Total Posts:106|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Please, guys, stop this nonsense...

MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 11:28:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hey, everyone!

I really want to stress something to people who maybe have certain misconceptions about evolution.
I haven't one debate yet wherein a Creationist thinks that there is "evolution" and not "micro" and "macro". Please, everyone, listen to me, there is no "micro" and "macro".

"Evolution" is what Creationists call "microevolution". That is what evolution is! (Basically)

Seriously, "macroevolution" is something where one species "turns" into another. It's known as speciation.

So, please, Creationists, if you're going to make straw men (I have not seen a debate where one doesn't), at least use the correct terminology.

"Microevolution" is evolution.
"Macroevolution" is speciation.

Thanks everyone, I needed to vent.

Regards,
J
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 1:04:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 11:28:06 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, everyone!

I really want to stress something to people who maybe have certain misconceptions about evolution.
I haven't one debate yet wherein a Creationist thinks that there is "evolution" and not "micro" and "macro". Please, everyone, listen to me, there is no "micro" and "macro".

"Evolution" is what Creationists call "microevolution". That is what evolution is! (Basically)

Seriously, "macroevolution" is something where one species "turns" into another. It's known as speciation.

So, please, Creationists, if you're going to make straw men (I have not seen a debate where one doesn't), at least use the correct terminology.

"Microevolution" is evolution.
"Macroevolution" is speciation.

Thanks everyone, I needed to vent.

Regards,
J

The English language is the most corrupt language that exists when it's used by people who disobey the commandments of our Creator.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 1:17:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 1:04:01 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:28:06 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, everyone!

I really want to stress something to people who maybe have certain misconceptions about evolution.
I haven't one debate yet wherein a Creationist thinks that there is "evolution" and not "micro" and "macro". Please, everyone, listen to me, there is no "micro" and "macro".

"Evolution" is what Creationists call "microevolution". That is what evolution is! (Basically)

Seriously, "macroevolution" is something where one species "turns" into another. It's known as speciation.

So, please, Creationists, if you're going to make straw men (I have not seen a debate where one doesn't), at least use the correct terminology.

"Microevolution" is evolution.
"Macroevolution" is speciation.

Thanks everyone, I needed to vent.

Regards,
J

"The English language is the most corrupt language that exists..."

Mmmhmm
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 1:48:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


True dat, Christians. If you'd just read and believe your Bible we wouldn't even have to have these conversations. Six days. The heavens and the earth. Not a lot of time for Macro OR Micro evolution.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 2:00:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 1:48:39 PM, Naysayer wrote:
Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


True dat, Christians. If you'd just read and believe your Bible we wouldn't even have to have these conversations. Six days. The heavens and the earth. Not a lot of time for Macro OR Micro evolution.

Yeah, because the sun coming after light makes sense.

Well, I see which mutually exclusive version of genesis you've chosen.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 4:48:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 2:00:04 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Yeah, because the sun coming after light makes sense.

Well, I see which mutually exclusive version of genesis you've chosen.

Because there's no such thing as light without a sun, right?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 4:52:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 4:48:59 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 9/23/2013 2:00:04 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Yeah, because the sun coming after light makes sense.

Well, I see which mutually exclusive version of genesis you've chosen.

Because there's no such thing as light without a sun, right?

No, there is. But there's no such thing as light without a source.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 4:55:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 4:52:16 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:48:59 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 9/23/2013 2:00:04 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Yeah, because the sun coming after light makes sense.

Well, I see which mutually exclusive version of genesis you've chosen.

Because there's no such thing as light without a sun, right?

No, there is. But there's no such thing as light without a source.

On that we're agreed. That's not what you said and I never made that statement.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 5:02:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 4:55:01 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:52:16 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:48:59 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 9/23/2013 2:00:04 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Yeah, because the sun coming after light makes sense.

Well, I see which mutually exclusive version of genesis you've chosen.

Because there's no such thing as light without a sun, right?

No, there is. But there's no such thing as light without a source.

On that we're agreed. That's not what you said and I never made that statement.

Genesis, or at least the version you posted, states that light came before the sun. It also says that the moon is a source of light, but let's not get in to that right now.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 5:09:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 4:48:59 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 9/23/2013 2:00:04 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Yeah, because the sun coming after light makes sense.

Well, I see which mutually exclusive version of genesis you've chosen.

Because there's no such thing as light without a sun, right?

