I guess this is the current state of creationism

[sayak83]

Beliefs I can't justify? Thats islam. Do you have anything more authentic than the quran? I was just sharing.

Yep. Its called the Gita.

 

[MohammadPali]

Yep. Its called the Gita.

lol paganism.

 

[sayak83]

lol paganism.

lol Abrahamism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They are not 'musings' and if you cared to check them out you would be able to see that for yourself...but you dismiss it all without investigation.



We are certainly NOT anti-science.....we are anti-fake science. We can see the difference which evolutionists apparently cannot.



Because it requires faith in order to be acceptable to God, the actual proof that you demand, will be the last thing that all the ungodly will witness. Faith doesn't need "proof"...it exists in the heart, not just the mind. My logic is not one bit challenged by my faith...one supports the other. When we have the kind of faith that God is looking for in his worshippers, we can see and feel his presence and activity in our lives in ways you could never imagine. It isn't based on wishful thinking....we have demonstrable proof in our own lives that what we believe is true and that our Creator is real.



I always have.....which is why I challenge science to back up what it teaches with real evidence and to prove that there is no Creator with more than "I don't believe in him" and religion is just myth.

Perhaps we should let time be the judge of what transpires.....the world is falling apart in front of our eyes and there appears to be nothing mere humans can do about it.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing in things when they don't have a good reason. -Matt Dillahunty

 

[MohammadPali]

Once there was

lol Abrahamism.

Because he preached against worshiping of animals and objects hes wrong ? He can't be wrong, name a cow that got up and started telling people to worship him ? Name a 6 legged figure that can turn its head 360 degrees and vogue like Madonna, may god enlighten your heart.

 

[MohammadPali]

Faith is the excuse people give for believing in things when they don't have a good reason. -Matt Dillahunty

No faith, is having no compassion for one self or other people. .

 

[jonathan180iq]

Since all belief in the Bible is "faith" based, then "faith" in what it says is required. But let me remind you that those who support evolution, also have to have "faith" that the conclusions reached by your own teachers are correct. Isn't the validity of their conclusions just based on your faith in them?
If they cannot produce solid evidence for their conclusions (and we know they can't) then is it enough to say something "might have" or "could have" led to 'this' or 'that'? How scientific is it when absolute proof cannot be furnished? You too have a faith based belief as I have said all along.

The Being who created matter does not dwell in the physical realm. He is larger than our material reality and beyond our comprehension of time. You think mere mortals can quantify him?

Everything in existence has an opposite, does it not? There is matter and there is anti-matter. Define anti-matter. What are black holes? How does gravity work? What causes magnetism? How much does science really know, compared to what they have yet to discover? If there is an all powerful Creator, do you imagine he is going to reveal anything to mere mortals who think he is just "a bearded wizard in the sky"?
Either God is a moron, or man is....and I know which one has my vote.

Define "naturalistic". If God created processes which appear to be "natural" then where do the laws of nature come from? Did these laws just pop up out of nowhere for no apparent reason? If those laws demonstrate purpose, then there has to be 'someone' designing them for that purpose. What useful thing do you possess that is designed for a specific purpose that had no designer?

Crediting "nature" with assigning purpose to creation is like worshipping the sun with no thought of why there is a sun and who put it there? Seeing the sun in the bigger picture allows us to appreciate how amazing it is and how vital it is to life on earth. It dominates our world, but in the universe it is but an insignificant speck.
Seeing the big picture puts everything in perspective. How smart are humans really?

If anecdotal evidence is not admissible, then all of your own evidence just went out of the window. Scientists tell us that "macro-evolution" is a fact, when it clearly isn't. Fossils cannot speak, but that does not prevent anthropologists from giving them a voice.....what are their conclusions based on? Guesses....nothing more than educated guesses. Nothing that happened before there was intelligent human life to document anything can be presented with any certainty. "Might have" and "could have" are not scientific statements. They are suggestions.....supposition...conjecture. Just because it sounds convincing doesn't mean it is.

True science backs up everything the Bible says about creation....an old earth...a slow and deliberate process of creation over a long period of time. That is why it is called "creation" and not "magic" (which is condemned in the Bible BTW). There was no "poofing" of things into existence in a mere week, but a considered act of creation by a gifted artist with eternity up his sleeve. If you read the Genesis account, it was only at the end of each creative period that the Creator was satisfied with his work. Each creation may have needed refinement or enhancement and God had no time constraints to do whatever he wished...even if it was to scrap something and start again....as many artists do.

You seem to only entertain the notion of two camps....creationism and evolution...both of these are rubbish IMO. There is a middle ground where the Bible and science meet and agree completely.....neither of those sides has a clue that this middle ground exists. They are too bust trying to prove the other fellow wrong!

The Bible has made many predictions too....some of them hundreds or even thousands of years in advance of their fulfillment. We are living in one of those predicted times right now. Here is how the Bible describes the events that show us where we are in the stream of time....

Matthew 24:3-14:
"While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”

Jesus said that a "sign" was needed to demonstrate that he was "present"...not "coming". This indicates that his presence is not a visible event but is tied in with the "sign" indicating that his "presence had begun and that "the conclusion of the system of things" (or the world system of government at this period) was coming to an end and rulership of this earth would be taken over by God's rulership. This was prophesied in the book of Daniel 2,500 years ago. (Daniel 2:44)

What time period does this describe?

After warning that many false "Christs" would appear, Jesus said...."You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet." So wars were always going to be common, but it was not just wars that would signal Christ's return...it was an unprecedented kind of warfare....
"For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress."

We believe that the FIRST WORLD WAR was the beginning of that warfare. Never before in history had the entire world been involved in a single conflict. Alliances formed among nations drew countries into the conflict that probably would not have participated, but they were obligated to fight.

Earthquakes have increased markedly in the last 100 years.

Jesus went on to say....
"many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another. 11 Many false prophets will arise and mislead many; 12 and because of the increasing of lawlessness, the love of the greater number will grow cold."

The lawlessness we see today is on a scale that is not manageable and on a level where no one feels safe, even in their own houses anymore. Love of neighbor used to keep communities close and reliant on one another for help...but those times are gone. No one can trust their neighbor anymore. People lie and cheat and steal so how can we love those we cannot trust?

In verses 21 and 22 it says....."for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. 22 In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short."
This was partly describing the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, but the prophesy had a two fold application since it was tied in with Jesus' second appearance.

His next words in verse13 then have meaning for us today....
"But the one who has endured to the end will be saved."

What kind of endurance do Christians need in this "time of the end"? In a world where godlessness is rampant and those who do worship deities worship the wrong ones, it is those who stick to the Bible and do what Jesus told them, in spite of all opposition, who will be saved.

Then the final feature of the sign....."And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."

The message is being preached, but who is listening? (Matthew 24:37-39)

Just as surely as the prophesy was fulfilled in a small way on ancient Jerusalem, so it will be on a grand scale when God brings this entire satanically inspired system crashing to the ground. God will take no prisoners and there will not be any survivors who have not taken their stand before the end comes. This is what the Bible teaches and this is what I see taking place in the world. This is why I believe the Bible. There is my proof for its accuracy.

They are not 'musings' and if you cared to check them out you would be able to see that for yourself...but you dismiss it all without investigation.

We are certainly NOT anti-science.....we are anti-fake science. We can see the difference which evolutionists apparently cannot.

Because it requires faith in order to be acceptable to God, the actual proof that you demand, will be the last thing that all the ungodly will witness. Faith doesn't need "proof"...it exists in the heart, not just the mind. My logic is not one bit challenged by my faith...one supports the other. When we have the kind of faith that God is looking for in his worshippers, we can see and feel his presence and activity in our lives in ways you could never imagine. It isn't based on wishful thinking....we have demonstrable proof in our own lives that what we believe is true and that our Creator is real.

That's a lot of time spent typing to have produced no substantiating evidence...
Like I said, if you have some, just post it here.
Don't quote the Bible.
Don't explain that your magic sky man needs faith in order to be seen.
Don't try and give me a fake history lesson.
Just post your evidence.

If you, or any Creationist on the planet has some, post it up. Let's see it!

You've admitted that biological adaptation occurs. You Creationists call it Micro-evolution.
In doing so, you've validated the research that Creationists for so long had deemed as heresy, among other titles. (lunacy, snow-jobs, fleecing, faith-masquerading-as-science, or however else you've tried to word it...) There's a problem though, that you seem bullishly unaware of. You cannot accept scientific discoveries when they are convenient and reject them when they are inconvenient to your particular ideology. Doing so would make you intellectually dishonest. By accepting what you deem Micro-Evolution, you're unwittingly attesting to the fact that Evolution is a natural biological process that affects both individuals and populations over time. Unless you can identify a biological mechanism which would stop Micro-evolutionary changes from continuing ad infinitum, then you've completely lost this argument - not just against me, or anyone else you've been conversing with, but you've failed the whole of your ideology because it is factually and scientifically bankrupt.

