Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

alwight

New member
Dear Hedshaker,

It wouldn't matter to you if it were written in a banner across the sky that Jesus was true, would it? No!! It's alright if scientists mention someone's name and it is taken literally as fact, but if someone is speaking about Jesus or His miracles, it isn't fact. There's no getting through to you, Hedshaker. I'm starting to give up on you and Alwight. I guess my only friends ARE 6days and iouae. Otherwise, I am s*** out of luck. What a bummer after two years of trying. You ignore everything written about God or Jesus, but you live by everything written by men about science and garbage. There really is no reaching you, I guess. I give up. No more friends. You are adversaries. This also means that you are led by Satan. He is the one who wants you to believe in everything but Jesus and God. He benefits by it. Have fun with your eternal life. If you don't want to get hot, I suggest you pray to God and ask Him for forgiveness and love, as soon as possible. Oy vay, how can ANYONE reach through the thickness of your scales, so tightly placed together??

I am Sad,

Michael

:shocked: :think: :rapture: :rapture:
Michael, people like me and HS are convinced by evidence but you don't offer anything but bald assertions and your blind faith. Your Muslim counterpart is just as trusting in his beliefs as you are in yours and I see no reason to suppose that your beliefs are superior to his and since you can't both be right at least one of you is plain wrong or deluded. I think that perhaps you both are. Show me some evidence that I am wrong. :think:
 

6days

New member
Hi Michael,
It's nice that many people like to believe in Jesus, and yes I can be quite observant at times since I have even noticed such things myself, but none of that represents any kind of evidence that anyone has ever performed miraculous deeds or has risen from the dead. ;)
Actually there is evidence. Lots of evidence...

"After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth......." keep reading
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
 

alwight

New member
Actually there is evidence. Lots of evidence...

"After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth......." keep reading
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
Sorry 6days but your favourite apologetic evangelical spin has absolutely no evidential value at all.
Maybe you don't actually understand what verifiable evidence is? :sherlock:
 

6days

New member
Sorry 6days but your favourite apologetic evangelical spin has absolutely no evidential value at all.
Maybe you don't actually understand what verifiable evidence is? :sherlock:
awwwwwww alwight..... You are moving the goalposts.
There IS evidence of the resurrection.
 

gcthomas

New member
Actually there is evidence. Lots of evidence...

"After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth......." keep reading
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

What a genius! He decided it is either a hoax or true.

I could have saved him 700h of work of be busy asked me first ...
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Michael, people like me and HS are convinced by evidence but you don't offer anything but bald assertions and your blind faith. Your Muslim counterpart is just as trusting in his beliefs as you are in yours and I see no reason to suppose that your beliefs are superior to his and since you can't both be right at least one of you is plain wrong or deluded. I think that perhaps you both are. Show me some evidence that I am wrong. :think:

Written testimony from eyewitnesses of the risen Christ for one.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 KJV - 8
 

alwight

New member
Written testimony from eyewitnesses of the risen Christ for one.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 KJV - 8
Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, right?
Paul clearly wasn't an eye witness while he doesn't even seem to know how many disciples there were since Judas had already hanged himself.
Paul writing about supposed eye witnesses is at best only hearsay, but what it certainly isn't is an eye witness report from twelve or perhaps eleven, or arguably only ten individuals, it was something that some guy called Paul dreamed up. :plain:
 

Jose Fly

New member
Strawman :)
I said selection and rapid adaptation is part of the Biblical creationist model.

Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.

One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.
science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)

Rapid changes are bewildering to evolutionists..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most things with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.

Other examples of the ability of animals to adapt quickly:
Fruit flies grow longer wings...
... evolutionists are 'alarmed'
New Scientist 165 wrote:
"Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate"


Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...
... Evolutionists are surprised.
Science Daily wrote:
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0910142632.htm


And the best one showing.....
... Evolutionists are unscientific.
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!

That's a few of the many examples of adaptation and speciation that support the Biblical model, contradicting the evolutionist model of slow gradual change over millions of years.

I wonder if anyone appreciates just what 6days is trying to pull off here. He's saying that observed and documented evolution of new traits and species is more in line with creationism than with evolution.

Do you get that? Observed evolution better supports creationism than evolution! Wow. :confused:
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nice of you to pop by with your opinion Yorzhik.
It's less opinion and more demonstrable alwight. Your eyes glaze over and you quit thinking anytime evidence is presented that you don't like. You always fall back on "consensus" and fail to realize that just because the evidence is against common descent, that doesn't mean I'm presenting a case for YEC at the time. It's so easy to demonstrate you can't even understand the last sentence.
 

gcthomas

New member
Your eyes glaze over and you quit thinking anytime evidence is presented that you don't like. You always fall back on "consensus"
As you may know, whenever there is a discussion about science by non experts, the consensus of the actual working science experts is the best guess anyone can make.

Going against the established consensus is not something for the layman or anti-science advocate to do without a healthy portion of humility.
 
Last edited:

alwight

New member
It's less opinion and more demonstrable alwight. Your eyes glaze over and you quit thinking anytime evidence is presented that you don't like. You always fall back on "consensus" and fail to realize that just because the evidence is against common descent, that doesn't mean I'm presenting a case for YEC at the time. It's so easy to demonstrate you can't even understand the last sentence.
Do I irritate you Yorzhik?

Anyway what case are you offering instead, do you even know yourself?
Perhaps your goal is simply to promote creationism albeit of an older vintage, therefore in your mind common descent must be false?
I'd say that in fact your only objection to common descent is because it tends to make your creationist belief invalid. Not that you have any evidence against it, least of all any kind of scientific evidence or indeed consensus.

If you are in fact right that common descent is false despite the evidence and yes, a general scientific consensus, then even with a greater time scale available to you, creationism just isn't science and never will be.
 

6days

New member
Observed evolution better supports creationism than evolution!
Very good Jose, but your terminolgy makes it seem confusing.
Observational science (rapid adaptation, genetic drift, selection etc) better supports Biblical creation beliefs than common ancestry beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top