What proof would you need?

[razeontherock]

OUCH! Indeed I do recognize that tune!

Hillsong United - Nothing But The Blood - YouTube

Probably most here missed the fine point of sublety, but a good Baptist boy probably still uses the old green hymnal, which would make this great old hymn of the Faith sound quite a bit different than this video, which depicts more modern type worship, such as I'm involved in. So AV effectively just "reached across the aisle."

 

[LowLight]

Do tell...

So something's different here, huh?

Yes. In a court, one does not cherry pick the question they are going to answer. Here, we're playing by your rules, as evidenced by your flaming of SplitRock and Loudmouth.

Trash talk

Hypocrisy. Your posts are riddled with ad hominem.

"If we'd played ERV's or if we were somewhere else we could win. We lost but just Darwin anyhow cause you know we could've won. Our assertions prove we could"

Darwin? He wrote the most cogent and well-thought out theory to that point, but a lot of his points have been disproven. Elements of evolutionary theory have been developed for centuries, across the globe. Why do you think we worship him anyway? You accept gravity, correct? Therefore, you Newton right?

In fact, taking from your argument in this thread I can "disprove" gravity. Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. Therefore, The Universal Theory of Gravity is disproven.

 

[Astridhere]

Figure[bless and do not curse]1 : Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic : Nature

This article actually helps prove evolution. I don't understand how this shows a creator. Having evidence for "bird-like" creatures at about the time that birds were thought to evolve. Wow crazy
Oh how typical that you hand wave away the important point that modern bird footprints predate ancestors like Arch. More importantly you do not speak to the resulting explanation of this dilemma ''Oh it must be that some dinosaur poofed modern bird feet before modern birds were meant to exist. here is an example of a non plausible scenario being proffered as evidence that only the deluded would accept.

Here is more..and let me tell you I have no intention of educating you in recent findings you obviously have no idea about.
The team discovered dozens of three-toed footprints in rocks older than 212 million years in northwest Argentina. Averaging about 3.5 centimeters wide and similar in length, they look very much like bird footprints made in small shallow ponds along a river. However, the rocks are some 55 million years older than the most ancient known bird skeleton, Archaeopteryx. The big question is what made them.
Ancient bird-like footprints found - 26 June 2002 - New Scientist

The thing is you lot have no idea and no evidence apart from ridiculous non plausbile scenariois that try to sway obvious evidence for the creation of kinds into yet another evolutionary mystery...



Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

Go back and look at the original article. Nowhere does it mention god. All you did there was link to a pastors interpretation of it. What are your thoughts on this?
I have no intention of having a simplistic discussion with you as you clearly have no idea.

If the earth is the centre of the universe it goes along way to falsifying naturalist claims that the earth is an unremarkable planet that evolved life through the science of luck. The earth is obviously a special planet per se and this reseach even more supports that claim and refutes the nonsense of big bang and the unremarkabless of the Earth. You lot see there is no other planet like earth then carry on with all sorts of theoretical statistical nonsense to proffer earth is just another planet. Sadly for you the FACTS demonstrate that indeed earth is very special as it would be if it were created specifically with the intention of creating life upon it.

Stop wasting creationists time with aimless nonsense used as some poor attemp at a refute.

You have refuted nothing I have said... you have just wasted everyones time.

 

[Astridhere]

Yes. In a court, one does not cherry pick the question they are going to answer. Here, we're playing by your rules, as evidenced by your flaming of SplitRock and Loudmouth.
Hypocrisy. Your posts are riddled with ad hominem.

Darwin? He wrote the most cogent and well-thought out theory to that point, but a lot of his points have been disproven. Elements of evolutionary theory have been developed for centuries, across the globe. Why do you think we worship him anyway? You accept gravity, correct? Therefore, you Newton right?

In fact, taking from your argument in this thread I can "disprove" gravity. Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. Therefore, The Universal Theory of Gravity is disproven.

ERV's are evidence of evolutionists chasing ghosts, found by biased ridiculous algorithms that could demonstrate mankinds closest relatives are the teletubbies if required.

The Hubble constant is no longer constant and there is plenty that travels faster than the speed of light.

http://space.mit.edu/~kcooksey/teaching/AY5/MisconceptionsabouttheBigBang_ScientificAmerican.pdf

A whole theory based on incredible nonsense of mysterious dark matter and energy is the best you have.

Naturalists attempts to take God out of the equation are failing miserably.

 

[razeontherock]

God's creation was from not from non living? News to me.

G-d's Creation starts with Life, from with Himself. Your posts don't seem to account for this.

 

[razeontherock]

Creationists have earth placed at the centre of the universe based on shockwave theory and no need for the mystery of dark matter.

Can you flesh this out a bit?

 

[LowLight]

ERV's are evidence of evolutionists chasing ghosts, found by biased ridiculous algorithms that could demonstrate mankinds closest relatives are the teletubbies if required.

Demonstrate this claim.

 

[Astridhere]

Lowlight..I have no need to play this out. There is an ERV thread. In the end the best yu can proffer is delusional algorithmic nonsense.

However here is one justification to my claim.

The Perth Group HIV-AIDS Debate Website

HIV is meant to be an exogenous retrovirus. There are only several known. All this nonsense of 200,000 shared human/chimp ervs are based on chasing ghosts just like the claim that HIV is retrovirus that caused AIDS.

This AIDS research demonstrates that really all this nonsense your algorithms come up with is just that...nonsense and ghosts invented by the desperate.

Further to that you lot not so long ago rammed it up creationists that non functional DNA seen in same locations invalidated creationists claim as why would God create junk. We have always maintained that you lot would eventually find that these so called ervs are functional. We have not knee jerked this prediction in response to data as you lot do. Indeed it is proving to be functional which also means it needs to be where it is to perform the function it was created to perform..and there goes your refute to creationsist and there lies more vindiction for creationsists stance.

So functionless DNA and ervs support evolution and functional non coding DNA and ervs also support evolution. Get real! This is not science. It is delusion.

What I love most is the way evos like to devolve from the thread topic with any desperate attempt to have the last word.

I believe in creation because the observed data supports creationism and evolutionary support is changing and unstable. Evolutionary researchers should pack away their algorithms and take them to Wonderland and let real scientists get on with the job.

That's my view and a demo as to what is would take to change my view. Unfortunately for you, your acceptance is not a prerequisite for a change in my view.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's Sunday, you should scurry back to your church. I'm sure there is something else they want to tell you to think!

Among the scores of denominations I attended, I've never found a Church that teaches a literal 6 day Creation event. That's part of why I don't attend one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Probably most here missed the fine point of sublety, but a good Baptist boy probably still uses the old green hymnal, which would make this great old hymn of the Faith sound quite a bit different than this video, which depicts more modern type worship, such as I'm involved in. So AV effectively just "reached across the aisle."

-- Well, to be honest, I just picked the first one that I found.

I did look for a more traditional one, but only looked at two others.

You're right though, we do use the 'old green hymnals'.

Thanks for calling me out on that --

(Skywriting probably caught that too!)

 

[SkyWriting]

I believe in creation because the observed data supports creationism and evolutionary support is changing and unstable. Evolutionary researchers should pack away their algorithms and take them to Wonderland and let real scientists get on with the job.

I'll take issue with your stand. I think what scientists know about biological evolution is mostly correct and provides some value to researchers. I usually use peer reviewed publishing's to support my views on Creation.

I find the only error for evolutionists is when Scientists attempt to use current knowledge and extrapolate backwards into ancient prehistory and imagine how life must have started and developed.

These musings are exactly like science fiction novels, 95% imagination with 5% Science fact sprinkled in. It is likely that because I was a Sci-Fi "expert" at 14 having read every Sci-Fi book in the school library, that in the next years I immediately recognized Evo-Fiction in High School Science class.

Evolution can and does happen. Very Fast when needed. THIS easily refutes the idea that mutations over millions of years are the secret to the advancement of life. Instead, it points to an intelligent designer that has given life everything it needs to keep things going as Creation heads for a new birth.

 

[Astridhere]

Can you flesh this out a bit?

Yes sure. This theory places earth at the centre of the universe, satisfies current physics and apears to be more robust and credible that Big Bang.

From the article....

Since about 1998, physics has believed that there is some sort of “dark energy” causing the universe to accelerate its expansion. This “dark energy” is supposed to make up about three-quarters of the universe, with its equally mysterious cousin, “dark matter,” making up another 20%, leaving plain-old matter (like you and me and cheeseburgers) making up about 4%. However, physicists have yet to really agree on the nature of this mysterious “dark matter.” Its inclusion solves some of their baffling observations about the universe, but it remains an uncomfortable mystery.
Enter two mathematicians, Blake Temple and Joel Smoller. Their results, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, suggest a solution to the accelerating universe that doesn’t require conjuring up anything like “dark matter” — in fact, it doesn’t require conjuring up anything new at all. Their solution is works with the current laws of physics we already have.

Given all this stuff is theoretical I have decided to throw my hat behind the theory that does not require fantastic mysteries. This theory also just happens to place earth at or near the centre of the universe. How priveledged is that? Or is it another coincidence that means nothing more than the science of luck?

"In the past, any ideas, such as Copernicus’, that suggested the Earth was not the center of the universe were (we are told) turned away as unacceptable and an affront to the truth — to be refused on principle, regardless of the facts or observations. Now, have we come to a point where the reverse bias is in play? Is a theory to be rejected solely on principle because it suggests the possibility that the Earth might be the center of the universe — again, regardless of the facts or observations?

Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

Whom are the naturalists that will not accept facts and observations and would rather support mysteries?

 

[RickG]

Yes sure. This theory places earth at the centre of the universe, satisfies current physics and apears to be more robust and credible that Big Bang.

From the article....

Since about 1998, physics has believed that there is some sort of “dark energy” causing the universe to accelerate its expansion. This “dark energy” is supposed to make up about three-quarters of the universe, with its equally mysterious cousin, “dark matter,” making up another 20%, leaving plain-old matter (like you and me and cheeseburgers) making up about 4%. However, physicists have yet to really agree on the nature of this mysterious “dark matter.” Its inclusion solves some of their baffling observations about the universe, but it remains an uncomfortable mystery.
Enter two mathematicians, Blake Temple and Joel Smoller. Their results, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, suggest a solution to the accelerating universe that doesn’t require conjuring up anything like “dark matter” — in fact, it doesn’t require conjuring up anything new at all. Their solution is works with the current laws of physics we already have.

Given all this stuff is theoretical I have decided to throw my hat behind the theory that does not require fantastic mysteries. This theory also just happens to place earth at or near the centre of the universe. How priveledged is that? Or is it another coincidence that means nothing more than the science of luck?

"In the past, any ideas, such as Copernicus’, that suggested the Earth was not the center of the universe were (we are told) turned away as unacceptable and an affront to the truth — to be refused on principle, regardless of the facts or observations. Now, have we come to a point where the reverse bias is in play? Is a theory to be rejected solely on principle because it suggests the possibility that the Earth might be the center of the universe — again, regardless of the facts or observations?

Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

Whom are the naturalists that will not accept facts and observations and would rather support mysteries?

Please cite the specific PNAS article by Temple & Smoller. The only one I could find was "Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole". There is no mention of dark matter or energy in that article at all.

 

[RickG]

G-d's Creation starts with Life, from with Himself. Your posts don't seem to account for this.

Genesis 1:1 says nothing about life.

 

[Astridhere]

I'll take issue with your stand. I think what scientists know about biological evolution is mostly correct and provides some value to researchers. I usually use peer reviewed publishing's to support my views on Creation.
My supports also refer to published and peer reviewed papers. Thanks.
I find the only error for evolutionists is when Scientists attempt to use current knowledge and extrapolate backwards into ancient prehistory and imagine how life must have started and developed.

These musings are exactly like science fiction novels, 95% imagination with 5% Science fact sprinkled in. It is likely that because I was a Sci-Fi "expert" at 14 having read every Sci-Fi book in the school library, that in the next years I immediately recognized Evo-Fiction in High School Science class.

Evolution can and does happen. Very Fast when needed. THIS easily refutes the idea that mutations over millions of years are the secret to the advancement of life. Instead, it points to an intelligent designer that has given life everything it needs to keep things going as Creation heads for a new birth.

Evolutionists like to have faith in the extrapolation of microevolution into a macroevolutionary possibility. It is a shame they have NOT observed same and can only offer the excuse of 'not enough time' to hand wave this failure away.

Adaptation does not demonstrate how a deer like creature poofed into a whale and neither does the fossil evidence that is composed of totally different kinds used as misrepresentations of fossil ancestry and connections. Hence the need for more theories such as punctuated equilibrium.

When a creationist denies evolution an evo will throw up all sorts of microevolution as evidence, which is not evidence of any more than a species ability to adapt without change in the underlying DNA.

Your lizard link speaks to adaptation in a lizard. It does not demonstrate how a lizard becomes a bird. Further to that many of these researchers disagree with the dino to bird deal anyway. It is no more than a delusionary tale based on a wishlist and possible flavour of the month.

Further to that a lizard has been shown to somatically develop a cecal valve in response to diet with no underlying change in DNA being a purely somatic and reversible event. God is surely a great designer.

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

Most importantly they are still lizards and this kind of research is an example of the obvious misrepresentations that evolutionists use that simply and plainly do not show how a lizard became a bird.

Then of course you have good old bird footprints 212myo that throw the whole lot into disarray.

BBC News - Feathers fly in first bird debate
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

Tiktaalic is dethroned
Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

Lucy, ardi are dethroned as human ancestors and evos have had to place the Laetolli footprints on a 3.5ft ape in desperation.

All that evolutionists have is a mess to proffer as evidence for common ancestry of mankind to bacteria.

Alternatively biblical creationists have observable facts.

 

[Davian]

G-d's Creation starts with Life, from with Himself. Your posts don't seem to account for this.

I have seen definitions for 'life', but not 'Life'. Do you have one that would incorporate both?

 

[razeontherock]

Genesis 1:1 says nothing about life.

(John 1:4) "In him was life"

He is the God of the living

This is really basic Biblical understanding! Life from life; everything has it's seed in itself. Now for G-d to be able to plant a "seed" such as the big bang, which would unfold into today's world, is rather glorious ...

 

[Astridhere]

They do it for no good reason, they were told not to believe it but they were not given any reasons, when creationists receive the information from their leaders they never ask questions they just believe whatever they are told is true and like parrots they just repeat it.
Let it be noted that you have provided no refute of substance other than to proffer your most invaluable unscientific opinion against my substantiation of observered data.
Your leaders are able to tell you lies because they know you will never check to see if what they are telling you is true, they know they need only make it sound true you will believe it.
What leaders would that be? What a nonsense! I am up to fighting my own battles. I do not need a leader to hold my hand
Do you honestly believe that the millions of scientists around the world who use evolution every day are not going to notice that evolution is in fact not true? they use it, your leaders don't, they know what they are talking about and your leaders don't.
I honestly believe your evolutionary researchers are drunk and intoxicated by the myths that have been provided as a basis to support other myths and offered as flavour of the month until tomorrow....

Your scientists are realizing their mistakes in droves and many have converted to young earth creationism. This includes well credentialed researchers such as John C Sanford ex evo turned YEC. How's that for a slap on the face.

Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists.
Creation Scientists with Outstanding Credentials
Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? - Answers in Genesis

Your researchers find the dino to bird debate quite robust so long as another non plausible evolutionary scenario is proffered. Should any creative scenario be proffered it is ridiculed. This can be seen as biased biggotry.
It's not incumbent on your leaders to know anything about evolution because the only people they have to fool is YOU and you know nothing about evolution.
No the fool is you that can offer no more than ridicule and an invaluable and unsubstantiated opinion to refute the observed facts that support my assertions.

It is typical of a hypocritical evolutionist to request more credible and substantiated evidence for opposing stances than they themselves are able to supply.

Besides..the observed FACTS and data support creation. Fantasy based on myth and algorithms is what upholds evolution like sticky tape. So far today none of you have successfully refuted this claim with any more than woffle and opinion.

You loose!

 

[cupid dave]

[quote < staff edit > [/quote]


But all they were "told" was that God created plants before animals.

They were never told how it was accomplished.
SDo, why NOT by the Natural Laws at work in the way evolutionists explain????

 

[Split Rock]

Evolutionists like to have faith in the extrapolation of microevolution into a macroevolutionary possibility. It is a shame they have NOT observed same and can only offer the excuse of 'not enough time' to hand wave this failure away.

Define "macroevolution" first, then I will tell you if it was observed.

Adaptation does not demonstrate how a deer like creature poofed into a whale and neither does the fossil evidence that is composed of totally different kinds used as misrepresentations of fossil ancestry and connections. Hence the need for more theories such as punctuated equilibrium.

Deer-like creatures did not "poof" into a whale. "Poofing" is what you creationists believe in. Tell us, how many "totally different" kinds are there? I bet you can't. Funny, they should be relatively easy to figure out, since they are "totally different."

When a creationist denies evolution an evo will throw up all sorts of microevolution as evidence, which is not evidence of any more than a species ability to adapt without change in the underlying DNA.

Funny that dozens of speciations have been observed both in nature and in the lab, huh? Also, do tell us how a species adapts without any "change in the underlying DNA?" Ever heard of a mutation?

Your lizard link speaks to adaptation in a lizard. It does not demonstrate how a lizard becomes a bird. Further to that many of these researchers disagree with the dino to bird deal anyway. It is no more than a delusionary tale based on a wishlist and possible flavour of the month.

The link was never intended to show lizards becoming birds. That is a strawman.

Further to that a lizard has been shown to somatically develop a cecal valve in response to diet with no underlying change in DNA being a purely somatic and reversible event. God is surely a great designer.

Then why are 99% of his designs extinct?

Most importantly they are still lizards and this kind of research is an example of the obvious misrepresentations that evolutionists use that simply and plainly do not show how a lizard became a bird.

Lizards did not become birds! Please stop with the strawman argument.

Then of course you have good old bird footprints 212myo that throw the whole lot into disarray.

Still pretending bird-like = bird, huh? I guess some Christians like yourself just ignore the ninth commandment.

Tiktaalic is dethroned

It is still a fishapod and still a transitional. Tell us what "kind" Tiktaalik is a part of?

Lucy, ardi are dethroned as human ancestors and evos have had to place the Laetolli footprints on a 3.5ft ape in desperation.

Care to explain these fossils better?

All that evolutionists have is a mess to proffer as evidence for common ancestry of mankind to bacteria.

We have something you lack. Evidence.

Alternatively biblical creationists have observable facts.

Really? Then I'm sure you can relate a few of these "observable facts."