Do creationists have anything new?

[McBell]

Well first of all, seeing you have no clue as to where the NIV, NASB, NRSV, came from, those books came from the Roman Catholic Church, because the KJV gave people to be able to read the scriptures in their own language. So the Roman Catholic Church to counter this, the Roman Catholic Church came up with their own Bible's, which is the NIV,NRSV, NASB, versions of the bible.to which the Roman Catholic Church put their own interpretations into those books.
Which the KJV did not do, king James took well known Scholars that all knew Greek and Hebrew Languages, it took them 7 yrs or more to complete the old and new testaments.
Which we have the 1611 KJV, which is the top selling book of all times.

Also for the 6000 yrs, that all came by people taking Genesis 1:1 out of it's context and applying it to the creation week. Which it does not fit into.

Ouch.
For some one so quick to claim others do not know the history of the Bible, you sure do screw it up rather nivce yourself.

 

[Skwim]

Skim,
I don't know if you have considered a point that would make me a little more open to Creation. It seems to me that you are calling the Almighty a lier, because He said that He Created the heavens and the earth, and all the things in it, Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 45:18, Acts 17:24-28, Revelation 4:11. It is not very wise to put your great knowledge before the Omnescient God, Job 40:2,8, 36:4, Isaiah 55:8,9, 1Corinthians 3:19,20, Romans 1:18-20.
You seem to be a very brave person!!!

As an agnostic I've already pretty much discounted god as any kind of a threat to my well being, so bravery plays no part in my position. As for calling god a liar, keep in mind that evolution does not require that god have no part in its genesis---evolutionists don't care how life arose. It could be through abiogenesis or the "hand of god"---only that it doesn't require a supernatural being to explain its operation. That a species arises from a former species doesn't require the "hand of god." It can easily be explained by the evolutionary concepts science has uncovered.

.

 

[gnostic]

Well first of all, seeing you have no clue as to where the NIV, NASB, NRSV, came from, those books came from the Roman Catholic Church, because the KJV gave people to be able to read the scriptures in their own language.

If these English translations belonged to one group of churches, then these would under the Protestant translations, not the Roman Catholic translation.

You do know that the main source of bible that the Catholics read is the Latin Vulgate bible, don't you?

Both NASB and NRSV, are completely new translations, to start from the ground-up, but they are preceded respectively by ASB and RSV, but both of these have common root, the older ASV (American Standard version), 1900.

ASV itself is derived from 1881-1885 RV (Revised Version or the English Revised Version). And the RV is based on the KJV (King James Version).

So if anyone don't know anything about the history of English translations, is you, Faithofchristian.

Not only that you don't know much about dinosaurs, you apparently don't know much about the history of bible translations.

 

[Jose Fly]

Since I am not a scientist, I am not going to argue with you about science.

Makes sense. I'm certainly not a heart surgeon, so I'm not inclined to go around questioning cardiologists on their field.

If you are truly interested in learning whether creation or evolution is correct, I suggest that you go on You Tube

Well that's a bit of an error.....getting your understanding of science from Youtube.

consider what David Pack has to offer about the two. He presents many facts from science, and it seems, that many scientists are now leaving the Theory of Evolution, because of the study of DNA.

Really? I work in the biological sciences and am around geneticists all the time, yet I've never once heard any mention of this exodus. Do you have any actual data to support this claim?

It seems that the information contained in the cells of one person would fill enough books to fill the Grand Canyon 18 times. Not only is that remarkable, but the information is capable of being read by scientists. Even they say this is impossible for evolution, that a Superior mind had these things written, and that if Darwin was alive today, he would be the first to admit that evolution is not a scientific fact, not even a logical theory. Many scientists are saying that it now takes much more faith to believe in evolution, when there is absolutely no proof, than Creation, which has a Bible, full of proof, and True Science on Creation's side of the argument.

Given the title of this thread, I have to ask.....do you think any of what you said above constitutes new arguments for creationism?

