A Myth about Creation: Creationists Don't Believe Species Change
gabriel
Myth 10: Creationists Don�t Believe Species Change
A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
of species (i.e., species don�t change). And since species
obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
the first place.
Prior to the publication of Darwin�s On the Origin of Species
especially, some Christians did claim that species were
immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
not mean the same thing then as it does now�nor was there ever
any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
that species do change�but only within the original kinds God
created roughly 6,000 years ago.
Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
evolution�they remind us that God put enough information in the
genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed
world.
More information:
Fixity of species:
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species
Do Species Change:
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change
Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, oh my!
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins
Bara-what ?
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/bara-what
RichTravsky
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
>
> Myth 10: Creationists DonīŋŊt Believe Species Change
>
> A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> the first place.
>
> especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
>
> Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> that species do changeīŋŊbut only within the original kinds God
> created roughly 6,000 years ago.
Explain all those fossils...
> Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how human
and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
> evolutionīŋŊthey remind us that God put enough information in the
Frankie Lee
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat...
***Micro-evolution of species,no Christian has problem with that.From
Monkey to man,that is blaspheme.
Frankie Lee
> gabriel wrote:
>
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat...
>
> > Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change
>
> > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> > the first place.
>
> > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
>
> > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
>
> Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
>
> > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
>
> Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
>
> > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
>
> Explain all those fossils...
>
> > Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> > in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
>
> Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how human
> and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
>
> > genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed
> > world.
Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how
human
and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
**You see,your assumptions are flawed.The Bible is already a huge
collection,no reason to make it even bigger or like an
Encyclopedias.The Bible shouldn't have explain the details of
science,or meticulous details which is not relevant to the main
subject.
Human are all creatures of God,the Bible said so.A monkey could
walk,and human also could walk.The functions of movements in our limbs
perhaps also bore resemblance.O.1 % different,is hell alot,in science
concept.
Juan M
"Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6322acb-3159-4270...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
It is the brains of the Creationists that are incapable of change.
Pat Magroyne
> God
> created roughly 6,000 years ago.
LOL
RichTravsky
Oh look, it's Wanker Lee. Glad to see you admit the bible is no science
document and should not be relied upon as such.
RT
gabriel
<patma...@null.net> wrote:
Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
submitted to scientists to be dated with their faulty dating
methods: they came back with dates of 1.1 million years when
rocks were only a few decades old.
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: >
: > http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
: >
: > Myth 10: Creationists DonīŋŊt Believe Species Change
: >
: > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
: > of species (i.e., species donīŋŊt change). And since species
: > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
: > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
: > the first place.
: >
: > Prior to the publication of DarwinīŋŊs On the Origin of Species
: > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
: > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
: > not mean the same thing then as it does nowīŋŊnor was there ever
: > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
: >
: > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
:
: Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
:
: > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
:
: Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
:
: > that species do changeīŋŊbut only within the original kinds God
: > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
:
: Explain all those fossils...
Fossils don't come with tags indicating how old they are. The
scientists use dating methods rife with assumptions. Google the
RATE group and how they submitted rocks merely a few decades old,
and they came back dating them over a million years old.
:
: > Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
: > in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
:
: Where does the bible explain mutations?
The Bible doesn't have to explain every detail of every thing we
demand that it does, else it proves something is not true.
: Where do they explain how human
: and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
Alleles are there to represent features of the animal, and that
since chimps and humans have similar features: eyes, ears, noses,
mouths, brains, hearts, lungs, intestines, stomachs, arms, legs,
hands, and on and on, that it follows they'd have DNA similarity.
Meanwhile common designer is another possible explanation.
The Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record proves they couldn't
have evolved from a common ancestor once upon a time. The
Cambrian Explosion falsifies the fish to man version of
evolution, but of course nothing will cause them to abandon their
attack on God.
But *any* beliefs about what fossils means to people concerning
origins cannot qualify as science as those beliefs are not
observable, not testable and not verifiable - one can only
believe what they want us to believe about them.
:
: > evolutionīŋŊthey remind us that God put enough information in the
gabriel
<juanmSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: "Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Truth doesn't change. What would you say to someone who called
you dogmatic, closed-minded and incapable of change because you
cling to the truth that 2 + 2 = 4? Exactly the point.
