The new "PLAYERproof" comback for evolutionists.....

[InkL0sed]

I like how you've now replaced "fool" with "PLAYER".

Don't worry though. I'm sure Jesus did the same thing with people he disagreed with too.

And I'm what you might call a Jesusxpert.

I believe that's spelled "Jesuxpert".

Just thought you'd want to know how you spell your profession before you start going on radio and whatnot.

[natty dread]

Jay...

don't ever change.

[Timminz]

I like how you've now replaced "fool" with "PLAYER".

Don't worry though. I'm sure Jesus did the same thing with people he disagreed with too.

And I'm what you might call a Jesusxpert.

I believe that's spelled "Jesuxpert".

Just thought you'd want to know how you spell your profession before you start going on radio and whatnot.

Ah yes, you're correct. Thanks for pointing that out. I have a big radio show to do this morning.

[barterer2002]

Perhaps I'm dense but I just don't see why Geologic features disprove Darwin. Could someone explain that to me.

[PLAYER57832]

Why would anyone think that is in any way proof against evolution? Only humans have that intelligence, though some apes apparently come close. However, biologically "close" still means a very, very long time and a great distance.

Was that a serious response to my question?

\
Yes

If we all evolved from protien why hasn't any other creature built flying machines?

If it is, I never heard anything about it. Is there documentation?

Come again? Animals have never built flying machines, that I know of. I did say that some monkeys and perhaps a few other animals have been trained to basically punch buttons, pull levers to make various machines work.

My real point, though was why you would think this would ever be a logical argument for a short creation or against evolution.

Besides, I and most Christians feel that God basically began with evolution, then at some point we went from being whatever we were in common descendency with apes to human beings. Without getting technical (largely because there IS no technical answer, this is all just possibilities, ideas, guesses, etc.), Genesis refers to that part, when we became human. I believe the Bible is literal, but Genesis was not intended to refer to a specific time period. The term yom is not approximated by the English word "day", it is an exact translation. Both can mean a specific 24 hour time period, but they can also mean many other things. The point of Genesis is to distinguish our God as the one who created all, etc. It is not a scientific explanation of Creation and should never be taken to mean such. If you wish to see Genesis with that kind of analysis, then most of Genesis has to be false. I don't believe that is the case. I believe that a lot of Genesis was intended to refer to things in ways that people, particularly of that day, could understand. Genesis doesn't directly mention snow, either.. yet.

As for dogs.. we split off from the apes a very, very long time ago. The distance between us and dogs is even longer. When you add in the extremely long time frames, it does make sense.


This is part of why we say Creationists refute something other than real evolution. You come up with crazy examples such as jay saying why don't we see giraffes with lizard skin (or whatever it was). Each step of evolution springs from another, but only in a very, very, very slow way.

As for the "why don't we see evolution around us". Well, since evolution occurs over many thousands of years, why would we? Except, the truth is we actually are seeing it in some small ways. That is not means for celebration, though. I means we are in very dangerous times, when species are dying off at phenomenal rates.

Does your bible look like this?

24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

I ask because the things you write lead me to believe you should edit it and take out the "mistakes" and "mistranslations".

Why would you think I say they are mistakes? Like I said in another thread, if you go by creationist websites you get an extremely distorted view of what evolution is supposed to mean and require.

It follows pretty exactly the path set out by evolutionists. The only error is in people who feel "yom" has to mean only one revolution of the earth, even before there ever was an earth. I consider that to be a mistranslation. I am not myself an expert in Hebrew, but then, neither are you (you have said this before) There have always been those who felt this was supposed to refer to God's time, not our timeline. And yes, there have been people feeling it must be viewed more narrowly.

[PLAYER57832]

If He did decide to employ millions of years of violence and suffering and pain and death to create Adam and Adam had a fleshy mom and pop, what made him any different than them?

Again, How does someone who believes in Him, call "life", "suffering and pain". Is not the 6000 years of life you do believe in not beautiful and splendid and a miracle? Or do you feel it was 6000 years of pain and suffering, and that life is punishment?

