Any young earth creationists out there?

[BlueMaxx]

Thanks for understanding…I hope you work it all out for yourself…

Be safe…

 

[Glark]

The passage of time does not make myths real history.

I beg to differ. After 150 years, Darwin’s Tree of Life is now accepted by the scientific community as fact.

 

[Glark]

Is this statement fallible or infallible?

It is fallible.

 

[Glark]

There is scientific evidence of the flood. Google it.

But don’t expect the athesit-dominated scientific community to acknowledge it. That would be heresy!

 

[Hugh_Farey]

They’re idiotic, truth-phobic charlatans. I would be as idiotic as them if I trusted such fools to inform me about the history of life.

Ah! Glarkism. Lucky it’s not infallible.

Darwin’s Tree of Life is now accepted by the scientific community as fact.

It saves time.

 

[Curious11]

You’re trolling

 

[Crusader30]

 

[semper_catholicus]

That seems like a good watch.

 

[Glark]

I already have: “It isn’t diminished.” Engineers create applications; scientists do science. Glad I could clear that up for you.

I have no idea what you’re talikng about, but it seems obvious that - unsurprisingly - you have nothing to refute my claim that the “discovery” that life on earth evolved from microbes is useless to science.

While holding to a claim of strict literalism, you’re also trying to insert into the text something that’s not there.

??? If Days 2-6 begin with “And God said …”, why is it unreasonable to assume Day 1 also begins with “And God said” (v.3)?

That depends on the particular translation of Scripture that you’re using, doesn’t it?

??? Please explain.

. It’s a neat trick you’re attempting, but to say that, between verse one and two, billions of years elapsed – let alone that you must then turn around and say that “light” (i.e., stars) didn’t exist, even though the earth did – really marginalizes your argument.

I don’t recall claiming a “billions of years” gap. Regardless, if Day 1 begins in v.3, then I think a potential gap exists between it and the creation of the earth.

The “light” (v.3) could well refer to light on earth - since, in the previous verse the earth is described as being in “darkness” (v.2). If stars were created in v.1 (no sun or moon yet), their light would not be enough to illuminate the earth (have you noticed how dark things get on earth when the sun goes down, especially if the moonlight is obscured by clouds?).

 

[Glark]

Ah! Glarkism. Lucky it’s not infallible.

Your skepticism is very disappointing … and has been noted.

 

[bobperk]

I beg to differ. After 150 years, Darwin’s Tree of Life is now accepted by the scientific community as fact

Many parts of the tree include “men” extrapolated from a tooth here and a few pieces of skull there, assembled by a handful of archaeologists. How many of Chardin’s monster men turned out to be frauds?

 

[buffalo]

Many parts of the tree include “men” extrapolated from a tooth here and a few pieces of skull there, assembled by a handful of archaeologists. How many of Chardin’s monster men turned out to be frauds?

The tree of life as fallen and is now an entangled bush.

 

[Glark]

Many parts of the tree include “men” extrapolated from a tooth here and a few pieces of skull there, assembled by a handful of archaeologists.

I was shocked when I discovered how scant many of the remains are that evolutionists use to re-create extinct creatures. What a farce.

Darwin’s “tree” is missing a lot of connecting branches - even Gould admitted this - “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

 

[Glark]

As far as I know, yes; but I don’t think this has any bearing on evolution.

Abiogenesis, not evolution.

It is not a scientific impossibility to build a machine whose purpose is to build more, identical machines. It is also not a scientific impossibility to construct such a machine which could adapt its ‘offspring’ to changed conditions

I’m not talking about someone building such a machine, but the chances of such a self-replicating machine BUILDING ITSELF - which is what natural abiogenesis entails, and which only an ignoramus or an idiot or someone mentally-ill would believe is scientifically possible.

 

[Glark]

No, of course not, but then nobody thinks that the activity of matter is ‘random’. It is carefully and precisely governed by the laws of physics, which permit certain degrees of randomness within strict constraints, rather like a board game which uses dice. As such, the first self-replicating machine would be designed, built and switched on by people, each whom had only a minute chance of existing, given that they were the fortuitous meeting of a single, almost random, meeting of gametes, and the descendants of countless other such meetings, the first of which was a lucky assemblage of appropriate chemicals and energy, on a planet which could easily have had quite a different assemblage of chemicals and been a different size, in a different orbit. And so on. In that sense, a car, as well as “that first [self-replicating] machine” would indeed come about “through the random activity of matter”

:question:Oh dear, you are obviously having another of your unfortunate “dazed and confused” episodes - you know, the kind that produces fantastic and unscientific gibberish.
Here’s what you should do: Have a nice cup of tea then go and have a good lie down :sleeping_bed:

 

[Gorgias]

you have nothing to refute my claim

There are myriads of claims I don’t bother to dispute. Unsurprisingly, they’re the ones that are vacuous.

If Days 2-6 begin with “And God said …”, why is it unreasonable to assume Day 1 also begins with “And God said” (v.3)?

Because the grounds of literalistic Scriptural interpretation are that there is no such thing as ‘assumption’, but only the literal words of Scripture on their face.

I don’t recall claiming a “billions of years” gap.

You admitted that your particular claims of creationism still survive in the face of a billions-years-old universe / earth.

 

[bobperk]

I was shocked when I discovered how scant many of the remains are that evolutionists use to re-create extinct creatures.

A farmer has a pet mouse, a pet cat, and a pet dog. They all die and are buried on his property. Perhaps one day their remains will be found, and the conclusion will be that the mouse evolved into a dog, with the cat as the transitional fossil.

Just don’t let anyone find remains of pig teeth on the farm, they will be used to construct a man, perhaps a whole new species of tractor-riding pig men!

 

[Bradskii]

All you have done there, Bob, is to illustrate your ignorance of the subject.

Are there any other threads anywhere on the whole forum where people who show every indication of not understanding the matter at hand are so vocal in denying it?

 

[laylow]

Are there any other threads anywhere on the whole forum where people who show every indication of not understanding the matter at hand are so vocal in denying it?

I’m sure there is one on climate change somewhere. It is a subject comparable with evolution in vocal opposition despite complete ignorance.

 

[bobperk]

Bradskii, it was a jab at those constructions of man that turned out to be frauds, like “Piltdown Man” and an attempt at humor with the understanding that such a field of study is very complicated!