|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question for creationists: Why would you rather believe in a small God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When they get the right match of vaccine with strain of flu for the season, which sometimes they've goofed up, other than that yes of course I accept that it works.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
EXCUSE ME, of course I should have said the PREHISTORIC past. And excuse you because you should have known that's what I meant. Anything past that is within the range of living witnesses is possible to evidence, or even written history up to a point. The prehistoric past is not.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Look, they had smallpox vaccine back in the 18th century before anybody believed in evolution, and all kinds of other vaccines into the 20th century that were simply developed on the basis of permitting the body to develop antibodies to a given pathogen. I was enough of a science nut that I saved clippings on the Salk vaccine when it first came out.
Let me guess, you are going to claim that the flu "evolves" from season to season which requires new formulas to adapt to its new forms or something along those lines? Then let me hasten to assure you that that level of "evolution" is not a problem for YECs. That's the usual "microevolution" that we all know and love, not "macroevolution."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I spent a fair amount of time trying to track down the evidence, back in the 70s sometime, based on popular accounts of evolution and the periodical Skeptical Inquirer, and found that it never led anywhere conclusive. Nevertheless I didn't give up on the theory, it's what the scientists claimed after all, and I respected science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I did add a phrase about written testimony as well, not just living witnesses. Sorry you apparently missed it. The point, again, is that the past that precedes any sort of witness possibility cannot be subjected to scientific testing. Not that you can't know SOMETHING about it, but you can't know what you think you know, which is all conjecture. Like the meaning of the supposed order in the geologic column. That is unprovable, pure conjecture. My conjecture says the geologic column was clearly laid down in a short period of time by a cataclysmic flow of water. Fits the actual facts a lot better than your conjecture does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Honesty? YECs have NEVER had a problem with "microevolution," we can SEE it after all. The problem here is yours, not mine. Yes I see I was right from your links that flu vaccine is developed to keep pace with "evolving" strains of flu. Yep, "microevolution." There is no moving of goalposts here, there is merely your failure to understand anything about Creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There IS no evidence of descent from one Species to another and you have never found any either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Previously, you were fine calling ALL evolution just evolution. If we put forth miniml effort, we can point to where you have objected to forms of microevolution. No, I never intended by the word "evolution" in my remarks about it as unscientific to include "microevolution" which is a term somebody made up to make a necessary distinction in a certain context. Unfortunately in making such a statement I forget that evolutionists lump it all together and claim, without the slightest evidence, that microevolution becomes macroevolution. In the current context I've been using "evolution" ONLY to refer to macroevolution which is the contested theory after all. Again, creationists do not have a problem with microevolution, it is the way all varieties within species develop. I've written at great great length about all this on various threads here. It is absurd that this still needs to be argued after months and years of this debate. You just refuse to know anything about the Creationist point of view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Archaeology deals with human time frames, not prehistoric time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Of course it's all microevolution, not because a fruit fly didn't become a dog, but because it never became anything other than a fruit fly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is no evidence of descent from one Species to another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As I said, in describing "evolution" as unscientific I was using the word to mean "macroevolution," the theory of evolution from Species to Species, since microevolution is normal genetic variation accepted by all but macroevolution is pure unproven conjecture.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The problem here is simply that you refuse to grasp that there is a distinction between observable microevolution, which is scientifically known, and macroevolution, which is pure speculation. You are simply stumbling over your own semantics, insisting on evolutionist theory, which is known as begging the question. Try understanding that Creationists make a distinction between that which is observable, which is amenable to scientific method, and that which is not observable, such as macroevolution, which is purely conjecture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The "species" that are created by the process of "speciation," which does in fact occur though it is misnamed, are not new Species, just varieties of the same Species that can no longer interbreed with the mother population, and in fact usually have such reduced genetic diversity there is no more variation possible to them anyway. I have an argument with CRI if they are claiming anything other than that. Perhaps they have fallen for the artificial definition of a new Species as inability to interbreed with the mother population.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You can do science by observing effects too, of course, and there are plenty of ways of testing gravity by its effects, but there are no effects of the supposed ordering of the fossil record that demand the theory of evolution to explain them. It's purely a conjecture based on nothing but imagination, that can be answered by other conjectures. There is no way to test or prove it. It remains a theory for this reason, a hypothesis, a conjecture. The worldwide Flood does a much better job of explaining the actual phenomena of the geologic column than evolution does. Which has the most plausibility or credibility is what it's all about, since replication of any of it is not possible, and that's not the usual criterion for hard science.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024