Creationism smack-down!

Originally posted by josephw
I think this is true and you think that is true.

How are we going to find out what is really true?

Look at the evidence, and if you don't agree that reality is real, go find a qualified psychiatrist. No insult intended, of course. I advice anyone who can't deal with reality to see a qualified psychiatrist.

Originally posted by C Hess
That is all fine. Unless you claim to be doing science. If you claim to be a scientist and say that nature was designed to not allow evolution to cross the boundaries of "kinds", then you should be able to point to that part of the design, the mechanism, that prevents evolution from producing new "kinds".

As for the bible defining kinds, that's also not go ...[text shortened]...

But your point is well taken, were YEC scientists not to call themselves... well, scientists.

I claim what I believe is a matter of faith, of course I also believe that
you are in the same boat just facing a different direction. Since you have
no clue how it started you believe it had to have started without help,
without a plan, without purpose if you reject a designer out of hand.

Never once have claimed to be a scientist, I don't have the faith to claim
all things came from nothing, or that without a plan, purpose, or design
that you get non-life to produce life in the variety we see today with
evolution through time.

I get you dislike the idea of changing parts of a view or stance just so it
fits an argument, belief, theory, or what ever, but that is science, oh
wait you were talking about the Bible! For a second there I thought you
were talking about the strenght of science in that your views would
change to suit what you think the evidence says.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I claim what I believe is a matter of faith, of course I also believe that
you are in the same boat just facing a different direction. Since you have
no clue how it started you believe it had to have started without help,
without a plan, without purpose if you reject a designer out of hand.

Never once have claimed to be a scientist, I don't have the f ...[text shortened]... e strenght of science in that your views would
change to suit what you think the evidence says.

I don't know if you're dishonest or ignorant or a little of both. I never said you were a YEC scientist. I explained why YEC is not valid science, and why its proponents are not taken seriously by scientists. And incidently, no I'm not in the same boat of blind belief as you. Open your eyes to the reality of things and you'll see that.

I'm not against changing ones mind when evidence demands it. You are. What I'm against are weak definitions that can be made to fit any reality by not saying anything at all - such as the biblical concept of animal kinds, or using the god hypothesis to explain gaps in scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by C Hess
I don't know if you're dishonest or ignorant or a little of both. I never said you were a YEC scientist. I explained why YEC is not valid science, and why its proponents are not taken seriously by scientists. And incidently, no I'm not in the same boat of blind belief as you. Open your eyes to the reality of things and you'll see that.

I'm not against chan ...[text shortened]... al concept of animal kinds, or using the god hypothesis to explain gaps in scientific knowledge.

I believe that YEC is a matter of faith and not a matter of science if that
was all you were saying we agree. Scientist that do not take challenges
to serously I'd have hard time respecting. What many do and you are
a prime example of this is attack those that disagree with you, who
cares about personal attacks that doesn't answer valid questions and if
you reject questions because you belittle the questionare, who cares
what you think?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Their answer is the Earth can't be over 6000 years old so anything with a date older than that, processes that take longer than that, are automatically invalid. Pretty stupid, eh. Look at the Grand Canyon, WOW, they would say, all that in just 6000 years! My god, what a flood that did that!

Of course totally ignoring data clearly showing if the GC had c ...[text shortened]... egat Roger, roger begat bridgett, bridgett begat Gaga. As if all that data was totally accurate.

I was talking about 'old earth' creationists.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I've posed that question to the old earth creationists here before. If they accept DNA can change a small amount over a small period of time, why can't a large amount of DNA change over a large period of time. What's the mechanism stopping that process from happening? No answer was ever provided.

There is a process for proofreading and repair of information code errors in DNA. They don't understand everything about it yet, but below is a reference for you to read about it:

http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/dna-proofreading-correcting-mutations-during-replication-cellullar-self-directed-engineering

Also the following video should help to answer the following question for you:

Did Life Evolve by Natural Selection and Positive Random Mutations?

YouTube

Originally posted by sonhouse
Show us your truth without referring to the bible. We show you our truth with thousands of books on subjects ranging from ultrasound to ultrafast to ultrasmall to DNA and galaxies billions of light years away. Where is ANY of that in the bible?

