Jump to content


Photo

What Is The Evidence For Creationism?


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#41 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 28 November 2009 - 07:54 AM

I must post once more here, hopefully LEHTV will visit once more.

Evidence for .... (scooped from another topic):
The Amazing Eye - and the Blind Spot

Creations Answer:
We are Predatory/Omnivorous creatures, therefore we have forward facing eyes. Our eyes are not imperfect because they are not placed on the sides of our heads like deer, cattle, and other types of animals with lower intelligence. Predatory animals are much higher on the intelligence scale, and you will quickly notice that their eye's are forward facing.

-- This answer was given prior to the understanding of what LEHTV was considering the "real" blind spot of the eye. A link to an interesting test was provided where as you focus on one object and move closer to your monitor another object moves into the so called "blind spot". This is not a real world test of the eye, it is a 2-dimentional test so it is really unimportant - it's just fun-n-games. If you start an object from a place that is outside your vision, to the side of your head somewhere (what I would consider a true 3-dimentional blind spot), and then move it into your vision all the way around to the other side of your heads other true blind spot - you never lose track of it - it is always in your vision.

Evolutions Answer:
I already showed you that the reason our eye is imperfect design is that the brain has to compensate for the blind spot (in a 2-dimentional world ). The brain acts as though there were light-sensitive cells in the blind region that conveyed information similar to the information immediately outside the blind spot. Since with the above test you'll see the information conveyed can be erroneous, the blind spot is an imperfection.
(my own words added in red and bold)

Conclusion:
Same "evidence" - interpreted by both sides of the argument.

This is what we've been trying to say since the OP was presented <_<

#42 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 28 November 2009 - 08:33 AM

Bobabelever, nice try, except you're not interpreting the same evidence.

Look here: Blind spot diagram.

The optic nerve going through the retina is the blind spot. It is a blind spot because where the optic nerve goes through the retina, there are no cells that transmit information about light. Is this the evidence you are interpreting?

No, it's not:

Creations Answer:
We are Predatory/Omnivorous creatures, therefore we have forward facing eyes.  Our eyes are not imperfect because they are not placed on the sides of our heads like deer, cattle, and other types of animals with lower intelligence.  Predatory animals are much higher on the intelligence scale, and you will quickly notice that their eye's are forward facing.


This answer had nothing to do with the optic nerve going through the retina. Furthermore, the false generalisations á la "we have forward facing eyes because we are predatory/omnivorous", and "predatory animals are much higher on the intelligence scale" have been addressed by tharock220 one page 5 the thread you pointed to; besides, these points have nothing to do with the optic nerve going through the retina.

This answer was given prior to the understanding of what LEHTV was considering the "real" blind spot of the eye.


So you admit that your blind spot is not the same as the blind spot I was referring to, hence you're not interpreting the same evidence.

What a load of bollocks. You first state that you're interpreting the same evidence, then take a 180 degree turn and make your own definition of a blind spot that you somehow interpret to be in favor of creationism.

I didn't even understand your new description of your "blind spot"; are you saying that if you can see there's something in your peripheral vision (i.e. you're not blind there, you can actually see it), then you always see what's in your peripheral vision?

Edit by ikester7579: It would seem that you want me to ban you by cussing, then save face that way by not being required to answer the question. I see right through your ploy to save face because you cannot answer the questions. If you want to be a whimp and do that, that is fine with me. Just let me know that's what you want. Or just cuss again. But everyone will now know why you did it.

#43 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 28 November 2009 - 12:34 PM

Well whoopdi-f******-doo.  :)

View Post


Nice <_<

My point, obviously misunderstood by lehtv, is that a 2-dimensional test to "prove" an "imperfection" to solidify evolutionary thinking is not valid. It was your reference lehtv! :lol:

The design of the eye, in every being on earth, is just that - design. This "blind spot" that you refer to is unimportant because it only means anything 2-dimensionally - WE LIVE IN A 3-DIMENSIONAL WORLD (sorry to everybody else for yelling, I'm hoping lehtv will finally hear what I'm saying). Plus, we don't walk/drive/run/ride a bike/etc.../etc... blocking the vision from one of our eyes! Further "evidence" that this "test" of an "imperfection" in the human eye is just not useful at all! :lol:

BTW: the "blind spot" that scott and I refer to is the same generic blind spot that everybody in the world knows of thinks of when somebody mentions it. It is only you, and that fun game you linked to, that talk about this unimportant, 2-dimentional, so called, "blind spot".

But that's what it amounts to, I suppose, using fun-n-games, smoke-n-mirrors, to substantiate the false claim of evolutionist thinking.

--EDIT--
I must include a snipet from the very site that lehtv refers to in his latest post:
"The blind spots in each eye are aligned symmetrically so that most of the time, one eye’s field of vision will compensate for the loss of vision in the other . The diagram above shows where the blind spots are located."
(red/bold emphasis added by me)
This points to design, doesn't it? Yes, yes it does!
--END OF EDIT--

We (creationists) admit to our faith in God, [atheistic] evolutionists simply will not admit to their faith in their unproven theory. Both sides start with a belief and interpret the same data .

It seems I read something? somewhere? that explains many of the tactics that lehtv has incorporated from the OP all the way through this thread.

#44 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 November 2009 - 02:34 PM

I feel obliged to reply to your questions and answer, despite having already 'left' the forum.

Please note that this post is just to show you what I think. I came to this forum to learn how creationists think, and I have learned that, thank you.


Note that this reply will show you cannot answer my questions so you will make an attempt to save face.


In reply to ikester:

1. I did not come here to make you look stupid, and I don't think any of you are stupid. I think you are ignorant and unwilling to learn. Admitting you are ignorant is the only way you can possibly ever learn.


When the truth comes out we suddenly now say creationists are not uneducated stupid morons? I guess when the gig is up, some need to bow out as gracefully as possible. And what is learning in your sense of the word? Agreeing with you?

Example: Be Stein has several degrees. Now because he disagrees with your view, is he also ignorant? Or does he have the right to disagree?

2. Your posts are possibly the most off-topic posts ever. Despite that, I'll answer your challenge, though only briefly, as I don't have time to educate you. If you want to understand why my answer is really an answer to your question, get an education in evolutionary biology.


Off topic? Proving design equals a designer. That is why you cannot come up with a all natural process for actual design of something. Do you actually think that live biological cells just jump together and make an complex object like an eye, and some how know what shape it needs to be. And exactly what cells need to be formed. And where they need to go? With all due respect, that is like saying a cake will make and bake itself. That all computer programs wrote themselves. That is what being ignorant is. Knowing the truth but preferring to equivocate because you "hate" the alternative answer.

To quote,
My answer is: Random mutations in the genetic code produce variation within a population. Variants that produce more fertile offpring than other variants become more common, and hence deleterious mutations tend to disappear while useful mutations tend to proliferate. This adapts populations to their physical and biological environment. Genetic drift also changes the genetic composition of a population, because each generation is a limited sample of the genetic composition of the previous generation. In other words, genetic drift is sampling error, and it does not adapt organisms to their environment. Speciation can happen in many ways, and all of those rely on reproductive barriers. This means that 1) an individual is more likely to mate with other individuals of its own population than with individuals of another closely related population, and 2) the offspring of two individuals of one population have higher fitness than the offspring of two individuals of different population. Hence, the gene pools of the two populations become more and more different from each other by means of natural selection; in other words, natural selection inhibits gene flow between the two populations. Conceptually the simplest way of a reproductive barrier to arise in the first place is the divergence of one population into two by geographical isolation. In geographical isolation, the two populations accumulate different mutations, adapt to different environments, and experience different effects due to random genetic drift. This reduces the chance of individuals of one population to mate with individuals of the other and it also tends to reduce the fitness of the offspring of individuals of the two different populations, should the populations become sympatric again. The processes briefly described here are what decide how life evolves.

