IM sorry i don't understand, im a bit shit at reading peoples posts the way you wrote it, please forgive my lack off wisdom, i am young at heart and mind,,, for now,,
Well... for all intents and purposes, our god has spoken. And with that being said, it's time to cool our heads and recalibrate the discussion, should all the participants decide to continue on from here. I believe the floor is yours, Sensei. No pressure.
Well... for all intents and purposes, our god has spoken. And with that being said, it's time to cool our heads and recalibrate the discussion, should all the participants decide to continue on from here. I believe the floor is yours, Sensei. No pressure
I had the next part mostly typed up, but I don't really care to continue. if you need any help with LDing, feel free to ask, I respond to LDing stuff than boring debates (I find all debates boring) since LD work > debate. I shall see you around the forum!
Evolution states that we went from a single celled organism to what we are now.
Sort of an aside to the purpose of this thread, but the part that always gets me is not once "life" exists, the theory of how it may have undergone transformations, but how raw elements and forces produced a living cell with compounds like DNA in the first place. That leap seems infinitely larger than the transformations and mutations over time within an existing ecosystem of "living" things. The following link discusses it a bit:
There sure are a lot of "perhaps"'s in describing how that living single cell ancestor *may* have come to being.
Ultimately it boils down to either: 1) a random event (of unimaginably astoundingly astronomically small probability) versus 2) purposeful creation. IMO, I think Occam's razor comes down on the side of creation for this question. Actually, I think this argument can be extended to just about every single question of why anything, at its fundamental roots (matter, energy, etc.) is the way it is.
The origins of all things is a really interesting philosophical exercise. Infinity is quite problematic: both infinite time and infinite space are bizarre (impossible?) if you ever really think about them. Even if you accept "The Big Bang" as the cause for the existence of our current universe, who/what caused it? If it was a white hole/black hole/leak/whatever from another, existing universe, what caused that one? And so on, back to first causes. There had to be a first universe, or an original birthing place as the ancestor of all that "is" (in our plane of existence at any case), who/what created it? Ultimately, doesn't time itself have to be a creation? Doesn't there have to exist *something* outside of time itself for any existence to be possible?
Ultimately I think Ygritte had it right: "You know nothing, Jon Snow."
I had the next part mostly typed up, but I don't really care to continue. if you need any help with LDing, feel free to ask, I respond to LDing stuff than boring debates (I find all debates boring) since LD work > debate. I shall see you around the forum!
History repeats itself.
At least you said you are not going to respond. People in the past would make lots of debate-provoking comments, then say they don't have time to respond but would have time in a matter of weeks, and would then just disappear. Then they would come back months later and act like there was never an issue. You followed that pattern (except for coming back later, which may happen) but added an extra step. You are the first to announce that you aren't going to follow through. IF you are trolling like I am certain at least most of the people in the past who did this were, I am a big fan. I get such a kick out of this stuff.
Last edited by Universal Mind; 06-19-2014 at 06:18 PM.
Sort of an aside to the purpose of this thread, but the part that always gets me is not once "life" exists, the theory of how it may have undergone transformations, but how raw elements and forces produced a living cell with compounds like DNA in the first place. That leap seems infinitely larger than the transformations and mutations over time within an existing ecosystem of "living" things. The following link discusses it a bit:
There sure are a lot of "perhaps"'s in describing how that living single cell ancestor *may* have come to being.
Ultimately it boils down to either: 1) a random event (of unimaginably astoundingly astronomically small probability) versus 2) purposeful creation. IMO, I think Occam's razor comes down on the side of creation for this question. Actually, I think this argument can be extended to just about every single question of why anything, at its fundamental roots (matter, energy, etc.) is the way it is.
The origins of all things is a really interesting philosophical exercise. Infinity is quite problematic: both infinite time and infinite space are bizarre (impossible?) if you ever really think about them. Even if you accept "The Big Bang" as the cause for the existence of our current universe, who/what caused it? If it was a white hole/black hole/leak/whatever from another, existing universe, what caused that one? And so on, back to first causes. There had to be a first universe, or an original birthing place as the ancestor of all that "is" (in our plane of existence at any case), who/what created it? Ultimately, doesn't time itself have to be a creation? Doesn't there have to exist *something* outside of time itself for any existence to be possible?
Ultimately I think Ygritte had it right: "You know nothing, Jon Snow."
IMO, given all the evidence for evolution, the tests; the predictions; the cross confirmations of predictions in multiple scientific principles; the simulations that are performed and reshaped with new information; the real world confirmations based on predictions made by those simulations; the simplest answer, IMO, is the one that science is providing. Evolution is fact. It happens. We see it happen. It's been documented to death since Darwin for those that, at a minimum, have the desire to just look at the science and understand it.
In saying that, your post is mixing the discussion of evolution and the how life began argument (plus of lot of other things, but these additions seem to be leading to the large point of how life began). Evolution has no opinion on how life started. These are two completely separate questions and to argue both at the same time is just plain wrong since the two generally get mixed and nothing but confusion results - pointing at your post as the example. If you really wish to change the subject, then fine. But to argue both at the same time is not sustainable nor productive.
So switching gears... my wider rebuttal to your post is that anyone can posit a "simplest answer" argument by just coming up with whatever possibilities, which may be based on fact or superstition. I can think of a bunch of "easy answers" to the big bang, the creation of life, multiple universes. But I guarantee that they will all be bullshit. Simple... sure... but bullshit nonetheless. Additionally, Occam's Razor is actually used to create a path toward discovery when all paths are in chaos. It doesn't mean, "even if it hasn't been verified, the simple answer is probably true unless proven otherwise." It does mean, "ignore these other possibilities for now and look at only this possibility until it is either proven or disproven"; at which point, Occam's Razor is again applied and the next "simple answer" is then studied. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with truth and yet it has always been misused to argue for it. With that in mind, based on what you said, you would be suggesting that science gives up all the current scientific paths (least simple path of your two suggestions) and begin studying the supernatural answer because, in your mind, that is the simplest answer. I don't necessarily believe this is what you are suggesting, but it's what you said in your invocation of Occam's Razor in the way that you did.
And, for what it's worth, I don't think Ygritte knew much in making such a judgement, and she has totally underestimated how much Jon Snow actually knows (since you used it in this way).
Originally Posted by Sensei
I had the next part mostly typed up, but I don't really care to continue. if you need any help with LDing, feel free to ask, I respond to LDing stuff than boring debates (I find all debates boring) since LD work > debate. I shall see you around the forum!
Fair enough.
Last edited by balban; 06-19-2014 at 09:07 PM.
Reason: responded to Sensei
My post was more about "thinking in the small" vs. "thinking in the large" on the whole notion of creation, life, the universe, and everything, which I agree is a bit of a diversion, as I noted. Evolution is just a tiny drop in the bucket in that discussion. I just find it arrogant considering the vastness of infinity, time, and space that anybody pretends to "know" how anything actually works, at the roots.
Personally, "because it was made to be so" makes much more sense than "it just happened that way," because (at least for one thing) it provides a halt to infinite regress.
To answer OP's question, and stay completely on-topic. Yes! There are Christians here. *raises hand* I'm one of them, and I very much practice lucid dreaming, right now I'm working on MILD. I'm pretty much a Bible-based Christian, I don't really care for a denomination and I believe in 100% of the Bible.
I truly do want to have a civilized conversation with you guys because I know that just as much as I am a person, so are you, I won't (and can't) judge your lifestyle or personality from what I see here. Though what I can see or at least saw is that you guys don't really care for a conversation, at least not as "friends" or even being on the same side, and that's all I wanted, to see a different perspective, no persuasive post or trying to prove or disprove. Just a positive experience that makes you smile when you look back. Not too sure anyone else likes that though because when I looked back I saw someone who said that they liked this side of DV when it was at it's most chaotic and discussion were extremely fierce.
I truly do want to have a civilized conversation with you guys because I know that just as much as I am a person, so are you, I won't (and can't) judge your lifestyle or personality from what I see here. Though what I can see or at least saw is that you guys don't really care for a conversation, at least not as "friends" or even being on the same side, and that's all I wanted, to see a different perspective, no persuasive post or trying to prove or disprove. Just a positive experience that makes you smile when you look back. Not too sure anyone else likes that though because when I looked back I saw someone who said that they liked this side of DV when it was at it's most chaotic and discussion were extremely fierce.
