Testing Out My Writing Please Have A Look

AG_BIC96

Active Member
Apr 21, 2022
82
22
27
New York
✟9,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We are made of many of the same elements derived from soil and water as Genesis 2:7 states " God formed man of the dust of the ground & breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". Everything in our physical world has a basis in being created out of star dust. Star Dust in other words debris from Super Nova's that occurred billions of years ago particularly during the beginning of time at approximately 13.7 billion years ago. See here how this fact relates to Genesis 2:7 dust to modern day astronomer and physicist view of the origin of the universe, our physical world being derived from star dust. We are made and comprised of the same elements that the heavenly bodies is composed of as well as our terrestrial environment.

Some of our oldest fossil records are linked to a single event called the Cambrian or Silurian explosion. Out of this event evolved some of the earliest arthropods and primarily aquatic species. We can observe today that some species such as the aquatic isopod underwent micro evolutionary changes to adapt to living on land. On the terrestrial isopod commonly known as the wood louse or (roly poly or pill bug) we can observe gills that allow these crustaceans to survive when submerged in water for short periods of time, this reminiscent of their aquatic ancestry. Many animals within the animal kingdom have underwent the process of evolution on a microscopic scale however large evolutionary jumps such as those purported by Darwin have yet to be seen and tested. This is due to the proposed processes taking approximately one million years to occur. However the Cambrian explosion indicates how life all stems from a single point and a plethora of species was produced during this pivotal time period.

The Cambrian explosion is also referred to as the biological big bang it occurred 538.8 million years ago. It is considered a biological epoch because virtually all modern day animal phyla developed during this event which lasted 13-25 million years a blink of an eye in terms of cosmic timeline. Let's look at Genesis 20, In this section of the Bible the following is stated, "And God said, Let the water teem with living creatures", this indicates that according to the Bible life originated in the ocean first and foremost which corresponds with the scientific view of life first developing in the oceans via life forms such as, arthropods and mollusk both being of aquatic origin.

"What is the great difference between supposing that God makes variable species or that he makes laws by which species vary?"- Louis Aggasiz

There is no fundamental difference in these two separate statements. In the eyes of believers the natural development and progression of natural, processes, occurrences, phenomena and organisms in general is often proof in an of itself for intelligent design. The intricacies and very well planned out details of these phenomena cannot occur sporadically without careful thought being put into these natural workmanship(so to speak). It is the thought process behind these extremely detailed and well thought out designs along with the creative intellect that is stand alone proof for a divine creator. To deny such or claim that random probability was the driving force for such well formed organized systems along with tangible/intangible products is unsubstantiated.
 

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
2,545
4,305
50
Florida
✟244,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Your first 3 paragraphs are just attempting to reconcile biblical beliefs with what science says about how life evolved. It's not new, interesting or remarkable in any way to any other Christian who has attempted to do the same. The paragraphs contain generally correct scientific information with an undertone of incredulity as would be expected from a creationist, even an old earth one. Your claim that "Many animals within the animal kingdom have underwent the process of evolution on a microscopic scale however large evolutionary jumps such as those purported by Darwin have yet to be seen and tested." which is technically correct for the reason given (i.e. it takes too long) is presented as if we haven't observed any evidence that leads to this conclusion. But we have. A lot of it. It's also ironic to use the argument that we haven't directly observed some aspect of evolution and therefore we can't know while simultaneously accepting, without question, a description of events written in the bronze age that no one could have possibly witnessed.

Your last paragraph is just bollocks.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,340
7,679
51
✟314,979.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Some of our oldest fossil records are linked to a single event called the Cambrian or Silurian explosion.
They were not single events.
however large evolutionary jumps such as those purported by Darwin have yet to be seen
This is untrue as the fossil record clearly shows.
However the Cambrian explosion indicates how life all stems from a single point
The Cambrian explosion was many millions of year long so cannot be called a single point.
In the eyes of believers the natural development and progression of natural, processes, occurrences, phenomena and organisms in general is often proof in an of itself for intelligent design.
They do and they are wrong. There is no proof for intelligent design. There is only argumentum ad ignorantiam.
It is the thought process behind these extremely detailed and well thought out designs along with the creative intellect that is stand alone proof for a divine creator.
Only for religious people who don't understand the burden of evidence.
To deny such or claim that random probability was the driving force for such well formed organized systems along with tangible/intangible products is unsubstantiated.
The opposite is true.

2/10
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,749
3,244
39
Hong Kong
✟151,335.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
We are made of many of the same elements derived from soil and water as Genesis 2:7 states " God formed man of the dust of the ground & breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". Everything in our physical world has a basis in being created out of star dust. Star Dust in other words debris from Super Nova's that occurred billions of years ago particularly during the beginning of time at approximately 13.7 billion years ago. See here how this fact relates to Genesis 2:7 dust to modern day astronomer and physicist view of the origin of the universe, our physical world being derived from star dust. We are made and comprised of the same elements that the heavenly bodies is composed of as well as our terrestrial environment.

Some of our oldest fossil records are linked to a single event called the Cambrian or Silurian explosion. Out of this event evolved some of the earliest arthropods and primarily aquatic species. We can observe today that some species such as the aquatic isopod underwent micro evolutionary changes to adapt to living on land. On the terrestrial isopod commonly known as the wood louse or (roly poly or pill bug) we can observe gills that allow these crustaceans to survive when submerged in water for short periods of time, this reminiscent of their aquatic ancestry. Many animals within the animal kingdom have underwent the process of evolution on a microscopic scale however large evolutionary jumps such as those purported by Darwin have yet to be seen and tested. This is due to the proposed processes taking approximately one million years to occur. However the Cambrian explosion indicates how life all stems from a single point and a plethora of species was produced during this pivotal time period.

The Cambrian explosion is also referred to as the biological big bang it occurred 538.8 million years ago. It is considered a biological epoch because virtually all modern day animal phyla developed during this event which lasted 13-25 million years a blink of an eye in terms of cosmic timeline. Let's look at Genesis 20, In this section of the Bible the following is stated, "And God said, Let the water teem with living creatures", this indicates that according to the Bible life originated in the ocean first and foremost which corresponds with the scientific view of life first developing in the oceans via life forms such as, arthropods and mollusk both being of aquatic origin.

"What is the great difference between supposing that God makes variable species or that he makes laws by which species vary?"- Louis Aggasiz

There is no fundamental difference in these two separate statements. In the eyes of believers the natural development and progression of natural, processes, occurrences, phenomena and organisms in general is often proof in an of itself for intelligent design. The intricacies and very well planned out details of these phenomena cannot occur sporadically without careful thought being put into these natural workmanship(so to speak). It is the thought process behind these extremely detailed and well thought out designs along with the creative intellect that is stand alone proof for a divine creator. To deny such or claim that random probability was the driving force for such well formed organized systems along with tangible/intangible products is unsubstantiated.
This mishmash mainly illustrates Audies
Maxim:

It is impossible to be a well informed
creationist and make truthful / honest
argument against evolution.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AG_BIC96

Active Member
Apr 21, 2022
82
22
27
New York
✟9,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Your first 3 paragraphs are just attempting to reconcile biblical beliefs with what science says about how life evolved. It's not new, interesting or remarkable in any way to any other Christian who has attempted to do the same. The paragraphs contain generally correct scientific information with an undertone of incredulity as would be expected from a creationist, even an old earth one. Your claim that "Many animals within the animal kingdom have underwent the process of evolution on a microscopic scale however large evolutionary jumps such as those purported by Darwin have yet to be seen and tested." which is technically correct for the reason given (i.e. it takes too long) is presented as if we haven't observed any evidence that leads to this conclusion. But we have. A lot of it. It's also ironic to use the argument that we haven't directly observed some aspect of evolution and therefore we can't know while simultaneously accepting, without question, a description of events written in the bronze age that no one could have possibly witnessed.

Your last paragraph is just bollocks.
Why is it bollocks?
 
Upvote 0

AG_BIC96

Active Member
Apr 21, 2022
82
22
27
New York
✟9,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This mishmash mainly illustrates Audies
Maxim:

It is impossible to be a well informed
creationist and make truthful / honest
argument to against evolution.
That's a very personal assessment and reaction that is to be expected from many skeptics. However no reason is provided for why you came to that conclusion. Thank you for the input though.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AG_BIC96

Active Member
Apr 21, 2022
82
22
27
New York
✟9,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
They were not single events.

This is untrue as the fossil record clearly shows.

The Cambrian explosion was many millions of year long so cannot be called a single point.

They do and they are wrong. There is no proof for intelligent design. There is only argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Only for religious people who don't understand the burden of evidence.

The opposite is true.

2/10
The fossil record does not indicate large evolutionary jumps. Cambrian explosion is a single event the time span is quite irrelevant it was a point in time that these creatures came about. Thanks again for the input though.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,176
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,579.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Anyone conversant with the topic knows there is no data in existence contrary to ToE

In view of the fact that the creation events comprised one miracle after another after another over a six day period of time that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to what it is now ...

