What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[pitabread]

Let me know when you can find a lab report that shows that evolution has been replicated by a process other than reproduction or mutation.

Well, there are certainly more processes in evolution than just reproduction and mutation (including natural selection, genetic drift, HGT, etc).

That said, the process that evolved living things over billions of years is the same process we observe in organisms today.

 

[bTbRo]

Although I obviously wouldn’t entirely agree with it, I respect your viewpoint.

What exactly is it that you respect about it?

 

[Jimmy D]

What exactly is it that you respect about it?

Seems like a reasonable point of view for a Christian to take to me.

I’d adopt the same position if I were to become Christian.

 

[bTbRo]

Seems like a reasonable point of view for a Christian to take to me.

I’d adopt the same position if I were to become Christian.

Why do you believe I am a Christian?

 

[Jimmy D]

Why do you believe I am a Christian?

Because of your words... “God created evolution”.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God created evolution.

Evidence?

And what do you mean by that? You do realize that your statement tells us that Genesis cannot be read literally. A literal interpretation of Genesis is in opposition to the concept of evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why do you believe I am a Christian?

'Cause your "faith indicator" is "non-denom" and while that is slightly confusing, it is my understanding that it refers to christians without a standard denomination. From "Jimmy D"s indicator, you can reasonably suppose that he does not believe that Jesus was divine. (An inference you can draw correctly from my label.)

 

[Strathos]

Evidence?

And what do you mean by that? You do realize that your statement tells us that Genesis cannot be read literally. A literal interpretation of Genesis is in opposition to the concept of evolution.

A literal interpretation of Genesis says that the tribe of Judah is a juvenile lion. Genesis 49:9.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Instead of just shooting down the source, why don't you just read the article from a fully recognised scientist. This is what I am saying - you will only accept articles by evolutionists who are biased toward their unproven theories, but will not read anything else that might show a different side to it. Would this show a closed mind that wants just to see one side of the story. This would lead me to believe that it won't matter what I might say, or use as a supporting citation, you would find an excuse to shoot it own every time. So I don't see any point in continuing this discussion because it is too one sided for me. I have provided intelligent, informative posts, and all you have done is to shoot each one down. So, have a good life.

Paul,

There is a reason I will not bother with AIG (or similar creationist organizations, DI, CSM, etc.) and their content. Their articles quoting and discussing science often show evidence that they must understand what was said in the original to misquote or misinterpret it so badly. That is deceitful. Some of these people making those distortions are the very people they bring in with relevant (or relevant sounding) credentials to give it the veneer of scientific credibility. You've been duped by these hucksters and I feel sorry for you for that. I hate to see people manipulated by falsely presented science particularly when their goals (AIG, DI, CSM, etc.) is to get your money.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did it ever occur to you that we are not entitled to know what, why, and how God does what He does? After all, our curiosity is what got us into this mess in the first place. Call it a cop-out if you must, but there is plenty of other evidence in the world that one can study to show that there are metaphysical planes at play, here.

No, it didn't.

(Eve is the hero of Genesis.)

 

[pitabread]

I hate to see people manipulated by falsely presented science particularly when their goals (AIG, DI, CSM, etc.) is to get your money.

Yup. It can't be understated that these organisations rely primarily on donations to survive.

If they were doing real science, they should arguably be self-funded just through the applied sciences.

 

[Quietus]

No, it didn't.

(Eve is the hero of Genesis.)

That’s quite close to the Luciferian narrative. I’m surprised you didn’t just go ahead and say the snake was the hero.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s quite close to the Luciferian narrative. I’m surprised you didn’t just go ahead and say the snake was the hero.

Christians could justly make that claim. Ironically murder would not even be a sin if Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree in Christian belief. Adam and his offspring would have no clue when they did anything wrong if the story were true, and there would be no need for Jesus and the cross if the they never ate the fruit. The whole story is rife with problems for Christian theology when taken literally.

 

[Quietus]

Christians could justly make that claim. Ironically murder would not even be a sin if Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree in Christian belief. Adam and his offspring would have no clue when they did anything wrong if the story were true, and there would be no need for Jesus and the cross if the they never ate the fruit. The whole story is rife with problems for Christian theology when taken literally.

I think the main problem with humans, is trying to understand a concept, or even what we believe are problems, from our perspective, when it’s just not possible. You can’t fathom something that is beyond your frame of reference, and outside your sphere of knowledge.

