Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

"THEIR creation..."??

Your spin has been noted.

Dear 6days,

Did you make sure you read my Post #8882 on this thread? See what you make of it. It says that all atoms are light. We're made up of atoms. Please check it out and let me know what you think about what it says. Thanks, 6days!!

Michael

You're :first:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Help me out here. Is this the 36th or 37th time you've said that exact same thing this week?

Dear Kdall,

Probably the first, this week! Stripe is right!

Michael

:think: :cloud9:

 

[The Barbarian]

Help me out here. Is this the 36th or 37th time you've said that exact same thing this week?

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[6days]

Did you make sure you read my Post #8882 on this thread? See what you make of it. It says that all atoms are light. We're made up of atoms. Please check it out and let me know what you think about what it says.

Good for you taking an interest in quantum mechanics. *Soon you will be explaining the difference between quarks - up, down, strange, top, bottom and charm. *

I don't understand it, so I'm not the person to ask to evaluate your article. It might help to know who the author is, or where the article comes from. *My opinion may be totally wrong but I got the feeling the article starts good...then forcing an interpretation into scripture that may not be there.... and then ends with wierdness.*

 

[MichaelCadry]

Good for you taking an interest in quantum mechanics. *Soon you will be explaining the difference between quarks - up, down, strange, top, bottom and charm. *

I don't understand it, so I'm not the person to ask to evaluate your article. It might help to know who the author is, or where the article comes from. *My opinion may be totally wrong but I got the feeling the article starts good...then forcing an interpretation into scripture that may not be there.... and then ends with weirdness.*

Dear 6days,

Oh, okay. Don't you know about atoms, molecules? No, 6days, that's the beginning and end of the article. I don't know who the author is or where the article comes from. It was a daily inspiration on my computer. I think it is from BeliefNet Inspirations. I'll have to check it out and get back with you, if you want. Thanks so much for checking it out for me so quickly. I really appreciate it and your input helps me out plenty!!

May God Always Be Near Your Heart!!

Michael

You're :first:

:angel: :angel:

 

[MichaelCadry]

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Dear The Barbarian,

You really made me laugh at this one!! Soon you'll be a stand-up comic!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael I have a question:

If the year passes and your ideas are not vindicated, what then?

Dear Kdall,

That last answer I gave you was on a whim. I do not expect the year to pass without my ideas being vindicated. I won't be posting here anyway, for I have to leave before it happens. I'd like to say more, but it will have to wait. But yes, Armageddon will happen this autumn.

God Be With You For Caring!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I have the text of the posts that were lost in the recent TOL database problem (for this thread only), if anyone needs them.

Dear DavisBJ,

I have looked and do not see anything lost from you. But if you want, you're more than welcome to post the text of the posts that were lost. I'm sorry it took so long to get back to you.

Michael

 

[Stripe]

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of the Bible. Genesis teaches six days of creation, while you insist that there are billions of years before man was created. Not only do you invent ideas to protect your religion, you undermine the gospel as you vaccilate on numerous issues.

What you need to do is pick a side. If you think the Bible is right, you should admit that it says "six days." If you think you are right, you should insist that the Bible is wrong. However, you take the irrational path of insisting that the plain meaning does not apply.

When you have chosen one or the other, then you might be able to take part in a rational debate. Until that time, all you are is a walking contradiction.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I have the text of the posts that were lost in the recent TOL database problem (for this thread only), if anyone needs them.

Dear DavisBJ,

What posts are you talking about? Do you need me to be on this thread so you can enter them? What Post #s are they? Let me know.

Thanks and Many Blessings,

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear DavisBJ,

What posts are you talking about? Do you need me to be on this thread so you can enter them? What Post #s are they? Let me know.

Thanks and Many Blessings,

Michael

Cool it Michael, all is well. All I am saying is TOL’s backup system probably backs up whatever was posted each day sometime during the night. That means posts made between the nightly backup and the time the database got corrupted were not backed up, and probably are lost. Sometimes I take snapshots of threads I am involved in, and I happened to have done that shortly before the database crash, so I have copies of essentially all (or at least most) of the “lost” posts in this thread.

I don’t see anything earthshaking in the lost posts, and some of the same ground has already been covered again, so unless someone thinks something crucial was lost, I see little to be gained by restoring the lost posts. Instead, just ask me whatever you want to know, since I am an uncorrupted fountain of pure wisdom and ultimate truth. And, no, there will be no rapture later this year. Sorry, I know that throws a wrench in your plans, Michael, but the rapture has been postponed until 24:18 hours on February 29th of the year 2233. You’ll just need to wait a little longer, is all.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Cool it Michael, all is well. All I am saying is TOL’s backup system probably backs up whatever was posted each day sometime during the night. That means posts made between the nightly backup and the time the database got corrupted were not backed up, and probably are lost. Sometimes I take snapshots of threads I am involved in, and I happened to have done that shortly before the database crash, so I have copies of essentially all (or at least most) of the “lost” posts in this thread.

I don’t see anything earthshaking in the lost posts, and some of the same ground has already been covered again, so unless someone thinks something crucial was lost, I see little to be gained by restoring the lost posts. Instead, just ask me whatever you want to know, since I am an uncorrupted fountain of pure wisdom and ultimate truth. And, no, there will be no rapture later this year. Sorry, I know that throws a wrench in your plans, Michael, but the rapture has been postponed until 24:18 hours on February 29th of the year 2233. You’ll just need to wait a little longer, is all.

Dear DavisBJ,

I'm cool, don't worry. We do not have to add your posts here if it's not necessary. Thanks for your kind offer, nonetheless. And only in your own mind are you an uncorrupted fountain of pure wisdom and ultimate truth. That is quite funny considering how wrong you are. Your definition of when the rapture will be is that it will be on an impossible day, but you just wait a while and see what happens. If I were you, I'd rearrange my heart and mind to include much love and God, and Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, you're screwed.

Michael

:sigh: :jawdrop:

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear DavisBJ,

... If I were you, I'd rearrange my heart and mind ...

Michael

Whaaaat??? If you were me, you would rearrange things so my heart is in my skull, and my brain is in my chest? Really???

 

[noguru]

Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of the Bible. Genesis teaches six days of creation, while you insist that there are billions of years before man was created. Not only do you invent ideas to protect your religion, you undermine the gospel as you vaccilate on numerous issues.

What you need to do is pick a side. If you think the Bible is right, you should admit that it says "six days." If you think you are right, you should insist that the Bible is wrong. However, you take the irrational path of insisting that the plain meaning does not apply.

When you have chosen one or the other, then you might be able to take part in a rational debate. Until that time, all you are is a walking contradiction.

Your confusion on this matter has been addressed many, many, many, many...times. Yet you act as if your words on this matter represent the views of God. Your errors have been pointed out. One can only assume you have some mental deficiency or you are experiencing cognitive dissonance to the point that you have forgotten all these corrections.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your confusion on this matter has been addressed many, many, many, many...times. Yet you act as if your words on this matter represent the views of God.

It seems Stipe has some difficulty distinguishing what he wants from what God says.

 

[6days]

It seems Stipe has some difficulty distinguishing what he wants from what God says.

The Bible says "For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy"

And what Stripe said was..."Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of the Bible. Genesis teaches six days of creation, while you insist that there are billions of years before man was created. Not only do you invent ideas to protect your religion, you undermine the gospel as you vaccilate on numerous issues."

 

[Yorzhik]

And the following post where I make Yorzhik's "evidence's" moot?

I guess I moved it to the other thread then.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorzhik writes: "Even funnier is how those people you claim don't have a clue about science are correct."

But you can't think of any? Isn't that a surprise.

I can't think of any people that are clueless about science that are YEC. But whoever they are, they are correct as shown by people that have a clue about science like Dr. Sanford.

You say "evolution" here when I think you mean "common descent".

I meant the former, although the latter also happens to be true.

Then since the former is a useless term, let's stick with the latter.

Kurt Wise, for example, admits that there are abundant transitional forms supporting common descent. He thinks that there aren't enough species-to-species transitions, however.

Kurt Patrick Wise is an American young earth creationist who serves as the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett-McConnell College. He has a PhD in geology from Harvard University. He's known for his writings in support for creationism as well as his work for the Creation Museum.
Wikipedia

And he notes that while the entire organisms are usually transitional, particular features are often not. Which doesn't make any difference to evolutionary theory.

Either you have a quote-mine here or Kurt Wise is wrong. I've simply not studied the man enough to know.

Hmm... the problem is that YECs, when pressed for evidence, usually present objections to science, not evidence for YEC. Normally, I get a claim based on perceived flaws in evolutionary theory, not evidence for YEC.

How about the fact that a regulated enzyme system looks like it was designed?

There is evidence for YEC, which I've already mentioned to kdall. And there is evidence against mutations+NS being able to produce the diversity of life we have today on earth which we've discussed before.

And each example you've cited ignores the problems with mutation+NS. Or are you going to stick with your "number of mutations required to make a new trait" at 1?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Whaaaat??? If you were me, you would rearrange things so my heart is in my skull, and my brain is in my chest? Really???

Dear BJ,
Everyone knows that's not what I meant. You're too funny! By any chance, do you have Yorzhik's posts in your stash? He would like it if you'd post them here, I believe. Thanks!

Michael

:shut:

:sigh:

 

[Kdall]

I can't think of any people that are clueless about science that are YEC. But whoever they are, they are correct as shown by people that have a clue about science like Dr. Sanford.


Then since the former is a useless term, let's stick with the latter.


Either you have a quote-mine here or Kurt Wise is wrong. I've simply not studied the man enough to know.


There is evidence for YEC, which I've already mentioned to kdall. And there is evidence against mutations+NS being able to produce the diversity of life we have today on earth which we've discussed before.

And each example you've cited ignores the problems with mutation+NS. Or are you going to stick with your "number of mutations required to make a new trait" at 1?

The theory of evolution states that only one out of every few thousands of genetic mutations is beneficial. Those fortunate few individuals that receive these beneficial mutations, AND have no major defective mutations, survive longer and produce more offspring than their competitors. Over the course of time these beneficial mutations passed down from fitter organisms that produce more offspring build up in a population and effect species change