Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 11 of 301 (433602)
11-12-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 3:47 PM


3) Snakes and humans. If evolution were correct, then reptiles would be genetically closer to other reptiles than, say, birds. However, when tested, snakes turned out to be closer to humans than any other. So did snakes evolve from some mammal? Or was everything created at the same time with roughly the same code.
Oh, I love this one, because it was the first creationist claim that was clearly an act of deliberate deception. Not that you are the one trying to deceive us deliberately, since you have yourself been deceived.
May I ask where you had gotten this claim from? I mean, who's still using it? It originated with Walter Brown who based it ostensibly on his son's science fair project. At present, it's hidden away in a footnote of Brown's on-line book and, when I had last checked a few years ago, I believe that the link to that footnote was broken.
In my page on Duane Gish's infamous "bullfrog protein" claim, I covered this rattlesnake protein claim by Brown -- here's the link to that: No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html#RATTLESNAKE. Quoting from my web page:
quote:
Brown claimed that on the basis of data from a 1978 study by Margaret Dayhoff, comparisons of cytochrome c show that the rattlesnake is more closely related to humans that to any other organism {my emphasis added; please note the wording precisely}. When Kenney asked Brown to provide the name of the scientific journal and the page number in which Dayhoff had reached this conclusion, Brown stated that he couldn't. Dayhoff had never reached such a conclusion, but rather Brown's son had used Dayhoff's data to reach that conclusion for a science fair project. It was Brown's son who had concluded that rattlesnakes are more closely related to humans by cytochrome c than to any other organism.
For fifteen dollars, Brown sent Kenney photocopies of his son's project (apparently, Brown's price depends on who you are -- he had demanded $70 to a previous requestor). Kenney wrote:
quote:
"In the project I quickly found that the rattlesnake and humans differed by only fourteen amino acids. Humans and rhesus monkeys differed by one amino acid. Later, Brown called me again and then explained that of the forty-seven organisms in the study, the one closest to the RATTLESNAKE was the human, not that the one closest to the human was the rattlesnake. You see, among the forty-seven there were no other snakes."
(Creation/Evolution Newsletter Vol.4 No.5 Sep/Oct 84, pg 16)
Most of the other organisms in the study were as distantly related to the rattlesnake as were humans; it is coincidence that human cytochrome c was just barely less different than the others. Obviously, this is just semantic sleight-of-hand which can serve no other purpose than to mislead and it is so blatant that Brown had to know what he was doing.
Later after a debate, Kenney found Brown telling a small group about rattlesnakes being more closely related to humans than to any other organism. When Kenney started explaining to the group how misleading that was, Brown quickly changed the subject.
Look at the date of that article, Aquilegia753. We've known for over two decades that that claim you just repeated is not only absolutely false, but also that it is a deliberate deception. So why is it still in circulation? Why are you repeating it here? What, don't your sources believe in telling you the truth?
OBTW, Dayhoff's study had not included chimpanzees, but when we compare chimpanzee cytochrome c to human cytochrome c, we find that they are identical. Zero differences. Compared to 14 differences between human and rattlesnake cytochrome c. Would you like to make any comment on this?
Please, do tell us where you had gotten that claim from. If it's a web site, then may I suggest a little experiment? Write to the webmaster of that site and inform them that their claim is false and explain to them why it's false. Share with us here what you write to them. Then share with us what their response is. You should find the results of that experiment very enlightening.
As a preview, read this article, "A FAILED ATTEMPT TO DIALOG WITH
"YOUNG EARTH" CREATION SCIENTISTS", at Unsuccessful dialog with young-earth creationists about an error. There's a perennial creationist claim, also apparently originating with Walter Brown around 1979, which through a completely misunderstanding of what a leap second is came up with a grossly inflated rate at which the earth's spin has been decreasing over time, such that they claim that millions of years ago the earth would have been spinning impossibly fast. Even though it was soundly refuted in the early 1980's, creationists continue to use it, including Kent Hovind. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, whose page I just pointed you to, found 15 web sites that repeated this long-refuted claim and conducted the exercise I just suggested to you. They contacted the webmasters of each of those sites and informed them of the falsehood of that claim. They got a few responses, but none of the web sites made any correction. Obviously, creationists care nothing for the truth.