I hope this satisfies you as much as possible.

View Post


In all that you have said, you have not answered the simple basic question. What designs us to be the way we are?

You logic does not answer:
1) What made the eye the correct size in order to function.
2) What made the eye have clear fluid so that light could pass.
3) What made the eye regulate the pressure of that fluid so it keeps it's shape so that the eye stays functional.
4) What made the eye know where the lens needs to be, and how far from the retina to place it?

etc....

Do cells have design meetings and vote the next project to evolve?
Do cells have design meetings to draw up blue prints of how to make something that will work?
Do cells vote on which eye should evolve out of all the types of eye available?

No design process means you cannot prove that life can form without intelligence. Other wise you would have already showed me what replaces design with intelligence, and the process in which it was done.

In other words: What thinks up all the supposed designs for each life form so that it can survive in it's environment?

Added: Example. In the evolution of man, is there proof that the eyes evolved from several different types until the correct one was found? Or was the selection perfect the very first time? For natural selection to work, the correct eye and design have to be selected through the wrong ones appearing first. So where did that happen? Or is natural selection so intelligent that the perfect eye was selected and never had to ever change again?

#45 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 November 2009 - 02:52 PM

I see the desire to compete in the evo-creo controversy, and I have no problem with it. I do, however, have a problem with the contingency that whoever looses must leave the forum. If this is truly about the strive for truth, why have such serious consequences to the defeated? It seems counter-productive in the fullest sense. With such harsh punishments why would anyone admit defeat? It will no longer become a dialogue (if that's what you could call it before) on the search for truth, nor could it, unless both of you don't mind leaving the forum, which I sincerely doubt. It will just turn into two sides never-budging from their original claim no matter how ridiculous it becomes. I can easily see it becoming a heated dissing back and forth both claiming the other is essentially willfully ignorant and stupid only much stronger language with the debate going absolutely no where.


If evolution has all the answers from being a proven true fact with mountains of evidence. Then the winner would be clear, would it not? But that is not what we see now is it? With all due respect: What I do see is a bunch of people who believe in evolution now back peddling because they cannot stand up to real reality. Evolutionist are always using the put up or shut up mentality because they actually control the out come concerning science. Now what I have done here is made this into a level playing field and it is more than obvious that this situation is not liked because it shows that evolution is no better than creation in proving itself to the extent claimed.

Ikester, as a mod you have an obligation to be fair to both sides of the debate. As a participant can you truly be impartial as to who won, and not use your influence/power as a mod to claim victory prematurely or falsely? From the outside it looks like a pretense to ban lehtv with no risk to you. Just an observation I've made.


I have no ego to bruise here. And this is not my forum. People get banned here more often for one thing. Wasting our time. This thread is the perfect example of what time wasting is. Lehtv was all fine about how the thread was going until someone took and showed him up. He was building his ego at our expense. And when someone brought it down to a level playing field, he ran away. As he explained he had already left (ran away). And he is still running and refuses to answer the question.

Lehtv, I would respectfully decline and request a civil, honest dialogue into the evidence for creationism with open minds all seeking the truth. If you both insist on a debate, then I beseech you both to abolish the 'leave the forum' punishment as I honestly think it will only be a hindrance to both sides, as well as a mockery to the search of truth.

View Post


With all due respect, what I see here is that the creationist have the advantage. You, and every other evolutionist, are used to always having the advantage. Because evolution gears a person to think they will "always" win the debate. We find one major flaw you will lose on and every body back peddles. Not going to happen.

The madder any evolutionists gets at being shown they cannot answer this question only shows they know that evolution cannot possibly answer how the eye came to be. So as each one expresses this, as this thread goes on. Will only solidify this.

I don't like to be a meany. But always stereotyping one side as being willfully ignorant is mean. Now I have leveled that playing field to show you how it feels. So if you want the adavantage again, answer the question.

