Comments on: Young Earth Creationism = Darwinism?

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:09:50 +0000

” They aren’t willing to call it faith because their evidence is beyond error or flaw. I find this highly unlikely as human error will ultimately not allow for flawless evidence as humans are suspect to flaw themselves.”
This is a cartoonish strawman argument Bill. Science always allows for the possibility of error,and makes adjustments to account for new information.Faith by definition is about accepting the ‘fact’ of a God without anything but stories (anecdotes),and changes are hardly tolerated,despite contradictory evidence to show that those stories are replete with errors.

By: Somite

Somite — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 07:31:09 +0000

Please familiarize yourself with the fossil, genetic and anatomic evidence. It is not just an island. Everything in biology is consistent with Darwinism.

By: GerryC

GerryC — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 03:12:07 +0000

Just out of interest Bill, can you source a reference to back up this statement: “This man based an entire “theory” of evolution based on what he found on one island.”
Thanks

By: bill don

bill don — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 07:47:57 +0000

I am amazed that after all this time and scientific progress we find ourselves still talking about Darwin and the Galapagos. This man based an entire “theory” of evolution based on what he found on one island. In my book that would qualify as an anomaly. I find it odd that these birds would evolve to find adequate food and nutrients as climatic changes occur on the island. Have any new species been found today on the islands? Surely in light of all the climatic changes in our world since Darwin there would have to be a change of some kind. Is it impossible to measure in such a short time span? It seems that “science” took a large gamble by going “all in” on Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection. To think it is all based on the findings of one man. Stupid creationists believe what they believe and base it all on the words of one man too. However they are labeled as “stupid” or “dumb” because they choose to do this. It is a double standard that needs to stop. I allow my faith to inform my science. It so happens that my faith is in God. Scientist also allow faith to inform their science. Their faith is in the evidence and ultimately their own ability to evaluate the evidence 100% correctly all the time. They aren’t willing to call it faith because their evidence is beyond error or flaw. I find this highly unlikely as human error will ultimately not allow for flawless evidence as humans are suspect to flaw themselves.

By: frank

frank — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 04:40:07 +0000

hi john,
(may the force be with you ….)

being interested in how these blogs? work, i also have checked back here.

i wonder – do they serve to raise the standards of intellectual debate and accountability – or do they merely ossify the proponents in their respective bunkers?

rgds,

frank

By: John Heininger

John Heininger — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:09:17 +0000

Hi Greg, sorry to be neglectful for so long, but silence does not mean submission, it means that I have a life outside this discussion. And as I didn’t see a single solid argument to refute my comments, I lost interest. Lots of verbal semantics and mental gymnastics but nothing of substance. None-the-less,I came across this site again when looking for something else and saw your comment on silence, and couldn’t resist having another jab. So will have a read through some of the verbal semantics sort you all out,yet again

By: John Heininger

John Heininger — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:52:19 +0000

Hi Guys, silence is not submission, Greg, but absence, due to other priorities. So here’s a couple of starters to keep you busy until I catch up and carefully sift through what has been said above.

1. Can anyone name anything in the universe that is self-creating and self-existing, and not dependent on anything preceding, nor ultimately subject to entropy.

2. Can anyone provide any evidence for naturalistic evolution that conclusively establishes the evolutionary continuum as a verifiable, testable, observable empirical fact leaving no alternative option,including God.

3. Has anyone ever visited any multiple,parallel or bubble universe to confirm they actually exist.

By: SkeleTony

SkeleTony — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 02:19:48 +0000

John,

First of all pointing out that many scientists do not buy into string theory is rather irrelevant. I don’t buy into string theory myself. What has this to do with evolution or even natural/scientific theories of cosmology? Existence IS by nature infinitely regressive(as you seem to be pointing out) but this does not mean that all universes within a multiverse or all aspects of an infinite universal reality must be dying of ‘heat deaths’ at some arbitrary point chosen by you.

To baldly assert that God not only exists but somehow, in some inconceivable way you refuse to elaborate on, exists APART from the rest of reality and yet as a part of this shared reality is…well absurd to be honest. Like saying “There are piranhas in the water but you won’t get bitten by them because they are not part of the water.” Either God exists in reality and can therefore be observed scientifically or he does not.

God does not “run down” or ‘die along with the existing universe’ for the same reason that Superman and Captain America do not die or get admitted to one of our emergency rooms. Imaginary things ‘exist’ as long as there are abstract thinking minds to keep re-inventing them.

“Kind” is a rather meaningless and quite useless term on par with “well dat der fing’s got wings like a duck so it’s prolly a duck!”.

By: ZakA

ZakA — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:44:51 +0000

Fine there is a particle that exists apart from the universe as the necessary non-dependent self-existing first cause.

Just because your story is older does not make it “more right”, if it did there are stories of gods a hell of a lot older than yours. Oh I forgot no one was right until you came along.

Proof or we leave it an unknown so we search further, something you people like to stop us from doing. Where one says “goddidit” research stops, that is unacceptable to me until there is evidence to prove what you claim is true. By the way, the because you don’t know of another reason then goddidit is not evidence.

By: frank

frank — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:28:04 +0000

this exercised my mind too – perhaps one of the best (?) expositions i found @

creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark