Skip to comments.
Common Creationist Arguments
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/index.shtml ^
Posted on 03/08/2002 7:55:48 AM PST by JediGirl
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 281-299 next last
To: LtKerst
JediGirl Has a religion, It is evolution.
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does Christianity. there is more evidence for Christ's resurection.(Eye witness accounts) than anything to support evolution. Evolution requires if it is to be believed, "Transitional Species" 1/2 reptile,1/2 mammal to show the supposed crossover to the next level. they find thousands of fossils in the rocks. Of animals of specific Species, but not one single Transitional has ever been found. yet there should be thousands found.
JediGirl or others might site Archiopterix as a transitional Species, but it fails. It is a fully functional Bird. the reptile "scales" could be in fact the fossilised tiny leg feather patterns typical on some birds today. all the so-called transitional examples today are no more than single species with no transitional evidence.
JediGirl is at war within Herself, Trying to fill a hole in her sole that only the Love of God can occupy. as with all evolutionists, They need something to believe in because the alternative is too believe in a Creator,and The creator says we are sinfull and separated from him, yet in His Love for Jedigirl and all of us, He sent his Son Jesus to Die on the Cross for Jedigirl's sins and Mine,So that we would have a way back Home to our Father.
Evolution is a Lie, generated by the "Father of Lies" Satan, To decieve Man, and woman, and take them on a path away from God and toward spiritual Destruction.!
If Jedigirl looks deep enough into Herself, God has placed a desire inside us all to want to know Him, and He Promises that if We ask, He will answer.
Surrender, Jedigirl, To the greatest Love there is and to a Truth that will set you Free.
I bought into the Lie of Evolution, But My eyes are open now I have thrown away Man's Knowlege, For God's.
Its path is upward.
Creation and Evolution both take a faith.
Choose this Day whom you will serve.
33 posted on 3/8/02 8:37 AM Hawaii-Aleutian by LtKerst
To: Secret Agent Man
Oh dear, I missed these when addressing 2 and 3. They're easy ones too, so I'll go ahead with them.
5. If evolution is true, and evolution is continuing just as it has for the last billions of years, why can't we get a cat from a dog? Why can't we get a plant from an animal? Not even one example exists, nor any kind of hybrid cat-dog or horse-cow. We always assume to expect that cats bring forth cats, etc.
Ah, I've not heard the "cat-from-dog" (or vice-versa) strawman in some time. Noting that you cannot get a dog to give birth to a cat doesn't falsify evolution, because that's not a claim or conclusion of evolution. Nevermind that going from one distinct species to another takes more time than most could arrange for a simple labratory experiment (except for possibly some species with very short lifespans), that scientsts can't get a dog to produce a cat is somehow "proof" that evolution is a sham. Doesn't work that way. First, I've not seen it stated anywhere that cats evolved from dogs or vice-versa. More likely they shared a common ancestor somewhere far down the line and that ancestor's offspring split down a path, one ending up at the "dog" line and the other at "cat" (and possibly untold others going elsewhere). In theory you might be able to select and breed a dog, taking the offspring with the closest matching DNA, and keep breeding them until you get back to the common ancestor, then trying to get a cat from the subsequent offspring...when you have a few million years free to try the experiment, let me know. As for plants to animals -- well, when you have tens of millions of years free, maybe you can set that experiment up as well.
6. The scientific principle demands observable, repeatable results. Show me where scientists created life out of nothing.
Oh dear, the common fallacy of mixing evolution and abiogenesis. Sorry, but evolution is a theory dealing with existing life forms, it makes no claims as to where that life originated. The hypothesis of life emerging from a reaction in a pool of biochemicals is not a part of evolution and falsifying it will not falsify evolution. The first life forms could have formed that way, or they could have been somehow seeded from space or they could have been zap-poofed into existence by some divine entity (though the latter case could never be scientifically tested), but none of those methods would have any bearing on the validity of evolution -- evolution works on the life forms regardless of how the first life forms got on the planet.
