The Creationist Corner

[Kylie]

Yet, you'll challenge me to do it, won't you?

Specifically, you'll challenge me to show you the words "flu" and "shots" next to each other in the Bible, else I can't get flu shots on an as-needed basis?

Speaking of "mental gymnastics," who's the one on the monkey bars?

You are.

You're the one saying the Bible speaks of getting your flu shot in a passage that says that sick people should go to the doctor.

Or need I remind you that one normally goes to get their flu shot BEFORE they are sick with the flu? Every time I've had my flu shot, I've been quite healthy! According to the passage you quoted, I should have stayed away from the doctor!

So yeah, you're the one doing the mental gymnastics here.

 

[TrannasapiensRex]

Whatever design you have it is going to follow the natural laws that were created by God.

you don't get it, there is no designer, it comes out of a mathmaticly based randomness from chaotic mathmatical behaviour.
try googling fractal theory

 

[joshua 1 9]

you don't get it, there is no designer, it comes out of a mathmaticly based randomness from chaotic mathmatical behaviour.
try googling fractal theory

I see your the new kid on the block. We have already had a lot of discussion about random theories. I read the book by Dr Schroeder a graduate of MIT and a Kubbalist. He has a lot to say about random theory and we can go into it deeper if you want. Also Hoylt has a lot to say on that subject. I have studied design going back to the Greeks so I know a little bit about it. For example the Greeks had columns needed to hold up the roof. The design of the building was based on the structure. In Biology ie nature we have the same thing. Why do animals have spots or stripes, because the design follows the structure of how the pigment is distributed. So if for example you have a cat with spots and stripes. If you look at the parents one will have spots and the other will have stripes and the offspring could have a combination of both.

The theory then is if you have a infinite number of random possibilities then every possible design can be created. Now they have the mulitverse or M theory that proposes that we have a infinite number of Universes. If not infinite, then a lot of them. Of course we know that there are natural laws and the universe follows known pattern.

 

[KWCrazy]

No, the processes are the same in both.

Sorry, no.
Micro-evolution / adaptation is a conservative process whereby beneficial traits are supported and deleterious traits are extinguished. In a mammal with hair you can breed short hair, long hair, coarse hair, fine hair or virtually no hair, but you can't get feathers; not in a million years; not in a billion years. Repeated subtraction never results in addition. Repeated subtraction only results in less information, never more. Adaptation trends away from evolution. All natural processes trend away from evolution. The only reason evolution still exists as a scientific theory is that the alternative is a Creator beyond our comprehension and certainly beyond our control.

The number of people who have experienced the supernatural is a staggering number. Many who post on this website are among them. While anecdotal and even first-hand testimony cannot prove the existence of the supernatural world to one who refuses to accept the evidence, neither can it be proved that we live in a purely physical world regulated only by the physical laws of science.

For evolution to be true, the magical first cell that came about in a swamp that magically found something to eat, magically reproduced, magically encountered forces that caused it to change its form and eventually transformed into a creature that eats itself had to also include all of the genetic information for every tree, flower, fish or animal that would ever live. It is so absurd the only way it can be believed is to have people drum it into your head over decades. What evolutionists ignore about their wonderful "original progenitor" is that cell had nothing to eat. It would starve. If it were in a body of water and could live off oxygen, it would multiply until it ran out of oxygen and die off. With no predator to control it's exponential growth, the first environmental pressure it would encounter is the complete exhaustion of its food supply. There is no possible scenario where a single cell would emerge as both predator and prey; consuming versions of itself as food until things like algae and plankton had a chance to come into being.

Taken to its logical conclusion, evolution is sheer stupidity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Taken to its logical conclusion, evolution is sheer stupidity.

I concur.

 

[Foxhole87]

KWCrazy, when a bacteria which has evolved the ability to eat a synthetic substance, has "information" not been "added"?

 

[AV1611VET]

KWCrazy, when a bacteria which has evolved the ability to eat a synthetic substance, has "information" not been "added"?

Your poorly-constructed sentence aside, I would say all bacteria did was find something new to eat.

After all, did I evolve the ability to eat an anchovy pizza?

Good grief.

Can't something change its diet without scientists using it as evidence of evolution?

 

[Foxhole87]

Your poorly-constructed sentence aside, I would say all bacteria did was find something new to eat.

After all, did I evolve the ability to eat an anchovy pizza?

Good grief.

Can't something change its diet without scientists using it as evidence of evolution?

Nylon did not exist anywhere in the world until the 1930s. Fish have been around for, well, much, much more.

Also, LOL @ the bold text. You are adamant in your silliness.

 

[KWCrazy]

KWCrazy, when a bacteria which has evolved the ability to eat a synthetic substance, has "information" not been "added"?

When you change your diet have you evolved into something else?
Bacteria are designed to be the garbage disposal of the planet. They eat all kinds of disgusting stuff. Rumor has it that bacteria even once devoured a "Yumbo" from Burger King.
That could be just a rumor, though.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sorry, no.
Micro-evolution / adaptation is a conservative process whereby beneficial traits are supported and deleterious traits are extinguished. In a mammal with hair you can breed short hair, long hair, coarse hair, fine hair or virtually no hair, but you can't get feathers; not in a million years; not in a billion years. Repeated subtraction never results in addition. Repeated subtraction only results in less information, never more. Adaptation trends away from evolution. All natural processes trend away from evolution. The only reason evolution still exists as a scientific theory is that the alternative is a Creator beyond our comprehension and certainly beyond our control.

The number of people who have experienced the supernatural is a staggering number. Many who post on this website are among them. While anecdotal and even first-hand testimony cannot prove the existence of the supernatural world to one who refuses to accept the evidence, neither can it be proved that we live in a purely physical world regulated only by the physical laws of science.

For evolution to be true, the magical first cell that came about in a swamp that magically found something to eat, magically reproduced, magically encountered forces that caused it to change its form and eventually transformed into a creature that eats itself had to also include all of the genetic information for every tree, flower, fish or animal that would ever live. It is so absurd the only way it can be believed is to have people drum it into your head over decades. What evolutionists ignore about their wonderful "original progenitor" is that cell had nothing to eat. It would starve. If it were in a body of water and could live off oxygen, it would multiply until it ran out of oxygen and die off. With no predator to control it's exponential growth, the first environmental pressure it would encounter is the complete exhaustion of its food supply. There is no possible scenario where a single cell would emerge as both predator and prey; consuming versions of itself as food until things like algae and plankton had a chance to come into being.

Taken to its logical conclusion, evolution is sheer stupidity.

Supporters of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking,[6]Brian Greene,[7][8]Max Tegmark,[9]Alan Guth,[10]Andrei Linde,[11]Michio Kaku,[12]David Deutsch,[13]Leonard Susskind,[14]Raj Pathria,[15]Alexander Vilenkin,[16]Laura Mersini-Houghton,[17][18]Neil deGrasse Tyson[19] and Sean Carroll.[20]

 

[joshua 1 9]

Rumor has it that bacteria even once devoured a "Yumbo" from Burger King. That could be just a rumor, though.

I am sure it is just a rumor. Processed foods are so packed with preservatives that they may last forever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nylon did not exist anywhere in the world until the 1930s.

So?

All that means is that bacteria didn't eat nylon until the 1930's.

Also, LOL @ the bold text. You are adamant in your silliness.

What bold text?

 

[AV1611VET]

When you change your diet have you evolved into something else?
Bacteria are designed to be the garbage disposal of the planet. They eat all kinds of disgusting stuff. Rumor has it that bacteria even once devoured a "Yumbo" from Burger King.
That could be just a rumor, though.

I heard dogs started eating Alpo in 1936.

I guess that created a new species of [still a] dog in 1936, Canis Hunsicker?

Thus proving we came from apes.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am sure it is just a rumor. Processed foods are so packed with preservatives that they may last forever.

The "two fisted burger" is now down to one hand, and the Whaler went extinct.

Mother Nature is cruel!

 

[KWCrazy]

Supporters of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking,[6]Brian Greene,[7][8]Max Tegmark,[9]Alan Guth,[10]Andrei Linde,[11]Michio Kaku,[12]David Deutsch,[13]Leonard Susskind,[14]Raj Pathria,[15]Alexander Vilenkin,[16]Laura Mersini-Houghton,[17][18]Neil deGrasse Tyson[19] and Sean Carroll.[20]

In opposition:
Jesus Christ and His supporters, including myself.
Multiverse hypothesis has less scientific credibility than Spiderman does.

 

[HitchSlap]

I concur.

Stupid is, as stupid does.

 

[joshua 1 9]

In opposition:
Jesus Christ and His supporters, including myself.
Multiverse hypothesis has less scientific credibility than Spiderman does.

Wow could you not pick on superman or batman, does it have to be spiderman?

 

[TrannasapiensRex]

Of course we know that there are natural laws and the universe follows known pattern.

And how does this a refute what i have stated?

 

[Davian]

Sorry, no.
Micro-evolution / adaptation is a conservative process whereby beneficial traits are supported and deleterious traits are extinguished. In a mammal with hair you can breed short hair, long hair, coarse hair, fine hair or virtually no hair, but you can't get feathers; not in a million years; not in a billion years. Repeated subtraction never results in addition. Repeated subtraction only results in less information, never more. Adaptation trends away from evolution. All natural processes trend away from evolution. The only reason evolution still exists as a scientific theory is that the alternative is a Creator beyond our comprehension and certainly beyond our control.

Get back to me when you have an alternative that it not incomprehensible.

The number of people who have experienced the supernatural is a staggering number. Many who post on this website are among them. While anecdotal and even first-hand testimony cannot prove the existence of the supernatural world to one who refuses to accept the evidence, neither can it be proved that we live in a purely physical world regulated only by the physical laws of science.

Asking someone to prove a negative is something I consider to be intellectually bankrupt.

For evolution to be true, the magical first cell that came about in a swamp that magically found something to eat, magically reproduced, magically encountered forces that caused it to change its form and eventually transformed into a creature that eats itself had to also include all of the genetic information for every tree, flower, fish or animal that would ever live. It is so absurd the only way it can be believed is to have people drum it into your head over decades. What evolutionists ignore about their wonderful "original progenitor" is that cell had nothing to eat. It would starve. If it were in a body of water and could live off oxygen, it would multiply until it ran out of oxygen and die off. With no predator to control it's exponential growth, the first environmental pressure it would encounter is the complete exhaustion of its food supply. There is no possible scenario where a single cell would emerge as both predator and prey; consuming versions of itself as food until things like algae and plankton had a chance to come into being.

For your religion to be true, do we need a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

Taken to its logical conclusion, evolution is sheer stupidity.

Only your straw-man misrepresentation of it. But, I understand that you don't dodge an opportunity to toss out an insult at those you disagree with.

 

[Kylie]

Sorry, no.
Micro-evolution / adaptation is a conservative process whereby beneficial traits are supported and deleterious traits are extinguished. In a mammal with hair you can breed short hair, long hair, coarse hair, fine hair or virtually no hair, but you can't get feathers; not in a million years; not in a billion years. Repeated subtraction never results in addition. Repeated subtraction only results in less information, never more. Adaptation trends away from evolution. All natural processes trend away from evolution. The only reason evolution still exists as a scientific theory is that the alternative is a Creator beyond our comprehension and certainly beyond our control.

The number of people who have experienced the supernatural is a staggering number. Many who post on this website are among them. While anecdotal and even first-hand testimony cannot prove the existence of the supernatural world to one who refuses to accept the evidence, neither can it be proved that we live in a purely physical world regulated only by the physical laws of science.

For evolution to be true, the magical first cell that came about in a swamp that magically found something to eat, magically reproduced, magically encountered forces that caused it to change its form and eventually transformed into a creature that eats itself had to also include all of the genetic information for every tree, flower, fish or animal that would ever live. It is so absurd the only way it can be believed is to have people drum it into your head over decades. What evolutionists ignore about their wonderful "original progenitor" is that cell had nothing to eat. It would starve. If it were in a body of water and could live off oxygen, it would multiply until it ran out of oxygen and die off. With no predator to control it's exponential growth, the first environmental pressure it would encounter is the complete exhaustion of its food supply. There is no possible scenario where a single cell would emerge as both predator and prey; consuming versions of itself as food until things like algae and plankton had a chance to come into being.

Taken to its logical conclusion, evolution is sheer stupidity.

You got a scientific source for this? Because the sources I have read that were written by people who actually study this stuff for a living say otherwise.