Conquer Club

"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 do you continually claim that evolution is something that it is not?

I'm not convinced that the OP makes any sense.

Timminz wrote:So, why do you continually claim that evolution is something that it is not?

jay_a2j wrote:"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!

Because to those of us who do know evolutionary theory, it is quite clear that you don't understand it.

If you want to learn about evolution, you go by what is in creationist websites. Of course, its just easier to sit back and claim we are lying about the theories to which WE subscribe.

In truth, Jay, while a seventh grader can get the "jiist" of evolution and understand some details, to really understand fully what is considered fact and why they are considered facts takes a good deal more than a seventh grade education.

Just as an example few 7th graders really understand what "random" really and truly means in either a mathematical OR scientific sense. You see this all the time in the many dice complaints. They see something called a "normal curve" and vaguely get this idea that it applies to randomness (which, it does.. just not the way they apply it) and then leap to this idea that a string of 2,3, even 20 rolls that are identical is "not random". If they really and truly understood what a random distribution was, they would understand that all such streaks can very much happen, will happen in a true random distribution. its just that with many, many, many rolls, you will see something close to a bell curve. In this case, because there are 5 dice and the win/loss is not actually equal (defenders win ties, roll only 2 dice, etc.), the curve is very, very complicated. The number of rolls necessary to see a true bell curve is probably in the millions.

Another example has to do with hydrological processes. NO one who really and truly understands how water moves would ever insist that the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood. It just was not. However, explaining why take more than 2 paragraphs, unless you already have some knowledge of hydrology. Now, I am in no way saying there is proof that the flood never happened, its just that there isn't the consistant proof it did happen that some creationist websites like to pretend.

Thirdly, this bit about transition fossils. They are real, but explaining why they are not simply misunderstandings, etc takes a great deal of knowledge of anatomy, etc. Also, in amongst the firm stuff are errors and even some outright frauds. BUT, while creationist websites are quite quick to put those forward (the frauds and errors) they ignore most of the very real data that exists AND usually try to claim that evolutionists deny the frauds and errors.

Basically, this is true for most of the discussion.

Jay, if you learn to spell "foolproof", that would be a start.

jay_a2j wrote:"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!

You expect us to take your word on anything when you use the term "fullproof"? Apparently, you were too much of a fool to proof that term.

unless he is full of proof, which would make a nice change.

Player,

Water from the Colorado River enters the Grand Canyon at 2,800 feet or so above sea level and yet the Grand Canyon has a top elevation of 6,900 or so feet maybe. There's snow here that helps point out elevation and that tells a tale worth taking notice of perhaps...



When do rivers flow uphill? What suggests the grand canyon was carved and geologic activity lifted part of it 4,000 or so feet higher than the rest afterwards? Is there not even mainstream geology that claims it was formed in the last one-thousanth of earth's history? It's a washed out spillway that was created as a result of two natural dams being breached and two massive bodies of water coming together to help carve it afterwards maybe.



These both show just upstream from the Grand Canyon or an actual starting point of the Grand Canyon or both perhaps. See a main funneled canyon and also a smaller canyon that the Colorado River sits in? How about provide a theory on where each came from if so?





Do you claim that the Colorado itself carved out both canyons in the first if you see two canyons in the first? Well, see a white dot here?



It's marking one or more thing shown here perhaps...



A type of pothole is shown that forms when whirling rocks caught in an eddy or vortex of a fast-flowing stream grind down carving a cylindrical depression perhaps. If there was not rapidly flowing water 6,654 feet above sea level on top of Echo Cliffs, then what is shown there? You might have already tried to suggest it shows a spot where a puddle melted rock. What backs that up? Do you not see a cylindrical depression?

Note: I pasted and edited stuff after doing so perhaps. You might get the urge to claim you're not willing to discuss the grand canyon outside a young earth creationism thread or get the urge to say there's no question in here you have not already answered or both, but who just brought the grand canyon up and what in here have you actually answered?

thanks, I already had my quota of pasta for the week.

I like some of the things Lionz brings. Many of them are good reads and pretty interesting but yeah, this one seems a little off topic. How about?

Player if you're at the controls an airplane and you want to go up, you pull back on the stick but if you pull too much you may either go over the top or stall. Then by gum you'll go down. Dogs just can't grasp this. If we all evolved from protien why hasn't any other creature built flying machines?

I like totally missed the comeback part dude
and this thread like totally needs to evolve.

2dimes wrote:I like some of the things Lionz brings.