#46 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 November 2009 - 03:12 PM

With all due respect, what I basically see here is a evolutionist put into the same situation as creationists are everyday. Because this is a situation that is just like peer review except a creationist is in control. Not a evolutionist. So now every evolutionist is whining, and guess what you sound like? Just like how you complain that creationist sound about peer reviews. I find this very ironic.

#47 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 28 November 2009 - 03:37 PM

ikester7579,

I answered your question, but I don't have enough time or patience to attempt to make you understand my answer.

With all due respect, your numerous questions show you do not understand how evolution works and what the theory of evolution actually says.

The answer to your questions 1-4 is essentially mutation + natural selection. But this is the sort of thing people write books about. The following books might be a good introduction to evolution:

Darwin's Dangerous Idea. by Daniel Dennett (a philosopher)
Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller (a theistic evolutionist)
The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins (you've probably heard of him)

Out of these three, I've only read The Blind Watchmaker, but I've heard the other books are very good too, perhaps even better.

If you are not wilfully ignorant, you will go and educate yourself.

#48 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 28 November 2009 - 04:37 PM

ikester7579,

I answered your question, but I don't have enough time or patience to attempt to make you understand my answer.

With all due respect, your numerous questions show you do not understand how evolution works and what the theory of evolution actually says.

The answer to your questions 1-4 is essentially mutation + natural selection. But this is the sort of thing people write books about. The following books might be a good introduction to evolution:

Darwin's Dangerous Idea. by Daniel Dennett (a philosopher)
Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller (a theistic evolutionist)
The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins (you've probably heard of him)

Out of these three, I've only read The Blind Watchmaker, but I've heard the other books are very good too, perhaps even better.

If you are not wilfully ignorant, you will go and educate yourself.

View Post


If I got a dollar for everytime creationists were called ignorant I could quit my day job and just post all day on different forums. I'm sure I could make about 40 dollars a day.

#49 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2009 - 05:36 PM

If evolution has all the answers from being a proven true fact with mountains of evidence.


This is clearly not the case and I freely confess it. I do accept that evolution is the best natural explanation to the diversity of life, and I do think it has enough evidence in its favor to be considered a scientific theory, thus why I do accept it.

Then the winner would be clear, would it not?


Maybe, maybe not. Too much of it depends on the politics of debating, and not always is the correct person the victor. I've seen it happen lots of times where I thought the evolutionist had the correct idea and lost, and I've even seen times where I thought the creationist had it right and lost. Very few people on these forums are actually professionals in the area they debate in, that with the added art of debating makes it very clear that the winner of the debate does not equal truth in any sense.

But that is not what we see now is it? With all due respect: What I do see is a bunch of people who believe in evolution now back peddling because they cannot stand up to real reality.


I never claimed to have an answer for you, nor do I. I know almost nothing about the blind spot, other than we have one and many military techniques throughout time have utilized the blind spot to become essentially invisible, going back to the ninjas and samurai in Japan to modern day special forces. So to me there is something to the blind spot if military forces have been using it to their advantage for thousands of years. Other than that I have nothing to add to the blind spot conversation.

I have no ego to bruise here. And this is not my forum. People get banned here more often for one thing. Wasting our time. This thread is the perfect example of what time wasting is...


I only glanced at the whole thread, but it seems that the main point of divergence and frustration is the fact that neither side can communicate with the other. I'm not exactly sure what this all means or implies, but I think it speaks to the whole evo-creo conversation in that neither side really knows how to make the people on the other side to leave their position and accept the other.

With all due respect, what I see here is that the creationist have the advantage. You, and every other evolutionist, are used to always having the advantage. Because evolution gears a person to think they will "always" win the debate. We find one major flaw you will lose on and every body back peddles. Not going to happen.


Anyone who watches the live debates done by professionals will notice that creationists usually win. Does this necessarily mean that creationism is true and evolution is false? No, a public debate and peer-reviewed sections of the scientific literature are two different things requiring two different sets of skills, and creationists are way better at debating than evolutionists, at least at that level.

The madder any evolutionists gets at being shown they cannot answer this question only shows they know that evolution cannot possibly answer how the eye came to be. So as each one expresses this, as this thread goes on. Will only solidify this.


Just because a bunch of evos on a layman's forum can't come up with an answer to your satisfaction doesn't mean there isn't an answer, or that science will never come up with an answer. And I think you would agree that if a bunch of creos can't come up with a satisfactory answer to a question, it doesn't automatically mean creationism is wrong and there is no God; one day creationism may have an explanation to the question. As time marches on new things get discovered all the time, who knows what we will discover and who it helps validate.

I don't like to be a meany. But always stereotyping one side as being willfully ignorant is mean. Now I have leveled that playing field to show you how it feels. So if you want the adavantage again, answer the question.

View Post


I'm not stereotyping anyone if that's what you're implying. I'm just saying that I can see it as a natural progression of the debate that both sides will claim the other is willfully ignorant and stupid. Personally, I think that people on both sides of the debate fall into every category possible; from the very intelligent and educated to the less than average intellect and a poor education; from the very closed minded to the very open minded, and that's just life.

#50 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 28 November 2009 - 09:38 PM

1. You fail to understand what falsifiable means. To quote:
The claim that electric light bulbs can work is not falsifiable. Even if you showed a billion times that an electric light bulb you've created doesn't work, it wouldn't falsify the possibility that a working electric light bulb can be created. It would simply amount to great amounts of evidence.

Nope. I used the wrong tense of the word. I should have stated that the light bulb failure via testing indicated the application was falsifiable.
It is preferable in among Evo scientists that to be "falsifiable" may only be applied to ideas, hypothesis, theories, that will never be proven accurate. This is because it allows them to never be required to admit failure of a theory. It can only be falsified and never proved therefore it offers neer ending non-accountability.

2. You said,
The only available evidence is His work. Creation..

I did. I also said, He cannot be observed, so we observe the claims He has made.
You chose to ignore the portion which indicates an acceptance of reliance on testable methods. An odd thing to do IF you intend honest debate. By that statement I restrict myself to observable methods, and eliminate a miraculous explaination. Seems you might be afraid of taking on the evdence and prefer to hide behind in apropriately applied vocabulary.

3. You don't understand the difference between proof and evidence. To quote,
You're asking for proof, and as I've already argued, science doesn't deal with proof. The theory of evolution, like all other scientific theories, are concerned with a vast amount of evidence that supports the explanation for observations. You're asking for ONE observation that proves evolution is true. No amount of observations can prove evolution true, they can only give evidential support. The same applies to all scientific theories.

I asked nothing more than you asked of me. But fair is not in the mind of the Evo's, only evasion and ridicule.

#51 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 28 November 2009 - 09:47 PM

mutation + natural selection.

View Post

The world, incuding Evo's, awaits evidence of this which is evidence of no other possibilty (your requirement).

#52 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 28 November 2009 - 09:50 PM

I do accept that evolution is the best natural explanation to the diversity of life,

Why is ToE a better foundation for diversity than ID/creation?

#53 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2009 - 10:54 PM

Why is ToE a better foundation for diversity than ID/creation?

View Post


I'm not sure what you mean, ToE is an explanation, not an axiom, and one most creationists accept on small scales as well (micro-evolution). As to why I accept ToE over ID/creationism, I've been convinced that ToE is valid and I haven't heard a rebuttal to my satisfaction not only against ToE, but also an argument for ID/creationism. I'm not saying they're not out there, but my total experiences tell me that ToE is valid and the main ideas of creationism is not.

#54 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 November 2009 - 11:28 PM

As to why I accept ToE over ID/creationism, I've been convinced that ToE is valid and I haven't heard a rebuttal to my satisfaction not only against ToE, but also an argument for ID/creationism.


Creation is still as true as the fact that Jesus is the king of kings and the lord of lords.I'm not trying to be condescending,just preaching (proclaiming a truth).People are handed over to the lies and delusions of satan because they will not accept or acknowledge the gospel and testimony of Jesus.Why else would they beleive in something that not only has no evidence for it,but it is obviously not true.


Enjoy.

#55 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 November 2009 - 11:42 PM

ikester7579,

I answered your question, but I don't have enough time or patience to attempt to make you understand my answer.

With all due respect, your numerous questions show you do not understand how evolution works and what the theory of evolution actually says.

The answer to your questions 1-4 is essentially mutation + natural selection. But this is the sort of thing people write books about. The following books might be a good introduction to evolution:

Darwin's Dangerous Idea. by Daniel Dennett (a philosopher)
Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller (a theistic evolutionist)
The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins (you've probably heard of him)

Out of these three, I've only read The Blind Watchmaker, but I've heard the other books are very good too, perhaps even better.

If you are not wilfully ignorant, you will go and educate yourself.

View Post


I see you are doing the same song and dance. Reversing guilt to save face. That this is all my fault because I don't understand evolution. LOL, It gets more lame with every post. And sounds like a broken record. Because I can claim the same thing about you and creation.

Mutation plus natural selection does not explain the math that is in every design. You talk as if there is some type of invisible intelligence that does the thinking, and if I don't accept that. I'm an uneducated ignorant moron, right?

Sorry, the only people you fool are those who think like you.

And those books you suggest. All they are, are evolutionists evangelizing books written with the intent to evangelize Christians to believing in evolution. Because if evolution was not a religion, one would not have to even ponder giving up any creation idea to believe it.

Example: I believe in how electricity works. I don't have to give up my religion to believe it. I believe in how gravity works, but I don't have to give up my religion to believe it. Now why, in over 95% of the cases of no compromise in faith, does one have to give up their religion to believe in evolution because they do have to compromise their faith? What makes electricity, gravity, atoms, black holes, type theories not effect my faith. But yet evolution does and always will?

What makes the theory of evolution so different that most have to give up their faith in God to believe it, when no other theory even remotely does this?

Only religion competes with religion on the level evolution does. Unless you have a scientific explaination for this?

With all due respect, I predict the same song and dance, reverse of guilt to save face. Or that I'm derailing the thread. Thread subject was over when you ran away.

#56 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2009 - 11:55 PM

Creation is still as true as the fact that Jesus is the king of kings and the lord of lords.I'm not trying to be condescending,just preaching (proclaiming a truth).People are handed over to the lies and delusions of satan because they will not accept or acknowledge the gospel and testimony of Jesus.Why else would they beleive in something that not only has no evidence for it,but it is obviously not true.
Enjoy.

View Post


I'm not sure what you mean by "creation". Do I believe God created the heavens and the Earth? Yes. Do I believe God created every bird of the air, creature of the sea, beast of the land, and every single human being? Yes.

It is not a question of did God do this or that, but how did God do it by looking at the creation itself.

#57 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 November 2009 - 12:24 AM

This is clearly not the case and I freely confess it. I do accept that evolution is the best natural explanation to the diversity of life, and I do think it has enough evidence in its favor to be considered a scientific theory, thus why I do accept it.


Like your sig says: Seek ye first the kingdom of God. What do ye seek when evolution is always put before God's creation?

Do you even know why faith is more important than relying on seeing and then believing?

1) It shows trust in who is telling you these things (having faith).
2) It also protects you from sin. How?

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Having knowledge of good (what God's word says), and believing it not (believing in evolution instead). Makes what you believe a sin. Because when you know the truth and prefer to believe something else. Not only are you sinning. But you are calling the person who told you to have faith, a liar. And since faith is required to be saved:

Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
luke 18:42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.
eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

If you do not repent, salvation can be denied. Because denying God's Alpha (His creation) also denies His Omega and everything in-between. So doing this knowingly, leaves you without excuse. So what ever happens will be of your own doing. Because you cannot claim innocense when the truth was before you all the time.