... in other words, since the Creation Week was a series of miracles, and not done by nature ...

... what kind of evidence do you think God should have left behind?

Evidence is for science.

And since science wasn't used to create the universe -- (miracles were) -- science can take a hike.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,749
3,244
39
Hong Kong
✟151,335.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's a very personal assessment and reaction that is to be expected from many skeptics. However no reason is provided for why you came to that conclusion. Thank you for the input though.
It's very simple.

There's probably a couple dozen significant errors,
indicating you are not educated in the subject matter.

So giving you the benefit of the doubt we assume
you not dishonest, just naive.


Educated people know there's no data contrary to
ToE.
It's intellectually dishonest to deny the facts for
personal reasons.

We don't know know the purpose of your composition.

Is it to be assessed as literature?

As a science paper I'd give it a D.


I'd then sit the student down and explain our
standards for quality of research ( and presentation)
encouraging them to give it their earnest attention,
and that the first paper would not be counted if we
saw improvement commensurate with the class requirements.

A second paper like that would get an F- .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

AG_BIC96

Active Member
Apr 21, 2022
82
22
27
New York
✟9,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It's very simple.

There's probably a couple dozen significant errors,
indicating you are not educated in the subject matter.

So giving you the benefit of the doubt we assume
you not dishonest, just naive.


Educated people know there's no data contrary to
ToE.
It's intellectually dishonest to deny the facts for
personal reasons.

We don't know know the purpose of your composition.

Is it to be assessed as literature?

As a science paper I'd give it a D.


I'd then sit the student down and explain our
standards for quality of research ( and presentation)
encouraging them to give it their earnest attention,
and that the first paper would not be counted if we
saw improvement commensurate with the class requirements.

A second paper like that would ge
It's very simple.

There's probably a couple dozen significant errors,
indicating you are not educated in the subject matter.

So giving you the benefit of the doubt we assume
you not dishonest, just naive.


Educated people know there's no data contrary to
ToE.
It's intellectually dishonest to deny the facts for
personal reasons.

We don't know know the purpose of your composition.

Is it to be assessed as literature?

As a science paper I'd give it a D.


I'd then sit the student down and explain our
standards for quality of research ( and presentation)
encouraging them to give it their earnest attention,
and that the first paper would not be counted if we
saw improvement commensurate with the class requirements.

A second paper like that would get an F- .
Being kind is a virtue. Politely disagreeing would be a much better alternative as opposed to responding this way. Yet again you provide no reasoning as to why the information is intellectually dishonest. It's your opinion that educated people know there is no data that opposes evolution when many scientists were in fact not in favor of this theory. If you have educational background and knowledge of evolution you certainly have not made any references in regards to that and no attempt to refute my article with facts. You simply stated your personal opinions and view points. While alternative view points are always encouraged and welcomed there's a way to state your personal view point without being condescending or just plain mean for that matter.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AG_BIC96

Active Member
Apr 21, 2022
82
22
27
New York
✟9,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What scientists are these? Can you name any?
Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder and this is just a list for astronomers. Would you care to add to this list? Please feel free to jump in. I quoted Aggasiz for a reason by the way but a quick google search can also do anyone some good if they are interested on the topic, I'd recommend researching to anyone who wants to learn more about scientist who aren't in favor of evolution or the latter.
 
Upvote 0

AG_BIC96

Active Member
Apr 21, 2022
82
22
27
New York
✟9,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In Hong Kong a student who wrote such
garbage as your first post would not hear
tender words about it.

You asked what we thought.
I went easy on you.

But whatever.

I'm not going to help you.
Being mean spirited and condescending is not helpful there's simply no need for that. I've never been to Hong Kong and know little about the culture there. I understand they may have more rigid standards for writing, thank you for enlightening me on that cultural difference. However we should aim to be civil with one another at all times., We are all human beings after all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,176
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,579.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Being mean spirited and condescending is not helpful there's simply no need for that. I've never been to Hong Kong and know little about the culture there. I understand they may have more rigid standards for writing, thank you for enlightening me on that cultural difference. However we should aim to be civil with one another at all times., We are all human beings after all.

Welcome aboard, AG! :wave:

Nice to meet you.

If you stay any length of time -- (and I hope you do) -- you're going to encounter a whole spectrum of emotions and moods.

From mean to lean and everything in between!

God bless!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AG_BIC96
Upvote 0