• This is why you guys continuously fail to supply evidence, while hilariously accusing "Science" of not producing enough.
• This is also why you guys can't answer the final question that I posed, about biological mechanisms and limits. And why I assume you fail to recognize just how necessary that challenge is for your current position...
• This is why you spend more time quoting the Bible than you do studying the research that you're trying to debunk.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No faith, is having no compassion for one self or other people. .

I'm sorry, what?

 

[sayak83]

Once there was



Because he preached against worshiping of animals and objects hes wrong ? He can't be wrong, name a cow that got up and started telling people to worship him ? Name a 6 legged figure that can turn its head 360 degrees and vogue like Madonna, may god enlighten your heart.

We don't worship cows. We believe in non-killing of all animals for food and use the cow, which provides milk, cowdung as eco-friendly fuel and fertilizer, and once provided animal power for tilling and transportation, as a signature animal to educate ordinary folks about the benefits of non killing of all animals.

Please find a six legged figure for me in Hinduism. Hindus believe that people connect with God in many ways.. some through scripture, some through meditation, some through nature and some through visual representations and narratives that make God available to connect with them at a relational level. Thus all these ways are considered legitimate spiritual practice and ways of connecting with God/Brahman.

May the true God release you from the narrow bonds of Quranic beliefs. Peace.

 

[Looncall]

Beliefs I can't justify? Thats islam. Do you have anything more authentic than the quran? I was just sharing.

Let's see: I have a book called "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics". It's a very big book with thin pages. Everything in it has been carefully checked. That's more authentic than the scribblings of desert primitives.

aside: since the book is published by the Chemical Rubber Company, scientists know it as "The Rubber Bible".

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

To understand the procedure for having leprosy declared by a priest as "cured", would involve knowledge of what the blood offered in the sacrifice actually symbolized. Most of what the Israelites did in performing their sacrifices had a very deep meaning.

I find it peculiar you disdain using human blood to save lives but are perfectly fine with spraying bird blood everywhere for "symbolism".

I don't think that is the issue. A germ becoming resistant is micro evolution and I don't know any creationist that has a problem with that. A germ becoming a virus is macro and I think that is where most creationists have a problem.

To be nitpicky, I don't think "germ" is a biological term with any specificity.

You do understand that it was God who required the sacrifice in the first place

God doesn't eat, so really, sacrifices aren't even necessary.

Let's just say that evolution is the basis for racism.

Did Jesus believe in evolution? He came only for Jews and had to be guilt tripped into helping gentiles.

I mean, hell, the majority of the bible is a testament to how screwed up wanting "purity" (racial or theological) is. Every time it's tried, it fails. That's because purity doesn't exist like that.

Shadow, no one disputes these things. Facts are not hard to find because we proof of their existence......OTOH, conjecture, supposition and suggestion masquerading as facts are a dime a dozen in evolutionary science.

Germ theory was once just a supposition until the facts bore themselves out.

Who said it is cruel to kill animals?

I dunno. Whatever you do to the least of these, or don't spank your donkey, or slaughter animals in a prescribed way to reduce suffering/disease, or the fact torturing and killing animals is a huge red flag for serial killers ...

Acknowledging blood born pathogens was the reason why God gave sound hygiene laws to his people thousands of years before "science" discovered the reason why people get sick from contaminated water and from the spread of disease by people not washing their hands. That in itself is reason enough for me to believe that the wisdom of God has educated his people for millenniums and that they benefited from obedience to his wise direction.

I'm a nurse with huge issues regarding the availability of bodily fluids. If God thinks it's okay to shower a room with blood, no, He sucks at basic hygiene.

There were obviously reasons for all the laws given to Israel.

Yes, it's called "they were Canaanites in denial of their racial history".

Ummm.....evolution is not a threat to true Christian beliefs, because it is an unprovable theory that has no basis in fact....it comes straight out of scientist's vivid imaginations.

You have told us your Christian denomination encourages ignorance to the extent you can't even read scientific journals. That tells me it's a threat.

Even High School students are taught not to question the science.....if they do question, they might find holes you can drive a Mack Truck through.

The holes tend to diminish if you're allowed to read the articles.