This is the Spirituality Forum and we are allowed to use the Holy Bible to support our beliefs. There is nothing about billions of years in the Holy Bible because creation only took God 6 days.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe that YEC is a matter of faith and not a matter of science if that
was all you were saying we agree. Scientist that do not take challenges
to serously I'd have hard time respecting. What many do and you are
a prime example of this is attack those that disagree with you, who
cares about personal attacks that doesn't answer valid questions and if
you reject questions because you belittle the questionare, who cares
what you think?

If science clearly demonstrates that evolution is an ongoing progress and that the universe and earth is older than a holy text suggest, you can choose not to listen to that (though I think it's sad). What you can't do, and what puts me in attack mode, is 1) claim that scientific knowledge has to be taken as much on faith as religious knowledge, or 2) ignore evidence that doesn't fit your religious convictions in any obvious way, misrepresent a scientific theory, and then claim that you're just as scientific as any other scientist (as YEC scientists do).

Also, if someone disagrees with me on any given topic, then yes, I will challenge their ideas and reasons for doing so. I don't mean to provoke (much), but how else can any level of truth on any given topic be teased out? Sceptics, like myself, usually follow the motto: you can attack beliefs, but not the believers. In fact, I think it's a duty to challenge other people's beliefs. If they're well-founded, they should stand up to scrutiny.

Originally posted by C Hess
If science clearly demonstrates that evolution is an ongoing progress and that the universe and earth is older than a holy text suggest, you can choose not to listen to that (though I think it's sad). What you can't do, and what puts me in attack mode, is 1) claim that scientific knowledge has to be taken as much on faith as religious knowledge, or 2) ignore ...[text shortened]... to challenge other people's beliefs. If they're well-founded, they should stand up to scrutiny.

Darwin's theory of evolution has not stood up favorably to scrutiny.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwin's theory of evolution has not stood up favorably to scrutiny.

Good. Now all you have to do to convince me of that, is give me examples that doesn't misrepresent the theory, and that can be objectively verified to be true. Go on.

Originally posted by C Hess
Good. Now all you have to do to convince me of that, is give me examples that doesn't misrepresent the theory, and that can be objectively verified to be true. Go on.

I do not have to convince you of anything. I have informed you of the truth and whether you accept or reject it is up to you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not have to convince you of anything. I have informed you of the truth and whether you accept or reject it is up to you.

You do if you want people to take you seriously. You have presented easily refuted arguments, but have yet to demonstrate evolution is a hoax using verifiable evidence.

Originally posted by C Hess
If science clearly demonstrates that evolution is an ongoing progress and that the universe and earth is older than a holy text suggest, you can choose not to listen to that (though I think it's sad). What you can't do, and what puts me in attack mode, is 1) claim that scientific knowledge has to be taken as much on faith as religious knowledge, or 2) ignore ...[text shortened]... to challenge other people's beliefs. If they're well-founded, they should stand up to scrutiny.

Well people make the claims that the earth is older than the holy text
suggest, of course there is some disagreement on how old that really is
as well. Some believe between 6 and 10K, others billions of years old. I
believe 6K, but acknowledge it is possible I'm way off.

Simply disagreeing with you on the age of the universe is enough to cry
how sad? You are quite full of yourself to be so sure you know what the
truth is, especially since you are also supposed to be the one willing to
change your stance as soon as you see some data that says your wrong.

You going into attack mode just shows how petty you are! Seriously you
have to go into attack mode because I disagree with you on something that
no one really knows the answer too! I claim that knowledge that cannot
be known, is knowledge that cannot be known, applying the word scientific
to that does not mean its any more than that!

I also don't ignore evidence, but I most certainly don't accept all views on
what the meanings can possibly mean as well. If it misses the mark as far
as your concern you are more than willing to keeping looking for another
theory that can keep your world view intact and avoid any possible change
that a designer or God is real and required. So you are just a charging me
with the very thing you are doing!

I don't attempt to misrepresent anything, but you can make the claims as
you belittle. That is seems is our strongest theme to back your views on this
topic. I also doubt you don't mean to provoke either, the cheap shots you
take sort of just reveal your true intent.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not have to convince you of anything. I have informed you of the truth and whether you accept or reject it is up to you.

Tut-tut ... and what would baby Jesus say about this I wonder!... a missionary of God shirking from his responsibility to demonstrate once and for all that our evil and blasphemous notions of evolution are wrong 😲