:
:
:
:
:
Sid9
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ogusg51n8saun8ctq...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : >
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
> : >
> : >
> : > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> : > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> : > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> : > the first place.
> : >
> : > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> : > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> : > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
> : >
> : > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
> :
> : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> :
> : > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
> :
> : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> :
> : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> :
> : Explain all those fossils...
>
> Fossils don't come with tags indicating how old they are. The
> scientists use dating methods rife with assumptions. Google the
> RATE group and how they submitted rocks merely a few decades old,
> and they came back dating them over a million years old.
.
.
.
.
.
.........................
Where does one find rocks a "few decades old"?
.........................
.
.
.
.
.
>
> :
> : > Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> : > in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
> :
> : Where does the bible explain mutations?
>
> The Bible doesn't have to explain every detail of every thing we
> demand that it does, else it proves something is not true.
>
>
> : Where do they explain how human
> : and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
>
> Alleles are there to represent features of the animal, and that
> since chimps and humans have similar features: eyes, ears, noses,
> mouths, brains, hearts, lungs, intestines, stomachs, arms, legs,
> hands, and on and on, that it follows they'd have DNA similarity.
>
> Meanwhile common designer is another possible explanation.
>
> The Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record proves they couldn't
> have evolved from a common ancestor once upon a time. The
> Cambrian Explosion falsifies the fish to man version of
> evolution, but of course nothing will cause them to abandon their
> attack on God.
>
> But *any* beliefs about what fossils means to people concerning
> origins cannot qualify as science as those beliefs are not
> observable, not testable and not verifiable - one can only
> believe what they want us to believe about them.
>
>
> :
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat...
>
> Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change
>
> A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity
> Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
> evolution
Ahhhh, pulling out ol'-faithful (heh) "fudge the species-kind
argument" again, I see, along with a good dollop of the "evolution-is-
not-evolution" mantra.
Wild Bill
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:35:35 -0800, "Juan M"
> <juanmSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> : "Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> :
> news:f6322acb-3159-4270...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> : On Nov 8, 12:48 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> : > gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : >
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat...
> : >
> : > > Myth 10: Creationists Don't Believe Species Change
> : >
> : > > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> : > > of species (i.e., species don't change). And since species
> : > > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> : > > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> : > > the first place.
> : >
> : > > Prior to the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species
> : > > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> : > > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> : > > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
> : >
> : > > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
> : >
> : > Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> : >
> : > > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
> : >
> : > Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> : >
> : > > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> : >
> : > Explain all those fossils...
> : >
> : > > Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> : > > in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
> : >
> : > Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how
> human
> : > and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
> : >
> : > > genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed
> : > > world.
> :
> :
> : Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how
> : human
> : and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
> :
> : **You see,your assumptions are flawed.The Bible is already a huge
> : collection,no reason to make it even bigger or like an
> : Encyclopedias.The Bible shouldn't have explain the details of
> : science,or meticulous details which is not relevant to the main
> : subject.
> :
> : Human are all creatures of God,the Bible said so.A monkey could
> : walk,and human also could walk.The functions of movements in our limbs
> : perhaps also bore resemblance.O.1 % different,is hell alot,in science
> : concept.
> :
> :
> : It is the brains of the Creationists that are incapable of change.
>
> Truth doesn't change. What would you say to someone who called
> you dogmatic, closed-minded and incapable of change because you
> cling to the truth that 2 + 2 = 4? Exactly the point.
Are you really able to add that far, Gabriel? Gosh...I'm impressed!
>
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
Bob LeChevalier
Mathematicians have no problem defining a system wherein 2+2 does not
equal 4. For one thing, go to base 3, where there is no such thing as
"4", but there is such a thing as 2.
Traditional arithmetic is the result of certain definitions and rules,
which are used because they are useful in the real world.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
RichTravsky
Talk about moving the goalposts around...
RichTravsky
gabriel wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : > http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
> : >
> : > Myth 10: Creationists Don�t Believe Species Change
> : >
> : > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> : > of species (i.e., species don�t change). And since species
> : > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> : > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> : > the first place.
> : >
> : > Prior to the publication of Darwin�s On the Origin of Species
> : > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> : > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> : > not mean the same thing then as it does now�nor was there ever
> : > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
> : >
> : > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
> :
> : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> :
> : > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
> :
> : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> :
> : > that species do change�but only within the original kinds God
> : > evolution�they remind us that God put enough information in the
RichTravsky
>
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
> <patma...@null.net> wrote:
>
> : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : > God
> : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> :
> : LOL
>
> Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
RichTravsky
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:35:35 -0800, "Juan M"
> <juanmSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : "Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
An evolution is the truth.
