WHat side are you on???

[lucaspa]

There are many high profile Evil-outionists which say & know the Bible IS incompatrible with Evil-oution, they have said so! Evil-oution makes God superfoulous; if He did it through Evil-oution why do we need Him (GOD) in the equation. We dont & the Evil-outioinist knows this! That is why they jump for joy when shortsighted Christians adopt the untenable premise of theistic Evil-oution, as they are out of the great struggle for God by default!

Obediah, you seem to have a god-of-the-gaps mentality. You think you need God only if there is no natural mechanism! You do realize that this is atheist thinking, don't you?

That is what atheists believe, that anything that is natural means God is not involved. Now, why would that be so? Why isn't the natural just as dependent on God to happen as a miracle? You need God because He sustains the universe and none of the processes would happen without Him. Oxygen and hydrogen would not burn to water. Gravity would not work. Hydrogen atoms would not fuse to helium in the sun to make sunlight so that the chemical reactions in photosynthesis (also needing God) would make sugar.

The real irony here is that Darwin had a better concept of God and the need for God than creationists do!

This is one of 3 quotes Darwin put in the Fontispiece of Origin of the Species. Think about it for a while and then tell me that God is not needed for evolution. If you still say that, then I'll know you are an atheist in disguise.

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

 

[lucaspa]

(Soon this 33rd theory will be proven false..it teaches that since we have seen no evidence of evolution, punctuated equilibrium is true...It teaches that the way species have evolved and the way the varieties have come about is through a certain species giving birth to a different species....for example, a duck laying an egg and a cat hatching out of the egg, or a snake...I am not joking, this is literally what this theory teaches...

Tom, you've never read Eldredge or Gould about PE, have you? All you've seen is on creationists websites, isn't it?

Here is what Gould originally wrote about PE. See if PE literally teaches what you say it does:

SJ Gould, The episodic nature of evolutionary change. In The Panda's Thumb, 1980, pp.179-185.
"Darwin portrayed evolution as a stately and orderly process, working at a speed so slow that no person could hope to observe it in a lifetime. Ancestors and descendants, Darwin argued, must be connected by "infinitely numerous transitional links" forming "the finest graduated steps." Only an immense span of time had permitted such a sluggish process to achieve so much.
"Huxley felt that Darwin was digging a ditch for his own theory. Natural selection required no postulate about rates; it could operate just as well if evolution proceeded at a rapid pace. The road ahead was rocky enough; why harness the theory of natural selection to an assumption both unnecessary and probably false? The fossil record offered no support for gradual change: whole fauna had been wiped out during disarmingly short intervals. New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks *of the same region*. [emphasis mine] Evolution, Huxley believed, could proceed so rapidly that the slow and fitful process of sedimentation rarely caught it in the act. ...
In short, Darwin argued that the geological record was exceedingly imperfect - a book with few remaining pages, few lines on each page, and few words on each line. We do not see slow evolutionary change in the fossil record because we study only one step in thousands. Change seems to abrupt because the intermediate steps are missing. ...
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology [Note: Gould did not say absence, but rarity; examples do exist of transitionals]. ... Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: 'The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.'
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study [Note: almost never, not never. Again, cases of fine transitions of one species to another are known.].
"For several years, Niles Eldredge ... and I have been advocating a resolution of this uncomfortable paradox. We believe Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield *exactly* what we see in the fossil record. [emphasis mine] It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism.
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change duing their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any *local* area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.' [Note, emphasis mine, but the key here is the local area where you dig for fossils.]
"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. If all evolutionary change occurred in this mode, life would not persist for long. Phyletic evolution yields no increase in diversity, only a transformation of one thing into another. Since extinction (by extirpation, not by evolution into something else) is so common, a biota with no mechanism for increasing diversity would soon be wiped out. The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. ...
"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record.
"All major theories of speciation maintain that splitting takes place rapidly in very small populations. The theory of geographic, or allopatric, speciation is preferred by most evolutionists for most situations (allopatric means 'in another place'). A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare - as the fossil record proclaims.
"But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small, peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.
"What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendent species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale.
"Eldredge and I refer to this scheme as the model of punctuated equilibria. Lineages change little during most of their history, but events of rapid speciation occasionally punctuate this tranquillity. Evolution is the differential survival and deployment of these punctuations. (In describing the speciation of peripheral isolates as very rapid, I speak as a geologist. The process may take hundreds, even thousands of years; you might see nothing if you stared at speciating bees on a tree for your entire lifetime. But a thousand years is a tiny fraction of one percent of the average duration for most fossil invertebrate species - 5 to 10 million years. Geologists can rarely resolve so short an interval at all; we tend to treat it as a moment.)"

 

[TomInCT]

Cantuar writes-

-OK, so when this god of yours created a lifeform, let it go extinct a million or so years later, created another one a bit different but almost the same, let it go extinct a few hundreds of thousands of years later, created another one a bit different again, let it go extinct, created another one a bit different again, etc, etc, etc (and, purely coincidentally, of course, since evolution wasn't occurring, these forms were getting more and more like the modern ones), and he wasn't using evolution and he wasn't using trial and error, then what on earth WAS he using?

That's your theory and your are talking about evolution which I do not believe in...extinction--> What is the one major way that we know animals become extinct by? Humans...And not over millions of years, rather other a few thousand years in the case of dinosaurs.


As far as the "bash-Hovind" session you evolutionists are once again having, go ahead and work hard and try to destroy his credability... But unfortunately you can't take away some many great points he brings up and errors with the hypothesis of evolution...just like this simple example (although, evolutionists who have done sooo much research in an unsuccessful attempt to disprove the creation theory, may only understand complicated, deep examples; but please just try to follow along)...

-You have bad credit (financially); that means you are a liar, cheater, and theive. True or False? False. But that's what the gang of Hovind-haters want you to believe...Hey, good name for you guys that hate him!!

Lucaspa wrote-
4. The Bible. Your god supposedly directly wrote the Bible. Right? Well, you god spends Genesis 1:1-2:3 telling us it took 6 days to create the heavens and the earth. Then in Genesis 2:4b your god turns around and tells us it took one day. "Beyom" = within one day. Your god has a bad case of Alzheimer's.

-Maybe God was talking about the Garden of Eden and not the creation as a whole.. I have heard this contradiction argument soooo many times, it's amusing....as far as the supposed different theories of creation, I have explained this in earlier posts in on this topic, back to earlier pages, check it out...As far as the punctuated equilibrium theory...too bad the originator of that theory didn't specify what he meant by the idea or word "sudden". Maybe he was just throwing that idea out there, knowing it was a bunch of you know what and a few people were actually dumb enough to believe it and then those people altered the theory from sudden to over thousands of years. I guess they still don't know what to believe... Not a big suprise.


Overall, evolution, whether dealing with punctuated equilibrium or any other aspect of it, has to do with TIME. That is the magic tool that is the ultimate excuse for never seeing anything evolve and never having any proof for this theory. TIME. Why can't things be answered or proof be shown of evolution? Because we haven't had enough time in our lifetimes to see even 1 small evolutionary advancement? I'm sick of it, it's always the same excuse, not answer, excuse....Our lives are so short, they are merely a spec in the earth's billions of years of exsistence. Come on now...a fairy tale starts off with "Long ago"...Doesn't anyone see the similarity here? Evolution = fairy tale. But no, Time Time Time.... God only needed 6 days. Evolution needed billions of years...What is more believable?

Lastly, someone (I forget the name and I apologize) wrote that I mean to tell them that God can NOT have created everything through evolution? To answer his/her question (you know who you are)---->
NO. God is not capable of committing sin and is not capable of errors, which is what evolution is, errors. So, to answer your question, no. As far as those of you who will say, Genetic defect, genetic defect or Design defect, design defect---> God did not create these defects, Satan defected the perfect design, and Adam and Ever certainly played a big part of it when they chose free will over God.

God Bless you all!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Overall, evolution, whether dealing with punctuated equilibrium or any other aspect of it, has to do with TIME. That is the magic tool that is the ultimate excuse for never seeing anything evolve and never having any proof for this theory. TIME. Why can't things be answered or proof be shown of evolution? Because we haven't had enough time in our lifetimes to see even 1 small evolutionary advancement? I'm sick of it, it's always the same excuse, not answer, excuse....Our lives are so short, they are merely a spec in the earth's billions of years of exsistence. Come on now...a fairy tale starts off with "Long ago"...Doesn't anyone see the similarity here? Evolution = fairy tale. But no, Time Time Time.... God only needed 6 days. Evolution needed billions of years...What is more believable?

The "time" argument fails, however, when you realize that the process is exactly the same on a generation-to-generation basis whether you are dealing with evolution today or evolution millions of years ago. Long-term changes are the result of cumulative change. In other words, all the tiny changes from generation-to-generation eventually add up.

To illustrate, here is a graphic I made up: http://www.animecritic.com/_temp/micro-macro-evolution.jpg

Note: This is obviously a gross over-simplification of the evolutionary process, as evolution is not entirely linear. But it illustrates the basic idea.

 

[Vance]

Tom:

I assume you accept, as most Creationists do, that the process of evolution happens exactly as described by evolutionary biologists, but only on a "micro" level, or within a given species to allow a group of creatures to adapt to its environment. You know, isolation, mutation, adaptive features, etc. So, let's start there. But just stop me where you get off the bus.

Now, I would next assume that you understand and agree that this process occurs due to pressures placed upon the group by its environment and the nature of those competing for the same resources, etc.

Next, if you accept the above (and, again, most Creationists are still "on board" at this point), then you would likely agree that this process causing these adaptive changes will necessarily continue as long as adaptions will allow it to better survive/reproduce in its given environment.

And, I would think you would agree that it is fairly obvious that if there is a change in the environment at some point along the way, this will also prompt the adaptions to continue.

Now, lastly, this is the key: what would prevent these adaptions from continuing and continuing, if useful, until the members of this group of creatures are so changed from those in the original group that, by anyone's definition, a "macro" change has taken place?

What I mean is: where is the "brake" in the process that would prevent changes from taking place when you get to some magical "macro" level?

If a land mammal lives near water and finds that the food source in the water is much more abundant (or predators less agressive, etc) and begins heading in to the water more and more often and adapts, and adapts, and adapts, etc, etc, until eventually it is a sea mammal (a fairly macro change, you would agree), what is to stop these adaptions along the way?

 

[tankiawee]

Cantuar writes-

-OK, so when this god of yours created a lifeform, let it go extinct a million or so years later, created another one a bit different but almost the same, let it go extinct a few hundreds of thousands of years later, created another one a bit different again, let it go extinct, created another one a bit different again, etc, etc, etc (and, purely coincidentally, of course, since evolution wasn't occurring, these forms were getting more and more like the modern ones), and he wasn't using evolution and he wasn't using trial and error, then what on earth WAS he using?

That's your theory and your are talking about evolution which I do not believe in...extinction--> What is the one major way that we know animals become extinct by? Humans...And not over millions of years, rather other a few thousand years in the case of dinosaurs.

Oh, so you don't believe in extinction. I suppose you do have a real live trilobyte at home eh? These have been found in fossil form, so, if there was no extinction, God was bored eh?

As far as the "bash-Hovind" session you evolutionists are once again having, go ahead and work hard and try to destroy his credability... But unfortunately you can't take away some many great points he brings up and errors with the hypothesis of evolution...just like this simple example (although, evolutionists who have done sooo much research in an unsuccessful attempt to disprove the creation theory, may only understand complicated, deep examples; but please just try to follow along)...

-You have bad credit (financially); that means you are a liar, cheater, and theive. True or False? False. But that's what the gang of Hovind-haters want you to believe...Hey, good name for you guys that hate him!!

Let's get to the point. Fine, you want us to believe him? Fine, we'll contend with his points. But which debunked theory of his do you want us to show you that it is fallacious and atrociously bad logic? Why don't you show us what he's got that is so sound? If you can't then you are committing the same fallacy, ASSUMING something is true just because of reputation (which, since you object so vociferously, we won't touch it for the moment).

Lucaspa wrote-
4. The Bible. Your god supposedly directly wrote the Bible. Right? Well, you god spends Genesis 1:1-2:3 telling us it took 6 days to create the heavens and the earth. Then in Genesis 2:4b your god turns around and tells us it took one day. "Beyom" = within one day. Your god has a bad case of Alzheimer's.

-Maybe God was talking about the Garden of Eden and not the creation as a whole.. I have heard this contradiction argument soooo many times, it's amusing....as far as the supposed different theories of creation, I have explained this in earlier posts in on this topic, back to earlier pages, check it out...As far as the punctuated equilibrium theory...too bad the originator of that theory didn't specify what he meant by the idea or word "sudden". Maybe he was just throwing that idea out there, knowing it was a bunch of you know what and a few people were actually dumb enough to believe it and then those people altered the theory from sudden to over thousands of years. I guess they still don't know what to believe... Not a big suprise.

Maybe he was throwing the idea out there. Maybe he wasn't. But you have failed to contend with the point, which means that it still stands. Yeah, still don't know what to believe eh? Let me put it this way, a madman could swear blue that the sun was made of luminous cheese, and then tell you that the reason that you think its made of hot plasma is because you don't have enough FAITH (rings a bell? I've got fire alarms going off here...) that it really is made of cheese. That's called BLIND DELUSIONARY FAITH.

Overall, evolution, whether dealing with punctuated equilibrium or any other aspect of it, has to do with TIME. That is the magic tool that is the ultimate excuse for never seeing anything evolve and never having any proof for this theory. TIME. Why can't things be answered or proof be shown of evolution? Because we haven't had enough time in our lifetimes to see even 1 small evolutionary advancement? I'm sick of it, it's always the same excuse, not answer, excuse....Our lives are so short, they are merely a spec in the earth's billions of years of exsistence. Come on now...a fairy tale starts off with "Long ago"...Doesn't anyone see the similarity here? Evolution = fairy tale. But no, Time Time Time.... God only needed 6 days. Evolution needed billions of years...What is more believable?

Tom, a bridge was built in a year. God made it appear in a millisecond. Tell me which one is more believable. (Btw, if you choose the second option, pick up the phone and call the nearest psychologist)

Yup, Tom, evolutionists have no proof. Oh I forgot, you have a literal interpretation of a book as proof! Tell me which point that has been brought up have you logically refuted? (without discrediting using the incredulity fallacy "that's so far-fetched")

Lastly, someone (I forget the name and I apologize) wrote that I mean to tell them that God can NOT have created everything through evolution? To answer his/her question (you know who you are)---->
NO. God is not capable of committing sin and is not capable of errors, which is what evolution is, errors. So, to answer your question, no. As far as those of you who will say, Genetic defect, genetic defect or Design defect, design defect---> God did not create these defects, Satan defected the perfect design, and Adam and Ever certainly played a big part of it when they chose free will over God.

Well, let me tell you of my religion. God created the Earth of green cheese, but only those of FAITH could perceive that it was made of green cheese. Now on a cheesey book He wrote that He was infallible and He signed his name off as author. Now, isn't the Earth made of green cheese, Tom?

God Bless you all!

Yup, you sure as hell need it!

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa wrote-
4. The Bible. Your god supposedly directly wrote the Bible. Right? Well, you god spends Genesis 1:1-2:3 telling us it took 6 days to create the heavens and the earth. Then in Genesis 2:4b your god turns around and tells us it took one day. "Beyom" = within one day. Your god has a bad case of Alzheimer's.

-Maybe God was talking about the Garden of Eden and not the creation as a whole.. I have heard this contradiction argument soooo many times, it's amusing

1. You skipped over all the examples of bad design, didn't you? Think I forgot about that or overlooked it? Please respond to those.

2. You might find the contradiction argument amusing, but you never contradicted it. Genesis 2:4b says "in the day when Yhwh created the heavens and the earth" That's not Garden of Eden. That's the whole heavens and earth. So, the contradiction is still there. Address it and try to show how it's not a contradiction in your literal interpretation. I know how it's not a contradiction in a non-literal interpretation, but that's not what you are using.

As far as the punctuated equilibrium theory...too bad the originator of that theory didn't specify what he meant by the idea or word "sudden".

He did. I put what Gould meant by "sudden" in the next post. Now that you've read it, maybe you'll be honest enough to retract your claim.

Overall, evolution, whether dealing with punctuated equilibrium or any other aspect of it, has to do with TIME. That is the magic tool that is the ultimate excuse for never seeing anything evolve and never having any proof for this theory. TIME. Why can't things be answered or proof be shown of evolution? Because we haven't had enough time in our lifetimes to see even 1 small evolutionary advancement?

Oh, no. We have. For instance, there is a whole new genus of plants generated by artificial selection: triticosecale. There are hundreds of examples of speciation and examples of new traits evolving. The thread "The nylon bug" has just one of them. BTW, I've found later papers where they watched, in the lab, the evolution in another bacteria of an enzyme to degrade nylon. No sign of God zapping the enzyme in directly.

Tom, there are lots of things Hovind has hidden from you. And everything else he's told you is false. Now, are you willing to learn? Are you willing to find the truth? Or are you just going to stick with the god Hovind made up?

I'm sick of it, it's always the same excuse, not answer, excuse..

You're not getting excuse here, so stop whining over a strawman you are making.

Lastly, someone (I forget the name and I apologize) wrote that I mean to tell them that God can NOT have created everything through evolution? To answer his/her question (you know who you are)---->
NO. God is not capable of committing sin and is not capable of errors, which is what evolution is, errors. So, to answer your question, no. As far as those of you who will say, Genetic defect, genetic defect or Design defect, design defect---> God did not create these defects, Satan defected the perfect design, and Adam and Ever certainly played a big part of it when they chose free will over God.

Yes, God had to create these bad designs. Satan had nothing to do with creation. NOTHING. All the species were created directly by God, according to Hovind and Biblical literalism. So all those bad designs I mentioned are laid right at God's feet by creationism. What Biblical passages do you have that tells us Satan went and changed the animals and plants after God created? NONE! This really shows that you are making up your own god.

Now, who created Satan? Didn't God create all the angels? Then didn't God create a defect when He created an angel capable of rebelling? How about humans? Either God knew ahead of time that Adam and Eve would disobey and created them that way anyway, or God committed an error.

Or look at God's treatment of Cain and Abel. Two kids (or grandkids) come to God each with a project. God accepts one and rejects the other!! Tom, every decent parent and grandparent knows you never do this!! NEVER! You put both kids' drawings on the fridge. You go to both music recitals and soccer games. By a literal reading, God screwed up big time here.

Or look at Mark 10:1-10 and its equivalent story in Matthew (19 I think). God lets Moses write bad laws on divorce.

Your god may be "perfect", but the God of the Bible is not. I'll believe in the God of the Bible, and not your false idol, thank you.

 

[TomInCT]

Vance....

To answer your question(, and it is a very good one and I appreciate an honest, non-smart-*** question from atleast 1 person here,)....

I do believe in micro-evolution to a certain extent. However, I call it adaptation or survival of the fitest. I believe God gave his creation the ability to adapt to their environment. I also believe that if a certain species is not "the fitest" as Darwin would say, then that species probably won't survive. However, what makes a certain species "fit" to survive and others "unfit" to survive is a little different when comparing evolution to creation. I believe Darwin would tell you that it is for absolutley natural reasons that a species didn't survive. I believe that the reason many species have become extinct is because of this but also humans have played a huge part in species not surviving. I believe man is the main reason the dinosaurs became extinct, coupled with possible natural reasons.
As far as the "brake" in the process goes, I beieve that God made many many many different species and variations of species. I believe, as you know, that He gave them the power to adapt. However, I do believe that He drew the line at a certain point. For example, I think that there is a "brake" between apes and humans. I don't believe that apes could have evolved to the point of becoming human. Their DNA, bone structure and genetic make-up is so much different from humans that if they did indeed evolve into humans, there should be some middle "missing link" if you will that has DNA, bone structure and genetics that is much more closely related to humans. But there is no middle, missing link. Some may try to argue that there is but became extinct or something of that nature. But if that is true, then why did this middle missing link become extict and apes didn't? There is just too much of a gap between the evolutionary "being" that preceeded humans. So, that is my attempt to explain to you my beliefs on "the brake".


Lucaspa....

As far as your argument of God creating imperfect, flawed designs... I believe that God was not the one who created these flawed designs; rather Satan had a major role in this, as well as man's choice of free will. You say, "Satan had nothing to do with creation. NOTHING". It is hard to say if you are right in saying this or not. I would definately agree that God did create everything and Satan did not create anything. However, I believe Satan did have something to do with the imperfections after God's creation. Like I said previously, God created everything perfectly to start. Man ruined what was perfect and Satan played his role as the snake with the forbidden fruit that Eve and Adam ate.
Lucifer (Satan) was an angel. You are right there. However, he became power-hungary and was not satisfied with just being one of God's angels. He saw what God had created and wanted the same ability to create like Him. He then defied God and was throw out of Heaven. Most believe this is how Satan (or the devil) as we know him came to be. He then brought sin into the world..... Now, your argument will be that God must be imperfect because He created Lucifer (Satan) knowing that Lucifer would become evil and corrupt His creation. Wrong. God is a fair God and gave Lucifer a chance. He gave Him free will with a free mind to think freely, just as He did for Adam and Eve. If He hadn't done this, what kind of God would He be? He would be like a mechanical God, whose creation had a mind that wasn't able to think and operate on a free basis. We would be like a bunch of robots that could only do good and would not need God because He already "programmed" us perfectly. Why would we then even need a Savior? This is why we received free will. Hence, the God of the Bible is perfect and we can all be saved because of Him and His sacrifice of His only Son, Jesus!!!

Tom

 

[Plan 9]

Plan 9- The reason I believe that we must choose sides is because it determines which God you believe in. If one believes in evolution, one believes in a God that is not perfect, I God that didn't know what He wanted to create right away so he took his time and through a long series of error-filled mutations and "in-betweens", created what we have today. If one believes in creation, one believes in a God that is perfect and created everything perfect from the start. Which one would you put your faith in: A God that didn't know what he wanted and created everything through tons of changes or a God that created everything perfect, knowing exactly what he wanted? If you choose the 1st one, maybe that God will decide to "change" his mind and send those who have accepted him into their hearts as their savior, to hell.

Tom, whether you like it or not; whether it seems right to you or not, Christians can accept evolution as fact and still be Christians. You're the one drawing the line in the sand, not god, possibly because you don't understand the theory of evolution and possibly for other reasons which have nothing to do with science, since not every Christian who is a creationist draws this line.

1st- I am a troll huh? What does that mean? Please educate me b/c , according to you, I am a troll, even though I have no idea what that is supposed to mean...I am 6'0, so, I doubt I am a troll in the size-sense.

If you're "trolling", then you're doing it for other reasons, the main one being to provoke other members.

 

[tankiawee]

Let me put it this way Tom, you assert senseless ideas, then call put-downs by analogy "smart***". I had actual challenges in there, why don't you respond without that ad hominem you loathe so much?

Btw, humans caused the extinction of trilobytes??

 

[TomInCT]

Plan 9-
The bottom line is that I am going to believe in the theory that has been around for longer than 200 short years. I am going to believe in the theory of Creation. I am not going to accept evolution as a fact. I am not trying to provoke other members, although I have come to enjoy these debates, as I have enjoyed them since debating my science teachers in high school to the point where they were stumped. And no, they were not dumb science teachers from the south that bought their degrees from a "degree mill" as some of you might think...They are highly educated science teachers from the north who received their degrees from prestigous institutes. I just made that fact known because I know how much many of the folks here put such a high emphasis on the title of people, as if wo/ it, they shouldn't be able to speak or what they say doesn't count.


Tankiawee-
Sorry, I did not respond to your reponse....they reason I did not respond is because of the 1st thing you wrote, claiming I don't believe in extinction. I thought that was really funny because I do believe in extinction; I just believe that the emphasis of extinction should not be placed on natural causes but more on human causes. I wrote-

That's your theory and your are talking about evolution which I do not believe in...extinction--> What is the one major way that we know animals become extinct by? Humans...And not over millions of years, rather other a few thousand years in the case of dinosaurs.


You then wrote -
Oh, so you don't believe in extinction. I suppose you do have a real live trilobyte at home eh? These have been found in fossil form, so, if there was no extinction, God was bored eh?

This is referring to the fact that I do not believe in evolution, not that I do not believe in extinction. I am sorry if I confused you with my non-proper writing skills; maybe if I had an English or writing degree, I would not have made the same mistake. Anyways, this is onloy part of why I did not respond to you. Adding your idiot-like remarks at the end didn't help you get a response either. We will just leave it at you are an expert of science. You are certainly faithless in God. It is too bad people like you come in hear just because you have nothing better to do then try to destroy people's believes. I am a Christian and I do not go into Satanic forums trying to bash them.

I wrote -
God Bless you all!

You wrote-
Yup, you sure as hell need it!

I sure need God's blessings, and you do too, that is why I will be praying for you.

 

[Arikay]

So Tom, you have yet to answer my question, do you still believe the Barcode site is lying and DrDino is telling the truth, or have you accepted that DrDino presented false information?

Well, according to your post, I assume then, that you also dont believe in Germ Theory, since Germ Theory has been around for a very short time compared to "demon theory"

 

[Vance]

Tom,

There are two fallacies to your "I am going with the older theory" approach. First is that just raised by Arikay, which is that you will gladly accept other scientific theories in place of the older ones that have been proven wrong. The Church took the same position as yours regarding geocentrism when the newfangled heliocentrism idea came out. Even when the evidence was overwhelming, they stuck to their guns and it was not until the late 1800's that the Church finally admitted that it was wrong.

The second fallacy is that Young Earth Creationism is a "tried and true" theory. Yes, early on, before we had the knowledge we do now, most accepted Usher's chronology, and most assumed a special creation for every type of creature. But, by the late 1800's and early 1,900's the movement was heavily in favor of an old earth and acceptance of evolution as God's means of creating. Toward the middle of the century, the tide started to turn back and then, in the 1970's YEC'ism came on heavy as a concept. All types of "ministries" built up around this idea and it became almost like a cottage industry. There is an interesting history of YEC'ism, in three parts, beginning here:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/history1.shtml?main

 

[Gracchus]

Plan 9-
The bottom line is that I am going to believe in the theory that has been around for longer than 200 short years. I am going to believe in the theory of Creation. I am not going to accept evolution as a fact.

This I find interesting. You are able to command your belief. No information that may be presented to you in the future, nor any that has been presented to you in the past, can change your mind. My beliefs are enjoined upon me by my own observations and analyses and by the observations and analyses of those that experience has taught me to trust. I may not always like it but the facts are as they are and I can't disbelieve just because I dislike or disapprove. I can't.

You can, proudly. You decide what you are going to believe regardless of observation or reason. This behavior is inexplicable to me when it is found in something that purports to be a human mind. I can only attribute to some mental defect arising fear, from some mental error, or the result of cruelly repressive training or genetic defect.

I am not trying to provoke other members, although I have come to enjoy these debates, as I have enjoyed them since debating my science teachers in high school to the point where they were stumped. And no, they were not dumb science teachers from the south that bought their degrees from a "degree mill" as some of you might think...They are highly educated science teachers from the north who received their degrees from prestigous institutes. I just made that fact known because I know how much many of the folks here put such a high emphasis on the title of people, as if wo/ it, they shouldn't be able to speak or what they say doesn't count.

If your posts here are any indication of how you dealt with your teachers, then you did not "stump" your teachers by superior knowledge, understanding, or reasoning. You "stumped" your teachers by closing your mind to observation and reason, by, in fact, refusing to be taught. That you regard this as some sort of triumph is proof that your mental processes are not those of a rational being.

Tankiawee-
Sorry, I did not respond to your reponse....they reason I did not respond is because of the 1st thing you wrote, claiming I don't believe in extinction. I thought that was really funny because I do believe in extinction; I just believe that the emphasis of extinction should not be placed on natural causes but more on human causes. I wrote-

"That's your theory and your are talking about evolution which I do not believe in...extinction--> What is the one major way that we know animals become extinct by? Humans...And not over millions of years, rather other a few thousand years in the case of dinosaurs".

Mammoth bones and tusks have been found associated with evidence of human predation, indicating that mammoths coexisted with humans. No evidence has been presented which indicates that humans and dinosaurs have ever coexisted, and a great deal of evidence indicates that they did not. Like a stubborn child you have (figuratively) placed your hands over your ears and closed your eyes and refused, probably because of fear or distaste, to acknowledge the obvious.

You then wrote -
"Oh, so you don't believe in extinction. I suppose you do have a real live trilobyte at home eh? These have been found in fossil form, so, if there was no extinction, God was bored eh?"

This is referring to the fact that I do not believe in evolution, not that I do not believe in extinction. I am sorry if I confused you with my non-proper writing skills; maybe if I had an English or writing degree, I would not have made the same mistake.

What ever your English and writing skills, you will always remain mistaken because you base your reasoning on absurdities.

