Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

Evolutionists have to believe in something so they will suspend all disbelief to accommodate something -- anything -- that does not involve the biblical account.

:mock: "biblical account"

 

[6days]

Utter nonsense Dave, you are constantly being shown evidence…

Likewise Dave (and I) have also constantly been showing you evidence from 'reputable scientific sources'

The truth is that you don't want to see all the evidence and choose instead to see it as simply an attack on your precious ancient scripture simply because the ToE tends to suggest that something else might be the literal truth.

The truth is the evidence supports God's Word, but you choose instead to believe that life comes from non life, and the flawed interpretations that result from the belief system of naturalism.

In the beginning, God created.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Likewise Dave (and I) have also constantly been showing you evidence from 'reputable scientific sources'

:rotfl:

'Answers in Genesis' is hardly a "reputable scientfiic source".

The truth is the evidence supports God's Word, but you choose instead to believe that life comes from non life, and the flawed interpretations that result from the belief system of naturalism.

So many straw men . . . so little time.

 

[noguru]

Cell death is the result of entropy.

Anyone who argues otherwise is an idiot or is afraid of the obvious.

The material universe and everything in it cannot originate itself.

The material universe cannot evolve.

--Dave

:rotfl:

You have been wrong on every other account. Why should we think you are now accurate? You and your YEC moron buddies are impotent little whiners, crying out like you just soiled your pants.

 

[noguru]

:rotfl:

'Answers in Genesis' is hardly a "reputable scientfiic source".

So many straw men . . . so little time.

6gays is a faggot.

:rotfl:

And Sprite too.

:rotfl:

 

[noguru]

Likewise Dave (and I) have also constantly been showing you evidence from 'reputable scientific sources'


The truth is the evidence supports God's Word, but you choose instead to believe that life comes from non life, and the flawed interpretations that result from the belief system of naturalism.

In the beginning, God created.

:rotfl:

You do not show any evidence. You simply assert "The evidence fits the Biblical model better." Then you whine when it is pointed out that is inaccurate also. You guys are little children pretending to be clever men. You don't fool anyone except other little impotent cowardly YECs.

That is exactly why the YEC model which was discarded over 150 years ago, and you are laughed at when you try to claim it is science. You guys need a reality check, or a frontal lobotomy.

 

[alwight]

Likewise Dave (and I) have also constantly been showing you evidence from 'reputable scientific sources'

Maybe in your mind you really believe that, but I think not, but if you have then afaic your sources doesn't quite say what you think they do, if not quite the opposite.

I disagree with SH btw, I think most of your sources are mostly derived from the ICR.

The truth is the evidence supports God's Word, but you choose instead to believe that life comes from non life, and the flawed interpretations that result from the belief system of naturalism.

In the beginning, God created.

I simply tend to presume that without any supernatural evidence then whatever has happened, happened entirely by natural means even if the answer is yet unknown.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

It is lousy design if you ask me.

How would you improve it?

God did not design exactly what we see today. What we see today is one of many possible outcomes after God ruled out a certain portion of outcomes.

He must have ruled out all the good ones, if what we're left with is pretty lousy.

But what I'm really interested in is what makes you think you could do better than God, and what you would have done to make things 'better.'

 

[6days]

i

Likewise Dave (and I) have also constantly been showing you evidence from 'reputable scientific sources'

Maybe in your mind you really believe that, but I think not, but if you have then afaic your sources doesn't quite say what you think they do, if not quite the opposite.

You are confusing evidence with interpretations and conclusions.
For example I quoted a secular source stating antibiotic resistance was in the genome of bacteria long before modern antibiotic medicines. That was the evidence. You then confused some evolutionary spin in the article as if their interpretation was evidence...it isn't. They were simply attempting to shoehorn evidence ...a speculative conclusion to fit their beliefs.

The truth is the evidence supports God's Word, but you choose instead to believe that life comes from non life, and the flawed interpretations that result from the belief system of naturalism.

I simply tend to presume that without any supernatural evidence then whatever has happened, happened entirely by natural means even if the answer is yet unknown.

I agree that your position is 100% biased, as is mine.

I assume God's Word is correct. And evidence can usually easily be explained within the Biblical account.

You assume everything can be explained without the Creator, and often need rely on just so stories to explain origins of life, origins of energy, origin of man, origin of consciousness, origin of sex, origin of information etc etc

Richard Dawkins often uses the phrase " appearance of design". He admits things appear designed, yet he encourages people to accept any explanation other than the most obvious....things appear designed, because they are designed.

 

[Jukia]

For example I quoted a secular source stating antibiotic resistance was in the genome of bacteria long before modern antibiotic medicines. .

wow, a secular source. What about all the secular sources that provide evidence that evolutionary theory is valid, that the earth is 4+ billion years old, that there was no big ol' Flood 4000 years ago, that the universe was not made in a week 6000 years ago?

Got any of those in your back pocket? Or is it just to frightening and threatening to think that the majority of the secular sources recognize your beliefs as a joke?

 

[Tyrathca]

Cell death is the result of entropy.

Anyone who argues otherwise is an idiot or is afraid of the obvious.

The material universe and everything in it cannot originate itself.

The material universe cannot evolve.

--Dave

What type of cell death Dave? Are you talking about unicellular organisms our the cell death in multicellular organisms? Where is your evidence that entropy is related to these cell deaths?

The fact of the matter is entropy doesn't have anything to do with it, it doesn't even make sense that it could since why then would a cell growing and dividing reset the entropy but nothing else? Cell death in multicellular organisms is often "pre-programmed" apoptosis for a multitude of reasons

 

[doloresistere]

How would you improve it?

Get rid of all the disease for one. Improve our senses for another.

He must have ruled out all the good ones, if what we're left with is pretty lousy.

No. He ruled out all the terrible outcomes. The chances that an inhabitable planet like earth with all of its biodiversity might never have existed are very great. He prevented several outcomes that would have made the existence of a planet like earth from ever existing. Our livable temperature through much of the planet and the seasons are only possible under extremely unlikely circumstances. There were several scenarios that would have kept that from happening, and God made sure those scenarios never occurred.

But what I'm really interested in is what makes you think you could do better than God, and what you would have done to make things 'better.'

When did I say that I could do better than God? You are assuming that God did things in the manner you insist upon. That is what I am critiquing. I am saying that what you insist that God did was horrible design. One reason I say that is because God did not design anything, other than the laws and the initial conditions and the boundary conditions that prevented certain eventualities from occurring. I could not do anything better or make things better. That shows that you did not understand what I said and think me an egomaniac. I am saying that if God did ,indeed, design the universe as it now exists, as you insist, then it was lousy design.

A good design would have no death and no pain. A good design would not have countless species barely able to eke out a living when a simple change of anatomy or body chemistry would make life much easier. There have been millions of species go extinct. If they were designed by God, they would never have gone extinct.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

When you provide a source for the "quote" I will look at debunking it. The language is intriguing, don't you think, for a native English speaker?

"Auto-determination" sounds like a French word, so I'd expect your source would be a French one, translated into English. This would make it likely that the quote is a parody or satire piece, and not a genuine quote from Rockefeller.

What IS the source? Do you usually believe unattributed quotes?

So you admit yer first attempt to debunk it failed.

No matter what excuse you use for not trying again, we all know it is an attempt to draw away from the fact
you failed.

:smack:

 

[noguru]

So you admit yer first attempt to debunk it failed.

No matter what excuse you use for not trying again, we all know it is an attempt to draw away from the fact
you failed.

:smack:

:rotfl:

Debunk what? Your argument has more holes than a net. It does not hold any water. I have not seen any need to debunk anything you post. Not even the other YECs here take you seriously. They think you are just a parody.

I'm just happy for you that they let you out of your 4 point restraint long enough to post a few things each day.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

:rotfl:

Debunk what? Your argument has more holes than a net. It does not hold any water. I have not seen any need to debunk anything you post. Not even the other YECs here take you seriously. They think you are just a parody.

I'm just happy for you that they let you out of your 4 point restraint long enough to post a few things each day.

Mad scientist and mind reader hunh? :rotfl:

You got more parodies going on than sybil.

 

[noguru]

Mad scientist and mind reader hunh? :rotfl:

You got more parodies going on than sybil.

:rotfl:

Your sense of humor is almost as good as your aptitude for science. You must be the life of the party. As long as you keep everyone there at gun point.

 

[alwight]

You are confusing evidence with interpretations and conclusions.
For example I quoted a secular source stating antibiotic resistance was in the genome of bacteria long before modern antibiotic medicines. That was the evidence. You then confused some evolutionary spin in the article as if their interpretation was evidence...it isn't. They were simply attempting to shoehorn evidence ...a speculative conclusion to fit their beliefs.

No I really don't think anyone from your link was even remotely suggesting that bacteria were created as is, without having evolved over billions of years, and that the supernatural must therefore be the only explanation. The real explanation was that bacteria seem to have a much bigger evolved arsenal than our modern antibiotics could cope with, which only couldn't deal with some of them btw.

The truth is the evidence supports God's Word, but you choose instead to believe that life comes from non life, and the flawed interpretations that result from the belief system of naturalism.

By what process have you come to that conclusion, a natural material one, a supernatural one or perhaps a combination of both?
Do you even have the right to make any such conclusion on the natural since you seem to admit your bias is to a presupposed supernatural. You are apparently predisposed to concluding the "unnatural", whatever the natural evidence may suggest.

I agree that your position is 100% biased, as is mine.

I assume God's Word is correct. And evidence can usually easily be explained within the Biblical account.

You assume everything can be explained without the Creator, and often need rely on just so stories to explain origins of life, origins of energy, origin of man, origin of consciousness, origin of sex, origin of information etc etc

Yes I accept my bias and I do presume that natural things will have entirely natural origins because there only seems to be a natural, so logically my bias has to be entirely for the natural. To have your bias otoh is to disregard material evidence in favour of something un-evidenced which seems illogical to me.
I doubt that anything supernatural even could exist so why believe that it even might.

Richard Dawkins often uses the phrase " appearance of design". He admits things appear designed, yet he encourages people to accept any explanation other than the most obvious....things appear designed, because they are designed.

Somehow I rather suspect that you are not an avid reader of Dawkins 6days, and don't know personally what he might often say, so this must be spin from a creationist website presumably, right?

Since I have read a couple of his books I understand him to be saying something else beyond that quote mine. That the human mind often tends to want to see patterns and thus to see design where really there is none, while being impressed by the great complexity of life often seems to make people erroneously think they see design. That was my impression anyway.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

:rotfl:

Debunk what?

Try workin on yer reading comprehension skills. :duh:

 

[noguru]

Try workin on yer reading comprehension skills. :duh:

OK, thanks for the advice.

 

[noguru]

No I really don't think anyone from your link was even remotely suggesting that bacteria were created as is, without having evolved over billions of years, and that the supernatural must therefore be the only explanation. The real explanation was that bacteria seem to have a much bigger evolved arsenal than our modern antibiotics could cope with, which only couldn't deal with some of them btw.


By what process have you come to that conclusion, a natural material one, a supernatural one or perhaps a combination of both?
Do you even have the right to make any such conclusion on the natural since you seem to admit your bias is to a presupposed supernatural. You are apparently predisposed to concluding the "unnatural", whatever the natural evidence may suggest.


Yes I accept my bias and I do presume that natural things will have entirely natural origins because there only seems to be a natural, so logically my bias has to be entirely for the natural. To have your bias otoh is to disregard material evidence in favour of something un-evidenced which seems illogical to me.
I doubt that anything supernatural even could exist so why believe that it even might.

Somehow I rather suspect that you are not an avid reader of Dawkins 6days, and don't know personally what he might often say, so this must be spin from a creationist website presumably, right?

Since I have read a couple of his books I understand him to be saying something else beyond that quote mine. That the human mind often tends to want to see patterns and thus to see design where really there is none, while being impressed by the great complexity of life often seems to make people erroneously think they see design.

Yep. It is quite strange that YECs leave out so many relevant details when they report on something in science. One might think they are a bit cowardly in their apprehension to admit the reality.