Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
No, life does not create chemistry. Chemical processes run perfectly well independent of life. You will not win any argument with obviously incorrect statements like this.
Click to expand...
It definitely does in living organisms, that’s why the chemical processes outside a living organism are dead, the reason you have failed multiple times to explain how a self replicating RNA became alive.
 
Noose001 said:
…
Click to expand...
Since you didn’t know procreation is biological science…
procreation 1. the production of offspring; reproduction.

Whereas God Created Adam out of Dust…
You came into being via the seed of your human father
Which is procreation whose roots go back to the Creation of Adam

Anything Else?
 
Gigantals said:
I may not believe a word of it, but if I don’t study evolution, then how will I be able to point out its flaws? Just answering ‘there isn’t enough time’ is not a valid argument…
Click to expand...
It’s the best argument there is. You need no other. You won’t need to ‘study evolution’. You won’t need to study cladistics or genetics or paleontology or any other scientific aspect of science that’s associated with it.

If evolution needs anything at all to work its wonders to behold it’s generally time. If it doesn’t have time, then barring specific instances of lab driven examples then we wouldn’t have reached where we have now.

So quite honestly, you are wasting your time looking for any other way of denying the process. And wasting your time posting it.
 
Gigantals said:
Can you prove it happened in the past with fossils?
Click to expand...
Science does not do “proof”, it leaves that to mathematics. Science has evidence, not proof, and that evidence supports some hypotheses, and does not support other hypotheses.

The evidence of both the fossils and genetics supports the evolution of feathers from reptilian scales. Two independent sources of evidence support the hypothesis. That is enough to get it accepted until some contrary evidence is found. Do you have any contrary evidence to show us?

As you have noticed, we do not trust creationist sources because they admit to suppressing evidence that they do not like. That makes them unacceptable as a valid scientific source. For example, this is from the ICR Core Principles:
All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1–2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus, all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false.
Click to expand...
Their unscientific presuppositions render them useless as a scientific source.
 
You are conflating the physical dimension that we all observe with the perfect spiritual dimension that God created.

When the bible says Christ reconciles every created thing back to God, i can assure you that there’s nothing physical that is being reconciled because the bible says the world and all that’s in it will pass away. So it is the spiritual that is being reconciled to God and reconcile means restored, while the physical passes away.

So no Biology or dust is being reconciled to God, but all these should be in the spirit as was in the beginning.
 
Last edited:
You have a protofeather fossil that without requiring a framework of interpretation (for evolutionists or creationists) outright proves to be a transitional fossil?

Funny you bring up suppressing evidence. When they claimed that our DNA was 98% similar to chimp DNA, it turned out they were omitting a significant percentage of the genome to reach such a high figure.

So you’re telling me that those who support evolution in this are completely neutral in their research, and will only mention the results without interpretation of their own? And then the interpretations comes afterwards depending on the individual, right? It may explain why anti-Christian magazines like Scientific American and New Scientist will interpret data one way, and Christian groups interpret it another way.

No-one is really neutral in this. Creationists admit it, but evolutionists won’t. If you truly believe in evolution, then there is no amount of evidence I can provide to convince you otherwise (I have 101 reasons for a Young Earth if you really do want to see).
 
Freddy said:
I can’t do any more.
Click to expand...
As you have not done nothing so far, I agree; more would at this point be impossible for you.

Link a page? C’mon, that’s just childish and a weak attempt at yet another diversion. If you cannot articulate a case for macro as a scientific hypothesis then just admit it.
 
Gigantals said:
A similarity between scales and feathers may be found in chemistry (hence the quote from my last post), but there is far more similarity (including the complexity) between feathers and hair (especially the follicles).
Click to expand...
Yeah, and just think, if it wasn’t for that Asteroid hitting the Earth, we would not have any birds today. :roll_eyes:
 
rossum said:
So, you accept science. Excellent. What is the science that leads to the presence of rabbits on earth today?
Click to expand...
Same as the science that explains the cosmos from zero to approximately 10-43 seconds.

Unlike advocates of macroevolution, those scientists have the humility to admit ignorance.
 
It turned out either there was one massive one, or several smaller ones. A single 10km asteroid wouldn’t be enough.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
I can’t do any more.
Click to expand...
As you have not done nothing so far, I agree; more would at this point be impossible for you.

Link a page? C’mon, that’s just childish and a weak attempt at yet another diversion. If you cannot articulate a case for macro as a scientific hypothesis then just admit it.
Click to expand...
I readily admit that I cannot to your satisfaction. So what would your proposal be for an alternative?
 
Noose001 said:
You are conflating the physical dimension that we all observe with the perfect spiritual dimension that God created.
Click to expand...
Nope.

And as of Today
  • the Physical Realm - Which God Created and Man Destroys - is still with us.
And Like it or not:

Whereas God Created Adam out of Dust…
You came into being via the seed of your human father
Which is procreation whose roots go back to the Creation of Adam
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top