• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

SUTG

SUTG

New member
JudgeRightly said:
You're overstating your case.

YE creationism does not require its adherents to abandon the whole of science.
Click to expand...


Sure it does.

If that were true, then there wouldn't be creationist scientists with advanced degrees in scientific fields, yet there are plenty of such creationists.
Click to expand...

This doesn't follow. There are several motivations for them to choose to do so.

We (YECs) reject evolution because it doesn't fit the evidence.
Click to expand...

That's not why YECs reject evolution.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
SUTG said:
That's not why YECs reject evolution.
Click to expand...
There was a paper published on that a while ago, and they found that the most significant factors in someone denying evolution are 1) religious affiliation (fundamentalism = evolution denial), 2) political affiliation (Republican = evolution denial), and 3) knowledge of genetics (more ignorant = evolution denial).
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
SUTG said:
I like to draw a distinction between creationism and young earth creationism in cases like this. Even though I'm an atheist, I think someone can still maintain a belief in some sort of transcendent origin to the universe (or not).

But creationism of the young earth variety is another beast altogether and require its adherents to abandon the whole of science, as can be seen hilariously in this thread.
Click to expand...

:yawn:

Darwinists hate evidence.
 
G

Greg Jennings

New member
Right Divider said:
Your FALLACY still stands.... you think that people could not be older than you think based on nothing.
Click to expand...

No, I can prove that George Washington existed based on evidence. Through the same process, we can conclude that species evolved over long periods of time.

There is no fallacy. Your point was refuted and now you're whining

Grow up, and try to use some logic, mmkay?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Greg Jennings said:
No, I can prove that George Washington existed based on evidence. Through the same process, we can conclude that species evolved over long periods of time.

There is no fallacy. Your point was refuted and now you're whining

Grow up, and try to use some logic, mmkay?
Click to expand...
That you cannot even understand that your statement was and is a fallacy is par for the course with "evolutionists".

Go see if you can figure out which one you're using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Right Divider said:
  • I invent a theory
  • I find evidence that supports my theory
  • I reject any evidence that does not support my theory
  • I am an "evolutionist" murder solver
Click to expand...

It's fascinating that you would project that onto "evolutionists", when it's actually creationist organizations that explicitly state and adhere to that sort of anti-scientific framework.

AIG Statement of Faith

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
 
6days

6days

New member
Greg Jennings said:
Pick any one of those topics. I'll dissect it for you
Click to expand...
Ok... let's look at genetics. Your beliefs in upill evolution is not an answer. Let's start with a few simple questions.

1. How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2?

2. What evidence from genetics shows a organ such as an eye can develop from a complex eye spot, into a sophisticated veryebrate vision system. Remember... genetics, and not your beliefs.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
ICR: What We Do

"The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God."
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
  • I invent a theory
  • I find evidence that supports my theory
  • I reject any evidence that does not support my theory
  • I am an "evolutionist" murder solver
Click to expand...

Cute, but inaccurate and also rather ironic. Creationism begins with a conclusion, that the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old give or take. Anything that contradicts this is rejected. Science on the other hand works in precisely the opposite way. Evidence and data are collated and theories are formulated around the findings, prone to continual scrutiny, review and testing. The theory of evolution came about because of the evidence that supports it, not as a starting point.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Arthur Brain said:
Cute, but inaccurate and also rather ironic. Creationism begins with a conclusion, that the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old give or take. Anything that contradicts this is rejected.
Click to expand...
As I've just shown by citing prominent creationist organizations and directly quoting their own words, [MENTION=15338]Right Divider[/MENTION] was merely engaging in some weapons grade projection.

If he truly believes it's problematic to begin with one's conclusion and reject any evidence that doesn't conform to it, then he has to have a serious issue with AiG, ICR, and Creation.com. I mean.....they state it outright!

Yet I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see him and the other creationists here continue to cite and rely on those organizations. But....that's just the nature of creationism.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Jose Fly said:
As I've just shown by citing prominent creationist organizations and directly quoting their own words, [MENTION=15338]Right Divider[/MENTION] was merely engaging in some weapons grade projection.

If he truly believes it's problematic to begin with one's conclusion and reject any evidence that doesn't conform to it, then he has to have a serious issue with AiG, ICR, and Creation.com. I mean.....they state it outright!

Yet I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see him and the other creationists here continue to cite and rely on those organizations. But....that's just the nature of creationism.
Click to expand...

It's bizarre to say the least.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Arthur Brain said:
Cute, but inaccurate and also rather ironic. Creationism begins with a conclusion, that the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old give or take. Anything that contradicts this is rejected. Science on the other hand works in precisely the opposite way. Evidence and data are collated and theories are formulated around the findings, prone to continual scrutiny, review and testing. The theory of evolution came about because of the evidence that supports it, not as a starting point.
Click to expand...
That is HILARIOUS.

Darwin went from tiny variations in finch beaks to anything goes. That's great "science" there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top