What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

Well, what WORD would you have used?????

I believe I'm unique in the sense that I posted...
if you believe you are NOT unique,,,it is your prerogative.

You misused the word unique by trying to imply that humans were unique while other animals were not. Of course we are all unique and so are other animals.

I would suggest that you study up on the concept of an equivocation fallacy. It is one of your frequent errors:


Equivocation

"Example #1:

I want to have myself a merry little Christmas, but I refuse to do as the song suggests and make the yuletide gay. I don't think sexual preference should have anything to do with enjoying the holiday.

Explanation: The word, “gay” is meant to be in light spirits, joyful, and merry, not in the homosexual sense"

 

[GodsGrace101]

Correction, only some Christians believe that. Others recognize it as being false.

Whatever you say SZ.
You even know all about Christianity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't understand it?
You really do like to argue and belittle, don't you?
If there is a first cause there is no regress.
The first cause does not have a cause.
It is the first.

An observation is not belittling. It is a correction with the hope that the other can learn from his errors. Please do not take corrections as personal attacks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whatever you say SZ.
You even know all about Christianity.

Demonstrably more than you do. In fact that is one of the reasons that I am no longer a Christian.

Now that was an attempt to belittle on your part. It failed due to your own apparent misunderstandings about your own religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@GodsGrace101 , why are you so reluctant to even try to learn what the scientific method is? Why are you so afraid to learn what is and is not evidence in the sciences? Is it because you know that you are wrong?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Demonstrably more than you do. In fact that is one of the reasons that I am no longer a Christian.

Now that was an attempt to belittle on your part. It failed due to your own apparent misunderstandings about your own religion.

I don't follow a religion.
I follow a God.

And, again, from the above post of yours,
you demonstrate that you must surely know all about Christianity.

 

[GodsGrace101]

@GodsGrace101 , why are you so reluctant to even try to learn what the scientific method is? Why are you so afraid to learn what is and is not evidence in the sciences? Is it because you know that you are wrong?

Oh,,,I believe everything I think is wrong.
I come on this thread so I could be called ignorant and one that does not care to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't follow a religion.
I follow a God.

And, again, from the above post of yours,
you demonstrate that you must surely know all about Christianity.

And there you go with an equivocation fallacy again.

You do follow a religion since you do not know whether your God exists or not. You only believe. Once again, knowledge is demonstrable and you have utterly failed to demonstrate that your God exists.

And there is nothing wrong in stating that one believes in God. But it is wrong to claim that one knows there is a God when that person cannot support that claim at all.

Sorry, but you have a religion.

 

[GodsGrace101]

And there you go with an equivocation fallacy again.

You do follow a religion since you do not know whether your God exists or not. You only believe. Once again, knowledge is demonstrable and you have utterly failed to demonstrate that your God exists.

And there is nothing wrong in stating that one believes in God. But it is wrong to claim that one knows there is a God when that person cannot support that claim at all.

Sorry, but you have a religion.

I fear you do not know what the word BELIEVE means in theology.

'night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh,,,I believe everything I think is wrong.
I come on this thread so I could be called ignorant and one that does not care to learn.

You should have come to this thread with an open mind so that you could learn from your errors. I know that there is a lot that I do not know yet. I often hope to learn something new, even from creationists. But it is a very rare day when that happens. For the most part the only way to justify a belief in creationism is by maintaining an ignorance of the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I fear you do not know what the word BELIEVE means in theology.

'night.

Why is that? I explained to you why you do not "know". You had no answer except for a personal attack. When one observes that another is wrong an explanation of why that other person is wrong is needed, otherwise that post is a personal attack.

I have offered to help you to learn the basics of science many times because you repeatedly demonstrate that you do not understand them. You appear to be more than bright enough to learn and understand the basics. To observe that you do not understand the basics is not a personal attack and offering a fix is the appropriate solution.

Just think how much your debating skills will improve if you learn the basics of science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It could have been either way.
There's no way to know.

You say you know it happened, but you seem unable to say any concrete about it.

I asked whether man's creation was de-novo or by modification, because the genetic record indicates our genetic lineage is a mix of hominin species/subspecies - there's no significant 'jump' in the genetic record. This makes creation by modification slightly less unlikely than creation de-novo, but neither is supported by the available evidence.

