thought since it claims multiple universes each with its own creation myth.

HitchSlap said:

How dare you insult the Dear Leader.

Treason!

Click to expand...

False. That's another example of a Trump alternative fact. Like Evols, Trump changes the meanings of words so they will agree with his twisted views. A theory suddenly becomes "better than Fact" and Apes magically change into Humans (descendants of Adam). Do you suppose Trump is the father of lies? Jhn 8:44 When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Aman777 said:

False. That's another example of a Trump alternative fact. Like Evols, Trump changes the meanings of words so they will agree with his twisted views. A theory suddenly becomes "better than Fact" and Apes magically change into Humans (descendants of Adam). Do you suppose Trump is the father of lies? Jhn 8:44 When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Click to expand...

Nah, Trump doesn't have the charisma for something like that, honestly. Lying garbage person he may be, but he's no antichrist or anything. To suggest such is to give him more credit than he's due ;p

Btw, told some Mormon missionaries your Genesis interpretation yesterday. That was an interesting conversation, and I got a book of Mormon to add to my collection of religious texts handed out on the college campus.

Speedwell said:

God is a right-wing fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant? I think in that case I would believe Hitchslap.

Click to expand...

God's first written words proclaim that He is a Creationist;

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created

YEC are Creationists by Faith in God's Holy Word. I'm the youngest since I show that the first Day was less than 7 Days ago. Young Earthers have told this world the Truth for thousands of years now. God's Truth is that in 6 of His Days/Ages, He will make a perfect Heaven and fill it with His perfect children, and then He will rest/cease creating forever on the 7th Day since it is Eternity. God Bless you

PsychoSarah said:

Btw, told some Mormon missionaries your Genesis interpretation yesterday. That was an interesting conversation, and I got a book of Mormon to add to my collection of religious texts handed out on the college campus.

Click to expand...

Found a Book under a rock which tells the whole Mormon story, huh? I've heard they have some weird ideas which sound a little like mine. What do you think?

Aman777 said:

Found a Book under a rock which tells the whole Mormon story, huh? I've heard they have some weird ideas which sound a little like mine. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Oh, they viewed your interpretation as entirely alien to their beliefs, and it is. Similar in some aspects, maybe, but different to the point that they don't actually match up anywhere.