Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Thanks for caring about me anyway Michael.
Apparently you think that a consensus has to be imposed?
Currently however, as individuals, we are free to conclude for ourselves what we think is true.
Some of us are more likely to be convinced by the weight of evidence and perhaps by the science to conclude what seems to be a rational belief.
Others however seem to have a more dark ages enthusiasm for blind adherence to the evidence-free ramblings of an ancient scripture. :plain:

I can't simply choose what I believe, I have to be persuaded. Nor can I change what I believe at a whim because of an ancient scripture's apparent threats. :nono:


Dear alwight,

Of course I don't think a consensus has to be imposed. I think I must be misunderstanding the meaning of the word. I will check it out in a bit. I am up way past my bedtime, because it's 3:30am and I have to go to radiation 2morrow. Alwight, I have tried to 'persuade' you, but you want to stay in the dark ages too instead. This is not us believing in a wizard or a myth. Let's get real here. There is a reason so many people believe in God. You're letting the world pass you by, Al, and you're going to miss the boat that is sailing for Heaven. I sure wish you would reconsider, and Soon. Soon cannot be fast enough. Better you make the deadline than not, just because you did not know the hour that the Master of the house was coming home. Will PM you soon!!

Tons Of Love Coming Your Way, alwight,

Michael
 
Last edited:

alwight

New member
Dear alwight,

Of course I don't think a consensus has to be imposed. I think I must be misunderstanding the meaning of the word. I will check it out in a bit. I am up way past my bedtime, because it's 3:30am and I have to go to radiation 2morrow. Alwight, I have tried to 'persuade' you, but you want to stay in the dark ages too instead. This is not us believe in a wizard or a myth. Let's get real here. There is a reason so many people believe in God. You're letting the world pass you by, Al, and you're going to miss the boat that is sailing for Heaven. I sure wish you would reconsider, and Soon. Soon cannot be fast enough. Better you make the deadline than not, just because you did not know the hour that the Master of the house was coming home. Will PM you soon!!

Tons Of Love Coming Your Way, alwight,

Michael
I will be persuaded by facts and evidence Michael but not by the empty words from an ancient scripture, from a time when most people tended to believe in such stuff since they knew no better. In the past they filled in the gaps with made-up stuff, voodoo and supernatural beliefs since there were no better explanations.
No it's not me letting the world go by, I at least try to understand how things physically work and presume that only natural explanations are true until shown otherwise.
 

Jose Fly

New member
You were wrong. Sorry you can't lose graciously. You've been shown statistics before.--> You "can't" be corrected.

Then remind me....what contribution to our scientific understanding of the world has creationism made in the last century?

Remember when the MRI machine was part of that conversation?

And exactly what part of the MRI machine was based on the earth being less than 10,000 years old, a taxonomy based on "kinds", a global flood just 4,000 years ago, and all life on earth wiped out except what rode aboard a wooden boat?
 

6days

New member
JoseFly said:
what contribution to our scientific understanding of the world has creationism made in the last century?

Creationism and evolutionism are beliefs about the past. A belief in Biblical creation has not harmed the progress of science like evolutionism has. In fact a belief in Biblical creation inspires scientists to look for order and purpose.*

Evolutionism meanwhile causes evolutionists to be lazy dismissing things like DNA to be junk...or dismissing organs such as our appendix to be useless.


Gods Word tells us we are wonderfully made...
:)
 

Jose Fly

New member
Like I said before, if all you can do is repeat the same old talking points over and over, rather than actually identify a specific contribution creationism has made to science in the last 100 years, that speaks for itself.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Consensus emerges dependant on evidence, they aren't two separate issues.
Which is why your eyes glaze over whenever evidence is brought up. The evidence is against consensus... but you stick with consensus anyway.

How else is the value of the evidence determined if not by consensus?
You have it the wrong way around. The value of consensus is determined by the evidence. The value of evidence is determined by how well it fits other evidence and how well all the evidence together fits with truth.

In the end will there then be a consensus? :plain:
There could be. It doesn't matter to the truth.
 

6days

New member
Like I said before, if all you can do is repeat the same old talking points over and over, rather than actually identify a specific contribution creationism has made to science in the last 100 years, that speaks for itself.
Speaking of talking points you keep repeating yours while failing to notice evolutionism has never contributed anything to science...and failing to notice your belief system has 150 years of history of hindering science.
Are you interested in discussing how Darwinian evolution hindered the progress of science from 150 years ago? 100? 50? 10?

The view that best fits the evidence and encourages scientific endeavors is....In the beginning, God created.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Which is why your eyes glaze over whenever evidence is brought up. The evidence is against consensus... but you stick with consensus anyway.


You have it the wrong way around. The value of consensus is determined by the evidence. The value of evidence is determined by how well it fits other evidence and how well all the evidence together fits with truth.


There could be. It doesn't matter to the truth.