 

[12jtartar]

I am a scientist and the video is propagating blatant lies. 99% of all scientists consider evolution to be very well established and DNA is one of the most important sources of evidence of evolution. I can discuss the science if you are interested.

I am a scientist and the video is propagating blatant lies. 99% of all scientists consider evolution to be very well established and DNA is one of the most important sources of evidence of evolution. I can discuss the science if you are interested.

Sayak83,
There are so many things that prove evolution to be a false theory, that I could write a book on them, but there are already many books written that put forth such logic that anyone who cannot understand is, it seems to me, to be willfully blind.
Just think about the ramifications of Homoplasy! In order for organs to be used they must be fully matured. Explain how the sex organs, which could not be used until matured, keep anything alive, during the generations that it would take for the organs to mature. Even more preposterous, is the idea that two organisms could produce, one female organism, and one male organism, completely independent of each other, but be perfectly matched to bring forth offspring. Also, how, in all the world could these two find each, in order to mate. Since this took many years, what kept them alive until they were matured and then found each other.
Another concept that is now accepted by most scientists, is Prestabilism, which is a Law of God stated several times in the first chapter of Genesis. That Law is; everything that is capable of putting forth seed, puts forth ONLY After It’s Kind. Despite scientists experimenting for many years, they have found that this is an unbreakable Law of nature, established by God, Genesis 1:11,12,13,21,24,25.
When man plants a seed, he is sure what kind of plant will come up. When two people have offspring, they always have a child in their likeness. This is true today, and it has always been true, and always will be true. There is not one example of anything happening contrary to this Law of God!!!

 

[Polymath257]

Sayak83,
There are so many things that prove evolution to be a false theory, that I could write a book on them, but there are already many books written that put forth such logic that anyone who cannot understand is, it seems to me, to be willfully blind.
Just think about the ramifications of Homoplasy! In order for organs to be used they must be fully matured. Explain how the sex organs, which could not be used until matured, keep anything alive, during the generations that it would take for the organs to mature. Even more preposterous, is the idea that two organisms could produce, one female organism, and one male organism, completely independent of each other, but be perfectly matched to bring forth offspring. Also, how, in all the world could these two find each, in order to mate. Since this took many years, what kept them alive until they were matured and then found each other.

You do realize that there are many animals that change sex during their lifetimes? Where gender isn't determined genetically, but environmentally? Also, there are many animals that are hermaphroditic? That produce *both* male and female gametes? Not to mention the ones that have no distinction at all?

You are assuming the end result of evolution in humans is how everything always has been and must be. That is simply wrong.

Another concept that is now accepted by most scientists, is Prestabilism, which is a Law of God stated several times in the first chapter of Genesis. That Law is; everything that is capable of putting forth seed, puts forth ONLY After It’s Kind. Despite scientists experimenting for many years, they have found that this is an unbreakable Law of nature, established by God, Genesis 1:11,12,13,21,24,25.
When man plants a seed, he is sure what kind of plant will come up. When two people have offspring, they always have a child in their likeness. This is true today, and it has always been true, and always will be true. There is not one example of anything happening contrary to this Law of God!!!

We have seen speciation in both the lab and the wild. Your mythology has failed in this regard.

 

[Looncall]

Sayak83,
There are so many things that prove evolution to be a false theory, that I could write a book on them, but there are already many books written that put forth such logic that anyone who cannot understand is, it seems to me, to be willfully blind.
Just think about the ramifications of Homoplasy! In order for organs to be used they must be fully matured. Explain how the sex organs, which could not be used until matured, keep anything alive, during the generations that it would take for the organs to mature. Even more preposterous, is the idea that two organisms could produce, one female organism, and one male organism, completely independent of each other, but be perfectly matched to bring forth offspring. Also, how, in all the world could these two find each, in order to mate. Since this took many years, what kept them alive until they were matured and then found each other.
Another concept that is now accepted by most scientists, is Prestabilism, which is a Law of God stated several times in the first chapter of Genesis. That Law is; everything that is capable of putting forth seed, puts forth ONLY After It’s Kind. Despite scientists experimenting for many years, they have found that this is an unbreakable Law of nature, established by God, Genesis 1:11,12,13,21,24,25.
When man plants a seed, he is sure what kind of plant will come up. When two people have offspring, they always have a child in their likeness. This is true today, and it has always been true, and always will be true. There is not one example of anything happening contrary to this Law of God!!!

