Creationists

[koshergrl]

Do you have anything really to add to the conversation? Because just to say "yore stoopid" over and over isn't an argument. Talk about grade school education.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And we will be the most recent common ancestors of people 2000 years from now.

My point is, science absolutely does support it, and it's stupid to say "science doesn't include the Adam story" because it implies that it has been disproven. It hasn't, and genetecists and biologists are the first to say so.

Oh ok, that's your definition of common ancestors, a vague line like that. A line like that goes along with evolution than and I just go with science when i say our common ancestors are the species we evolved from.


It's stupid to say science implies a story about eating fruit from a forbidden tree with a Satan-possessed snake in it.

According to you and many others since you think the chimp is so closely related to humans by your reasoning our nearest ancestor must be the chimp.

But real scientist know we are to far apart in our DNA comparison for it to happen. So what was between the chimp and human ?

Why is the chimps DNA closer in similarity to an ape then a human ? oops

You see similarity proves nothing,but if you're gonna believe this nonsense you must come up with the nearest ancestor so far the closest ancestor is adam.

Those ignorant goat herders

Please tell me any member of the non-science and math denying group on this board or any scientist who says our nearest ancestor is the chimp.

If I were as clueless on evolution as you are I would be an evolution denier myself. If evolution actually said chimps evolved into humans or adaptations aren't a part of evolution like you think I'd be searching for Bible bloggers to tell me how science works too.

However since evolution doesn't say half or more of the things you attribute to it, I can thankfully avoid taking sides with lunatics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact remains that born-again Christians can accept evolution without any concern about their salvation. Those who argue against this wish usurp the Savior, his personality, and his authority. Those who do this are in great peril.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Of course it's silly. That's why I'm trying to clarify what YWC is saying; I find it hard to believe he really meant nothing died before sin entered the world, but in his previous post he stated, "God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth". That sounds to me as though he WAS saying nothing ever died. It would make a lot more sense if what he meant was nothing died of old age, which is why I brought that possibility up.

Sorry I was right to begin with I always believed that adam and eve were vegetarians . Sorry I trusted the KJV. I went to my Hebrew translation and indeed there was no death until after the fall of adam.

Genesis chapter one.

28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. " כח. וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱ־לֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱ־לֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:
29. And God said, "Behold, I have given you every seed bearing herb, which is upon the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed bearing fruit; it will be yours for food. כט. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ־לֹהִים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת כָּל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ פְרִי עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה:
30. And to all the beasts of the earth and to all the fowl of the heavens, and to everything that moves upon the earth, in which there is a living spirit, every green herb to eat," and it was so. ל. וּלְכָל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה אֶת כָּל יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב לְאָכְלָה וַיְהִי כֵן:
31. And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.

Man was not given the right to eat animals until the covenant he made with Noah and his sons.

Genesis chapter 9

1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and He said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. א. וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ וְאֶת בָּנָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ:
2. And your fear and your dread shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the fowl of the heaven; upon everything that creeps upon the ground and upon all the fish of the sea, [for] they have been given into your hand. ב. וּמוֹרַאֲכֶם וְחִתְּכֶם יִהְיֶה עַל כָּל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וְעַל כָּל עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה וּבְכָל דְּגֵי הַיָּם בְּיֶדְכֶם נִתָּנוּ:
3. Every moving thing that lives shall be yours to eat; like the green vegetation, I have given you everything. ג. כָּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל:
4. But, flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat. ד. אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ:
5. But your blood, of your souls, I will demand [an account]; from the hand of every beast I will demand it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of each man, his brother, I will demand the soul of man. ה. וְאַךְ אֶת דִּמְכֶם לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ מִיַּד כָּל חַיָּה אֶדְרְשֶׁנּוּ וּמִיַּד הָאָדָם מִיַּד אִישׁ אָחִיו אֶדְרֹשׁ אֶת נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם:
6. Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man. ו. שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱ־לֹהִים עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם:
7. And you, be fruitful and multiply; swarm upon the earth

Again, I'm trying to make sure I've got this clear. There was no death of animals/humans before sin? But plant death was fine? Does that mean that there were no predators, only herbivores? Did god create more animals after sin was introduced?

Your responses have been somewhat confusing. Also, I can only assume that there is no need to consider how this ecosystem might have functioned, since it was eden and god could make it work however he wished.

I guess if you see plants as our ancestors that would seem like death to you. Yes animals and humans were at peace with each other.

This is what it will be like in the future like it was at the time of adam.

Isaiah chapter 11

4. And he shall judge the poor justly, and he shall chastise with equity the humble of the earth, and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth and with the breath of his lips he shall put the wicked to death. ד.
5. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faith the girdle of his loins. ה.
6. And a wolf shall live with a lamb, and a leopard shall lie with a kid; and a calf and a lion cub and a fatling [shall lie] together, and a small child shall lead them. ו.
7. And a cow and a bear shall graze together, their children shall lie; and a lion, like cattle, shall eat straw. ז.
8. And an infant shall play over the hole of an old snake and over the eyeball of an adder, a weaned child shall stretch forth his hand. ח.
9. They shall neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mount, for the land shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as water covers the sea bed. ט.
10. And it shall come to pass on that day, that the root of Jesse, which stands as a banner for peoples, to him shall the nations inquire, and his peace shall be [with] honor.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The issue is philosophical in terms of proof systems, koshergirl, which he is deliberately misrepresenting, so, yes, it was a fair correction, and one you don't understand. I get that.

I believe in both the bible and science,but real science, not so called science built on a vivid imagination.

I think it would be more accurate to say you believe in the bible and science that doesn't contradict any of your bible-based beliefs.

No,because I have not seen any real science contradict the bible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Creationism is an ideology, a faith path, it is not a science based field, like evolution, gang.

Your silly arguments are why we have a separation of church and state.

The nice thing about this discussions is that is about fun, not reality, for you wiill never, ever win this battle about creationism as anything more than dogma of a small, unimportant sect.

Did you just read my post that compared the evolution's model to the the creationism model ? Look pretty similar to me.

Well, I can sympathize with your problem, but a basic elementary school science education should clear a few things up for you.

My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.

She's right, no offense but you saying so doesn't make it so. It's scientists saying so that makes it important.

But scientists saying something makes it even less valid to kosher.

Aww, you should not make fun of the poor thing. There is obviously something really wrong with that one.

Only biased scientist that have an agenda do I not trust and there are many of them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

koshergirl, lack of critical thinking skills is a fact of the 6,000-year school of biblical studies.

 

[Youwerecreated]

They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively. Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.

Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.

Since there is no difference, coming from someone who actually took a science class in my life, you are the one that needs to hit the elementary school books.

Really explain the differences maybe I was sleeping through my many classes in genetics.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Did you just read my post that compared the evolution's model to the the creationism model ? Look pretty similar to me.

Well, I can sympathize with your problem, but a basic elementary school science education should clear a few things up for you.

My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.

I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?


Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read? At least they agree with you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh ok, that's your definition of common ancestors, a vague line like that. A line like that goes along with evolution than and I just go with science when i say our common ancestors are the species we evolved from.


It's stupid to say science implies a story about eating fruit from a forbidden tree with a Satan-possessed snake in it.

According to you and many others since you think the chimp is so closely related to humans by your reasoning our nearest ancestor must be the chimp.

But real scientist know we are to far apart in our DNA comparison for it to happen. So what was between the chimp and human ?

Why is the chimps DNA closer in similarity to an ape then a human ? oops

You see similarity proves nothing,but if you're gonna believe this nonsense you must come up with the nearest ancestor so far the closest ancestor is adam.

Those ignorant goat herders

Please tell me any member of the non-science and math denying group on this board or any scientist who says our nearest ancestor is the chimp.

If I were as clueless on evolution as you are I would be an evolution denier myself. If evolution actually said chimps evolved into humans or adaptations aren't a part of evolution like you think I'd be searching for Bible bloggers to tell me how science works too.

However since evolution doesn't say half or more of the things you attribute to it, I can thankfully avoid taking sides with lunatics.

So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?

Mind you I know they don't say the chimp is our nearest ancestor,just trying to pin you down for an answer.

Why does your side use the chimp DNA similarity as an argument ? Why is a chimps DNA more similar to an ape ?

Sorry I am just using your own beliefs again'st you,it is not I that say's similarity proves ancestry.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fact remains that born-again Christians can accept evolution without any concern about their salvation. Those who argue against this wish usurp the Savior, his personality, and his authority. Those who do this are in great peril.

Then I would ask ,whats the point of being a born again Christian and ignore the scriptures ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, I can sympathize with your problem, but a basic elementary school science education should clear a few things up for you.

My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.

I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?


Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read? At least they agree with you.

Well it's not bragging just stating a fact. You guys continue to insult because I reject the nonsense and acting like I don't have a clue about your theory.

I was educated in a secular school not a school of faith. But the way you speak to me it seems I must remind you and the others.

I have also worked in the field and saw the evidence first hand and how they arrive at their conclusions. Very disengenuous for many of them but I find it refreshing the ones that teach the rubbish but admit it is impossible. Oh yeah I had a few of those teachers like that at the university level.

 

[Dr.Drock]

According to you and many others since you think the chimp is so closely related to humans by your reasoning our nearest ancestor must be the chimp.

But real scientist know we are to far apart in our DNA comparison for it to happen. So what was between the chimp and human ?

Why is the chimps DNA closer in similarity to an ape then a human ? oops

You see similarity proves nothing,but if you're gonna believe this nonsense you must come up with the nearest ancestor so far the closest ancestor is adam.

Those ignorant goat herders

Please tell me any member of the non-science and math denying group on this board or any scientist who says our nearest ancestor is the chimp.

If I were as clueless on evolution as you are I would be an evolution denier myself. If evolution actually said chimps evolved into humans or adaptations aren't a part of evolution like you think I'd be searching for Bible bloggers to tell me how science works too.

However since evolution doesn't say half or more of the things you attribute to it, I can thankfully avoid taking sides with lunatics.

So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?

Why does your side use the chimp DNA similarity as an argument ?

Sorry I am just using your own beliefs again'st you,it is not I that say's similarity proves ancestry.

Of course I'm admitting the chimp isn't our nearest ancestor, no one who takes science seriously says they are. I'm assuming you read that in one of your Bible blogs.

If you care to educate yourself on what science actually says about human evolution and our ancestors analyze this website. And don't lazily look at it and give me the wikipedia cop out, all their sources are clearly referenced if you take issue with any of their information.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you actually want to educate yourself on what science says about humans and chimps DNA, read here.

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

No you aren't using my beliefs against me. You're using strawmen Bible blog arguments against me, which is exactly why when we debate and I ask you for proof of something you give me a science website rather than a Bible blog.

 

[Dr.Drock]

My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.

I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?


Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read? At least they agree with you.

Well it's not bragging just stating a fact. You guys continue to insult because I reject the nonsense and acting like I don't have a clue about your theory.

I was educated in a secular school not a school of faith. But the way you speak to me it seems I must remind you and the others.

I have also worked in the field and saw the evidence first hand and how they arrive at their conclusions. Very disengenuous for many of them but I find it refreshing the ones that teach the rubbish but admit it is impossible. Oh yeah I had a few of those teachers like that at the university level.

Right but obviously you don't give a damn what the science department at Arizona teaches, so why brag about being taught by the science department at Arizona? You say the devil is the reason certain scientific facts are taught, why brag about having been taught things the devil is behind?

And no I don't believe that you've worked in any field having to do with evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, I can sympathize with your problem, but a basic elementary school science education should clear a few things up for you.

My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.

I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?


Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read? At least they agree with you.

Wait just a second do you believe that the science classes I took only focused on the faulty theory of macroevolution ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Please tell me any member of the non-science and math denying group on this board or any scientist who says our nearest ancestor is the chimp.

If I were as clueless on evolution as you are I would be an evolution denier myself. If evolution actually said chimps evolved into humans or adaptations aren't a part of evolution like you think I'd be searching for Bible bloggers to tell me how science works too.

However since evolution doesn't say half or more of the things you attribute to it, I can thankfully avoid taking sides with lunatics.

So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?

Why does your side use the chimp DNA similarity as an argument ?

Sorry I am just using your own beliefs again'st you,it is not I that say's similarity proves ancestry.

Of course I'm admitting the chimp isn't our nearest ancestor, no one who takes science seriously says they are. I'm assuming you read that in one of your Bible blogs.

If you care to educate yourself on what science actually says about human evolution and our ancestors analyze this website. And don't lazily look at it and give me the wikipedia cop out, all their sources are clearly referenced if you take issue with any of their information.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you actually want to educate yourself on what science says about humans and chimps DNA, read here.

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

No you aren't using my beliefs against me. You're using strawmen Bible blog arguments against me, which is exactly why when we debate and I ask you for proof of something you give me a science website rather than a Bible blog.

Sorry pal, I know your theory well,I can't help it you can't detect sarcasm.

You need to lighten up and have fun with this, but most importantly learn something.

 

[Dr.Drock]

My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.

I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?


Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read? At least they agree with you.

Wait just a second do you believe that the science classes I took only focused on the faulty theory of macroevolution ?

No I don't, and I didn't say anything remotely similar to that. But you're bragging about a degree from a university that you think does the devil's work in teaching evolution.

Very odd.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?

Why does your side use the chimp DNA similarity as an argument ?

Sorry I am just using your own beliefs again'st you,it is not I that say's similarity proves ancestry.

Of course I'm admitting the chimp isn't our nearest ancestor, no one who takes science seriously says they are. I'm assuming you read that in one of your Bible blogs.

If you care to educate yourself on what science actually says about human evolution and our ancestors analyze this website. And don't lazily look at it and give me the wikipedia cop out, all their sources are clearly referenced if you take issue with any of their information.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you actually want to educate yourself on what science says about humans and chimps DNA, read here.

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

No you aren't using my beliefs against me. You're using strawmen Bible blog arguments against me, which is exactly why when we debate and I ask you for proof of something you give me a science website rather than a Bible blog.

Sorry pal, I know your theory well,I can't help it you can't detect sarcasm.

You need to lighten up and have fun with this, but most importantly learn something.

Yeah, you were being sarcastic when you repeatedly state that scientists say chimps are our nearest ancestor, you should take the commandment about lying more seriously.

Believe me I do have fun with it. In the real world people don't say T-Rex mooed and ate grass and that a pair of elephants can fit in a shoebox. I only get that from you.

 

[koshergrl]

koshergirl, lack of critical thinking skills is a fact of the 6,000-year school of biblical studies.

I got As in college biology, anthropology and in critical thinking.

You were saying?