RichTravsky
> Where does one find rocks a "few decades old"?
You have to squint really hard...
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: >
: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
: > <patma...@null.net> wrote:
: >
: > : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : > God
: > : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
: > :
: > : LOL
: >
: > Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
:
: The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
www.nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html
www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-age-earth/
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination
:
: > of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: Hey. Cupcake. Learn how to post. I didn't write any of this.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
...
: Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
...
: Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
...
: Explain all those fossils...
...
:
: Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how human
: and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
...
Well unless someone else posted it using your account, the above
is what was posted with your account name.
:
: gabriel wrote:
: >
: > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
: > <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : gabriel wrote:
: > : >
: > : > http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
: > : >
: > : > Myth 10: Creationists DonīŋŊt Believe Species Change
: > : >
: > : > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
: > : > of species (i.e., species donīŋŊt change). And since species
: > : > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
: > : > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
: > : > the first place.
: > : >
: > : > Prior to the publication of DarwinīŋŊs On the Origin of Species
: > : > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
: > : > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
: > : > not mean the same thing then as it does nowīŋŊnor was there ever
: > : > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
: > : >
: > : > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
: > :
: > : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
: > :
: > : > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
: > :
: > : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
: > :
: > : > that species do changeīŋŊbut only within the original kinds God
: > :
: > : > evolutionīŋŊthey remind us that God put enough information in the
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: news:umvsg5hnualld04g7...@4ax.com:
:
: >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: >
: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: >: news:f4icf55rg21cv9ckm...@4ax.com:
: >:
: >: >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat
: >: >ion #paginateTop
: >: >
: >: >Myth 10: Creationists Don�t Believe Species Change
: >: >
: >: >A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
: >: >of species (i.e., species don�t change). And since species
: >: >obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
: >: >straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
: >: >the first place.
: >:
: >: Actually, some creationists have unwisely made the claim. Some even
: >: to this day.
: >: >
: >: >Prior to the publication of Darwin�s On the Origin of Species
: >: >especially, some Christians did claim that species were
: >: >immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
: >: >not mean the same thing then as it does now�nor was there ever
: >: >any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
: >: >
: >: >Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
: >: >created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
: >: >that species do change�but only within the original kinds God
: >: >created roughly 6,000 years ago.
: >:
: >: "Baramin" is an artificial word concocted from the Hebrew phrase
: >: "miyn bara" found in Genesis and translated as "created kind." But
: >: my Hebrew sources tell me that a very reasonable translation would be
: >: "species."
: >:
: >: The fact that the author of that part of Genesis had observed what we
: >: still see today--that species generally reproduce by giving rise to
: >: members of their own species in no way makes fixity of species or
: >: "kind" (whatever you think you mean by the term) a law of nature,
: >: even according to the scripture you are so anxious to misinterpret.
: >:
: >: >
: >: >Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
: >: >in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
: >: >evolution�they remind us that God put enough information in the
: >: >genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed
: >: >world.
: >:
: >: Such changes are precisely what scientists mean by evolution. Lying
: >: about things like this is what is condemning you to an eternity in a
: >: lake of fire.
: >:
: >
: >No, those scientists mean the fish to man version of evolution,
: >which is a far cry from [flies] evolving over generations, but
: >remaining [flies] no matter how much they adapt or mutate.
:
: Fish to man evolution is a logical inference from the fossil record and
: from the evolution we see happening all around us.
Yes, it's a ~belief on what you want things to mean~ attached to
dead bones and fossils, and even the things you see around you.
The ~belief itself~ is not observable, not testable and not
verifiable.
Creation by God is also a logical inference from the fossil
record (Cambrian Explosion: global flood), DNA and the ability
for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon to perform the
miraculous feat of building organic machines, which we see
happening all around us, and the irreducible complexity of
animals and even a single cell.
: >
: >Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
: >evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
: >[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
: >beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
: >those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
: >fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
: >you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
: >impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
: >human race.
:
: Yet the same genes produce our limbs as produce the fins of lobefin
: fishes. And no, we don't expect to see 100 million years of evolution in
: a fortnight in the lab.
