Rock
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by Rock on Mar 27, 2004 10:50:08 GMT -5
"And God said, Let the Earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the Earth after his kind: and it was so (Genesis 1:24)."
"Notice that the Scriptures declare that species would reproduce after their own "kind." Despite the fact that the theory of evolution has been almost universally embraced by scientists, intellectuals, educators and the media for over a century until quite recently, new scientific discoveries in the last two decades have revealed that evolution is now collapsing. Numerous secular books have been published in the last two decades by leading biologists, genetic researchers, and astronomers who have now rejected evolution as a theory that is unsupported by scientific evidence. As this chapter will demonstrate, numerous scientists have now finally admitted that they have accepted and taught evolution despite the lack of evidence primarily because the only logical alternative theory - Creation - was unacceptable. One of the difficulties in understanding the truth about the theory of evolution is that we must clearly define and distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution describes the very small mutations and variations that scientists find over time that occur within species. These small genetic changes may lead to a variation of a species, such as birds that develop slightly larger beaks to adapt to changed environmental conditions. However, they still remain the original bird species. Cattle breeders use breeding techniques to develop cattle that yield more milk. However, they can never develop new tissues or organs. For example, scientists have observed gradual changes in the breeds of cattle that farmers have purposely crossbred over decades to enhance the amount of lean meat or the amount of milk yield. Those who support Creation acknowledge that these small microevolutionary variations within a species obviously occur. Microevolutionary changes do not contradict the divine revelation in the Word of God that declares God's command recorded in Genesis 1:24: "Let the Earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." Slight microevolutionary change remains only a variation within the species and "after his kind" as affirmed by Scripture. Macroevolution, however, is the general theory of evolution that claims untold random mutations somehow provide survival advantages over long periods, producing an entirely new species. The theory holds that these changes are reproduced generation after generation until the major changes actually produce an entirely different species that never before existed. While microevolution does exist, there is no scientific evidence to show that macroevolution occurs or has occurred, as this chapter will later demonstrate."
- quote from Grant R.Jeffrey's book "Creation".
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Mar 27, 2004 11:35:20 GMT -5
(Pretend I'm using a huge PA system)
May I have your attention please! The much anticipated battle is finally upon us. The battle between God's Truth, and Man's Truth, is about to begin. This bout has been highly touted by both sides of this debate. I2AM4GOD has promised Rock's appearance for months now and it appeared for a while that she just wasn't going to show up. Traffic Demon seized this opportunity to mock The Creationists and The Rock as just another example of them not being able to produce anything that proves their side. This promises to be an epic battle, although Traffic Demon certainly has his work cut out for him in his attempts to turn God's Truth into fables.
Let's go ringside to Michael Buffer for the introductions.
Buffer: Standing in one corner, wearing pinkish, slime green boxer trunks with banana designs, weighing in at approximately 98 pounds, with a record of 0-99-0...Turrraffic Deeemon. And in the other corner, having loins girt about with Truth, weighing in heavily with The Word of God, and an record of 0-0-0, Tthhee Rrroooccckk.
Ladies and gentlemen:
Let's get ready to rumble!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Mar 27, 2004 12:04:54 GMT -5
Rock - About time you finally showed up. Let's get start with the fact that you have presented absolutely no evidence to either support the young Earth creationist model or falsify the presently held scientific models. Actually, we could begin and end there, since one's credibility is determined by the evidence one presents, but let's keep going, shall we? "Despite the fact that the theory of evolution has been almost universally embraced by scientists, intellectuals, educators and the media for over a century until quite recently, new scientific discoveries in the last two decades have revealed that evolution is now collapsing."Unfortunately, Jeffrey must have forgotten to present some of those new scientific discoveries, because he merely claims that they exist. Until they are presented, those claims have no validity. "As this chapter will demonstrate, numerous scientists have now finally admitted that they have accepted and taught evolution despite the lack of evidence primarily because the only logical alternative theory - Creation - was unacceptable.Lack of evidence? Hardly. Such evidence has been presented countless times on these threads, and is presented again here. Now, given that the young Earth creationist model has no evidence to support it, it does not fit Jeffrey's claims of it being either logical or a theory. Evidence that the universe is 13.7 billion years old: NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy ProbeGalaxy ranks as most distant object in cosmosEvidence that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old: The Age of the Earth, at The Talk.Origins ArchiveEvidence that species arise from pre-existing species: 29+ Evidences for MacroevolutionTransitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQFossil Horses FAQsArchaeopteryx FAQsThe Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent EvidenceFossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human EvolutionObserved Instances of SpeciationSome More Observed Speciation Events(all located at The Talk.Origins Archive) Evidence that a global flood has never occurred: Problems with a Global Flood, again at The Talk.Origins Archive"One of the difficulties in understanding the truth about the theory of evolution is that we must clearly define and distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution."What distinction? Macroevolution is nothing more than an accumulation of microevolutionary changes. "Macroevolution, however, is the general theory of evolution that claims untold random mutations somehow provide survival advantages over long periods, producing an entirely new species."And as demonstrated by the above links, macroevolution has likewise been conclusively shown to occur. "While microevolution does exist, there is no scientific evidence to show that macroevolution occurs or has occurred, as this chapter will later demonstrate."Given the evidence that I have already presented demonstrating the occurrence of macroevolution, this ought to be a neat trick. Perhaps Jeffrey will simply wave a magic wand and make it all go away? Pity that this is all you could come up with after over a month since your first post. Perhaps you'd like to try again in another month when you have some actual evidence to your claims. SonWorshiper - "The battle between God's Truth, and Man's Truth, is about to begin."Why do you insist that the truth of God's Word must be different than that of the truth of His Creation? By doing so, you are insisting that God is lying to us, in one way or the other. "This promises to be an epic battle"You're kidding, right? Unless Rock actually is planning on presenting evidence, she's going to get mauled like the rest of the young Earth creationists. I'm not expecting anything new here. So Rock finally shows up, but completely unarmed. I hope nobody was surprised at the complete lack of evidence. Rock, please don't use I2AM4GOD as a guide on how to conduct a scientific discussion. If you would have any of your claims carry any weight, don't just claim to have evidence, actually present that evidence. --Traf Daddy And I'm all outta bubble gum
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Mar 27, 2004 12:32:06 GMT -5
As I've said before, I generally don't get involved in these discussions because I just don't care. But I do have one question:
How do evolutionists explain how species differentiated. Why did the single celled amoeba evolve into a whale and a bird and a cow and a frog and an insect and a virus and a man? Wouldn't the external influences be the same, necessitating the same adaptation?
Thank you, LJ
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Mar 27, 2004 14:32:21 GMT -5
LauraJean - "How do evolutionists explain how species differentiated."
As populations are exposed to different selective pressures, such as climate or predators, different mutations will be selected for or against.
"Why did the single celled amoeba evolve into a whale and a bird and a cow and a frog and an insect and a virus and a man? Wouldn't the external influences be the same, necessitating the same adaptation?"
That's just it, the external influences weren't the same. As new mutations arose, as predatory influences changed, and as populations were exposed to different climates, new branches started forming from that original common ancestor, allowing for greater and greater variation over time, resulting in today's biodiversity.
--TDv2.0
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Mar 27, 2004 15:11:25 GMT -5
(Commentary Time)
In round 1, Traffic Demon comes out with a flurry of punches but none of them connect or phase Rock's position, as the links provided are merely the scientists' conclusions of the evidence (hardly proof of its veracity), and therefore carry very little weight, and is completely outmuscled and overpowered by the truth of God's Word.
Critics of Traffic Demon's style insist that this is where he is completely vulnerable, believing that he exhibits great folly in elevating the conclusions of scientists above what God Almighty happens to say about the beginning of creation.
I suspect in round 2, Rock will continue to hammer away at the silliness of Darwinism and pound it with God's Word and expound on Grant Jeffery's claims that there is no evidence that shows macroevolution's existence.
So far, I see a lot of shadow boxing by Traffic Demon, and possibly some cunningly devised calculations on The Rock's part as she seems to be setting the stage for a heavy attack on her 98-pound opponent.
Let's go to ringside for more action!
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Mar 27, 2004 16:34:20 GMT -5
SonWorshiper - Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion, or are you just here to demonstrate your ignorance of science?
"In round 1, Traffic Demon comes out with a flurry of punches but none of them connect or phase Rock's position, as the links provided are merely the scientists' conclusions of the evidence"
And like Rock, you commit the error of merely making claims, instead of providing evidence to back those claims up. If you would claim that the current interpretations of that evidence is incorrect, kindly demonstrate why.
