• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The earth is telling us a different story.
Pretty much an insult to such God as there may be to ignorantly
deny the record written into the earth itself, in favour of the
so- arrogant belief in personal infallibility- in science and Bible reading.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
So they can keep their job?
Why not? If you can believe in "imbedded age" they can believe in "imbedded evolution." But most Christians didn't regard the literal inerrancy of Genesis to be essential to their faith before they ever heard of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Pretty much an insult to such God as there may be to ignorantly
ceny the record written into the earth itself, in favour of the
so- arrogant belief in personal infallibility- in science and Bible reading.
Proclaiming that the theory of evolution denies the existence of God makes creationists sound more important to themselves than the truth--that it merely pokes holes in some of their theology.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,552
52,498
Guam
✟5,126,425.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why not? If you can believe in "imbedded age" they can believe in "imbedded evolution." But most Christians didn't regard the literal inerrancy of Genesis to be essential to their faith before they ever heard of evolution.
Imbedded [sic] Evolution is Omphalism.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,006
✟69,550.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

That’s the point: real science doesn’t require atheism and naturalistic bias - yet the field of evolution has been hijacked by atheism.

Thus the fact that common ancestry is explainable by a common creator, can’t even be mentioned, let alone considered as one of two possibilities.

And the constant litany from evolutionists claiming that we can’t possibly understand science or we’d be evolution proponents, is beyond ludicrous.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I don't see how the (implied) alternative, ie: a 'supernatural creator' can be a viably testable definition in science, so that notion is excluded by the methodology.
One might then argue that the process is skewed in the direction of naturalistic bias .. and practical usefulnesss though. Its about living in this world/universe .. and not some made up belief.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,028
15,625
72
Bondi
✟368,771.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What disproves your claim , is the video that exist of Collin Patterson saying exactly that.

No cigar for you.

I didn't claim that he didn't say it. Even HE didn't claim he didn't say it. But he did explain the context in which he said it, the reason why he said it and explained that people who quoted him and used his words to imply that he was against evolution (when he's actually written books on the subject and is one of the leading lights in cladistics) are either charlatans or simply don't have the knowledge or intelligence to comprehend his meaning

Thanks for the opportunity to point out yet again how wrong you were. I look forward to reading the next link you post.

And I'll take an Arturo Fuente Anejo if you've got one.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,006
✟69,550.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

That’s bogus.

Transitional fossils are still missing in all the important areas.

And common sense knows that there can’t be short periods of intense macro evolution, to the point of creating new body plans.

Wildlife biologists who work with endangered species- the epitome of isolated populations- confirm that isolated populations lose genetic diversity - thus the facts are diametrically opposed to the PE hypothesis.

But PE is a good example of the fact that evolutionists are willing to accept any half-baked theory tif it promotes ToE.

Actually you did quote mine him.

Do you not know what a quote mine is? The spin comes from the quote miners.

Ridiculous.

A quote such as one from Gould admitting that the lack of transitional fossils in all the important places is the trade secret of paleontology, is a valid citation, and is too clear to obfuscate with complaints about quote mining.

Once creationists point out a problematic fact about ToE, evolutionists fall all over themselves to spin what they originally said, or to spin the facts.

Which is exactly what Gould did when he saw that his PE hypothesis blew up in his face.

BTW, anyone who ever wrote a college level paper, had to include citations and quotes for every single point they made. It’s SOP.

Pretending there’s something wrong with using quotes from those in the evolutionary field is preposterous and ludicrous - which is the edited version of how I classify whining about quote mining.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,006
✟69,550.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

That’s bogus.

Transitional fossils are still missing in all the important areas.

And common sense knows that there can’t be short periods of intense macro evolution, to the point of creating new body plans.

Wildlife biologists who work with endangered species- the epitome of isolated populations- confirm that isolated populations lose genetic diversity - thus the facts are diametrically opposed to the PE hypothesis.

And the above came from no creationis

But PE is a good example of the fact that evolutionists are willing to accept any half-baked theory tif it promotes ToE.

The squid is one of many soft bodied creatures that appear suddenly and with a complex human-type eye, with not one transitional form eye predating it.

I’ve seen the research on what the strata below the Cambrian contains, and it contains nothing that is needed to prove phyletic gradualism.

The trilobite also has very complex eyes of a completely different type from the squid eye, and there is not one transitional eye found on any creatures below the Cambrian.

It’s called the Cambrian explosion and called life’s Big Bang, for a reason.

Vertebrates appear suddenly with no transitionals in lower strata, along with complex eyes.

It’s understood that evolutionists have to live in denial and desperately spin the facts, when anything endangers their precious ToE.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Laurier

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2021
1,141
366
59
Georgian Bay/Bruce Peninsula
✟46,584.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So I heard.
You do understand that it was christian clergy who first proposed an Earth over a million years old... Yes?
Ordained christian clergy. Men who dedicated their lives to Jesus.
And they remained christian clergy until they died.
Nicolas Steno was a bishop. And pretty much invented geology.
William Buckland was a trained theologian and geologist.
Adam Sedgwick was ordained in 1818. And was the geologist who NAMED the Cambrian era.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Laurier

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2021
1,141
366
59
Georgian Bay/Bruce Peninsula
✟46,584.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That’s the point: real science doesn’t require atheism and naturalistic bias - yet the field of evolution has been hijacked by atheism.
Tell that to Mary Shweitzer.
Anybody can study evolutionary biology. Christian, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Wiccans. Anybody.
There are more people in the field who are NOT atheists, than there are atheists.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
That’s the point: real science doesn’t require atheism and naturalistic bias - yet the field of evolution has been hijacked by atheism.
No, atheism has been thrust upon evolution by creationists like you.

Thus the fact that common ancestry is explainable by a common creator, can’t even be mentioned, let alone considered as one of two possibilities.
Because they are separate questions. A common creator is possible with both special creation and evolution. A creator is not an argument against evolution.

And the constant litany from evolutionists claiming that we can’t possibly understand science or we’d be evolution proponents, is beyond ludicrous.
The constant litany around here is that if you understood evolution you would have better argument against it.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
20,139
3,176
Oregon
✟928,077.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
Imbedded [sic] Evolution is Omphalism.
Which would mean that God is lying to us. And God can't lie, so there must be something else going on.

This dance feels familiar.
 
Upvote 0

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
66
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Well it might be stated that if he understood evolution he might not be arguing against it.
 
Reactions: Bradskii
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Which would mean that God is lying to us. And God can't lie, so there must be something else going on.

This dance feels familiar.

As a general thing, when there is a he said- she
said sort of impasse, the person who can't
acknowledge a basic obvious mistake is
not the one to trust with a credibility award.

If they go on to repeat it three times, call
the correction a lie, well, if God
is on a side, it sure isn't that side.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Well it might be stated that if he understood evolution he might not be arguing against it.

That would get a person half way. All that takes is study
The next half is integrity. That is much harder.
 
Upvote 0