Anyways, this is onloy part of why I did not respond to you. Adding your idiot-like remarks at the end didn't help you get a response either. We will just leave it at you are an expert of science. You are certainly faithless in God..

No one, TomInCT, is likely to worship your god, which you have fashioned in your own image out of fear and ignorance and set up at some dark altar in your mind.

It is too bad people like you come in hear just because you have nothing better to do then try to destroy people's believes. I am a Christian and I do not go into Satanic forums trying to bash them.

Why did you post here? Did you really think you were going to arrive in triumphant glory, easily demolishing two hundred years of thought by thousands of people smarter than you? Was this supposed to happen because you are morally superior? Do you really think that anyone cares about your private beliefs enough to waste time trying to destroy them so that your soul might be consigned to hell? I doubt that you are that important to anyone in this forum.
Some people are here to oppose falsehood, to refute nonsense, and to expose ignorance to learning. You have achieved the victory you sought to achieve. You have remained ignorant, and enamored of absurdity and untruth. There are no Satanists here, TomInCT, only the projected phantasms arising in your own darkened mind. You have cut yourself off from the light God's truth.
Please don't think, TomInCT, that I blame you or think you are evil, though I am fairly certain you think I am. I do feel sorry for you, because, for whatever reasons, you have cut yourself off from so much of the beauty revealed by reason which is the workings of God within.

 

[armed2010]

gracchus, I feel like framing that in my room as a source of inspiration. That was brilliant!!

 

[Siliconaut]

Yep. To-the-point and a better summary of my own thoughts on purposeful ignorance than I could have composed.

 

[wblastyn]

Lucaspa....

As far as your argument of God creating imperfect, flawed designs... I believe that God was not the one who created these flawed designs; rather Satan had a major role in this, as well as man's choice of free will. You say, "Satan had nothing to do with creation. NOTHING". It is hard to say if you are right in saying this or not. I would definately agree that God did create everything and Satan did not create anything. However, I believe Satan did have something to do with the imperfections after God's creation. Like I said previously, God created everything perfectly to start. Man ruined what was perfect and Satan played his role as the snake with the forbidden fruit that Eve and Adam ate.
Lucifer (Satan) was an angel. You are right there. However, he became power-hungary and was not satisfied with just being one of God's angels. He saw what God had created and wanted the same ability to create like Him. He then defied God and was throw out of Heaven. Most believe this is how Satan (or the devil) as we know him came to be. He then brought sin into the world..... Now, your argument will be that God must be imperfect because He created Lucifer (Satan) knowing that Lucifer would become evil and corrupt His creation. Wrong. God is a fair God and gave Lucifer a chance. He gave Him free will with a free mind to think freely, just as He did for Adam and Eve. If He hadn't done this, what kind of God would He be? He would be like a mechanical God, whose creation had a mind that wasn't able to think and operate on a free basis. We would be like a bunch of robots that could only do good and would not need God because He already "programmed" us perfectly. Why would we then even need a Savior? This is why we received free will. Hence, the God of the Bible is perfect and we can all be saved because of Him and His sacrifice of His only Son, Jesus!!!

Tom

So are you a Biblical literalist or not because that whole thing about Satan is made up. The Bible does not mention anything about Satan changing God's creation, so it looks like you're adding to scripture.

 

[Plan 9]

Plan 9-
The bottom line is that I am going to believe in the theory that has been around for longer than 200 short years. I am going to believe in the theory of Creation. I am not going to accept evolution as a fact. I am not trying to provoke other members, although I have come to enjoy these debates, as I have enjoyed them since debating my science teachers in high school to the point where they were stumped. And no, they were not dumb science teachers from the south that bought their degrees from a "degree mill" as some of you might think...They are highly educated science teachers from the north who received their degrees from prestigous institutes. I just made that fact known because I know how much many of the folks here put such a high emphasis on the title of people, as if wo/ it, they shouldn't be able to speak or what they say doesn't count.

Tom, your answer doesn't address my post, since I don't require that you abandon your belief in creationism to be considered a Christian:

Tom, whether you like it or not; whether it seems right to you or not, Christians can accept evolution as fact and still be Christians. You're the one drawing the line in the sand, not god, possibly because you don't understand the theory of evolution and possibly for other reasons which have nothing to do with science, since not every Christian who is a creationist draws this line.