Only if you accept the Big Bang.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 6:29:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 1:48:39 PM, Naysayer wrote:
Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


So all of this is true, because the book it was written in says its true. That's good reasoning. Oh, yeah it's old too, but that's about it. People believed in a lot of old books that said they were true. I fail to see a difference in these situations.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 6:31:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 11:28:06 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, everyone!

I really want to stress something to people who maybe have certain misconceptions about evolution.
I haven't one debate yet wherein a Creationist thinks that there is "evolution" and not "micro" and "macro". Please, everyone, listen to me, there is no "micro" and "macro".

"Evolution" is what Creationists call "microevolution". That is what evolution is! (Basically)

Seriously, "macroevolution" is something where one species "turns" into another. It's known as speciation.

So, please, Creationists, if you're going to make straw men (I have not seen a debate where one doesn't), at least use the correct terminology.

"Microevolution" is evolution.
"Macroevolution" is speciation.

Thanks everyone, I needed to vent.

Regards,
J

It's not often I just read something someone wrote and smile. But with this, I did.
Tsar of DDO
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 7:10:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 11:28:06 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, everyone!

I really want to stress something to people who maybe have certain misconceptions about evolution.
I haven't one debate yet wherein a Creationist thinks that there is "evolution" and not "micro" and "macro". Please, everyone, listen to me, there is no "micro" and "macro".

"Evolution" is what Creationists call "microevolution". That is what evolution is! (Basically)

Seriously, "macroevolution" is something where one species "turns" into another. It's known as speciation.

So, please, Creationists, if you're going to make straw men (I have not seen a debate where one doesn't), at least use the correct terminology.

"Microevolution" is evolution.
"Macroevolution" is speciation.

Thanks everyone, I needed to vent.

Regards,
J

Micro-evolution= Adaptation and variation. This is supported by good, strong scientific evidence, and no one disputes it.

Macro-evolution= The term used to describe the mechanism that evolutionists believe to be responsible for the hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry. This hypothesis is contradictory to what we actually see in the natural world, has never been observed, and unlike adaptation and variation, is not supported by good, strong scientific evidence. It is unproven, and unproveable.

One is proven, the other isn't, so don't expect Creationists to make your job easier by pretending that they are the same thing.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 7:29:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 5:09:42 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:48:59 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 9/23/2013 2:00:04 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Yeah, because the sun coming after light makes sense.

Well, I see which mutually exclusive version of genesis you've chosen.

Because there's no such thing as light without a sun, right?

Only if you accept the Big Bang.

Not true. If you accept the Bible, it also says so. There are different ways it could occur. Not all of them have to be immediately apparent.

Jesus Christ said He is the light of the world. He is called the Word of God and the Bible says that God spoke the world into existence. So He was there in the beginning and there was light. Seems consistent.

What's not consistent is a bunch of Christians that claim to believe in the Bible, yet dismiss the Genesis account as allegory, or worse, just nice stories. It's no wonder athiests harp on this so much. It is quite comical to watch Christians dance around and try to consolidate them.

They don't realize their foundation is being destroyed and if that happens, what can the righteous do?

The Genesis account clarifies who Jesus Christ is.
It lays out God's sovereignty.
It lays out the reasoning for man to need a Saviour.
It lays out orignal sin and our heritage from Adam.
It directly refutes evolution both in fact and principle. (God created animals as they were and ordered them after their kind.)

Now I don't really expect an athiest to accept all this. That's fine. The fact of the matter is that you are still a sinner, you're still accountable to God, and the wages of sin is death.

However, it's a little embarassing watching Christians trying to justify whatever ridiculous ideas they have as they try to blend the Word of God with what is, for all intents and purposes, a humanists attempt at escaping from the authority of God.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 7:35:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 7:29:48 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 9/23/2013 5:09:42 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:48:59 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 9/23/2013 2:00:04 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Yeah, because the sun coming after light makes sense.

Well, I see which mutually exclusive version of genesis you've chosen.

Because there's no such thing as light without a sun, right?

Only if you accept the Big Bang.

Not true. If you accept the Bible, it also says so.

Why would we do that? The Bible is what is in question here.

There are different ways it could occur. Not all of them have to be immediately apparent.

Yeah, it could have been leprechaun's farting rainbows. Not sure of the value in that hypothesis, though.

As it is, the only light prior to stars is the left over radiation from the Big Bang.


Jesus Christ said He is the light of the world. He is called the Word of God and the Bible says that God spoke the world into existence. So He was there in the beginning and there was light. Seems consistent.

If he was talking literally. Regardless, it's not consistent with reality.


What's not consistent is a bunch of Christians that claim to believe in the Bible, yet dismiss the Genesis account as allegory, or worse, just nice stories. It's no wonder athiests harp on this so much. It is quite comical to watch Christians dance around and try to consolidate them.

They don't realize their foundation is being destroyed and if that happens, what can the righteous do?

The Genesis account clarifies who Jesus Christ is.
It lays out God's sovereignty.
It lays out the reasoning for man to need a Saviour.
It lays out orignal sin and our heritage from Adam.
It directly refutes evolution both in fact and principle. (God created animals as they were and ordered them after their kind.)

Now I don't really expect an athiest to accept all this. That's fine. The fact of the matter is that you are still a sinner, you're still accountable to God, and the wages of sin is death.

Threats aren't convincing.


However, it's a little embarassing watching Christians trying to justify whatever ridiculous ideas they have as they try to blend the Word of God with what is, for all intents and purposes, a humanists attempt at escaping from the authority of God.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 7:40:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 7:35:32 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/23/2013 7:29:48 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 9/23/2013 5:09:42 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:48:59 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 9/23/2013 2:00:04 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Yeah, because the sun coming after light makes sense.

Well, I see which mutually exclusive version of genesis you've chosen.

Because there's no such thing as light without a sun, right?

Only if you accept the Big Bang.

Not true. If you accept the Bible, it also says so.

Why would we do that? The Bible is what is in question here.

There are different ways it could occur. Not all of them have to be immediately apparent.

Yeah, it could have been leprechaun's farting rainbows. Not sure of the value in that hypothesis, though.

As it is, the only light prior to stars is the left over radiation from the Big Bang.

Right. Assuming some hypothetical guess billions of years afterward is the correct (and from your assertions ONLY means of a universe coming into existence.)


Jesus Christ said He is the light of the world. He is called the Word of God and the Bible says that God spoke the world into existence. So He was there in the beginning and there was light. Seems consistent.

If he was talking literally. Regardless, it's not consistent with reality.

Unless it is and you're mistaken.

What's not consistent is a bunch of Christians that claim to believe in the Bible, yet dismiss the Genesis account as allegory, or worse, just nice stories. It's no wonder athiests harp on this so much. It is quite comical to watch Christians dance around and try to consolidate them.

They don't realize their foundation is being destroyed and if that happens, what can the righteous do?

The Genesis account clarifies who Jesus Christ is.
It lays out God's sovereignty.
It lays out the reasoning for man to need a Saviour.
It lays out orignal sin and our heritage from Adam.
It directly refutes evolution both in fact and principle. (God created animals as they were and ordered them after their kind.)

Now I don't really expect an athiest to accept all this. That's fine. The fact of the matter is that you are still a sinner, you're still accountable to God, and the wages of sin is death.

Threats aren't convincing.

I'm not threatening. Just warning.

However, it's a little embarassing watching Christians trying to justify whatever ridiculous ideas they have as they try to blend the Word of God with what is, for all intents and purposes, a humanists attempt at escaping from the authority of God.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 8:03:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 11:28:06 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, everyone!

I really want to stress something to people who maybe have certain misconceptions about evolution.
I haven't one debate yet wherein a Creationist thinks that there is "evolution" and not "micro" and "macro". Please, everyone, listen to me, there is no "micro" and "macro".

"Evolution" is what Creationists call "microevolution". That is what evolution is! (Basically)

Seriously, "macroevolution" is something where one species "turns" into another. It's known as speciation.

Based on the discussions I've had with creationists, macro-evolution is where one kind becomes another. The definition of kind seems to vary depending upon whom you ask, but generally it's closer to the taxonomic family category.

This is why they usually ask to show them a cat becoming a dog, or some or silly request not acknowledging that the delineation of family groups is much much too slow to be directly observed. Speciation on the other hand we can directly observe.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 7:09:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 7:40:21 PM, Naysayer wrote:

There are different ways it could occur. Not all of them have to be immediately apparent.

Yeah, it could have been leprechaun's farting rainbows. Not sure of the value in that hypothesis, though.

As it is, the only light prior to stars is the left over radiation from the Big Bang.

Right. Assuming some hypothetical guess billions of years afterward is the correct (and from your assertions ONLY means of a universe coming into existence.)

Well... no. You can "see" this radiation today. Regardless, the Big Bang Theory (one of the original developers being a Catholic Priest, no less) is far from a hypothetical guess. I'm not sure what your parenthetical remark means.

Jesus Christ said He is the light of the world. He is called the Word of God and the Bible says that God spoke the world into existence. So He was there in the beginning and there was light. Seems consistent.

If he was talking literally. Regardless, it's not consistent with reality.

Unless it is and you're mistaken.

That goes without saying.

Now I don't really expect an athiest to accept all this. That's fine. The fact of the matter is that you are still a sinner, you're still accountable to God, and the wages of sin is death.

Threats aren't convincing.

I'm not threatening. Just warning.

It's a threat nonetheless, and it's not convincing.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 7:52:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 7:10:42 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:28:06 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, everyone!

I really want to stress something to people who maybe have certain misconceptions about evolution.
I haven't one debate yet wherein a Creationist thinks that there is "evolution" and not "micro" and "macro". Please, everyone, listen to me, there is no "micro" and "macro".

"Evolution" is what Creationists call "microevolution". That is what evolution is! (Basically)

Seriously, "macroevolution" is something where one species "turns" into another. It's known as speciation.

So, please, Creationists, if you're going to make straw men (I have not seen a debate where one doesn't), at least use the correct terminology.

"Microevolution" is evolution.
"Macroevolution" is speciation.

Thanks everyone, I needed to vent.

Regards,
J

Micro-evolution= Adaptation and variation. This is supported by good, strong scientific evidence, and no one disputes it.
You left off NOW, no-one disputes it NOW. A very recent adaptation by creationists accepting that their rejection of such was simply untenable. But remember godditit.
Macro-evolution= The term used to describe the mechanism that evolutionists believe to be responsible for the hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry. This hypothesis is contradictory to what we actually see in the natural world, has never been observed, and unlike adaptation and variation, is not supported by good, strong scientific evidence. It is unproven, and unproveable.
Macro-evolution is a term created by creationists to enable them to continue to reject evolution even though they know that it is absolutely true. Microevolution/macroevolution is an untenable differentiation created by creationists. EVOLUTION is the word.
One is proven, the other isn't, so don't expect Creationists to make your job easier by pretending that they are the same thing.
They are the same word and that word is evolution, creationists can scurry back under their rocks and don't in future bring their pathetic religion into scientific definitions. Religion has no place in science...........big sign...........KEEP OUT
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 9:12:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 11:28:06 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, everyone!

I really want to stress something to people who maybe have certain misconceptions about evolution.
I haven't one debate yet wherein a Creationist thinks that there is "evolution" and not "micro" and "macro". Please, everyone, listen to me, there is no "micro" and "macro".

"Evolution" is what Creationists call "microevolution". That is what evolution is! (Basically)

Seriously, "macroevolution" is something where one species "turns" into another. It's known as speciation.

So, please, Creationists, if you're going to make straw men (I have not seen a debate where one doesn't), at least use the correct terminology.

"Microevolution" is evolution.
"Macroevolution" is speciation.

Thanks everyone, I needed to vent.

Regards,
J

The problem is that they keep changing the meanings of terms.

It is not that long ago that what you call Speciation was what Evolution was supposed to be all about. Hence the arguments of Creationists. So maybe we are just out of date with the retreat of the Evolutionists?

What is adaptation within species in your up to date glossary? Is that Micro-evolution.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 9:23:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 8:03:19 PM, Polaris wrote:

Based on the discussions I've had with creationists, macro-evolution is where one kind becomes another. The definition of kind seems to vary depending upon whom you ask, but generally it's closer to the taxonomic family category.

It doesn't really matter what a definition of kind is. If macro-evolution were supportable scientifically, those lines would be shown to have been crossed by evolutionary processes, no matter where the Creationists drew them.

This is why they usually ask to show them a cat becoming a dog, or some or silly request not acknowledging that the delineation of family groups is much much too slow to be directly observed.

I acknowledge that, according to your belief system, it takes millions of years for those changes to take place, but that's not my problem and I'm not going buy into it when what we CAN observe and test, tells us a different story. Unlike evolutionists, I don't just presuppose that it happened. If I'm going to accept something as a scientific fact, I expect it to be supported by scientific evidence. Scientific facts should not depend on presupposition. That's called faith, and I already have one of those.

Speciation on the other hand we can directly observe.