Civilized conversations can (and do) happen here. I think when a post (not yours specifically) questions somebody's will to live based on their lack of religion, the degree to which the conversation will be hard to judge. I don't agree with some of the posts here pestering Sensei to "hurry up and post," but he did play himself up to be a guy who was well versed in a scientific topic. He then ruined his credibility by using one of the oldest and most incorrect arguments against evolution in the book. So you'll have to forgive some of us for getting frustrated.
I'd much rather talk about nuanced, well-thought out ideas rather than having to explain why somebody is very obviously wrong, only to have him/her give up for whatever reason.
The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
Formerly known as BLUELINE976
There is a different kind of growth in "same side" conversations. Sure, it's always fun to have friends that agree with you, but that is not the best thing. It is not that people don't like friendly conversations, it's just that they care about the world around them intensely. The important thing to understand is that what matters is much bigger than you and I. A personal attack is one thing, but when simple frustration is looked down upon it starts to resemble a nursery school. I've seen all manner of crude and (in my opinion) degenerate, disgusting, even borderline scummy comments posted on this site. Nobody says a word; yet being aggressive about something very important is somehow terrible? I didn't read through all of the posts, so perhaps I am unaware of something here. I apologize if I am way of base.
By the way, I am not really directing this post at you Lmrhone, just putting it out there in general. Admittedly it is better to walk away from a conversation where the other side is clearly set in mind, but it is not always easy. We tend to have high hopes of positive change in spite of the fact that we know better from experience. I know this all too well. It took me many years to finally give up on most people.
It is not that people don't like friendly conversations, it's just that they care about the world around them intensely.
Well put.
Sometimes a person cares so much about their world and their reality, that they defend it a little TOO violently (as you've seen with the personal attacks). And that's a shame. We hate having to moderate otherwise decent threads when that type of behavior happens.
I agree that a friendly amount of debate is healthy, as well as some friendly banter. Some of my favorite posts have been when members poked each other in a debate over some topic. But someone almost always ruins it for everyone by getting overly self-righteous, stirring up drama, and temporarily (or permanently) destroying the thread.
See THIS is why we can't have nice things DV!! Seriously though, the good news is that we have a great staff. And they're always eyeballing this stuff, making sure the majority of the community is having a good time, intervening only when things escalate to the point of ruining most peoples' fun, and hopefully getting the thread in question back on track.
And if we miss something, please let us know! Actually y'all have been doing a great job of reporting suspicious posts. This helps us identify problem-makers as well as alt accounts that have been created by banned members who want to come back just to start more trouble. So thank you Community!
Okay – here I am again – and with quite an apprehensive feeling.
I know how you meant it in the last paragraph of course Ophelia – how it was – that it wasn't me running an alt account – but I really must try to make sure that people are making absolutely no mistake about the following:
I did never ever run an alt account on a forum!!
And I also want to apologize to everybody for having caused a grinding halt to affairs in this otherwise very interesting thread!
Plus - you can find fresh religious fodder for debate below the blue line of dots!!
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
Originally Posted by Meskhetyw
It is not that people don't like friendly conversations, it's just that they care about the world around them intensely.
Well put.
Indeed! Thank you Meskhetyw!
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
Sometimes a person cares so much about their world and their reality, that they defend it a little TOO violently
Yes – this is also true and true for me. First of all I do really and honestly care a lot about the topic – and yes – I got carried away and regret the style and tone and impatience I wielded in this thread here. Sorry for that – see below! Honestly!
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
(as you've seen with the personal attacks).
No – I don’t quite see. Please elaborate in another place and to another time maybe.
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
I agree that a friendly amount of debate is healthy, as well as some friendly banter. Some of my favorite posts have been when members poked each other in a debate over some topic. But someone almost always ruins it for everyone by getting overly self-righteous, stirring up drama, and temporarily (or permanently) destroying the thread.
Here is the point, where I do indeed feel guilty and want to apologize!!