42
posted on
03/08/2002 9:53:06 AM PST
by
Dimensio
To: Dimensio
I would sugest alerting the media and the scientific community when you come up with these transitional forms, as you will be the first to do so. When you do present your research, you may not want to include Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Australeopithicus and all the rest of the so-called major finds, that have all been debunked as pig bones, chimpanzee bones, and combinations of human and animal bones. Funny that even though it has come to light that these scientists have either had to admit or others have outed them that they were deliberately crating a fraud, the textbooks never seem to be updated to make students aware of these facts.
I look forward to your forthcoming replies to the rest of the statements.
To: Harrison Bergeron
"Creationism is a doctrine, not a theory."
And conversely, (macro-) Evolution is a doctrine, not a theory.
It is NOT hard science, not in the way Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and the like are.
It cannot be verified by repeatable experiments. Only bolstered by an elitist mindset (and "Creationists are maroons").
44
posted on
03/08/2002 9:54:16 AM PST
by
Psalm 73
To: Harrison Bergeron
Hey, it's kind of hard to parse your way through all those freaking dashes and hyphens and semicolons and accents grave, and what have you. Stream-of-consciousness posting just reeks of a certain overweening pretentiousness to me - what can I say?
To: JediGirl
Excellent article. Lots of good points.
To: JediGirl
To: Secret Agent Man
Mr. Secret Agent Man,
Your fallacious illogical arguments are showing.
Ever read this?
Love, Dr. Evil.
To: f.Christian
"I bought into the Lie of Evolution, But My eyes are open now I have thrown away Man's Knowlege, For God's. " I know exactly what you mean. I bought into the lie of electricity. Nobody's ever seen that either. How does it feel to have God's knowledge? Maybe you can answer the age old question: Can God make a person so heavy with hubris that He, Himself, can't lift that person?
To: Secret Agent Man
When you do present your research, you may not want to include Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Australeopithicus and all the rest of the so-called major finds, that have all been debunked as pig bones, chimpanzee bones, and combinations of human and animal bones
I wasn't aware that Australeopithicus had been debunked, could you perhaps point out a reference?
As for Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, I wouldn't claim them. Very few scientists believed that they were genuine specimens when they were first presented, and scientists quickly exposed them for what they were.
Many Creationists like to point to Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, not mentioning that they were never accepted by the scientific community at large and that it was scientists who accepted evolution who exposed them -- not Creationists.
BTW, do you have a response to my comments regarding the earth's rotation or magnetic field "decay"?
50
posted on
03/08/2002 9:58:27 AM PST
by
Dimensio
To: Dimensio
It's spelled "soul". You assume too much. Perhaps he has spotted that JediGirl has damaged one of her shoes.
To: Dimensio
To: JediGirl
According to Dan Quayle and the other hate mongers at this conference, It only took 5 or 6 lines for the writer to characterize a former vice-President and countless others as hate mongers. This alone invalidates any opinion he holds as irrational thought.
To: general_re
...or that her fish has been injured. The point being, we just don't know.
To: general_re
You assume too much. Perhaps he has spotted that JediGirl has damaged one of her shoes.
And that the damage could be repaired by filling the hole in the shoe with "God"?
Heh, that's kinda funny. I'd just get new shoes myself :)
55
posted on
03/08/2002 10:01:50 AM PST
by
Dimensio
To: general_re
It's OK. I just realized you were right. I mistook zeal for sarcasm. It's an easy mistake.
To: Secret Agent Man
And don't forget your fraudulent numbers about earth's rotation.
To: Rippin
they are common sense Americans who simply want schools to teach the truth about the serious scientific problems with evolutionary theory. Got any examples?
To: RadioAstronomer
Got any examples?
Secret Agent Man posted quite a few...of course, many of them could be readily identified as being based in bad science (like the "magnetic field problem"), but a bad example is still an example, right?
59
posted on
03/08/2002 10:08:33 AM PST
by
Dimensio
To: Harrison Bergeron
Truth will do the opposite(no hubris)...in faith-revelation(justification) it is 100%--immediate!
In life-reality--the long term(sanctification)...it is an ongoing struggle you hope--trust and pray God will be the winner!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 281-299 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson