Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

I don’t contest that I don’t believe in God. But I am glad to know that those Shintos who believe in Amaterasu, and those Buddhists who have the God Bosatsu, and those who hold to their God Zeus, and Hermes, and Thor, and Wotan – wow, they all have "a reasonable explanation" for how life started. Thanks very much.

How many of those god's have provided a inerrant history book of real events and real people?

 

[DavisBJ]

there's only one God

you'll learn this soon enough when you're standing before Him

Fine, I’ll be sure to ask Him which God He is. The faithful I speak to right now have substantially conflicting ideas about their Gods, and that just amazes me – that something as crucial as understanding who God really is has been a huge point of disagreement for millennia. It is amazing, unless you consider the possibility that each person sees whatever he wants to confirm his private ideas about who God is.

 

[DavisBJ]

Yep, according to you, we have slowly evolved from slime over time. That make bunches of sense.

It does sound goofy, until you are willing to look at the evidence instead of just reacting emotionally to the idea. Look at the DNA you find in that slime, and then your own. Suddenly you are confronted with the fact that slime or not, you have an immense amount in common.

 

[DavisBJ]

How many of those god's have provided a inerrant history book of real events and real people?

Inerrant history, like taking up residence for a few days in the intestines of a big fish?

 

[TheDuke]

As I already explained Michael chimps and humans evidentially shared a common ancestor a long time ago.

Genetics says otherwise
God's Word confirms humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor.

Wishful thinking mate, The evidence is very clearly not in your favour!
I'm not sure if you're just not aware of it or if you're deliberately ignorant and in denial. But I sense that maybe your religious bias is showing.

Take off your blindfold and embrace the beauty of reality!

 

[TheDuke]

1) As you have been shown the 'tree of life' is imaginary, and even some evolutinists are mocking that model.

2) I know WHO created though.

3) You are discussing your beliefs, and your faith about the past...a one time not repeatable, not observable event. ..not science.

4) That's a typical inconsistent argument from atheists. There is much atheists believe, that defies logic, that can't be proven.

5) Again, your argument is a typical atheist argument.
...
Codes are simply a system of symbols that encodes and decodes a message.

6) You are right...it wasn't really a strawman but more of a moving the goalposts fallacy. You asked for evidence...I listed several, then you change to wanting experimental setup.

Perhaps you don't know what evidence is. A paleontologist calls bones "evidence". A geologist calls sedimentary layers "evidence". A geneticist calls mutation rates "evidence"....etc.

7) Sure it is. *Just like a history book, or eye witness testimony can be used as evidence. Or.... similar to citing peer reviewed articles in a journal.*

8) Strawman fallacy.

1) Are you listening or are you just covering your ears and imagining you're in la-la-land?
I've shown you exactly why the tree of life is a good and valid example and what "evolutionists" are disputing and what not.

If you continue like this, I wonder what's the point of our discussion

2) You don't know squat. You just pretend and it makes you happy

3) So where is your reasoning you once brought up yourself about comparing science to a crime scene investigation???
You just insist on not answering my direct questions!

4) not an argument, but food for thought
Yet again: atheism has nothing to do with faith. We don't imagine anything but follow the evidence wherever it may lead

5) Man, you really are very emotional about this. Did you even read my post?
Once and for all: DNA did NOT create itself and nobody believes it !!!!!
Your new and exciting definition of a code is excellent because that's precisely what DNA is NOT!
So can we finally agree on this or are we going on spinning in circles?

6) Hey look, you CAN think clearly when you want to. Not shifting any goalposts but rather clarifying what evidence is. I gave you an example of how evidence can be collected. What paleontologists and geologists collect in the field is exactly that.
When you make a list of just stuff - it not evidence, it's just a list of stuff.

--> Try again !

7) If you can't tell the difference between mythology and a science journal, no wonder you believe in magic.

8) Strawman, yeah right:

Here what you said:
"logic tells us that something which has existed uncaused, throughout eternity, caused everything. We can ... find a possible answer to the cause: an uncaused eternal God."

Here what I said that you said:
"First, you define your god to be eternal without cause. A characterization out of thin air.
Then your conclusion is to assert that this being caused everything else - an equally vacuous claim."

Where's the misrepresentation??? And where's the logic?

 

[alwight]

It's a fine answer! So big deal. Chimps and humans share some ERV sequences. They share a lot of other things too, but that doesn't make chimps, humans. I'm sure they share some DNA and RNA, and genes, and atoms with us.

Michael, ERVs can indicate something very specific. It isn't about just having them, it is about where exactly they appear in the genome. They are foreign randomly acquired DNA, if two similar species both have them at the same place it is a virtual certainty that they were once the same species when they were acquired.
Chimps and humans do share some of the same ERVs in exactly the same places, which can only rationally mean that they were the same species when they were acquired.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

 

[6days]

I've shown you exactly why the tree of life is a good and valid example and what "evolutionists" are disputing and what not.

What you have shown is that evolutionism is not science...it is not falsifiable....it is faith based.

Recall it was you who brought up the so called tree of life to show common ancestry beliefs were not faith based. Recall it was you who said "tree of life" is the result of evidence from genetic analysis and comparative anatomy.
There is absolutely no need for faith in science!"*

What I have shown is that the evolutionists *'tree of life' is a tangled mess according to an evolutionist in Scientific American'. The 'tree' is turning out to be more like a garden according to genetic analysis. *That garden...that evidence is a fit with the Biblical model.

 

[6days]

Wishful thinking mate, The evidence is very clearly not in your favour!
I'm not sure if you're just not aware of it or if you're deliberately ignorant and in denial. But I sense that maybe your religious bias is showing.

Take off your blindfold and embrace the beauty of reality!

Evidence supports the truth and accuracy of God's Word.
For ex...... Dr Luke (Gospel of Luke) was perhaps the world's greatest historian. The research Luke did is reflected in the accuracy of his account. The Gospel of Luke is just one of many historically accurate Books in God's Word.

The Gospel of Luke besides numerous mentions of things with historical and archaeological significance also mentions;*
32 countries*
54 cities*
9 islands.*

Because of the numerous mention to countries and cities, Sir William Ramsay thought that this book would be the easiest one to disprove. He along with his archaeological team set out to Asia Minor to prove the Bible wrong. But... a funny thing happened. "Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity"*

Ramsey said*"I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth"

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians."
http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm*
(I had wrote and posted this previous)*

Interesting how so many people say the Bible is filled with errors. Yet for many who are willing to study it with an open mind, such as Sir William Ramsay, it is inerrant.

 

[6days]

There is much atheists believe, that defies logic, that can't be proven.

Yet again: atheism has nothing to do with faith. We don't imagine anything but follow the evidence wherever it may lead

Wrong. Many atheists believe many things. For example, atheists BELIEVE that life came from non life. Atheism often is not an absence of belief, but it is a highly religious belief system. *

 

[6days]

Codes are simply a system of symbols that encodes and decodes a message

*

Your new and exciting definition of a code is excellent because that's precisely what DNA is NOT

You need study just a wee bit.

I would suggest starting with something simple like wiki...then we can move into more science related conversation.

 

[6days]

What paleontologists and geologists collect in the field is exactly that.

Correct... they collect evidence.

For example a paleontologist collects dino bones. That is one of the evidences I had listed. You seem not to understand what evidence is, and confuse it with 'conclusions'

 

[6days]

Strawman, yeah right:
Here what you said:
"logic tells us that something*which has existed uncaused, throughout eternity, caused everything. We can ... find a possible answer to the cause:*an uncaused eternal God."

Here what I said that you said:
"First, you*define your god to be eternal without cause. A characterization out of thin air.
Then your conclusion is to assert that*this being caused everything else*- an equally vacuous claim."
Where's the misrepresentation??? And where's the logic?

My claim from logic is that anything which has begun to exist has a cause. Logic tells us that somethinging*which has existed uncaused, throughout eternity, caused everything.

Then I provided a "possible" answer to that logical statement.

 

[6days]

It does sound goofy, until you are willing to look at the evidence instead of just reacting emotionally to the idea. Look at the DNA you find in that slime, and then your own. Suddenly you are confronted with the fact that slime or not, you have an immense amount in common.

Everyone life forms uses the same DNA CODE.
Every life forms has the same molecular motors like APP Synthaze.
Evidence of a single Designer.

 

[6days]

Fine, I’ll be sure to ask Him which God He is.

What people believe does not change who He is. There can only be One who created everything.

 

[6days]

Michael, ERVs can indicate something very specific. It isn't about just having them, it is about where exactly they appear in the genome. They are foreign randomly acquired DNA, if two similar species both have them at the same place it is a virtual certainty that they were once the same species when they were acquired.*
Chimps and humans do share some of the same ERVs in exactly the same places, which can only rationally mean that they were the same species when they were acquired.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

Michael was correct.

ERV's are simply one more thing that science is proving evolutionists wrong on ( like "junk" DNA, "useless" organs like appendix, Neandertals not breeding with humans, psuedogenes etc).*

For creationist and Biblical perspective there are many articles on ERV'S, such as....
"Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’"
http://creation.mobi/large-scale-function-for-endogenous-retroviruses

"Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs)—Evolutionary “Junk” or God’s Tools?"
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/junk-dna/human-endogenous-retroviruses-hervs-gods-tools/

"Do Shared Endogenous Retroviral Elements Prove Our Shared Ancestry With Primates?"
http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.ca/2012/01/do-shared-endogenous-retroviral.html?m=1

 

[DavisBJ]

What people believe does not change who He is. There can only be One who created everything.

Or the job of creation might have been divvied up among several Gods. You privy to the rules Gods operate under?

 

[6days]

Or the job of creation might have been divvied up among several Gods. You privy to the rules Gods operate under?

There can only be One God who created everything.
Rom. 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

[Jonahdog]

There can only be One God who created everything.

Other than your Bible verse---why?

 

[MichaelCadry]

probably?

so your authority is king james?

Dear chrysostom,

My authority comes from God, His Son, and the Holy Ghost!! Is that what you are waiting for, instead of the King James Bible?? There you go. Wait no longer!!

May God Grant You Many Blessings!!

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :rapture: