***The Great Debate: Creation vs Evolution***

i never set forth to prove creation. just agrueing that evolution is not a fact.

no observation either i see...

and i am sure that cloning will take place, but tampering with the genome doesnt equal evolution.

its in nature eh? sounds like a creationist arguement.
where can i go see it in nature.

 

Nope, nature to me isn't a boogey man. Scientists believe in nature too. What a thought. They also study nature too. *gasp, shock, horror!* I suggest re-reading this whole thread. You've obviously not read much of it.

 

Fire Ice Death

Your thinking on gravity amazes me, you call it a theory, LOL

Try testing this theory by jumping from a plane at about 25,000 feet, oh make sure you have a parashute on.

 

There is a difference between adaptation and evolution.

Define what you mean by this Blue Jedi, before I respond.

E_S

 

Your thinking on gravity amazes me, you call it a theory, LOL



Oy! See, you're prepetuating a problem in creationist thought that theory in scientific terms means "guess". It does not mean guess. You know know the earth revolving around the sun is a theory too. Ooohh...so they just guessed that, huh? Going by your logic they did!

 

Ok

A dog that loses a leg adapts and lives with 3 legs, then it reproduces and the next generation has 4 again. Genetic code was never changed.

 

Gravity theory


See I was nice and googled it for ya. That way you can pick and choose which one ya want. And hey, don't forget, flying is breaking the law.

 

A dog that loses a leg adapts and lives with 3 legs, then it reproduces and the next generation has 4 again. Genetic code was never changed.

Right, so how does that factor in to your comment about their being a difference between evolution and adaptation, since you were directing it at me. I seem to have missed the point, sorry!

E_S

 

Gravity and evolution have alot in common. There is no doubt that both gravity and evolution exist/occur. These are facts. The theories concern how these things occur. We still don't know how gravity works. We don't know why mass attracts mass. But there are theories.

 

Quote of the Day:

"Because creationists lack scientific research or evidence to support such teories as a young earth (10000 years old), a world-wide flood (Noah's), and separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactics is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. When I published the first edition of this book I was hardly aware of creationism but, during the 1980s, like many other biologists I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context." [Colin Patterson, Evolution, 2nd edition, p. 122]


That's it! See you in space, cowboys (or -girls)!

 

i never set forth to prove creation. just agrueing that evolution is not a fact.

no observation either i see...


Do you think that once in the earth's past there was a pangaia(=one super continent)? Is plate tectonics a fact or a theory?

 

"That living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors is a scientific fact."


So, then, where is this line of succession, of an unbroken and verifiable line of common descent?

That would garner a Nobel if you can present it.

If not, then shouldn't it be somewhat disturbing that individuals are attempting to foist such a belief as a "fact" upon the world in the name of "science"?


LOL. I eagerly await this "proof."

Or, shall we hear again that science doesn't attempt to "prove" anything?

Uh huh, yeah right.

Anyone care for the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge?

 

So, then, where is this line of succession, of an unbroken and verifiable line of common descent?

That would garner a Nobel if you can present it.



You demand evolution to be seen, reproduced and falsified to believe in it. Yet, the fact that a God came and created everything from scratch seems more believable to you (and the only record of it is an old book dated nearly 4000 years back, written by a people very, very keen on scientific method).

There is clearly a double standard.

 

No, double standard...science in it's truest form.

Regardless of what I believe.
I didn't mention the Holy Bible, you did.


But, for the record, I have literally encountered the Lord. That's when I went from a position of agnosticism to Christianity, and subsequently began to read the Holy Bible.

Do I believe the Word of a Deity I have met or the words of scientists who were not present at the Creation?

I don't think there's much of a choice here for myself, do you?


EDIT: Everytime someone makes a statement, which I request to be verifed, others not addressed present excuses but never actually present the answer to my request. Hmmmm...

"You demand evolution to be seen, reproduced and falsified to believe in it."

The implication here is that you require none of the above to believe in evolution, eh? Very interesting.
I don't think you meant to put it that way, but it may very well be one of the most honest statements by an evolutionist yet, if even a Freudian slip.

 

I encountered the Lord too. He told me you were wrong.

But I guess the one who talked to me must have been Satan, right?

 

And you do expect us to take your personal view, based in subject experiences accountable just by you, to explain how the natural world functions?

Sorry, no mean do disrespect you, but I'd rather trust in facts obervable by everyone.

 

Saint of Killers, you're mocking me, and I think that's against forum rules.

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevent, but you can look up Conyers, Georgia in conjunction with Marian apparitions and you may well find I wasn't alone.

 

Ki Adi,

"And you do expect us to take your personal view, based in subject experiences accountable just by you, to explain how the natural world functions?

Sorry, no mean do disrespect you, but I'd rather trust in facts obervable by everyone."


Okay, let's get this straight, you brought up the Holy Bible, not I.

You suggested I only had a 4,000 year old book, with certain implications in your notice.

I merely refuted your notion with my own experiential encounters with the Risen Savior, which is the basis for my faith, first and foremost and ahead of my ever having read the Holy Bible.

So, to reiterate, you brought up the Holy Bible, not I.
You suggested, erroneously, my beliefs (which were not mentioned in my post) were based on just a 4,000 year old book.

I presented you with my assurance.


Whether or not there is "creationism" common descent has it's own problems.

 

I'm not mocking you. God is within me, within us all. God tells me that creationism is rather silly.

 

You're probably, right.
It's probably the devil in you.

The God I know is the author of creation, so He doesn't find it silly, and He doesn't find lies amusing at all.

 

How can the devil be in me? I thought he was in Ms. Jones? ?











Now I'm mocking you

 

So, then, where is this line of succession, of an unbroken and verifiable line of common descent?

In the fossil record, but ofcourse your acceptance depends on what you accept as a line of succession and verification.

If not, then shouldn't it be somewhat disturbing that individuals are attempting to foist such a belief as a "fact" upon the world in the name of "science"?

Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the chromosome2 fusion in humans? Post-flood change in Noah's offspring?

 

OK, I drop then that the Holy Bible is the only account one have for believing in creation.

Though it still seems innadequate for me to have to rely on personal and very subjective experiences of others to believe in the creation theory.

Even you admited you were unbelieving until you had your revelation. It's just natural to assume that others will keep the same skeptical position.

Vagrant:

Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the chromosome2 fusion in humans? Post-flood change in Noah's offspring?
Please don't assume we have the same specialized technical knowledge you do. Kindly explain us what is the chromosome2 fusion in humans and its implications.

 

"Though it still seems innadequate for me to have to rely on personal and very subjective experiences of others to believe in the creation theory.

Even you admited you were unbelieving until you had your revelation. It's just natural to assume that others will keep the same skeptical position."


Certainly, which is why we are exhorted to witness to others of the Truth of Christ, that you may also seek and encounter the Risen Savior personally for yourself. Then, you too will believe, will know.

The reality of Christ is the best kept secret in plain sight in all of history.

'You entertain angels unawares.'

You see, I think we can both agree that only Deity could possibly know how events unfolded, and would be the highest most authoritative source. It is then reasonable to seek Deity for a response to that question.

If there is no Deity, you've lost nothing, since you will only not know what you currently don't know.

If there is a Deity, then...your life will be forever changed, and your eyes opened in ways you currently might not believe.

 

I'm surely awaiting. I'm keeping an open eye, heart and mind to such things, believe me.

But until then, I'll have to rely on my own resources.