It is true what you say here – I did all of the above – except maybe ruining the thread altogether I hope. I feel sorry for everybody, but especially for my “co-combatants” (please note that I put these things around it: ““) Balban and BLUELINE, Universal Mind, Alric, AirRick101 and Meskhetyw - and whom I forgot and many readers! I did everybody in this thread and myself a grave disservice with it and will try to better myself, maybe grow up a bit more and avoid such unfortunate happenings in the future.
It might sound a bit weak now of me to say that I had been “riled up” in other places and contexts at the time – it was so – but I shouldn't have let that spill over.
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
See THIS is why we can't have nice things DV!! Seriously though, the good news is that we have a great staff. And they're always eyeballing this stuff, making sure the majority of the community is having a good time, intervening only when things escalate to the point of ruining most peoples' fun, and hopefully getting the thread in question back on track.
I am not going to say something to this here.
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
And if we miss something, please let us know! Actually y'all have been doing a great job of reporting suspicious posts. This helps us identify problem-makers as well as alt accounts that have been created by banned members who want to come back just to start more trouble. So thank you Community!
Imagine how this reads to somebody watching matters from the side of an uninformed member. Seeing first me and then abcde banned after each other.
Please people – I might have "made trouble" - but coming back as an alt account is not one of them!! Neither does she say so!
I am not being paranoid here – I would like to know how many people have come to exactly this conclusion in this very thread in the meantime!?
I really wonder how many of these people with wrong conclusions will come to find out that it was not so - not all of them, surely.
Now I will have to try and save my reputation as an honest person, somebody who would never go as far as faking a persona – let alone behaving abysmally in the process.
This is not meant as something to debate, though, people! Please don't do me a disservice - debate what comes below instead!!
I just needed to make a statement for my atheistic peace of mind!
What I find exceptionally sad, is that Sensei had already typed up most of his answer, when I came in and destroyed it all with being impatient. Shame for your wasted time and effort, Sensei – I am also sorry for that. If you would still be willing to post about evolution – I could take on a passive stance towards you and just look on if you like – I would not get back to you in whichever fashion then.
I agree with UM - quite unusual of you to actually announce that you want to step back from the evolution debate because of boredom with debate in general, though! And I respect that.
Since this seems to rob us of the only creationist (formerly) willing to debate evolution - also thanks to myself unfortunately – my recent discovery of “Ken Ham’s Rant Against UK Schools Banning the Teaching of Creationism as Science” from the 20th of this June comes in very handy!
We might use it to analyze Ham’s opinions and standpoints instead of pestering Sensei! His links are a feast as well. Ham is the “leading authority” on creationism after all and even has his own museum about it.
It is a long one – in its entirety it can be found in the spoiler – here some excerpts:
Creation Banned from UK’s State-Funded Schools
Here is another sign of the increasing secularization of the Western world, as secular humanists are trying their hardest to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). It’s the result of a minority viewpoint being imposed on a public that is seemingly oblivious to the ongoing loss of religious liberty and the growing intolerance of Christianity all around.
This week a number of news sources around the world have reported on a series of bias-filled documents produced by the Department of Education in the United Kingdom. One of these documents includes this comment about new science standards: “They explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching ‘creationism’ as scientific fact.” In other words, teaching creation as science has been banned in state-funded schools; instead, the education department wants the belief in molecules-to-man evolution to be taught as fact to UK students.
“Theory of Evolution” vs. “Creationism”
Notice the wording on the UK website. It frames the issue as “the theory of evolution” vs. “creationism.” Why do they not present it as evolution vs. creation? Because that would make creation sound more legitimate. As we have consistently stated, evolution does not even qualify as a valid scientific theory. Furthermore, secularists will gladly use the term creationism, indicating that it is a belief system and is not scientific, but they avoid the term evolutionism. Is there even such a word? Dr. David Menton has written an insightful article on the word evolutionism.
The use of the word creationism and avoidance of the word evolutionism is intentional: the secularists want you to believe that evolution (the belief that life arose by natural processes; also called naturalism or atheism) is fact, and creation (the belief that life is designed by the Creator God) is an outdated idea that should be extinct. ...
The Problem in the Church
The education document continues, “Creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream Churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community.”
This statement actually hits the nail on the head. Why is the United Kingdom in its current state as a nation? One of the main reasons is because many Christian leaders have compromised God’s Word starting in Genesis by accepting man’s fallible opinions of evolution and millions of years. If we cannot trust God’s Word in Genesis, how can we trust the Bible in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? The simple answer is that we cannot, which is one of the major reasons we are seeing so many youth leaving our Western churches in droves. ...
Hits the nail on the head indeed - I have to full-heartedly agree with Ham here - an extremely rare occurrence.
Spoiler for Ken Ham - Creation Banned from UK’s State-Funded Schools:
Creation Banned from UK’s State-Funded Schools
Here is another sign of the increasing secularization of the Western world, as secular humanists are trying their hardest to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). It’s the result of a minority viewpoint being imposed on a public that is seemingly oblivious to the ongoing loss of religious liberty and the growing intolerance of Christianity all around.
This week a number of news sources around the world have reported on a series of bias-filled documents produced by the Department of Education in the United Kingdom. One of these documents includes this comment about new science standards: “They explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching ‘creationism’ as scientific fact.” In other words, teaching creation as science has been banned in state-funded schools; instead, the education department wants the belief in molecules-to-man evolution to be taught as fact to UK students.
“Theory of Evolution” vs. “Creationism”
Notice the wording on the UK website. It frames the issue as “the theory of evolution” vs. “creationism.” Why do they not present it as evolution vs. creation? Because that would make creation sound more legitimate. As we have consistently stated, evolution does not even qualify as a valid scientific theory. Furthermore, secularists will gladly use the term creationism, indicating that it is a belief system and is not scientific, but they avoid the term evolutionism. Is there even such a word? Dr. David Menton has written an insightful article on the word evolutionism.
The use of the word creationism and avoidance of the word evolutionism is intentional: the secularists want you to believe that evolution (the belief that life arose by natural processes; also called naturalism or atheism) is fact, and creation (the belief that life is designed by the Creator God) is an outdated idea that should be extinct.
Biblical Creation
The document further states, “’Creationism’ . . . is any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution.”
In other words, the UK government has declared that the only acceptable starting point for interpreting evidence about origins is naturalism or atheism. The UK government is now essentially declaring that the state religion is atheism and that this view must be imposed on students as fact.
Biblical creation as described in Genesis 1–2 is clearly opposed to molecules-to-man evolution. When we take God at His Word, we understand that He created the universe as a whole and all life in it.
The Problem in the Church
The education document continues, “Creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream Churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community.”
This statement actually hits the nail on the head. Why is the United Kingdom in its current state as a nation? One of the main reasons is because many Christian leaders have compromised God’s Word starting in Genesis by accepting man’s fallible opinions of evolution and millions of years. If we cannot trust God’s Word in Genesis, how can we trust the Bible in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? The simple answer is that we cannot, which is one of the major reasons we are seeing so many youth leaving our Western churches in droves.
If you have not read my coauthored book Already Gone, I highly encourage you to do so. Then share it with pastors, other Christian leaders, school teachers, etc. The book is backed with statistics and research into the mass exodus of our youth in America from the church, and what we can do to stop it both here and in the UK. This book is freely available to read online.
Science Confirms the Bible
The education document states further, “Creationism . . . does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.”
Directly contrary to what the documents state, observational science consistently confirms the Bible. Furthermore, Bible-based predictions can lead to scientific discoveries. And as I showed very clearly in my February debate with Bill Nye, biblical creationists can be great scientists and make leading technological achievements.
Starting Points
The document goes on to state, “The parties further recognize that the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.”
In other words, the UK’s education officials have a starting point when discussing origins and God is already ruled out! Only one view is allowed to be taught to students: naturalism. Thus, no matter what evidence is found, students have to be taught to interpret that evidence within an atheistic framework.
Religion vs. Fact
Finally, the document states, “The Secretary of State acknowledges that clauses . . . do not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.”
So, UK classes can discuss what they call “creationism” in “Religious Education” courses, but only if it is not presented as true!
Rejoicing in Their Rejection of God
A UPI article provides some of the background of this recent development. They report, “The British Humanist Association has been lobbying against the instruction of creationism since 2011 with its Teach Evolutionism, Not Creationism campaign” and “is currently celebrating the UK government’s declaration.” We all need to wake up to the fact that atheists are celebrating the news because they have been successful in imposing their anti-God religion on this current generation of students, and perhaps future generations. And sadly, many Christian leaders in the UK are helping the atheists when they accept evolutionary views and teach generations in the church to accommodate the secularist religion into God’s Word!