12jTartar, I hope that you are aware that creationism is promoted by organizations of professional liars who make a living by fooling gullible religious people.

You seem to have fallen for their scam, hook, line and sinker.

Just a word to the wise.

 

[sayak83]

Sayak83,
There are so many things that prove evolution to be a false theory, that I could write a book on them, but there are already many books written that put forth such logic that anyone who cannot understand is, it seems to me, to be willfully blind.
Just think about the ramifications of Homoplasy! In order for organs to be used they must be fully matured. Explain how the sex organs, which could not be used until matured, keep anything alive, during the generations that it would take for the organs to mature. Even more preposterous, is the idea that two organisms could produce, one female organism, and one male organism, completely independent of each other, but be perfectly matched to bring forth offspring. Also, how, in all the world could these two find each, in order to mate. Since this took many years, what kept them alive until they were matured and then found each other.
Another concept that is now accepted by most scientists, is Prestabilism, which is a Law of God stated several times in the first chapter of Genesis. That Law is; everything that is capable of putting forth seed, puts forth ONLY After It’s Kind. Despite scientists experimenting for many years, they have found that this is an unbreakable Law of nature, established by God, Genesis 1:11,12,13,21,24,25.
When man plants a seed, he is sure what kind of plant will come up. When two people have offspring, they always have a child in their likeness. This is true today, and it has always been true, and always will be true. There is not one example of anything happening contrary to this Law of God!!!

You do understand that sex is simply reproduction through intermingling of DNA of two cells to create one or more daughter cells with mixed genome. That is it. What about sex do you think is difficult to explain in evolutionary terms? I can't think of any.

 

[12jtartar]

You do understand that sex is simply reproduction through intermingling of DNA of two cells to create one or more daughter cells with mixed genome. That is it. What about sex do you think is difficult to explain in evolutionary terms? I can't think of any.

sayak83,
I can think of something that most people never consider when speaking about sex for reproduction. Please consider what the term Homoplasy means when talking about evolution. Homoplasy means that two individuals, unknown to each, would evolve, one with female sex organs, the other with Male sex organs. Then consider, these organs cannot be used until they are matured completely, and then, what is the chance that these two could find each other. Then think about the greatest problem, how could each of these individuals survive over the many years until their sex organs could be used to reproduce. Do you realize how udderly preposterous this all is??? There is no problem here in Creation! God created each Kind, both male and female, and pit within them His Law, Prestabilism, which says that each Kind would only reproduce after its own Kind. Then consider the many times that men have tried to break this Law, each time nothing but failure.
Even when two animals of the same Kind mate, but are not closely related, such as a Tiger, and a Lion, or a horse and a donkey, their offspring cannot reproduce.
Every living thing follows this Law of God and Nature, whether animal or vegetation, everything reproduces After its own kind, Genesis 1:11,12, 24,25.
What a jumbled mess we would have today, if evolution were true. A farmer would plant and have no idea what would come up.
Think about this; over millions of years of everything evolving, there would be NO distinct Kinds today. The trouble for evolutionists is; all kinds are distinct, with NO animal or fossil ever found, where it could be said, I can’t really tell which animal this is because ie has distinct features of two.
Hopeful Monsters do not exist!!!

 

[sayak83]

sayak83,
I can think of something that most people never consider when speaking about sex for reproduction. Please consider what the term Homoplasy means when talking about evolution. Homoplasy means that two individuals, unknown to each, would evolve, one with female sex organs, the other with Male sex organs. Then consider, these organs cannot be used until they are matured completely, and then, what is the chance that these two could find each other. Then think about the greatest problem, how could each of these individuals survive over the many years until their sex organs could be used to reproduce. Do you realize how udderly preposterous this all is??? There is no problem here in Creation! God created each Kind, both male and female, and pit within them His Law, Prestabilism, which says that each Kind would only reproduce after its own Kind. Then consider the many times that men have tried to break this Law, each time nothing but failure.
Even when two animals of the same Kind mate, but are not closely related, such as a Tiger, and a Lion, or a horse and a donkey, their offspring cannot reproduce.
Every living thing follows this Law of God and Nature, whether animal or vegetation, everything reproduces After its own kind, Genesis 1:11,12, 24,25.
What a jumbled mess we would have today, if evolution were true. A farmer would plant and have no idea what would come up.
Think about this; over millions of years of everything evolving, there would be NO distinct Kinds today. The trouble for evolutionists is; all kinds are distinct, with NO animal or fossil ever found, where it could be said, I can’t really tell which animal this is because ie has distinct features of two.
Hopeful Monsters do not exist!!!

Umm no. Homoplasy means the evolution of superficially similar looking features in different species of animals or plants. For example, the independent evolution of wings in birds and bat's. So whatever it is you are talking about is not Homoplasy at all. It is called sexual dimorphism, where two sexes have different bodily features. However these features are geared towards increasing the chances of the individual to successfully mate with the opposite sex so that they can pass their genes to the next generation. That is what matters in evolution, how successful one is in creating offsprings no matter how long one lives. If individual A lives for 10 years and has 4 offsprings, while individual B lives for 5 years and has 8 offsprings..then evolutionarily individual B is twice as successful as A though it lives half as long. Thus any sexual feature that increases chances of successful mating for the individual will be favored by evolution even if it decreases the longevity of the individual on balance. This is called sexual selection and goes back to Darwin himself. There are tons of evidence that this actually happens in nature of course.

 

[Polymath257]

sayak83,
I can think of something that most people never consider when speaking about sex for reproduction. Please consider what the term Homoplasy means when talking about evolution. Homoplasy means that two individuals, unknown to each, would evolve, one with female sex organs, the other with Male sex organs. Then consider, these organs cannot be used until they are matured completely, and then, what is the chance that these two could find each other. Then think about the greatest problem, how could each of these individuals survive over the many years until their sex organs could be used to reproduce. Do you realize how udderly preposterous this all is???

Terminology aside (you misidentify Homoplasy).

Do you realize that there are species *today* that change sex during their lifetimes? Or that can do the role of both sexes at the same time? Or species where there is no distinction between male and female, but still have sexual reproduction?

In other words, you are creating a straw man based on your misunderstandings. What you seem to think is necessary is actually not at all universal.

There is no problem here in Creation! God created each Kind, both male and female, and pit within them His Law, Prestabilism, which says that each Kind would only reproduce after its own Kind. Then consider the many times that men have tried to break this Law, each time nothing but failure.
Even when two animals of the same Kind mate, but are not closely related, such as a Tiger, and a Lion, or a horse and a donkey, their offspring cannot reproduce.

So even you admit that evolution can occur! This is called speciation and is how evolution happens!

Every living thing follows this Law of God and Nature, whether animal or vegetation, everything reproduces After its own kind, Genesis 1:11,12, 24,25.
What a jumbled mess we would have today, if evolution were true. A farmer would plant and have no idea what would come up.
Think about this; over millions of years of everything evolving, there would be NO distinct Kinds today. The trouble for evolutionists is; all kinds are distinct, with NO animal or fossil ever found, where it could be said, I can’t really tell which animal this is because ie has distinct features of two.
Hopeful Monsters do not exist!!!

You are right. There are no 'hopefull monsters'. There *is* gradual changes in populations over many generations. And that *is* evolution.