Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

I copied this from another post I had written it in and brought it here where I could expound upon it when necessary, and for the benefit of those who read my thread. I care very much about all of you who come here. I want to offer you facts, as best I can, even if I am wrong sometime about something, big or small. So far counting, I have been wrong on two big things. But that is in the past.
Here you go:

It is quite simple. God says that 'everyone in the future will have to travel to see Him every year. And upon that city/country that does not believe and acknowledge, and love God and Jesus, upon them shall be no rain.' The actual verse I can't remember, nor do I know where it is in the Bible, but it's there. I cannot think of a distinguishing word to find it with my Concordance. Does most of Africa believe in God and Jesus, and serve them with the love of them in their hearts??! Basically, if you don't worship or serve God, upon you shall be no rain for your crops. That means no veggies for that family but also no crops to feed their livestock, so that means no meat or eggs, or honey, etc. for them either. That's why some countries are starving and some are doing excellent. The U.S. is still okay, but it is getting a lot worse about upholding God and His ways, and we're going to end up paying for it if we don't change. There should also be No Gay Weddings. A civil union is more than enough. If they want certain rights, they can have them by putting them in writing and having them approved by a Notary. There is no reason for gays getting married. That is reserved to a man and a woman. The U.S. will pay if they don't change their decision about this. Also, no abortions. You are killing a human being. Which one of you wishes his/her Mom would have aborted them? Unless your life is pretty bad, you would all answer No! Life is pretty nice for 'most' people. Do you wish your Mom would have murdered you while you were still in her womb? C'mon!

While we're at it, ever since women wanted equal rights as men, they have taken jobs and both couples work a job. This caused vendors to increase their prices because there was a larger household income. This forced most women to leave the kids and have to work a job also, to manage to pay for things. Both parents had to work and leave their kids in Day Care or with a babysitter. The kids suffer because they don't have a parent home to watch them and raise them. This, in turn, hurts the child's development IMMENSELY!! They are not taught right and wrong correctly and they are not taught as well in school because both parents don't have time to help them with their homework or help them grow up. They need the love of one parent staying home to raise them. Now either the man can work or the woman can work, and the man stay home and raise the kids, but one of them has to do it, and prices have to go back down to a one-family income. Do you see how this has wreaked havoc upon our nation?? Don't you?? You have no idea unless you really thought about it deeply and studied it!! Prices are too dang high and they should go back down to what they used to be. Things are ridiculous now!! And children would be raised right, so there would be way less crime and less need for guns!! None of you realize why our nation has changed so drastically. I'm not saying that there should be no women's rights. If they want to be employed, they should be paid the exact amount as a man doing the same job, and leaving their man at home to take care of the home and children. That really wraps up a lot of it, in a nutshell.

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :guitar: :singer: :rapture:
​

 

[patrick jane]

gotta go michael - take care

 

[MichaelCadry]

gotta go michael - take care

Okay, patrickj! You sleep soundly!! Dream of good things. No wet dreams, unless it's Vodka!! Heheehheheee!!

May God's Angels Watch Over You While You Slumber,

Michael

:cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :angel:

 

[TheDuke]

Checklist of topics evolutionists avoid, or don't understand:


Check....It is most evolutionists who do not understand natural selection. It has no creative power. And, when it eliminates, there is a loss of pre-existing information.*


Check... In the common sense of the word, you are correct.


Check... evolutionists hate being reminded that Darwinism is largely responsible for increased racism, genocides and the Holocaust.*


Check.... chemical evolution is a topic many evolutionists hate because it shines a light on their illogical faith.



Check.... Rapid adaptation is part of the Biblical creation model. Science shows us the ability of organisms to adapt rapidly based on pre-existing information in the genome.


Well...I don't know if I would call it a conspiracy, but most evolutionists are opposed to academic freedom.


Check...evolutionists often insist that they should turn a blind eye to evidence that seems to point to the Creator.


Check....evolutionists hate when they are told that common ancestry, or a common Designer are beliefs about the past...not science.

Ok, so let us look at how you just validated my entire statement:


1) you use the term "evolutionist" which indicates that you really think that biological evolution is some kind of faith

2) you assert that those who came up with the concept of natural selection and explained in every detail what it is ...... somehow don't understand it.
How would you react to a satanist who's telling YOU that you don't understand christianity? --> that's what you sound like to me.

3) congratulations! Unexpectedly I cannot actually find anything conceptually wrong with your depiction of natural selection (even though your wording is crude and unspecific)
MAYBE there's still a chance that not everything is lost on you

4) you use the term "darwinism" which to be honest, I don't even know how you mean it.... Do remind me where the SS were seen with banners showing Darwin's portrait, I mean - maybe you're right.

N.B. I wonder if "darwinism" was also the inspiration for the extermination of native americans, for slavery in the south, for the armenian genocide etc...

5) I was not aware that scientists hate evolution of any sort, or academic freedom, are you really sure of that?

6) Care to give me a single example of real evidence ignored by science?

And finally, Do you in all earnest think that science is limited somehow to the present and cannot deal with the past? If so, care to define exactly where the temporal limit lies and why it's there?

 

[6days]

1) you use the term "evolutionist" which indicates that you really think that biological evolution is some kind of faith.

Common ancestry beliefs ARE faith based.

If by the term 'biological evolution' you are referring to adaptation, mutation rates, sexual selection, etc...that is observable science which both evolutionists and creationists use.

2) you assert that those who came up with the concept of natural selection and explained in every detail what it is ...... somehow don't understand it.*

No, I didn't say that at all. (And, you may be interested to know a creationist, Edward Blythe, explained natural selection before Darwin)

How would you react to a satanist who's telling YOU that you don't understand christianity? --> that's what you sound like to me.

Some satanists do understand christianity better than many Christians. It doesn't hurt to listen to the their arguments.

3) congratulations! Unexpectedly I cannot actually find anything conceptually wrong with your depiction of natural selection (even though your wording is crude and unspecific)
MAYBE there's still a chance that not everything is lost on you

Perhaps recently passed evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis (former wife of Carl Sagan) also explains it in "crude" terms. "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create... Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change [which] led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.

4) you use the term "darwinism" which to be honest, I don't even know how you mean it.... Do remind me where the SS were seen with banners showing Darwin's portrait, I mean - maybe you're right.

This may help you understand.....
https://youtu.be/QdH0c2FS-Wg please watch...it is short.

5) I was not aware that scientists hate evolution of any sort, or academic freedom, are you really sure of that?

A common practice of many evolutionists is to misrepresent what others have said. I did not say that scientists hate evolution. What I did say is that many evolutionists are opposed to academic freedom. We can discuss that if you wish.*

6) Care to give me a single example of real evidence ignored by science?

What I said is that evolutionists often turn a blind eye to evidence that seems to point to the Creator. For example, *every code known requires an intelligent creator. DNA is the most sophisticated code known yet many evolutionists insist that it has to have a natural explanation.

Like Bill Gates says "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than*any software ever created."

And finally, Do you in all earnest think that science is limited somehow to the present and cannot deal with the past? If so, care to define exactly where the temporal limit lies and why it's there?

Origins science (by evolutionists and creationists)involves examining evidence in the present that making interpretations / opinions about an event in the past...like forensic science. Everyone has a bias, and putting on a white lab coat does not suddenly turn someone into a blank slate (atheist, creationist or agnostic). This bias has lead to many false assumptions on things such as "junk" DNA, "useless" organs, Neandertals, psuedogenes etc.*

 

[alwight]

Common ancestry beliefs ARE faith based.

Not true, common ancestry is imo only the best conclusion there is based on the evidence, not faith or what I may want to believe instead. I would be more than happy to be shown a better one as long as it is also based on the evidence, so what kind of faith is that?

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Hedshaker,

I could do that too, if you want!! Hold on:

<Snip nonsense>

Michael, you are obviously nuts, which is fine, I have no problem with that, I like eccentric people, you even had me liking you for a while. But you're arrogant as well, which is not fine. Months ago I told you that when your predictions do not occur you would change your time line as others have done before you, which is exactly what you are doing except you are disguising it as: "Oh I've made (another) mistake on this....

There is no mistake Michael. You are Wrong, wrong, wrong! And you were always wrong because your predictions emanate from the fantasy of a religiously corrupted mind. I call it religious psychosis

There is a beautiful reality going on right under your nose. Wake up and smell it.

 

[Hedshaker]

Not true, common ancestry is imo only the best conclusion there is based on the evidence, not faith or what I may want to believe instead. I would be more than happy to be shown a better one as long as it is also based on the evidence, so what kind of faith is that?

Me too. Show us the evidence. How difficult can it be if there is any?

 

[Cruciform]

Me too. Show us the evidence. How difficult can it be if there is any?

"Common Descent"​

 

[6days]

...common ancestry is imo only the best conclusion there is based on the evidence

Imo, and in complete honesty, the Biblical Creator is the best conclusion based on the evidence, and logic. Both evolutionists and creationists have the exact same evidence, except creationists also have the eye witness testimony of the One who was there at the beginning.

 

[alwight]

Imo, and in complete honesty, the Biblical Creator is the best conclusion based on the evidence, and logic. Both evolutionists and creationists have the exact same evidence, except creationists also have the eye witness testimony of the One who was there at the beginning.

I suggest that material evidence has no influence at all on your creationist beliefs and that pretending that it has any bearing is being rather disingenuous.

 

[Cruciform]

I suggest that material evidence has no influence at all on your creationist beliefs and that pretending that it has any bearing is being rather disingenuous.

:thumb:​

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, you are obviously nuts, which is fine, I have no problem with that, I like eccentric people, you even had me liking you for a while. But you're arrogant as well, which is not fine. Months ago I told you that when your predictions do not occur you would change your time line as others have done before you, which is exactly what you are doing except you are disguising it as: "Oh I've made (another) mistake on this....

There is no mistake Michael. You are Wrong, wrong, wrong! And you were always wrong because your predictions emirate from the fantasy of a religiously corrupted mind. I call it religious psychosis

There is a beautiful reality going on right under your nose. Wake up and smell it.

Dear Hedshaker,

Yes, I know that I was wrong. Tons of other churches and organizations were wrong also. It was because of the last blood moon not panning out as we thought it would. You all are the ones who kept trying to get me to set a date, saying when, when, when!! So you got the same dose as I did, except I get it worse. Whatever. I still believe it will be soon and no, I won't put a date on it. I've learned my lesson. If you don't believe it will happen soon, that is no sweat off my brow. I do hope that you don't feel I'm being arrogant here, because I'm not trying to be. I'm just replying back to you. And I do still care about you, as any friend would.

Bless You And Your Loved Ones,

Michael

:sigh: :shut: :rapture:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

I can see what you're trying to say. 2,000 years ago, God sent proof of His existence by raising up a Son Who would do miracles, and raise people from the dead {He did this twice, not counting Himself}. So it's not like us 'creationists' or 'religious people' are without evidence. Others just don't believe the evidence. Now, 2,000 years later, we are teetering on the cusp of one of the biggest proofs we are going to get, one some may wish never happened. But yes, God gives proof and we will taste it, ahh, so sweet!! God is not going to come every ten/twenty/a hundred years to give proof. He wants those who have FAITH in HIM!! We'll see what happens. People don't realize that He is in charge of the weather, etc., too. He has broken weather records tons within the past 10 years or more. But even those go unnoticed by those who don't want to take heed. And this world, man and the Universe exude and emanate that there is a Divine Creator, Our God, And His Son!!

Some Input, With Caring,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Not true, common ancestry is imo only the best conclusion there is based on the evidence, not faith or what I may want to believe instead. I would be more than happy to be shown a better one as long as it is also based on the evidence, so what kind of faith is that?

Dear alwight,

I think that believing man is not created in the image of God is an error. It takes FAITH to believe that man is created/made by an ancestor of a chimp. Do you know how that sounds?? When God made everything and all of us, He created the animals the way they looked like, and He created man in the way he looks like. That is what no one seems to be getting here. You've got theories of evolution where most is theory because you don't have fossils or evidence to prove that man used to be descended from a chimp's ancestor. We have 4,000 years or more of texts that show how life REALLY happened in the books written by men. We call it the Holy Bible. These men are just as reliable as your scientists who've written books, despite that your books are all written more recently does not matter. It just means that your theories are a lot newer and have not yet withstood the test of time. I am not too keen on the common ancestry evolutionists believe in. I believe that my ancestors are my grandparents and my great grandparents, etc. But I know that no matter how far back I go, there won't be a chimp or chimp's relative in my bloodline. So forget that.

Best Wishes Always, and Cheerio,

Michael

:sigh: :shut: :jawdrop:

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Hedshaker,

Yes, I know that I was wrong. Tons of other churches and organizations were wrong also. It was because of the last blood moon not panning out as we thought it would. You all are the ones who kept trying to get me to set a date, saying when, when, when!! So you got the same dose as I did, except I get it worse. Whatever. I still believe it will be soon and no, I won't put a date on it. I've learned my lesson. If you don't believe it will happen soon, that is no sweat off my brow. I do hope that you don't feel I'm being arrogant here, because I'm not trying to be. I'm just replying back to you. And I do still care about you, as any friend would.

Reality will not bend to your wants and beliefs Michael, it doesn't work that way. It has nothing to do with the blood moon, which is a perfectly natural even btw, or anything else. Yourself and those "Tons of other churches and organizations" got it wrong because the whole thing is daft. There isn't going to be an Armageddon or a second coming. It's just not real and that's why you were all wrong.

Deny it all you want but the truth is staring you in the face. According to the evidence you are also wrong about the Theory of Evolution as well. Nothing perfectly fits the evidence better that Evolution and that's a fact.

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

I think that believing man is not created in the image of God is an error. It takes FAITH to believe that man is created/made by an ancestor of a chimp. Do you know how that sounds?? When God made everything and all of us, He created the animals the way they looked like, and He created man in the way he looks like. That is what no one seems to be getting here. You've got theories of evolution where most is theory because you don't have fossils or evidence to prove that man used to be descended from a chimp's ancestor.

Michael I realise that probably no amount of even the strongest evidence would perhaps ever convince many creationists. All I'm saying is that despite what some creationists will say there is plenty of evidence from all the natural sciences.
You may not like to believe that we share a common ancestry with chimps but nevertheless that is what all the complimentary scientific conclusions seem to indicate.
No field of science supports the idea that somehow fully formed complex modern creatures suddenly appeared out of thin air. The scientific reasoning must be rational, supported by the available evidence and involve only a logical process not presupposing something miraculous.
Darwin's theory is not an ad hoc whimsical idea of guesswork, it is a formalised, rational and falsifiable, evidence based, scientific theory that has stood the test of time. If somehow it is nevertheless wrong then imo it would be astounding that no contrary evidence has so far ever emerged to show it. The fossil sequence only ever shows those predicted, rabbit fossils are never found in the wrong part of the geological column.
DNA evidence unavailable to Darwin clearly shows our common ancestry with other apes in ways that he could never of imagined.

We have 4,000 years or more of texts that show how life REALLY happened in the books written by men. We call it the Holy Bible. These men are just as reliable as your scientists who've written books, despite that your books are all written more recently does not matter. It just means that your theories are a lot newer and have not yet withstood the test of time. I am not too keen on the common ancestry evolutionists believe in. I believe that my ancestors are my grandparents and my great grandparents, etc. But I know that no matter how far back I go, there won't be a chimp or chimp's relative in my bloodline. So forget that.

Best Wishes Always, and Cheerio,

Michael

:sigh: :shut: :jawdrop:

Yes you have ancient texts, as do other religions, so why don't I simply accept as you do that their authors were as reliable as you seem to think? :think:
Well, if modern day scientists simply asserted guesswork for their conclusions without citing testable evidence or incorporating falsifiability then just as with assertions from the past such claims can simply be dismissed as spurious and without having any actual scientific worth at least, which I do.
Btw I don't reject such texts as having no intrinsic value or interest, but as for having any scientific evidential value, no such unsupported ancient texts, even your one, have any, other than that at some time in the past somebody wrote something.

 

[TheDuke]

1) Common ancestry beliefs ARE faith based.

2) If by the term 'biological evolution' you are referring to adaptation, mutation rates, sexual selection, etc...that is observable science which both evolutionists and creationists use.

3) No, I didn't say that at all. (And, you may be interested to know a creationist, Edward Blythe, explained natural selection before Darwin)

4) Perhaps recently passed evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis (former wife of Carl Sagan) also explains it in "crude" terms.

5) A common practice of many evolutionists is to misrepresent what others have said. I did not say that scientists hate evolution. What I did say is that many evolutionists are opposed to academic freedom. We can discuss that if you wish.*

6) What I said is that evolutionists often turn a blind eye to evidence that seems to point to the Creator. For example, *every code known requires an intelligent creator. DNA is the most sophisticated code known yet many evolutionists insist that it has to have a natural explanation.

7) Origins science (by evolutionists and creationists)involves examining evidence in the present that making interpretations / opinions about an event in the past...like forensic science. Everyone has a bias, and putting on a white lab coat does not suddenly turn someone into a blank slate (atheist, creationist or agnostic). This bias has lead to many false assumptions on things such as "junk" DNA, "useless" organs, Neandertals, psuedogenes etc.*

1) Not at all, the so-called "tree of life" is the result of evidence from genetic analysis and comparative anatomy.
There is absolutely no need for faith in science!

2) cool, so we do agree on something

3) So can we also agree on what natural selection is?
BTW, I don't know how much Blyth contributed, but it's evident that Darwin held him in high regard.

4) Lynn - ironically - described herself as "evolutionist"
Her opinions are fascinating and I'm sure there's a lot yet to learn and improve in modern synthesis (what many call "neo-darwinism")

Her main point is that she cannot explain the level of genetic variation by mutation alone and tries to augment it by a form of symbiogenesis (symbiotically enhanced genetic transfer). That is indeed very true for bacteria but whether it also applies to specialized multi-cellular organisms - I honestly don't know. This is EXACTLY why science works, it's because people can bring in new ideas and test them in the lab and the field.

5) sure I'd like to - since academic freedom is the core of progress!

6) You first proposition is wrong.
A generalized statement out of thin air, which is directly suggesting the answer. That is NOT evidence but rather logical fallacy.
- if you want me to explain that, just ask.

7) Firstly you didn't address any of my questions.
Secondly, absolutely you're right, just being a "professional scientist" doesn't change your humanity or make you automatically competent. Very true!


Now, I'd suggest to close the topic of nazi ideology because it contributes nothing to the discussion, but if you insist we can continue this as well.
I've watched the propaganda film, which is a good example of the ideological tenet of the Uber-human, however where exactly do you see that such a political agenda stems from evolution? Clearly the narrator stated explicitly that "humans are no longer subject to natural selection"

Cheers.

 

[TheDuke]

Imo, and in complete honesty, the Biblical Creator is the best conclusion based on the evidence, and logic. Both evolutionists and creationists have the exact same evidence, except creationists also have the eye witness testimony of the One who was there at the beginning.

Just a few issues here:

- What evidence are YOU looking at?
- Why your god of the bible and not, say .... Allah?
- I'd like to see how you use logic to prove your deity, honestly I'm curious.
- Who do you reckon was the "eye witness" and why don't we "witness" anything anymore?

Cheers

 

[6days]

1) Not at all, the so-called "tree of life" is the result of evidence from genetic analysis and comparative anatomy.
There is absolutely no need for faith in science!

There is no need for faith in science...we agree. However, the tree of life you refer to is based on faith.

In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"
The latest research shows Darwins tree is collapsing.*One of the scientists interviewed in that article W.F.Doolittle was also published in Scientific American (Feb 2000) saying the imagined tree of life is a tangled mess.

There is no tree of life. hundreds of different imaginary trees are in textbooks and journals all based on a belief system and similarities.

3) So can we also agree on what natural selection is?

Sure.... a process of elimination.

4) Lynn - ironically - described herself as "evolutionist"
Her opinions are fascinating and I'm sure there's a lot yet to learn and improve in modern synthesis (what many call "neo-darwinism")

Yes... an evolutionist who acknowledged that mutations and natural selection can not create. She attempted *( like Gould did) to find a creative mechanism. Sadly they both refused to follow the evidence to the Creator.

5) sure I'd like to - since academic freedom is the core of progress!

Great! Most evolutionists do not wish to even admit or allow discussion that complex sophisticated design may be evidence of an Intelligent creator.*

6) What I said is that evolutionists often turn a blind eye to evidence that seems to point to the Creator. For example, every code known requires an intelligent creator. DNA is the most sophisticated code known yet many evolutionists insist that it has to have a natural explanation.

6) You first proposition is wrong.
A generalized statement out of thin air, which is directly suggesting the answer. That is NOT evidence but rather logical fallacy.

If you can show a code that self created, let us know; otherwise it is illogical and faith based only, to deny a intelligent code maker may have created the DNA code.

*

7) Origins science (by evolutionists and creationists)involves examining evidence in the present that making interpretations / opinions about an event in the past...like forensic science. Everyone has a bias, and putting on a white lab coat does not suddenly turn someone into a blank slate (atheist, creationist or agnostic). This bias has lead to many false assumptions on things such as "junk" DNA, "useless" organs, Neandertals, psuedogenes etc.

7) Firstly you didn't address any of my questions.*
Secondly, absolutely you're right, just being a "professional scientist" doesn't change your humanity or make you automatically competent. Very true!

So, you agree that the bias ( faith based) of evolutionism has lead to the false conclusions I mentioned, as well as others?
*

I've watched the propaganda film, which is a good example of the ideological tenet of the Uber-human, however where exactly do you see that such a political agenda stems from evolution? Clearly the narrator stated explicitly that "humans are no longer subject to natural selection"

Exactly!! So the nazis thought they would speed along the evolution process by helping out natural selection. They eliminated people they deemed unfit. The Holocaust is largely a result of Darwinism.*

...the Biblical Creator is the best conclusion based on the evidence, and logic. Both evolutionists and creationists have the exact same evidence, except creationists also have the eye witness testimony of the One who was there at the beginning.

- What evidence are YOU looking at?

*God's Word.

*The fossil record

*Sexuality

*The universe

*Morality

*History / Archaeology

*Our moon

*Love

Etc

- Why your god of the bible and not, say .... Allah?

A great question once you can acknowledge that there does seem to be a Creator. *At that point then you start to dig and find out just who the Creator is.*

- I'd like to see how you use logic to prove your deity, honestly I'm curious.

*
There are many ways... For example logic tells us that something which has existed uncaused, throughout eternity, caused everything. We can then take the statements from scripture and find a possible answer to the cause...an uncaused eternal God. Next, we can take that scripture and look to see if there is evidence of divinely authorship. We can then compare that testimony comparing it to all other explanations eliminating those which are inconsistent with evidence....and eliminating statements which are self contradictory.*

- Who do you reckon was the "eye witness" and why don't we "witness" anything anymore?

The eye witness testimony of the One who was there is the Creator God. We do witness Him through His Word, and through the world around us.*

"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."Rom. *1:20