Creation vs. Evolution

[patrick jane]

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross." --- Adolf Hitler, My New Order

Huh. :think:

so what? He was delusional all his life.

 

[Jose Fly]

so what? He was delusional all his life.

That's what I keep asking 6days.....so what? He can't answer.

 

[6days]

And there are many more cases, in addition to the ones Rosenritter mentions, where evolutionists have a made silly and false claims, stories, drawings etc.

The moon is made of cheese. Now we've both made meaningless, empty assertions.

Science has proven proven many of the evolutionist claims false, just like science has proven your claim about the moon to be false.

 

[Jose Fly]

Science has proven proven many of the evolutionist claims false, just like science has proven your claim about the moon to be false.

Sheesh, you've turned into Stripe. Instead of "Darwinists hate reading" you just repeat your rote phrases ad nauseum.

I guess this is just what creationism does to people.

 

[DavisBJ]

…in matters that deal with your Darwinism…

You and 6days demonstrate how much fanatical hatred you have for Darwin that you routinely use his name in place of the correct terminology. I am discussing technical aspects of how creationists explain the flood of Noah, but for you, that is “Darwinism”. I am not aware that Darwin said much at all about the flood. Perhaps I should not refer to you as a Christian, but rather as Walt Brownian?

Your response is, expectedly, completely bereft of any justification for why Baumgardner was apparently wrong. (I shouldn’t expect to get blood from a turnip.) In spite of Baumgardner being one of the luminaries of the RATE study, he seems to not command much respect from you.

Your sole objective is to protect your precious religion.

Like you protect your sacred Browianism?

A man interested in science would have chastised Fly for his obvious error. However, Darwinists have an agenda of zero concessions. They cannot abide even the impression that a creationist is being agreed with, let alone that they might get even minor points right.

I often bypass discussions that are based more on quibbling over minutia than substance. Likewise in this thread, you have been absent from participating for extended periods as well.

And you're a troll, preferring spam to rational discourse.

Funny words you use to describe discussions about how the flood of Noah might have occurred. But ultimately, I do think the Biblical account of the flood of Noah is just a kind of spam that ended up in scripture.

 

[Jonahdog]

Science has proven proven many of the evolutionist claims false, just like science has proven your claim about the moon to be false.

It would be much more accurate to state that science has shown most, if not all, creationist claims to be false.

Remember, "proof" is for math and, thankfully, whiskey.

 

[Rosenritter]

It would be much more accurate to state that science has shown most, if not all, creationist claims to be false.

Remember, "proof" is for math and, thankfully, whiskey.

To be more accurate, you mean that people who like to think of themselves as "scientific" like to pretend that creationist claims are false, but do so with circular logic and/or personal attacks and/or dodging the issues. I haven't seen you or anyone else here disprove a biblical claim yet.

For example, there is a biblical claim that the earth and moon are approximately 6000 years old. That's a concrete statement that can be measured from a literal reading of Genesis. I think Jose was saying he couldn't post much because he was on vacation and away, so we agreed to defer the discussion of the proofs of radiometric dating, and even the original subject matter of the solar system itself. I even gave a fair heads up as to how the conversation was likely to proceed (unless it gets derailed by personal attacks, which is the typical case, not the exception.)

 

[Stripe]

You and 6days demonstrate how much fanatical hatred you have for Darwin that you routinely use his name in place of the correct terminology. I am discussing technical aspects of how creationists explain the flood of Noah, but for you, that is “Darwinism”. I am not aware that Darwin said much at all about the flood. Perhaps I should not refer to you as a Christian, but rather as Walt Brownian?

You'll talk about anything to avoid scrutiny of your religion.

Your response is, expectedly, completely bereft of any justification for why Baumgardner was apparently wrong. (I shouldn’t expect to get blood from a turnip.) In spite of Baumgardner being one of the luminaries of the RATE study, he seems to not command much respect from you.

We were having a discussion over energy and its properties. Fly made an obvious error that I pointed out. Suddenly you want to talk about something — anything — else.

Like you protect your sacred Browianism?

Nope. Where Dr. Brown is wrong, I disagree with him. However, Darwinists are far too desperate to deny that anything he says might be right to discover where he and I diverge.

I often bypass discussions that are based more on quibbling over minutia than substance. Likewise in this thread, you have been absent from participating for extended periods as well.

:AMR:

So what?

Funny words you use to describe discussions about how the flood of Noah might have occurred.

:darwinsm:

You'll say anything, won't you?

But ultimately, I do think the Biblical account of the flood of Noah is just a kind of spam that ended up in scripture.

Which is why you'll never be of any value to this discussion; you have no hope of conceding the validity of any idea sourced by the Bible.

You're a troll, nothing more.

 

[6days]

I haven't seen you or anyone else here disprove a biblical claim yet.

People have been trying to do that for a couple thousand years without success, so its not going to happen now.

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear SH,

… Moses heard God Who wrote the Ten Commandments on Stone Tablets for him. I could go on, but maybe you get the point.

And likewise, you told us that God told you that the rapture would before the end of last year, and that you even asked for and received permission from God to convey that information to us. Seeing how that wrong that fiasco turned out, there is no message you could deliver to us now that we can trust.

If I had my way, I would ban you from this thread. And DavisBJ too. You're both nothing but word-twisters. I'm sick of it.

You got all gabbledebabbled once before and threatened to ban me, only to get all namby-pamby and apologetic in just a couple days. But if you insist, if you can’t ban someone, I am sure you can ask one of the moderators to do it for you. Maybe you want the next 19,000 posts in this thread to be verses of kumbaya as you all sing in unison behind your wall of censorship.

You deserve my tirade, so don't say I'm ranting. You cause the response that you sow.

Part of life is dealing with people who irritate us. How you chose to respond to those people is a pretty good measure of your own moral stature.

 

[DavisBJ]

We were having a discussion over energy and its properties. Fly made an obvious error that I pointed out. Suddenly you want to talk about something — anything — else.

I was quite clear that I was interested in knowing if you had technical reasons for selecting Walt over Baumgardner. Sorry if you were unable to comprehend such a deep concept.

Where Dr. Brown is wrong, I disagree with him.

But you are amazingly reluctant to tell why you disagree with Baumgardner. Is just due to mindless allegiance to your current hero?

… you have no hope of conceding the validity of any idea sourced by the Bible.

Using the Bible to prove things said in the Bible does look like a pretty clear case of circular reasoning.

You're a troll, nothing more.

You have always had the ability to put me on ignore. Since you are averse to specifying why you support the Brownian cult over Baumgardner, then I suspect you won’t have much more to say on that matter that interests me.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Lodging general objection to the above for a matter of record. Michael, is this what you read and proved from scripture, or revealed to you through special revelation?

Dear Rosenritter,

I can understand your feelings. Yes, it was revealed to me through special revelation. How do you think that I could ever make some of this up? I know I've made some mistakes in the past, but this isn't one of them. All I can advise you to do is just sit and wait, and see what happens in the near future. It says that when Israel is surrounded by armies, know that the time is near. Even the U.S. seems to have abandoned Israel. I blame that squarely on Obama. Obama was a Muslim when he was younger. So it comes as no surprise to me that he would diss Israel. I wish we could impeach him before he causes any more of this. The time is near though.

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

 

[Rosenritter]

That is a start. Then there is the problem of breathable oxygen, being bathed in digestive juices for a few days, etc.

When you invoke a divine superpower you abandon any pretense you are adhering to science.

There are sea creatures with large enough bellies. Whales come to mind.
But as for your second conclusion, congrats. Maybe if you think on that for a second you will realize you are trying to disprove some things that by nature aren't disprovable. Realize the difference between that which can be tested and that which can't.

 

[Lon]

Why do you think I would ask you a hard question, when you can't answer simple questions that have factual answers?

As this forum often dances between debate, banter, and moments of sincerity, it is ever difficult to ascertain where my efforts are appreciated vs a complete waste of time. You've made a few comments now that have you falling into the latter category. Do I blame you? No, but it isn't for me. You'll have to take this tack with someone well else.

You exaggerate what might have one been quotes and so you refuse to back them up with sources or links. Or perhaps you are just lying for rhetorical effect, it is hard to tell with you.

