Why don't some people like being created?

[Commoner]

Any you won't accept "God did it" as a justifiable objection I assume. So here we have it, all creationists are either ignorant, irrational, or liars. Pick your poison.

Either? :no:

And.

 

[Autodidact]

Any you won't accept "God did it" as a justifiable objection I assume.

For at least the tenth time, the reason "God did it" is not a justifiable objection is that it is entirely consistent with ToE. ToE (for the tenth time, and PLEASE don't make me repeat it) is NOT NOT NOT the theory that God did not do it. It's a theory about HOW God did it. NOT WHO, HOW. HOW HOW HOW. Get it?

So here we have it, all creationists are either ignorant, irrational, or liars. Pick your poison.

Ding! Exactly! Give this man a cigar.

btw, which one are you?

 

[Man of Faith]

"God did it" isn't a justifiable objection. "God did it and here's how I know he did: (insert good reason and supporting facts)" may be.

That's what I do on here almost daily, give my reasonable objections to evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

On further thought, MoF, I agree with you. If you want to maintain your disbelief in one of the foundational theories of modern science, you should definitely NOT look at the evidence that supports it. If you did, you would no doubt realize why all of modern Biology is based on it, and that the evidence overwhelmingly supports it.

So, O.K., remain ignorant; that's your option. But please stop going around the internet lying about it. Or doesn't your religion or morality have a problem with lying?

 

[Autodidact]

That's what I do on here almost daily, give my reasonable objections to evolution.

Oh, could you refer me to a post where you presented evidence that ToE is not correct? Or even that you know what it is? Thanks.

 

[Man of Faith]

Oh, could you refer me to a post where you presented evidence that ToE is not correct? Or even that you know what it is? Thanks.

I think you have read most of my posts. I have probably close to 50 word documents on my laptop showing how evolution isn't true and creation is. That is pretty reasonable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think you have read most of my posts. I have probabably 50-70 word documents on my laptop showing how evolution isn't true and creation is. That is pretty reasonable.

I know you've obviously presented them before in the past, but could you please do so anyway?

 

[Man of Faith]

I know you've obviously presented them before in the past, but could you please do so anyway?

Sure that is what I love to do, of course I can't do that all at once. And I am out of time today, it's Wednesday and I have to go to church and teach kids about Jesus and creation.

The problem is, it doesn't matter what the evidence is, a persons worldview determines what they conclude about it.

 

[Autodidact]

I think you have read most of my posts. I have probably close to 50 word documents on my laptop showing how evolution isn't true and creation is. That is pretty reasonable.

Yup, I've read your posts, and none of them either contains evidence that ToE is not true, or indicates that you understand what ToE is. That's my point. So I take it that you can't find any that do either?

 

[Autodidact]

Sure that is what I love to do, of course I can't do that all at once. And I am out of time today, it's Wednesday and I have to go to church and teach kids about Jesus and creation.

The problem is, it doesn't matter what the evidence is, a persons worldview determines what they conclude about it.

Unless, of course, their worldview is to believe what the evidence indicates. Is that your worldview?

 

[Man of Faith]

Unless, of course, their worldview is to believe what the evidence indicates. Is that your worldview?

What do you see when you look at a chicken? I see a chicken, what about you? Now how do we know if that chicken was created or evolved from another animal? No way to tell, so we go to our worldview and make a determination. We both have the same evidence in front of us, a chicken.

 

[McBell]

That's what I do on here almost daily, give my reasonable objections to evolution.

me thinks you have accidentally added a word that actually makes this statement false.

Now if you were to remove that particular word, this will be a true statement.
But until such time as you remove the word "reasonable" from the above statement it is just plain false.

 

[McBell]

What do you see when you look at a chicken? I see a chicken, what about you? Now how do we know if that chicken was created or evolved from another animal? No way to tell, so we go to our worldview and make a determination. We both have the same evidence in front of us, a chicken.

Yet you have to twist the evidence to fit your worldview.
Of course, there IS all that evidence you flat out ignore in order to hold your particular worldview....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What do you see when you look at a chicken? I see a chicken, what about you? Now how do we know if that chicken was created or evolved from another animal? No way to tell, so we go to our worldview and make a determination. We both have the same evidence in front of us, a chicken.

Except that evolution looks at a lot of other things: like the genes of the chicken, it's bone and muscle structure, it's genetic lineage, fossils with similar morphological features, etc.

So no, it's not the same evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you see when you look at a chicken? I see a chicken, what about you? Now how do we know if that chicken was created or evolved from another animal? No way to tell, so we go to our worldview and make a determination. We both have the same evidence in front of us, a chicken.

But that chicken includes a chicken genome, which can tell us all sorts of things:

CSHLPress.com - chicken vertebrate evolution

 

[Man of Faith]

But that chicken includes a chicken genome, which can tell us all sorts of things:

CSHLPress.com - chicken vertebrate evolution

That article assumes evolution from the beginning. "to illuminate several interesting aspects of vertebrate evolution."

 

[Man of Faith]

Except that evolution looks at a lot of other things: like the genes of the chicken, it's bone and muscle structure, it's genetic lineage, fossils with similar morphological features, etc.

So no, it's not the same evidence.

I have all that information also, it's not hidden from creationists. I look at a chickens bone structure and see a chicken bone structure, I look at a chickens muscle structure and see a chickens muscle structure, I look at a chickens DNA and see a chickens DNA, I don't see evolution or creation, just a chicken, we have to determine what we want to believe about that chicken.

 

[Jose Fly]

That article assumes evolution from the beginning. "to illuminate several interesting aspects of vertebrate evolution."

Again, evolution is not an assumption. It's the only way we've ever observed new traits and species come about. It is a repeatedly, directly observed and documented fact.

 

[Commoner]

What do you see when you look at a chicken? I see a chicken, what about you? Now how do we know if that chicken was created or evolved from another animal? No way to tell, so we go to our worldview and make a determination. We both have the same evidence in front of us, a chicken.

Haahahahah!!! :biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

That's just too awsome!!!

 

[Smoke]

I don't see evolution or creation, just a chicken, we have to determine what we want to believe about that chicken.

That's the basic difference between Creationists and everybody else. Creationists view it entirely as a matter of determining what they want to believe.