When creationists shoot themselves in the foot...

[tas8831]

Evolutionists also disagree on the mechanism by which evolution is said to occur.

They do?
There may be differences of opinion as to which specific mechanism plays a greater role, but you will have to show me where there is disagreement on the mechanisms as such.

Even if I disagree with Aman and Heissonear (for simple reasons, such as fitting all the animals on the ark, as argued in this thread), its only a minor disagreement. We all know animals were created.

No, you presuppose that.

What is your non-ancient middle eastern mythology evidence for creation?

They may just not realise that dogs came from wolves, or elephants from mammoths. These are the same kinds, although they look and behave different, same as Japanese and Swedish.

That is not relevant, since their argument was that Kind=Genus.

 

[tas8831]

The bible tells us animals were created according to their kinds.

evo: What is a biblical Kind?

creo:Kind=Genus.

evo: then that is a problem for the ark story

creo: nope, the bible tells us animals were created according to their kinds.

evo: OK, so what is a Kind?

creo: genus

This is historical evidence - more than evolution has that these creatures evolved, which is zero.

What "historical" evidence are you pretending to refer to?

Your question implied a belief that wolves were different to dogs, and elephants different to mammoths.

They are - there are several recognized genera of Proboscids. That you do not understand or accept this is immaterial.

I was seeking a reason for this belief, given the creatures look the same - other than a wolf is a meaner dog, and a mammoth a better-looking elephant.

I know this will come as a shock to someone that does not bother to try to understand the things they pontificate on, but there is more to taxonomy than 'this don't look like that'.

 

[AV1611VET]

evo: then that is a problem for the ark story

Since the Ark story has many problems down at the secular level, what problem are you referring to specifically?

 

[Aman777]

What is your non-ancient middle eastern mythology evidence for creation?

I've told you but you run and hide from God's Truth. Here are a few scientific views, which no evolutionist has been able to refute, from more than 3,000 years ago, in man's time.

1. Genesis 1:1-2 show the creation of air, dust and water, which appeared from the air. These verses correctly show the 3 creation elements which are in all matter.
2. The verses also show that water was NOT "created". Why?
3. Other Scripture shows that E=mc2 (squared) was when God first changed energy into matter, and brought that matter into the physical world.
3. Genesis 2:4 shows the dating of the big bang as happening late on the 3rd Day. Scripture correctly shows that the first Stars didn't light up until the 4th Day, which was less than a billion years after the big bang, since each of God's Days is more than 4 Billion years long, in man's time.
4. Genesis 2:4-7 shows that mankind was FIRST made before plants, herbs and rain and NOT descending from ANY other animal.
5. Genesis 1:21 correctly shows that "every living creature that moveth" was created by God the Trinity on the 5th Day, showing that man was NOT "living" until he was born again Spiritually.
6. Genesis 6:4 shows that the sons of God (prehistoric people that moveth) married and produced children with Adam's daughters and prophesies that the entire world being changed from animal to Human intelligence, will happen again "and also after that", which was fulfilled on today's Earth.
7. Genesis agrees with History which shows that there were some One Million sons of God (prehistoric people) on Earth when the Ark arrived 11k years ago, in Lake Van, Turkey in the mountains of Ararat.

Not, it's your time to refute these facts either Scripturally, scientifically or historically but you cannot, but go ahead and try and all of us can learn.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I've told you but you run and hide from God's Truth. Here are a few scientific views, which no evolutionist has been able to refute, from more than 3,000 years ago, in man's time.

1. Genesis 1:1-2 show the creation of air, dust and water, which appeared from the air. These verses correctly show the 3 creation elements which are in all matter.
2. The verses also show that water was NOT "created". Why?
3. Other Scripture shows that E=mc2 (squared) was when God first changed energy into matter, and brought that matter into the physical world.
3. Genesis 2:4 shows the dating of the big bang as happening late on the 3rd Day. Scripture correctly shows that the first Stars didn't light up until the 4th Day, which was less than a billion years after the big bang, since each of God's Days is more than 4 Billion years long, in man's time.
4. Genesis 2:4-7 shows that mankind was FIRST made before plants, herbs and rain and NOT descending from ANY other animal.
5. Genesis 1:21 correctly shows that "every living creature that moveth" was created by God the Trinity on the 5th Day, showing that man was NOT "living" until he was born again Spiritually.
6. Genesis 6:4 shows that the sons of God (prehistoric people that moveth) married and produced children with Adam's daughters and prophesies that the entire world being changed from animal to Human intelligence, will happen again "and also after that", which was fulfilled on today's Earth.
7. Genesis agrees with History which shows that there were some One Million sons of God (prehistoric people) on Earth when the Ark arrived 11k years ago, in Lake Van, Turkey in the mountains of Ararat.

Not, it's your time to refute these facts either Scripturally, scientifically or historically but you cannot, but go ahead and try and all of us can learn.

He meant: What evidence stands on its own merit OUTSIDE your interpretation of your Bible - he's asking about something that can be independently coroborated, something that demonstrates creationism to be true. No sense bringing in your "Agrees with Science but doesn't" scriptural interpretations, especially given they're just unverifiable claims anyway.

 

[Nithavela]

This is hilarious because I'm having trouble distinguishing between people who are serious and people who are just joking.

This isn't the forum where "poe's law" was formulated for no reason.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Amen, by the Hands of Jesus/Lord God....BUT....all of the animals on the present Earth were NOT on the Ark. Scripture shows that less than 100 animals could have been on the Ark and still have complied with God's command.

Gen 7:14 They, (Noah's family) and every beast after His kind, (Jesus) and all the cattle after their kind, (Trinity) and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after His (Jesus) kind, and every fowl after His (Jesus) kind, every bird of every sort.

What is a sort?

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Perhaps it's a "kind"? What we know is that Noah came to a world filled with Dinosaur bones which had been here for some 65 million years before the Ark arrived. He brought some of the animals which Jesus had made with His own Hands and others, like cattle, which are THEIR (Trinity) kinds, which will be in Heaven.

God probably made another 'distinction' in choosing which animals would population the renewed earth, and the mammoth's weren't among them, else we would still have them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Fourthly, as far as the waste that would have been generated, I have no explanation.

No problem. Animals on greatly reduced rations ('maintenance' rations) produce little waste. Just add more bedding and let the microbes turn it into great fertilizer for Noah's vineyard.

 

[Aman777]

He meant: What evidence stands on its own merit OUTSIDE your interpretation of your Bible -

False. I challenge you to refute those scientific truths in Genesis because I know you cannot. Want to try? How bout the historic truths found there? or the Scriptural ones? Can you find the agreement of all three? Of course not...since it's easier to run away?

 

[Aman777]

God probably made another 'distinction' in choosing which animals would population the renewed earth, and the mammoth's weren't among them, else we would still have them.

The New Heaven and Earth of Revelation 21:1 will be filled with the "living" creatures which came forth from Water, at God's command, on the 5th Day, which began some 3.8 Billion years ago, in man's time. IOW, Mammoths will be in Heaven, since they were "created" by God the Trinity.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The New Heaven and Earth of Revelation 21:1 will be filled with the "living" creatures which came forth from Water, at God's command, on the 5th Day, which began some 3.8 Billion years ago, in man's time. IOW, Mammoths will be in Heaven, since they were "created" by God the Trinity.

I'd like to see mammoths (T-Rex not so much).

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

False. I challenge you to refute those scientific truths in Genesis because I know you cannot. Want to try? How bout the historic truths found there? or the Scriptural ones? Can you find the agreement of all three? Of course not...since it's easier to run away?

I (and pretty much everyone else here) have already refuted your nonsense. On one hand you say your interpretation of scripture is 100% in accordance with science, then when you're shown the science that contradicts your interpretation, you then laughably try to cover your tracks by asserting that science is wrong! lol!! So no matter how you spin it, either your interpretation of scripture has to agree we evolved along with every other life form on this planet, or your insane interpretation does NOT comport with science after all. I'm going with the latter. Easy.

 

[Aman777]

I (and pretty much everyone else here) have already refuted your nonsense.

False, and you CANNOT produce ANY post which shows that. Disagreeing with me is NOT refuting (proving me wrong).

On one hand you say your interpretation of scripture is 100% in accordance with science, then when you're shown the science that contradicts your interpretation, you then laughably try to cover your tracks by asserting that science is wrong! lol!!

False accusation which cannot be shown with ANY evidence. Waiting........

So no matter how you spin it, either your interpretation of scripture has to agree we evolved along with every other life form on this planet, or your insane interpretation does NOT comport with science after all. I'm going with the latter. Easy.

We descended with genetic modifications within His and Their kinds. I don't accept the godless view of those who changed God's Truth into the word "evolution", in a vain attempt to refute God. Then, they force teach our children their "beliefs".

 

[pitabread]

I don't accept the godless view of those who changed God's Truth into the word "evolution", in a vain attempt to refute God.

The theory of evolution doesn't exist to refute God. It simply exists to explain the diversity of species on the planet based on changing gene pools over time. Which is the process we observe in nature.

 

[Aman777]

The theory of evolution doesn't exist to refute God. It simply exists to explain the diversity of species on the planet based on changing gene pools over time. Which is the process we observe in nature.

What's wrong with descent with modification within kinds? It was good enough for more than 2500 years until some individual unbelievers changed the name. The reason was so they could CLAIM it didn't say anything about God so they could force it down the throats of our innocent children in the Public Schools...and to add to that which mindless nature could NOT produce in Apes. Namely, God's superior intelligence level. History AGREES. Evolution is odd man out.

 

[tas8831]

God probably made another 'distinction' in choosing which animals would population the renewed earth, and the mammoth's weren't among them, else we would still have them.

Cute children's story.
Are you on the wrong forum?

 

[tas8831]

No problem. Animals on greatly reduced rations ('maintenance' rations) produce little waste. Just add more bedding and let the microbes turn it into great fertilizer for Noah's vineyard.

Is that in the bible?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is that in the bible?

Noah's vineyard is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Cute children's story.
Are you on the wrong forum?

Are you the "forum police"?

 

[tas8831]

Noah's vineyard is.

But the other stuff is extra-biblical rescue attempts.

Got it.

Back to the gut and the heart sending motor signals straight to the larynx for you!

LOL!