Marc have you read my points which Brian has summarised in the above. What you give whenever you're asked for evidence is a load of random, meaningless creationist terms. They do not constitute logical explanations by any stretch of the imagination. Eg beauty in nature is a statement not evidence! As pointed out, for all it's beauty naure is cruel and not well designed (see what I've put earlier-you know the points you never respond to) a materials scientist or engineer would do a better job.I think we've been here before: cue versions of
All things bright and beautiful,
The little spirochaete...Then move on to the eye-devouring worm etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Yes and every time guys like you come out with that we give you the answer.
The fact that you are against creationism is your choice but please do not use the old straw man arguments when your have been given a perfectly logoical explanation...
marcsurtees wrote:I became a creationist when I became a Christian. It is fundamental to Christian belief that there is a creator.
I never rejected science, (I chose a scientific career in biology and clinical research) but I did reject the idea of common descent, and a billion year old earth, because the evidence was not compelling enough.
So I remained a creationist because there was no good scientific reason to doubt that God did it the way He said He did it.
Robert wrote:I think we can all see Marc is a primate change denier.
Michael wrote:marcsurtees wrote:Michael wrote:What's the logical explanation ?
God made everything very good and we broke it. Genesis chapter 3.
What on earth does that mean?
cathy wrote:Eg beauty in nature is a statement not evidence! As pointed out, for all it's beauty...
cathy wrote:As for the before the fall nonsense. Would you not be better trying to explain some of the problems that would have arisen in this ill thought out, badly designed original world. Like the sheer numbers of fast breeding animals without death?
jon_12091 wrote: There is an extensive micro-biota present in the shales of the Torridonian consistent with the dating - mainly acritrachs and cryptarchs and some probable stromatolites
marcsurtees wrote:a_haworthroberts wrote:Christians who choose creationism usually think that God has forbidden them ever to change their mind back again concerning origins - even whilst still believing the gospel.
Were do you get your Christians from?
cathy wrote:Thats not evidence marc, yet again I'll point out that they are just random, meaningless creationist phrases NOT evidence. They do not support the hypothesis of creative activity in the light of what we know. However assuming you wish to test that hypothesis-how are you going to do it scientifically???
a_haworthroberts wrote:I note that Marc has ignored my two questions at 6.30 pm yesterday.
a_haworthroberts wrote:The known facts of chemistry, biology, genetics that show discontinuity in the natural world.
Please try to enlighten us further, Marc.
a_haworthroberts wrote:I did reject the idea of common descent, and a billion year old earth, because the evidence was not compelling enough.
In what way did you find the evidence for a billion year old Earth not compelling enough? Especially if the alternative is a mere 6,000 years. Are you accepting the latter uncritically simply because you are not completely scientifically convinced of the former?
And we're back to the beginning yet again, where you ignore all the work that is being done, the magnitude of the task, and the very plausible hypotheses. Go back and read what Psi said about it earlier on or try some of the newer literature. Maybe something that Ken hasn't already ok'd. It is a problem that will eventually be solved but it is a huge task. Also you can keep looking for failure forever, it still doesn't give you POSITIVE evidence of a designer does it. Oh and you seem to have forgotten to do the favourite creationist cliche/lie about scientists waiting round for chemicals to organise themselves into cells yet ha ha ha.marc wrote: One way would be to try and falsify the hypothesis that life comes from living things.
I would try to image how life could have evolved from non-living chemicals and do some experiments to see if it was possible, after each failure I would try refinements and look for other plausible scenarios.
But when I see that the reports in the literature show that this has been done and after decades of effort are still showing that all the possibilities are dead ends, I would begin to be rather confident that a designer was the best explanation...
Discontinous!?! Happens all the time. Or am I not made from chemicals? If not what am I made from?Marc wrote: chemistry to biology
Where in the literature does it state these are discontinous? Where is your evidence that they are discontinous. Where is your POSITIVE evidence for the book of genesis-anachronistic fossils, dating method that gives 6000 years and evidence FOR design (taking into account all I've said before)? Try looking at some biology books. Try talk origins. Try talking sense.really do not have the time to list all the evidence... but if you read the literature it is everywhere...
but here are a few examples of discontiniuity.
chemistry to biology
Prokaryote to eukaryote
single cell to multicellular life...
The origin of limbs, jaws, wings...
Or perhaps for the mud to flow into a pub and become transformed therein? At least that way you could wait inside the pub.cathy wrote:Your logic suggest what the way to support abiogenesis would be to try to to falsify your hypothesis that men come from mud by standing by a muck hole (or pubs as we call them here) waiting for a man to appear.
When you see the beautiful hillsides of the Yorkshire Dales you are seeing evidence of sheep.marcsurtees wrote:When you see a beautiful landscape painting, you are seeing evidence that there is a great artist. When you see a beautiful landscape garden you are seeing evidence of a gardener.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest