Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Unless this was an extremely unusual snowstorm, I’ll bet I could have found many locations where it was 3-5 inches deep. You think snow is like water – with the surface pretty much at a common level? Weather reports commonly predict “one to two feet of snow”, and I can’t recall of a weatherman ever forecasting the snow depth to a specific inch.

Sorry if your "fulfilled prophecy" is so loosey-goosey, but thems the facts.

Dear BJ,

No, I don't think that snow is the same as water. It was an extremely unusual snowstorm. God sent it on His behalf. You'd never understand. The Lord said He would send 7 inches of snow on the reporter's newspaper building ... the Daily News Bldg. They reported that it was 7 inches. Maybe you don't believe me now, because you are a reformed tried and true atheist, but that reporter sure was scared to death. So something must have been obvious, right?? And yes, I know you'd like to get your hands on this thread and will say anything you can to get your way. From what I've read, you've said everything you can possibly think of. The thread belongs to me and has my name on it, and my sweat and blood in it. It's God's thread. Let Him do with it what He Will. He's the one Who has helped me write it thus far. So I'll leave that entirely in His Hands. David didn't "steal" the shewbread to be a thief. He was just extremely hungry. So no, I have not stolen my own thread. You sure seem to want it badly for some certain reason. I would not trust you to retain the integrity of this thread anyways. No matter WHAT you tell me. Good day!

Michael

:angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture:

 

[alwight]

Then why are evolutionists so bent on discrediting Creationism? According to what you just said, evolution isn't even a competing theory.

I don't think that the creationists' version of evolution on steroids after a supposed global flood is actually compatible in any way to Darwinian evolution particularly by natural selection. There would be nothing natural about two of each "kind" being released after the flood with no food to be found, particularly for the carnivores other than what was on the Ark.

Darwin's theory on the origin of species is otoh not what creationists find particularly compelling stuff, but evolution is evolution.
But this is why when YECs call people like me "evolutionists" it's not really correct since as you admit YECs need a kind of super evolution to make their beliefs of the Earth's repopulation fit into the time they say is available.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael has a good thread -

According to my loose calculations (quick), I see that over the course of the thread it averages about 500 posts per month, and 13,250 views per month.

It should reach 20,000 posts by the end of October 2016. In about 2 months it should reach 500,000 views !!


Kudos Cadry !! :think:

Dear patrick jane,

There are no Kudos Cadry. This thread is a result of God and those who've chosen to post on it. It may never hit 20,000 posts. This thread still searches for the Truth. There are less creationists on this thread and it has still managed to go on. It isn't fair though. God reigns Supreme!! There are tons of lies and untruths that can pop up on this thread, but only one true answer to each of them. We go on searching. God wants the best for us. We are His Children. But some do not conduct themselves as if they are His Children. What can you do?

May God Continue Your Love Of Christianity!!

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear BJ,

… And yes, I know you'd like to get your hands on this thread and will say anything you can to get your way. From what I've read, you've said everything you can possibly think of. The thread belongs to me and has my name on it, and my sweat and blood in it. It's God's thread. Let Him do with it what He Will. He's the one Who has helped me write it thus far. So I'll leave that entirely in His Hands. … I would not trust you to retain the integrity of this thread anyways. No matter WHAT you tell me. Good day!

Don’t get so freaked out, Michael. Think about this. You and I are really, really close to being in agreement. Maybe 5000 different Gods have been proposed by men over the centuries. You don’t believe in 4999 of them. I don’t believe in 5000 of them. That’s only 1 out of 5000 that we differ on. We are 99.98% in perfect agreement. So, Mike, it’s kinda like we have been running a marathon. I finished, and you have run all but the last 2 yards. Just 2 more yards to go. You could almost fall over the finish line. I’ll stand here just 6 feet in front of you rooting for you to take those last two steps. You can do it, I know you can, and so do you. Make it a perfect 5000 out of 5000.

 

[iouae]

I wouldn't accept that anyone is born Christian or Muslim etc, it's what they might become if the culture they are immersed in prevails. I wouldn't claim that anyone is born an atheist either but I would say that in a way we are all born "atheist" (without theistic belief), any belief in gods acquired will come along later.

You found a literal Genesis more compelling then?
BTW I'm unimpressed with the idea of a global flood being any more than an ancient myth.

It seems to me however that you simply didn't like Darwinian evolution for some reason, not that you could find fault with it, you'd just rather believe that the Biblical global flood was all true instead?

Then again perhaps you mainly wanted to annoy your Dad when he pushed Darwinian evolution your way?

Would I be right in saying no [sane] atheist would believe in creationism?

Let us say you are right about the following "I would say that in a way we are all born "atheist" (without theistic belief), any belief in gods acquired will come along later."

Let us assume that no "belief in gods...came along later".
By default, what would that leave one being, an evolutionist or a creationist? [ignoring for a moment the merits of either theory].

It was the science behind evolution that fully persuaded me in favour of my bias against evolution, not an attempt to annoy my Dad. And we always managed to argue amicably. The more evolutionary science I learned, the more biased I became, from the evidence. I will admit that hominid fossils bothered me till about 2 years ago, when this piece of the puzzle fell into place.

I hope to get into a detailed debate on the science of evolution, so I hope you will participate. The only precondition is that the debate does not degenerate into the "You are stupid and your mother is ugly" name calling. Thanks for not arguing like this.

I will start by asking evolutionists to give me a definition of evolution which they all agree on, plus a tree of life which they all agree on. Then let's see how this matches up with the science.

I feel it's futile trying to debate evolution till one defines it. Otherwise evolutionists will say cichlid variety is evolution and I will say, "No, its God-given variation" and the matter can never be resolved [although some in their hearts feel there is nothing left to resolve].

 

[MichaelCadry]

Would you like me to point (once again) to the specific posts where you flip-flopped on the old-earth vs. young earth question, and changed your mind even after declaring that in answer to prayer you had been told old-earth was the right answer?

I guess it's just my dang problem of not knowing it All. Like you do?

This is so reminiscent of those men who justify beating their wife by saying “She made me do it”. Come on Mike, time to stand on your own two feet.

That's not even a proper comparison. Like I've said, I don't know it All. God does. I'll bet He's going to love convincing you!! You really have no idea what evil is, do you? Get thee behind me, Satan.

Which is what many of us have said all along. Turns out we were the ones who were right on that question.

Even more, there is a probably a huge amount that science doesn’t even know enough to know what kinds of questions need to be asked. That does nothing to discredit what it does know.

So everything that comes out of my mouth HAS to be true, but you can be wrong whenever you want, because you don't represent God? Many of God's People were not without error. You will see how 'right' you've been on your questions. I will see how 'right' I've been on mine. The proof is really in the outcome, not on the way to it.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Don’t get so freaked out, Michael. Think about this. You and I are really, really close to being in agreement. Maybe 5000 different Gods have been proposed by men over the centuries. You don’t believe in 4999 of them. I don’t believe in 5000 of them. That’s only 1 out of 5000 that we differ on. We are 99.98% in perfect agreement. So, Mike, it’s kinda like we have been running a marathon. I finished, and you have run all but the last 2 yards. Just 2 more yards to go. You could almost fall over the finish line. I’ll stand here just 6 feet in front of you rooting for you to take those last two steps. You can do it, I know you can, and so do you. Make it a perfect 5000 out of 5000.

We are hardly 99.9% in agreement. You have a whole different belief system. And you also think you've finished a marathon that you never are going to finish. Good day!!

Michael

 

[iouae]

Hi Michael

We are getting up to page 1000.
I feel you should have the honour of being the first to post on that page.
Its sort of like the odometer of one's car clocking back to zero.

I hope all is going OK with you.

Warmest regards

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Michael

We are getting up to page 1000.
I feel you should have the honour of being the first to post on that page.
Its sort of like the odometer of one's car clocking back to zero.

I hope all is going OK with you.

Warmest regards

Dear iouae,

Thank you for your strong consideration. I'm surprised that you would even think about that. At first, I couldn't even understand what you were talking about, to be honest. Yep, I guess page 1,000 is coming up, but I don't need to be the first to post on it at all. It's okay. Hang in there, iouae. The path is not always easy!!

God Be With You Always,

Michael

 

[alwight]

Would I be right in saying no [sane] atheist would believe in creationism?

The requirement for being an atheist is to not believe in any god, so I'm not sure what other than a god-like being might have been able to create a universe to a design rather than it just happening on it's own, but then I don't represent all atheists.

Let us say you are right about the following "I would say that in a way we are all born "atheist" (without theistic belief), any belief in gods acquired will come along later."

Let us assume that no "belief in gods...came along later".
By default, what would that leave one being, an evolutionist or a creationist? [ignoring for a moment the merits of either theory].

YECs need evolution more than anyone, who isn't an evolutionist?

It was the science behind evolution that fully persuaded me in favour of my bias against evolution, not an attempt to annoy my Dad. And we always managed to argue amicably. The more evolutionary science I learned, the more biased I became, from the evidence. I will admit that hominid fossils bothered me till about 2 years ago, when this piece of the puzzle fell into place.

That's all very interesting but your opinions alone doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

I hope to get into a detailed debate on the science of evolution, so I hope you will participate. The only precondition is that the debate does not degenerate into the "You are stupid and your mother is ugly" name calling. Thanks for not arguing like this.

It's not my way to be obviously rude. I would like to know what specifically un-impresses you about Darwinian theory, please don't be economical with the evidence or detail?

I will start by asking evolutionists to give me a definition of evolution which they all agree on, plus a tree of life which they all agree on. Then let's see how this matches up with the science.

Now I think you are deliberately setting unnecessary preconditions. It really doesn't matter if all "evolutionists" all concur or not. The point here should be imo what are the best conclusions that can be made from the available evidence. However I'm quite sure that creationists will all have their own version of creation based on nothing but a literal Genesis, evidence-free of course.

I feel it's futile trying to debate evolution till one defines it. Otherwise evolutionists will say cichlid variety is evolution and I will say, "No, its God-given variation" and the matter can never be resolved [although some in their hearts feel there is nothing left to resolve].

Then why don't we start with the facts and evidence for YECreation, that shouldn't take long.
If the only type of fish isolated in a sizeable lake were cichlids and left alone to develop naturally then it seems to me that that is exactly what we got from natural selection, not by design divine or otherwise. Your requirement to complicate things with a supposed divine intent leaves me highly un-impressed. lain:

 

[iouae]

Any evolutionists out there confident enough to define precisely what they believe in, and subject it to scientific scrutiny, without hiding behind vague definitions and insults.

If so ...
"I will start by asking evolutionists to give me a definition of evolution which they [all] agree on, plus a tree of life which they [all] agree on. Then let's see how this matches up with the science.

I feel it's futile trying to debate evolution till one defines it. Otherwise evolutionists will say cichlid variety is evolution and I will say, "No, its God-given variation" and the matter can never be resolved [although some in their hearts feel there is nothing left to resolve]."

 

[alwight]

Any evolutionists out there confident enough to define precisely what they believe in, and subject it to scientific scrutiny, without hiding behind vague definitions and insults.

If so ...
"I will start by asking evolutionists to give me a definition of evolution which they [all] agree on, plus a tree of life which they [all] agree on. Then let's see how this matches up with the science.

I feel it's futile trying to debate evolution till one defines it. Otherwise evolutionists will say cichlid variety is evolution and I will say, "No, its God-given variation" and the matter can never be resolved [although some in their hearts feel there is nothing left to resolve]."

Why must "evolutionists" do the heavy lifting here?
You presumably mean non-believers rather than those actively promoting Darwinian evolution.
YECreationism is what requires the explanation and the heavy lifting here. Yes Darwinian theory is a rational and plausible explanation supported by the evidence but most non-creationists "aka evolutionists" will not need to cling to it should a better explanation come along.
I personally am not a non-believer or an "evolutionist" because of Darwin's theory, I am a non-believer because I don't accept the existence of a supernatural nor any supernatural explanation physics defying YEC nonsense derived from a literal adherence to Genesis and nothing else.

 

[iouae]

Why must "evolutionists" do the heavy lifting here?

I got it Alwight, that you do not plan to do any heavy lifting

I am hoping that those who say I don't know what evolution is, will come to the party with their definition, and we will take it from there.

It would be illogical for me to define evolution, then demolish it since folks would say I chose a definition which I could demolish.

Surely evolutionists do know the basics of what they believe?
Is it asking too much "heavy lifting" of them to state their beliefs, just like every other believer does on every other thread every day?

 

[gcthomas]

I got it Alwight, that you do not plan to do any heavy lifting

I am hoping that those who say I don't know what evolution is, will come to the party with their definition, and we will take it from there.

It would be illogical for me to define evolution, then demolish it since folks would say I chose a definition which I could demolish.

Surely evolutionists do know the basics of what they believe?
Is it asking too much "heavy lifting" of them to state their beliefs, just like every other believer does on every other thread every day?

It has been discussed enough in this thread - find your own 'official' definition if you want one.

 

[alwight]

I got it Alwight, that you do not plan to do any heavy lifting

I am hoping that those who say I don't know what evolution is, will come to the party with their definition, and we will take it from there.

It would be illogical for me to define evolution, then demolish it since folks would say I chose a definition which I could demolish.

Surely evolutionists do know the basics of what they believe?
Is it asking too much "heavy lifting" of them to state their beliefs, just like every other believer does on every other thread every day?

What hasn't already been discussed is why specifically would any sensible person believe Genesis as literally true but think they can pick holes in scientific conclusions?

 

[Jose Fly]

Hey now, let's be fair here. We don't like it when creationists refuse to define terms and say things like "it's already been defined somewhere in this thread" (especially in a thread with over 14,000 posts), so we shouldn't do the same thing.

"Evolution" is defined as a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

"Common descent" is defined as different taxa sharing an ancestry.

"Universal common ancestry" is defined as all life on earth being related via common descent from a shared ancestor.

As far as a tree of life that everyone agrees on, that's a bit harder to come by, depending on the level of detail we're talking about. But I'd say most of us on the science side of things would be agreeable to the tree presented here: http://phys.org/news/2015-09-tree-life-million-species.html

 

[patrick jane]

Hey now, let's be fair here. We don't like it when creationists refuse to define terms and say things like "it's already been defined somewhere in this thread" (especially in a thread with over 14,000 posts), so we shouldn't do the same thing.

"Evolution" is defined as a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

"Common descent" is defined as different taxa sharing an ancestry.

"Universal common ancestry" is defined as all life on earth being related via common descent from a shared ancestor.

As far as a tree of life that everyone agrees on, that's a bit harder to come by, depending on the level of detail we're talking about. But I'd say most of us on the science side of things would be agreeable to the tree presented here: http://phys.org/news/2015-09-tree-life-million-species.html

But what about the Red Deer cave people ?

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah, weird huh?

 

[badp]

Time to define terms and clarify the thinking here.

When people talk about "evolution" in the context of "evolution vs. creation" what they mean is common descent by means of natural selection acting on variations. That is what I mean when I say "evolution."

But when pressed for evidence of common descent, the evolutionist starts talking about natural selection. In other words, the evolutionist is talking about the mechanism, not what actually happened.

No creationist I know disagrees with natural selection. The disagreement is on whether all life biologically descended from a common ancestor.

So next, the evolutionist starts talking about the fossil record, claiming it provides evidence for evolution. The creationist points out that it doesn't, and usually the debate either ends or starts over at the beginning.

 

[DavisBJ]

We don't know what the salinity of preflood oceans was. We don't know how a global flood would change the salinity. We don't know how tolerant pre-flood marine life was. We don't know what extinctions the flood might have caused...etc.

If you want to keep some credibility in the claim that science supports creationism, then it looks like you creationists should propose and conduct scientific tests to eliminate all of these “we don’t knows”.

We do know God caused a global flood. We do know that God created the genetic code allowing organisms to change and adapt rapidly. We do know that many of todays organisms are highly adapted (they have lost genetic info) and are less tolerant to change. We do know that God's Word and science are always in harmony. We know...evolutionists are out of harmony.

And we also know that almost every major scientific institution disagrees with every one of the 4 claims you just made. We know that what you call “God’s Word” is the ultra-literal reading of an ancient tribal creation story, and only a minority of Christians demand that it be read as literally as you do. We know that much of what you accept as science is not at all what the premier educational institutions teach as science.