I’m not going to act as though there aren’t some elements in the Bible that baffle me, and I do question my own beliefs, a lot. But even scripture says, “Don’t rely upon your own understanding” because our ways are not God’s ways, and our thoughts are not God’s thoughts. And the whole thing about worldly wisdom...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the main problem with humans, is trying to understand a concept, or even what we believe are problems, from our perspective, when it’s just not possible. You can’t fathom something that is beyond your frame of reference, and outside your sphere of knowledge.

I’m not going to act as though there aren’t some elements in the Bible that baffle me, and I do question my own beliefs, a lot. But even scripture says, “Don’t rely upon your own understanding” because our ways are not God’s ways, and our thoughts are not God’s thoughts. And the whole thing about worldly wisdom...

I disagree. We can learn beyond our scope of knowledge. That is what the sciences are designed to do. You may be uncomfortable with the fact that a literal interpretation of Genesis was debunked over 200 years ago. And it was early Christian geologists that first did that be refuting a literal worldwide flood. That does not mean that Genesis cannot be used as a source instruction. That only means that the Bible should not be used as a science source.

 

[Quietus]

I disagree. We can learn beyond our scope of knowledge. That is what the sciences are designed to do. You may be uncomfortable with the fact that a literal interpretation of Genesis was debunked over 200 years ago. And it was early Christian geologists that first did that be refuting a literal worldwide flood. That does not mean that Genesis cannot be used as a source instruction. That only means that the Bible should not be used as a science source.

Well, a God who is fathomable by the mere human mind, is not a God I want to worship.

Also, the entirety of the advent of science is pretty much just an extension of alchemy, freemasonry and the Kabbalah. It’s a no-brainer that the very community in opposition to God, serves to destroy the existence of Him through funded “research” and “studies”.

It’s not some “gotcha” to claim that “Christian” geologists debunked a worldwide flood. The jesuits and many other societies claim to be Christian while remaining loyal to their occult founders.

Where is the specific source? Do you know the backgrounds of the geologists? What organizations are they connected to? Did you research the geology yourself, or did you believe what other men before you, told you?

 

[Ophiolite]

Where is the specific source? Do you know the backgrounds of the geologists? What organizations are they connected to? Did you research the geology yourself, or did you believe what other men before you, told you?

It appears that you do not know the sources, nor the backgrounds of the geologists, or their non-participation in organisations other than church and college. Nor have you researched the geology yourself. Were you aware of any of these things you would not be making ill-informed posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, a God who is fathomable by the mere human mind, is not a God I want to worship.

Also, the entirety of the advent of science is pretty much just an extension of alchemy, freemasonry and the Kabbalah. It’s a no-brainer that the very community in opposition to God, serves to destroy the existence of Him through funded “research” and “studies”.

It’s not some “gotcha” to claim that “Christian” geologists debunked a worldwide flood. The jesuits and many other societies claim to be Christian while remaining loyal to their occult founders.

Where is the specific source? Do you know the backgrounds of the geologists? What organizations are they connected to? Did you research the geology yourself, or did you believe what other men before you, told you?

You have changed the topic quite a bit. No one is trying to understand God. What we are trying to understand is the world that we live in. Now certain versions of God can be refuted if one assumes that God is honest.

And please, no conspiracy theories or false claims allowed. I did not use a gotcha argument. I used a basic well known fact. If you start to claim that everyone that does not agree with your interpretation of the Bible is not a Christian then you are attempting to change Christianity from a major worldwide religion to a minor cult. Like it or not Jesuits are Christians even if they are not your sort of Christians.

And I have studied the geology myself. It has gone far past what was first discovered in the early 1800's. Noah's Ark has been so thoroughly refuted that one has to be ignorant of all of the sciences to believe it or very dishonest.

I will make you an offer. You give me your model of the Flood story. How the water got here, where it went to. How deep it was etc. and I will explain what that model implies and why it is wrong.

 

[Paul James]

Well, there are certainly more processes in evolution than just reproduction and mutation (including natural selection, genetic drift, HGT, etc).

That said, the process that evolved living things over billions of years is the same process we observe in organisms today.

How? Can that be observed in a laboratory?

 

[pitabread]

How? Can that be observed in a laboratory?

By taking populations of organisms, watching them reproduce and studying the outcomes.