Creation vs. Evolution

[Greg Jennings]

Of course you don't.
You are unwilling to follow the evidence that leads to a super intellect.
(And you might have noticed that gravity is just about right for where we live..... Humans don't live at the bottom of the ocean)
Being an evolutionist Greg... You explain away the evidence instead of following it no matter where it leads.

BTW...Gravity is determined by the gravitational constant. Now that constant requires a very... VERY precise fine tuning for life to exist. Imagine you have a measuring stick stretching out beyond our universe with 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 increments. Now vary the constant by just one increment... and life does not exist.

Interpretation of the evidence... "In the beginning, God..."

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/7659795/fine_tuning_of_gravity_teleological_argument_for_god/

How can you argue that "gravity is fine tuned for life" when literally any level of gravity on Earth that is accessible by living things has life in it? That's ridiculous man.

If humans did actually live at the bottom of the ocean, and therefore had no skeleton (among the many other changes that would be needed), you would be arguing from your underwater computer that God had fine tuned the deep ocean pressure for human life. That's....just.....crazy.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Wow..... Are you trying to be obvious with the fallacies? Genetic information has nothing to do with evolutionists saying no matter how bad... no matter how good the design... Its all evidence for their beliefs. Or... am I missing your point?

(BTW... Jose has been provided with definitions before. If you are truly interested... use google and find definitions such as http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Genetic_information)

No, rather I'm trying to get an answer to a question that you have ignored from another user, and that I happen to think is a good question for a committed YEC as yourself to answer. The follow up to that definition of course, is you telling me how we measure if one genome has more information in it than another?

 

[alwight]

The DI is a team of several, many of whom are scientists. Richards happens to be one who is not but is on a team of several who are.

The DI is often very keen to give the appearance that science is a priority for them, but in fact any genuine science will always be overruled by a literal Genesis which imo rather negates any claims of honest scientific endeavour. The DI is eye candy for YECs, genuine science for them is something to be rebutted not practiced.

 

[Tyrathca]

Dear Tyrathca,

Certainly you must know that I am a very busy person and I come on this thread as I can find time to do so.

Actually you've always struck me as someone with comparatively a lot of free time on your hands. But ok. I'm not expecting immediate replies by the way and I won't care if you take a while to respond.

The site that you went to may have said there was no 7" of snow. I checked your reference out and I couldn't figure out how to use it either. You might try looking up Mar. 4, 1978 for the New York Post, and look at the article of snow there.

I'm not sure why I should trust the new York post over the government organisation in charge of monitoring weather. Do you have a reason why we should?

Of course the reporter was terrified the whole latter day of the snow. So he believed me from the start. He could not write a story without me speaking to the owner of the newspaper first.

That makes no sense Michael, either you misunderstood them or the reporter was palming you off for their boss to deal with. Reporters never need their sources to talk to the OWNER of the news agency. They don't even need them to talk to the editor. That's simply not how news organisations work. If the reporter had a good story it would be published.

Simply put it sounds like they didn't believe you based on their actions.

If you didn't find it by your source, then your source is bad.

Or you were wrong all along. Which is more likely, that NOAA is wrong or you are?

Ty, I really doubt that it will be a decade. Is that fine with you? I've got to run!!

But if it is more than a decade you would consider that a false prediction though? Sounds like you are seriously hedging your bets. Not really extremely soon either.

 

[6days]

The DI is often very keen to give the appearance that science is a priority for them, but in fact any genuine science will always be overruled by a literal Genesis which imo rather negates any claims of honest scientific endeavour. The DI is eye candy for YECs, genuine science for them is something to be rebutted not practiced.

I'm not sure who DI is but they are likely on solid ground if they start with God's Word. (Sudden thought... You mean Discovery Institute?? No, they don't accept a literal Genesis).
Anyways....... People who did accept Genesis as literal helped usher in modern science. And, scientists who continue to adhere to God's Word aren't the ones with egg on their face... backtracking over the numerous unscientific conclusions evolutionists have made.
The most scientific explanation to our origins is "In the beginning, God created"

 

[6days]

No, rather I'm trying to get an answer to a question that you have ignored from another user, and that I happen to think is a good question for a committed YEC as yourself to answer. The follow up to that definition of course, is you telling me how we measure if one genome has more information in it than another?

Does the genome of the whisk fern have more information than that of humans?

 

[6days]

How can you argue that "gravity is fine tuned for life" when literally any level of gravity on Earth that is accessible by living things has life in it? That's ridiculous man.

No.... its evidence of our Creator.
"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics
(Tipler later made the leap from believing in a Creator... to accepting Christ as Savior)

 

[6days]

That isn't a prediction, a prediction has to be about something you don't know and also needs to be specific. Gravity "fine tuned for life" is none of those, we know what gravity we have. And fine tuned is in itself is an interpretation of data not a prediction about what the data should be.

That's like saying I predict waters shape in my cup will be fined tuned to the shape of my cup. It's not a prediction (i know what the water in my cup looks like) and the next part is an interpretation of that shape (a silly one too).

Not true.....Aristotlean 'science' didn't predict that we live in a universe with orderly laws. It was scientists who accepted God's Word as truth who helped usher in modern science based on the belief that we live in an orderly universe... created by the God of the Bible. They believed that God had designed our planet,within the universe for life.

 

[Tyrathca]

Not true.....Aristotlean 'science' didn't predict that we live in a universe with orderly laws. It was scientists who accepted God's Word as truth who helped usher in modern science based on the belief that we live in an orderly universe... created by the God of the Bible. They believed that God had designed our planet,within the universe for life.

Apart from being obviously wrong (since Aristotle and others of that age clearly thought there was at least some order given they searched for and described it) I'm not sure what you think that proves anyway (other than many scientists have been Christian, especially in past centuries) or how it is a logical response to anything I said.

Did you hit your head today?

 

[6days]

Both of Dawkins's statements are true

Dawkins statements show evolutionism is a non falsifible belief system.
He says that no matter if the design is good or bad, it must be interpreted in a Darwinian sense.
Science is knowledge...the search for truth... following the evidence no matter where it leads.
Dawkins is too committed to his belief system to consider that good design, may be evidence for a good designer.

Once early eye tissue had a barely functioning detector, the reversal of the layers would have been unimportant. Evolution has driven the eye to the best it can manage given the suboptimal start, but it is obviously not the best imaginable.

You need do a little research ... and not just fall for Dawkins teachings. Your statement is silly.

 

[alwight]

I'm not sure who DI is but they are likely on solid ground if they start with God's Word. (Sudden thought... You mean Discovery Institute?? No, they don't accept a literal Genesis).
Anyways....... People who did accept Genesis as literal helped usher in modern science. And, scientists who continue to adhere to God's Word aren't the ones with egg on their face... backtracking over the numerous unscientific conclusions evolutionists have made.
The most scientific explanation to our origins is "In the beginning, God created"

You really should read up about their "Wedge Document" some time 6days, since obviously the DI has a clear overarching anti-science right wing fundamentalist theistic agenda:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"​

Some "scientists". :nono:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

 

[6days]

You really should read up about their "Wedge Document" some time 6days, since obviously the DI has a clear overarching anti-science right wing fundamentalist theistic agenda:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"​

Some "scientists". :nono:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Whatever..... That has nothing to do with your false statement about them adhering to the Bible.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Does the genome of the whisk fern have more information than that of humans?

I'm not an expert in that field, so I can't answer the question of whether or not its larger genome contains more "genetic information" than a human's.

In your opinion, which has more information?

 

[Greg Jennings]

No.... its evidence of our Creator.
"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics
(Tipler later made the leap from believing in a Creator... to accepting Christ as Savior)

So we are in agreement that gravity wasn't fine tuned for humans. That's good

 

[gcthomas]

Dawkins statements show evolutionism is a non falsifible belief system.
He says that no matter if the design is good or bad, it must be interpreted in a Darwinian sense.
Science is knowledge...the search for truth... following the evidence no matter where it leads.
Dawkins is too committed to his belief system to consider that good design, may be evidence for a good designer.

You need do a little research ... and not just fall for Dawkins teachings. Your statement is silly.

I note only that you failed to answer the question of eye evolution t I suggested as a reasonable answer. Standard YEC practice.

Incidentally, I haven't read any Dawkins stuff for fifteen years, so I don't know how your last comment applies.

 

[alwight]

Whatever..... That has nothing to do with your false statement about them adhering to the Bible.

Whatever they may say themselves, the wedge document showed them to be American right wing Christian fundamentalist creationists, although they may try to pretend otherwise these days.

 

[6days]

I'm not an expert in that field, so I can't answer the question of whether or not its larger genome contains more "genetic information" than a human's.

In your opinion, which has more information?

You don't need to be an expert to know the answer. The genome of the whisk fern is much larger.
And you don't need to be an expert to know which contains more information. Make a guess.

 

[6days]

I note only that you failed to answer the question of eye evolution t I suggested as a reasonable answer. Standard YEC practice.

Incidentally, I haven't read any Dawkins stuff for fifteen years, so I don't know how your last comment applies.

If not from Dawkins, you certainly have got bad info from someone.
Re eye evolution...... its silly pseudoscience. If you had an idea of how complex even light sensitive spots are..... and the thousands of graduations between each so called simple step, you MIGHT not believe such nonsense

 

[6days]

Whatever they may say themselves, the wedge document showed them to be American right wing Christian fundamentalist creationists, although they may try to pretend otherwise these days.

Wow.... "American right wing Christian fundamentalist creationists".
That would be the opposite of British left wing fundamentalist atheist evolutionists?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Most of us will make life choices from time to time, but unless God clearly actually wants to talk to me specifically, not just by arcane messages, or signs, or schizophrenia then I personally wouldn't even dream of asking. Why on earth wouldn't you simply decide for yourself where you wanted to be? :think:
Wasn't it 7 inches of snow btw?

Dear alwight,

7" was for the NY Daily News reporter. I prayed to God that if He would send over 8 inches of snow by the next day, then I would know it meant go to Phoenix, and if less than that, I could go to Florida. I did not get what I had thought would be best for me, but it worked itself out anyways. Well, now you know.

I'm not interested in Revelation Michael, it's all insane nonsense imo.

Ancient superstitious ignorant people were scared of earthquakes, which is why they would be used and predicted, because sooner or later someone will guess right and will then no doubt imagine themselves to be a great prophet to tell other people that they should be listened to.

Alwight, Revelation isn't all insane nonsense. It is written so that most others would not even understand it. But God's people can touch on some parts of it, while the rest of it remains hidden by God for those He wishes to reveal it to. It's quite awesome language, if you want to know the truth. It is written so that only those whom God will reveal it to will understand. The rest of you stay and remain in the dark. I don't mean just you, alwight, but the majority of the world's population. Unless God gives you the combination to the safe, you just are out of luck.

With Love, In Christ,

Michael