For someone who uses the word "evidence" a lot, your posts sure are devoid of any.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Speaking of talking points you keep repeating yours

Only in response to your mindless repetition.

Do you have new evidence, data, or analyses? If not, there's not really anything of consequence going on here, is there? Evolutionary theory will continue to serve as the unifying explanatory framework for the life sciences, just as it's done for the last 150+ years, and creationism will continue to be 100% scientifically irrelevant.

Nothing that's posted here will change any of that.

while failing to notice evolutionism has never contributed anything to science...and failing to notice your belief system has 150 years of history of hindering science.

It's amusing to see how you continue to mindlessly repeat these talking points. And yes, we already know that ensuing repetitive pattern.....I'll point out the examples where evolution contributes to science, you'll claim they've been proven false, I'll ask where and/or how, and you'll ignore/dodge for the next few days, then come back and repeat the above talking point as if nothing had ever happened.

Do you think endlessly repeating this pattern of dishonesty is doing your side any favors? Does it ever occur to you that such dishonesty might make you and your cause look bad? Or do you figure that as long as you're defending your God and holy book, it doesn't matter how you do it?

Are you interested in discussing how Darwinian evolution hindered the progress of science from 150 years ago? 100? 50? 10?

Do you have something new that we haven't covered already?

The view that best fits the evidence and encourages scientific endeavors is....In the beginning, God created.

Thank you fundie-bot. :chuckle:
 

alwight

New member
Consensus emerges dependant on evidence, they aren't two separate issues.
Which is why your eyes glaze over whenever evidence is brought up. The evidence is against consensus... but you stick with consensus anyway.
Your gibberish is more likely to make my eyes glaze over Yorzhik. :think:

How else is the value of the evidence determined if not by consensus?
You have it the wrong way around. The value of consensus is determined by the evidence. The value of evidence is determined by how well it fits other evidence and how well all the evidence together fits with truth.
Consensus either exists or it doesn't, it isn't an objective. You obviously dislike it as it is now because it typically is at odds with your consensus of one.

In the end will there then be a consensus? :plain:
There could be. It doesn't matter to the truth.
However at the moment the ultimate truth is an unknown but a scientific consensus does exist for many things, but none for creationism it seems, which is probably why such a consensus earns your seal of disapproval.
 

noguru

Well-known member
That's the opposite of what I said. The earth and this solar system are perfectly fine tuned by God for mankind, not the universe because we are it, so there goes your big bang theory.

No, not really. But you can pat yourself on the back all you want. Just don't break your shoulder. :)
 

alwight

New member
No..... you aren't.
Evolutionism and creationism has the exact same set of facts.....the exact same set of evidences.
Yes but scientific conclusions don't involve such facts and evidence just appearing miraculously out of thin air. Nor does it involve the inventing of a supposed global flood evidence-free.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Then remind me....what contribution to our scientific understanding of the world has creationism made in the last century?
It was a video. There are many (meaning a LOT more than you understand), but Ben Carson, who definitely has spearheaded brain surgery as well as the MRI etc.



And exactly what part of the MRI machine was based on the earth being less than 10,000 years old, a taxonomy based on "kinds", a global flood just 4,000 years ago, and all life on earth wiped out except what rode aboard a wooden boat?
It shows that your concern isn't really that important, doesn't it?
 

6days

New member
Yes but scientific conclusions don't involve such facts and evidence just appearing miraculously out of thin air. Nor does it involve the inventing of a supposed global flood evidence-free.
But alwight..... you deny any and all evidence that points towards the Creator. There is overwhelming evidence of the global flood.
 

6days

New member
JoseFly said:
Evolutionary theory will continue to serve as the unifying explanatory framework for the life sciences

Evolutionism / common ancestry beliefs only serves as a religion, or as a belief system about the past. Common ancestry beliefs are not science and have no bearing on medical advancements nor on new technologies.
JoseFly said:
6days said:
while failing to notice evolutionism has never contributed anything to science...and failing to notice your belief system has 150 years of history of hindering science.
It's amusing to see how you continue to mindlessly repeat these talking points.

It's amusing that you try deflect by calling it talking points. You obviously know its true that evolutionism hinders scientific progress.
JoseFly said:
6days said:
Are you interested in discussing how Darwinian evolution hindered the progress of science from 150 years ago? 100? 50? 10?

Do you have something new that we haven't covered already?
I certainly do!! I'm sure you would like to ignore the 'old news'. :devil:

But first of off are you agreeing that evolutionism has hindered science with false beliefs on things like "junk" DNA and useless organs? And are you agreeing that evolutionism has caused millions of deaths in this world and untold suffering? (Then we can move on to new examples of how evolutionism hurts science)

The view that best fits the evidence and encourages scientific endeavors is....In the beginning, God created.
 

noguru

Well-known member
Dear noguru,

I think that was Daniel1611. He's been gone for quite a while. I think he changed his name though to different numbers. Daniel1732 or something like that.

Well, I've got to say that it's good to have you back. It's really been a LONG Time!! I hope that your holidays were excellent and pleasant!! I figure we're going to be debating back and forth, but that's okay. That's part of what this thread is about. If you just got a new car or truck, you can mention that also. C'est la vie!! You take good care and enjoy your life.

Much Love Coming Your Way!!

Michael

Hey Michael. Yes, I was was part of a military experiment where they used cryogenics to keep me alive for 100s of years. When I came to I was in a world full of people that had very low IQs, and the president wanted me to save the world because I had the highest IQ. They gave me this vehicle:

1WxA9.jpg


They put me in a stadium ring to fight this vehicle:

10a440a904427a4468f0f8890daac48b.jpg


Not a very fair fight, would you agree?
 

Jose Fly

New member
It was a video. There are many (meaning a LOT more than you understand), but Ben Carson, who definitely has spearheaded brain surgery as well as the MRI etc.

So you really don't understand the difference between "creationism hasn't contributed to science" and "Christians haven't contributed to science".

Ok then.

It shows that your concern isn't really that important, doesn't it?

Do you not understand the question, or is this your bizarre way of deflecting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Jose Fly

New member
Evolutionism / common ancestry beliefs only serves as a religion, or as a belief system about the past. Common ancestry beliefs are not science and have no bearing on medical advancements nor on new technologies.

We all know that's what you believe, but that only really matters to you. As I noted earlier, you can repeat this all you like, but in reality evolutionary theory will continue to serve as the unifying explanatory framework for the life sciences, and nothing that you post here will change that.

It's amusing that you try deflect by calling it talking points. You obviously know its true that evolutionism hinders scientific progress.

They're talking points because that's how you treat them, i.e., mindlessly repeating them regardless of reality.

But first of off are you agreeing that evolutionism has hindered science with false beliefs on things like "junk" DNA and useless organs? And are you agreeing that evolutionism has caused millions of deaths in this world and untold suffering? (Then we can move on to new examples of how evolutionism hurts science)

Of course not.

The view that best fits the evidence and encourages scientific endeavors is....In the beginning, God created.

Thanks again fundie-bot.
 

iouae

Well-known member
We all know that's what you believe, but that only really matters to you. As I noted earlier, you can repeat this all you like, but in reality evolutionary theory will continue to serve as the unifying explanatory framework for the life sciences, and nothing that you post here will change that.

6days stated "... evolutionism hinders scientific progress."

Evolution does hinder scientific progress.
Like I showed in previous posts, most Phyla appear suddenly in the Cambrian, contradicting evolutionists own Tree of Life which evolutionists push which gives the impression that animals from simpler phyla give rise to animals of more complex phyla.

By trying to shoehorn all biology into an evolutionary paradigm, biology has been severely retarded. Evolution tries to unify biology, but all it does is retard the Biological sciences.

I am busy reading Eugene Marais "The soul of the ape" which tries to explain how baboons are ancestors to humans by examining baboon thinking. The whole book is a desperate attempt to shoehorn baboon thinking into a place somewhere between primitive animals and complex human thought. It reminds me of the biological sciences teaching at university where half the time is wasted trying to bend every known biological fact to fit a retarded theory. What a waste of time and effort.

If I were to summarise Marais argument from a biblical perspective, here is what the whole book is saying....
Primitive animals are born with a complete set of instincts which tell them how to respond to all aspects of life. They learn little.
Apes are born with only enough instinct to survive while they learn all they need to survive. They learn a lot.

In computer terms, primitive animals come hard wired, while higher animals such as apes and man come with a read/writable hard-drive and their parents teach them how to survive. Thus they are more versatile ultimately, though they start out more vulnerable. See how I don't need evolution to explain this - I can simply say that God made them this way.

What Marais does not address is the importance of language. Because we are able to speak, we can convey even abstract concepts to future generations, thus passing on our culture. And humans have a huge brain which consumes a huge part of their total energy budget, so they have to use their brains - since this is their biggest asset, compared to other animals where their muscles consume the greater portion of their energy budget.

It is in the use of language that man is "made in the image of God". God speaks. God is even called "The Word". God can think in the abstract. Religion and the afterlife are part of the abstract. Without abstract thinking, man would just be another animal. But like the Bible states, man is made in God's image, and is in a different class to all other animals.

God created man to be religious. That is why almost without exception, all men are religious/superstitious - evolution just being one form of superstition.

Men want to feel part of something greater than just something transient, as in that they come and they go. Animals just live for the moment or the next few days. They stoically accept their lot in life. They do not complain like they are owed anything. When they break a leg, they struggle on to the end. They don't blame God, or reason that "a good God would not allow me to suffer like this". In this regard, animals have more horse sense than man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top