Do let us know what your results are.
Edited by dwise1, : Added the OBTW about chimpanzee cytochrome c

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:47 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:32 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 15 of 301 (433614)
11-12-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 4:32 PM


I got that claim from the book In the Beginning (which I will get more information about over Thanksgiving). Sorry, I had no idea. It's probably an old book, too.
The one by -- gee, who would have guessed? -- Walter Brown? amazon.com says April 2001, but then it's the 7th edition. Now, if he were honest and since he does know for a fact that that rattlesnake claim is a deliberate deception, he should have editted it out of this latest edition -- I assume that you have the 7th edition. But he didn't.
Tell me, does he also include the claim about the earth's rotation slowing down? I couldn't find it in his on-line book, so that at least had led me to consider him smarter than Hovind since he realized that he should drop that particular coproform.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:32 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:48 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 19 of 301 (433629)
11-12-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 3:47 PM


1) Asexual/Bisexual reproduction. Evolution claims that our ancestors were all once-celled creatures. These reproduced by asexual reproduction. So, somewhere, it had to switch from asexual to bisexual. Two things are possible: a) this did happen within one generation (highly unlikely, due to the usual slow evolution usually taught), or b) both sides of the bisexual reproducing organisms were created at the same time.
I was engaged in a correspodence with a local creation science activist. He asked a similar question, one of many "unanswerable questions" which I did answer, but he worded it horribly:
quote:
Do you have a better explanation than the Garden of Eden for the origin of
Meisosis reproduction?
Do you beleive Mitosis reproducing animals are teh ancestors of Meisosis
animals?
If so why, if so explain how they "evolved into meisosis animals.
Much of my response, transcript at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/q_meiosis.html, was trying to make sense of his cryptic question which he just repeated despite my requests for clarification. So, assuming that he actually meant asexual to sexual, I offered him this:
quote:
OK, a couple basic principles to start off with when working with evolution. Evolution rarely creates anything entirely new; it usually takes something preexisting and modifies it. Part of that modification can be, and often does involve, duplication, so that the modification of a feature does not necessitate the loss of that original feature. And, the "final" function of a feature is not necessarily the same as the original function, so there is no need to try to incorporate foresight (ie, there is not need for a future eye to "know" that it is going to become an eye).
So, what would it take for asexual organisms to become sexual organisms? Here is what it looks like to me:
1. Meiosis.
2. Getting the gametes together.
3. Development.
That looks about like it to me. Can you think of anything else?
OK, first some basics. Asexual reproduction can involve a lot more than simple cell division, mitosis. When we deal with multi-cellular organisms, we also deal with development through cell growth (ie, mitosis) and cell differentiation. It also turns out that a log of multi-cellular organisms use asexual reproduction. Some, like hydrae, use budding, in which some of its cells start growing and differentiating into "baby" hydrae. Some plants, like strawberries, send out runners which put down roots and become more strawberry plants. Other plants use cloning, in which twigs (Greek "klon") from the plant will grow new copies of that plant. Mushrooms and ferns reproduce asexually with spores.
Interestingly, in the case of ferns, the spores asexually produce the SEXUAL version of the fern, which then produce seeds for the next fern sexually. In addition, most of the examples given above also use sexual reproduction. Therefore, we have a number of organisms which are not entirely sexual or asexual. Maybe we could call them "bisexual". No, I think that term is already taken .
At any rate, we find through living examples that many organisms can use both sexual and asexual reproduction. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to assume that as a species is developing sexual reproduction, it can continue to reproduce asexually. The transition can work without killing off the species.
Next, thanks to your question, development is already taken care of. It is pre-existing in the asexual organisms and would only need minor modification normally needed in the evolution of a new species. There is nothing new that would need to be developed here.
