User Profile: COMEBACKSOON

COMEBACKSOON

Member Since: March 19, 2013

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [3] October 17, 2014 at 11:37am

    Hi Mot: A complete “orchard of life” model is neither useful nor necessary, it simply shows a different view of how life is related – many original ancestors as opposed to the evolutionary single ancestor for all life. Evolutionists would need to show that all life is related, thus the necessity for the complete “tree of life” model. Of course, it doesn’t work. Also, we both observe many genetic similarities between all life forms on earth. You and others who hold an evolutionary worldview interpret this as evidence of common descent, while creationists interpret this as evidence of common designer. Neither of us are using science when we form beliefs about the unobservable past, even if those beliefs are attached to things we observe in the present. The tree of life cannot be tested or repeated – thus not science. It is in fact a religious symbol.

  • [1] October 16, 2014 at 10:28pm

    K so everyone knows the Oort Cloud is made up, right? Comets have short lives, so to explain their existence in a multi-billion year old universe worldview, this guy Oort just, you know, made it up. There is NO observable evidence for the existence of the Oort cloud. Old-earth believers just pretend that its real so they don’t have to face the fact that comets shouldn’t exist in such an old universe.

    https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/8-short-lived-comets/

  • October 16, 2014 at 6:08pm

    GUP, don’t have much time, but He called the light “day” and the darkness He called “night”. Thus, “evening and morning were the first day” = “one period of darkness followed by one period of light”. While this does not support the idea that the creation days were “regular 24 hour days”, neither does it specifically contradict it. More importantly, though, it does rule out the idea of theistic evolution via the “day/age” interpretation, as complex life is biologically suited to a much shorter light/dark cycle, and thus, it is supposed, a regular light/dark cycle must have forced them to evolve this way.

  • [3] October 16, 2014 at 5:14pm

    The Bible says that God called the original creation “very good”. If He was referring to a world full of disease, suffering, and death, as theistic evolutionists believe, I would not care to know Him. To say “God thinks suffering is very good” is far more blasphemous than saying “The word that God delivered us can be trusted.”

    Observable science is always found to be perfectly consistent with a young earth and “orchard of life” phylogenetic model. Those who claim that creationists believe religion and science are incompatible are obfuscating observable, testable and repeatable science with the enormous and unsupportable extrapolations of present day observations into the unobservable past. Evolution, radiometric dating methods, and the “tree of life” phylogenetic model are wholly dependent upon such extrapolations. Furthermore, such theories must hold as their basis ideas which fly in the face of observational science, see abiogenesis and the Big Bang. In other words, both worldviews are dependent upon events which violate the laws of nature as we observe them happening today, yet only one worldview allows for such violations.

    But trusting God’s word will mean that lots of people won’t like us. Friendship with the world is enmity with God. Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you!

    Responses (2) +
  • August 15, 2014 at 4:15pm

    I didn’t say scientific evidence, I just said evidence (logical and empirical). Your demand that religious truths to be scientifically discernable is unreasonable and illogical. The product of scientific study is technological, and not philosophical, advancement.

    For a very basic example of a logical and empirical evidence which supports my religious beliefs, consider this: (1) The universe is not past eternal, but began to exist. (2) All of my experiences tell me that everything that exists has a cause. (3) Therefore, the universe must have been caused to exist. Exactly what caused the universe to exist cannot be empirically proven, however there is a very old, very special book that claims to deliver an account of that cause. From here, a rational person must endeavor to determine whether or not that book is trustworthy. This is not a scientific endeavor. To assume that the book is not trustworthy without studying the book and its history is irrational, lazy, and ignorant.

  • August 15, 2014 at 2:49pm

    Eutope, what you and Dawkins both misunderstand is that Christianity specifically, and theism generally, are not “evidence-free” belief systems. Dawkins simply rejects the logical and empirical evidences which support them, and then, rather than treat those who disagree with him respectfully, he pretends those evidences simply don’t exist, and paints us all as unreasonable, unthinking idiots.

    Dawkins said, “They’re entitled simply to say ‘oh that’s my faith, I believe it, you’re not allowed to question it and you’re not allowed to ask me why I hold it,” That may be true of Islam, and may go a long way toward explaining the last 1400 years of slaughter that that particular religion has caused. However, Christianity invites criticism, and the followers of Christ are explicitly commanded to “be prepared to give an answer to EVERYONE who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15). Dawkins relies on misrepresentations in order to support his blind faith of materialism.

    Furthermore, in the last century we have seen how blind faith in evolution (materialism) leads its adherents to commit genocide in the name of “natural selection”.

  • July 14, 2014 at 3:43pm

    So people are only gay when they are having gay sex, and you want “equal rights for gay people”. Does that mean you want people to be able to vote, drive, and work while having gay sex? What an idiot. Go bump yourself.

  • [9] June 25, 2014 at 10:46am

    It’s a false dichotomy. The debate is not over whether or not man has any impact on climate change, but whether or not man has significant impact on climate change. Furthermore, there is debate over whether or not climate change will lead to catastrophic circumstances. And what’s more, since way more people die of cold than of heat each year, there is debate about whether global warming would be a bad thing at all.

    Typical alinskyite politicized science. Evolution to justify might-makes-right rule, and global warming to justify overregulation of commerce. Throw in the dumbing down of education and overwhelming of welfare systems, and you have your bloodless communist takeover in less than a century.

  • June 23, 2014 at 11:05am

    Mot – congratulations, you have checkmated your strawman. I have used the term “macroevolution” interchangeably with terms like “molecules to man” evolution, due to the contested definition of macroevolution. You know well that creationists contend that microevolutionary mechanisms cannot account for changes beyond the “kind” level, which is above the species level. The word “kind” is used in the Bible, which predates modern classification schemes. Kind is generally understood to be close to the genus level of classification.

    Thus creationists do not contend that natural processes can produce new species. But a new species of dog is still a dog. Thus, observational science is consistent with God’s word that animals will reproduce after their kinds.

    You said “…you won’t need to post that anymore.” As I already mentioned, I stated my challenge in a simplified form, more in reference to a well known (but never directly addressed) creationist challenge. You addressed the simplified form, but not the actual challenge.

    My note on incest was to point out that if mutations are known to be generally detrimental, then this would utterly invalidate the theory that unguided mutations produced the variety and complexity of life on the planet today. In other words, Darwinian evolution runs contrary to observable science.

  • June 20, 2014 at 3:17pm

    MOT – Something has occurred to me, and I wonder if there is a standard evolutionist answer. If random mutation naturally tends to produce more complex and beneficial traits and functions, then why don’t evolutionists encourage incest? Closely related parents are more likely to possess the same mutations, and thus are more likely to pass those mutations down to their children.

    Of course everyone knows that naturally occurring mutations naturally tend to be detrimental, which is why we marry outside our families, so that one parent’s existing mutations might not be passed down, or if they are, they will be masked by the unmutated genes inherited from the other parent.

    Or would you say we’ve been doing it wrong?

  • June 20, 2014 at 1:52pm

    MOT – My point is that if you say that duplication + mutation results in “new genetic information”, then so does plain mutation by itself. What you are calling “new information” is merely a sequence of base pairs that was not previously present. Mutation accomplishes that all by itself, without the need for duplication.

    Of course, information is more complex than that, and so is the production of increasingly complex traits and functions required by macroevolution, which has never been observed. In order to respond to the creationist challenge, you’ll need to show the process whereby increasingly complex and beneficial traits and functions can be produced, resulting in an entirely new kind of creature.

    I acknowledge that I was not perfectly accurate in my challenge of evolution – after all, we only get 1500 characters to make our argument.

    A bacteria gaining the ability to consume whatever food is provided in its environment is still a bacteria. Duplication/mutation can never turn a bacteria into a fish, or a fish into a dog, or a dog into a human. That requires new and more complex information that duplication/mutation can produce, nor can any mechanism that has ever been observed.

  • June 20, 2014 at 12:12pm

    Mot – Duplication does not add new information. The first step in the two step process described in the video results in a gene pool having exactly the same amount of genetic information as before. Thus, duplication + mutation is just as degenerative as simple mutation. You began with functional genetic information that was supposedly naturally selected and allowing the creature to function in its environment, then you went and mixed it all up. Sometimes this can result in beneficial results (adaptation and specialization), but always at the cost of the robustness and efficiency of the original functions. This is what has always been observed.