If not, then if life is a gift from Him, which of course it is, whether its from God, allah, ra or zeus, budda or by accident, and 6000 years of life is a gift, than is not a million years of life not a million times greater a gift? Is not a little suffering and pain, a worthy price of the gift of life, or has your life been so full of pain and suffering, that you wish you never had such life?

Do you suppose that all life that got to live would have preferred to not have this chance of life, this ultimate gift?

Or do you resent the life of HE you call a creator, thereby throwing back His supposed gift in His infinite face?

Do you not suppose that millions of years of life, evolving into different life forms, and ending up with the life we have today, which we literally are now the keepers of, not a greater gift than just being planted for a few years?

How would a God who gave millions of years of life, feel about it being called just suffering and pain, by someone who claims to live their life for him, by someone, who instead of helping more people in this world with many, many problems, instead just antagonizes people who really care, and want to actually help His children, and not just ignore the many problems they face?

Is it not embarrassing that those who do not even believe in this God, understand what real sin is, or respect the gift of life even more than those who pretend to believe and worship Him?

Do you suppose an omniscient God would not see this, or understand it fully?

For someone who does not consider himself Christian, I have to say this is one of the best explanations I have read from anyone.

[PLAYER57832]

Why the f*ck does evolution disprove the existence of God?

You can believe in both.

Most do, but there is a growing group that insists the two are not compatable. If they are not already affecting school curricula in your area, they likely will soon. However, they don't begin, as they tried in the 80's, with direct opposition. Instead, they build a careful story that teaches kids, essentially not to trust mainline science. In one sense, that is OK, IF the kids can tell the difference between things that are proven and things that are not, but usually they cannot, particularly in today's internet world. Just look briefly at some of lionz many pictures and explanations. Then step back and think if they would make sense if you did not already know differently? Also, look at statistics for the number of people who accept that the earth is young. Further, when you realize that many of these people are moving into positions of real power (I read a couple years back that 25% of the younger Bush administration believed the earth was young, for example), then it gets worrisome.

I can absolutely live with people who say "I believe the Bible says x, I know science disagrees, but that is what I believe". The problem is that there is a whole group, more or less fronted by Dr Morris and the Institute for Creation Research ( link: http://www.icr.org ), who has set up an alternate version of "science". It is pretty slick. I urge you to check it out just once, to see what they are saying. They change their articles often. In truth, the articles are so varied and even contradictory that it really seems to me that they are less about putting forward a real story of Creation and more about simply attacking science in any way they can. Anyway, when someone puts forward lies in the name of Christ, it angers me not just as a scientist, but as a Christian.

[PLAYER57832]

"If YOU knew what evolution was...." blah, blah, blah.


I don't think there is a person beyond 7th grade who is unfamiliar with evolution, so UNLESS you evolutionists are going to try and REDEFINE it, you lose!

So why have you never been able to provide any real evidence to support your believe and that actually counters evolutionary theory. Or, for that matter, that even shows you really grasp more than the barest outline of Evolutionary theories. (note the "s")

[jonesthecurl]

"If YOU knew what evolution was...." blah, blah, blah.


I don't think there is a person beyond 7th grade who is unfamiliar with evolution, so UNLESS you evolutionists are going to try and REDEFINE it, you lose!

And that's your comeback worth making its own thread about?

"You say blah blah blah, I say you lose?"
Really?

[2dimes]

Jones, I think it better if we go for some Indian food and pints. Canadian 20oz pints ok with you?

It's going to get pretty convoluted if I keep quoting and I've way beyond lost interest. If anyone wants to check it they will have to go back and read it on the other pages.

[jonesthecurl]

Jones, I think it better if we go for some Indian food and pints. Canadian 20oz pints ok with you?

It's going to get pretty convoluted if I keep quoting and I've way beyond lost interest. If anyone wants to check it they will have to go back and read it on the other pages.

Done. Can we get popadoms and chutneys to start with?

[2dimes]

Done. Can we get popadoms and chutneys to start with?

[action=swoons] Oh baby, I love it when you talk "eating".[/action]

Where's IZ man these days? If he doesn't eat indian food it's time we introduced him.

[jonesthecurl]

Actually I'll be in Canada in a few weeks.

[jonesthecurl]

I have to try to remember the name of that awful beer that tasted just like Budweiser, and avoid it.

[Timminz]

I have to try to remember the name of that awful beer that tasted just like Budweiser, and avoid it.

Molson Canadian?

[rockfist]

Why the f*ck does evolution disprove the existence of God?

You can believe in both.

Most do, but there is a growing group that insists the two are not compatable. If they are not already affecting school curricula in your area, they likely will soon. However, they don't begin, as they tried in the 80's, with direct opposition. Instead, they build a careful story that teaches kids, essentially not to trust mainline science. In one sense, that is OK, IF the kids can tell the difference between things that are proven and things that are not, but usually they cannot, particularly in today's internet world. Just look briefly at some of lionz many pictures and explanations. Then step back and think if they would make sense if you did not already know differently? Also, look at statistics for the number of people who accept that the earth is young. Further, when you realize that many of these people are moving into positions of real power (I read a couple years back that 25% of the younger Bush administration believed the earth was young, for example), then it gets worrisome.

I can absolutely live with people who say "I believe the Bible says x, I know science disagrees, but that is what I believe". The problem is that there is a whole group, more or less fronted by Dr Morris and the Institute for Creation Research ( link: http://www.icr.org ), who has set up an alternate version of "science". It is pretty slick. I urge you to check it out just once, to see what they are saying. They change their articles often. In truth, the articles are so varied and even contradictory that it really seems to me that they are less about putting forward a real story of Creation and more about simply attacking science in any way they can. Anyway, when someone puts forward lies in the name of Christ, it angers me not just as a scientist, but as a Christian.

Ok I briefly looked at it and it looks like a bunch of well written BS. I happen to believe that if you take the Bible literally you are the very definition of naive. It is the most heavily edited book in history.

[Woodruff]

I like how you've now replaced "fool" with "PLAYER".

Actually, he replaced "full" with "PLAYER" because he's too illiterate to understand the difference between "full" and "fool".

Why the f*ck does evolution disprove the existence of God?
You can believe in both.

Absolutely. Evolution could easily just be God's means to an end.

[jay_a2j]

I have to try to remember the name of that awful beer that tasted just like Budweiser, and avoid it.

Samuel Adams?

[Woodruff]

Perhaps I'm dense but I just don't see why Geologic features disprove Darwin. Could someone explain that to me.

Because clearly, erosion cannot happen unless there was evolution. After all, they both start with the letter "e" and end in "ion", so they must be the same thing!

[2dimes]

Lionz has "ion" in the middle.

[voice=jeffspicoli]Whoa.[/voice]

[AAFitz]

Why the f*ck does evolution disprove the existence of God?

You can believe in both.

You can believe in anything.

[the.killing.44]

Why the f*ck does evolution disprove the existence of God?

You can believe in both.

You can believe in anything.

[PLAYER57832]

If we all evolved from protien why hasn't any other creature built flying machines?

If it is, I never heard anything about it. Is there documentation?

If this is a serious response, it shows an utter lack of any knowledge of evolution.

Scientists don't try to "make sense" of evolution, they just study the evidence. Evolution is the theory that matches the available evidence. The evidence came first, the theory second.

Creationism, by contrast, starts with an idea and simply disgards anything that doesn't fit. Worse, all the "evidence" put forward is either not really evidence supporting creationism as opposed to evolution (often times they take real information, but decide to interpret it only in a way that will fit their theory and claim there is "proof" that any other idea is wrong, without actually providing any such proof), is actually fabricated (so-called footprints in the age of dinosaurs, for example) or is something taken so far out of any context of reality that it can only be believed by people who truly don't understand the real science behind earth processes ( lionz arguments about geothermal geysers, the canyon that was formed quickly, etc) Moreover, most of what is put forth doesn't even truly disprove anything. Most creationist websites try to poke holes in evolution, but truly fail miserably, mostly they just show complete misunderstandings (being generous there, in truth I believe a lot of it is quite intentional "misunderstanding") of science.

Besides, I and most Christians feel that God basically began with evolution, then at some point we went from being whatever we were in common descendency with apes to human beings. Without getting technical (largely because there IS no technical answer, this is all just possibilities, ideas, guesses, etc.), Genesis refers to that part, when we became human. I believe the Bible is literal, but Genesis was not intended to refer to a specific time period. The term yom is not approximated by the English word "day", it is an exact translation. Both can mean a specific 24 hour time period, but they can also mean many other things. The point of Genesis is to distinguish our God as the one who created all, etc. It is not a scientific explanation of Creation and should never be taken to mean such. If you wish to see Genesis with that kind of analysis, then most of Genesis has to be false. I don't believe that is the case. I believe that a lot of Genesis was intended to refer to things in ways that people, particularly of that day, could understand. Genesis doesn't directly mention snow, either.. yet.

As for dogs.. we split off from the apes a very, very long time ago. The distance between us and dogs is even longer. When you add in the extremely long time frames, it does make sense.


This is part of why we say Creationists refute something other than real evolution. You come up with crazy examples such as jay saying why don't we see giraffes with lizard skin (or whatever it was). Each step of evolution springs from another, but only in a very, very, very slow way.

As for the "why don't we see evolution around us". Well, since evolution occurs over many thousands of years, why would we? Except, the truth is we actually are seeing it in some small ways. That is not means for celebration, though. I means we are in very dangerous times, when species are dying off at phenomenal rates.

Does your bible look like this?

24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

Yes, exactly what evolutionists say.

25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Again, exactly what evolutionists say.

26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Now, of course the science is nuetral on the "in our image" bit, just as it is neutral about God. God is not proven or disproven through science, so within the parameters of science, one is allowed to believe whatever one wishes.

As for the "rule over", this I take issue with. The original wording is actually more correctly translated to mean that we are to be stewards of the Earth. Yes, it is here for us. However, that does not translate into justification for every action human beings wish to do to the earth. We are not immune from consequences of our errors. God put all the species in the Gulf. Human beings have destroyed much of it. I do not believe destroying God's creations, which he put here for us, is what he intended for us to do. We WILL be harmed by those actions.

However, the general pattern of creation is exactly as set forth by evolutionist, with the possible exception of whales. That, however, is only a possible exception.
Even that is not necessarily a real exception.

More to the point, many, many creatures were omitted. They were omitted because they were not within the experience of the people who laid down the Bible. You can see "hints" that they knew there was more, but it was never, ever intended as a full catalogue of all. It was an explanation of how God created all that people could see around them. And, the order very much cooincides with that laid forth by evolution. The only difference is the time frame. But, the term "yom" is exactly translated to "day". That term was used because both share duel meanings of either a revolution of our earth AND a much longer period of time. The idea that the "day" referenced has to mean a single revolution of our earth before earth even existed is just ridiculous from the outset.

27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

I ask because the things you write lead me to believe you should edit it and take out the "mistakes" and "mistranslations".

No. I read it exactly. But I do not, as creationists wish to do, add in more specific meanings where none are implied or add in "required details" that, again are not specified within the Bible. I believe a real and true reading of the Bible is far more supportive of evolutin that young earth creationism.

And, claims like yours that "I must be trying to change things" is just wrong, and the insistance upon such argument is why I go beyond simple disagreement with young earth creationism.

If there is truth behind the idea, then there is no need to distort and fabricate. Yet, young earth creationists rest a large part of their debates upon false information and distortions.

[PLAYER57832]

"If YOU knew what evolution was...." blah, blah, blah.


I don't think there is a person beyond 7th grade who is unfamiliar with evolution, so UNLESS you evolutionists are going to try and REDEFINE it, you lose!

And yet, despite your repeated claims you have yet to come up with a single piece of real evidence to support your ideas.

[Lionz]

Player,

What suggests to you that you have some understanding of geysers and canyons that I lack? What am I ignorant of? And do you have an example of a creature that is apparently not mentioned in Genesis 1?