Interestingly, the UPI article features a picture of the main hall of our Creation Museum, with this caption: “This display in the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky appears to depict a young prehistoric man coexisting with a velociraptor, an [sic] carnivorous dinosaur and an especially lethal predator. The United Kingdom just banned the teaching of creationism as scientifically valid in all public schools.” In contrast, we use the same scene from the museum on our “Dinosaurs and Humans” topic page which highlights the evidence that dinosaurs and humans existed together, since both were made on Day Six of Creation Week.
Spiritual Battle
We are in a spiritual battle: “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12). Thus it is vital to bring up our children “in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). This year’s theme for the Answers in Genesis ministry in the U.S. and UK is “Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids” (based on Galatians 1:4). To help teach children biblical truths, all children ages 12 and under can come to the Creation Museum free of charge in 2014 (with the purchase of a full-priced adult or senior admission to accompany them).
Teaching our children starts in the home, of course. We must be sure to stand strong on the authority of God’s Word in every area—equipped to give answers for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15). How can we stop this degradation of nations? By seeing hearts turned to our Creator and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ!
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying, Ken Ham
What is quite faszinating is following the multiple links in this "rant" - here is one of them:
What is nice is that it seems indeed to have arrived in the heads of creationists, that “theory” has another meaning in science than it has in common tongue.
Now it's "not even a theory" instead of the old "just a theory". Ha! Evolution in action!
Evolution: Not Even a Theory
Although some Christians have attacked evolution as “just a theory,” that would be raising Darwin’s idea to a level it doesn’t deserve.
A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe something—an educated guess. To test this assumption, scientists conduct experiments that either disprove or correlate with the hypothesis.
Over time, if a hypothesis continues to stand up to scrutiny and many different experiments, the scientific community may begin referring to it as a “theory.” In essence, this means that because the hypothesis has not been disproved over many years and no other known hypothesis works, then we can be reasonably sure that it’s accurate.
Theories, however, are not imperishable. If new technology allows better experimentation, for example, a theory may need to be discarded. (See Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs).
Where Evolution Falls Short
Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.
Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.
Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.
So What Is It?
Evolution, at its core, is a necessary requirement of naturalism. Since naturalists cannot allow a higher power, they must rely on a form of spontaneous generation and the unguided development of life. Either someone or something created, or nature created itself.
Because naturalism depends on this assumption, evolution artificially carries the weight of a theory for naturalists—without meeting the requirements. Evolution has been grafted in simply out of the desire to deny the Creator or to deny His power and authority.
No Need for a Theory of Origins
Ultimately, we have no need for a theory about the origin of life and the universe. God, our Creator, gave us a perfect, factual account of how and when He created, and how humanity came to be. While we can—and should—study His universe, He graciously provided the proper framework to truly understand—the Bible.
Evolutionary ideas are simply one way in which humans seek to deny God’s authority. In fact, all of us are guilty of this; all of us have rebelled from Him and deserve death. But because of His great love, God provided a means of being rescued through His Son, Jesus Christ, so that we may be made right with Him again (see The Gospel of Jesus Christ).
They also recommend buying a DVD:
4 Power Questions to Ask an Evolutionist
Do you struggle to find an appropriate response to the proponents of evolution? In this presentation, Mike Riddle equips you to turn the tables by asking your evolutionist friends four simple yet powerful questions. Learn more!
I would love to know and answer these – but I don’t want to spend money on it…
We could at a later point in time also go about the game: “What would I have said to Ken Ham at this and that point in the Nye/Ham debate?”
I for one was shouting things at my laptop while watching it! But I find Nye did very well overall.
Over to you guys!
since I gave up hope on further womenfolk taking part in on topic action
Please chill out. And don't pick apart my posts, especially in a thread that's about something else, not your ban or about your insanity. If you have a problem with that, PM me. For now, I'm locking this thread. I'm sorry to the other posters in here, but this is just a temporary lock until this nightmare is over.
Bookmarks