|
Author
|
Topic: Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
Message 60 of 167 (523771)
09-12-2009 2:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by Archangel
09-12-2009 11:40 AM
|
|
Re: God using evolution
Archangel writes: ...when in reality we have a world full of plant and animal life which does ADAPT in order to survive changing environmental pressures, this we agree with.
You confuse me Archy. Here you say evolution IS true.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 11:40 AM | | Archangel has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 61 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 3:12 PM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 63 of 167 (523786)
09-12-2009 4:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by Archangel
09-12-2009 3:12 PM
|
|
Re: God using evolution
Archangel writes: No I don't say that at all Huntard.
See, your statements are very confusing. On the one hand you claim evolution happens, on the other you say it doesn't. Very weird, and very confusing. Or are you saying that organisms don't adapt, even though one post ago you said they did.
I understand and fully appreciate the difference between rapid adaptation, and evolution
Since there isn't any difference at all, at least, not to science, I'd say it's you who are confused.
which claims millions of years is required for even small changes to take place in a species
No it doesn't, and never did.
Any new observation which conflicts with once insisted upon facts are simply adopted by and promoted as more evidence that evolution is true.
Yes, that's how science works, it adopts itself to suit the evidence, something creationists loathe to do.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 3:12 PM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 107 of 167 (524065)
09-14-2009 10:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 105 by Arphy
09-14-2009 7:36 AM
|
|
Re: God using evolution
Arphy writes: Sure if a new completely materialistic theory came out tommorrow that excludes God and the Bible, you might believe it. However all this does is show that you do have a dogma that only completly naturalistic explanations are allowed, instead of searching for the truth where ever it leads.
Wrong. Unlike creationists, all that matters to us is evidence. If there were evidence your god , or any other, would be responsible for evolution, I'd accept that. Unlike creationsits, who despite the evidence, don't accept evolution because it doesn't mention god. And so, act exactly like you accuse us of acting.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 105 by Arphy, posted 09-14-2009 7:36 AM | | Arphy has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: RATE Group--off topic
Apologetics writes: Maybe I’m wrong, but how does my post about scientific evidence for a young earth not follow the topic. God could not use evolution because the earth is young.
So, your god is not omnnipotent? And more then that, you know exactly what he can and cannot do?
Why would we reject it.
All Christians don't. Some Christians (creationists) do.
How does science work in a random chance world?
No idea. You tell me.
What we have studied for hundreds of years could change tomorrow in an evolutionary worldview.
What are you talking about? And even if it could, what's so bad about adapting to new knowledge?
We refuse your form of origin science (not repeatable) were the belief in evolution (molecules to man) comes from and adhere to observable science (were we get technology).
Nonsense. You are as anti-science as can be. I won't even go into your "bible told this and that" stuff, as for one, it's offtopic and two, it's complete rubbish.
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: RATE Group--off topic
Apologetics writes: I was speaking in terms that the poster could understand according to his worldview not mine.
So, your god could have used evolution even if the earth is only 6.000 years old?
Please give an example.
See Coyote's post.
Is it rubbish because you don't agree that the earth is round, hangs in space, the universe is expanding, and that the life is in the blood? Or because you are looking at the evidence in a bias manner? Or do you have another reason?
The reason it is rubbish is because you guys only started claiming these things were refereing to what you are claiming they say AFTER it was well known that this was the case. Before that, nobody claimed this. Also, the bible has been used to claim, for example, that the sun revolves around the earth, instead of the other way around.
I hunt for the truth
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Archangel writes: See the links in my post #126, do you think those cities and monolithic structures were built by stone age cave dwellers as you evolutionists assert WITH ALLEGED EVIDENCE occupied the world between 10 and 20,000 years ago?
We don't assert they were built by cave dwellers between 10 and 20 thousand years ago because they were built after that.
he whole reason you all universally reject these archeological findings and never discuss them at all is because they don't fit into your world view.
All archealogical findings of these structures show they were built after the last ice age.
Just look at the detail and size/weight of these stone artifacts in Puma Punku dating back 17,000 years according to your own accepted dating methods.
It wasn't dated that early it was dated to A.D. 536—600. Link.
How do you explain the existence of these stone age era monoliths?
They aren't stone age era.
The answer is, you don't even try to. You just scoff and mock the links as if the evidence itself was just made up.
No, unlike your date.
What I marvel at is that some of these links reveal their denial of pre-flood knowledge to build these civilizations by going so far as to attribute the knowledge to build these cities as coming from ALIENS.
Yes, some people really do imagine the weirdest things, don't they?
Remember, this is your so called intellectual and secular humanist side claiming this, not mine.
No it isn't. It's the loony secularist (or maybe some theists as well) that claim this.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 133 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 8:42 AM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Archangel writes: How do you explain the detailed and highly intricate design and weight of these interlocking stone pieces which made up the wall around the site?
Uhm.... People made them?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 135 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 9:45 AM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 139 of 167 (579849)
09-06-2010 10:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 138 by Archangel
09-06-2010 10:17 AM
|
|
Archangel writes: Really? According to your link it existed in the Pre-Columbian Era, that era extended from 15,000 BC to 600 AD.
Yes, perfectly within the date arrived at for that site.
So different experts apply different times to their existence and you know that very well.
This does not follow from the article. Also, do you have evidence that it is dated as early as 15,000 years ago?
ou just selectively choose the opinion which fits with your preferred world view.
No I don;t. I haven't seen a diferent opinion yet, so it's kinda hard for me to choose.
And what's more, even with your preferred world view you can't answer my question as to how they lifted these massive multi ton stone works,
I imagine with ropes and levers.
or how they carved them
I imagine with tools.
or even who had the power to disassemble them once they were constructed.
They were disassembled? Evidence please. And even if they were, I think the same way they were put together.
But nice job ignoring and avoiding the meat of the debate and selectively choosing a few centuries within the pre-columbian era in order to dishonestly limit this civilizations existence.
I didn;t choose anything. That's waht the evidence shows. Unless you have ecidence that it is older, you really have nothing to whine about. Nothing in your quoted texts says anything about it being earlier than my date. So I don;t know why you quoted it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 138 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 10:17 AM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 141 of 167 (579853)
09-06-2010 10:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 140 by Archangel
09-06-2010 10:30 AM
|
|
Re: Your acceptance of evidence is determined by it agreeing with your biasses.
Archangel writes: Really? Are you forgetting that we are discussing allegedly stone age level societies who had no heavy duty mechanical knowledge or machinery?
Your example was not from the stone age.
How did they lift dense rocks up to 70 TONS in weight?
Rope and levers.
How did allegedly pre bronze age societies carve stones so dense they defy/challenge todays diamond edge cutting tools?
Hey, did they go from stone age to bronze age now? And those stones aren't as dense (actually, this should be "hard", since stones are measured in "hardness") as you claim they are.
And most basically, who had the power or technology to destroy these monolithic structures except a super human power?
A normal human power?
So you see, the question isn't whether or not we can reproduce what they accomplished, (which in many cases we can't) the question is, how did they accomplish these feats with their alleged stone age limitations?
And back to stone age again. Man, these people sure have a weird way of going through history.
But as usual I get no real answers or evidence for anything I say or ask.
You have been given answers. The site is dated 536 - 600 AD, That's not the stone age.
Just more excuses and lame explanations which say nothing substantive at all.
That's more what you are doing.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 140 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 10:30 AM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 149 of 167 (579886)
09-06-2010 1:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 145 by Archangel
09-06-2010 11:37 AM
|
|
Archangel writes: You fail to appreciate the deeper question that these images were carved into the Earth many hundreds of years before flight was possible on Earth yet they still survive to this day. How is that?
There's not much erosion going on there, simple really.
Why haven't they been covered up when an inch of sediment is expected to be laid down each year in most non-alluvial areas, so why do these shallow carvings in the earth still exist from great altitudes today?
Again, not much erosion is going on there.
But more interesting to me is why are such allegedly intelligent intellectuals as you and your ilk claim to be, completely incapable of getting past the shallow observations you do make and observing the meatier questions which are so obvious to me?
Because we are intelligent intellectuals.
That these sources attempt to attribute these landmarks to aliens is much less important than why earthbound people would carve them in the first place when nobody on earth allegedly existed at that time who could appreciate them from the available vantage point which existed.
They could be appreciated by walking on them. Like a spiritual procession.
You may consider the mere mention of alien interaction with humans as enough to to completely discredit the site, but until you can come up with a better explanation for the existence of these pictures, then you just prove how condescending and arrogant you are in your dismissal of that which you can't yourself explain.
Wait... In Message 133 you said this:
Archangel writes: What I marvel at is that some of these links reveal their denial of pre-flood knowledge to build these civilizations by going so far as to attribute the knowledge to build these cities as coming from ALIENS. Remember, this is your so called intellectual and secular humanist side claiming this, not mine.
Are you now saying it isn't such a stupid thing to suggest after all? Would you make up your mind? Does this mean you are now a secular humanist?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 145 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 11:37 AM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2