Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

Much as it pains me to do so... I shall desist. I will be watching closely, though... Ken still hasn't replyed to my last post (surprise surprise).The Rock Hound

I already quit on the Kenster, and I hope he goes the way of Skeptick and all the other creos who see themselves as defending God against the evil atheists and their so-called science.regards,
Esteban "Silence is Golden" Hambre

In reply to your message 90, I dont think schrafinator is being controlling.Schrafinator IS trying to carry on a debate with you.From your response I would say that you do believe that the earth gets energy from the sun.To admit that doesnt mean you are admitting to everything else you thought was being said. Let the debate go step by step , bringing your points along, if what you beleive is valid.Otherwise, we, who are reading this debate may not get your point at all.

To: ALLIt seems as though materialist here are forgetting a common materialist mantra in relation to the abiogenesis hypothesis - namely, extraordinary claims require extraordinay evidence. Clearly, we know that abiogenesis even if we were to grant a such a thing which I am clearly not granting whatsoever, would not be ordinary. Nobody has ever witnessed such a thing and Meyer clearly shows it is contra-evidence: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html
So where is the extraordinary evidence?But it is far worse for the materialist because the materialists do not even have credible evidence that abiogenesis occured. And without credible evidence to show that abiogenesis could realistically occur the materialist have not earned the right to go up to bat against the Christian creationist. In short, the materialist are not in the ballpark.Furthermore, in relation to the origin of the universe, the creationist have a Louisville slugger called the Law of the conservation of mass and energy. The materialist do not have a science "poker hand" that even approaches a scientific law.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

It's about young earth creationism vs. macroevolution.There is ample evidence that life has evolved from earlier species over three and a half billion years.We have the heirarchical classification of life.We have a multitude of compelling fossils showing the lineages of many species, including humans.We have the biochemical and molecular evidence.Also, the proposed mechanisms for macroevolution are known and understood.You have yet to dispute any of this.

Ken,From the website you cite in message 109: Do you agree that evolutionary theory is separate from abiogenesis theories? What your reference seems to indicate they are separate theories since the start.Also, even if scientists are able to start life from inorganic molecules in the lab, this still does not prove that is how life arose on earth. Scientists are fine with this and will freely admit it. What you seem to miss is that the field of evolution is not hindered by not knowing how life started. As of right now, the odds of life on earth are 1:1. Evolution only requires imperfect replicators to be present, and that criteria is fulfilled.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-05-2004]

Do you think the earth getting energy from the sun is an extraordinary claim? If so , why?

The materialist always run when abiogenesis comes up. I would be afraid of this issue too if I were a materialist who eventually is going to meet his Creator. The materialist often worship the god of science but that god cannot help them escape death. Is science close to solving the "death thing" yet?Sincerely,Ken

quote:

---

The materialist always run when abiogenesis comes up.

---

No, we simply state what the evidence gives us. We simply don't know exactly how life started on Earth. Are we ready to move on to macroevolution now?

One last reply. Ken, abiogenesis has nothing to do with this thread that YOU started. You've moaned, whined and complained about people posting messages off topic in the past and now you complain that they WON'T post off topic? What do you want us to do? You wanted to discuss evolution, so discuss it, debate it. You didn't mention abiogenesis in your thread title. At the risk of sounding like you, why don't you stick to the topic instead of changing the subject and running away claiming that everyone else ran away. We're still here waiting to debate your original assertion if you ever get round to actually posting some evidence instead of your own blinkered opinions.

http://EvC Forum: Is macroevolution a religion? Should we rename it evolutiontarianism?Are you arguing the exact same thing in two different threads that you yourself started? If you didn't have two separate arguments, why did you start two separate threads?

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

What are you babbling about now, kendemyer? No one knows (yet) how the first life form began. So what? Is there something specific about current abiogenesis research that you don't understand? Some people here know something about it, so they might be able to help you out.I don't know how the first life form came about. So what? We have a lot of evidence that life began three and a half billion years ago, and that present life has evolved from this.Do you want to discuss this?Edited to add:
And why do you keep switching topics? Why can't you stay focused? You give the impression that you don't understand very much about this subject.[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 03-05-2004]

Where's your answer to schrafinator's question on thermodynamics and whether the earth receives energy from the sun, most recently repeated at message #104?Put up or shut up. I wonder if you can even "manage" that.

To: WJHe wants to put enter naturalistic miracles into science through the backdoor via sunshine. I am not buying it.Sincerely,Ken

What are you talking about now?You began this thread to dispute that macroevolution is not a valid scientific theory. Please back up your assertian.