Creationists Present: Arguments Creationists Should Not Use

[The Lorax]

You are backpeddeling.

It's what I've been saying the same thing the whole time. Go back and read my posts.

He was not a racist.

Sounds like you're the one backpedaling.

I led you to believe that he was a racist.

So you lied, then? If you believe in categorical inferiority of a given race, like people did in Darwin's time, then you are a dirty racist in my book!

He was not, his theory was and still is racist. You do not use terms like "more advanced" or "superior." He did. Why did you quit using them? Simple, you had to completely clean up a racist theory and make it Politically Correct. Research will show you that Darwin was most definitely not racist. His science is seen in hindsight as racist, but he was not. Again, you know so little about the entire history of your theory that you fall into every proverbial pit set forth.

It is clear your opinions about evolution exceed your familiarity with it. Retiring words like "superior" had nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with factual accuracy. (Strict "betterness" is not a popular evolutionary concept for reasons I explained earlier.) Not that you would know or care, hr. jr., since it seems you very much enjoy babbling your misconceptions for all to hear. You wouldn't want a scientific understanding of the subject to put a damper on your passion.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[Guest]

So you lied, then?

You do not believe The Bible.

Jesus!

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"The same was in the beginning with God."

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3)

You call your educated brother a lier when he told you a verifiable truth in love.

Hummm!

It looks like a duck and it walks like a duck, Oh!

Pardon me ma'am but your Christian sock puppet is slipping and an atheist hand is showing.

Who is Jesus Christ?

What should we do about sin?

And just Where is your Bible?

Love, Joe

[The Lorax]

I did not lie, I used sound argument technique. It is called baiting.

You repeatedly said something you did not believe to be true. This is dishonest regardless of your ends.

However, you obviously know nothing about the man or what he actually believed.

Sure, I could stand to learn more about Darwin, but I am very familiar with his theory and how it is applied today. This is something I think you should learn about, since it is clearly more relevant to the modern world than Darwin's putative prejudices.

How exactly do you propose the theory itself can be racist? I may have sounded like I was joking when I asked if the Theory of Relativity was racist, but I was just highlighting the absurdity of your claim about the TOE.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[Jorge S]

False. Abiogenesis and the TOE are adjacent but separate concepts. Abiogenesis concerns the origin of life, for which there are several hypotheses. Evolution concerns the evolution of life, requiring only that life already exists somehow. Although evolution is oftentimes coupled with an abiogenesis hypothesis, it is logically compatible with any number of alternate possibilities,...

Many Evolutionists will disagree with you here.

Theodosius Dobzhansky: "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, the biological, and human or cultural development. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."

George Kerkut: "...there is the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called 'The General Theory of Evolution'."

George Gaylor Simpson: Evolution] "is a fully natural process, inherent in the physical properties of the universe, by which life arouse in the first place and by which all living things, past or present, have since developped, divergently and progressively."

Julian Huxley: "The concept of evolution was soon [after its appearance] extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of the stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social athropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all pervading process. Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect to evolution in general."

Wynn & Wiggins: "Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the "spontaneous action of Nature" into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but... Aristotle's hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation/natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology's Theory of Evolution".

John Waldon: "The term "evolution" is used to refer to the general theory that all life on earth evolved from non-living matter and progressed to more complex forms in time; hence, it refers to macroevolution and not microevolution."

... including God seeding the first cellular life on Earth... All scientific theories do not topple like a line of dominoes, and eliminating a particular theory (or even every theory) of abiogenesis does not eliminate the rest of natural history as science knows it.

If you are ready to admit that God had His Hand in creating life you must then confront His own testimony rendered in Genesis 1 - 2 which is anti-evolutionary.

The distinction is important because whatever mechanism was involved in creating life is also involved in sustaining it:

Theodosius Dobzhansky: "The theory of evolution asserts that: (1) the beings now living have descended from different beings which lived in the past; (2) the evolutionary changes were more or less gradual, so that if we could assemble all the individuals which have ever inhabited the Earth, a fairly continuous array of forms would emerge; (3) the changes were predominantly divergent, so that the ancestors of the now living forms were on the whole less different from each other than these forms themselves are; (4) all these changes have arisen from causes which now continue to be in operation, and which therefore can be studied experimentally" (Emphasis mine.)

Robert Jastrow: "Basic building blocks of life--amino acids and nucleotides--were made in earth's atmosphere by the passage of lightening bolts through primitive gases. Then they drained out of the atmosphere into the oceans and made a kind of "chicken soup" in which collisions occurred. Eventually, the first self-replicating molecule was formed by accident, and as soon as a molecule could divide and reproduce itself, you had a magic law broken for the first time." (Emphasis mine)

[TomPJr]

Why not "no new species"

or, "Paluxy tracks",

or "Evolution is a theory",

or "there are no transitional forms"

or "plate tectonics"

Did you visit the link? It has answers to all your questions.

They used to teach that a cow was a non-extinct transitional species. I a sure you are quite aware that the cow is where the whale came from.

No, never a cow. The transitional form(s) are thought to belong to an extinct family of carnivores called the Pakicetids . The only similarity it has to cows is hooves. (Source.)

The cow got too close to the water, fell in, and its offspring was a whale; is all I can figure. Made no sense in biology, makes no sense today.

If you are kidding, then you're a funny guy. If you are serious, then I just feel bad. Scientists have made sense of the evolution of whales and I think you should read up on it.

You are also quite aware that Darwinian evolution is highly Racist are you not?

No. Evolution by natural selection is a very simple theory, basically, the adaptation of organisms to their environment via differential reproductive success AKA survival of the fittest. That this idea could in itself be "highly racist" is silly, almost as silly as saying the law of gravity is racist, or a particular mathematical theorem is racist.

During the scopes trial, the expert followers of Darwin's theory stated under oath that the Black african was the lowest, least advanced, human. They further stated that the White, Anglo-Saxon, European or American of European descent are the Most advanced, most highly evolved, members of the Human race. So, you Darwinian evolutionists have your roots in racism.

The Scopes Trial took place in Tennessee in the year 1925--not exactly the most egalitarian place in American history. Racism was rampant in the South long before Darwin and it is not surprising that racists made (false) Darwinian claims about race as soon as they had the chance. I should also mention that racism is still rife in the South, especially among fundamentalist Christians who don't believe in evolution at all.

In conclusion, racism that is ascribed to Darwinism can be blamed squarely on the racists that tried to put it there. And the racism never sticks, because scientific studies don't corroborate it. (In fact, "race" is no longer even considered a valid biological classification in anthropology.)

I hope, hr.jr., that in the future you take a little time to learn about scientific theories before you choose to slander them.

YES, I checked out your link.

I used to believe that stuff....I was brainwashed to believe it since first grade.

I respectfully ask you to give me scientific evidence that we evolved from other species or that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.

I ask you to give specific evidence so that I can directly address each one to show you how they were proven false or how they're not scientific. I have much evidence to support young earth, but it would take much time so I would prefer to address specific issues that you say are your proof.

One thing you mentioned before was the cambrian era...

well...the cambrian era is an unproved theory. let me explain.

All the different (prehistoric) ages are based on layers of rock or sediment in the earths crust. Correct.

by studying those layers, many scientists and evolutionists automatically assume that it took thousands, and millions of years to make the layers. They leave out the possibility of a world wide desaster such as the flood spoken of in the bible which covered the whole world.

The Flood.

Have you ever seen the side of a dirt road after a heavy rain. The water can quickly carve out mini-canyons.

Now imagine the Whole earth being rain on for 40 days, and then fountains being broken up from below the surface of the earth, and the whole earth is flooded 15 cubits higher than the highest mountain peak. Then let the water stay there for a year, and then by Gods power, the water receeds. This would explain most of the layers in the earth, and also the Grand Canyon. You see...much of the sedimentary layers would be soft while they were covered with water. As the world was flooded, and the animals and people were killed, they would naturally be sorted in the layers according to their weight and density. Also, many of the more inteligent creatures are found in the higher layers, because they were smart enough to climb to the high places and they survived longer. As far as not all animals being in the same layer....they wouldn't be, due to the natural sorting as they sank to the bottom of the water. then they wolud be covered by sediment in the same way. There is a term for this type of sorting, but I can't remember it.

Any way...that is just one way in brief summary to tackle the cambrian issue.

Respecfully,

with love in Christ,

Tom

[Jorge S]

No. Evolution by natural selection is a very simple theory, basically, the adaptation of organisms to their environment via differential reproductive success AKA survival of the fittest.

"Survivors survive": that's exactly the Darwinian statement that was accused of tautology.

G.A. Peseley: "One of the most frequent objections against the theory of natural selection is that it is a sophisticated tautology. Most evolutionary biologists seem unconcerned about the charge and make only a token effort to explain the tautology away. The remainder, such as Professors Waddington and Simpson, will simply concede the fact. For them, natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: the fittest

Edited March 7, 2007 by Jorge S

[GeneV]

No. Evolution by natural selection is a very simple theory, basically, the adaptation of organisms to their environment via differential reproductive success AKA survival of the fittest.

"Survivors survive": that's exactly the Darwinian statement that was accused of tautology.

G.A. Peseley: "One of the most frequent objections against the theory of natural selection is that it is a sophisticated tautology. Most evolutionary biologists seem unconcerned about the charge and make only a token effort to explain the tautology away. The remainder, such as Professors Waddington and Simpson, will simply concede the fact. For them, natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: the fittest

[Guest]

The Word from He Who Is Called Worthy

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Luke 21:33)

You are under the misconception that most Christians believe the earth is 10,000 years old. The majority of us believe in an old earth. My personal belief is 300 Billion years. I also think that the most modern science agrees with that number.

And I'm a young earth believer and it makes not one whit of a bit of difference to a Christian.

Here a quibble, there a fable --- Jesus Is The Way.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

'Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" (Romans 3:23-24)

Father Rock and Mother Tree --- Jesus Is the Truth

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

Naysayers Nay --- Jesus Is The Life

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

Love, Joe

[Guest]

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah 1:18)

Then you are one of the more rational Christians here. As you say, most Christians believe in an old earth. Most of the Christian posters here , however, believe in the literal reading of Genesis - that it took 6 days to create the universe. Your figure is out the other way - the current theory is a 4.6 Bn year-old Earth, and 13 Bn year-old Universe.

Rationally Speaking

Is It Rational To Obey And To Believe The Bible!

Or Is It Rational To Obey And To Believe Dave?

Dave Asserts "Time" To Be The Great God Creator?

The Bible Asserts "Jesus" To Be The Great God Creator!

Rationally Speaking, Whom To Believe?

"..... We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." (John 7:38)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"The same was in the beginning with God."

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-4)

David, you are just plain silly to act surprised and indigent that Christians might actually Believe God's Word!

You appear even more goofy when you come onto a Christian board to "learn about Christian beliefs" with your fingers stuck into your ears.

And you preach some sophomoric fable about rocks somehow turning into beautiful babies!

Psst Dave!

We are not children, we know babies come from their mothers!

David, maybe you have made your finial choice, maybe not.

God knows!

I pray not!

"..... for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever." (1 Chronicles 28:9)

David, your amateur attempts to separate The Brothers one from another and from Jesus are laughable.

"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,"

"Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Roman 8:38-39)

Your approval of one Christian over another means no more To These Jesus kids than your pagan assertion of Rocks magically becoming living slime.

Tisk, Tisk

"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." (Galatians 1:10)

Dave, if it is not too late already, you ought to be ashamed of your sins and repent and turn to The Lord Jesus Christ!

The same Lord Jesus Christ who's Holy Word you scorn.

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;" (Acts 3:19)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

Tick! Tick!

"The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy."

"He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever." (Psalms 103:8-9)

"And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds." (Revelation 16:11)

"The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:"

"The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:"

"The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace." (Numbers 5:24-26)

"And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them." (Numbers 6:27)

Maranatha!

Hallelujah!

Love, Joe

[TomPJr]

All the different (prehistoric) ages are based on layers of rock or sediment in the earths crust. Correct. by studying those layers, many scientists and evolutionists automatically assume that it took thousands, and millions of years to make the layers. They leave out the possibility of a world wide desaster such as the flood spoken of in the bible which covered the whole world.

No they don't. They think about it for about 2 minutes, laugh out loud, and go on to a more serious theory.

On the 'interesting' thread, my last post concerned the chalk. I posted it, and all the creationists immediately stopped posting, because they had no answer. They can't come up with an explanation, becasue there isn't one - the process can be seen today, and it takes millions of years, and it takes still water, not a deluge.

..and rock ages are based on dating methods. And please don't dismiss the dating methods(all 40 of them!) with some ludicrous theory that atoms decayed at different rates duting the flood...and I still want to know what those Tyrannosaurus Rex's ate after they embarked from the ark...

Hi Dave,

What chalk are you refering to? I think I know what you are talking about, but would like you to clarify. I believe I do have an explanation.

You said it takes millions of years..... how can you know that? has it been observed? Could God have created it there? These are retorical questions, and my answer about the chalk will be quite different.

As far as T-rex goes....I doubt that Noah had full grown ones on the ark, so they were little, and up until that time everything was vegetarian. You might say, no look at their teeth...they were for eating meat. Well I submit to you that they weren't. Look at a panda bear. They have quite big k-nines and they eat leaves. Also, many animals go into a hibernation state during bad weather.

anyhow, what chalk were you talking about? and what other so-called proof do you have?

Peace,

Tom