    Your simplistic youtube video notwithstanding, no one has ever observed a natural mutation that adds entirely new genetic information, resulting in a superior and more complex trait or function. Duplication + mutation cannot account for the scale and complexity of new information required for a light sensitive spot to evolve into a functioning eyeball.

    “the main point of the post was Creationist want their BELIEF taught as FACT in a SCIENCE classroom.” You are uninformed. Creationists contend that evolutionism and creationism are both worldview dependent interpretations of scientific evidence, thus government schools should say as little as possible about both.

  • [1] June 19, 2014 at 11:59pm

    Mot, does the field of philogenetics serve any purpose at all except to validate the naturalists’ theory of evolution (ironically, since the entire field is riddled with unverifiable assumptions, just like the theory that it’s built around)? What useful knowledge or inventions have arisen from this field of circular reasoning?

    To my knowledge (I could be wrong), the orchard of life model merely presents a visualization of an alternative interpretation of presently observable fossil and biological data. Naturalists believe in a single common ancestor, creationists believe there were many.

    We do not gain knowledge by adhering to assumptions massed upon assumptions which violate multiple observable laws. That’s how we grow dumber. Philogenetics first assumes that biological diversity is the result of molecules to man evolution, which is dependent upon a never observed mechanism whereby new genetic information can be added to the gene pool, which supposedly happened billions of times after life sprang from unlife, violating the law of biogenesis. Then, philogenetics assumes that creatures that look alike or share similar designs or features have a common ancestor. Then, ancestry lines are filled in with creatures that we really know very little about, but hey their fossils look a lot like it might fit, so in you go! Then we find out we were clearly wrong, so we move A to B, and voila! Now it’s correct for sure this time.

    What a joke.

  • June 19, 2014 at 6:13pm

    Utopia – Good call. At the end of the day though, the argument boils down to authority. He trusts in the honesty and intelligence of historians who say one thing, and you’re saying you trust in the honesty and intelligence of historians that say another thing. Ultimately, we trust in the honesty and intelligence of God, and he does not. Hopefully he changes his mind, because no one will enter heaven without being transformed by Him into the perfect versions of ourselves, what we were always meant to become, but could only become willingly. I won’t give my car to a mechanic that I don’t trust, and JROOK, today, wouldn’t give his self to a God he doesn’t trust.

    All we can do is be witnesses to the truth. In this situation, the truth is that we are arguing about authorities that make scientific claims, not science itself.

  • June 19, 2014 at 5:46pm

    The original text of the Bible has been perfectly maintained, as is proven by various ancient manuscripts. God’s stated purpose in introducing multiple languages to the world at Babel was confound mankind, in the midst of their collective rebellion. Thus, translation issues are to be expected. Anyone who cares to is able to read the text in the original language. There are various tools that help us to understand and teach the word even today (concordances, Hebrew and Greek lexicons, interlinear Bibles). The kingdom of heaven is said to be like a treasure that a man found in a field, then he sold all that he had to buy the field. So don’t expect Biblical revelation to come easy – you might have to “sell all that you have”.

    My TRUST is in God and His Word. I have not personally verified that the genealogies are without gaps, and adding up to 6,000 years, but MEN whom I TRUST have (and all scientific evidence that I have observed is consistent therewith). Likewise, I doubt you have personally used the scientific method to verify the reliability of radiometric dating, thus you TRUST the MEN who claim that they have. Our contest is not in the scientific or scriptural validity of the evidences, but in the TRUSTWORTHINESS of the authorities that we recognize. I’m happy to leave the argument at that, but to say that my beliefs are scientifically invalid is, as you say, “intellectually dishonest”.

  • [-1] June 19, 2014 at 5:27pm

    Utopia – JROOK, in his unbelief, actually brings up some rather fascinating points. Many missionaries have reported finding secluded cultures who were quite familiar with many of the elements of the Christ story. That is the evidence – many cultures that are secluded today have Christ-like stories. JROOK’s interpretation of the evidence (that the Bible was inspired by these stories), is one of many ways that this evidence can be interpreted. We believe the truth is that these stories were retained from what was told to Adam and Eve, and possibly others of the pre flood generations, and that the devil has corrupted the stories in order to produce beliefs like those held by JROOK, enabling him to continue in rebellion against God.

