Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Aman777]

And yet every time I give you a direct quote from the KJV you ignore it. How dishonest are you?

Are you goading me? Maybe it's okay to goad Christians on this board, but don't make the mistake of goading an atheist agnostic or phony.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What is obvious is that a female heron is a her kind, since male herons are not her kinds. There is absolutely NOTHING about God the "her kind" as you posted earlier.



Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after His (temporary) kind, and cattle after Their (eternal) kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after His (temporary) kind: and God saw that it was good.(perfect)

Gen 6:20 Of fowls after Their (eternal) kind, and of cattle after Their (eternal) kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after His (temporary) kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Remember that God the Trinity made fowls and cattle after THEIR kind. Gen 1:25
Lord God/Jesus made the beasts and creeping things of this Earth but God the Trinity did NOT create them eternally. If He had, Heaven would be filled with varmits, mosquitoes and all sorts of other vermin. Thanks for pointing this out. It helps one learn the difference between temporary life on Earth and Eternity in Heaven. God bless you

Priceless. "Their kind" and "his kind" are refering to incarnations of god, but "her kind" refers to female birds?

Let's just agree I've refuted your nonsense.

 

[Aman777]

Priceless. "Their kind" and "his kind" are refering to incarnations of god, but "her kind" refers to female birds?

No. You are confused. You looked up "her kind" looking for a reference to God being female and got the heron "her kind". Your faux confusion is refuted.

Let's just agree I've refuted your nonsense.

In your dreams. I post of God's Truth which agrees with every other discovered Truth of mankind. Faith plus Fact equals an un-refutable Truth.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No. You are confused. You looked up "her kind" looking for a reference to God being female and got the heron "her kind". Your faux confusion is refuted.

Sorry, handwaving really isn't an acceptable response. I've presented you with a problem you cannot resolve, so rather than admit you've got it wrong you lamely try to claim it's my motivation which is at fault.

In your dreams. I post of God's Truth which agrees with every other discovered Truth of mankind. Faith plus Fact equals an un-refutable Truth.

I posted some of what you claim to be Truth and you couldn't deal with it. Your denial is not refutation, it is denial.

You have been refuted. Deal with it.

 

[Aman777]

You have been refuted. Deal with it.

When Pigs fly. The false judgment of someone who cannot tell us whether or not he believes, means little. That and $1 will get you a cup of coffee at some McDs.

1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

When Pigs fly. The false judgment of someone who cannot tell us whether or not he believes, means little. That and $1 will get you a cup of coffee at some McDs.

1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Lol.

You were refuted, you don't like it (which is understandable), but you don't have the grace to accept it. It's there for all to see.

Edit: I haven't judged you. I've simply shown your argument to be false.

 

[Jimmy D]

Lol.

You were refuted, you don't like it (which is understandable), but you don't have the grace to accept it. It's there for all to see.

Edit: I haven't judged you. I've simply shown your argument to be false.

"When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom"

It seems some people get so tied up in their own theology they lose sight of the bigger picture. It's not pretty.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

"When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom"

It seems some people get so tied up in their own theology they lose sight of the bigger picture. It's not pretty.

It's funny. I've admitted to being wrong on this forum, I've seen other non-creationists do the same. I have never seen a creationist admit an error. Even worse is the dishonesty. Silence would be taken as tacit acceptance, but the dishonest denial is just so sad to see.

 

[Aman777]

It seems some people get so tied up in their own theology they lose sight of the bigger picture. It's not pretty.

Amen. A good example are those people who support the false ToE which is incomplete and totally untrue. They are so into their evolutionist Theology, they actually believe that mindless Nature instilled the superior intelligence of God into Apes. Soon their precious Theory will be discredited as nothing but a satanic falsehood which cannot be supported by ANY actual evidence.

 

[MaudDib]

It's called "repurposing of traits".

You might need the 3 things for function X, but the individual things might have a function in something else by themselves. Or be neutral and piggy back on other traits.

Irreducible complexity has been refuted so hard so many times already, it's like beating a dead horse. I'm amazed people still bring it up.

Where exactly has it been refuted? Do you even know what IC is? Do you even know that evolutionary biology is a historical science and that it is based on philosophy and not the scientific method?

Let me explain where most people get this wrong: they don't understand that it is a probabilistic argument.

But then, I guess, most people don't understand probability.

Michael Behe in Darwins Black Box(1996), pg 40:

Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.

An all too long series of 'accidents' for anyone who understands probability.

Yeah, so good-bye chance.

That is just one of the reasons why 'the third way' has been established which reflects researchers and authors who have, in one way or another, expressed their concerns regarding natural selection’s scope and who believe that other mechanisms are essential for a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary processes.
Among them James Shapiro, Denis Noble and Evelyn Keller.

The sad mechanistic view of evolution is dying thankfully.

Intelligent Design is also a far more robust Inference to the Best Explanation, and it is based on the scientific method.
Check it out.

 

[VirOptimus]

Where exactly has it been refuted? Do you even know what IC is? Do you even know that evolutionary biology is a historical science and that it is based on philosophy and not the scientific method?

Let me explain where most people get this wrong: they don't understand that it is a probabilistic argument.

But then, I guess, most people don't understand probability.

Michael Behe in Darwins Black Box(1996), pg 40:

Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.

An all too long series of 'accidents' for anyone who understands probability.

Yeah, so good-bye chance.

That is just one of the reasons why 'the third way' has been established which reflects researchers and authors who have, in one way or another, expressed their concerns regarding natural selection’s scope and who believe that other mechanisms are essential for a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary processes.
Among them James Shapiro, Denis Noble and Evelyn Keller.

The sad mechanistic view of evolution is dying thankfully.

Intelligent Design is also a far more robust Inference to the Best Explanation, and it is based on the scientific method.
Check it out.

How about no, you are in fact wrong on all points.

 

[MaudDib]

How about no, you are in fact wrong on all points.

Well you have written yourself off as a serious contender. Provided no evidence whatsoever, not that you can.

Also, a nihilist who cares? logical contradiction.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well you have written yourself off as a serious contender. Provided no evidence whatsoever, not that you can.

Also, a nihilist who cares? logical contradiction.

No it isnt. Im a value nihilist.

Im not interested in contending in anything, but you are still wrong.

Its you who make the claims, you who must support them, not that you can or will.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

duplications will not help since they are only a duplication of existing parts. so its not a new complex system. think about this: can you mix several parts in a car to add it a gps sytem for instance?

You must have missed the part where I said, "Sometimes such duplications retain the original functions, e.g. multiple leg segments of centipedes, millipedes; and sometimes they are modified by evolution, providing novel functions, e.g. grasping forelimbs."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Priceless. "Their kind" and "his kind" are refering to incarnations of god, but "her kind" refers to female birds?

Let's just agree I've refuted your nonsense.

Yes, nonsense is easily refuted

Deuteronomy 14:18 Interlinear: and the stork, and the heron after its kind, and the lapwing, and the bat;

Since "her" is not in the Hebrew.....

Although the Hebrew word they translate as Heron simply means a ceremonially unclean bird.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes, nonsense is easily refuted

Deuteronomy 14:18 Interlinear: and the stork, and the heron after its kind, and the lapwing, and the bat;

Since "her" is not in the Hebrew.....

Although the Hebrew word they translate as Heron simply means a ceremonially unclean bird.

Thank you for backing me up. It doesn't happen often.

As you rightly say, "her" is not in the Hebrew, just as "their" and "his" aren't either. So we agree there is no support for Aman's nonsense and he's been refuted.

You, of all people, surprise me. I thought you'd be taking me to task.

 

[Job 33:6]

Where exactly has it been refuted? Do you even know what IC is? Do you even know that evolutionary biology is a historical science and that it is based on philosophy and not the scientific method?

Let me explain where most people get this wrong: they don't understand that it is a probabilistic argument.

But then, I guess, most people don't understand probability.

Michael Behe in Darwins Black Box(1996), pg 40:

Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.

An all too long series of 'accidents' for anyone who understands probability.

Yeah, so good-bye chance.

That is just one of the reasons why 'the third way' has been established which reflects researchers and authors who have, in one way or another, expressed their concerns regarding natural selection’s scope and who believe that other mechanisms are essential for a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary processes.
Among them James Shapiro, Denis Noble and Evelyn Keller.

The sad mechanistic view of evolution is dying thankfully.

Intelligent Design is also a far more robust Inference to the Best Explanation, and it is based on the scientific method.
Check it out.

This isnt actually a response to what is being said.

Systems that were once considered irreducibly complex in fact are reducible and are still functional when reduced, ie homologous proteins of the bacterial flagellum are still functional even when the individual proteins do not make up a whole flagellum.

The whole argument of irreducible complexity is that if a single part of a system were missing, the entirity of the system would be rendered useless (like pulling an engine out of a car and rendering the car useless). Hence "irreducible". But literally the opposite is true in that systems such as the bacterial flagellum can in fact be reduced in the sense that individual parts of it can function without being part of the whole (the motor can still function and power a lawnmower even after it's been removed from a whole, more complex car).

 

[xianghua]

homologous proteins of the bacterial flagellum are still functional even when the individual proteins do not make up a whole flagellum.

3 things:

1) homologous proteins arent the same proteins. they are actually different.
2) we can also remove parts from a car (like a gps system) and the car will still be functional. but it doesnt mean that a gps system can evolve a step by step.
3) as far as i remember the ttss sysem has some parts that the flagelum doesnt has. so its not true that we can remove parts from the flagellum and get a ttss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

3 things:

1) homologous proteins arent the same proteins. they are actually different.
2) we can also remove parts from a car (like a gps system) and the car will still be functional. but it doesnt mean that a gps system can evolve a step by step.
3) as far as i remember the ttss sysem has some parts that the flagelum doesnt has. so its not true that we can remove parts from the flagellum and get a ttss.

Once again you forgot that cars do not reproduce. Your analogy is worthless.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where exactly has it been refuted?

By showing how things labeled IC could have evolved anyway.

Do you even know what IC is?

Yes, it's a gigantic argument from ignorance / incredulity.

Do you even know that evolutionary biology is a historical science and that it is based on philosophy and not the scientific method?

lol

Michael Behe in Darwins Black Box(1996), pg 40:

Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.
[
An all too long series of 'accidents' for anyone who understands probability.

Yes, that's a nice example of how it is an argument from ignorance.
Keyword: "unexplained".

Yeah, so good-bye chance.

Since you like probabilities, here's one for you:

The chance of us sharing the amount of ERV's that we share with the other great apes, WITHOUT evolution (and thus having all those identical ERV's show up in each lineage independently), is smaller then piling on all grains of sand of all the beaches in the world in one huge pile and then randomly picking out the same grain twice in a row.

If we share ancestry, and ERV's are simply inherited from a common ancestor where the initial infection took place, the chance is 1 in 1.

The sad mechanistic view of evolution is dying thankfully.

And where exactly is that happening? Certainly not in the scientific community.

Intelligent Design is also a far more robust Inference to the Best Explanation, and it is based on the scientific method.
Check it out.

ID is a dishonest sciency-sounding version of creationism which doesn't explain anything at all and is as fallacious as IC is, in the exact same way.