Maybe, maybe not. Too much of it depends on the politics of debating, and not always is the correct person the victor. I've seen it happen lots of times where I thought the evolutionist had the correct idea and lost, and I've even seen times where I thought the creationist had it right and lost. Very few people on these forums are actually professionals in the area they debate in, that with the added art of debating makes it very clear that the winner of the debate does not equal truth in any sense.


And when they pretend to be, and get challenged. They do like what is being done here. That is why I exposed this thread for what it is. That is why the thread starter tried to leave to save face. Not my problem if he cannot stand behind what he believes.

I never claimed to have an answer for you, nor do I. I know almost nothing about the blind spot, other than we have one and many military techniques throughout time have utilized the blind spot to become essentially invisible, going back to the ninjas and samurai in Japan to modern day special forces. So to me there is something to the blind spot if military forces have been using it to their advantage for thousands of years. Other than that I have nothing to add to the blind spot conversation.


If you come to the defense of your peer whom is in a situation here. I take it that you know what he does not.

I only glanced at the whole thread, but it seems that the main point of divergence and frustration is the fact that neither side can communicate with the other. I'm not exactly sure what this all means or implies, but I think it speaks to the whole evo-creo conversation in that neither side really knows how to make the people on the other side to leave their position and accept the other.


Good point, now for the question that comes from that point. If evolution is not a religion, why does one need to convert (give up) their position to join the other side?

Anyone who watches the live debates done by professionals will notice that creationists usually win. Does this necessarily mean that creationism is true and evolution is false? No, a public debate and peer-reviewed sections of the scientific literature are two different things requiring two different sets of skills, and creationists are way better at debating than evolutionists, at least at that level.


Why do you think we are better at debating? It's because we have to be with all the barage of hate thrown at us.

Also, the reason creationists win just about every live debate is because when a evolutionist has to appear in person. His image is now on the line. When they sit behind a computer screen they are more confident, and are willing to cuss everyone out for disagreeing. As well as using all the tactics available to twist everything in their favor. And no one knows who they are. It's almost like a mask is put on while on the net, that has to be taken off in a live debate.

The creationists on the other hand don't have to have a mask. We are who we are. Don't believe me?

Why do evolutionists have to use different user names where ever they go to debate? It's putting on one of many masks to hide and be someone else, and not allow anyone to trace their name back to their real forum to find out who they really are. It takes a deception to defend a deception. Because truth does not require deception or it proves it's not true, and the person doing it also knows this.

Just because a bunch of evos on a layman's forum can't come up with an answer to your satisfaction doesn't mean there isn't an answer, or that science will never come up with an answer. And I think you would agree that if a bunch of creos can't come up with a satisfactory answer to a question, it doesn't automatically mean creationism is wrong and there is no God; one day creationism may have an explanation to the question. As time marches on new things get discovered all the time, who knows what we will discover and who it helps validate.


I have been around long enough to know that when a evolutionist runs into a problem, all they have to do is show up at their evolution forum and cry help! Many will come to their aid to give them possible answers, and even offer to come join them at the forum they are debating on for verbal and moral support. So the system is there to use. And if people don't use it to better their image, and their beloved theory. Not my problem.

I'm not stereotyping anyone if that's what you're implying. I'm just saying that I can see it as a natural progression of the debate that both sides will claim the other is willfully ignorant and stupid. Personally, I think that people on both sides of the debate fall into every category possible; from the very intelligent and educated to the less than average intellect and a poor education; from the very closed minded to the very open minded, and that's just life.

View Post


The thread poster has dug his own hole that he cannot get out of. As a lesson to him, it is better to admit not knowing, then to be drug down this path.

Example: What did the math that help make the eye (size, shpe etc...)? Answer: I don't know but I will research it.

Now would not that be easier, safe face by being honest? Apparently the thread starter does not think so because he believes his answers explains everything. So he dug his own hole and it's his own fault.

#58 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 November 2009 - 12:34 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by "creation". Do I believe God created the heavens and the Earth? Yes. Do I believe God created every bird of the air, creature of the sea, beast of the land, and every single human being? Yes.

It is not a question of did God do this or that, but how did God do it by looking at the creation itself.

View Post


Is that faith like God tells us to have? Why have faith in a being you cannot see, but deny His creation for the same reason?

#59 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 29 November 2009 - 12:43 AM

I'm not sure what you mean, ToE is an explanation, not an axiom, and one most creationists accept on small scales as well (micro-evolution).

Micro-is not macro. Don't group creationists in with people whom accept macro with no evidence.

I do accept that evolution is the best natural explanation to the diversity of life,

View Post

You have not answered the question. Can you give evidence that ToE will generate more diversity than ID?

#60 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 November 2009 - 03:03 AM

Like your sig says: Seek ye first the kingdom of God. What do ye seek when evolution is always put before God's creation?


How do I put evolution before God's creation? I believe evolution is controlled by God, like any other natural system God created. Do you believe in the rain cycle over God?

Having knowledge of good (what God's word says), and believing it not (believing in evolution instead). Makes what you believe a sin. Because when you know the truth and prefer to believe something else. Not only are you sinning. But you are calling the person who told you to have faith, a liar. And since faith is required to be saved:
<snip>
If you do not repent, salvation can be denied. Because denying God's Alpha (His creation) also denies His Omega and everything in-between. So doing this knowingly, leaves you without excuse. So what ever happens will be of your own doing. Because you cannot claim innocense when the truth was before you all the time.


First, I would like to say I appreciate what you are trying to do.

I do not believe in evolution, I accept it as the best natural explanation to the diversity of life. It is hard to respond because I don't know the definition of "creation" in this discussion. Is it an allusion to God creating all the animals in the first 6 days?

If you come to the defense of your peer whom is in a situation here. I take it that you know what he does not.


I'm not defending nor condemning, I just thought that the contingency that the loser in the debate must leave the forum is not a productive avenue in the search for truth. After your response to my concern I felt obligated to reply back on some comments made. If you feel he is a time waster I'm sure you or the mod staff can come up with a more reasonable approach than something (to be blunt) as childish as 'the loser of the debate must leave the forum.'

Good point, now for the question that comes from that point. If evolution is not a religion, why does one need to convert (give up) their position to join the other side?


:huh: If you have two sides of a debate, and you then decide to join the other side, by default you gave up your previous position for your new one. This is true of any issue, does this now mean that every issue that was ever in debate a religion?

Why do you think we are better at debating? It's because we have to be with all the barage of hate thrown at us.

Also, the reason creationists win just about every live debate is because when a evolutionist has to appear in person. His image is now on the line. When they sit behind a computer screen they are more confident, and are willing to cuss everyone out for disagreeing. As well as using all the tactics available to twist everything in their favor. And no one knows who they are. It's almost like a mask is put on while on the net, that has to be taken off in a live debate.


Interesting take. At least at the professional level I think it is because it requires two different sets of skills to due peer-reviewed literature and live debating, so evolutionists aren't prepared for the live debate while the creationist is much more comfortable in the debating ring. That, and I think creationists are good at synthesizing their points into condensed speeches that appeal to the audience.

The creationists on the other hand don't have to have a mask. We are who we are. Don't believe me? 

Why do evolutionists have to use different user names where ever they go to debate? It's putting on one of many masks to hide and be someone else, and not allow anyone to trace their name back to their real forum to find out who they really are. It takes a deception to defend a deception. Because truth does not require deception or it proves it's not true, and the person doing it also knows this.


I think there is masking on both sides. I haven't noticed any side doing it more than the other. I have only encountered one person who I could tell was the same person on two different forums, and that person was a Catholic TE. Although I haven't been on a lot of forums, so that might also be why.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users