Right, but the problem is that speciation is accomplished by simply calling two types of the same organism by different names. "Speciation" does not show that an organism can become anything other than a variation of the same organism.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 9:57:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 9:12:01 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:28:06 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, everyone!

I really want to stress something to people who maybe have certain misconceptions about evolution.
I haven't one debate yet wherein a Creationist thinks that there is "evolution" and not "micro" and "macro". Please, everyone, listen to me, there is no "micro" and "macro".

"Evolution" is what Creationists call "microevolution". That is what evolution is! (Basically)

Seriously, "macroevolution" is something where one species "turns" into another. It's known as speciation.

So, please, Creationists, if you're going to make straw men (I have not seen a debate where one doesn't), at least use the correct terminology.

"Microevolution" is evolution.
"Macroevolution" is speciation.

Thanks everyone, I needed to vent.

Regards,
J

The problem is that they keep changing the meanings of terms.

It is not that long ago that what you call Speciation was what Evolution was supposed to be all about. Hence the arguments of Creationists. So maybe we are just out of date with the retreat of the Evolutionists?

What is adaptation within species in your up to date glossary? Is that Micro-evolution.
The RELIGIOUS terms macro/micro evolution are meaningless. OK religion has no place in science. Use the scientific terms or go back and play in the little kiddies sandpit.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 10:12:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 9:57:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/24/2013 9:12:01 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:28:06 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, everyone!

I really want to stress something to people who maybe have certain misconceptions about evolution.
I haven't one debate yet wherein a Creationist thinks that there is "evolution" and not "micro" and "macro". Please, everyone, listen to me, there is no "micro" and "macro".

"Evolution" is what Creationists call "microevolution". That is what evolution is! (Basically)

Seriously, "macroevolution" is something where one species "turns" into another. It's known as speciation.

So, please, Creationists, if you're going to make straw men (I have not seen a debate where one doesn't), at least use the correct terminology.

"Microevolution" is evolution.
"Macroevolution" is speciation.

Thanks everyone, I needed to vent.

Regards,
J

The problem is that they keep changing the meanings of terms.

It is not that long ago that what you call Speciation was what Evolution was supposed to be all about. Hence the arguments of Creationists. So maybe we are just out of date with the retreat of the Evolutionists?

What is adaptation within species in your up to date glossary? Is that Micro-evolution.
The RELIGIOUS terms macro/micro evolution are meaningless. OK religion has no place in science. Use the scientific terms or go back and play in the little kiddies sandpit.

Why does it have no place in science? after all the creator was the original scientist who created everything including all the laws that science plays with.

If it weren't for God there would be no science, or scientists to study it.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 10:13:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You completely missed my point, Medic. I'm saying that:
Evolution is what you would call "micro-evolution".

And you, yourself stated that no one disputes this. So you cannot both deny and accept evolution at the same time. It's utter nonsense.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 11:12:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 1:17:41 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 9/23/2013 1:04:01 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:28:06 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, everyone!

I really want to stress something to people who maybe have certain misconceptions about evolution.
I haven't one debate yet wherein a Creationist thinks that there is "evolution" and not "micro" and "macro". Please, everyone, listen to me, there is no "micro" and "macro".

"Evolution" is what Creationists call "microevolution". That is what evolution is! (Basically)

Seriously, "macroevolution" is something where one species "turns" into another. It's known as speciation.

So, please, Creationists, if you're going to make straw men (I have not seen a debate where one doesn't), at least use the correct terminology.

"Microevolution" is evolution.
"Macroevolution" is speciation.

Thanks everyone, I needed to vent.

Regards,
J

"The English language is the most corrupt language that exists..."

Mmmhmm

Why didn't you use my whole quote, which makes more sense. God is using the English language with my testimonies but He applies it to His hidden knowledge that isn't of this world. This means every word I write or speak is authorized directly by our heavenly Father, the Creator of everything.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 11:21:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 10:13:59 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
You completely missed my point, Medic. I'm saying that:
Evolution is what you would call "micro-evolution".

And you, yourself stated that no one disputes this. So you cannot both deny and accept evolution at the same time. It's utter nonsense.

You're pulling a bait and switch here, though. Yes, we accept evolution by that definition, but then you guys throw in Common Ancestry(macro) with it, and still say that it's all "evolution". That being the case, we have to have different terms to describe the different parts of the theory.