No. It isn't. I don't respond to rude nor demand, especially when such has already been posted. Anybody that knows Einstein, knows 1) that he was very bothered being called an atheist and that he held firmly to a theistic/deist position associated with pantheism. He had not experience with God answering his prayers.

So, I asked one question about your assertions re Einstein's beliefs, which are hardly central to any sort of discussion. And instead of answering then moving on, you wiggle and insult and avoid. What sort of argumentation is that?

It is a refusal to enter into the inane and petty where a two-line retort is all I get for any sort of archival work I'd spend any amount of time looking up for the individual. Read the letters and know Einstein better. It is also well-off the beaten path of the thread as well. There is something about trying to get the last-word and one-upmanship that worries a bone of contention where I tend to move on after the second day.

 

[Lon]

And cricket doesn't claim you are born sick but commanded to be well on pain of burning in sulfur.

Stuart

Again, is this a good use of either of our time? Especially when the answer is "turn and believe"?

 

[MichaelCadry]

If by "special revelation" you mean drugs, you might be on to something.

Dear Stripe,

Why do you keep saying drugs. I'm not on drugs.

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

There are sea creatures with large enough bellies. Whales come to mind.

You give me the specifics on any sea creature that has a throat big enough for a man to pass through, a stomach big enough to hold him, plus a few day’s supply of oxygen, some means for reducing the carbon dioxide that would build up, keep the stomach acids from attacking the body, prevent him from passing deeper into the digestive tract, assure that the fish stays near the surface for several solid days so as to preclude the bends…

When ya got that in place, then maybe we will talk. (Based on your recent nebulous allusions to water somehow pushing up one end of a segment of tectonic plate, and mysterious super-whooper plate movements eradicating most life forms, and now this generic allusion to sea creatures, I am getting the sinking feeling we are not going to see more substantial offerings from you. I will give you credit for a declaring a firm 10,000 year limit to the age of the earth.)

… disprove some things that by nature aren't disprovable. Realize the difference between that which can be tested and that which can't.

You can’t disprove that the doorknob in my bedroom is not in fact the true and living God, who chooses that way to live where He can see into our world, or that the universe wasn't created last Friday at noon.

Am I to conclude you want to include the supernatural under the umbrella of what science should study?

 

[DavisBJ]

Again, is this a good use of either of our time? Especially when the answer is "turn and believe"?

Yeah, Stuu, turn and believe. Believe that your wife just might turn into a pillar of salt. Or that the snake in your garden is a descendant of one that gabbed with Eve. Or that the dead plant cells making up one of those sticks outside your door might suddenly transform into living animal cells (of the serpent variety). Or that at the very moment that Noah closed the door behind that last bug entering the Ark (the bug who was assigned to make sure the Black Death would survive), at that moment there was a rupture in the tectonic plates releasing a gigazillion gallons of water onto the earth. Or that the virgins taken captive from slaughtered tribes are war booty for the blood-soaked victors. Or that the infants of neighboring tribes are best slaughtered as though they were just cattle. That’s all, just believe.

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear Stripe,

Why do you keep saying drugs. I'm not on drugs.

Michael

Now Michael, you be careful. Stipe is my friend. Almost every time I talk to him he calls me a moron, or an imbecile, or resorts to mockery. You, know, kinda like he calls you a degenerate homosexual. He’s just jesting, you know that. I won’t stand for you saying bad things about my good buddy Stipe. [/Cadry Impression]

 

[Lon]

Yeah, Stuu, turn and believe. Believe that your wife just might turn into a pillar of salt.

Over-thinking, over complicating. Me? I ask "what did it mean? what does it me for me?" You? :nono: So, here we go down the pithy road...again.

Or that the snake in your garden is a descendant of one that gabbed with Eve.

lain: What is the truth conveyed or are you happy to be stuck in details and miss all kinds of points? Do you do this with Aesop's Fables ? "Ants don't talk" is your stopping point? :think: I must apologize that I think 'pithy' often. Cannot help it. Why do I mention it? Because you necessarily are going to have to leave this all behind lest you remain what is my estimation of pithy, shallow, and sad.