We are certainly NOT anti-science.....we are anti-fake science. We can see the difference which evolutionists apparently cannot.

You cannot see the difference because you were never allowed to become literate enough to read scientific journals. I get it, they take soooooo long to read for all the jargon, but c'mon, at least read the abstract and the rseults and discussion sections.

Because he preached against worshiping of animals and objects hes wrong ? He can't be wrong, name a cow that got up and started telling people to worship him ?

Name a bush that told a guy to worship him.

Name a 6 legged figure that can turn its head 360 degrees and vogue like Madonna, may god enlighten your heart.

A preying mantis?

No, wait, just looked it up, they can go to 180....

Still, it's impressive if you can watch your own rear.

No faith, is having no compassion for one self or other people. .

Faith isn't required for compassion. You need mirror neurons JUST to have empathy in the first place.

May the true God release you from the narrow bonds of Quranic beliefs. Peace.

I, on a whim, asked to see Truth before going to bed. Met a guy in a forest who turned out to be Vishnu. To be honest, though I come from Abrahamic traditions, I find the Dharmic ones to be better thought out.

 

[Kenny]

To be nitpicky, I don't think "germ" is a biological term with any specificity.

http://c.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/germ
Main Entry: germ
Pronunciation: \ˈjərm\
Function: noun
1: a small mass of living substance capable of developing into an organism or one of its parts 2: microorganism; especially : a microorganism causing disease

Did Jesus believe in evolution? He came only for Jews and had to be guilt tripped into helping gentiles.

ha.... haha... hahahaha

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHA



WHEW! I needed that.

 

[Profound Realization]

You only say that because you don't have a firm grasp of the principles and Science involved. You can't possibly hear a reasonable argument if you always ask questions like the following:



Yeah. That's still being hashed out and it's still an unknown. Congratulations.

You must realize, of course, that it's just as easily possible that when/if that question is answered that it will prove just as destructive to the idea that a Bearded Space Wizard willed the cosmos into existence just so he could punish a few Jews for doing things poorly.

Non-answers don't support a position. Evidence does.



"Spiritual leanings" is another way to say "I don't really have a clue but I prefer magic". These conversations, on behalf of the spiritualists, are absolutely devoid of any type of evidence or research beyond the anecdotal. The whole of this thread attests to that. Not a single Creationist has provided a substantiating fact. Not one. Why is that?

I find the crutch of "Marco-Evolution" amusing here, as the processes behind "Micro-Evolution" (which most of you now admit is an observable thing because you aren't TOTALLY beyond reason) are exactly the same. As always, the conversation with Creationists ends when they're asked to describe or explain a biological barrier that exists which would keep Micro-evolutionary changes from continuing over long periods of time, creating macro-evolutionary divergences from parent populations... You guys recognize that you have no idea how to answer that question, so you balk at it. But it's a serious point that needs answered if your position is worth anything at all. The lack of answers from your side is telling.


Presuppositional bias exposed.

Please provide evidence for said Wizard or stop claiming that it exists.

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not the same. Neither knows how to answer the in-betweens currently.

I speak neutrally, I couldn't explain a barrier nor a change in kind. "Given enough time, anything is possible" is not a valid explanation either. Bias and balking go both ways, whether aware of it or not.

 

[Profound Realization]

Faith is the excuse people give for believing in things when they don't have a good reason. -Matt Dillahunty

Faith is also the belief that macro-evolution even exists and that one day, it will be seen with evidence.

Macro-evolution could end up being completely discarded for something alternatively sound. What if species/kind can't change species/kind and that there will one day be a splendid, sound explanation for such?

 

[Sapiens]

Faith is also the belief that macro-evolution even exists and that one day, it will be seen with evidence.

In another thread you have trouble with the meaning of "reasonable" now you are struggling with the meaning of "faith." Please find a good on-line dictionary and use it.

Macro-evolution could end up being completely discarded for something alternatively sound. What if species/kind can't change species/kind and that there will one day be a splendid, sound explanation for such?

That's a fallacy: "appeal to probability," a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).

 

[jonathan180iq]

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not the same.

Yes they are.
They are different only in focus of observed outcome.
The biological processes which drive micro-evolution are exactly the same as those that drive macro-evolution.

Mutation, Migration, Genetic Drift, & Natural Selection apply at all levels, all the time.
If you think it doesn't, show me an instance where that's a false statement.

What is macroevolution?

You cannot accept micro-evolutionary adaptations and then reject macro-evolutionary changes without establishing the existence of a barrier mechanism. Without a barrier mechanism, you're arguing that:

1+1=2 But 1+1+1+1+1≠5

It's nonsensical.

Neither knows how to answer the in-betweens currently.

As with all previous in-betweens, what will your argument be when whatever current in-between you're talking about gets answered? Where will you hide your "reasonable rejection" when current questions are no longer troublesome?

This is how and why you guys set up God of the Gaps arguments so often. Your penchant for rejecting things when they are inconvenient necessarily keeps you behind the 8-ball, constantly having to shift your arguments (and your faith) to whatever the new unknowns are. I can't see how that could possibly instill any sense of stability in your philosophical frameworks.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Faith is also the belief that macro-evolution even exists and that one day, it will be seen with evidence.

Macro-evolution could end up being completely discarded for something alternatively sound. What if species/kind can't change species/kind and that there will one day be a splendid, sound explanation for such?

Nope. Macroevolution and microevolution involve the same processes, with the only difference between them being time.

ENSI/SENSI Papers & Articles:Macroevolution Lessons
Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
CB901: No Macroevolution
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Profound Realization]

Yes they are.
They are different only in focus of observed outcome.
The biological processes which drive micro-evolution are exactly the same as those that drive macro-evolution.

Mutation, Migration, Genetic Drift, & Natural Selection apply at all levels, all the time.
If you think it doesn't, show me an instance where that's a false statement.

What is macroevolution?

You cannot accept micro-evolutionary adaptations and then reject macro-evolutionary changes without establishing the existence of a barrier mechanism. Without a barrier mechanism, you're arguing that:

1+1=2 But 1+1+1+1+1≠5

It's nonsensical.


As with all previous in-betweens, what will your argument be when whatever current in-between you're talking about gets answered? Where will you hide your "reasonable rejection" when current questions are no longer troublesome?

This is how and why you guys set up God of the Gaps arguments so often. Your penchant for rejecting things when they are inconvenient necessarily keeps you behind the 8-ball, constantly having to shift your arguments (and your faith) to whatever the new unknowns are. I can't see how that could possibly instill any sense of stability in your philosophical frameworks.

Nothing was rejected. As stated, I am neutral and know of no boundary system nor of no non-barrier system. I am fine with saying I don't know at this time. The only difference between you and I is that you've already established a non-barrier system (that is "God of the Gaps/faith.") Perhaps one day behind that network of emotions, you can become more aware of what you do. Here are your lies:

1.You said they are the same and then say the "only difference." Hence, not the same.
2. Someone CAN accept anything they want, will I be expecting you at my door to arrest my mind for accepting "I don't know at this time?"
3. There is nowhere to hide any rejection as nothing was ever rejected.
4. Your entire last paragraph made me laugh, so full of assumptions and lies towards me.

You shouldn't respond, unless you want. You won't get a response. Once folks start lying this much, imagining this many things on another that don't exist, it doesn't make for an honest debate/discussion. Words of advice, read something thoroughly...respond, don't react emotionally, don't assume you know another.

Anyhow, no offense taken... much love.

 

[Profound Realization]

Nope. Macroevolution and microevolution involve the same processes, with the only difference between them being time.

ENSI/SENSI Papers & Articles:Macroevolution Lessons
Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
CB901: No Macroevolution
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

That is jolly, the only place one can get away with "God of the gaps of time."

Just say that given enough time, anything is possible. (Fill in the time with whatever one wants.)

The only difference between you and I is that I am okay with not knowing, and being patient with an open system of mind. I don't have to make any adjustments, or deny or remove any lies. Whatever comes, comes. My open system of mind tends to evolve me more fit. Those closed systems tend to deteriorate more quickly.

 

[Jose Fly]

Faith is also the belief that macro-evolution even exists and that one day, it will be seen with evidence.

"Microevolution", i.e., evolution within a species has been directly and repeatedly observed, documented, and studied.

"Macroevolution", i.e., evolution of new species has also been directly and repeatedly observed, documented, and studied. Further, speciation events over long periods of time leading to the evolution of new genera, families, and orders are also documented in the fossil record. Throw in the genetic evidence that supports specific macroevolutionary scenarios, and the formal testing of universal common ancestry and human/primate shared ancestry, and we can safely conclude that your assertion about macroevolution is demonstrably false.