Next comes the question of meiosis. We already covered this one, so I'll just repeat it here.
Mitosis is the process by which a single cell grows, duplicates its genetic material, then pulls the two sets of chromosomes to either side and finally splits in two, yielding two cells where there had been one. Mitosis consists of seven or nine (the actual number escapes me at present) distinct phases. Mitosis is used by single-celled animals for reproduction. To my knowledge, single-celled organisms and colonies of undifferentiated cells only use mitosis to reproduce and some multi-celled organisms (ie, with bodies consisting of tissues of differentiated cells) effectively use mitosis to reproduce the entire animal through asexual means, though most use sexual reproduction either in addition or in place of asexual reproduction, as covered above.
However, the individual cells of multi-celled animals continue to use mitosis to reproduce themselves. Also, some multi-celled animals capable of regeneration can effective create duplicates of themselves if they are cut in pieces; eg, flatworms and starfish. Therefore, we find mitosis still present and working in animals that reproduce via meiosis.
Meiosis is the process of producing gametes, AKA "germ cells", each of which contain half of the chromosomes of the original cells. Then two gametes from two different individuals combine to form a cell with a complete set of genetic material, which then uses mitosis to produce more cells, which develop into the embryo, then into the fetus. That process is known as development.
Well, it turns out that meiosis is a variation of mitosis, in effect a crippled form, since some steps appear to be missing. First a definition: a "polar body" is a packet of genetic material without the normally-associated cytoplasm. Remembering back to biology class over 20 years ago, the gametes-to-be use mitosis to produce some copies, but then they undergo division before they duplicate any genetic material or cytoplasm. What results in the male are four polar bodies which become sperm and in the female three polar bodies which are discarded and one cell with half its chromosomes, an ovum.
So going from mitosis to meiosis does not appear to be that great of a step. No insurmountable problems here.
Again, I offer the URL of a page which compares mitosis and meiosis:
[http://www.biology.demon.co.uk/...y/mod2/mitosis/meiosis.htm]. A
graphical comparison linked to this page (and displayed on the page in
smaller format) is at [http://www.biology.demon.co.uk/...ogy/mod2/mitosis/mandm.htm]. It is pretty much as I had remembered it, even though I had forgotten some of the details over the past two decades.
Getting the gametes together is the last part. Since our hypothetical
ancestral form would inhabit the sea, we have plenty of examples of how this could be accomplished. Many, if not most, aquatic organisms release either their sperm or their eggs or even both into the water. Simple as that. That would establish a method for gamete delivery that would work until more efficient methods could evolve.
So, Bill. I don't see any show-stoppers here. Do you?
His response was typical, to change the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:47 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 21 of 301 (433633)
11-12-2007 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 4:48 PM


So what about the experiment?
Well? Are you going to point this error out to him? Walter Brown has that book on-line at The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory. At the very bottom of the page there's a link for sending feedback. Go for it.
A possible lead you could use would be that you tried to use his claim and it got shot down in flames. Well, that's the truth, isn't it?
Let us know what happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:48 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 47 of 301 (433696)
11-12-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:50 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Please, guys, this is only for Aquilegia.
Here's a young-earth claim for you, courtesy of Kent Hovind in a radio interview on Southwest Radio Church, 13 Sep 2002 (my transcription taken from the audio at Page not found - SWRC (if that link is not broken) at 8 minutes 53 seconds into the broadcast):
quote:
For instance, the sun is burning, of course, and it's burning an enormous amount of fuel. It's losing about 5 million tons every second. Well, if the earth is billions of years old that creates a problem, because you couldn't go back 5 billion or 20 billion years like they say with the sun constantly getting larger and larger and heavier and heavier. The sun's gravity would of course become real great and would suck the earth in. Plus the sun would be bigger and burn the earth up. It can't possibly be true that it's billions of years old.
The rate of 5 million tons per second is slightly high, but still very close to the actual rate of about 4.7 million tons per second. Of course, the 20 billion-year figure is completely bogus; the sun's current age is estimated at about 4.5 to 5 billion years.
First, I want your initial reaction to that claim. Does it ring true to you? Does it fit your understanding of how the sun burns its fuel? Would you care to explain to us briefly how the sun burns? I quite honestly do want to know.
Second, do the math -- something that Hovind refused to do. Go with the 5-billion-year age, but really the 20-billion-year age won't yield very different results, only a factor of 4. What do you end up with as an initial solar mass?
And, yes, the claim is quite false and misleading. Let's see if you can discover that for yourself.
Edited by dwise1, : Added the "please guys"
Edited by dwise1, : added last paragraph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:50 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:36 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 54 of 301 (433714)
11-12-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:17 PM


OMPHALOS
I WILL NOT STAND FOR YOU TO CALL MY CREATOR A LIER!
Beware the belly button!
But jar did not call your creator a liar. You did. By invoking the Omphalos (Greek: "navel") Argument.
For an overview, read my page on it at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/omphalos.html.
For more information, try the Wikipedia article at Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:17 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 57 of 301 (433726)
11-12-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:36 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Close, but not quite. I won't quibble about a star's composition, though most do contain a lot of hydrogen, which is what "burns". However, more massive stars in later stages will start fusing helium and heavier atoms, though iron is the limit.
However, this statement is definitely wrong:
(it's a wonder why: no matter is lost in the fusion)
Yes, matter is lost in the fusion reaction. 0.3% of the mass of the four hydrogen nuclei that fuse to form one helium nucleus is converted to energy. By measuring the energy output of the sun, we determine that about 4.76 million tons of solar mass is converted to energy every second. In 5 billion years, this amounts to about 7.889608 x 1023 tons, a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's current mass. So compared with the mass of the sun, the total loss is miniscule and the greater mass of the ancient sun is negligible.
Hovind's claim is typical of creationist claims. The method of refuting it is also fairly common. Something that should be done with every creationist claim.
PS
Just out of curiosity. If you had encountered Hovind's claim in that book of yours, would you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker? Like you swallowed those other claims?
Edited by dwise1, : PS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:36 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:20 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 64 of 301 (433744)
11-12-2007 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:01 PM


Why either-or?
And I will accept evidence against creation and for evolution.
Why must evidence be considered to be for one side and against the other? And why only consider there to be just two sides? And two mutually-exclusive sides at that?
You're discovering that creationists have been lying to you about their claims. Why believe them when they feed you their "two model approach" (TMA)? Their TMA is a false dilemma (False dilemma - Wikipedia). The most classic use of it is to "prove" creation (which is defined as young-earth bible-literalist creationism, a small subset of the several different kinds of belief in creation) solely by attacking and "disproving" evolution (though their evolution model is a caricature misrepresentation of evolution and the rest of science).
Rather, evolution needs to be considered based on the evidence, just as the various forms of creationism must be considered based on the evidence. This is why jar and many others keep looking for and asking for a creation model. After decades, there is still no creation model forthcoming. Nor is there any evidence that is ever presented for creation; all that they toss about is their false and misleading "evidences" against their misconception of evolution.
Now, I know that creationists preach that you must accept either the Creator or atheistic "evolutionism" (whatever that is; they refuse to properly define it or discuss it). But science, including evolution, is not atheistic (taken here in the sense of anti-God), they just cannot deal with the supernatural. Nor is evolution inherently antithetical to creation. Unless you dictate to God that you will not allow Him to use Nature, there is nothing to say that your Creator could not have used natural processes to perform the Creation. The only conflict arises if you make narrow theological demands because of narrow interpretations -- please note that both those interpretations and theology are Word of Man.
To quote a physicist and practicing Christian, Dr. Allan Harvey ("Science and Christian Apologetics", No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/apologetics.html):
quote:
Maybe my most important message today is that this “God of the Gaps” theology is wrong. The reason it’s wrong is that God is sovereign over nature. (Take-home point #2) The Bible tells us that everything that exists is upheld by God’s power. God isn’t just in the gaps, he’s the creator and sustainer of the whole fabric of creation, including the things we call “natural.” So what does God’s sovereignty over nature mean for our apologetics? It means that science isn’t any threat to Christianity. Scientific results don’t count as points against God, they’re just uncovering how God did things. It means that if somebody has the idea that some scientific explanation (evolution or whatever) has eliminated God, the wrong thing to do is to argue against the science - that’s defending the God of the Gaps and it’s a losing strategy (unfortunately, it’s the strategy of a lot of Christians). The right thing to do is to remember that God is sovereign over nature, that the atheist argument that natural explanations mean God is absent isn’t science, it’s completely unjustified philosophy. We can tell people that natural explanations may eliminate the God of the Gaps, but they don’t eliminate the Christian God.
Be sure to read the rest of his excellent essay. You can access his other essays at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings.htm. He is a practicing Christian; he wrote most of these essays for or based on presentations he gave in the adult Sunday School at his church.
Most of what I seen in "creation science" and in "intelligent design" is God of the Gaps, that claims that naturalistic explanations of how this happened are proof against God. Well, congratulations! They just accomplished what science never could, assuming that science ever wanted to. The creationists provide proof against the existence of God.
So, is your god Sovereign over Nature? Or a puny God of the Gaps, whose followers must forever hide fearfully from the truth?
From earlier in Dr. Harvey's essay:
quote:
My concern is what can we do to correct the misconceptions that people have (both people like Albert and some Christians) that the findings of science (geology, astronomy, biological sciences [including evolution]) are incompatible with Christianity, that embracing Jesus means rejecting science. And it’s a serious problem. It’s serious because there are people like Albert out there who know science, and we put stumbling blocks in the way of them even considering Jesus. You hear missionaries talk about unreached people groups; here’s a group of people that aren’t hearing the Gospel because they can’t get past the huge credibility barrier put up by the things some Christians say about science.
But it’s also serious because of its effects on Christians, and I’m especially worried about children. If we teach our children that they have to choose between science and faith, we're setting them up for a fall. Because some of them are going to grow up and study the real world God made and learn that what the church has told them about science is false. If we’ve taught them that the Gospel or the truth of the Bible depends on those things, then its like the house built on sand, their foundation gets washed away, and their faith may go with it. I think Jesus had some words about those who set people up to stumble on issues like this: {Luke 17:1-2} “Stumbling blocks are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.”
So, how do we give our children a foundation that won’t crumble the first time they take a college science class, and how do we keep science from being a stumbling block to people like Albert? I’ve thought about these things a lot, and I’ve decided that at the root of our problems are two fundamental mistakes, and both of them involve taking our human philosophy and letting it dictate to God what he can and can’t do. I hope you’d all agree that dictating to God isn’t a good idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:01 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 67 of 301 (433749)
11-12-2007 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 8:20 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
If it was written by a scientist, then yes. I respect (as Verne says) lerned people.
"Dr" Kent Hovind is considered a scientist by most of his followers. He has repeatedly boasted to his audiences that he's an expert in science and math, because he had taught those subjects for 15 years.
Actually, his MS and "PhD" are not in science, but rather in "religious education". For that matter, his doctorate is disputed as being from a degree mill. Whatever the status of that institution, his "dissertation" is very substandard and its handling goes against all convention (it's not published, but rather is an ongoing work, etc). He ran his own private Christian school in which he taught math and science.
And his understanding of how the sun "burns its fuel" appears to be that it is by combustion and apparently he believes that combustion results in the annihilation of matter.
The question of creationist credentials comes up frequently. There are a number of real PhD's, some of them even in sciences; eg, Dr. Henry Morris, the father of Flood Geology, held PhD in Hydraulic Engineering and his colleague at the ICR, Dr. Duane Gish, holds a PhD in biochemistry. Not really relevant to the fields of biology, geology, astrophysics. I must admit, I still have to chuckle that they list one or two "scientists" whose degrees are in "Food Science". And there are the honorary PhDs and the store-bought ones, which abound.
