Creation vs. Evolution II

[Stripe]

Darwinists hate discussions involving evidence.

 

[alwight]

Darwinists hate discussions involving evidence.

If you are not going to contribute here Stripe then perhaps you would kindly butt out? :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

If you are not going to contribute here Stripe then perhaps you would kindly butt out? :thumb:

Darwinists hate it when they are reminded that they despise evidence.

 

[Jonahdog]

Darwinists hate it when they are reminded that they despise evidence.

Stripey just hates. As Dodge will no doubt figure out in due time.

 

[Jonahdog]

We put our faith in the inerrant Word of God, supported by history and science.

Would you trust a god who 'creates' through processes of death, pain, suffering and extinctions? ...Oh, wait...that is the god of Darwinists. Why put so much faith in a creator (Mutations)which is not supported by evidence?

Your first sentence is factually incorrect, you should work on that a bit.

Your second sentence brings to mind the death, pain and suffering brought about by your particular deity throughout the Old Testament.

 

[patrick jane]

Mike i'm really disappointed that you closed the biggest thread here. I think you did it for attention so I will not post anymore in your threads :chuckle:

 

[dodge]

53 posts in 8 years? Come on man... pick up the pace!!!!

I have a wife, 4 grown kids, 8 grand kids, full time job ,church, and other things going on that does NOT leave much time for posting regularly.

Peace

:salute:

 

[dodge]

This is one reason I don't believe in gods and that the natural world is what it is because of Darwinian evolution, uncontrolled by any divine entity, no gods are responsible or to blame for its harsher reality.
I too might like the idea of a friendly heavenly father looking after us, but clearly that is not happening and we should just get on with it as it is.

Question: Since neither man nor woman can exist without the other how is it that during this long process of climbing out of the primordial slop to eventually walking upright did BOTH man and woman do so at exactly the SAME time ?

If there would have been any gap between the TWO ( man and woman ) arriving at the pretty much to the exact same time there would be no mankind correct?

If you think about it it takes MORE misplaced faith to believe in evolution than FAITH to believe the truth that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is therein.


I believe it takes more faith to believe the lie of evolution than it does to place your faith in the truth as God provided for us through His word and the evidences He provides in scripture.

 

[alwight]

Question: Since neither man nor woman can exist without the other how is it that during this long process of climbing out of the primordial slop to eventually walking upright did BOTH man and woman do so at exactly the SAME time ?

Human beings evidentially evolved from proto-human beings which were themselves highly developed complex creatures that also didn't emerge from any "primordial slop" that the original simple life might have come from.
My understanding is that sexual reproduction is a relatively late development of life which probably involved genetic information somehow being transferred from one individual to another, long before any humans. Of course all the many distinct gender features as seen in modern human beings today evolved far greater complexity over great periods of time, periods of time that YECs do not accept existed. It wasn't a case of two individuals coming along at the same time.

If there would have been any gap between the TWO ( man and woman ) arriving at the pretty much to the exact same time there would be no mankind correct?

I think that your understanding of Darwinian evolution is probably very poor and suspect that you don't really choose to go beyond whatever YEC sources will tell you.
You really need to understand that evolution happens to whole species not individuals and that whatever the species was that humans evolved from they also had many individuals of both sexes, so your perceived problem here really doesn't exist.

If you think about it it takes MORE misplaced faith to believe in evolution than FAITH to believe the truth that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is therein.


I believe it takes more faith to believe the lie of evolution than it does to place your faith in the truth as God provided for us through His word and the evidences He provides in scripture.

I think you'll find that science generally regards Darwinian evolution as a virtual fact as I do too because it is supported by testable evidence, reasoning and facts not faith nor a literal adherence to ancient scripture.

 

[dodge]

Human beings evidentially evolved from proto-human beings which were themselves highly developed complex creatures that also didn't emerge from any "primordial slop" that the original simple life might have come from.
My understanding is that sexual reproduction is a relatively late development of life which probably involved genetic information somehow being transferred from one individual to another, long before any humans. Of course all the many distinct gender features as seen in modern human beings today evolved far greater complexity over great periods of time, periods of time that YECs do not accept existed. It wasn't a case of two individuals coming along at the same time.

I think that your understanding of Darwinian evolution is probably very poor and suspect that you don't really choose to go beyond whatever YEC sources will tell you.
You really need to understand that evolution happens to whole species not individuals and that whatever the species were that humans evolved from they also had many individuals of both sexes, so your perceived problem here really doesn't exist.

I think you'll find that science generally regards Darwinian evolution as a virtual fact as I do too because it is supported by testable evidence, reasoning and facts not faith nor a literal adherence to ancient scripture.

Have YOU ever Googled scientists that disagree with evolution ? It might surprise you to know there are scientists who have P.H.D.'S that disagree with evolution....So NOT all scientists agree with evolution.

Facts are NOT called theories.

 

[Stripe]

evidentially.

:darwinsm:

The closest a Darwinist will ever come to discussing evidence is when they use words to pretend they have it.

 

[alwight]

Have YOU ever Googled scientists that disagree with evolution ? It might surprise you to know there are scientists who have P.H.D.'S that disagree with evolution....So NOT all scientists agree with evolution.

Facts are NOT called theories.

By all means present their arguments here. If we can falsify The Theory of Evolution I will be delighted, though I rather doubt it is possible.

 

[Stripe]

If we can falsify The Theory of Evolution I will be delighted.

Great! Got a photocopier?

though I rather doubt it is possible.

That's your religionism talking. A scientist would have no need of such a defensive mechanism.

 

[alwight]

Great! Got a photocopier?


That's your religionism talking. A scientist would have no need of such a defensive mechanism.

Butt out Stripe you have nothing to contribute obviously. lain:

 

[dodge]

By all means present their arguments here. If we can falsify The Theory of Evolution I will be delighted, though I rather doubt it is possible.

Why did you reject evolution

Patrick Briney, Ph.D.

As an atheist, I believed in evolution as fact. It was the only explanation for existence. But after attending a lecture on creation science, I began to rethink the question of origins. The speaker had pointed out several things that I knew were true, but I never considered the implications. He also said some things I had not been told about in class. Subsequently, I began to doubt evolution, distrust teachers of evolution, and wonder what else I had not been told. Eventually, I became a Christian and a believer in the Genesis account of creation. Let me share with you some of the things that I believe will convince anyone who looks honestly into the subject of origins.

Evidence for Supernatural Origin by Design

Charles Thaxton of Charles University in Prague wrote that evidence for design is reasonable because, “In ordinary life we distinguish natural from intelligent causes all the time—when police officers determine whether a person died of natural causes or was murdered, when archaeologists decide whether a chipped rock is just a rock or a Paleolithic tool.”

Though evolutionists chide creationists for using design arguments, they use the design argument in their search for intelligent life in outer space. NASA’s SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is searching for intelligent life in outer space. Isaac Asimov described the purpose for sending signals into space saying that if intelligent life in the universe detect the signals, they will recognize the obvious design of intelligence in its creation and conclude that intelligent life exists elsewhere. Not only do we send signals into space, we also scan the heavens for signs showing evidence of intelligent creation. Obviously, even the evolutionists recognize the validity of design arguments.

The DNA molecule is a string of information far more complex than radio or optical signals. It is unnaturally complex in size, function, and coded information. Intelligent men have been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life all around them. They can create signals to send into outer space, but they cannot create life. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than brilliant scientists. But from a common sense perspective, this suggests that we have already found the evidence for intelligent design and creation. How is it that intelligent life on this planet are searching for simple design from outer space and missing the obvious evidence of complex design in the genetic code?

Evidence for Supernatural Origin of the Universe

1. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that Energy is not created by natural means. But, the universe exists as matter and energy. An established, scientific law tells us that it did not create itself by natural means. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the universe was created supernaturally.
In contrast, Evolution proposes strictly natural explanations. Therefore, evolution contradicts an established, scientific law. Models that contradict laws of science are unscientific. Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific and false.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that there is no natural means to increase usable energy (reduce entropy) in a closed system. The universe contains all things and is a closed system that is decreasing in usable energy (increasing in entropy). But decreasing in usable energy means that it began in a state of higher energy. An established, scientific law tells us that it could not have increased its state of usable energy by natural means. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the initial energy of the universe must have originated supernaturally.

In contrast, evolution proposes only natural explanations. Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law. Models that contradict laws of science are unscientific. Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific.


http://mbbc.us/creation/inquiry/rejection.htm

 

[alwight]

Why did you reject evolution

Patrick Briney, Ph.D.

As an atheist, I believed in evolution as fact. It was the only explanation for existence. But after attending a lecture on creation science, I began to rethink the question of origins. The speaker had pointed out several things that I knew were true, but I never considered the implications. He also said some things I had not been told about in class. Subsequently, I began to doubt evolution, distrust teachers of evolution, and wonder what else I had not been told. Eventually, I became a Christian and a believer in the Genesis account of creation. Let me share with you some of the things that I believe will convince anyone who looks honestly into the subject of origins.

Evidence for Supernatural Origin by Design

Charles Thaxton of Charles University in Prague wrote that evidence for design is reasonable because, “In ordinary life we distinguish natural from intelligent causes all the time—when police officers determine whether a person died of natural causes or was murdered, when archaeologists decide whether a chipped rock is just a rock or a Paleolithic tool.”

Though evolutionists chide creationists for using design arguments, they use the design argument in their search for intelligent life in outer space. NASA’s SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is searching for intelligent life in outer space. Isaac Asimov described the purpose for sending signals into space saying that if intelligent life in the universe detect the signals, they will recognize the obvious design of intelligence in its creation and conclude that intelligent life exists elsewhere. Not only do we send signals into space, we also scan the heavens for signs showing evidence of intelligent creation. Obviously, even the evolutionists recognize the validity of design arguments.

The DNA molecule is a string of information far more complex than radio or optical signals. It is unnaturally complex in size, function, and coded information. Intelligent men have been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life all around them. They can create signals to send into outer space, but they cannot create life. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than brilliant scientists. But from a common sense perspective, this suggests that we have already found the evidence for intelligent design and creation. How is it that intelligent life on this planet are searching for simple design from outer space and missing the obvious evidence of complex design in the genetic code?

Evidence for Supernatural Origin of the Universe

1. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that Energy is not created by natural means. But, the universe exists as matter and energy. An established, scientific law tells us that it did not create itself by natural means. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the universe was created supernaturally.
In contrast, Evolution proposes strictly natural explanations. Therefore, evolution contradicts an established, scientific law. Models that contradict laws of science are unscientific. Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific and false.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that there is no natural means to increase usable energy (reduce entropy) in a closed system. The universe contains all things and is a closed system that is decreasing in usable energy (increasing in entropy). But decreasing in usable energy means that it began in a state of higher energy. An established, scientific law tells us that it could not have increased its state of usable energy by natural means. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the initial energy of the universe must have originated supernaturally.

In contrast, evolution proposes only natural explanations. Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law. Models that contradict laws of science are unscientific. Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific.


http://mbbc.us/creation/inquiry/rejection.htm

Please don't present cut and paste articles from creationist sites for me to read. Where is your understanding of what they may say and how it affects the ToE?

 

[Jose Fly]

Question: Since neither man nor woman can exist without the other how is it that during this long process of climbing out of the primordial slop to eventually walking upright did BOTH man and woman do so at exactly the SAME time ?

You're assuming that going from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction must happen in one individual in a single leap. However, no evolutionary biologist has posited such a thing. Instead, we know from studying organisms that there are intermediate types of reproduction available.

If there would have been any gap between the TWO ( man and woman ) arriving at the pretty much to the exact same time there would be no mankind correct?

As has been explained for you, humans are descended from earlier hominid species that reproduced sexually (as did the ancestral species going quite far back).

If you think about it it takes MORE misplaced faith to believe in evolution than FAITH to believe the truth that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is therein.

Well, given what you posted above, it seems the problem here isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it.

 

[dodge]

Please don't present cut and paste articles from creationist sites for me to read. Where is your understanding of what they may say and how it affects the ToE?

I am quoting YOU "By all means present their arguments here."

 

[Jose Fly]

The DNA molecule is a string of information far more complex than radio or optical signals. It is unnaturally complex in size, function, and coded information. Intelligent men have been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life all around them. They can create signals to send into outer space, but they cannot create life. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than brilliant scientists. But from a common sense perspective, this suggests that we have already found the evidence for intelligent design and creation. How is it that intelligent life on this planet are searching for simple design from outer space and missing the obvious evidence of complex design in the genetic code?

Fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

1. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that Energy is not created by natural means. But, the universe exists as matter and energy. An established, scientific law tells us that it did not create itself by natural means. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the universe was created supernaturally.

The origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

In contrast, Evolution proposes strictly natural explanations. Therefore, evolution contradicts an established, scientific law. Models that contradict laws of science are unscientific. Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific and false.

That doesn't even make sense.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that there is no natural means to increase usable energy (reduce entropy) in a closed system. The universe contains all things and is a closed system that is decreasing in usable energy (increasing in entropy). But decreasing in usable energy means that it began in a state of higher energy. An established, scientific law tells us that it could not have increased its state of usable energy by natural means. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the initial energy of the universe must have originated supernaturally.

Again, the origin of the universe doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary biology. And again, we see that despite your rather grandiose claims about evolution, you really don't know all that much about it.

 

[Stripe]

Butt out Stripe you have nothing to contribute obviously. lain:

Darwinists love talking all big about "falsification," but run for the hills when presented with a knockout case against their precious religion.

A plain ole photocopier shows evolutionism up.

I thought you'd be "delighted." :idunno: