Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!

schrafinator, I cannot believe your bias and ignorance towards creation. Especially after all you taught me. I could quite easily come up with a massive list on things that evolutionist never answer, what should I do? Abandon the ToE because they won't answer my questions? Or abandon Creation because they won't answer my questions? Try perhaps do your own research instead of expecting to just be spoonfed the answers.1. Your argument is a straw men. Creationist don't claim to know what a kind is. That's why they have scientist working it out. They do however have a good idea on some kinds, such as the cow kind and the dog kind. It's the same as evolutionist won't tell me how life just amazingly spontaneously arrised. If I ask that question I get accused. No fair!2. I have a good idea on how they conclude there dates, but not enough of an understanding to even have a crack at falsifying them. I've read of many problems given by creationist as to the current dating methods. So what am I to believe? Neither, both, or just pick out the bits that support pre-conceived ideas and be biased like everyone else?3. Because you don't understand the flood model. Saying never is not science. I'm uncertain about wood not being found there, but for the "flowering plants", that is easily answered. Go get some leaves/flowers and chuck them in some water. They float!...on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open... Genesis 7:11Take note on that passage. I'm assuming it means volcanoes. If so, then that means all the volcanoes! This was no ordinary flood. There would of been that many natural disasters going on (mud slides, earthquakes, etc.) that what the evidence reveals could be pretty much anything. It wasn't just the water sorting out our geologic column!Please, if you wish to argue the creation views, get some real arguments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
When I say that these are "questions Creationists never answer", I am actually including all of those sites and books written by Creationists, not just the people I have spoken to directly. I would sggest that I have done a great deal more study of both science and Creationism than you have, which was made abundantly clear to you, I think, when you came here as a YEC some months ago.

---

I'm not just talking about reading books, discussing, etc. I mean, do your own real research. You seem to accuse me of not writing my own flood model. Why don't you try work some things out for yourself if they are giving you that much trouble. And no, it wasn't made abundantly clear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Of course it's a fair question if Creationists are going to use the term, which they have for years, to state something factual about nature. The fact that they don't have a clear definition even now means that they have, for many years, simply asserted that "kinds" exist, having nothing but "because the Bible says so" to support the assertion.

---

Yes creationist are throwing the word around to much. But the problem is there is no need to accuse the Bible for mens understanding, or lack of. You have the kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species used to decide upon classifying life. Which I'm sure you know. Most evolutionist make the rash decision that kind means species even though it is last upon deciding what a form of life is to be grouped into. No man was around at the time God did all this creating, so this must be the closest thing to the word of God you can get. What does God mean by kind? Who's to say what He classifies as a kind is the same as us? I'd be surprised if it even became known within my life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
As far as my research has shown me, according to Baraminology, chimpanzees and humans are never considered the same "kind", and in fact are not considered to be related at all, despite sharing 99% of the exact same genes. There is never any other reason given for this assertion other than something from the Bible. However, all cats, are all the same "kind", and therefore considered very closely-related. This means that my fluffy little house cats are considered to be very closely-related to a Bengal tiger, but a Chimp and a human are not related in the least, even though genetic evidence puts humans and chimps much closer and domestic cats and tigers farther apart.

---

Wow, talk about giving of misinformation. 99%? Did you make that up? The correct number is 97%, even then by simply doing it a different way (mean or mode, take your pick?, you can just as easily get 96.4%. And if you stop comparing the similarities and look at the differences. How could anyone think they are related? The amount of genes that a human and a chimpanzee have is quite incredible. 3% = 3.6% is a lot of genes. Compare the chromosomes between the two and there not even in the ball park. Lets not resort to making up stuff now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
So, I still don't know how to tell one "kind" from another.

---

Neither do I. Just like I don't know of this evidence for evolution is except what is done purely on a philosophical nature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Non-responsive hand-waving.

---

Whatever you say oh wise one. What am I to do if I don't know much about that subject? Get accused?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Are you saying that ONLY flowering plants float, and not non-flowering plants??

---

No, I said leaves and flowers float. Wasn't that made pretty clear?

quote:

---

Great. Your whole scenario is based upon an assumtion that you are correctly interpreting a ancient holy book of which no original copies exist. I could say that "fountains of the deep" mean waters, not volcanoes. Show me how my interpretation is wrong.

---

Who's to say you are wrong? We must be both right. Since it did say all. Lava and water it was.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
What are the predictions that your flood "model" (since you don't have a scientific theory of the Flood) makes about how we should find nature, if all happend as you interpret the bible to mean. What you have done is simply hand wave and say "all kinds of stuff could have happened". This is not an explanation.

---

I was just showing to you that this ancient book that you are so quick to accuse doesn't make any actual assertions as to what exactly happened so don't be so quick to say it contradicts any given evidence. What's this, my flood model? Give me a break. I'm trying to get through school so I can go onto univerity and who knows what the future may hold. Perhaps I might right a possible flood model. For now I'm just getting my education so I can be in a position to decide what to believe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
You seem to display a lot of attitude for such a poor debater.

---

Says who? You? I could easily say the same about you since I can now see you like making things up. Better at science? Do you even know me? Perhaps at evolution since I just don't have the time. But science is a very broad subject. Same with you saying you know more about creation. Whatever you want to believe. No one is stopping you.

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 01-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Retrocrono: Let me get this straight. From your own statements:

​

1. You are in secondary school. Correct?
2. You know little about biology or evolution, principally because you don't have the time. Correct?
3. You (apparently) do not know enough about geology, plate tectonics, physics, etc, to construct a flood model of your own. Correct?

​

If the answers to the above questions are "yes", I'm curious as to how you feel you are able to dismiss 200 years worth of scientific study in geology and 150 years worth of scientific study in biology. You're quite free to believe as you wish, of course, but your rather forceful assertions that the people who have spent lifetimes studying these issues are totally wrong is interesting.

---

Firstly, I don't think that they are all totally wrong. I'm not yes to all those questions. I have plenty of time for biology (it's one of my subjects) and I've never seen anything in the subject that makes evolution necessary. It makes perfect sense, despite what people may say, without evolution being asserted as fact all through it. Evolution is not a fact, it's a probability built on philosophy and I've never seen one scrap of indisputable/exclusive evidence for the theory. Using a little physics I see no reason to take it as fact at all. So I don't have to claim that they are all wrong. No, I probably would be able to, given the time, be able to construct a flood model. But it takes awhile, even on a forum, to sit back, think how it all would of happened, than write about it and try get everything to fit together like a perfect jigsaw puzzle. That takes time and time is not what I have. Like I said, maybe one day.You have made assertions about me that I've done nothing for you to make such claims. Evolution isn't biology, biology is biology. Please, give me a break.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Actually, you just made an assertion that reinforces my contention. I'd love to see the biology textbook that shows biology doesn't depend and rely on an evolutionary foundation. How does your textbook explain diversity, genetics, population ecology, speciation, taxonomy/classification etc?

---

Biology doesn't depend and rely on evolution. The philosophy of evolution was built from biology. This doesn't mean biology depends on evolution, but the other way around. It's more of an attempt to unify everything in biology than take it as it is given. Take a look at the website that goes with the textbook we use, it's pretty good and has loads of evolution links and info.CLICK HERELet me also take a quote from the textbook.The classification of living things into taxanomic groups is based on how biologists believe they are related in an evolutionary sense.Notice the word believe. There is no definitive proof of there being ancestors, it's accepted as a belief. Science uses a totally naturalistic approach to the origins of everything. That's the only real reason evolution is accepted. Not because of evidence. Have you actually tried looking into the studies of comman ancestors? It's the only thing in the whole subject that seems a little iffy. Not because I don't believe it. It's because it's all over the place. Depending on what evidence you choose to look at, you could come up with heaps of different relatives for men. You than get the scientist who try to look at all the evidence to work out our closest relatives. The problem with this is most of the data is that at odds with each other it comes down to opinion. Usually on what would be most logical. The unison of life is done purely on mens philosophical nature, there is nothing there that I've seen that makes it certain.Don't think I'm objecting or being ignorant to the idea. It's just I'm yet to see of something that would make me believe it defently happened (please, no links to talkorigins.org, I have been doing plenty of reading on my own accord). With current biology knowledge and organizing the evidence to fit, evolution can be seen as could of happened, but you must ask yourself, did it?

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 02-06-2002]