How do Creationist Explain This?

[Subduction Zone]

You seem fairly angry on this subject. I was wondering if you would jump on the word transmogrified. Dogs and cats don't switch even over long periods of just-so story time.

I'll let you have the last word here.

I get angry at people that are ignorant and/or dishonest. And please don't lie. Creationists are the one with a "just so story". Do you not even understand that term? I can help you on that. Testable theories are the opposite of "just so stories". Would you not get angry at someone that kept making false claims about you even after he was corrected? How many times would you have to correct that person before you claimed that he was a liar?

 

[Jose Fly]

What would be a "good discussion" of just-so stories, told to skirt the obvious fact, we have no evidence for "macro" evolution?

So, I take that as a "No, I have zero interest in discussing what I posted". I guess you were just expecting everyone here to take your assertions as unquestioned gospel?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess there is no point discussing anything with those who are convinced that the evidence they have could not possibly have been misinterpreted by people who likewise want ID to go away.

Yes, because we understand the nature of evidence, and I'm not convinced that you do.

When all the evidence from multiple fields of science collected over a century and a half points to the same conclusion, the reasonable thing to do is to accept the conclusion, pending further evidence that may contradict the conclusion, which hasn't been found as of yet, in regards to the theory of evolution.

We show you what is between the lines but you don't want to know. We show you the assumptions and the supposition and suggestions but still you cling to your pet theory like you're defending your mother....it's not unexpected. But we hope to at least lay the groundwork for some research outside of the "evolution is a fact" box and help those people who are undecided to see that it has very little in the way of facts to back it up at all.

What you've shown is that you accept whatever the Bible says as fact with no questions asked, but disregard carefully measured testable, repeatable observations that have been collected for over a century from multiple groups of independent scientists from multiple countries over the span of 150+ years. It's mind boggling to me the degree of mental gymnastics that have to be done in order to reject the very obvious fact that organisms have evolved over time.

You've also demonstrated over and over that you don't understand how the scientific method works and the language that scientists use to convey their findings.

You could learn all of these things, but for *some* reason you refuse to take in any new knowledge from the sciences that contradict your religious beliefs.

You have failed over and over to demonstrate the veracity of any of the claims you have made and instead just declare them as true, while poo-pooing others who have substantial amounts of evidence to back up the fact of evolution. In other words, you demand of others what you refuse to provide yourself. And you wonder why people consider your debating style to be dishonest.

Evolution is indeed a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation that explains that fact.

The godless will cling to their views because they cannot entertain any other explanation. Thankfully, not everyone is godless but I believe the devil is working on it tirelessly.....like a lion stalking prey, the Bible says.....

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

As I've said numerous times, I can and will entertain any explanation that is supported by evidence. Unfortunately, your God beliefs are not supported by evidence. Nor is your claim that the devil exists and works tirelessly to convince people that evolution is true.YOU are the one with the closed mind that will not be swayed by any amount of evidence. Putting that off onto others is just an exercise in psychological projection on your part.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually I believe that it is the scientists who promote evolution that have a problem with that distinction. The scientists here tell me that there are no facts in evolution....just evidence. Whatever the evidence points to within the framework of their belief system, must be true. I beg to differ.....

No. Nobody has told you that. I myself have corrected you on it at least TWICE now.
You really need to stop repeating falsehoods.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Unreal! I knew someone would object to that comment.

Well yes, you should, because it was inaccurate.

Dogs and cats don't change one to the other gradually, over time, over many generations, either. And if they did, the Bible would still be right, each after its kind.

Who says they did?

And why do you never answers questions asked of you? Are you not interested in making sense and elucidating your ideas to others?

As to the kinds argument ... Are dogs and wolves the same kind? How about cats and dogs? Are squirrels and chipmunks the same kind? What about zebras and horses? How do you delineate between the kinds in any useful way, and where can we find the pairs of original kinds that your God supposedly created, and what are they?[/QUOTE]

 

[SkepticThinker]

You ducked the rest of the post and picked on one word. Why?

You completely misrepresented/misunderstood evolution. That needs to be addressed before anything else you say on the matter because what follows from a misunderstanding will just be more misunderstanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Nobody has told you that. I myself have corrected you on it at least TWICE now.
You really need to stop repeating falsehoods.

Creationists have to tell them that. Otherwise they sooner or later have to face reality.

And you are right about evidence. Creationists cannot afford to understand that concept either. I have had the very rare creationist that has taken me up on my offer to discuss the concept of scientific evidence. I use reliable sources, more than one, never my word alone. And they are fine with it until it is obvious to them that the theory of evolution is well supported by evidence and that there is no scientific evidence at all for creationism. They may have a short period of denial, but eventually they run away.

 

[Bear Wild]

We don't need to prove our God to anyone....we know that he exists and nothing science puts forward will ever change that. But believing that he doesn't exist, doesn't make him go away. He is patiently waiting for those humans who have yet to decide, to make their decision, but once the time is up...that's it.

Its strange that you say we have something to prove because, we actually have nothing to lose if we are mistaken.....unbelievers OTOH have their very lives at stake according to the Bible.



I never find scientists to be open minded in their approach to evolution.....its usually a win at all costs kind of deal....they will use ridicule and accusations about one's intelligence and educational background, if anyone dares to question their pet theory. How dare we tell those who can't be wrong that they might be wrong! They have "overwhelming evidence" after all....but when you really examine it...its all smoke and mirrors with a few nice diagrams and artist's impressions.



Are you serious? Even Richard Dawkins admitted that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Who would ever imagine a complex computer program without the need for a programmer?

Bill Gates said that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

More advanced than science? Oh dear.....the undesigned things in nature are more intelligently designed than the things that are intelligently made by man! How could that be?

Steven Meyer observed that "no theory of undirected chemical evolution explains the origin of the information needed to build the first living cell"

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/yes-intelligent-design-is-detectable-by-science/

Science has no answers to the most important questions. Where and how did life originate? How could undirected chance be responsible for the complexity needed to produce life in such abundance and variety.....and at the same time make sure that reproductive systems of infinite variety, kept replicating all those living things perpetually.

Then there are habitats and food sources, air and water, supplied in abundance to keep everything alive....more flukes? Why is this planet covered in water that most living things cannot drink? Is the water cycle also just a fortunate accident of nature? When do the flukes end and common sense dictate how ridiculous it is to assume that random chance is the creator of it all....including the universe?



The creation account is perfectly compatible with what science "knows"...but certainly not with what science "believes".

Its just one belief system against another from my perspective.

the article you presented shows how the universe works and does not show anything about intelligent design. Sorry about that . Science has the best answers to the most important questions and it is dangerous to ignore what it shows . The computer was designed from natural processes learned by science. No evidence of intelligent designer an genesis explains nothing about the origin of our world no matter how much you stretch the meaning to fit what you want to believe. Ignoring what science is telling us about what we are doing to our environment is a perfect example of what can happen. Just look at President Trump. Not believing the science has lead him to make serious Morales that will affect us all. Believing a supernatural being will clean up the mess we have made us also a terrible mistake since it leads to acceptance of what will happen rather than taking action.

 

[Deeje]

So that clearly is a no. What books have you actually read on evolution?

Have you ever read the Bible? Is reading something the same as studying it. What is the difference? What is in the detail that makes the difference? What is in the bias of the teacher that could lead people to wrong conclusions?

I have carefully read all the material supporting evolution that has been offered to me over many years on this site, provided that it was not shrouded in jargon. (Too easy to hide behind words that non-scientists do not understand) Simplifying the information reveals the flaws very clearly IMO.

If the scientists here have offered their best evidence, and failed to convince me that there is no Intelligent Designer, then why do I need to read the "mountains" of their evidence which is just more of the same?
It would be a colossal waste of time.

If I see the words "might have" or "could have" or "leads us to believe that..." in connection with science's so called evidence, then this is the language of suggestion, not fact. The line between the two is carefully blurred.

You need to actually have reviewed the evidence before you can "interpret" it, and I am wondering if you have ever even touched a book on evolution.

You have not responded to anything I have said...why?

Please at least address my points in post# 106. What is your defense? Let's hear your rebuttal.....at least make an effort.

 

[Jose Fly]

If the scientists here have offered their best evidence, and failed to convince me that there is no Intelligent Designer

Deeje Oct. 3, 2016: "No one will ever convince me that the billions of amazing lifeforms on this planet evolved from a single organism that somehow sprang to life in some primordial soup billions of years ago".

Seems to be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Deeje]

That's because "macro" evolution is a strawman concept made up by Creationists.

Actually it gives a clear line of demarcation between what is provable and what is mere suggestion. Calling the whole thing "evolution" masks the fact that macro-evolution has no real evidence supporting it. Science wants to believe it's true.....so they use adaptation to suggest that it can go way past what can be tested or even substantively demonstrated. Add the graphics and diagrams, and it looks like something they have proven beyond all doubt......it isn't.

Macro" evolution, as you insist on calling it, is nothing but the accumulated change after thousands or millions of "micro" evolutions. The evidence of "macro" evolution you are demanding doesn't exist, but the theory of evolution doesn't claim that it does.

When did micro-evolution ever demonstrate an ability to take a species outside of its taxonomic family? How about NEVER?

Out of interest, can you give a clear and unambiguous example of what you think evidence of "macro" evolution would look like?

Transitional fossils....you know, the billions of them that must exist for all species in order for macro-evolution to be proven beyond doubt....we need specimens that are not millions of years apart that just look similar but could be completely different species of other unrelated creatures altogether.

What science creates is an unsupported story of what they want to believe happened when there was no one there to record the data. They then have to rely on other ways to arrive at their conclusions. These other ways are open to interpretation and of course, the interpretation will favour the ToE.

Science is not a religion, but sometimes you would think it was.

 

[youknowme]

Have you ever read the Bible?

Yes, now stop being so close-minded and read On the Origin of Species.

 

[Deeje]

Yes, now stop being so close-minded and read On the Origin of Species.

I have read various review on Darwin's book and its not something I feel the need to devote time to when others have given me their expert views on it.
It basically describes micro-evolution and his observations on the Galapagos Islands were thought provoking enough for science to run away with his idea....one I am sure he never intended to rule out God.
Micro-evolution certainly does not fight with the Bible's creation account if you read it correctly and understand the meanings of its words in the original language.

Again, I have to ask though, what will it say that will change my mind? What will it bring out that I have not already addressed?

I asked if you had read the Bible...but did you understand it?

 

[youknowme]

his observations on the Galapagos Islands

Your ignorance is showing, he complied evidence for 33 year after he first wrote it in his journals, before publishing the book we all know today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have read various review on Darwin's book and its not something I feel the need to devote time to when others have given me their expert views on it.
It basically describes micro-evolution and his observations on the Galapagos Islands were thought provoking enough for science to run away with his idea....one I am sure he never intended to rule out God.
Micro-evolution certainly does not fight with the Bible's creation account if you read it correctly and understand the meanings of its words in the original language.

Again, I have to ask though, what will it say that will change my mind? What will it bring out that I have not already addressed?

I asked if you had read the Bible...but did you understand it?

Micro and macro evolution are one and the same.

You are saying that people can walk to the store, but settlers could never cross the country.

 

[Deeje]

Science has the best answers to the most important questions and it is dangerous to ignore what it shows .

LOL...dangerous for whom? Those who depend on lucrative science grants and large teaching salaries? If you dig, you will see where the money trail leads.

The computer was designed from natural processes learned by science.

What "natural processes"? Are you telling me that intelligent humans had to discover these "natural processes" in order to copy them?
The copy needed intelligent design but not the originals.....gotcha.

No evidence of intelligent designer an genesis explains nothing about the origin of our world no matter how much you stretch the meaning to fit what you want to believe.

Genesis explains everything in enough detail to see that the writer had no scientific knowledge of the things he was recording, whatsoever....but he still got it right.

How could he know that the planet was at first a formless waste devoid of all life? How did he know that the dry land emerged from the vast watery deep that engulfed the whole planet? How could he know about earth's atmosphere, the importance of light being first thing to begin the whole creative process and who told him about the order of creation? He couldn't know that the "days" were not 24 hour periods but eons of undeclared time to accomplish all that the Creator allotted to be done for each stage.
How could Isaiah know that the earth is a "circle" (or sphere. Isaiah 40:22) or the writer of Job know about the water cycle and the fact that "the earth hangs upon nothing". (Job 26:7-8, Proverbs 8:22-31)

Ignoring what science is telling us about what we are doing to our environment is a perfect example of what can happen.

And this is a perfect example of what can happen when science is used to create products that are not bio-degradable. Do you realize that if hemp had been used to create all the plastic in the world, we would have no threat to the environment or the marine habitats where a lot of it ends up? Being a naturally sourced bio-degradable plant based product, it would have broken down naturally in the soil as fertilizer in landfill, and it would have fed the marine creature in the oceans.

We can blame greedy humans and the misuse of science for that. They knew hemp was a better product, useful for so many applications...fiber for clothing, and the production of other fabrics, a good food source for feeding livestock , and a healthy product for human consumption as well...so many things that could have been in everyday use......not to mention keeping farmers in work providing a fast growing, easily harvested ongoing crop.
Did you know that Henry Ford made a car completely out of hemp? Imagine!!!

Just look at President Trump. Not believing the science has lead him to make serious Morales that will affect us all. Believing a supernatural being will clean up the mess we have made us also a terrible mistake since it leads to acceptance of what will happen rather than taking action.

World leaders are a reflection of the people who put them in office. The manipulated masses blindly believe political promises that are never kept. I would have no idea why they keep swallowing the same lies, if it wasn't for the Bible's explanation of the times we are living in.

We are in the outworking of an object lesson.....God has allowed us to experience for ourselves the folly of trying to rule the world without him....so how's that working out for y'all?

 

[Deeje]

Your ignorance is showing, he complied evidence for 33 year after he first wrote it in his journals, before publishing the book we all know today.

Ummm, so what is that supposed to prove? Please tell me what is in The Origin of Species that I haven't addressed already?

Incidentally...you have addressed nothing....

 

[youknowme]

Ummm, so what is that supposed to prove? Please tell me what is in The Origin of Species that I haven't addressed already?

Incidentally...you have addressed nothing....

Read it and find out. Stop being so close-minded.

 

[Audie]

No. Nobody has told you that. I myself have corrected you on it at least TWICE now.
You really need to stop repeating falsehoods.

What? You'd leave a creo with only assertion
and innuendo to hold up their 3 leg stool???

 

[Deeje]

Read it and find out. Stop being so close-minded.

Since you have addressed nothing and answered no questions...what is the point of this interchange?

What have you got apart from being stuck on Darwin? Please tell me why you feel it is urgent for me to read the book? Are the experts who reviewed it not reliable enough for you?