Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

What Would It Take For A Evolutionist To Consider Creation?

Recommended Posts

All, this is another opportunity to remind evolutionists that your stay here will be very short by equivocating on what evolution means, and it always amounts to a colossal waste of everyone's time. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty. During registration, this is posted in bold, perhaps I should use a larger font:

Perhaps you've set the fonts to big and they appear one letter at a time on the screen now :rolleyes: .

rhetorical tactics, instead of facts followed by sound logic, will not convince the inquisitive.

Warning to evolutionists: The Creation vs Evolution Forum is intended to debate the question, "Does all life originate from a common ancestor?". If you are one of those evolutionists who puts forth examples of micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) and claim they prove "evolution", then this forum is not for you. Please see my article "The Evolution Definition Shell Game" that adresses this intellectually dishonest equivocation. Also see the first item in the Forum FAQ.

 

Not all Evolutionists will hold up the thought that "All life originated from ONE common ancestor". I think even Darwin didn't proclaim this.

 

As for equivocation, I recently found someone having the audacity to to first accuse Creationists of this and then doing it himself just one sentence further:

Creationists are well known for equivocation. In this video creationist Kent H*vind, with no education in any science, sets up strawwmen (sic) arguments to attack evolution. You better known the definition of evolution in order to understand how the creationist lie.

 

In biology, evolution is defined as "the change in allele frequency in a population."

 

That's not only not what we are talking about here, it isn't even a general definition of Evolution, Which commonly will be: "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all Evolutionists will hold up the thought that "All life originated from ONE common ancestor". I think even Darwin didn't proclaim this.

 

As for equivocation, I recently found someone having the audacity to to first accuse Creationists of this and then doing it himself just one sentence further:

That's not only not what we are talking about here, it isn't even a general definition of Evolution, Which commonly will be: "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

 

Yes very true, there is utter confusion as to the first ancestor. This is due to bacteria, archaea and Eukaryotes being fundamentally different to each other.

 

ENTER.........

 

Directed Pan Spermia

 

This "theory" was used to explain these differences, which basically refers to "Aliens did it". It is interesting to note the "evidence" of this "theory"

 

1. Life will be for the most part fundamentally similar to each other

2. There is no one ancestor organism, there are multiples

 

 

That is it... No uncovering ancient spaceships, etc... Just these two claims one that is observed, (ll life has DNA etc) and the other is inferred due to the impasse presented.. Which somehow "proves" that

 

1. the aliens exist

2. the Aliens themselves "evolved", (as to how did they come about)

3. the aliens are capable of "warp" speed, (or whatever it will be called)

4. the aliens are capable of "creating" life

5. the aliens wanted to "seed" Earth in the first place, (and then not show themselves?)

 

 

With "science" like this I find it very hard to distinguish the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes very true, there is utter confusion as to the first ancestor. This is due to bacteria, archaea and Eukaryotes being fundamentally different to each other.

 

ENTER.........

 

Directed Pan Spermia

 

This "theory" was used to explain these differences, which basically refers to "Aliens did it". It is interesting to note the "evidence" of this "theory"

 

1. Life will be for the most part fundamentally similar to each other

2. There is no one ancestor organism, there are multiples

 

 

That is it... No uncovering ancient spaceships, etc... Just these two claims one that is observed, (ll life has DNA etc) and the other is inferred due to the impasse presented.. Which somehow "proves" that

 

1. the aliens exist

2. the Aliens themselves "evolved", (as to how did they come about)

3. the aliens are capable of "warp" speed, (or whatever it will be called)

4. the aliens are capable of "creating" life

5. the aliens wanted to "seed" Earth in the first place, (and then not show themselves?)

 

 

With "science" like this I find it very hard to distinguish the difference between science and pseudoscience.

 

 

 

of course as they would have to realise that theres is God of the bible. the truth is that athiest isnt often interested in reality and what it does say but rather self-deception.i have been told by an athiest who claimed that my view was in denial that he was fine with the fact that he doesnt know or even care to know the origins of the universe or where life came to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for equivocation, I recently found someone having the audacity to to first accuse Creationists of this and then doing it himself just one sentence further:

 

Creationists are well known for equivocation. In this video creationist Kent H*vind, with no education in any science, sets up strawwmen (sic) arguments to attack evolution. You better known the definition of evolution in order to understand how the creationist lie.

 

In biology, evolution is defined as "the change in allele frequency in a population."

 

That's not only not what we are talking about here, it isn't even a general definition of Evolution, Which commonly will be: "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

 

I remember browsing a debate on another forum and they were calling the creationists source a liar. When asked for proof he linked to his website and showed him at the top of the page the term "Evolution is the belief that all life shares a common ancestor", then he said "If he lies about what evolution is, then we shouldn't believe anything he says".

 

What a way to refute data. :lol:

 

 

 

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='sjl197' timestamp='1319519033' post='76082']

Tell you what, i will instead acknowledge your tirade of insults about my personal history and philosophy, and turn the other cheek.

 

sj1197,

 

Why turn the other cheek? You can turn the other cheek, but when you do, you are borrowing a moral standard from the Christian God. When you do this you are being inconsistent with your worldview (atheism). And when an atheist steps out of his worldview into the Christian worldview, he unwittingly affirms that Christianity is true and atheism false. If no God exists, then no absolute morality can exist. Turning your cheek is simply a "subjective" decison on your part and can neither be morally right or morally wrong--simply a preference.

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms