The Fallacy of being Creationism into schools

[outhouse]

Someone had to be first.

False, this is nonsensical rambling based on mythology, that has perverted the original legends for personal faith.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

None the less....in the scheme of regression....
Someone had to be first.

What are you, Joseph Goebbles? Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true...

 

[McBell]

None the less....in the scheme of regression....
Someone had to be first.

and thus you reveal your dogma to the world.

Time for your denial...

 

[sonofdad]

None the less....in the scheme of regression....
Someone had to be first.

Why someone? Why not just something?

 

[Thief]

Why someone? Why not just something?

The difference between Something alive.....and something not.

So which came first?
Someone...... alive?

Or does the dead beget the living?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The difference between Something alive.....and something not.

So which came first?
Someone...... alive?

Or does the dead beget the living?

But how did this first living thing come to be alive if there was nothing before it?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But how did this first living thing come to be alive if there was nothing before it?

Hmm, good question... I guess that means that Gandalf, er I mean God, must have done it, eh?

LOL!

Seriously though, has there ever been an argument for creationism or ID that DIDN'T commit an appeal to ignorance? Like, ever?

 

[Ouroboros]

But how did this first living thing come to be alive if there was nothing before it?

Exactly.

Being alive or living means that there is something that is alive. So the "something" must exist for "someone" to exist. Which means that something must come before someone.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So, was a feathered animal with teeth, no wishbone and unfused tail vertebrae a bird? Just how many definitive bird features do you have to subtract before it's a non-bird?

I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. That is animal classification, which can vary. If scientists decide to call bats birds, then bats would be birds. However, an animal is what it is, and isn't what it isn't. And my point is a bird will never produce a non-bird. I don't care how many millions of years you want to posit, it will never produce a non-bird. Period.

So when God created Aurornis, was he making a bird or a feathered reptile? Or wasn't he sure?

Looks like a bird to me.

 

[johnhanks]

I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. That is animal classification, which can vary.

More evasion. You insist birds are a "kind", and change can occur only within kinds. But what the eye beholds in the fossil record is birds merging more or less seamlessly with feathered reptiles. You are the one who insists they must be separate kinds, but you have still failed to tell us where the dividing line is to be found.