The YEC creation of "Darwinist"

[Mallon]

i believe evolution should be considered a religion, anywhere a creationist would say "God" did it, evolutionist woud say a "long period of time" did it.

therefore lies the "God" of the evolutionist : Time

The difference, of course, is that evolutionists can support their claim with evidence by pointing to the fossil record, noting the vast amount of corroborating support for deep time and common descent. That's what makes evolution a science, not a religion.

Creationists don't have that.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i believe evolution should be considered a religion, anywhere a creationist would say "God" did it, evolutionist woud say a "long period of time" did it.

therefore lies the "God" of the evolutionist : Time

The difference is that time passes it does not "cause" the evolution in any way. God is proposed to be the active determining agent. Using the same word="cause" or "causative agent" is evocation when applied first to time or chance and then to God.

put simply, time is not generative or causative in the same way that God is proposed to be. It is simply a measuring the passage of time, nothing more, it isn't causing mutations or helping natural selection, it is just a wall clock counting the millennium.

 

[random_guy]

i believe evolution should be considered a religion, anywhere a creationist would say "God" did it, evolutionist woud say a "long period of time" did it.

therefore lies the "God" of the evolutionist : Time

Only in the same way that gravity could be considered a religion. Anywhere a creationist would say, "God" did it, a gravitationalist would say, "a mass" did it.

Do you see how absurd your arguments are? Why not learn what the theories actually say instead of making up strawmen versions of it. It might actually cause people to take your arguments seriously.

 

[shernren]

i believe evolution should be considered a religion, anywhere a creationist would say "God" did it, evolutionist woud say a "long period of time" did it.

therefore lies the "God" of the evolutionist : Time

My mother teaches science in school.
She was telling us the other day about her Biology class, teaching human reproduction, when suddenly a bright youngster popped up his hand. "You mean to say that science tells us that babies are simply a result of a sperm and an egg meeting?"

"Well, the resulting zygote has to go through nine months of pregnancy to make it out alive, but basically, yes."

"You mean, it's not God who did it? No kidding?"

"No kidding."

"But the Bible tells me that 'God knit me together in my mother's womb'! Doesn't that contradict what you've just told me?"

"Well, at some points you have to read the Bible figuratively - "

"But then you'd never know where to stop reading the Bible figuratively, would you? You might as well say that Jesus was all figurative, too!"

"Look, science has proven that conception is the result of a sperm joining with an egg."

"Oh, that's what the system tells us. Have you ever seen a sperm? Have you ever seen an egg?"

"No, but - "

"See? You can't even prove to me that they exist! Why should I take anything you say seriously? Besides, this whole sperm-and-egg business causes us to lose respect for human life."

"In what way?"

"Before science learned all this, we thought every baby was the result of God knitting them together, and God forbid that we interfere in this miracle! And now everybody thinks 'oh, it's just a sperm meeting an egg' and nobody respects life any more!"

"Well, that's too bad. But there are other arguments against abortion. I can't cover up science just to rescue some people's skewed morality."

"The way I see it, it's all an atheist conspiracy. Anywhere a Christian says 'God' did it, you guys are trying to say that 'a sperm and an egg' did it."

"But it's a scientific fact!"

"Scientific fact or not, people deserve to hear the alternatives. You wait 'till I've rounded enough people who share my views on Intelligent Conception."

=========

(The above story is entirely fictional, except for the first sentence. My mother does teach science, but she teaches General Science and not Biology in particular.)

I leave this as an exercise for the interested reader: is the bright youngster right in his reasons to reject the science of human reproduction? And aren't creationists essentially employing the same reasons to reject the science of evolution and an old earth?

 

[gluadys]

i believe evolution should be considered a religion, anywhere a creationist would say "God" did it, evolutionist woud say a "long period of time" did it.

therefore lies the "God" of the evolutionist : Time

Not true. A theistic evolutionist would say God did it over a long period of time using evolution. Evolution is not a denial of the existence or work of God.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

The difference, of course, is that evolutionists can support their claim with evidence by pointing to the fossil record, noting the vast amount of corroborating support for deep time and common descent. That's what makes evolution a science, not a religion.

Creationists don't have that.

I'd say the same about evolutionists. Not one evolutionist has been able to show me evidence that makes evolution a conclusion.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

My mother teaches science in school.
She was telling us the other day about her Biology class, teaching human reproduction, when suddenly a bright youngster popped up his hand. "You mean to say that science tells us that babies are simply a result of a sperm and an egg meeting?"

"Well, the resulting zygote has to go through nine months of pregnancy to make it out alive, but basically, yes."

"You mean, it's not God who did it? No kidding?"

"No kidding."

"But the Bible tells me that 'God knit me together in my mother's womb'! Doesn't that contradict what you've just told me?"

"Well, at some points you have to read the Bible figuratively - "

"But then you'd never know where to stop reading the Bible figuratively, would you? You might as well say that Jesus was all figurative, too!"

"Look, science has proven that conception is the result of a sperm joining with an egg."

"Oh, that's what the system tells us. Have you ever seen a sperm? Have you ever seen an egg?"

"No, but - "

"See? You can't even prove to me that they exist! Why should I take anything you say seriously? Besides, this whole sperm-and-egg business causes us to lose respect for human life."

"In what way?"

"Before science learned all this, we thought every baby was the result of God knitting them together, and God forbid that we interfere in this miracle! And now everybody thinks 'oh, it's just a sperm meeting an egg' and nobody respects life any more!"

"Well, that's too bad. But there are other arguments against abortion. I can't cover up science just to rescue some people's skewed morality."

"The way I see it, it's all an atheist conspiracy. Anywhere a Christian says 'God' did it, you guys are trying to say that 'a sperm and an egg' did it."

"But it's a scientific fact!"

"Scientific fact or not, people deserve to hear the alternatives. You wait 'till I've rounded enough people who share my views on Intelligent Conception."

=========

(The above story is entirely fictional, except for the first sentence. My mother does teach science, but she teaches General Science and not Biology in particular.)

I leave this as an exercise for the interested reader: is the bright youngster right in his reasons to reject the science of human reproduction? And aren't creationists essentially employing the same reasons to reject the science of evolution and an old earth?

The Scriptures are true; God did knit us together in the womb. Yes and egg and sperm was used, but that doesn't mean that God didn't form us in the womb. Each one of us are who we are because God has used many things for form us into who we are today. Just not physically, but also mentally, emotionally and spiritaully.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I'd say the same about evolutionists. Not one evolutionist has been able to show me evidence that makes evolution a conclusion.

the best single piece of evidence that i am aware of is the fact that the human chromosome 2 is a unification event from the chimp 2q and 2p ones. The 2nd centrosome and internal teleomeres are sufficient evidence to understand that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

 

[Melethiel]

The Scriptures are true; God did knit us together in the womb. Yes and egg and sperm was used, but that doesn't mean that God didn't form us in the womb.

To change the wording a bit:

The Scriptures are true; God did make man in the image of God. Yes and evolution was used, but that doesn't mean that God didn't make us in His image.

Not directed at you specifically, just throwing it out there.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

the best single piece of evidence that i am aware of is the fact that the human chromosome 2 is a unification event from the chimp 2q and 2p ones. The 2nd centrosome and internal teleomeres are sufficient evidence to understand that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

Humans and all animals are both dirt and water. Are you going to use that as well for a common ancestory.
As I look at that "evidence" it still does not point to evolution.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Humans and all animals are both dirt and water. Are you going to use that as well for a common ancestory.
As I look at that "evidence" it still does not point to evolution.

specificity and predictions.
what specificity and predictive value does the "fact" that animals are made out of "dirt and water" make.
if you think that your statement is on the same scientific level as the one you quoted, then i understand how you can the claim: "I'd say the same about evolutionists. Not one evolutionist has been able to show me evidence that makes evolution a conclusion."
you don't really care enough about the issues to engage with them. but rather think that childishness and foolishness trump good science, guess what, it doesn't.
the shame of it is that your behavior reflects on the icon of the Bible you have in your header, so that some lurkers, with good reason, will make the statement that all Christians will reply to science with "made of dirt and water" and thus bring derision on the faith before the unbelieving world. This is exactly what YECism does. Poses silliness like: "Humans and all animals are both dirt and water. Are you going to use that as well for a common ancestory?" in the faces of scientists claiming that this is the very word of God, no wonder the more education you have the less likely you are to be a Christian.

 

[simplyg123]

To change the wording a bit:

The Scriptures are true; God did make man in the image of God. Yes and evolution was used, but that doesn't mean that God didn't make us in His image.

Not directed at you specifically, just throwing it out there.

No, But apparently this means gods image was the same as the chimps ancestors.

The bible says God made the beast and animals of the earth, and seperately it says he made man.

why does the bible not mention evolution in any way at all.

Why is it we have a complete line of genology from adam, yet nothing before.

 

[KerrMetric]

No, But apparently this means gods image was the same as the chimps ancestors.

Why does image have to mean similacrum?

The bible says God made the beast and animals of the earth, and seperately it says he made man.

why does the bible not mention evolution in any way at all.

Why does it not mention the equation of geostrophic balance? Why does it not mention subduction zones?

Why is it we have a complete line of genology from adam, yet nothing before.

Why does it not mention ancient Sumerians or cave painters of 40,000 years ago?


Because the Bible is not a textbook or even a history book.

 

[Assyrian]

Why is it we have a complete line of genology from adam, yet nothing before.

Actually Genesis refers to the entire creation of the heavens and the earth, plants, sea creatures, animals and man as a genealogy, 'the genealogy (toledoth) of the heavens and the earth' Gen 2:4.

The bible says God made the beast and animals of the earth, and seperately it says he made man.

You should ask yourself when God made the beasts. Was it before man (Gen 1) or after (Gen 2)? If you read Ecclesiastes you will find that we are beasts Eccles 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts.

 

[simplyg123]

Why does image have to mean similacrum?



Why does it not mention the equation of geostrophic balance? Why does it not mention subduction zones?



Why does it not mention ancient Sumerians or cave painters of 40,000 years ago?


Because the Bible is not a textbook or even a history book.

Why does image have to mean similacrum?

Why Not? no matter how you use the word image, to say Gods image in similar to a chimp, is kind of insulting i would think.

Why does it not mention the equation of geostrophic balance? Why does it not mention subduction zones?

Well for one thing, the mere thought is an assumption based on a hypothetical wind.

And it has nothing to do with the creation of man or earth

Why does it not mention ancient Sumerians or cave painters of 40,000 years ago?

40,000 years? the sumerians lived between 5200-4500 BC , im not the best math but i dont think thats 40,000 years

either way i do not truth the method of dating used for such things, it has been proven to be flawed.

ex.
Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. That was less than twenty seven years ago. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radio-metric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the “clock” is broken, then what would?

 

[Melethiel]

No, But apparently this means gods image was the same as the chimps ancestors.

This is assuming that "image" means "physical similarity". Is God literally in human form (outside the Incarnation)?

 

[Melethiel]

40,000 years? the sumerians lived between 5200-4500 BC , im not the best math but i dont think thats 40,000 years

He said "Sumerians OR cave painters."

Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. That was less than twenty years ago. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radio-metric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the “clock” is broken, then what would?

Now, I'm no geologist, but my thinking is that the lava wasn't created at the volcanic eruption...it just changed location from the center to the surface of the earth. Why couldn't the rock itself be several million years old?

 

[KerrMetric]

40,000 years? the sumerians lived between 5200-4500 BC , im not the best math but i dont think thats 40,000 years

I said OR. I wasn't saying they were the same groups. Jeez.

either way i do not truth the method of dating used for such things, it has been proven to be flawed.

That is a lie that you are parotting. It is not flawed - in fact the technique is excellent. I have personally performed dating analyses. Have you? ----- thought not!

Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. That was less than twenty seven years ago. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radio-metric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the “clock” is broken, then what would?

Someone already posted a link to you about this. BUT I guess you don't want to read it.

That dating was bound to give a false age.


Does this stuff not compute with you? Is it just above your head or something?

 

[KerrMetric]

He said "Sumerians OR cave painters."

Thank you.

Now, I'm no geologist, but my thinking is that the lava wasn't created at the volcanic eruption...it just changed location from the center to the surface of the earth. Why couldn't the rock itself be several million years old?

No the main problem is the technique used. They used K-Ar dating which is not going to give a sensible result on something so young. In fact - the lab in question only had equipment that could age samples over 2 million years old. The idiots sending the samples knew this - but then they are about fooling people not science. On top of that they used questionable samples as well.

 

[Melethiel]

No the main problem is the technique used. They used K-Ar dating which is not going to give a sensible result on something so young. In fact - the lab in question only had equipment that could age samples over 2 million years old. The idiots sending the samples knew this - but then they are about fooling people not science. On top of that they used questionable samples as well.

Thank you. I stand corrected. (There's a reason why I'm more into biochem than physics, much to my father's chagrin. )