Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Nineveh

And so.... darwin needs a beginning.

Not really. If that were true, God would need a beginning as well. And God does not have a beginning, or so we theists claim. We in the West naturally assume the necessity of "beginning" because our philosophical genetic makeup is so dominated by this idea. Many Eastern worldviews don't have this philosophically genetic predisposition.

 

[Stratnerd]

Except there are scientists who look at the evidence and draw a different conclusion.

I never heard of such a case - creationists accept that the Bible is true then they look at the world and translate everything accordingly making up "science" stuff (hydroplate theory) to fit their religious doctrine -which can never change regardless of evidence for or against. It's silly.

When it comes to story telling, evo has a greater lead in the race.

not really and he's the difference. science can accomodate new evidence and our inferences are based on observation this is the antithesis of creationism as I pointed out above.

And look who has Lucy on display.

do you have a reference for Lucy that points out what you seem to be saying? Plus was it creationists that uncovered something?

And so.... darwin needs a beginning.

not for evolution to be true and, if it is, Genesis is false, then you can start looking for real answers that make sense : )

Or rather evo banks on something else.

evolution is science - it can be falsified, it's a vigorous area of research, it has extremely strong predictive capabilities, it is congruent with other fields of science like geology. It fits in perfectly well with science.

Creationism - do creationists allow for the possibility that Genesis is bogus? Are there a number of people researching the creation event? Is it even possible? Does it have strong predictive power? (for example?) Does it jive with geology such as radiometric dates?

Except all the stuff at AiG.

you don't get it creationists CANNOT do origins science. In fact, they do the opposite of what you should do in science which is study things that are most likely to show something false.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

I'd be very interested in hearing how you believe darwin got his start.

Here ya go; it seems to give a reasonably accurate overview!

 

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by aharvey

Here ya go; it seems to give a reasonably accurate overview!

From the site: "Charles Robert Darwin was born at Shrewsbury."

Sounds simple enough.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Not really. If that were true, God would need a beginning as well. And God does not have a beginning, or so we theists claim. We in the West naturally assume the necessity of "beginning" because our philosophical genetic makeup is so dominated by this idea. Many Eastern worldviews don't have this philosophically genetic predisposition.

So evo gets to *poof* into existance? That doesn't sound like a natural explaination. So I guess the question is out there to all the evos on the thread:

How many "anscestor/s" does darwin get to start with?

Where did those "anscestor/s" come from?

To me, this is the most fundamental question of all, "How did all this get here?"

*Contrary to aharvey's apparent belief, I have no problem believing life adapts. I believe firmly that a fish can give birth to blind cave fish, but I do not have faith a dino can give birth (even gradually) to a bird.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

Here ya go; it seems to give a reasonably accurate overview!

Oh, ok, let me be more specific:

How many "anscestor/s" does darwinism get to start with?

Where did those "anscestor/s" come from?

 

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Oh, ok, let me be more specific:

How many "anscestor/s" does darwinism get to start with?

Where did those "anscestor/s" come from?

Theoretically darwinian descent with modification could "start" with supernatural creation exactly the way YECs interpret it in Genesis. So if the YECs are scientifically correct about the earth being 6,000 to 10,000 years old then I guess we'll just have to wait for another few million years to see if darwinian descent with modification can produce "new" species.

 

[Stratnerd]

So evo gets to *poof* into existance? That doesn't sound like a natural explaination.

no, it develops along with the development of living organisms.

how can anyone possibly answer the question as to how did everything get here?

but I do not have faith a dino can give birth (even gradually) to a bird.

why?

 

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Nineveh

but I do not have faith a dino can give birth (even gradually) to a bird.

And thus the basic misconception of Darwin's theory is promoted, preserved, and maintained.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Theoretically darwinian descent with modification could "start" with supernatural creation exactly the way YECs interpret it in Genesis. So if the YECs are scientifically correct about the earth being 6,000 to 10,000 years old then I guess we'll just have to wait for another few million years to see if darwinian descent with modification can produce "new" species.

Ok, but what do you believe.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

no, it develops along with the development of living organisms.

Where did the living organisms come from?

how can anyone possibly answer the question as to how did everything get here?

Isn't that what science is about? Darwin answers that question for birds by saying, "dinos". And for men, "apes". God says He created it.

why?

The evidence is full of if, could be, might have.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

And thus the basic misconception of Darwin's theory is promoted, preserved, and maintained.

Then blame San Diego for the display of dino to bird evo.

 

[Stratnerd]

Then blame San Diego for the display of dino to bird evo.

Niv, do you have short-term memory problems? How many times did I tell you that A'raptor isn't necessary for the bird-dnosaur hypothesis. All you know is that it is on display but you admitted that you don't know what information goes with it - for all you know it could say that this was an elaborate hoax performed by a fossil dealer and uncovered by evolutionary paleontologists!

 

[Stratnerd]

Where did the living organisms come from?

nonliving material

Isn't that what science is about?

nope that question is probably philosophical

Darwin answers that question for birds by saying, "dinos". And for men, "apes".

Darwin was answering the ultimate question about the universe by saying dinos and birds... or are you STILL CONFLATING ISSUES

God says He created it.

you heard God? or you read it in Genesis and you believe that God told it to someone who then is telling you?