You can't see any of the fish to man version of evolution in any
lab or in life.
Show a test of populations of [flies] evolving and mutating over
generations eventually into animals that are clearly no longer
[flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal known
to man. The fact is, the belief that such a thing can happen is
unobservable, untestable and unverifiable. Please cite the
scientific tests that shows this happening. The only thing we
ever observed happening is populations of [flies] producing more
flies, and worst case a slightly different species of [flies]
(but they are still [flies]!) - that's Speciation. Not the fish
to man version of evolution no matter how much they mutate, no
matter how much the allele frequencies change. And that's a
scientific fact. In that effect, what is repeatable, observable,
testable and verifiable: that this ~never~ happens no matter how
much they supposedly mutate and allele frequencies change. So in
effect, science actually falsifies / disproves the fish to man
version of evolution!
However, if you have such a test case, please cite it to back up
what you believe actually qualifying as science. Thank you.
: However, I can provide you with a very nice
: protocol for producing new genera in plants with a single mutation of a
: particular type. Look up triticale. The thing does, very rarely, happen
: in animals, too, but it is actually quite common in self-fertilizing
: plants.
:
: >: >More information:
: >: >Fixity of species:
: >: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species
:
: No fixity is observed.
:
: >: >
: >: >Do Species Change:
: >: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change
:
: Many changes are observerd.
:
:
: >: >
: >: >Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, oh my!
: >: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins
:
: These kinds of hybrids ARE predicted in evolution. But they are found
: where speciation has not fully resulted in genetic incompatibility. The
: key factor for speciation is genetic isolation. Subpopulations that have
: no gene flow between them, or very little, whatever the reason for the
: isolation, will diverge.
:
:
: >: >
: >: >Bara-what ?
: >: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/bara-what
: >:
: >: Yes, bara-what?
: >:
: >: Barmin: A creationist-coined word that is said to mean "created
: >: kind." This fleible pseudotaxon is excellent for avoiding discussion
: >: of actual directly-observed evolution events while denying those
: >: inferred from the fossil record and from genetics. It has no
: >: objective, scientific definition and is therefore a great tool in
: >: fallacies of equivocation.
: >:
: >: Your master, Satan, is well pleased with such work, but tends to get
: >: quite testy when the lies stop working.
:
: See above. The biblical scholarship of creationist hack polemicists is
: almost on a par with their scientific scholarship. Which is to say that
: their Bible scholarship, like their scientific scholarship is all
: distorted so as to support their damned (literally) heresy!
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:35:35 -0800, "Juan M"
: ><juanmSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: It is the brains of the Creationists that are incapable of change.
: >
: >Truth doesn't change. What would you say to someone who called
: >you dogmatic, closed-minded and incapable of change because you
: >cling to the truth that 2 + 2 = 4? Exactly the point.
:
: Mathematicians have no problem defining a system wherein 2+2 does not
: equal 4. For one thing, go to base 3, where there is no such thing as
: "4", but there is such a thing as 2.
:
: Traditional arithmetic is the result of certain definitions and rules,
: which are used because they are useful in the real world.
Hi Bob,
No, they are useful because they merely describe what has always
been true:
If someone wants to combine this many O's:
O O
with this many O's:
O O
then they will always get this many O's:
O O O O
No matter what base we came up with to describe this eternal,
fundamental truth, this fundamental truth always was true and can
never change. Would we call someone dogmatic, closed-minded and
incapable of change because they adhere to this eternal truth?
Not at all (unless we were trying to undermine some other point
they had which is uncomfortable for us to admit), which is
exactly the point.
:
: lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>No, they are useful because they merely describe what has always
>been true:
>
>If someone wants to combine this many O's:
>
>O O
>
>with this many O's:
>
>O O
>
>then they will always get this many O's:
>
>O O O O
Not necessarily. If the rules for "combine" include overwriting, then
combining the two leads to
O O
That is what you fail to understand. WE define what it means to
"combine", or to "add", or to use the "+" sign. WE define what "="
means. WE define whether "O O O O" is representable by the symbol "4"
or by "11" in base 3 or by "100" in base 2 or by "121" in base
negative 3.
2+2=4 is a human invention.
>No matter what base we came up with to describe this eternal,
>fundamental truth, this fundamental truth always was true and can
>never change.
Wrong. It is neither eternal or fundamental and whether it is "true"
depends on our definitions.
If you combine them within a black hole, you get
?
>Would we call someone dogmatic, closed-minded and
>incapable of change because they adhere to this eternal truth?
Yes, assuming that they brought the fact of their adherence to our
attention. if they keep their peculiar beliefs to themselves, no one
would care.
And if they were posting about it on Usenet, we would call them a
clueless idiot.
RichTravsky
>
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
> : > <patma...@null.net> wrote:
> : >
> : > : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > :
> : > : > God
> : > : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> : > :
> : > : LOL
> : >
> : > Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
> :
> : The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
>
> www.nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html
>
> www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-age-earth/
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#index_d
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#radio
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#geology
ETC
> :
RichTravsky
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> : gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> : ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> : >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
As the fossils get younger, the more they resemble modern forms. Fact.
> Creation by God is also a logical inference from the fossil
> record (Cambrian Explosion: global flood), DNA and the ability
What flood?
> for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon to perform the
> miraculous feat of building organic machines, which we see
> happening all around us, and the irreducible complexity of
> animals and even a single cell.
Not observable, not testable, not verifiable.
> : >
> : >Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
> : >evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
> : >[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
> : >beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
> : >those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
> : >fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
> : >you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
> : >impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
> : >human race.
> :
> : Yet the same genes produce our limbs as produce the fins of lobefin
> : fishes. And no, we don't expect to see 100 million years of evolution in
> : a fortnight in the lab.
>
> You can't see any of the fish to man version of evolution in any
> lab or in life.
Do you live millions of years? No? But speciation is happening right now.
> Show a test of populations of [flies] evolving and mutating over
Show a creation. Now.
> generations eventually into animals that are clearly no longer
> [flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal known
> to man. The fact is, the belief that such a thing can happen is
> unobservable, untestable and unverifiable. Please cite the
> scientific tests that shows this happening. The only thing we
> ever observed happening is populations of [flies] producing more
> flies, and worst case a slightly different species of [flies]
> (but they are still [flies]!) - that's Speciation. Not the fish
> to man version of evolution no matter how much they mutate, no
> matter how much the allele frequencies change. And that's a
> scientific fact. In that effect, what is repeatable, observable,
> testable and verifiable: that this ~never~ happens no matter how
> much they supposedly mutate and allele frequencies change. So in
> effect, science actually falsifies / disproves the fish to man
> version of evolution!
>
> However, if you have such a test case, please cite it to back up
> what you believe actually qualifying as science. Thank you.
Give a scientific cite for a creation. Or a space alien creating life forms
here.
Sid9
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B15E878...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> gabriel wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> : gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> : >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> : ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> : >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> : >:
>> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat
>> : >: >ion #paginateTop
>> : >: >
>> : >: >Myth 10: Creationists Don't Believe Species Change
>> : >: >
>> : >: >A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the
>> fixity
>> : >: >of species (i.e., species don't change). And since species
>> : >: >obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
>> : >: >straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really
>> there in
>> : >: >the first place.
>> : >:
>> : >: Actually, some creationists have unwisely made the claim.
>> Some even
>> : >: to this day.
>> : >: >
>> : >: >Prior to the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species
>> : >: >especially, some Christians did claim that species were
>> : >: >immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species
>> did
>> : >: >any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
>> : >: >
>> : >: >Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within
>> each
>> : >: >created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We
>> know
>> : >: >created roughly 6,000 years ago.
>> : >:
>> : >: "Baramin" is an artificial word concocted from the Hebrew
>> phrase
>> : >: "miyn bara" found in Genesis and translated as "created kind."
>> But
>> : >: my Hebrew sources tell me that a very reasonable translation
>> would be
>> : >: "species."
>> : >:
>> : >: The fact that the author of that part of Genesis had observed
>> what we
>> : >: still see today--that species generally reproduce by giving
>> rise to
>> : >: members of their own species in no way makes fixity of species
>> or
>> : >: "kind" (whatever you think you mean by the term) a law of
>> nature,
>> : >: even according to the scripture you are so anxious to
>> misinterpret.
>> : >:
>> : >: >
>> : >: >Species changing via natural selection and mutations is
>> perfectly
>> : >: >in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
?
?
?
What happened to the guy that proposed "decades old rocks"?
?
?
?
He never came back to explain where they may be found
?
?
?
?
RichTravsky
>
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:15 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : Hey. Cupcake. Learn how to post. I didn't write any of this.
>
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
>
> ...
>
> : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
>
> ...
>
> : Explain all those fossils...
>
> ...
>
> :
> : Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how human
> : and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
>
> ...
>
> Well unless someone else posted it using your account, the above
> is what was posted with your account name.
Change your quote character
> :
> : gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
> : > <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > : gabriel wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
> : > : >
> : > : > Myth 10: Creationists Don�t Believe Species Change
> : > : >
> : > : > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> : > : > of species (i.e., species don�t change). And since species
> : > : > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> : > : > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> : > : > the first place.
> : > : >
> : > : > Prior to the publication of Darwin�s On the Origin of Species
> : > : > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> : > : > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> : > : > not mean the same thing then as it does now�nor was there ever
> : > : > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
> : > : >
> : > : > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
> : > :
> : > : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> : > :
> : > : > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
> : > :
> : > : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> : > :
> : > : > that species do change�but only within the original kinds God
> : > : > evolution�they remind us that God put enough information in the
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: >
: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky
: > <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : gabriel wrote:
: > : >
: > : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
: > : > <patma...@null.net> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : > God
: > : > : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
: > : > :
: > : > : LOL
: > : >
: > : > Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
: > :
: > : The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
: >
: > www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
: >
: > www.nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html
: >
: > www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-age-earth/
: >
: > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#index_d
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#radio
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#geology
:
: ETC
Refuted by the RATE group experiments quoted above.
:
: > :
: > : > of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
RichTravsky
Actually, those links refute the cretinists. They cover cretinist claims.
This one
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
is particularly damaging.
Get over it.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >No, they are useful because they merely describe what has always
: >been true:
: >
: >If someone wants to combine this many O's:
: >
: >O O
: >
: >with this many O's:
: >
: >O O
: >
: >then they will always get this many O's:
: >
: >O O O O
:
: Not necessarily. If the rules for "combine" include overwriting, then
: combining the two leads to
: O O
There are no man made rules when you put items in two separate
groups (say marbles or O's or whatever) together in the same
group, Bob.
If you want to pretend this many marbles in one group
O O
put together with this many marbles in a second group
O O
will give this many marbles as a result
O O
if "we define it that way", you're free to believe in that false
description of reality. It really shows how willingly you want to
remain blind to the truth, or dishonestly hide the truth, that
the reality is we will get this many marbles
O O O O
today, yesterday, and thousands of years before math numbers and
match were ever invented, all no matter how you want to describe
it with words. The universal truth of logic that always existed
that we only describe using whatever words we wish, but did not
invent.
Good luck.
:
: That is what you fail to understand. WE define what it means to
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Never said creation by God qualifies as science, so no need. But
evidence points to it nonetheless.
Notice meanwhile you failed to provide an observation or test
case of what you believe in, which shows it's also not science -
just a belief. You only offer reasons you have faith in your
beliefs.
:
: > generations eventually into animals that are clearly no longer
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:18:38 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >No, they are useful because they merely describe what has always
>: >been true:
>: >
>: >If someone wants to combine this many O's:
>: >
>: >O O
>: >
>: >with this many O's:
>: >
>: >O O
>: >
>: >then they will always get this many O's:
>: >
>: >O O O O
>:
>: Not necessarily. If the rules for "combine" include overwriting, then
>: combining the two leads to
>: O O
>
>There are no man made rules when you put items in two separate
>groups (say marbles or O's or whatever) together in the same
>group, Bob.
Of course there are. There is whatever rule that says that you CAN
put them in the same group, and whatever rule that says whatever you
did actually accomplished "putting them together".
>If you want to pretend this many marbles in one group
>
>O O
What says that is a "group", or that there are any marbles there at
all? I see two letters or perhaps numbers.
>put together with this many marbles in a second group
>
>O O
Same question. And you haven't defined what "put together" means.
Provide a definition, and that definition is a human rule (unless you
claim to be something other than human).
>will give this many marbles as a result
>
>O O
I still see no marbles.
>if "we define it that way",
We can define it any way we want.
>you're free to believe in that false description of reality.
That YOU say something is false, doesn't mean that it is false.