I did, but spent almost 20 pages, and about as many hours posting things to which he never responded except with more questions. All of the above, just as an example, I did address. (the short answer, if you wish, is that yes, there was a great deal of uplift and erosion. Also, that "whirlpool" was not a whirlpool. It is most likely formed by water pitting. Water sits in pools and essentially winds up dissolving the rock (I dug into the chemistry in the other thread, here I am just summarizing). That does happen at all heights... and it is a process anyone can see and that has been replicated/observed.

2dimes wrote:

Player if you're at the controls an airplane and you want to go up, you pull back on the stick but if you pull too much you may either go over the top or stall. Then by gum you'll go down. Dogs just can't grasp this. If we all evolved from protien why hasn't any other creature built flying machines?

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.

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.

Did address as in address in a mind of yourself? Well then again, you did suggest that you thought all it took for something to be true was to simply believe it maybe.

There was a great deal of uplift and erosion is a short answer to what? Are there two seperate canyons shown here that were both simply created by the Colorado river without flooding from a natural dam being breached?



Reality is that it shows two main canyons with one being a dam breach spillway and the other being a footprint of the Colorado River that started being carved into wet sediment after a larger of two being carved first maybe.

And if there's something you asked me and want answered and I apparently have not answered it, how about point out a specific example? You've spent time accusing me of not answering stuff that could have been spent simply reasking maybe.

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?

Perhaps addressed can be defined more than one way and I was rude.

#1 shows questions from me to you and #2 shows response to questions in #1 by you maybe...

1. Do you claim that the Colorado itself carved out both canyons in the first if you see two canyons in the first? Well, see a white dot here?

2. I claim that geologists explanations are backed by facts and evidence, whilst these young earth theories are most definitely not.

PLAYER57832 wrote: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?

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?

PLAYER57832 wrote: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".

Things that make you go Hmmmmm.

Do you have anything for Olbermann Boot Lickers?

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.

Lionz wrote: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?

jay_a2j wrote:"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!

If one refuses to debate, and refuses to think, one can always ignore everything else and pretend to be right, until the bitter end.

It just doesnt happen to make them right however.

While they give themselves the gift of always believing they are right, they penalize themselves by never actually getting to be right.

I wonder if you think all doctors lose because they do not use all of the theories about how the human body worked back when evolution was first theorized, simply because they have redefined some of those theories, and learned about them in the process, instead of just using the medical knowledge that happened to exist 6000 years ago.

I think perhaps the real loser would be the sick person who took the advice from the 6000 year old doctor, instead of the one that educated themselves and actually learned new things. Im sure theres the rare exception, but Ill still take my chances on education and science, myself.

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

You can believe in both.

AAFitz,

There are eight certain sections there that are broken into eight numbered replies below perhaps.

1. Who has called life, suffering and pain?

Mainstream evolutionary theory suggests that painful death has been used as a tool in a process of a single celled organism evolving into mankind perhaps.

I don't feel any life has been purely pain and suffering by any means and feel all life very much is beautiful and splended and a miracle with miracle defined as a divinely influence accomplishment in general at least maybe. There might be some definitions of the word miracle that have to do with humans particularly, but what if angels are alive and they were created before Adam?

Death is the result of trangression maybe... life itself is not punishment by any means perhaps.

I might have never said I believed life had been existing for 6,000 years. There was a creation week a bit less than 6,000 years ago maybe, but what is time really? What if there have been age cycles and things have played out with characters (you and myself and everyone?) in various scenarios?

He is alive and older than time itself possibly.

2. Maybe we very much can make a nice argument that a million years of life would be much more of a gift than six thousand years of life, but what if life will actually exist for time un-ending and you yourself will never die?

I very much appreciate life and whether or not I have had a life full of pain and suffering comes down to definition maybe.

I'm not convinced everything was very good on the 6th day with lions ripping guts out of zebras in it perhaps. I might not believe that He chose a method involving billions of years of death to turn a single celled organism someone called Adam who was created in an image of Himself, but what would that have to do with me not appreciating life?

3. I don't feel that everyone prefers to have never lived by any means perhaps.

4. I don't resent life itself and would not even exist as a living being without it maybe. : )

5. I don't suppose that millions of years of life evolving into different lifeforms using a process of death and pain and suffering would be superior to less than ten thousand years of death doomed lives and then life for time unending by any means perhaps.

6. Can you re-word that?

7. I might not be an accurate judge on how much anyone understands or respects anything. I very much appreciate life itself and came across wrong to you possibly.

8. See what and understand what fully?

jay_a2j wrote:"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!

I wonder what it is about Player that so infuriates you. Is it that she insists on using facts and reasoned argument and that you have no response, or is it simply that she demonstrates that Christians need not be blinkered , ignorant Neanderthals, is it that which worries you ?