Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[JudgeRightly]

Well he should have made his word clearer. Oh, and he is not there.

It'll never be clear to someone who refuses to read His Word.

And He is.

 

[Jonahdog]

It'll never be clear to someone who refuses to read His Word.

And He is.

I have and he is not. Not.

 

[iouae]

Sounds boring. How about we just have the conversation?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I think excitement comes from framing a well thought out argument, rather than thinking of ways to insult the opposition.

Let's not use the very confusing word "evolution" for a moment.

We all know that the genome and gene pool changes over time, and that, over time, we can breed dogs, for example, which have never been seen before on planet earth. Paris Hilton's "Tinkerbel" would not have lasted in the wild.

Some evolutionists (and I am not trying to stir) hijack this change in gene pool over time as their definition of evolution. This is dishonest, because we all agree that the gene pool changes over time.

Where evolutionists and us creationists differ is that they feel evolution can create such diversity that new species emerge.

But this again is just a word game, and depends on how one defines "species".

Some finches and cichlid fish look so different from other finches and cichlids, that some will call them new species, and some will call them just a variety of finches which came off the ark (cichlids somehow survived the flood, and started to diversify in fresh water lakes cut off from one another).

But on the facts, us creationists (OEC and YEC) and evolutionists are in full agreement. Yet how many futile arguments I have watched take place on TOL insisting that these facts fit their theory of creation or evolution. We agree on the facts, so why are we arguing over semantics?

 

[Stripe]

I think excitement comes from framing a well thought out argument, rather than thinking of ways to insult the opposition.

Cool.

Frame your argument then. The Bible says "six days" and "the whole Earth." Why should we reject the plain meaning of scripture?

Let's not use the very confusing word "evolution" for a moment.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. If Darwinists would stick with that, there would be no confusion.

We agree on the facts, so why are we arguing over semantics?

Because the evidence overwhelmingly points to rapid adaptation of kinds and a global flood, while it utterly undermines evolution.

Darwinists can only survive a discussion by turning it into name-calling and nonsense.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jonahdog]

I think excitement comes from framing a well thought out argument, rather than thinking of ways to insult the opposition.

Let's not use the very confusing word "evolution" for a moment.

We all know that the genome and gene pool changes over time, and that, over time, we can breed dogs, for example, which have never been seen before on planet earth. Paris Hilton's "Tinkerbel" would not have lasted in the wild.

Some evolutionists (and I am not trying to stir) hijack this change in gene pool over time as their definition of evolution. This is dishonest, because we all agree that the gene pool changes over time.

Where evolutionists and us creationists differ is that they feel evolution can create such diversity that new species emerge.

But this again is just a word game, and depends on how one defines "species".

Some finches and cichlid fish look so different from other finches and cichlids, that some will call them new species, and some will call them just a variety of finches which came off the ark (cichlids somehow survived the flood, and started to diversify in fresh water lakes cut off from one another).

But on the facts, us creationists (OEC and YEC) and evolutionists are in full agreement. Yet how many futile arguments I have watched take place on TOL insisting that these facts fit their theory of creation or evolution. We agree on the facts, so why are we arguing over semantics?

Problem 1, once you appear to accept the Ark story, you are wrong.

 

[6days]

We agree on the facts, so why are we arguing over semantics?

What we disagree on is the gospel, which is not semantics.


Jesus went to the cross to defeat physical death. The cross would have been unnecessary if God used pain, suffering and death to create. Instead He tells us that death entered our world because of one man's sin. Evolutionism is a lie from the pit of Hell, that attacks the character of God, and destroys the Gospel.

 

[Jonahdog]

What we disagree on is the gospel, which is not semantics.


Jesus went to the cross to defeat physical death. The cross would have been unnecessary if God used pain, suffering and death to create. Instead He tells us that death entered our world because of one man's sin. Evolutionism is a lie from the pit if Hell, that attacks the character if God, and destroys the Gospel.

Facts are facts. Deal with it.

 

[iouae]

Cool.

Frame your argument then. The Bible says "six days" and "the whole Earth." Why should we reject the plain meaning of scripture?

I am suggesting we forget our theories and the way we read our On the Origin/Bible because this immediately makes us defensive.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. If Darwinists would stick with that, there would be no confusion.

We believe too that all life is descendent from a common ancestor, viz. the Creator God.

We too believe in random mutations for microevolution, and guided genetic manipulation on the part of God for macroevolution. We are not that far apart.

We too believe in natural selection - nature does weed out the weak. But we don't se it as the primary mover as far as diversity is concerned.

Because the evidence overwhelmingly points to rapid adaptation of kinds...

and evolutionists would have no problem with this, since the fossil record shows times of rapid diversification such as the Cambrian explosion, or the mammal explosion etc.

Darwinists can only survive a discussion by turning it into name-calling and nonsense.

Well we have to set an example of not name calling, since we are the ones who claim a moral compass which includes loving our enemies - and those with opposite beliefs are not our enemies. Our enemies are folks threatening our lives. If we are secure in our beliefs, other believers are no threat to us.

 

[Truster]

I am suggesting we forget our theories and the way we read our On the Origin/Bible because this immediately makes us defensive.

We believe too that all life is descendent from a common ancestor, viz. the Creator God.

We too believe in random mutations for microevolution, and guided genetic manipulation on the part of God for macroevolution. We are not that far apart.

We too believe in natural selection - nature does weed out the weak. But we don't se it as the primary mover as far as diversity is concerned.




and evolutionists would have no problem with this, since the fossil record shows times of rapid diversification such as the Cambrian explosion, or the mammal explosion etc.



Well we have to set an example of not name calling, since we are the ones who claim a moral compass which includes loving our enemies - and those with opposite beliefs are not our enemies. Our enemies are folks threatening our lives. If we are secure in our beliefs, other believers are no threat to us.

Heretic.

 

[iouae]

What we disagree on is the gospel, which is not semantics.


Jesus went to the cross to defeat physical death. The cross would have been unnecessary if God used pain, suffering and death to create. Instead He tells us that death entered our world because of one man's sin. Evolutionism is a lie from the pit of Hell, that attacks the character of God, and destroys the Gospel.

Are we the nights Templar rushing to God's defence on our high horse?

I don't feel threatened by any theory or fact, and I am sure God feels a trillion times more secure than I feel.

Why is it that no evolutionist has ever called me a heretic when they disagree with me?

I am trying to keep emotion, especially self righteousness and feelings of infallibility and unteachability from stopping us all, Creationists and Evolutionists, from engaging in a meaningful discussion of the facts.

 

[iouae]

Heretic.

I think its wonderful that no atheist has burned anyone at the stake for being an ignoramus.

Only on exceptional occasions would the Athenians make someone like Socrates drink hemlock for being so annoying, and making them look small.

 

[Jonahdog]

We too believe in random mutations for microevolution, and guided genetic manipulation on the part of God for macroevolution.

Ah, how can you show guided genetic manipulation? When did it occur? Is it still occurring?

 

[musterion]

I think its wonderful that no atheist has burned anyone at the stake for being an ignoramus.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were atheists who murdered upwards of 100 million between them, just for being surplus population. That figure doesn't include all the others murdered by Lenin, Ceausescu, Castro, Che Guevara and those in Soviet bloc and Central/South American countries. All atheists.

 

[iouae]

Ah, how can you show guided genetic manipulation? When did it occur? Is it still occurring?

All the geologic column, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian... etc

 

[iouae]

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were atheists who murdered upwards of 100 million between them, just for being surplus population. That figure doesn't include all the others murdered by Lenin, Ceausescu, Castro, Che Guevara and those in Soviet bloc and Central/South American countries. All atheists.

I never said all atheists were saints.

But the scientific community of atheists were the ones I was referring to as being more harmless than doves, not the political swine.

 

[Jonahdog]

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were atheists who murdered upwards of 100 million between them, just for being surplus population. That figure doesn't include all the others murdered by Lenin, Ceausescu, Castro, Che Guevara and those in Soviet bloc and Central/South American countries. All atheists.

And when the Spanish went to south America in the 1500-1600's, atheists?

 

[Jonahdog]

All the geologic column, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian... etc

How about a specific example and how do you know?

 

[musterion]

And when the Spanish went to south America in the 1500-1600's, atheists?

"Uh, yeah, but what about them Catholics..."

Sorry, not buying red herrings fallacies today, son.

In any case, no, they were not atheists, they were unsaved papists.

 

[Danoh]

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were atheists who murdered upwards of 100 million between them, just for being surplus population. That figure doesn't include all the others murdered by Lenin, Ceausescu, Castro, Che Guevara and those in Soviet bloc and Central/South American countries. All atheists.

"Uh, yeah, but what about them Catholics..."

Sorry, not buying red herrings fallacies today, son.

In any case, no, they were not atheists, they were unsaved papists.

The assertion of each of those fool posts of yours cancel one another out - both posts only prove those men did what they did, not because they were atheists, or not, but because they were criminals.

Likewise the monstrous human trafficking of the so called "God fearing Protestant" South.

So much for your supposed ability at rightly discerning the things that differ within a thing.

Face it: you're an extremist. It's what compels your bigotry.

Only when you face this about yourself do you have any hope of one day freeing yourself from it.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[musterion]

The assertion of each of those fool posts of yours cancel one another out - both posts only prove those men did what they did, not because they were atheists, or not, but because they were criminals.

Likewise the monstrous human trafficking of the so called "God fearing Protestant" --> DEMOCRAT South.

So much for your supposed ability at rightly discerning the things that differ within a thing.

Face it: you're an extremist. It's what compels your bigotry.

Only when you face this about yourself do you have any hope of one day freeing yourself from it.

Rom. 5:6-8.

Do continue. Crying lets out all the sad.