My two favorite arguments for creation

nyjbarnes · Aug 27, 2004

lucaspa said:
Sorry, but that one went away when Darwin discovered an unintelligent process that gives design -- natural selection. Now that natural selection is getting patents, I think you had better find another game.

You of all people should not believe in Evolution, Darwinism or any other thing that takes away from the glory of God. If you truely are a methodist...

Arikay · Aug 27, 2004

Nyj: Since it has been shown that you do not understand the theory of evolution, it is also possible that you are also wrong when you say its not compatible with christianity?

Or do you still believe your false version to be correct?

nyjbarnes · Aug 27, 2004

Arikay said:
Nyj: Since it has been shown that you do not understand the theory of evolution, it is also possible that you are also wrong when you say its not compatible with christianity?

Or do you still believe your false version to be correct?

I just got a shadow sword....man this site is neat

I don't think it has been shown that I do not understand evolution. Clearly evolution or the definition of it has changed again. The way evolution was taught to me is that we evolved from Apes, and when that was debunked then it was we evolved from a common ancestory or single celled organisms...to adaptaion is speciation and that IS all by itself evolution. Clearly, when it doesn't work the theory evolves to fit what can't be explained or refuted easily....for now.

larry lunchpail · Aug 27, 2004

its a sin to beleive God created using evolution? is that the lost 11th commandment? i dont think judging your fellow christians on their inturpretation of the bible and Gods world is wise.

Split Rock · Aug 27, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
I don't think it has been shown that I do not understand evolution. Clearly evolution or the definition of it has changed again. The way evolution was taught to me is that we evolved from Apes, and when that was debunked then it was we evolved from a common ancestory or single celled organisms...to adaptaion is speciation and that IS all by itself evolution. Clearly, when it doesn't work the theory evolves to fit what can't be explained or refuted easily....for now.

We share a common ancestor with modern apes... this theory has not changed much, except in details. The common ancestor was certainly a primate (we ARE primates) and may well have been an ape. The pattern of changing definitions you claim has no basis in reality. Adaption is speciation?? Where did you get that from?

nyjbarnes said:
I am sorry about the Christians on this site that support evolution. God created man. He did so in a single day. Any "christian" that supports anything other than that is a sinner and in need of correction. JMHO.

SNAP! There goes a Forum Rule!

Arikay · Aug 27, 2004

Ok, is there any point to replying to you anymore?

The idea that we evolved from a common ancestor of apes has Not been debunked.

This specific thread has shown you lack a basic understanding of evolution, so I doubt anyone will take you seriously when you say something you don't understand is against christianity.

nyjbarnes said:
I just got a shadow sword....man this site is neat

I don't think it has been shown that I do not understand evolution. Clearly evolution or the definition of it has changed again. The way evolution was taught to me is that we evolved from Apes, and when that was debunked then it was we evolved from a common ancestory or single celled organisms...to adaptaion is speciation and that IS all by itself evolution. Clearly, when it doesn't work the theory evolves to fit what can't be explained or refuted easily....for now.

I am sorry about the Christians on this site that support evolution. God created man. He did so in a single day. Any "christian" that supports anything other than that is a sinner and in need of correction. JMHO.

lucaspa · Aug 27, 2004

Jet Black said:
nyjbarnes And for the most powerful part, Jesus fulfulled all of them. Not just 8, not 18, not 180. All of them. Well not all of them, because he has to return yet again, but that will be fulfilled.

'course, someone could have made all that stuff up to retrospectively fit the prophecies.

That part of being retrospective is accurate. It wasn't considered dishonest in those days to put later events into the words of speakers before the event. Look at Herodotus. He is writing history, and is the first of the really careful historians. Yet still he has leaders of Athens and Sparta making speeches that accurately "prophesy" exactly how the war goes. Herodotus is using this technique to have the leaders say what they should have said. Of course, if they had, and been believed, the history would have been different.

And actually, Jesus failed to fulfill the most important prophecy. Nyjbarnes alludes to it, but he forgets that Jesus was specific that the generation in which Jesus' lived would see his return! This caused a lot of problems for the Church then and now. That prophecy is very clear, is by Jesus himself, and it didn't happen.

lucaspa · Aug 27, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
You of all people should not believe in Evolution, Darwinism or any other thing that takes away from the glory of God. If you truely are a methodist...

1. Kinda completely ducked the problem natural selection poses for the watch and watchmaker argument, didn't you? Bet you thought I wouldn't notice.

2. Who says Darwinian evolution takes away from the glory of God? How does Darwinian evolution take away from the glory of God? See the second quote in my signature. And consider these quotes from noted Christian theologians:
"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.

"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.

3. Which creation story in Genesis do you want me to read? They contradict, you know.

3. Yes, I am truly a Methodist. The United Methodist Church hasn't taken a stand on evolution as such but has officially opposed teaching creationism in the public schools. Also, the UMC is not Fundamentalist and does not adhere to a literal Genesis 1-11.

lucaspa · Aug 27, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
I am sorry about the Christians on this site that support evolution. God created man. He did so in a single day. Any "christian" that supports anything other than that is a sinner and in need of correction. JMHO.

And here we see again the danger creationism poses for Christianity. Pay no attention the the Creation God made! Don't really believe that God created. Instead, listen to our man-made interpretation of just part of the Bible. Forget that in Genesis 2 God made man on one day and woman an indefinite period of time later! to the man-made interpretation of the Bible, not God.

Nyjbarnes, Francis Bacon realized 400 years ago the danger creationism posed to Christianity. Perhaps creationism should have listened. Notice the bold:

"This vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy [science] on the first chapters of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings ... because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy [science] but also an heretical religion." Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1xiv

nyjbarnes · Aug 27, 2004

larry lunchpail said:
its a sin to beleive God created using evolution? is that the lost 11th commandment? i dont think judging your fellow christians on their inturpretation of the bible and Gods world is wise.

Any less than faith is sin.

Rom 14:23
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

So what you would call faith in science to measure what is observeable, I would call a contravention of God's specific word. Because either the word of God is true wholly, or it is false in part or in whole and we have no salvation.

nyjbarnes · Aug 27, 2004

Split Rock said:
We share a common ancestor with modern apes... this theory has not changed much, except in details. The common ancestor was certainly a primate (we ARE primates) and may well have been an ape. The pattern of changing definitions you claim has no basis in reality. Adaption is speciation?? Where did you get that from?

SNAP! There goes a Forum Rule!

Prove we share a common anscestry. Cite your sources.
Adaptation being speciation; obviously someone used it wrong here or I misinterpreted what they said. For sake of argurment, since it's not an important piece to the debate I will subscribe to the latter instead of the former.

What forum rule?

nyjbarnes · Aug 27, 2004

Arikay said:
Ok, is there any point to replying to you anymore?

The idea that we evolved from a common ancestor of apes has Not been debunked.

This specific thread has shown you lack a basic understanding of evolution, so I doubt anyone will take you seriously when you say something you don't understand is against christianity.

If your intellect and time is too precious, feel free to read only. And stop trying to flatter yourself and impress others.

The Bible has a verse crafted specifically for you.
Rom 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

If you are so sure I don't understand evolution, please compare and contrast my points with the truth instead of making a blanket statement and thinking it will hold water. All I see is two sides of an arguement, you trust one and not the other and are now stating that I don't understand the premise of the arrgument. CITE YOUR SOURCES...# 1 rule of debate friend.

nyjbarnes · Aug 27, 2004

lucaspa said:
That part of being retrospective is accurate. It wasn't considered dishonest in those days to put later events into the words of speakers before the event. Look at Herodotus. He is writing history, and is the first of the really careful historians. Yet still he has leaders of Athens and Sparta making speeches that accurately "prophesy" exactly how the war goes. Herodotus is using this technique to have the leaders say what they should have said. Of course, if they had, and been believed, the history would have been different.

And actually, Jesus failed to fulfill the most important prophecy. Nyjbarnes alludes to it, but he forgets that Jesus was specific that the generation in which Jesus' lived would see his return! This caused a lot of problems for the Church then and now. That prophecy is very clear, is by Jesus himself, and it didn't happen.

I found a site that talks about Herodotus, you'll need to be more specific though, because I need to be able to find what it is you are talking about...sorry that I don't trust you.

As far as Jesus failing the most important prophecy. Its based on the fact that he will return. Explain to me how he has failed since in the Bible it says...

2Pe 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

The Bible goes on to say that no man shall know his time, only the father knows the time. It hasn't caused problems. Where are you getting your information. And please don't even tell me the Jewish hotline....they don't believe as I do. (Traditionally)

the_gloaming · Aug 27, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
Prove we share a common anscestry. Cite your sources.

Endogenous retroviruses. Stating these 2 words usually results in silence from creationists and the death of a thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t96639
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Endogenous_retroviruses

Arikay · Aug 27, 2004

Wow, love the irony, especially with that bible verse. How come everyone who quotes that verse always quotes it to someone else, yet never looks to see if it aplies to themselves.

Ok my source: This thread.
Your watchmaker argument has been shown to be a false argument, based around a missunderstand of evolution.
There, I have pointed to a source that shows you should do further reading on evolution.

nyjbarnes said:
If your intellect and time is too precious, feel free to read only. And stop trying to flatter yourself and impress others.

The Bible has a verse crafted specifically for you.
Rom 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

If you are so sure I don't understand evolution, please compare and contrast my points with the truth instead of making a blanket statement and thinking it will hold water. All I see is two sides of an arguement, you trust one and not the other and are now stating that I don't understand the premise of the arrgument. CITE YOUR SOURCES...# 1 rule of debate friend.

nyjbarnes · Aug 27, 2004

the_gloaming said:
Endogenous retroviruses. Stating these 2 words usually results in silence from creationists and the death of a thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t96639
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Endogenous_retroviruses

So is DNA replaced or added to?

UPDATE
I found the answer myself

Retroviruses, unlike other viruses, are RNA-based. In addition to two single strands of RNA that constitute its genome, a retroviral particle also carries several copies of reverse transcriptase. After invading a host cell, the reverse transcriptase is used in a process called reverse transcription to decode its RNA into DNA, which it then inserts into the host cell's chromosome. With the newly created viral DNA in place, the host cell's RNA polymerase is used to make more virus RNA, both as templates for the RNA new particles will carry into other cells, and mRNA, which produces the viral proteins. The new copies of viral RNA and proteins are collected together into a new virus particle, and set free to infect other cells.

For more see the retrovirus article.

The reality is how is this different than the host/parasite relationship? I think what you will find is that the organisms that have this happen beyond a single generation will either weed out the code or not be able to reproduce.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11591322&dopt=Abstract

This says that all mutations are lethal....

nyjbarnes · Aug 27, 2004

Arikay said:
Wow, love the irony, especially with that bible verse. How come everyone who quotes that verse always quotes it to someone else, yet never looks to see if it aplies to themselves.

Ok my source: This thread.
Your watchmaker argument has been shown to be a false argument, based around a missunderstand of evolution.
There, I have pointed to a source that shows you should do further reading on evolution.

I am sorry I just disagree. I think your arguments are intellectually lazy.

nyjbarnes · Aug 27, 2004

the_gloaming said:
Endogenous retroviruses. Stating these 2 words usually results in silence from creationists and the death of a thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t96639
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Endogenous_retroviruses

Good links btw

Split Rock · Aug 27, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
I am sorry about the Christians on this site that support evolution. God created man. He did so in a single day. Any "christian" that supports anything other than that is a sinner and in need of correction. JMHO.

nyjbarnes said:
What forum rule?

Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"

1) You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself. This includes implied accusations that another member is not a Christian.

Brahe · Aug 27, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
The Bible has a verse crafted specifically for you.
Rom 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Why is that creationists bring this line out whenever it's clear that the only ones combining godlike arrogance and crippling ignorance is them? It's as though they think that by quoting a part of the Bible, they can ignore all the inconvenient evidence that's been set out before them.

nyjbarnes, if you have an argument, make it. If you lack the necessary knowledge to discuss evolution, feel free to read some FAQs or just read the threads here without responding. As it is, all you've done is given several PRATTs and been easily refuted. Instead of responding substantively, you've either ignored them to repeat your unsupported assertions or you've become needlessly insulting. The standard right-wing projection, far from enhancing your case, only makes it all the more clear you've nothing more than useless creationist rhetoric.

My two favorite arguments for creation

Well-Known Member

HI

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Conflation of Blathers

HI

Legend

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

HI

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Conflation of Blathers

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency