What's Up With This Forum? What's It All About? Need clarification...

[Tomk80]

The problem with PRATTS is that the point is refuted but never explained properly. For example evolutionists cannot properly explain away the complexity of our bodily structures simply by random mutations and natural selection. There IS no explanation for this in evolution.

See, your problem is here already. You make the claim that evolution cannot produce something with the 'complexity' of the human body. But you never defined how we could measure this, how we could test this statement or what kind of support you have for this statement. So it's a vacuous claim to start with.

I tried to ask you about the human eye, and all I received in return is this crazy story on how, because we have other creatures in nature with light-sensitive patches, our eyes developed from light-sensitive patches on the brain, which made a depression, which made a slit, which fell into already-formed eye sockets, which somehow made rods, cones, retinas, pupils, muscles, blood vessels, eye lids, etc.

I have followed some of those threads, although I didn't participate. The main problem I see here is that, when you say you want to have something explained, we give you the best current possible explanation. You could at least try to understand that explanation and why we give it, but I have, as of yet, never seen such an effort from your part.

If you don't want to be ignored or ridiculed, you must at the least give the impression that you're interested in the answers you receive. From the way you post, I don't get that impression. Since you don't seem to be interested in what I might want to tell you, why would I bother to take you seriously?

And you have to understand that any explanation we give is necessarily going to be the best possible explanatin, not eternal truth.

But it goes on and on. I ask you how the human body can be comprised of many organs - all compex in and of themselves - and all working together in harmony - how all this complexity can come about simply by random mutations and natural selection. I ask you how the information was coded into DNA, because that information could NOT have been coded into DNA from nothingness (all information has an original source). You guys have no answer, because evolution does not provide an answer. Just slap the 'ol PRATT label on anyone who disagrees with your evolutionist philosophy.

The problem, as I have explained above, is that such statements are vacuous in the first place.

Then there is the dreaded "godditit." Oh no, we can't say God did it. That would be "pseudoscience." But in reality, you guys KNOW you don't have these answers regarding origins, and yet you still reject the very answer that is the most logical. That yes, in fact - God DID do it. What's there so hard to believe??

We can say 'goddidit'. But that's not a scientific answer, because it cannot be tested. And as far as we know, if Goddidit, he used evolution, so much is clear from the evidence.

Which points out one of the problems with your 'goddidit' answer. It doesn't answer whether theistic evolutionists or creationists might be correct. Why couldn't God have done it, using evolution as the tool with which he did it? Christian evolutionists argue that this is the case. That's why your answer doesn't tell us anything.

 

[corvus_corax]

The problem with PRATTS is that the point is refuted but never explained properly. For example evolutionists cannot properly explain away the complexity of our bodily structures simply by random mutations and natural selection. There IS no explanation for this in evolution.

Silly silly sacky.
Had you actually looked up the word "refuted", you would never have used it in your post
As you said (correctly), the points ARE refuted. But then you digressed into nonsensical statements (when one considers the meaning of the word "refuted")

I tried to ask you about the human eye, and all I received in return is this crazy story on how, because we have other creatures in nature with light-sensitive patches, our eyes developed from light-sensitive patches on the brain, which made a depression, which made a slit, which fell into already-formed eye sockets, which somehow made rods, cones, retinas, pupils, muscles, blood vessels, eye lids, etc.

Partly correct. Mostly incorrect.
But that's beside the point, isnt it?
I could easily say "I tried to ask Creationists about the human eye, and all I received in return is this crazy story on how god made the human eye from dirt"
Of course, you being a Creationist, you probably dont see how silly, stupid and ludicrous such a response would be.
And yet you (o-so-ignorant of scientific procedure) have the temerity to propose such an explanation?

But it goes on and on.

Just as it does with Creationists
Welcome to the concept of "debate" Sacklunch. If you find it so distasteful, then drop out of it.

I ask you how the human body can be comprised of many organs - all compex in and of themselves - and all working together in harmony - how all this complexity can come about simply by random mutations and natural selection.

Who EVER said that it is random?
Do you actually study those things you oppose?
Obviously not, otherwise you would drop the term "random"
Did you know, for example, that chemical reactions (for example) are not random AT ALL?
When you use the word "random", you make it sound like something less predictable than a roll of the dice (which isnt "random" either)

I ask you how the information was coded into DNA, because that information could NOT have been coded into DNA from nothingness (all information has an original source).

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt
Thanks for playing though

Where did the root for the word "Qapla' " come from?

Qapla' is a piece of information. Where did this term "Qapla' " come from?
I seriously doubt you can satisfactorily answer this question beyond "Goddidit"

You guys have no answer, because evolution does not provide an answer. Just slap the 'ol PRATT label on anyone who disagrees with your evolutionist philosophy.

Bull
That's pure bovine waste and you know it.
A PRATT is a Point REFUTED a thousand times.
Not a point Ignored. Not a point PRATTED. But a point REFUTED.
Look up the word in question, specifically definition #1

Then there is the dreaded "godditit." Oh no, we can't say God did it. That would be "pseudoscience." But in reality, you guys KNOW you don't have these answers regarding origins, and yet you still reject the very answer that is the most logical. That yes, in fact - God DID do it. What's there so hard to believe??

Sorry but this IS in fact, pseudoscience.
To wit-
Were I to say "Mardukdidit", would you believe me?
Would you just throw up your hands and say "Corvus corax is right...Marduk musta done it" despite the fact that there is NO empirical evidence to back up such a statement?
Of course you wouldnt.
But I know several believers (one IRL and more than a dozen online) who DO believe that Mardukdidit.
Now, since you are a believer in YHVH, you would probably find their claims to be ridiculous.
As well you should. Good for you!!
After all, where is the EMPIRICAL evidence that Mardukdidit?
As you can easily see, there isnt any.

Likewise, there is no EMPIRICAL evidence that YHVHdidit.

Although I hope that you now see the position of a non-believer regarding YHVH (as equally standing in respect to Marduk), I dont trust that you will actually understand it.

Prove me wrong.

 

[MartinM]

I tried to ask you about the human eye, and all I received in return is this crazy story on how, because we have other creatures in nature with light-sensitive patches, our eyes developed from light-sensitive patches on the brain, which made a depression, which made a slit, which fell into already-formed eye sockets, which somehow made rods, cones, retinas, pupils, muscles, blood vessels, eye lids, etc.

As I recall, you were told that the first eyes developed in invertebrates, and the eye sockets developed around them later. Perhaps the reason this all seems so crazy is because you haven't actually a) read it properly, or b) understood it properly?

 

[Beastt]

Ostensibly this forum is a place to debate Creationism verses Evolution.

When you lose the debate, you claim we've done something wrong.

But in reality, it is simply a place to discuss all things evolution and ferociously attack anyone who dissents or brings their talk of God and "pseudoscience" into the mix.

One of the key components to debating successfully is to attack the fallacies and weaknesses in the opponents assertions.

This was verified by another poster recently, that some members of this board have banded together in an effort to "purge" this forum of anyone who holds Christian Creationist views.

Despite the fact that one other member agrees with you, no one is purging anyone. To the best of my knowledge, (I could be mistaken), only the mods have the power to "purge" anyone from the forum and while a great number of the evolutionists debating here are atheists, (certainly not all of them), I've yet to see an atheist moderator.

NEWSFLASH: This is a Christian board. This is not a secular scientific board. You should expect such views.

So you're saying that you should be given special privileges? Are we supposed to avoid pointing out the fallacies/flaws in your views because you want to base your views on other than science? Science is the observation and understanding of reality. If your argument isn't based in reality, it's not likely to be very compelling.

Why is this? Why can't you guys handle a good 'ol fashioned Creationsim vs. Evolution debate which is supposed to be what this forum is all about?

That's exactly what's going on. You're debating for the creationism side, (along with a few others), and the rest of us here are debating for the evolution side. Why is it that because you keep losing the debates, you want to believe that you're not being treated fairly? Perhaps your aguments simply don't hold up.

Why do you constantly trash God and the Bible, then when confronted with it, you say, "Ah no, it's okay, people can believe what they want to believe." Then you turn around and trash God and the Bible some more, calling it all "pseudoscience" and "fairy tales." What's up with your double-talk? Can you own up to what you say?

Debating for the side of evolution has nothing to do with trashing God or the Bible. A great number of Christians, (the majority, I believe), believe in evolution. So your strawman is going to let you down, but not out of unfairness -- out of a lack of points on which to support it. As for those of us who aren't theists and support evolution, I can only say again that science is the observation, study and understanding of reality. If in studying reality, we find there is no God, that would be the fault of reality and not the fault of atheists. If you show God to science, science will study God. If you show what you believe to be evidence of God to science, science will study that evidence. In fact, that has been done over and over throughout the history of science. Science studied the evidence of Zues, (thunder and lightening), but in finding the nature of these things, found there was no Zues. Science studied the evidence for volcano gods, but found the true nature of this evidence without ever finding a connection to any volcano god. And so it has been with earthquakes, miracles, droughts, storms and all the other evidence for gods; science has observed and come to an understanding of the reality of these claimed evidences and found them all to be other than god-caused.

Are you afraid of God? He's not afraid of you.

If he's not afraid of me, why does he continually hide from me?

Perhaps it isn't those against whom you debate that are at fault for your continual inability to support your beliefs. Perhaps you have simply chosen beliefs which are unsupportable.

 

[Beastt]

I know what you mean SackLunch, already only 3 out of 8 people who have replied to this are Christians. Its really boring, this forum because you can't have a proper debate when your ganged up on by athiests.

The success of a debate view isn't reliant upon the number of people holding the view, but the validity and support provided to it by evidence and persuasive argument.

Also the athiests must be REALLY sad because all they do is waste their life coming on to a CHRISTIAN forum for hours upon end, they say theres no meaning to life, so i don't see why their not out there livin' it up rather than sitting at home attacking christians... what an exciting life they lead .

Ever notice that is is always Christians who claim that there is no meaning to life under the atheist viewpoint and never the atheists? Can you provide evidence that atheists are more prone to suicide than theists? Now I know that Christianity doesn't meet well with logic and reason, but since there is no other credible way to debate any topic, let's try a little analogy;

What is the street value of common dirt? What is the street value of gold? Which is more valuable and why? Under most circumstances gold is far more valuable than common dirt because it is far more rare. It's even far more valuable than other metals which can be just as decorative simply because the supply is subject to much greater limits. And gold, isn't by any means, the only such example. Almost everything rare is more valuable than things which are common simply because their availability is more limited. Yet you're attempting to present the Christian view of an infinite life as being somehow more valuable than the atheist view of a limited life. You have it exactly backward. I know I'm not alone when I say that I know a number of Christians who sit calmly waiting for their Earthly life to go by because they believe there is a better life beyond that. If they're wrong, they have wasted the only life they have groveling and trying to kiss up to a non-existent God. And when they die, they're gone and will never have another chance. Atheists, on the other hand, tend to believe they have only the one life they know and are now living. They believe that time wasted during this life is the waste of a finite life.

We come on this board for a variety of reasons. My personal reason is because I hate to see pain and suffering and I see Christianity as the source and justification for a great deal of pain, suffering and cruelty. Perhaps I'll never persuade anyone but if I wish to attempt to reduce suffering by helping to educate others and point out the foolishness of their beliefs, I don't believe it is time wasted.

What else is damn annoying about this forum is we're not even arguing about the same thing!

Basic definitions-

The evolutionists say Microevolution is - Variations within a species
Macroevolution - Changing into different species

The creationists say Microevolution is - Variation within a kind
Macroevolution is chagning into another kind

Microevolution is to macroevolution as sprouting a seed is to growing a plant. They're one and the same. People who argue that microevolution occurs but deny that macroevolution occurs are using the same logic as would be applied in saying that driving a car changes the numbers on the right side of the odometer but could never result in changing the numbers on the left side of the odometer. It has no basis in logic, no basis in reason and no basis in reality.

As for "kinds", I continually see creationists present this term but I never see any credible definition for it. "Kind" seems to be the tree trunk creationists hide behind when faced with arguments for which they have no rebuttal.

Of course by the way the evolutionists describe evolution, it is a fact.

Comments like this help to outline one of the greatest problems with creationists. They attempt to attack evolution which is a field of science yet they have no real grasp of either evolutionary theory or science. Science does not deal in facts. Science deals in the most likely conclusion which supports all of the available evidence. Evolution fills that bill. Creationism never even gets close.

Species do change into other species but the creationists aren't denying this they are saying that one kind of animal doesn't change into another!

Species do change into other species. But it is a very long and gradual process. And the process is called "speciation" and you have openly admitted that this does occur. Yet you toss out the arbitrary term "kind" and attempt to suggest that one "kind" cannot become another "kind". Such a statement is meaningless because the term "kind" has no biologically significant definition.

Then the evolutionist will say what is a kind and then the creationist will say what is a species, so the argument is never ending and quite frankly boring.

"Species" is a biologically significant term. "Kind" is not.

And what else will happen now is someone will be sad enough to waste time and quote my post and start replying to make comments about it .

If you can be sad enough to post it, you shouldn't point fingers at anyone "sad" enough to offer a rebuttal.

 

[Beastt]

The problem with PRATTS is that the point is refuted but never explained properly. For example evolutionists cannot properly explain away the complexity of our bodily structures simply by random mutations and natural selection. There IS no explanation for this in evolution.

First you say there is no explanation for this...

...Then you give a poorly presented version of that explanation.

I tried to ask you about the human eye, and all I received in return is this crazy story on how, because we have other creatures in nature with light-sensitive patches, our eyes developed from light-sensitive patches on the brain, which made a depression, which made a slit, which fell into already-formed eye sockets, which somehow made rods, cones, retinas, pupils, muscles, blood vessels, eye lids, etc.

All a light sensitive patch requires is a cell which responds to light. Before you go off thinking that sounds bizarre you need to remember that every one of your skin cells reacts to UVA light and some are more sensitive than others and some people's skin is more sensitive that others. So eventually a mutation occurs during cell division and the result is a pair of cells which are more sensitive to light than the parent cell. Before this trait is likely to passed through offspring to become a common trait, it needs to provide an advantage which makes those with this mutation more likely to successfully reproduce than those of the same species without that trait. Assuming our specimen is a prey species and knowing that it is blind, is it possible that the ability to sense a sudden change from light to shadow might serve as a warning that a predator is near? Certainly it can.

So we now have an advantage which will give those carrying the mutation a survival advantage. Eventually we have another mutation which causes a depression in the skin. All that is necessary is that the skin formed by these cells be somewhat thinner than the surrounding cells. This provides a wider field of view for the light sensitive cells because they now sit in a slightly concave depression in the skin. Since this will broaden the "field of view" for these light sensitive cells, we have again, a survival advantage. Each time a mutation leads to a deepening of this pocket, a survival advantage results because the animal possessing the mutation has a greater chance of detecting a predator and getting away. At the same time, animals of the same species without the mutation have a lesser chance of getting away because the predator is going to seek the easiest target, just as we see common in predation today.

As this pocket deepens over a great number of generations, it eventually forms a spherical void with a small opening to the surface which serves as a rudimentary pupil, much like the tiny hole which serves as the lens in a "pinhole camera".

As for your comment, "which somehow made rods, cones, retinas", you're showing your lack of willingness to understand. We started with a few light sensitive cells. What is a rod? What is a Cone? They're both light sensitive cells. What is a retina? It's a layer of light sensitive cells. So we already had rudimentary rods, cones and retina when the first cells developed a greater sensitivity to light.

By using the muscles in the skin, it would be possible to slightly alter the angle of the opening to this pocket. This is the beginning of eye muscles. And the lens of the eye is nothing more than a transparent muscle which should be telling you that it developed from existing tissues rather than as a specialized piece of tissue.

But, of course, you're simply going to hand-wave this explanation aside as you did the last time it was presented to you rather than actually take a fair look at it and see that, like it or not, it does explain a very credible way for an eye to form.

So before you attempt to suggest that there is no evolutionary explanation for the eye, keep in mind that you've been shown this explanation that you claim doesn't exist and even attempted to repeat it, though you did so with an obvious bias and an apparent lack of ability to grasp the whole process.

But it goes on and on. I ask you how the human body can be comprised of many organs - all compex in and of themselves - and all working together in harmony - how all this complexity can come about simply by random mutations and natural selection.

We just covered how the eye might form. The eye is an organ. What is so incredible about other organs which display less complex structures than an eye?

I ask you how the information was coded into DNA, because that information could NOT have been coded into DNA from nothingness (all information has an original source).

Uhmmmm... you're completely missing something about the process. The mutations which cause these changes take place in the process of copying the DNA strand. It starts with the DNA and we see the results later, not the other way around.

You guys have no answer, because evolution does not provide an answer. Just slap the 'ol PRATT label on anyone who disagrees with your evolutionist philosophy.

I've given you an answer and it was the same answer that someone else has already given you, despite your statement that we don't have an answer. But I have little doubt that within 2 months, you'll again be claiming that there is no answer.

Then there is the dreaded "godditit." Oh no, we can't say God did it. That would be "pseudoscience." But in reality, you guys KNOW you don't have these answers regarding origins, and yet you still reject the very answer that is the most logical. That yes, in fact - God DID do it. What's there so hard to believe??

Firstly it's hard to believe because there is no evidence which points exclusively to God. Secondly, saying "goddidit", doesn't provide an explanation. It only suggest who, not how. I could have answered all of your above questions by saying, "naturedidit", but somehow I don't think you would have found such a non-explanation compelling. So why should we find the "goddidit" non-explanation compelling?

 

[SackLunch]

First you say there is no explanation for this...

...Then you give a poorly presented version of that explanation.

All a light sensitive patch requires is a cell which responds to light. Before you go off thinking that sounds bizarre you need to remember that every one of your skin cells reacts to UVA light and some are more sensitive than others and some people's skin is more sensitive that others. So eventually a mutation occurs during cell division and the result is a pair of cells which are more sensitive to light than the parent cell. Before this trait is likely to passed through offspring to become a common trait, it needs to provide an advantage which makes those with this mutation more likely to successfully reproduce than those of the same species without that trait. Assuming our specimen is a prey species and knowing that it is blind, is it possible that the ability to sense a sudden change from light to shadow might serve as a warning that a predator is near? Certainly it can.

So we now have an advantage which will give those carrying the mutation a survival advantage. Eventually we have another mutation which causes a depression in the skin. All that is necessary is that the skin formed by these cells be somewhat thinner than the surrounding cells. This provides a wider field of view for the light sensitive cells because they now sit in a slightly concave depression in the skin. Since this will broaden the "field of view" for these light sensitive cells, we have again, a survival advantage. Each time a mutation leads to a deepening of this pocket, a survival advantage results because the animal possessing the mutation has a greater chance of detecting a predator and getting away. At the same time, animals of the same species without the mutation have a lesser chance of getting away because the predator is going to seek the easiest target, just as we see common in predation today.

As this pocket deepens over a great number of generations, it eventually forms a spherical void with a small opening to the surface which serves as a rudimentary pupil, much like the tiny hole which serves as the lens in a "pinhole camera".

As for your comment, "which somehow made rods, cones, retinas", you're showing your lack of willingness to understand. We started with a few light sensitive cells. What is a rod? What is a Cone? They're both light sensitive cells. What is a retina? It's a layer of light sensitive cells. So we already had rudimentary rods, cones and retina when the first cells developed a greater sensitivity to light.

By using the muscles in the skin, it would be possible to slightly alter the angle of the opening to this pocket. This is the beginning of eye muscles. And the lens of the eye is nothing more than a transparent muscle which should be telling you that it developed from existing tissues rather than as a specialized piece of tissue.

But, of course, you're simply going to hand-wave this explanation aside as you did the last time it was presented to you rather than actually take a fair look at it and see that, like it or not, it does explain a very credible way for an eye to form.

So before you attempt to suggest that there is no evolutionary explanation for the eye, keep in mind that you've been shown this explanation that you claim doesn't exist and even attempted to repeat it, though you did so with an obvious bias and an apparent lack of ability to grasp the whole process.

We just covered how the eye might form. The eye is an organ. What is so incredible about other organs which display less complex structures than an eye?

Uhmmmm... you're completely missing something about the process. The mutations which cause these changes take place in the process of copying the DNA strand. It starts with the DNA and we see the results later, not the other way around.

I've given you an answer and it was the same answer that someone else has already given you, despite your statement that we don't have an answer. But I have little doubt that within 2 months, you'll again be claiming that there is no answer.

Firstly it's hard to believe because there is no evidence which points exclusively to God. Secondly, saying "goddidit", doesn't provide an explanation. It only suggest who, not how. I could have answered all of your above questions by saying, "naturedidit", but somehow I don't think you would have found such a non-explanation compelling. So why should we find the "goddidit" non-explanation compelling?

Oh come on. If I told you my belly button would evolve into a human eye next week, you'd think I was nuts. But give it a few million magical years, and anything is believable, isn't it? The fact is, evolution is so utterly unreliable and unbelievable that the ONLY LOGICAL ANSWER is that "God Did It!!"

Can any evolutionist here just step back for one moment and see how ridiculous this sounds? You are literally making up stories and believing them! In my opinion, THIS is pseudoscience, making up stories based on thin air. You will never really know for sure, will you?

I AM sure that our God and Savior Jesus Christ created the universe and the human race directly and instantaneously as recorded in Genesis. God said it, I'm just the messenger. You can pick up your Bible and read it if you want to.

 

[Dracil]

I really wish people would stop using the word "evolutionist". I hold much stock in the theory of evolution, about as much as I do with the theory of gravity. Neither of these things makes me an "evolutionist" nor a "gravatationist" or whatever. They are made-up buzzwords.

Also, I really don't see where people get the idea that complexity is some sign for intelligence. Our bodies are anything but efficient, how is that proof that we were designed?

That's why we've begun calling ourselves realists.

 

[SackLunch]

Furthermore, back to my original question. Why are you evolutionists here on a Christian board, chattin' away and getting all out of sorts when God is mentioned? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable on a purely scientific, non-religious board, such as Scientific Forums? That seems more your style. The people there seem more into the heavy science and none of your dreaded PRATT-style "goddidit" stuff.

Here I would like to think we are able to freely praise God for His creation, and that's exactly what I will continue to do, despite all your ramblings and complaints that God should be relegated to pseudoscience and fairy tales.

Denying Jesus Christ who created you, not a good idea, take my word for it.

 

[Dracil]

Oh come on. If I told you my belly button would evolve into a human eye next week, you'd think I was nuts. But give it a few million magical years, and anything is believable, isn't it? The fact is, evolution is so utterly unreliable and unbelievable that the ONLY LOGICAL ANSWER is that "God Did It!!"

Can any evolutionist here just step back for one moment and see how ridiculous this sounds? You are literally making up stories and believing them! In my opinion, THIS is pseudoscience, making up stories based on thin air. You will never really know for sure, will you?

I AM sure that our God and Savior Jesus Christ created the universe and the human race directly and instantaneously as recorded in Genesis. God said it, I'm just the messenger. You can pick up your Bible and read it if you want to.

Strawman, strawman, implying bad things about TEs with a dose of Pride.

 

[Dracil]

Furthermore, back to my original question. Why are you evolutionists here on a Christian board, chattin' away and getting all out of sorts when God is mentioned? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable on a purely scientific, non-religious board, such as Scientific Forums? That seems more your style. The people there seem more into the heavy science and none of your dreaded PRATT-style "goddidit" stuff.

Here I would like to think we are able to freely praise God for His creation, and that's exactly what I will continue to do, despite all your ramblings and complaints that God should be relegated to pseudoscience and fairy tales.

Denying Jesus Christ who created you, not a good idea, take my word for it.

More implying bad things about TEs.

 

[SackLunch]

That's why we've begun calling ourselves realists.

A realist is somebody who looks at the world around him for what the world is, not what he wants the world to be. A realist does not have to create fairy tales on our origins to explain away how we came to be. A realist looks at God's message to humankind and sees how He created us and all the animals and plants on the earth.

The reality is that Jesus Christ created you and me, and the entire universe, directly and instaneously.

 

[Dracil]

A realist is somebody who looks at the world around him for what the world is, not what he wants the world to be. A realist does not have to create fairy tales on our origins to explain away how we came to be.

Like I said, that's why we've begun calling ourselves realists.

 

[random_guy]

A realist is somebody who looks at the world around him for what the world is, not what he wants the world to be. A realist does not have to create fairy tales on our origins to explain away how we came to be. A realist looks at God's message to humankind and sees how He created us and all the animals and plants on the earth.

The reality is that Jesus Christ created you and me, and the entire universe, directly and instaneously.

A realist wouldn't pretend that dragons existed in order to save their faith. A realist wouldn't ignore all scientific evidence that points to an old Earth....

 

[Illuminatus]

A realist is somebody who looks at the world around him for what the world is, not what he wants the world to be. A realist does not have to create fairy tales on our origins to explain away how we came to be.

SackLunch, God wants you to be a realist. Why do you persist in disobeying God?

 

[raphael_aa]

Furthermore, back to my original question. Why are you evolutionists here on a Christian board, chattin' away and getting all out of sorts when God is mentioned? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable on a purely scientific, non-religious board, such as Scientific Forums? That seems more your style. The people there seem more into the heavy science and none of your dreaded PRATT-style "goddidit" stuff.

Here I would like to think we are able to freely praise God for His creation, and that's exactly what I will continue to do, despite all your ramblings and complaints that God should be relegated to pseudoscience and fairy tales.

Denying Jesus Christ who created you, not a good idea, take my word for it.

It is very hard to remain patient when you keep repeating the same falsities over and over. I took the time to carefully answer your OP. I put thought into it because I thought the whole idea of the forum is dialogue. Yet you choose to ignore my post along with many others. To remind you:

There is a diversity of views within Christianity about origins. To adequately discuss and debate these, one must present evidence and persuasive argument. You might notice that a significant number of people who argue against some of your views are christians.

The only way you can avoid this is to redefine Christianity so that it only includes people who agree with your interpretation of scripture. In other threads that you have started I have asked you whether this is indeed your position. You have chosen not to answer.

If this is your position and it is only the rules of this forum that prevent you from saying so, then I don't understand why you choose to continue to post here. If you simply want agreement and 'amens' then you could post in the christians only section in the creationist forum. (You might note there is also a theistic evolution forum there also.) http://www.christianforums.com/f143...s-theology.html

Would you please address my post? Is theistic evolution invisible to you?

 

[Beastt]

The reality is that Jesus Christ created you and me, and the entire universe, directly and instaneously.

