Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

No..... you aren't.
Evolutionism and creationism has the exact same set of facts.....the exact same set of evidences.

Dear 6days,

Thanks for addressing this response from alwight to me. I just didn't know what else to tell him and I figured that I wouldn't even try anymore. There is NO reaching some people. Same with Hedshaker and TheDuke, among others. I'm not sure I'm going to try anymore. Maybe it's because I just got on the thread here. I will read a few more and go on like a trooper!!

God Be With You In Your Hour Of Need,

Michael

:think: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture:
​

 

[Lon]

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

Ok then.



Do you not understand the question, or is this your bizarre way of deflecting?

They are 'creationists.' If you are looking for any clearer connectors, it is either confirmation bias or lack thereof on your part. The video, which you should have watched in the other thread, did indeed tag scripture and creation as part of their overall worldview as well as how that contributed to their scientific advances. Lest you forget what started this:

Given that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in over a century, while at the same time evolution has been and continues to be the foundational framework for the life sciences....one has to wonder just what you're waiting for.

Such admits that creationism 'has' contributed in the past as a 'given' but erroneously thinks that those contributions stopped. However far you intended that analogy to work, it is equally true this century that these men attribute their faith, all of them creationists, to their science contributions. I started this out asking if it were possible for you to actually learn something. It is sad you won't be corrected but that is the extent of your bias. Sad but true.

 

[MichaelCadry]

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.



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?



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



Thank you fundie-bot. :chuckle:

Dear jose,

I'm writing for 6days. It turns out some things have been in the works for over 42 years now, in favor of Creationism. I'm just saying I have told you. You will discover them in a short matter of time. Does that sound fair?? That means that, even though you say that creationism has not brought anything to the table for 150 years, you will get a roasted goose soon enough. If you've been waiting for 2,000 years now, then 'soon' should not be that much to ask for. I can't say how soon. I am not privy to such information. I can't give you a certain amount of time because that would be putting my God to the test, which we are not allowed to do as Christians. So I tell you very soon. Is that good?? So creationism shall have Plenty to offer in the years ahead. That's all for now.

May God Bless Your Heart!!

Michael

:shocked: :think: :rapture:
​

 

[alwight]

But alwight..... you deny any and all evidence that points towards the Creator. There is overwhelming evidence of the global flood.

Any evidence spontaneously appearing miraculously might indeed undeniably indicate a Creator.
However if you have deluded yourself that there is any evidence of a global flood and of a young Earth then I can perhaps see why your conclusions don't match mine.

 

[TheDuke]

Dear TheDuke,

I see you are banned? What happened? What'd you post that got you in so much trouble?
...
Look at what your mental faculty malfunction did. It got you into the pokey. And notice how our mental faculty has kept us out of jail?? You've got a lot to learn by far. I cannot emphasize that enough.

Hi Michael,

Surprisingly it was not the post I anticipated but rather a harmless one IMO. Possibly because I was joking about islam, don't know for sure because there was no reason specified.

However it appears that criticizing religion on a christian forum is "unforgivable" offence. Oops.

Guess you folk just can't be exposed to something you don't wish to hear......

Our belief in the Bible is well-founded. We're not ignorant like those who don't believe in the Bible. Time will show who is ignorant or ill-informed. I hate to call anyone ignorant, so I think they are just still innocent.

Michael

If by "ignorant" you mean that my knowledge of the bible is much less substantial than yours, that's to be expected. Kinda obvious, really.

Your belief isn't well founded at all, it's the most primitive, infantile circular logic that only appeals to the emotionally stunted.


So go ahead, explain to me your reasons, if you dare....

 

[TheDuke]

...

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.

...

See how I don't need evolution to explain this - I can simply say that God made them this way.

...


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

Fascinating, so someone still thinks that we evolved from a modern monkey? And tries to "prove" it without genetics?
Oh dear, why do you waste your time on something like that, only god knows.....


"I can simply say that God made them this way"
I think this sentence summarized very well the YEC worldview.
My dear fellow, anyone can simply say anything!


Well, surely you're not going to port the label of superstition onto science, now are you? Can there even be a greater projection....... at least you are aware of what you are doing and the position you hold.
They say, the first step is to admit to yourself that you've got a problem! So congratulations on that. Now we can start working on the cure.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

So evolution hinders science because it's not creationism. Um.....yeah.

 

[Jose Fly]

They are 'creationists.'

And you still don't understand the difference. Apparently this is just beyond your abilities to comprehend. Oh well.

as well as how that contributed to their scientific advances.

So again, in the last 100 years what specifically has creationism contributed to our scientific understanding of the world?

Such admits that creationism 'has' contributed in the past as a 'given' but erroneously thinks that those contributions stopped.

Because it's true. Creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in at least 100 years. If you think that's false, name something.

 

[6days]

So evolution hinders science because ....

Because it starts with incorrect assumptions, then tries to shoehorn data to fit those beliefs.

 

[iouae]

Fascinating, so someone still thinks that we evolved from a modern monkey? And tries to "prove" it without genetics?
Oh dear, why do you waste your time on something like that, only god knows.....

No, he feels baboons thinking represents some of the highest stages of primate thinking. He feels by studying this, one can see the stages through which human thinking evolved. I do not think this is invalid science at all.

Evolution has a lovely copout. If you look at the Tree of Life you never see humans evolving from apes. What you see is a tree trunk with apes branching off the trunk, but with the tree climaxing in the human branch.

This is a big fat copout, and a cowardly one at that in that one can never pin down what exactly each branch originated from. In other words, we never see the exact organism from which a branch arises.

Thus you can correctly say that we do not come from modern apes, but you cannot give the exact creature from which each ape branch arose, nor the exact creature from which the human branch arose.

I am sure this will be too subtle for you to grasp, but it essentially renders the theory of evolution to be too fuzzy to prove or disprove. And fuzzy is clearly your friend.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because it starts with incorrect assumptions, then tries to shoehorn data to fit those beliefs.

Says who? You? Why should anyone take your word for it?

 

[Jose Fly]

In other words, we never see the exact organism from which a branch arises.

Thus you can correctly say that we do not come from modern apes, but you cannot give the exact creature from which each ape branch arose, nor the exact creature from which the human branch arose.

I am sure this will be too subtle for you to grasp, but it essentially renders the theory of evolution to be too fuzzy to prove or disprove. And fuzzy is clearly your friend.

Yeah, my family ancestry tree shows that we are of German descent, but it doesn't identify the exact German person from whom we're all descended. I guess that means it's all a fake conspiracy, eh? :chuckle:

 

[Caino]

Evolution is factual, young earth creation-ism is a Hebrew religious story.

 

[Yorzhik]

Your gibberish is more likely to make my eyes glaze over Yorzhik. :think:

Your eyes glaze over because you believe in common descent based on blind faith, even against the evidence.

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.

You accuse me of gibberish and then prove yourself unable to make any sense at all. :darwinsm:

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.

You don't seem to understand your problem. The only reason consensus is brought up is because you rest your entire belief on it, despite the evidence put in front of your face. Resting your blind faith on consensus is like resting your argument on being fat, drunk, and stupid. And fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

 

[Caino]

God is the creator of the life that was implanted on the earth from which life as we know it evolved.

 

[iouae]

Yeah, my family ancestry tree shows that we are of German descent, but it doesn't identify the exact German person from whom we're all descended. I guess that means it's all a fake conspiracy, eh? :chuckle:

If evolution was at all useful, then it would be able to tell us how closely baboon are related to humans so that we could do some useful comparisons of ape and human thinking.

I presume that if you wished to find your exact German ancestor, you could throw some money at the problem, employ a genealogist, and find the exact ancestor.

Chimps and bonobos have 95-98% similar DNA to humans.
Baboons about 91%.

Because of the language difference, I personally don't see one can compare ape and human thinking. It's like a chasm between the two. Exactly as the Bible says.

 

[Jose Fly]

If evolution was at all useful, then it would be able to tell us how closely baboon are related to humans

It does, and oddly enough you describe a bit of it in your own post.

so that we could do some useful comparisons of ape and human thinking.

What are you talking about? You don't think there are cognitive studies being conducted on primates?

I presume that if you wished to find your exact German ancestor, you could throw some money at the problem, employ a genealogist, and find the exact ancestor.

And how would he do that?

Chimps and bonobos have 95-98% similar DNA to humans.
Baboons about 91%.

You just answered your question above. Not only are we more closely related to chimps and bonobos that we are to baboons, chimps and bonobos are more closely related to us than they are to baboons.

Because of the language difference, I personally don't see one can compare ape and human thinking. It's like a chasm between the two. Exactly as the Bible says.

Where exactly does the Bible address "ape and human thinking"?

 

[alwight]

Your eyes glaze over because you believe in common descent based on blind faith, even against the evidence.

No, I believe that common descent is true mainly because it makes rational sense based on evidence, but also because the only alternative would seem to be a miraculous creation, which is imo clearly ridiculous. Rather similar to believing in voodoo or magic imo which wouldn't require facts or evidence just blind belief.

You accuse me of gibberish and then prove yourself unable to make any sense at all. :darwinsm:

OK but I suspect that you didn't really want to understand, it seems reasonably understandable to me, some fall on stony ground perhaps?
Consensus in the scientific community is perhaps something you find difficult to understand, just how can it be so different from what you believe to be true?
Your "reasoning" seems to be that they all believe it on blind faith and never bother to look at the evidence and the scientific reasoning. However, unlike creationism, all the reasoning and evidence is there to be examined if required, even if someone did originally believe in common descent on blind faith, though why you think they would do that seems rather hard to understand.

You don't seem to understand your problem. The only reason consensus is brought up is because you rest your entire belief on it, despite the evidence put in front of your face. Resting your blind faith on consensus is like resting your argument on being fat, drunk, and stupid. And fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

I actually think that a scientific consensus is something to take a serious note of. A good indication of where there is strong evidence and little conjecture. I'm quite sure and expect however that scientists in the field will always understand far more than I do, but that doesn't mean I can't grasp at least some of it or have to believe it all simply on trust and blind faith as you creationists seem to do. lain:

 

[6days]

God is the creator of the life that was implanted on the earth from which life as we know it evolved.

In the beginning God created.
He created the various kinds.
He created man from the dust and woman from Adams side.

 

[6days]

No, I believe that common descent is true mainly because it makes rational sense based on evidence, but also because the only alternative would seem to be a miraculous creation

I believe in our common Designer, mainly because it makes rational sense based on evidence. The alternative of common descent is clearly ridiculous imo, being both anti-Biblical and anti-science. ( Your 'god' of mutations destroys...it does not create)