Dinosaurs

[TracerBullet]

Not testable, hmmm.

Everyday, we walk around in a world with improbability numbers so high the zeros stretch across the solar system, yet everything works and we are alive and breathing. It it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sounds like it tests just fine.

It started from an earth that was 'formless and void' and was formed and filled. The atmosphere was changed at the flood, and mankind's lifespan reduced but is still at a predictable range in which all the parts and phases of human life can be enjoyed satisfactorily.

you forgot to mention the dancing unicorns

 

[TracerBullet]

Of course I am.

You're just determined to be as ungracious as possible.

That's right. We have a worldview and we validate that worldview by examining the evidence.

:chuckle:

Nope. You can't put a worldview under a microscope. To do science, you need to drop the idea that your religion — evolutionism, in your case — is evidence. You need to make predictions and test them.

You mean like creationism does.

 

[TracerBullet]

Does anyone remember the Henry Miller experiment featured in LIFE magazine in the 50s? This was not the novelist, he was a biologist. He believed he had all the ingredients in a tube at the beginning and that they would create life. A test. It did not. Notice what happens next: the wrong materials and conditions were tested.

First off you are misinformed about the goals of the Miller experiment. The experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.

Second off his experiment was a success. At the end of the experiment Miller found he had produced 11 amino acids. in 2007 sealed samples from the Miller experiment were examined with modern detection devices and it was found that he had actually produced 20 amino acids, several of which don't occur on Earth

 

[Alate_One]

Job 40;19 "It ranks first among the works of God"
Evolutionists continually need to explain that Gods Word does not mean what it says. His Word was made for simple people such as myself. Your revision seems like nonsense... The "first amongst God's Works" is only a mythical monster?
Why can't it be a real animal?

I didn't say it couldn't be a real animal. I said a mythical animal was a possible explanation.

Why does it have to be a sauropod when there's no evidence of sauropods ever being the model for the animal until modern YECs came along in the 1960s?

Why does the animal have to be literal though? It could be a representation of God's power. God opens "the floodgates of heaven". I'm assuming you take that as figurative, don't you?

 

[6days]

If your position is that creationism is a belief, then why do you keep trying to validate it through appeals to science?

That's what scientists do.

As said before. .. it's an exciting time to be a Christian as science helps confirm the truth of God's Word

Jerry Coyne, well known evolutionist and science wtiter is concerned about 'the increasingly unmanageable problem of high-level academic defectors from evolutionary theory'

That quote is nowhere in that blog post.

Really.... Coyne isn't quoting me? I didn't say he was.*

And aren't you once again trying to have it both ways? When we science advocates cite the overwhelming support and use of evolutionary theory among the world's life scientists, you creationists wave it away as "appeals to popularity". Yet here you are essentially trying to appeal to the same thing.

You must not understand appeal to authority, because it didn't happen. I actually cited an article *where one one atheist is concerned other atheists such as Nagel are doubting Darwinism.

One of the " defecters" Coyne mentions is Thomas Nagel.

You know Nagel is a philosopher, not a scientist, right?

Yes...I'm sure Jerry Coyne is well aware of who Thomas Nagel is. Perhaps you should let Coyne know he should ignore people who 'leave the fold'.

National Post on Nagel "Leading atheist branded a ‘heretic’ for daring to question Darwinism
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...ed-a-heretic-for-daring-to-question-darwinism

 

[The Barbarian]

Who is Thomas Nagle? A lawyer and a philosopher. No experience or education in biology.

And here we go again. Why is it surprising that someone who doesn't understand biology would not agree with it?

 

[Kdall]

You don't see how silly your story sounds?
It seems to me far more compelling to believe God's Word that we were fearfully and wonderfully made, but now live in a fallen world.

Here we go again: apparently my natural, scientifically supported hypothesis is silly.....but yours that requires God to fill in the multiple and important holes in your unnatural, scientifically refuted timeline.


Riiiight

 

[Kdall]

His Word was made for simple people such as myself.

You hit the nail on the head with your boldened words above

Your revision seems like nonsense... The "first amongst God's Works" is only a mythical monster?
Why can't it be a real animal?

And this reaction is why Jesus didn't attempt to explain the real world in-depth to these simple people. They would've told him the exact same thing. They don't get it, and they have no ability to. You've asked me why Jesus didn't tell his followers that Genesis wasn't entirely literal? You've answered your own question

 

[Stripe]

I didn't say it couldn't be a real animal. I said a mythical animal was a possible explanation.

Why does it have to be a sauropod when there's no evidence of sauropods ever being the model for the animal until modern YECs came along in the 1960s?

Why does the animal have to be literal though? It could be a representation of God's power. God opens "the floodgates of heaven". I'm assuming you take that as figurative, don't you?

Evolutionists hate reading.

It is a real animal because the Bible says it was "made by God."

 

[Kdall]

Making up a story isn't evidence.

I have come to the conclusion that YECs have no sense of irony. There just is no other explanation for repeated comments like the one above

 

[Kdall]

Actually, Both evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past. Both sides interpret evidence according to beliefs.

Do me a favor and find just one person who is not a YEC who agrees with that sentiment. You cannot compare a purely religious ideology with a scientific theory with mountains of real world evidence and that has stood up to the scrutiny of science for 200 years, while at the same time making valuable contributions to society.

There is no comparison

 

[Stripe]

I have come to the conclusion that YECs have no sense of irony. There just is no other explanation for repeated comments like the one above

And I have come to the conclusion that evolutionists are stupid. :idunno:

What story did we make up and use as evidence?

 

[Kdall]

And aren't you once again trying to have it both ways? When we science advocates cite the overwhelming support and use of evolutionary theory among the world's life scientists, you creationists wave it away as "appeals to popularity". Yet here you are essentially trying to appeal to the same thing.

Why is it ok for you to do it but not anyone else?

Fundamentalist victimization complex. They don't want fair treatment, they want special treatment

 

[Kdall]

Science envy, mostly. Science has been remarkably effective in learning about the physical universe, and helping us get along it it. Creationists would dearly like to find a way to get some of that prestige for their religion. As you might have noticed, most Christians don't worry about it, finding faith in God sufficient.

And, as you might have noticed, when creationists do make testable scientific claims, it's pretty easy to debunk them. So it's good for Christianity to keep foolish and spurious apologetics from deluding those who might otherwise come to Christ. (yeah, I know you don't believe; it's O.K. with me, because I'm Christian, and I know that atheism won't automatically send you to Hell)

We're trying to avoid what St. Augustine warned us about, long, long ago:

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we may find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. We should not battle for our own interpretation but for the teaching of Holy Scripture. We should not wish to conform the meaning of Holy Scripture to our interpretation, but our interpretation to the meaning of Holy Scripture."

Putting a sharper point on it, he wrote:

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe our books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren, ... to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call on Holy Scripture, .. although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. "
St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim

Wow. These are amazing quotes. The parallels to what Creationism has become today are impossible to ignore

 

[Kdall]

And I have come to the conclusion that evolutionists are stupid. :idunno:

What story did we make up and use as evidence?

And as I've told you many a time, nobody does or should take you seriously. The incompetence you've demonstrated across all fields of science is actually impressive. Even a 10 year old at least knows something about one of the various natural sciences. Yet, astoundingly, you have managed to go 25+ years without knowing anything about any of them. I applaud you for sticking to your guns

I'm not aware of any made up story by evolution proponents. Enlighten me, perhaps?

However, you do believe the nonsensical literal interpretation of Genesis, including the impossible worldwide flood, and cite it as evidence.

 

[Kdall]

Does anyone remember the Henry Miller experiment featured in LIFE magazine in the 50s? This was not the novelist, he was a biologist. He believed he had all the ingredients in a tube at the beginning and that they would create life. A test. It did not. Notice what happens next: the wrong materials and conditions were tested.

There is no point in being too cerebral or clinical for no reason.

A little off-topic from me here, but you are not correct on your evaluation of the results of the Miller-Urey experiment.

At the beginning of the experiment, only inorganic compounds existed in the tube. Yet, at the end, they had somehow transformed into organic molecules, including amino and nucleic acids (the building blocks of life). The experiment would've had to go on for millions of years for actual life to even have a chance to arrive. The creation of life was never the point of the experiment. They succeeded in their goal, which was to prove that organic molecules could arise from inorganic ones under the conditions of a primitive Earth. The experiment has been repeated and improved upon countless times since

 

[Stripe]

I'm not aware of any made up story by evolution proponents. Enlighten me, perhaps?

Evolutionists hate reading.

You could look back a few posts for the fanciful account of ancient cultures that Alate invented.

However, you do believe ... Genesis ... and cite it as evidence.

Nope.

First, we did not make up Genesis.
Second, we present evidence.

 

[Kdall]

Evolutionists hate reading.

20 more points for Jose. Maybe this should be a drinking game?

You could look back a few posts for the fanciful account of ancient cultures that Alate invented.

Oh no, I read that. And there was nothing questionable about it. I'd post a link for you to view, but we both know that's be a waste of my time, don't we?

First, we did not make up Genesis.

You're right. You stole most of Genesis from older cultures. Specifically the Sumerians and Babylonians.

Second, we present evidence.

You keep thinking that A) you present tangible evidence, and B) that 'evolutionists' don't. It's hilarious

 

[Stripe]

You stole most of Genesis from older cultures. Specifically the Sumerians and Babylonians.

Nope.

Their patchy accounts are derived from local memory of the Genesis account.

 

[Kdall]

Nope.

Their patchy accounts are derived from local memory of the Genesis account.

Except for we know without a doubt that Sumeria/Mesopotamia was the first true civilization in the world, and we also know that the three big monotheistic faiths all drew from Sumerian myth when creating some stories (more specifically, Christianity and Islam adopted the stories that Jews adopted from Sumerians).

You shaking your head and saying, "nuh-uh," doesn't change the course of history