    Remember that the first Christ prophecy was spoken by God, as he cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent, and the serpent would bruise His heel. Thus, if all cultures are descended from Adam and Eve, it is not surprising that we find stories similar to this important prophesy.

    The Druids also read similar stories in the constellations of the zodiac band, including the virgin birth!

    Remember that JROOK is only interpreting the evidence according to his worldview. We can recognize that there are many ways to interpret this evidence, which is necessary, since we must be saved by faith.

  • June 19, 2014 at 5:11pm

    JROOK – You said “if a closed gene pool is presented as the argument for why affricans do not produce offspring that have yellow or red skin”. The closed gene pool is not WHY Africans do not produce yellow or red skinned offspring. The loss of genetic information that was originally present in the closed gene pool, which originally enabled such radical variations, is the reason.

    You said “I don’t necessarily believe that humans evolved from apes”. So you don’t believe in evolution or creation, I guess. Maybe I should clarify that I don’t advocate for the teaching of either in government schools as scientific fact, since both are worldview dependent.

    The question “Why couldn’t God have used evolution to create?” is answered by the fact that the Bible says in various places that death entered the world because of Adam’s sin. Further, on the various days of creation, God said that all was “very good”, but His nature as revealed in the rest of the Bible makes it clear that He does not view death and struggle, the pillars of evolution, as very good.

    If you believe in God and evolution, but not the Bible, then theistic evolution might be a consistent worldview for you. But or Bible believing Christians, it is not.

  • [-1] June 19, 2014 at 4:56pm

    JROOK – You said “And that individuals utilize an ideological or belief based filter to either explain away scientific evidence, like the real age of the earth..or use scientific language to present answers that are clearly not in the text.”

    Evolutionists have a habit of confusing the interpretation of evidence as evidence. “The real age of the earth” is not evidence, as it cannot be directly observed. The age of the earth is inferred from various scientific observations combined with worldview based assumptions. For example, radioisotope dating methods tell us how many parent and daughter isotopes exist within a sample. Evolutionists then take the rate of decay currently observed in laboratories, add the assumptions that (1) nothing could ever cause the rate of decay to be different, (2) none of the daughter isotopes have been added by contamination, and (3) none of the parent isotopes have been lost. If the resulting age of the material fits with the rest of their worldview, they use it, otherwise they throw it out.

  • June 19, 2014 at 4:39pm

    JROOK – changes in skin tone are not evolutionary changes, meaning the observation of such changes does not in the least lend any credence whatsoever to the idea that similar mechanisms could have produced the variety of life on this planet from a single ancestor. Changes leading to “racially” specific features did not require the addition of genetic information, upon which molecules to man evolution is dependent.

    Why don’t you address that? No one has ever observed a natural mutation resulting in the addition of beneficial genetic information, and yet molecules to man evolution is completely dependent on the idea that such an even would have occurred billions of times.

    All of your assertions about the Bible are based on a mistaken idea of its purpose. God inspired these men to write what they wrote so that we could believe and be saved. That is the stated purpose of the Bible (John 20:31). Given that purpose, why do you suppose that it would be more “detailed and illuminating”, and in what way? And whatever gave you the idea that the Bible tells us “all we need to know or understand” about the universe or God? I guess that’s too many questions to expect you to answer, but I would urge you to think about them.

  • [-1] June 19, 2014 at 4:18pm

    JROOK – Again, just like every other evolutionist arguing against something you don’t understand, you insist on using the word species to challenge the account of the ark. The word that is used in the Bible is “kinds”, therefore you are arguing against a straw man.

    Two of each “kind” were brought aboard the ark. There are far less “kinds” than there are species. And since each representative of the various kinds would have been more nearly genetically perfect, the potential for variation after they left the ark would have been far higher than we observe today, even without divine guidance.

    So get it through your head – creationists believe in variation within the created kinds. Thus the chihuahua and the wolf have a common ancestor, but the wolf and the blowfish do not.

123 To page: Go