|
reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 08:25 PM by vox2442
|
Originally posted by b_rad513
I am a creationist.
MY DEFINITIONS OF EVOLUTION:
I'll be blunt.
Who are you, and why should I care about YOUR definition of evolution?
Why not stick to the ACTUAL definition of evolution?
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 08:27 PM by BaronVonGodzilla
|
Originally posted by JESUS is coming
Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by JESUS is coming
so sarah palins the new mary? ... wonder who gets to be joseph
but thanks for the trolling
The Bible proves that darwin is a phony!!
Read it yourself:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -Genesis 1:27
So what, the Bible is rife with inaccuracies, many tales seem to be from even older tales, it's got a great deal in common with the 4000+ year older
hebrew Torah, it's be translated, retranslated and mistranslated hundreds of times throughout history, and for many people, it's as much fiction as
any other book.
Saying God made it so can answer every question without answering any of them at all.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 06:51 PM by b_rad513
|
reply to post by vox2442
well I find it funny that you don't attack what I actually said. Umm, those are correct definitions, if you have a better one please share, but I
was just doing that so it wouldn't be confusing in my Post.
Those are from Dr. Kent Hovind and nobody ever debated him on those definitions so I figured it was safe to say that.
An example where a problem would arise would be if I said evolution is true. And Evolution is not true. Obviously there is change over time, but the
idea of macro Evolution (I believe) is not possible.
Thank you and please respond to what I actually said
Oh, and This may make you think less of me, but I'll be honest. I am a 16 year old male, with a biased opinion because I grew up in the Christian
Faith. However, I am for truth and I definitely do NOT want Evolution to be proven false with faulty evidence.
[edit on 14-9-2009 by b_rad513]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 06:58 PM by b_rad513
|
reply to post by BaronVonGodzilla
LET ME BE CLEAR! AS A CREATIONIST, THE BIBLE CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION. It is just a book. They don't know it was inspired by
God.
Now the debate isn't whether or not the Bible is true, It's if Evolution is true. We can believe something stupid and theres nothing you can do
about it. For example, if I said 2+2=5 (Evolutionists' perspective on Christianity) then I would be wrong. But that doesn't make me incapable of
proving 4+4=9 (Evolutionists) is wrong. Sorry if that analogy was confusing but its the first thing that popped into my head.
And I agree, "God has a reason" can only be used against other Christians, not Evolutionists.
If anyone disagrees with what I said please tell me, but I think I got it right
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 07:18 PM by gYvMessanger
|
I've got to ask if the OP just copied and pasted all that from somewhere else without reading through it.
The theory of Evolution isnt perfect, its probably not even 100% accurate but Evolution of Biological Life is a FACT, there can be no arguements about
it because we watch it happen.
I'm not going to go through a debunk each point because if you werent able to figure out the relatively simple answers to the "debunking" I doubt
me wasting my time typing them out here is going to do you any good.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 08:52 PM by Welfhard
|
reply to post by b_rad513
Now the debate isn't whether or not the Bible is true, It's if Evolution is true.
I think you're wrong because you seen to misunderstand the nature of science. Science is a self correcting, knowledge accumulating machine; if
a hypothesis is wrong then evidence will arise to conflict with that hypothesis and the scientific community with alter the hypothesis to cover that
evidence if that can be done or scrap it and start from scratch.
However, your responsibility as a creationist is to prove creationism, that is on your shoulders and if you're the type to believe what the bible
says then that id your brief. Science doesn't need your help to criticise theories. Evolution- ism has been around for thousands of years first
pitched in Alexandria and now we can see it happening, see the wheels of the machine turning and see traces of the past forms that things took.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-9-2009 @ 04:33 PM by b_rad513
|
reply to post by Welfhard
THIS debate is on ONLY Evolution...Because that's how the post was started, plain and simple. I do need to have reasons to believe my Christian
views, but I don't have to prove them. You tell me why I am entitled to prove creationism. I don't have to. It's my BELIEF. It takes faith
(even though there is evidence for it). The point is, is that I we just want to attack Evolution. There are so many forms of Creationism that we
should just try to stick to the idea that there is an intelligent designer. You agree that you have to prove (reasonably) that Evolution is true for
it to be taught in schools as fact. Even if we prove creationism to be 100% it still is not going to be taught in school due to separation of church
and state. I don't see why I have to prove anything, if I want to believe in it. Of course, by disproving evolution, I am proving that there must
be some sort of designer involved (unless there's another possible theory). I am not asking it to be taught in school. You are, thats the
difference.
(Sorry if I was repetative)
[edit on 16-9-2009 by b_rad513]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-9-2009 @ 04:37 PM by b_rad513
|
reply to post by gYvMessanger
I don't know what the OP is, but I'm a real person just debating.
I don't say how you can say Evolution is a fact, if it is still changing. It's a debatable issue, but thats not the point. The point is to argue
what the Evidence points to and I say Intelligent Design. I would love to hear your points on what I orginally posted. Please do, so that we can
have more to discuss that whether or not we should prove the Bible to be true or if Evolution is a fact. LETS START DEBATING THE EVIDENCE. I
haven't read through all the posts, but you sound like you're sure about Evolution and have some good points to say, so you won't be wasting your
time.
Oh, and yes evolution happens, but like I said you have to define your terms. If you mean change over time i agree with you. But If you mean all
that exists is time, space, matter, and energy and that everything that exists came from nothing, then I disagree.
P.S. just wanted to edit something on the post below me, but couldn't.
[edit on 16-9-2009 by b_rad513]
[edit on 16-9-2009 by b_rad513]
[edit on 16-9-2009 by b_rad513]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-9-2009 @ 04:42 PM by b_rad513
|
Originally posted by b_rad513
I am a creationist.
MY DEFINITIONS OF EVOLUTION (everybody should do this it is very important)
1. Cosmic: origin of time space matter energy
2. Chemical: origin of higher elements
3. Stellar: Formation of stars
4. Organic: Evolution or origin of life
5. macro: one kind of animal changing into another over time through many mutational changes
6. micro: Variations within a species. (the variations are only from information that ALREADY exists)
7. Lower case evolution: change over time.
Only the last two are true (well, what I believe)
I believe you have some good points but I'm not sure its totally convincing. The main reason evolution is not true is this...
1. Something cannot come from nothing/Something could not have always existed (dont bring God into this because he is supernatural...ONLY he can exist
forever)
2. The second law of thermodynamics (SLT) does not allow planets or stars to form or anything in the Universe as a whole to come to order.
3. The SLT does not apply to earth because it could get energy from other sources. (many times this is misquoted by creationists.) How ever life does
not form from nonlife.
4. Lastly there is no scientific evidence that macro Evolution has occured. If there is, please tell me, but be ready for a debate. Micro Evolution
does not lead to macro. Think of the peppered moth situation. Did the color of the moth really change? NO! only the population size. If the soot
from the industrial age had been blue the moths would not have turned blue! (sorry if you don't know about the peppered moth but i assume most of you
do and I am to lazy to type it all out. Its real simple just look it up). In other words, there was no Evolution taking place.
5. Even if you find a way for time, space, matter, and energy to have come from. Where did information come from? Information only comes from
something that is already informed. An example is a computer. A computer only can hold and find information, because humans created it that way and
programed information into it.
Watch Dr. Kent Hovind's debates. He does have sarcastic statements but he really knows what he's talking about.
Quick reply to the last post...Evolution is random, how can it not be? is there a mind behind it? NO. so please explain it...also Evolution HAS to
talk about the origins of the universe. If it is impossible to have this universe exist without Evolution than it must have been created. THIS
CONTRADICTS EVOLUTION. The theory of Evolution must line up with how the universe was formed otherwise it is not a coherent theory.
Oh and one more thing. We are not trying to prove creationism so much as we are trying to disprove Evolution. This is because we HAVE to ADMIT that
it is mostly beliefs. Do you hear me, it is a belief. I am just showing you Evolutionists that Evolution is a belief also (because it could not have
happened). However, by disproving Evolution we prove there must be a designer. Keep in mind this does not mean God, and most certainly doesn't mean
any specific religion.
Thanks for reading and please respond
[edit on 13-9-2009 by b_rad513]
[edit on 13-9-2009 by b_rad513]
[edit on 13-9-2009 by b_rad513]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-9-2009 @ 04:53 PM by gYvMessanger
|
reply to post by b_rad513
Personally I believe in both Intelligent Design (not the theory of that name but the concept) and Evolution.
I believe the universe has a creator, that doesn't disclude the belief in evolution though. I think of it as the universe running on auto pilot to
preset rules.
My job isn't to come on here and prove evolution to you, as I said the evolution of biological life is a fact, we breed desirable traits in animals,
we have people who devote their lives to studying the manipulation of genetics, biological science is the basis for a wealth of disciplines, a VERY
basic fact of which is that life adapts over generations based on both internal and external stimuli, that is evolution, it happens, if you need more
proof get into animal husbandry its probably the easiest way to show you.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 16-9-2009 @ 08:10 PM by b_rad513
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 17-9-2009 @ 03:44 AM by Welfhard
|
reply to post by b_rad513
Well since we're going down the 'teach in schools' alley of discussion..
It takes faith
Indeed it does, which exactly why creation is not scientific and can't be taught as science. Science denies the idea of faith - the belief without
evidence - because evidence is the most important and fundamental factor of any piece of science.
Even if we prove creationism to be 100% it still is not going to be taught in school due to separation of church and state.
No, if creationism was proved to be 100% true it would be taught in science because it would be a matter of fact and there is no dissociation between
science facts, every conclusion in science is empirically based on them.
However, evolution, or rather the Theory of Evolution is a product of the scientific method and is as such completely scientific. Evolution is taught
to be true because we can see it happening and have utilised it for thousands of years, our understanding of it is taught not as true but as theory,
therein lies the difference between fact and theory and we teach both as we should.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 17-9-2009 @ 04:28 AM by radarloveguy
|
reply to post by edsinger
edsinger great thread , love your work.
darwin was wrong.only very minor changes to a species [in varied environments]can be observed.
some/most scientists are egocentric ,they like to pretend,
and get paid for it!!!
they should be in movies...
gods miracle of creation though,cannot be explained away!!!!
knowledge is not wisdom,but wisdom is knowledge,[correctly
interpreted.]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