Especially YOU.
>It really shows how willingly you want to remain blind to the truth,
"Truth" is irrelevant, since we define what it means.
>or dishonestly hide the truth, that
>the reality is we will get this many marbles
>O O O O
I still see no marbles.
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Actually it's not.
And talkorigins.org is not a science site - it only blogs posts
in the newsgroup made by anyone that says something they agree
with.
Meanwhile the inflated dates remain exposed by actual test cases
in the lab.
Take care.
Draccus
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
>
>
> : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : > God
> : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> :
> : LOL
>
> Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
> submitted to scientists to be dated with their faulty dating
> methods: they came back with dates of 1.1 million years when
> rocks were only a few decades old.
Funny thing is there is not a single thing published outside of the
Creationist Websites and I am sorry they are not actually known for
their science. Where are these "rocks" that are a few decades old
coming from? You are aware that rocks would not be carbon dated unless
they are organic in nature.
Draccus
I looked it up they are a Young Earth Creationist offshoot it is very
funny to read and yet very sad.
Draccus
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky
>
> : gabriel wrote:
>
> : >
> : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne: > <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > :
> : > : > God
> : > : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> : > :
> : > : LOL
> : >
> : > Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
> :
> : The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
>
> www.nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html
>
> www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-age-earth/
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination
>
> :
> : > of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
> : > submitted to scientists to be dated with their faulty dating
> : > methods: they came back with dates of 1.1 million years when
> : > rocks were only a few decades old.
Yeah they made me laugh and laugh and then cry because you all are so
damn dumb.
Draccus
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:03:12 -0700, RichTravsky
>
> : gabriel wrote:
>
> : >
> : > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky: > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > : gabriel wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
They like you could not refute that the sun came out last Tuesday.
Draccus
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:28:09 -0700, RichTravsky
>
>
>
>
>
> <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > gabriel wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:03:12 -0700, RichTravsky
> > > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > > : gabriel wrote:
> > > : >
> > > : > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky
> > > : >
> > > : > : gabriel wrote:
> > > : > : >
> > > : > : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
have no background in science to prove their religious beliefs are
true. They use information that is distorted and they lie.
Sid9
"Draccus" <dracc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cbabbfee-d7a9-4ec3...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
.
I had posed a question as to where "rocks were only a few decades old"
might be found.
"rocks were only a few decades old" is the dumbest thing I had ever
heard.
RichTravsky
The YECs. Heh. Fitting square pegs into round holes. Most amusing.
RichTravsky
No answer.
> : > for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon to perform the
> : > miraculous feat of building organic machines, which we see
> : > happening all around us, and the irreducible complexity of
> : > animals and even a single cell.
> :
> : Not observable, not testable, not verifiable.
No answer.
> : > : >
> : > : >Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
> : > : >evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
> : > : >[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
> : > : >beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
> : > : >those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
> : > : >fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
> : > : >you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
> : > : >impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
> : > : >human race.
> : > :
> : > : Yet the same genes produce our limbs as produce the fins of lobefin
> : > : fishes. And no, we don't expect to see 100 million years of evolution in
> : > : a fortnight in the lab.
> : >
> : > You can't see any of the fish to man version of evolution in any
> : > lab or in life.
> :
> : Do you live millions of years? No? But speciation is happening right now.
> :
> : > Show a test of populations of [flies] evolving and mutating over
> :
> : Show a creation. Now.
>
> Never said creation by God qualifies as science, so no need. But
> evidence points to it nonetheless.
What evidence? Note: Superstition not admissible.
> Notice meanwhile you failed to provide an observation or test
> case of what you believe in, which shows it's also not science -
> just a belief. You only offer reasons you have faith in your
> beliefs.
Meanwhile, you fail to provide any evidence or observation of creation
or space aliens.
> :
RichTravsky
Actually it is.
> And talkorigins.org is not a science site - it only blogs posts
icr is not a science site.
Take care.
RichTravsky
Sid's still waiting for that whopper to be backed up too.
Pat Magroyne
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
>
> <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
>
> : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : > God
> : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> :
> : LOL
>
> Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
> of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
> submitted to scientists to be dated with their faulty dating
> methods: they came back with dates of 1.1 million years when
> rocks were only a few decades old.
Sometimes there are errors.
But the earth is much older than 6,000 years old.