Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Originally Posted by Miylee View Post
Evolution is as true as gravity. It's just a fact. Not really debate able. Especially by the layman creationist. Especially by the layman creationist.

Dear Miylee,

Evolution is hardly the same as gravity. One is true and one is not. You figure it out.

God Be With You In Your Search!!

Michael

 

[Hawkins]

There are countless billions of stars in a vast universe typically bigger and hotter than our own sun

Ironically, 99% humans don't have direct evidence about the true face of the said billions of stars, especially when it is said that they are bigger and hotter than our sun.

Most humans don't acquire evidence themselves. In the end they put faith in what have been written down by a small group of humans (in this case the scientists) to reach a truth. This process is called human witnessing which is the most fundamental approach for humans reach a truth which is not directly 'touchable' to us.

Have you met with Barrack Obama or any president of the States. Most humans don't bother to verify what have been written down by yet another small group of humans (the reporters/writers in this case) which are believed to be the direct eye witnesses.

Unlike the above (science and daily news) which are verifiable, history (i.e., his story) is basically a result of human witnessing, the more distant history is the more it relies purely on witnessing. That is, you rely on what have been written down by a small group of humans (the historians in this case) to reach any historical truth. Under most circumstances, it is a no faith no truth situation where human witnessing is the one and only way to reach a truth, there's no other way round.

The last is the kind of truth unreachable to humans of a specific time frame. For an example, the existence of black holes is unreachable to humans in stone age. If you are sent back by a time machine to stone age but without any modern resources, then you as the witness become the one and only way for the stone age humans to get to the truth of the existence of black holes. There's no other way round. Under that situation, you could well make the claim that "I am the truth, I am the way (to the truth), and I am the life (if black holes do concern stone age men's lives).

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Hawkins,

I must agree with you, and am glad about it. Even the disciples of Jesus' time were told by Him, "There is much more I could tell you, but you are not able to bear it. Even still, in Rev., it says the thunder uttered their seven voices, and John of Patmos was told to 'write them not,' for people then weren't ready back then to hear it. (See John 16:12)(See Rev. 10:4).

God Be With You Always, Hawkins!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

Ironically, 99% humans don't have direct evidence about the true face of the said billions of stars, especially when it is said that they are bigger and hotter than our sun.

Most humans don't acquire evidence themselves. In the end they put faith in what have been written down by a small group of humans (in this case the scientists) to reach a truth. This process is called human witnessing which is the most fundamental approach for humans reach a truth which is not directly 'touchable' to us.

I would suggest then that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science reaches its conclusions. Unlike religious beliefs it isn't about simply believing in written words typically anonymous and one person witnessing to others. Science is primarily about evidence and the explaining of it, not a belief or faith in a person. Scientific conclusions are presented so that anyone else, in theory, can review them and show them to be false, if indeed they are, based on the same or better evidence. Evidence-free bald assertions are not falsifiable while scientific claims are and can be demonstrated to be wrong if evidentially so. If I read a scientific publication I don't simply believe in the author, I expect there to be plenty of evidence presented to back it up and that it has been subject to peer review.

Have you met with Barrack Obama or any president of the States. Most humans don't bother to verify what have been written down by yet another small group of humans (the reporters/writers in this case) which are believed to be the direct eye witnesses.

I don't think it would be at all reasonable to conclude that all media people conspire to misinterpret what goes on, any more than all scientists would do something similar rather than the job they trained hard to do.
Sure an individual media may have its own bias, but in fact they are all in competition which allows lay people to be reasonably sure of what is agreed is a matter of public record

Unlike the above (science and daily news) which are verifiable, history (i.e., his story) is basically a result of human witnessing, the more distant history is the more it relies purely on witnessing. That is, you rely on what have been written down by a small group of humans (the historians in this case) to reach any historical truth. Under most circumstances, it is a no faith no truth situation where human witnessing is the one and only way to reach a truth, there's no other way round.

Much of human history does have context, evidence and yes various documented accounts but from a variety of sources. Natural history leaves plenty fossil and geological evidence that you can decide for yourself if it fits a scientific theory or not.

The last is the kind of truth unreachable to humans of a specific time frame. For an example, the existence of black holes is unreachable to humans in stone age. If you are sent back by a time machine to stone age but without any modern resources, then you as the witness become the one and only way for the stone age humans to get to the truth of the existence of black holes. There's no other way round. Under that situation, you could well make the claim that "I am the truth, I am the way (to the truth), and I am the life (if black holes do concern stone age men's lives).

Black holes are thought to be an intrinsic part of galaxies, but all early humans could be able to understand was that there were points of light in the sky. Reliable witnesses would of course be a good thing, but how do we know how reliable they really are? First hand eye witnesses are much better than second hand ones or hearsay, but I don't think it's particularly important or helpful to presume to know a supposed truth when in fact you just don't know, and have no reasonable way to know. Not knowing is not a good reason to pretend you do anyway, not that it has stopped some people imo.
We now have the means to understand and know rather more then early humans did while anyone can potentially be an eye witness to scientific evidence.

 

[Yorzhik]

So then we are talking about available energy for particle collisions, yes? How does this relate to mutational load?

It means that the next generation will have some mutations when the chemical reaction takes place that makes the germ cells.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yup. Yorz keeps bringing up Shannon's noisy channel theorem, but hates the idea of error correction as it spoils his whole argument.

Just watch too see how he avoids it again....

How in God's green earth could the idea of error correction ruin my argument?

 

[6days]

Evolution is as true as gravity.
It's just a fact.
Not really debate able.
Especially by the layman creationist. Especially by the layman creationist.

Gravity is as true as the sky is blue,
You can test it, you and your crew.
You take different weights up tall towers,
And then drop them on little flowers.
You repeat and observe, you observe and repeat
Always be careful not to drop on your feet.

Evolution is as true as a fairy tale
The lovely princess looking for a male.
She kissed the frog who became a prince,
If adults believed it I'm sure you would winch
But people believe that frogs became men,
And many colors like neapolitan.
Can you repeat and observe and observe and repeat,
Evolution like gravity? Give me a break!

 

[doloresistere]

How in God's green earth could the idea of error correction ruin my argument?

That reminds me of how michael medved used to sign off on his radio show...

this is the greatest nation on God's Green Earth.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Besides, all Christians believe without seeing initially. But they learn in their lives that God and Jesus exists. Because of what their life changes and what happens with them. And what they feel. Oh, that you could know. Perhaps you are too far gone to reach. I'm trying one last time. It's all up to you. I give up for now. I'm tired. I have to tend to dinner now, the Corned Beef and Mashed Potatoes, etc.
Will talk with you more soon.

God Bless You, Alwight!

Michael


:duh:

:comeout:

:nono:

2 John 1:10 KJV
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed :

2 John 1:11 KJV
For he that biddeth him God speed

is partaker of his evil deeds.

REAP IT. :whip:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

It means that the next generation will have some mutations when the chemical reaction takes place that makes the germ cells.

I don't follow your argument

1. Energy depleted for particle collision
2. ???
3. the next generation will have some mutations when the chemical reaction takes place that makes the germ cells.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 1Mind,

What are you trying for? I never agreed evolution was true either. I said gravity was real. So what's you story? REAP IT!! The only one that makes any sense to me is Hawkins and 6days. I suggest you re-read Post #3622.

Michael

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Dear 1Mind,

What are you trying for? I never agreed evolution was true either. I said gravity was real. So what's you story? REAP IT!! The only one that makes any sense to me is Hawkins and 6days. I suggest you re-read Post #3622.

Michael

Ask yer angel O wise one.

:ha:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 1Mind,

We are both Christian. Is this negativity really necessary??

God Be With You!

Michael

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Dear 1Mind,

We are both Christian. Is this negativity really necessary??

Only way honesty is negative to one, is if that one is dishonest.

God Be With You!

Michael

He always is.

 

[alwight]

2 John 1:10 KJV
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed :

2 John 1:11 KJV
For he that biddeth him God speed

is partaker of his evil deeds.

REAP IT. :whip:

Michael, 1Mind apparently doesn't want you to talk with me and that 1Mind only has enough "mind" to adhere to ancient scripture.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 1Mind,

I haven't been dishonest with you. I just don't know how to work the QUOTE thing very well. If there are more than two things to quote, I can't do it. Some have tried to teach me, but I can't seem to get it yet. My angel told me that you mistook one of my posts and that was what all of this was about. If someone writes to me with a bunch of quotes, I don't even try to answer them. Only the first one or two questions, as long as they are short. Otherwise I cannot do it. Do you have the Quote feature figured out? Can you do multiple quotes? I can't do it, I'm sorry. Maybe after I've been here longer.

Am sorry! I have to copy and paste people's quotes to answer them, sometimes.

In Christ's Love,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

No! He just misread something I had quoted. It's because I still don't know how to use the QUOTE button. I still cannot get it, even though I know you tried to help me. Usually, I don't even use the Quote button, unless it's a lengthy post and there are not multi-quotes in it. It's my fault, I guess. I should know how to do it. If I can't learn it, then it's my fault, I guess.

Yes, you are in my prayers before I lay down to sleep. So are your friends. Well, I will get going. I've got to put new sheets on the bed before I go to sleep. Will chat with you soon.

God Be With You Always,

Michael

 

[alwight]

[QUOTE="MichaelCadry, post: 0"]Dear 1Mind,[/QUOTE]

---Type your words here--- 

[QUOTE]I haven't been dishonest with you.  
I just don't know how to work the QUOTE thing very well.  
If there are more than two things to quote, I can't do it.  
Some have tried to teach me, but I can't seem to get it yet.  
My angel told me that you mistook one of my posts 
and that was what all of this was about.[/QUOTE]  

---Type your words here--- 

[QUOTE]If someone writes to me with a bunch of quotes, I don't even try to answer them. 
 Only the first one or two questions, as long as they are short.  
Otherwise I cannot do it.  
Do you have the Quote feature figured out?  
Can you do multiple quotes? 
I can't do it, I'm sorry.  
Maybe after I've been here longer.[/QUOTE]

---Type your words here--- 

[QUOTE]Am sorry!  
I have to copy and paste people's quotes to answer them, 
sometimes. 

In Christ's Love,

Michael[/QUOTE]

---Type your words here---

-----------------------------------------------

This above becomes formatted like this:

Dear 1Mind,

---Type your words here---

I haven't been dishonest with you.
I just don't know how to work the QUOTE thing very well.
If there are more than two things to quote, I can't do it. Some have tried to teach me, but I can't seem to get it yet.
My angel told me that you mistook one of my posts and that was what all of this was about.

---Type your words here---

If someone writes to me with a bunch of quotes, I don't even try to answer them.
Only the first one or two questions, as long as they are short. Otherwise I cannot do it.
Do you have the Quote feature figured out? Can you do multiple quotes? I can't do it, I'm sorry. Maybe after I've been here longer.

---Type your words here---

Am sorry! I have to copy and paste people's quotes to answer them, sometimes.

In Christ's Love,

Michael

---Type your words here---

---------------------------------------

Michael, try to relate the code and tags in the top box to how it appears in the final version underneath.

 

[Hedshaker]

Alternatively:

 

[noguru]

Well if this is all the YECs have to offer science it is no wonder people realize they are just fallaciously trying to use science to push their specific interpretation of Genesis.