"and therefore carry very little weight, and is completely outmuscled and overpowered by the truth of God's Word."
Again, you commit the error of insisting that your interpretation of God's Word is true, when all evidence demonstrates otherwise. If you would demonstrate a literal interpretation of the Creation parable to be accurate, you cannot do so by merely insisting that it is so, you must back up that claim with physical evidence. Since you have no such evidence, your claim carries no weight.
"he exhibits great folly in elevating the conclusions of scientists above what God Almighty happens to say about the beginning of creation."
That's the thing, I take both what God says and what scientists say into consideration. God's Word says that He created, while science shows how He did so. Unless God is lying to us in one way or the other, the two must be consistent with one another. Since the evidence contradicts a literal interpretation of the Creation parable at every turn, such an interpretation cannot be considered appropriate.
"I suspect in round 2, Rock will continue to hammer away at the silliness of Darwinism"
Of course, it is only through your ignorance of science that you consider evolutionary theory to be "silliness." If you would demonstrate it to be so, you cannot do so without the presentation of physical evidence. As always, you have no such evidence.
"and pound it with God's Word"
Cite all the Scripture that you want, but if one would refute a scientific principle, one cannot do so through the use of any religious text, but only through the presentation of physical evidence. So far, both you and she have failed to do so.
"and expound on Grant Jeffery's claims that there is no evidence that shows macroevolution's existence."
Claims that have already been falsified by the evidence that I have presented. Denying its existence doesn't make it go away.
"possibly some cunningly devised calculations on The Rock's part as she seems to be setting the stage for a heavy attack"
Let's hope so. If she were to launch a "heavy attack" with actual evidence to support her position or detract from mine, that would be a welcome change from the usual young Earth creationist tactics. I'm not holding my breath, though.
--BDT
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Mar 27, 2004 18:31:34 GMT -5
Sonworshipper-This is a debate, not a boxing match on ESPN. If you want to do commentary, make your own thread for it.
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Mar 28, 2004 1:10:26 GMT -5
Aw shucks. I can't have any fun around here. Oh well, all I have to say is:
|
|
|
Post by Shirley on Mar 28, 2004 8:25:37 GMT -5
Personally, I found it more interesting this way..a little levity in a topic that has been "beat to death"...pun intended.. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Mar 28, 2004 11:12:14 GMT -5
SJudy - "a little levity in a topic that has been 'beat to death'"
You're right, these threads are basically me beating a horse that's been dead for two hundred years... the sad thing is that the young Earth creationists continue to support their model despite how many times they've been shown the body.
--BDT And I'm all outta bubble gum
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 28, 2004 13:11:42 GMT -5
How do you suggest that one empirically display "faith?"
If GOD said it, and recorded it in His inspired Word, why is there such a gleeful sense of satisfaction that we cannot produce your sops of evidence?
We were not there when God laid the foundation of the world, but He told His servant Moses who faithfully recorded it all in Genesis. Then God took to watching over the transmission of that truth so that it would be protected from distortions.
Then He sent His Son to speak of these things, affixing His own seal of approval upon the first nine chapters of Genesis.
I know that you believe that Jesus is your Saviour because you are trusting in Him, but how can you account for your disbelief in God the Creator? Who, by the way, is Jesus Christ according to Colossians.
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 28, 2004 13:14:43 GMT -5
I read where one informed you that God created the world with the "appearance of age," and then you turned his statement back on him by suggesting then that God is the deceiver because Creation then is a lie.
Was it a lie when God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed life into his nostrils -- as a fully grown man?
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 28, 2004 13:21:56 GMT -5
You see, you have set yourself up as the authority over the Author of the Scriptues and have proclaimed, "I don't believe it - you can't prove it! Therefore, it is not possible!"
Is this not an open calling-out of God, and a challenge to His credibility?
Is it not the puny human being shaking his boney fist in the face of God - and calling Him a deceiver, because He will not deign to come down and satisfy your desire for sight, as opposed to faith?
And are you not worshipping and serving the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever and above all?
I suggest that, despite all of your training and letters behind your name, you are playing a very dangerous game.#nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 28, 2004 13:31:13 GMT -5
And although I already know what your answers are going to be - still, I think it best that the rest continue to be reminded of what it is you are doing here - and to advise them to stay as far away as possible from "science falsely so-called."
"For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it" (Rom. 8:24-25)
For we walk by faith, and not by sight.
|
|