The evidence is full of if, could be, might have.

huh? I was asking why you don't believe dinosaurs could have been the ancestors to birds... but you could say the same thing about creationists explanations.. if there was a water vapor canopy, if the plates moved several meters per year, if mutation rates were higher in the past, if nuclear decay was faster in the past, if if if if if

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Theoretically darwinian descent with modification could "start" with supernatural creation exactly the way YECs interpret it in Genesis. So if the YECs are scientifically correct about the earth being 6,000 to 10,000 years old then I guess we'll just have to wait for another few million years to see if darwinian descent with modification can produce "new" species.

You might not have to wait long at all. New species can easily be produced by ordinary sexual reproduction, or in the case of asexual creatures gene transfer.

If future generations (after a nuclear war) come out of their caves and find the extinct remains (fossils) of canines, it would not be surprising if the various breeds would be labeled as separate fossil species.

And even the other means used to identify species, ability to generate fertile offspring, frequently fails when applied to animals currently considered to be separate species.

Ironically, belief in the Flood obviously requires the generation of countless new "species" in just a few thousand years.

The word "species" does not appear in scripture, even though some erroneously have thought that this is what "kind" must have meant. Since the word "species" was coined much later than Genesis was written it was simply a mistake on the part of translators to equate the two terms.

 

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Ok, but what do you believe.

Regarding what?

If you're interested in my thoughts on creation and evolution, I've posted hundreds(?) of posts on the subject.

 

[Stratnerd]

BOBB,

You might not have to wait long at all. New species can easily be produced by ordinary sexual reproduction, or in the case of asexual creatures gene transfer.

Funny, there was a time when you were all about Spetner and you claimed that speciation couldn't happen - now look! Anyways, what do you mean by "species" here?

Ironically, belief in the Flood obviously requires the generation of countless new "species" in just a few thousand years.

of course if you wanted to test this idea by looking at the ages of such a phenomena it doesn't work.

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Nineveh

mmhm. We've already been over that one about 10 times already. It's a simple thing to pick an article and hit the link for the person's info.

So pick one and I will debunk it. Set 'em up and I will knock them down. They're all garbage.

Except they have arguments right there at AiG.

They have hilariously bad propaganda articles there. No science though.

Just because somebody is telling you what you want to hear and says they are a scientist doesn't mean that they are. The vast majority of so-called " scientists" are not scientists.

Those who are scientists are doing very poor science when they publish on matters that would seem to support evolution "disprove creation."

You are fed, clothed, and kept from freezing in the dark by the tireless work of people you call "evolutionists". When did creationism ever develop a technological advance, find an oil well, or do anything useful for anybody?

The basic scientific idea darwin had has been falsified by his own requirement about "irreducible complexity". For a dino to become a bird takes faith.

What a laugh. You wave "irreduceable compexity" around as if it means something. Basically a dino and a bird (or a human and an ape) are more the same than they are different.

What you seem to have done is missed my question about your baby.

My personal family experiences are rich, full, satisfying, and none of your business.

So you would be a child rapist and/or think it ok to rape kids if you lived in ancient Greece?

It wouldn't be *me*. The person I am is a product of the society I grew up in.


An person raised in the traditions of Ancient Greece would be a product of that society and would tend to behave according to the norms set in their upbringing:

http://members.aol.com/matrixwerx/glbthistory/greeklove.htm

If it truly does benefit human society, why do we see so little of it? And what did it evolve from?

Huh? You should read more history. We live in one of the most moral societies ever to exist, in that we have rules and people generally follow them. Most of human experience has not been as easy as ours.

Basically what we have as part of our biology is the potential for extremely complicated social and interpersonal interactions. We inherit the structure of our culture from our social environment. As to where it came from the only clues that we have available is to study the social structure of other primate species.

 

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by john2001

We live in one of the most moral societies ever to exist, in that we have rules and people generally follow them.

Tell that to all of the former employees of Enron.

Tell that to the people of Iraq.

Tell that to the thousands of families each year in this country who have had loved ones murdered.

Tell that to African Americans, many whose ancestors were defined in the US Constitution as 3/5 of a person.

Would anyone else like to add to this list that describes our "most moral" society?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

Niv, do you have short-term memory problems? How many times did I tell you that A'raptor isn't necessary for the bird-dnosaur hypothesis. All you know is that it is on display but you admitted that you don't know what information goes with it - for all you know it could say that this was an elaborate hoax performed by a fossil dealer and uncovered by evolutionary paleontologists!

Why do you keep bringing that up? Were you following along with what was being said? Perhaps you should if you want to focus on another convo.

nonliving material

And what would we call this is science-speak?

Darwin was answering the ultimate question about the universe by saying dinos and birds... or are you STILL CONFLATING ISSUES

About the universe? I said, "Darwin answers that question for birds..." Birds got here by descending from dinos, right? Isn't that what the "origins of flight" is about?

I have no reason to doubt Moses. But I guess that would be a discussion for another forum.

I was asking why you don't believe dinosaurs could have been the ancestors to birds...

And I answered you. The evidence I have been presented with on this thread is full of "could be", "might have" and "if".