Liars, stupid, or both?

[randman]

"I dare anyone to provide me with a single name of an evolutionist who believes in creation! I'll bet none of you can! Nyah nyah!"

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by randman
"Every other creationist, randman, Lanakila (and hubby), Franklin... they've all given up. I never see them trying to counter the evolutionsists position anymore. Why do you suppose that is? "

Given up? Sometimes I would invite the Jehovah's Witnesses that came to my door and try and talk to them about the Bible, and sometimes I grow tired of it.

Same kind of thing here.

Actually, I'd look forward to talking to a JW right now. Even THAT would be a refreshing break from the twilight zone of irrationality evolutionists seem to live in.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by randman
"I dare anyone to provide me with a single name of an evolutionist who believes in creation! I'll bet none of you can! Nyah nyah!"

Shoot, you had to issue the challenge. Now, if nobody can find one, everyone will know no one with any credibility defends creation.

 

[James D.]

Originally posted by npetreley


Actually, I'd look forward to talking to a JW right now. Even THAT would be a refreshing break from the twilight zone of irrationality evolutionists seem to live in.

I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop tainting the image of Christians with your disingenuous ways. How can you expect anyone to be open minded about Christianity when you act the way you do?

 

[Lanakila]

Most of the evidence I have has already been stated on this board over and over. Like Randman said it gets old, presenting evidence over and over, that is rejected. Such as the appearance of the following forms of life suddenly in Cambrian rock: sponges, corals, jellyfish, worms, mollusks, crustaceans; complete and well formed creatures resembling the ones presently living today, with no changes. Pre-cambrian rocks have no metazoan fossils, not even one fossil with one organism. The fossil record gives "no examples" of the Cambrian animals having pre-ancestral forms and no transitions. But, I know you evolutionists will just have some kind of excuse against this evidence, the same way a JW or Mormon has excuses to continue to reject the truth of the Bible.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Most of the evidence I have has already been stated on this board over and over. Like Randman said it gets old, presenting evidence over and over, that is rejected.

You got that right.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Most of the evidence I have has already been stated on this board over and over. Like Randman said it gets old, presenting evidence over and over, that is rejected. Such as the appearance of the following forms of life suddenly in Cambrian rock: sponges, corals, jellyfish, worms, mollusks, crustaceans; complete and well formed creatures resembling the ones presently living today, with no changes. Pre-cambrian rocks have no metazoan fossils, not even one fossil with one organism. The fossil record gives "no examples" of the Cambrian animals having pre-ancestral forms and no transitions. But, I know you evolutionists will just have some kind of excuse against this evidence, the same way a JW or Mormon has excuses to continue to reject the truth of the Bible.

We don't need "excuses" because your claims are factually wrong.

From:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html

There is much confusion in the popularized literature about the evidence for macroevolutionary change in the fossil record. Unfortunately, the discussion of evolution within the Christian community has been greatly influenced by inaccurate presentations of the fossil data and of the methods of classification.

and:

Many metazoan groups appeared before the Cambrian, including representatives of several living phyla.

I suggest reading the full text of the article linked above.

Also, a Google search on "Ediacaran fossil" will give many links showing or describing fossils from the Precambrian period.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by James D.
I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop tainting the image of Christians with your disingenuous ways. How can you expect anyone to be open minded about Christianity when you act the way you do?

Don't worry. I for one do not regard the redoubtable npetreley as in any way shape or form representative of Christianity. He is more representative of something this board's rules do not permit me to describe.

(Although he apparently gets away with describing many contributors here as "spineless," in a thread title no less.)

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti
(Although he apparently gets away with describing many contributors here as "spineless," in a thread title no less.)

He's not insulting us, of course, scarlatti... thats beneath Christians because all they need is faith... he must be.... uh... making some sort of reference to our evolutionary origins as invertebrates.... yes?

 

[randman]

Well Nick, an older well-versed JW would probably be better than talking with these guys. The simple fact is they will accept no weaknesses in their theory no matter how many facts you present. They are not doing science, nor education, but rather indoctrination.

 

[Morat]

randman: You do actually plan to show these weaknesses, right? So far you've shown your amazing ability to publish misquotes and selective quotes and out of context quotes and generally deceptive quotes, and your amazing ability to ignore concepts that cause you problems, and your amazing ability to ignore inconvient facts, and your amazing ability to spout insults and change the subject when cornered...

But I can't remember you presenting a single fact that was a problem for evolution. Of course, they were darn inconvient for the notion you've got in your noggin, but Evolution as it's understood and used by biologists was perfectly happy with it.

 

[OldBadfish]

Obviously there are holes in the evolution theory. As there are holes in all theories as to mans origin.

God didn't put it up for speculation, that is why evidence is incomplete.

The bigger concern should be for your salvation, and leave the if's and how's about Creation of God's earth to God, whether he used a little evolution or not.

 

[randman]

1. Stasis in the fossil record.
2. abiogenesis
3. the limitations of technology creating an artificial rejection of spiritual dimensions
4. the typical use of overstatement and exagerration by evolutionists

I could go on, but I'm not going to waste my time.

 

[Morat]

Why? What's wrong with inquiry? Does God cherish ignorance?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by randman
Well Nick, an older well-versed JW would probably be better than talking with these guys. The simple fact is they will accept no weaknesses in their theory no matter how many facts you present. They are not doing science, nor education, but rather indoctrination.

True. I've met JWs who know the Bible but refuse to acknowledge the plain meaning of some scriptures because they're more interested in indoctrination than learning the truth. But I've also met others who admit that the reason they cannot respond to my objections, challenges, or questions is because they simply don't know -- but they do acknowledge that the texts seem to contradict their views.

Those folks usually never return after that visit, but at least they don't simply say "well, I'm right, and if you simply earned enough degrees from an accredited JW Bible college and knew what I knew you would agree."

 

[Morat]

1. Stasis in the fossil record.

Evolution predicts periods of stasis. Thanks for the support, though.

2. abiogenesis

Not part of evolution, but research is progressing nicely. Would you like to hear about RNA world? It's fascinating stuff.

3. the limitations of technology creating an artificial rejection of spiritual dimensions

Me string hunk big words together. Pretend have relevance.

Sorry, randman, this is, at best, a personal opinion. It's not evidence for anything except your personal viewpoints.

4. the typical use of overstatement and exagerration by evolutionists

Name some. Go on. Support yourself.

I could go on, but I'm not going to waste my time.

Oh. I imagine you have so many better things to do. Making unsupported assertations does take up a big chunk of the day.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat

Name some. Go on. Support yourself.

He did. And you guys explained it away and made all sorts of excuses. So why would anyone bother trying again?

 

[Morat]

Nick, if that lame collection of unsupported nonsense is randman's evidence, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell him.

But I've got to hand it to randman. Everyonce in awhile he'll try to support himself.

I've never seen you do anything but make accusations and snarky comments, and flee anyone's request for substantiaton.

I notice you still haven't explained your stance on polyploids. There's a whole thread created for you to explain yourself. What's the matter? Can't? Too many demands on your time? To many other baseless accusations to make today?

 

[Raging Atheist]

god told me that his mom is limiting his interenet time...

 

[Sinai]

[color=light blue]Originally posted by Sinai:
Joe, I suggest that you may wish to distinguish between young earth creationists and other creationists--unless you think that anyone who believes that God created the universe, our planet, and life is guilty of all the things you claim in your post. And if that is the case, you are castigating not only the young earthers, but also a significant portion of the scientific community. [/color]

Response posted by Joe V.:
Oops. Sorry about that. When I'm referring to creationism, I do mean Young Earth Creationism. Guess I'll start using YEC to distinguish with, but what other forms of creationism are there?

Response posted by Didaskomenos:
There's old earth creationism. They usually either argue that there is a gap somewhere in the first verses of Genesis to allow for millions of years, or sometimes they argue for the "days" meaning periods of time.

The Gap theory (also known as the Interval and Restitution theory, the Divine Judgment theory, and the Recreation theory) was more popular about 50-80 years ago than it is now. It is largely based upon the fact that Hebrew tends to be more general and less specific than English or Greek. Thus, Hebrew words can often have a wider range of meanings. In the first part of Genesis 1:2 ["and the earth it was formless, void and empty"], the verb hayethah (which is generally translated "it was") can also be translated as "it became." Proponents of the Gap Theory therefore claim that Genesis 1:2 should be translated to read "and the earth became formless, void and empty" rather than using the more common translation of the phrase. This theory uses passages (primarily in Isaiah and Ezekiel) regarding the fall of Satan or Lucifer to bolster the theory that the world was created in Gen. 1:1 but became formless and void because of Satan's fall, and then creation continued in verse two.

Most of the "old earth" creationists attempt to reconcile scientific evidence with biblical evidence. They tend to believe that since God is responsible for both the biblical revelation and the natural world, the words of the Bible are true and at the same time are consistent with the facts of nature. In other words, they tend to think that God’s character and attributes are expressed through both channels, and neither negates nor contradicts the other. The major theories supported by this group are listed as theories 3-5 at this thread link.