Arkansas inflicts child abuse on its school children

[Messianic Israelite]

You can call it a lie; but it works, evolution is happening today.
Like it or not Humans and Chimps share 98.8% of their DNA.

I think Satan has a better scientific upbringing than god

Hi Altfish. Good evening.
When comparing genomes, it’s useful to use an analogy of comparing two books. If you pick two mystery novels off a bookshelf and compare the text using a computer algorithm, the computer will find many similar isolated words and phrases. Both books must follow the same rules of grammar (as does every genome), and both books follow literary conventions that produce an exciting mystery novel (if you like mysteries). But the similarity does not mean that one book evolved from the other. Of course, this is a foolish supposition. It’s a natural result of two different books being designed and written for similar purposes. The same is true of genomes, which Yahweh designed to produce many similar designs, such as bones, organs, and so on, for chimps and humans to eat similar foods and survive in similar environments. But we’re still different and fulfill unique purposes.

I have taken the above from Answers In Genesis The Untold Story Behind DNA Similarity, but in my own words I say why would Yahweh reinvent the wheel? If he has created a system that works, why shouldn't other animals have similarity to humans? Yahweh did a wonderful job at creating. He is the programmer. Why surely the similarity between life forms proves that the same programmer (Creator) created all these things using a blueprint that worked.

It does not give weight to the theory of evolution. Chimps behaviors don't remotely approach the complexity and nuance of human behaviors, and in my opinion there's not the tiniest bit of scientific evidence that chimps have aesthetics, spirituality, or a capacity for irony or poignancy. Yahweh created man in his own image. Genesis 1:27 says

"And Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them."

Humans haven't evolved from bacteria. We have always been human. Teaching that humans have evolved is an insult to Yahweh. Yahweh didn't waste billions of years waiting for mankind to evolve. And a billion years from now (I am being facetious) humans will still be humans.

 

[Altfish]

Hi Altfish. Good evening.
When comparing genomes, it’s useful to use an analogy of comparing two books. If you pick two mystery novels off a bookshelf and compare the text using a computer algorithm, the computer will find many similar isolated words and phrases. Both books must follow the same rules of grammar (as does every genome), and both books follow literary conventions that produce an exciting mystery novel (if you like mysteries). But the similarity does not mean that one book evolved from the other. Of course, this is a foolish supposition. It’s a natural result of two different books being designed and written for similar purposes. The same is true of genomes, which Yahweh designed to produce many similar designs, such as bones, organs, and so on, for chimps and humans to eat similar foods and survive in similar environments. But we’re still different and fulfill unique purposes.

I have taken the above from Answers In Genesis The Untold Story Behind DNA Similarity, but in my own words I say why would Yahweh reinvent the wheel? If he has created a system that works, why shouldn't other animals have similarity to humans? Yahweh did a wonderful job at creating. He is the programmer. Why surely the similarity between life forms proves that the same programmer (Creator) created all these things using a blueprint that worked.

It does not give weight to the theory of evolution. Chimps behaviors don't remotely approach the complexity and nuance of human behaviors, and in my opinion there's not the tiniest bit of scientific evidence that chimps have aesthetics, spirituality, or a capacity for irony or poignancy. Yahweh created man in his own image. Genesis 1:27 says

"And Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them."

Humans haven't evolved from bacteria. We have always been human. Teaching that humans have evolved is an insult to Yahweh. Yahweh didn't waste billions of years waiting for mankind to evolve. And a billion years from now (I am being facetious) humans will still be humans.

And what does Answers in Genesis have to say about Ring Species?
Or the laryngeal nerve in giraffes (or other animals)
Flightless birds
Pest resistant insects

I could go on, evolution explains all of these.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

And what does Answers in Genesis have to say about Ring Species?
Or the laryngeal nerve in giraffes (or other animals)
Flightless birds
Pest resistant insects

I could go on, evolution explains all of these.

Hi Altfish. Good evening. I'll start with Ring Species. I don't think Answers in Genesis says anything about Ring Species however, I don't see how Ring Species proves the Bible wrong. Creation scientists agree that small variations occur, both because they can be observed, and because it is reasonable that a wise Creator would equip His creatures with survival-enhancing capabilities.

It is clear from the examples of Ring Species that species are not fixed and unchanging, and that two apparently different species may in fact be genetically related. New species (as man defines them) can form. Instead of using the term "species," which has genetic, morphological, ecological, and evolutionary definitions, employing the concept of Genesis 1 "kinds" can clarify matters.

Creation as described in the book of Genesis implies that virtually all the genetic information in today’s world was present in the beginning, contained in separate populations (the original created kinds). This information would not be expected to increase, but could decrease with time—in other words, any genetic changes would be expected to be informationally downhill. As far as I can see, there remains no evidence that basic kinds can morph from one to another.

 

[Heyo]

Hi Altfish. Good evening. I'll start with Ring Species. I don't think Answers in Genesis says anything about Ring Species however, I don't see how Ring Species proves the Bible wrong. Creation scientists agree that small variations occur, both because they can be observed, and because it is reasonable that a wise Creator would equip His creatures with survival-enhancing capabilities.

It is clear from the examples of Ring Species that species are not fixed and unchanging, and that two apparently different species may in fact be genetically related. New species (as man defines them) can form. Instead of using the term "species," which has genetic, morphological, ecological, and evolutionary definitions, employing the concept of Genesis 1 "kinds" can clarify matters.

Creation as described in the book of Genesis implies that virtually all the genetic information in today’s world was present in the beginning, contained in separate populations (the original created kinds). This information would not be expected to increase, but could decrease with time—in other words, any genetic changes would be expected to be informationally downhill. As far as I can see, there remains no evidence that basic kinds can morph from one to another.

You missed the point of the OP (and @Altfish missed it too by responding to you).
You don't have to convince us that creationism is scientific, you have to convince the scientists. Scientists should be the gatekeepers of what is taught in science class. They have the tools and methods to decide. Formulate your hypothesis, make experiments, publish in scientific journals and your hypothesis will become a theory and gain entrance in science books and science classes. That's how the other theories got there.
Creationists don't want to work for their right to be taught. I call that lazy. They want to circumvent the established process. I call that entitled.

Are laziness and entitlement the virtues you want your teachings based on?
And what is your stance on the golden rule?
If religious groups can decide what is taught in science class, can scientists decide what is taught in church?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi Altfish. Good evening. I'll start with Ring Species. I don't think Answers in Genesis says anything about Ring Species however, I don't see how Ring Species proves the Bible wrong. Creation scientists agree that small variations occur, both because they can be observed, and because it is reasonable that a wise Creator would equip His creatures with survival-enhancing capabilities.

It is clear from the examples of Ring Species that species are not fixed and unchanging, and that two apparently different species may in fact be genetically related. New species (as man defines them) can form. Instead of using the term "species," which has genetic, morphological, ecological, and evolutionary definitions, employing the concept of Genesis 1 "kinds" can clarify matters.

Creation as described in the book of Genesis implies that virtually all the genetic information in today’s world was present in the beginning, contained in separate populations (the original created kinds). This information would not be expected to increase, but could decrease with time—in other words, any genetic changes would be expected to be informationally downhill. As far as I can see, there remains no evidence that basic kinds can morph from one to another.

I do not think that you understand even the basics of science, since you rely on such poor sources. I would like to discuss two concepts with you. The two concepts are of the scientific method, and scientific evidence. When it comes to these two concepts creationist sites are not a valid source.

 

[Altfish]

Hi Altfish. Good evening. I'll start with Ring Species. I don't think Answers in Genesis says anything about Ring Species however, I don't see how Ring Species proves the Bible wrong. Creation scientists agree that small variations occur, both because they can be observed, and because it is reasonable that a wise Creator would equip His creatures with survival-enhancing capabilities.

It is clear from the examples of Ring Species that species are not fixed and unchanging, and that two apparently different species may in fact be genetically related. New species (as man defines them) can form. Instead of using the term "species," which has genetic, morphological, ecological, and evolutionary definitions, employing the concept of Genesis 1 "kinds" can clarify matters.

Creation as described in the book of Genesis implies that virtually all the genetic information in today’s world was present in the beginning, contained in separate populations (the original created kinds). This information would not be expected to increase, but could decrease with time—in other words, any genetic changes would be expected to be informationally downhill. As far as I can see, there remains no evidence that basic kinds can morph from one to another.

The term 'kinds' is an invention of Creationists. As I understand it 'kinds' can interbreed. - ring species animals cannot interbreed, they

You missed the point of the OP (and @Altfish missed it too by responding to you).
You don't have to convince us that creationism is scientific, you have to convince the scientists. Scientists should be the gatekeepers of what is taught in science class. They have the tools and methods to decide. Formulate your hypothesis, make experiments, publish in scientific journals and your hypothesis will become a theory and gain entrance in science books and science classes. That's how the other theories got there.
Creationists don't want to work for their right to be taught. I call that lazy. They want to circumvent the established process. I call that entitled.

Are laziness and entitlement the virtues you want your teachings based on?
And what is your stance on the golden rule?
If religious groups can decide what is taught in science class, can scientists decide what is taught in church?

It is easy to convince scientists. There is a process.
You write a paper, that paper is then peer reviewed, by other experts. If your paper stands up to scrutiny, more scientists try to repeat your evidence.
It becomes a hypothesis, then over time, when more verification has occurred, it may become a Theory

 

[Heyo]

It is easy to convince scientists. There is a process.
You write a paper, that paper is then peer reviewed, by other experts. If your paper stands up to scrutiny, more scientists try to repeat your evidence.
It becomes a hypothesis, then over time, when more verification has occurred, it may become a Theory

Yep. And that's the reason why allowing creationism into science class should not be done this way (through political decision). The creationists just have to follow the process like everyone else. The problem is that they want to circumvent the process. They are either too lazy or too incompetent for that and want special treatment (exception from having to do the work).
It is mute to discuss the intricacies of creationism when it is a simple problem of following protocol.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I don’t believe the Bible itself is a science book, more a true narrative for human beings so they can know what God has done in the past, His promises to us, what He is going to do in the future.
Science should be taught with the view of God as the Creator not through the false theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t believe the Bible itself is a science book, more a true narrative for human beings so they can know what God has done in the past, His promises to us, what He is going to do in the future.
Science should be taught with the view of God as the Creator not through the false theory of evolution.

The problem is that all of the reliable evidence says that evolution is true. We have another Christian that believes God is a liar.

Do you realize that most Christians disagree with your interpretation of the Bible?

 

[Altfish]

Yep. And that's the reason why allowing creationism into science class should not be done this way (through political decision). The creationists just have to follow the process like everyone else. The problem is that they want to circumvent the process. They are either too lazy or too incompetent for that and want special treatment (exception from having to do the work).
It is mute to discuss the intricacies of creationism when it is a simple problem of following protocol.

And, "God did it" does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The problem is that all of the reliable evidence says that evolution is true. We have another Christian that believes God is a liar.

Do you realize that most Christians disagree with your interpretation of the Bible?

Evolution is still a theory and can’t be proven as far as proving the origin of life. Not even close. Bible is still the only account that makes any sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is still a theory and can’t be proven as far as proving the origin of life. Not even close. Bible is still the only account that makes any sense.

Gravity is still a theory.

You do not understand what a scientific theory is. No theory is ever "proven". It is not a term that scientists use. But if you go by the legal standard of " proven beyond a reasonable doubt", then yes. Evolution has been "proven".


When you say " Evolution is still a theory" you are in fact saying:

"All of the evidence still supports evolution."

The Bible does not make any sense. That is elementary school level thinking. It has he n shown to be a myth.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Gravity is still a theory.

You do not understand what a scientific theory is. No theory is ever "proven". It is not a term that scientists use. But if you go by the legal standard of " proven beyond a reasonable doubt", then yes. Evolution has been "proven".


When you say " Evolution is still a theory" you are in fact saying:

"All of the evidence still supports evolution."

The Bible does not make any sense. That is elementary school level thinking. It has he n shown to be a myth.

False- No evidence of a change in kind has ever been proven or observed. Bird is still a bird, like begets like. Plant an apple seed, get an apple tree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False- No evidence of a change in kind has ever been proven or observed. Bird is still a bird, like begets like. Plant an apple seed, get an apple tree.

You are of course wrong. On more than one level.

"Kind" is a creationist nonsense term. A bird is still a bird, but it is also still a dinosaur. Just as you are still an ape.

The basics of science are not hard to learn. Would you care to try?

 

[ElishaElijah]

You are of course wrong. On more than one level.

"Kind" is a creationist nonsense term. A bird is still a bird, but it is also still a dinosaur. Just as you are still an ape.

The basics of science are not hard to learn. Would you care to try?

I’m a human being created in the image of God. Maybe that’s your problem, you still believe you’re an ape.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You are of course wrong. On more than one level.

"Kind" is a creationist nonsense term. A bird is still a bird, but it is also still a dinosaur. Just as you are still an ape.

The basics of science are not hard to learn. Would you care to try?

Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - Revised - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries
From 2010 no less

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m a human being created in the image of God. Maybe that’s your problem, you still believe you’re an ape.

No, I know that you are an ape. I can explain why and provide evidence. Though you do not seem to understand the concept of evidence. You only have mere belief. You cannot properly support your claim.

Seriously, why don't we go over the basics first? You cannot refute that which you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - Revised - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries

A lying and ignorant source. Are you serious?

I was going to say you can do better than that, but I guess that you can't.

Once again why are you afraid to learn even the basics of science?

 

[ElishaElijah]

You are of course wrong. On more than one level.

"Kind" is a creationist nonsense term. A bird is still a bird, but it is also still a dinosaur. Just as you are still an ape.

The basics of science are not hard to learn. Would you care to try?

Flaws and Issues with the Theory of Evolution | Science & Faith

 

[Subduction Zone]

Flaws and Issues with the Theory of Evolution | Science & Faith

Is that all you have? Links to articles by ignorant fools?

Once again, let's go over the basics so that you can understand.