A realist recognizes that the belief in the Bible as God's word is based on assumption and that evidence speaks for evolution while there is nothing but the Bible to support creationism.

Can you even partially understand that saying something, no matter how strongly you may believe it, does nothing to change reality? Support your belief with evidence and conclusive arguments, not unsupported statements.

 

[Beastt]

Oh come on. If I told you my belly button would evolve into a human eye next week, you'd think I was nuts. But give it a few million magical years, and anything is believable, isn't it? The fact is, evolution is so utterly unreliable and unbelievable that the ONLY LOGICAL ANSWER is that "God Did It!!"

Specifics, SackLunch -- give us specific reasons the explanation you've been given repeatedly can't work. If you think mutation can't account for such changes, then explain what does happen when mutations occur. I'm sure the people here will be quick to explain to you in extreme detail exactly why your assertions are incorrect. You can't deny that mutations occur and you can't deny that speciation occurs because it's been observed, scientifically documented and peer reviewed literally dozens of times. So if you're going to try to tell us it's "utterly unreliable and unbelievable", explain why this is the case. It's not enough to simply say something is a fact, you have to show it to be a fact.

Can any evolutionist here just step back for one moment and see how ridiculous this sounds? You are literally making up stories and believing them! In my opinion, THIS is pseudoscience, making up stories based on thin air. You will never really know for sure, will you?

Perhaps you should take a step back. Look at what you're saying. You're attempting to tell us that untold hours of observation and experimentation is "making up stories", then compound that by attempting to assert that what you read in the Bible is other than a bunch of made up stories. The Bible tells us that the Earth formed covered with water, but without an atmosphere. We know that an atmosphere is imperative before water can collect on a planet. The Bible tells us that this water was liquid despite the fact that there was no heat source, meaning the water would be under 3°K, and frozen solid. The Bible tells us that grasses and fruit trees were growing in these temperatures and without any source of light to fuel photosynthesis. None of these things can happen, yet you still attempt to hold the Bible above observation, confirmation, experimentation and documentation. In short, you'd rather believe what you read than what you can see, feel, touch and experience.

Your Bible stories are made of thin air: 2,000 year old, superstitious, disproven thin-air. Evolution is built on reality. We can explain the processes and demonstrate the outcome. All you can do is continue to proclaim that some supernatural super-hero arising from the pages of an ancient, ignorant conglomeration of warped and flawed stories is responsible for that which we can demonstrate to have come from natural, rather than supernatural, processes.

I AM sure that our God and Savior Jesus Christ created the universe and the human race directly and instantaneously as recorded in Genesis. God said it, I'm just the messenger. You can pick up your Bible and read it if you want to.

God didn't say that. The Bible claims God said that. There is a huge difference. Simply because you choose to assume that the claim made of the Bible, in the Bible, is other than fallacy, you think you know more than those who understand the processes of evolution and can demonstrate many of them and show the evidence which confirms nearly all of them.

You can be sure all you like. But you should remember that in Galileo's time, the church was sure that the Sun revolved around the Earth. They were sure that the Earth was stationary in the universe. They were sure that the Earth was at one time flooded by rains and geysers arising from God's wrath. All of their certainty was based on the Bible and they were wrong on each and every count.

 

[AutumnAnne]

Saklunch- I am in complete agreement with you. You've said what many of us keep thinking, but don't say. I've come to the conclusion that debate on this site is not the way to get our point across.

 

[Beastt]

Saklunch- I am in complete agreement with you. You've said what many of us keep thinking, but don't say. I've come to the conclusion that debate on this site is not the way to get our point across.

There are two points here. Each side is attempting to get their point across to the other. But when faced with the obvious fact that neither side believes their view to be inferior to the opposing view, only the concept with adequate evidence, explanations and examples has any chance of emerging as superior. If you're not getting your point across, perhaps you're simply arguing for the inferior claim.