Interesting to see what issues the creationist decided to omit in his reply...
My response itself witll be deficient in detail, as I am pressed for time. I will, however. provide more detail later.
absolutetruth wrote:tedlusk wrote:Yes, actually.
you'd be surprised to find out how many people think that "age" is some substance that can actually be measured rather than
inferred:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1247.asp
And you would be surprised at how little import the silly rants of the people at AiG have in the real world. Inferrence is fine in science. Creationists do it all the time. Their inferrences are trivially wrong, but inferrences nonetheless. Funny how these double standards rise up so often.
Why do you employ such naïve language? “Turning into”? How childish. Actually, however, there is abundant evidence from both the fossil record and molecular phylogenetics indicating that birds are descended from some types of dinosaurs, and dinosaurs with feathers have been discovered.
not really.
Yes, really.
the difficulty in the area of the fossil record is apparent by the different evolutionary camps that have been set up to try and explain the evidence. "PE" is one of 'em. the lack of good fossil data helped to influence the idea and try to give a reason for the lack of fossil support.
More naive gibberish. Did you not know that even PE advocates did not claim there there are no gradual changes? Gould, in fact, has documented such changes.
consequently, one evolutionary camp will give a death blow to the other camp, and vice versa, and they both end up failing because neither are true.
I cannot believe how little of this you actually understand.
Actually, I can.
The two 'camps' are not mutually exclusive. Please do not insist that evolutionary theory be constrained by your underinformed view of it.
Clearly.
the very fact that there have been such deliberate hoaxes and deception regarding human "missing links" attests to the lack of fossil support of evolution.
Let me guess - more AiG propaganda? Are you unable to formulate your own opinions on anything?
So why woul abiogenesis and the age of the universe have anything to do with evolution?
since you reject God, you need to have a naturalistic explanation for everything. if you don't, it's no use talking about the effect without the cause. not to mention the fact that evolution has no real support anyway.
Whoever said I reject your god? Evolution need not rely on abiogenesis, so your point is irrelevant.
All of which is utter gibberish, and none of which jives with a 6-10,000 year old earth!
but utterly refutes the idea of a 4-5 billion year old earth.
Not at all. I take it that you do not bother to find oyut if your AiG heros are actually competent in the areas they write about? That their claims have not beef refuted?
Hmmmm…. 62 million years seems a bit longer than 10,000….
MAXIMUM. still far less than billions of years, which is the whole point.
And yet you provided that link as a place to find EVIDENCE
FOR a 6-10,000 year old earth! It did nothing of the sort.
Funny, you seem to be unable to tell the difference between life beginning and life changing afterward.
look. come on man. since you reject God, and there turns out to be NO explanation for how life began in the first place, what do you do? ignore it? this is a crucial factor whether you realize it or not.
I simply cannot understand why you are having so hard a time realizing that not all things are linked the way you want them to be.
Yes, better to put my faith in talking donkeys and snakes and a god that kills its creations on a whim then sacrifices himself to himself to appease himself.
well, if there's a God, and He created everything, we would expect that He can do these things (and it wasn't exactly HIM who actually died on the cross, since God is spirit [Matthew 4:24], but the body that He took on.)[/quote[ How nice. And grotesque...
How do you know he did?
by faith supported by facts and evidence and reality. the same thing you would say for your disbelief in saying that He didn't.
What facts and evidence? Just writing that does not make it so.
What a joke this argument is…. God said it, I believe it, that’s that! How rational! How intelligent! How sensible!
snip nonsense.
What an utterly absurd statement. What ‘science’ is in the bible? Curing leprosy by killing 2 pidgeons?
the very foundations for the scientific enterprise, which is why it flourished under biblical priniciples.
Please actually answer the question or admit that you can't:
What ‘science’ is in the bible?
I say conflating different ideas is foolish. Life could have begun in any fashion, evolution is only concerned with what happens after. A cursory understanding of the topic would have made this clear.
any fashion? this must also allow for the possibility that God did it. which means He could exist and could've created the Bible and directed it perfectly. which would then mean that your belief system is wrong.
Only if this god is THE god as portrayed in the Hebrew tradition as re-written and distorterd by men throughout ther ages.
any fashion? this assumes that there are several possibilities. but when actually studied there are few, if only one. naturally has been fully disproven, except by some grand miracle.
Really? Who disproved it and when? Or is this just the usual hyperbole?
this only leaves special creation, which you seem to reject. you can't just deny something when it doesn't suit you.
Projecting again?
I reject special creation because there is no actual supporting evidence for it.
Ummm... Mr.'absolute'? That article has absolutely nothing to do with the Kimura paper I was referring to. What a shame that you could not do an AiG search and find some pat "refutation." Just because Kimura's name is in it, does not mean it was relevant. Not to mention the fact that 1. Spetner has admitted that informationincreasing mutations occur and 2. Gitt is a
peddlar of nonsense. Funny that no creationists ever seem to mention the paper I referred to...
Yeah, because no Christians commit crimes or are bad people… And you said that I made poor arguments and need to think before I write? Man…
those things would be logically INCONSISTENT with the teachings of Christ, while such things would be logically CONSISTENT with your belief system. THINK MAN.
Baloney. Your pwerverted version of the 'belief systems' that are not identical to yours is as ridiculous and skewed as your naive and laughable grasp of science.
Actually, according to most intelligent people, he is referring to an elephant.
"Intelligent people" seem to be only ones that agree with what you believe. tell me something, does an elephant or a hippo have a tail like a cedar tree (Job 40:17)?:
His tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
these "intelligent" people you speak of, don't sound very intelligent to me.
You should talk...
Again, why only these cryptic 'if you interpret it the way I do, it is a dinosaur!' references? These are big, impressive animals. I find it bizarre that nobody would seem to write about them at length.