I see a difference between tribes in So. America and us.
This has to do with how we live and our knowledge of the world. We look different, but we are not evolving...just adapting to our environment.

We are evolving - evolution is the change in relative frequencies of genes in the genome across a population. We can trace the genetic changes in populations, both recently and back through time, directly, by analysing bones, teeth, etc.

We can compare the way particular changes have been combined from several earlier populations into one more recent population. We can see where genetic material from a different species (or subspecies) has been introduced into the Hom.Sap. genome - this is how we can tell early Hom.Sap. interbred with Neanderthals (and others). We have a mish-mash of early hominin DNA in our genomes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Everything you've stated makes no sense.
But I expect that....
No reply.

If you expect me to comment, you'll have to explain how you think it makes no sense.

What is it about "If everything MUST have a cause, there cannot be a first cause (because that would contradict the first premise that everything must have a cause)." that makes no sense to you?

My other points were that it's a false dichotomy to suggest either God created everything or everything came from nothing. If God didn't come from nothing and wasn't created, then there's no logical reason why the universe didn't come from nothing and wasn't created. IOW, there's a third option, and to ignore it means special pleading.

Also, for a bit of semantic pedantry, if God exists he must be a part of everything, so he couldn't have created everything, because, being part of everything, he wouldn't have existed; i.e. he couldn't create himself if he didn't exist. IOW, the statement either equivocates 'everything' or is ill-defined.

 

[Speedwell]

That just may be because Christians do not believe we are animals.

They believe we are made in the image of God.

I believe we are both.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've thought of that too.
But I'd still be faced with the problem of where THAT civilization came from....who or what created IT.

That's effectively asking where god came from.

As to the Abrahamic God.....
I'll say that there is an Almighty God...
the Power Supreme....
the same one the American Indian believed in and the same one that ll religions worship.

There is ONLY ONE GOD.

If it's all the same god, why do so many god beliefs have a primary admonition against worshipping 'other gods'? How does the 'one god' idea account for polytheism? how does it account for the vast variety of conflicting deity concepts and ideas (here's just one list of categories)? The majority are not loving and merciful, but, if they take any interest in human life, and many don't, are cruel and capricious (e.g. the god of the OT), often reflecting the nature of the cultures, their conflicts, and their hierarchies of power.

Given the evidence, the idea that they're really 'all the same' rather than each culture having invented its own culturally appropriate god concept(s) seems perverse.

If you're simply suggesting they're all just 'wrappers' for fundamental universals of transcendence and supernatural power, then specific concepts of, for example, god as anthropomorphic personality, or representing goodness and love, are just culturally specific confabulations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What people traditionally call "nothing" does not appear to exist.

Indeed - it literally can't 'exist'; that would make it something. It's simply the concept of absence, of negation. Its colloquial usage is contextual or relative, typically meaning an absence of whatever is relevant in the context, e.g. "there's nothing in the box".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

. duplicate

 

[Speedwell]

"I can’t prove that God doesn’t exist," says Krauss, "but I’d much rather live in a universe without one."

 

[pitabread]

As you know,,,I agree with him.
If you take any one item from this machine that makes bacteria move....then they'd stop moving.

That doesn't mean that such functions are un-evolvable; especially when one considers that biological components can serve multiple functions.

I have the same belief about the eye.
How is it possible for an eye to take millions of years to evolve....what would be going on in the meantime?
Animals starving b ecause they can't see...
and how would any evolution then take place??

Animals don't necessarily need eyes to be able to survive; they are numerous examples of organisms that lack eyes yet still are able to survive. There are various other senses besides vision that allow organisms to navigate environments and find food.

There are also varying degrees of eyes from simple light sensitive nerves all the way to examples of eyes more complex than what humans have. Not everything need evolve at once. In fact, the earliest forms of eyes were likely no more than simple light sensing proteins (which evolved from other types of proteins).

 

[Qwertyui0p]

You may not realize this but creationists, Old Earth or Young Earth, have not been able to come up with any scientific evidence for their beliefs.

Evidence for a young world - creation.com

So far all of the evidence supports evolution and only evolution.

Such as...?