If all you saw was "Dr", would that have been enough for you to have accepted Hovind's claim on face value?
Or do you agree that one must look deeper into what is being presented?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:20 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:55 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 71 of 301 (433755)
11-12-2007 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 8:14 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
In answer to your question, creationism must be true simply because if it isn't, then the Bible could be counted false (if this is false, why can't that be too?), and if the Bible is false, then we have no hope of salvation.
No, creation must be true. And there is nothing in science nor in evolution that demands that it not be true. Rather, it is one of the lies of creationism that if evolution is true then the Bible must be false. Well, if they lied to you about everything else, then why should you believe this lie as well?
John Morris of the ICR stated: "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." (at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism).
He is dead wrong on that. If the earth is more than 10,000 years old, then John Morris' interpretation of Scripture is wrong. And John Morris' interpretation of Scripture, as well as his "creation science" teachings, are the Word of Man. If the Word of Man proves to be wrong, how could that possibly prove the Word of God to be false?
Are you intent on claiming to follow the Word of God when you are in fact following the Word of Man?
Edited by dwise1, : HTML cleanup

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:14 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:59 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 73 of 301 (433757)
11-12-2007 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 8:55 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Aye. And therein lies the rub.
My story of how I got started with "creation science" is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/warum.html.
Basically, I first encountered it as part of the "Jesus Freak" movement circa 1970. It sounded ridiculous then and I brushed it aside without a second thought. A decade later I discovered that it was still around, so this time I thought that, hey, there must be something to it after all. So I looked into it. And I was appalled at the false claims, the misrepresentation, and the outright lies that the entire movement was based on. That same experience has been shared by many others.
And their witness is that they believe that their god must be served by lies and their religious can only be defended by lies. I keep asking, but receive no response: which Christian deity is it who is to be served by lies and deception?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:55 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:10 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 75 of 301 (433760)
11-12-2007 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 8:59 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I've noticed that most fail to discern between what's in the Bible and what they are told is in the Bible. It is important to be sure of the source of our beliefs.
There was a creationist who insisted to me that he only followed what is in the Bible. He also insisted that the Bible must be entirely correct and not contain even a single error, for if it were to contain even one single error than the entire Bible was false and should be thrown in the trash and we should all become hedonist atheists. I asked him where in the Bible that it says that. He suddenly was far too busy to continue our correspondence.
In forum software, square brackets are used and that is what I've been using in to create italics in the other posts. But for some reason this forum's software has trouble at times.
Edited by dwise1, : added the story

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:59 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Taz, posted 11-12-2007 9:11 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 78 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:12 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 80 of 301 (433771)
11-12-2007 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 9:12 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Non sequitur.
I've added a short story from my experience, so you may want to check it again.
And, yes, I do indeed know HTML. I have written several web pages, all of them with a text editor, not no stinkin' HTML editor.
I also know a lot of bulletin board codes and have been active on a number of forums. BBCodes use square brackets; eg url, qs, quote, i, b. I've had trouble with other forum software not accepting HTML; this is the first forum where I've been able to use any HTML.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:12 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 81 of 301 (433773)
11-12-2007 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 9:10 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I do agree that YHWH, AKA "The God of Truth", should not served through lies and deception.
T'is another deity to whom I refer. The Prince of Darkness who, I had been taught, is the one to be served through lies and deception. So when creationists employ their lies and deception, whom are they serving?
Edited by dwise1, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:10 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:45 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 92 of 301 (433796)
11-12-2007 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 9:45 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Proper names and titles are capitalized. And I did not invent that title, but rather it is part of common usage.
If you choose to subvert a language to your theological whims, that is your problem, not mine.
Frankly, I view all gods about the same. Yet I have observed the rules of English in my posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:45 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 10:17 PM dwise1 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024