No one rejects or disputes ALL of evolutionary theory, but we also don't accept all of it either. It seems as if you're trying to make it so that we have to accept all of it or eject all of it, but that is a fallacious and dishonest argument. So if you don't want us to use micro and macro, then what terms would you prefer??
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 11:25:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 11:21:10 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/24/2013 10:13:59 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
You completely missed my point, Medic. I'm saying that:
Evolution is what you would call "micro-evolution".

And you, yourself stated that no one disputes this. So you cannot both deny and accept evolution at the same time. It's utter nonsense.

You're pulling a bait and switch here, though. Yes, we accept evolution by that definition, but then you guys throw in Common Ancestry(macro) with it, and still say that it's all "evolution". That being the case, we have to have different terms to describe the different parts of the theory.

No one rejects or disputes ALL of evolutionary theory, but we also don't accept all of it either. It seems as if you're trying to make it so that we have to accept all of it or eject all of it, but that is a fallacious and dishonest argument. So if you don't want us to use micro and macro, then what terms would you prefer??

Evolution and a literal creation story about how God created everything is only an illusion. God created us as invisible wavelengths of energy before this energy was processed into illusions that we call flesh and the things of this world. In other words, nothing you see, taste, smell or touch is real. The only thing that's real is our Creator and His thoughts ( stored as wavelengths of energy ).
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 11:44:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 11:12:04 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/23/2013 1:17:41 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 9/23/2013 1:04:01 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:28:06 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, everyone!

I really want to stress something to people who maybe have certain misconceptions about evolution.
I haven't one debate yet wherein a Creationist thinks that there is "evolution" and not "micro" and "macro". Please, everyone, listen to me, there is no "micro" and "macro".

"Evolution" is what Creationists call "microevolution". That is what evolution is! (Basically)

Seriously, "macroevolution" is something where one species "turns" into another. It's known as speciation.

So, please, Creationists, if you're going to make straw men (I have not seen a debate where one doesn't), at least use the correct terminology.

"Microevolution" is evolution.
"Macroevolution" is speciation.

Thanks everyone, I needed to vent.

Regards,
J

"The English language is the most corrupt language that exists..."

Mmmhmm

Why didn't you use my whole quote, which makes more sense. God is using the English language with my testimonies but He applies it to His hidden knowledge that isn't of this world. This means every word I write or speak is authorized directly by our heavenly Father, the Creator of everything.

BoG none of your quotes make any sense so what difference.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 11:48:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 11:44:20 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/24/2013 11:12:04 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/23/2013 1:17:41 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 9/23/2013 1:04:01 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:28:06 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, everyone!

I really want to stress something to people who maybe have certain misconceptions about evolution.
I haven't one debate yet wherein a Creationist thinks that there is "evolution" and not "micro" and "macro". Please, everyone, listen to me, there is no "micro" and "macro".

"Evolution" is what Creationists call "microevolution". That is what evolution is! (Basically)

Seriously, "macroevolution" is something where one species "turns" into another. It's known as speciation.

So, please, Creationists, if you're going to make straw men (I have not seen a debate where one doesn't), at least use the correct terminology.

"Microevolution" is evolution.
"Macroevolution" is speciation.

Thanks everyone, I needed to vent.

Regards,
J

"The English language is the most corrupt language that exists..."

Mmmhmm

Why didn't you use my whole quote, which makes more sense. God is using the English language with my testimonies but He applies it to His hidden knowledge that isn't of this world. This means every word I write or speak is authorized directly by our heavenly Father, the Creator of everything.

BoG none of your quotes make any sense so what difference.

None of my quotes make sense to unbelievers like yourself but the thousands of believers here in Campbell, CA, that I've preached the gospel to in the past two years understand them.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 11:56:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 11:25:26 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/24/2013 11:21:10 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/24/2013 10:13:59 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
You completely missed my point, Medic. I'm saying that:
Evolution is what you would call "micro-evolution".

And you, yourself stated that no one disputes this. So you cannot both deny and accept evolution at the same time. It's utter nonsense.

You're pulling a bait and switch here, though. Yes, we accept evolution by that definition, but then you guys throw in Common Ancestry(macro) with it, and still say that it's all "evolution". That being the case, we have to have different terms to describe the different parts of the theory.

So if you don't want us to use micro and macro, then what terms would you prefer??

Evolution and speciation.

Also, speciation has been observed. [1]

((Prediction, the word "kind(s)" will be used within the next five posts))

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...