"It's important to understand that everything follows a particular design. A functionality that pursuits a means of accomplishment through working mechanisms, that are the result and effect of a cause and a source."
- How can you prove design? Just becuase we don't have the answer for a specific question (hypothetically speaking) doesn't validate a super-natural being made it.

"We DO however, argue that " everything in biology has BOUNDARIES. LIMITS "
- And those are? I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you say "boundries". A bit vague for my taste tbh.

"Since they evolutionist/materialist/secular mind does not see boundaries"
- 3 groups that is not the same. Why would we see boundries that isn't there?

"they do not employ boundaries or limitations in their social lives."
- And by that you mean? That we should stop seeing so many people or stop being social?

"Everything must change, progress, evolve, etc."
- Yes it does, do you want to stop progress and the evolution of society or what?

"It's that evolutionism doctrine that impresses the mentality onto it's believers that when someone argues against specific aspects of evolution, that they are arguing against "change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next"."
- Nope, argueing against the fact that you used 2 words like they meant something but didn't. There is no such thing as "evolutionism doctrine"! This has to be the first time i have ever heard those 2 words next to eachother. Oh and there are some who believe that nothing about evolution is right.

"It's these implications that must be dismantled if there is to be any objective reasoning with the evolution community. I'll give another example of the fraudulent position it implies;"
- What the hell is "evolution community"?! Stop making up words for things that does not exist, but only in your mind. It's like you're fighting a ghost with burning witches. I mean it doesn't make any sense. You are making the assumptions, we don't. The title of Darwins book was a really good one, "The origin of Species". NOT "The origin of Life"!!!
He did actually make a hypothesis about that there could be a universal common decent, but he didn't prove it and he didn't have to to prove his theory.

"As a creationist, if you submit that all creation has a design that is a part of every organism, the evolutionary mind is trained to assume that you argue against very basic principles of actual science like, natural selection."
- Well if you attack evolution you have to expect the scientific community to defend it from ignorance, don't you?

"We argue against a lot of the IMPLICATIONS."
- Still they aren't implications if we got evidence from different areas of science that supports a couple of theories.

"...a design can be and is followed, by all organisms."
- Still, you can't define what kind of design and when you can't define what god is or how he did it. Then you're just back on square one man.

""Biological evolution and abiogenesis and the big bang (of course) have absolutely nothing to do with each other.""
- 3 different areas of science. They have connections, but the same goes for say, chemistry and physics. When we got evidence for explaining a phenomena in nature from one field, we can use that info in other fields. The whole thing of the age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution is pure bull. There are calculations from before darwins book was published that supported the old earth. I still don't get how you can get big bang and evolution so close. They are so seperate and 2 totally independent theories. If one would fail it doesn't exclude the other from being right or wrong.

"...and peanuts have nothing to do with peanut butter."
- Extreme oversimplification that doesn't cut it in any argument. To have peanut butter you have to have peanuts. You don't have to have big bang for evolution or abiogenesis to work. Besides there are no theories on how life started, only hypothesis and a number of ways for it COULD have happened.

"Evolution IMPLIES common ancestry of all life back to 1 organism."
- No, evolution only speaks about how life evolved over time and how species came to be. Not that it started with one organism. BUT there are some evidence that supports this, genetics, structure, genetic material etc.

"Abiogenesis IMPLIES that non-living materials self assembled the functionality of the 1rst organism."
- Again no. There are a number of hypothesis of how it could happen and the fact that we have life on earth makes it a strong case. The enviroment and a large number of conditions has been tested, but no one knows for sure exactly what happened.

"Each idea IMPLIES the other. This is elementary, yet, our evolutionists friends insist. Why? Well, I believe it's because they want it to APPEAR as though all these different fields of science suggest the other. So that if you argued against common ancestry, they would then IMPLY that you argue against all of science and are therefore a nincumpoop."
- Ehm, if you read what you wrote again sometimes. You might find out that it is you who smash it all together, not we. We don't need the other theories and hypothesis to as evidence for out case, but it verifies it and makes it more probable.

"But this methodolgy isn't new, it's classic. If you can't win an argument, just rearrange the definitions and terms so that you can explain your way out of the situation. It's called circular reasoning. We are all onto their bullsrib."
- And that comes from a guy who is very vague in his descriptions and ASSUMES thath things are or what people think, when they don't.

"It's true that humans and apes are similarly designed (as all life), similar DNA patterns, arms & legs, body hair, primates, so forth, so on. Does that similar design prove that we had a common ancestor?"
- Yes, with fossils and DNA compairing.

"See, the evolutionist mind sees the design and identifies that we're both primates and concludes that we're family."
- And by the design you mean exterior or on DNA level?

"To add insult to lack of critical thinking, they lash out at those that question the idea."
- Talk about being original! You are not even trying to question your own beliefs so why do you think we should question ours? We have done that for 150 years and still no dice for you guys. Creation has been here for over 2000 years and you are lecturing US on critical thinking?

"More of those boundaries they are trying to destroy I guess."
- Yeah we should isolate ourselves and live like the amish!

yay another logn and whindign rant by 9tails...lets see if he learned something new and stopped doing the  "lying fo jezus" routine.

 

"It's important to understand that everything follows a particular design. A functionality that pursuits a means of accomplishment through working mechanisms, that are the result and effect of a cause and a source."

 

and that cause is a magical sky daddy becuase?

 

really, anyone with a bisc understanding of organic chmesrty, or biology can tell you that the "designs" you're referring to (i presume this is a ID argument) are just mechanism (which evolved by natural means) that when they were expressed, allowed organisms to survive in a niche. if they didn't they'd die and the "design" is lost.

 

bottom line, if it works, it stays, if it doesn't hamper you enough, it doesn't go away. thus we still have the gene's for tails, but since they aren't expressed anymore, they aren't selected against.

 

"The definition of - biological evolution - is:"

dammit....must we get into this again..

if you're arguing agaisnt ToE, (the acceptence of ToE makes you and "evolutionists") you're arguign against what you're callign biological evolution. period.

if ur arguing agaisnt abiogenesis, you're arguing agaisnt abiogenesis, if ur arguing agaisnt big bang theory, you're arguing agaisnt big bang theory. NOT a unrealted field of science.

 

"Pretending for a moment that this was all that evolution implied, there would be no argument. The funny thing is, we, as creationists, do not argue against this point."

 

actually yes, a couple of you do, those are the people who whine "there are no beneficial mutations!"

butnever the less. AGAIN. you argue agaisnt soem sort of characature of evolution you made in your head, you refute that, THEN you want us to dismiss the ACTUAL ToE. srly..do you not see how dishonest you are beign at expecting us to to that?

 

"We DO however, argue that " everything in biology has BOUNDARIES. LIMITS"

 

VAGUE. ofc there are limits to reality. but ur probably referring to howfar natural selction can go, in which case, it can go just as far as you give it time to.as long as organism live and reproduce, the mutations and changes keep accumulating.

 

" Since they evolutionist/materialist/secular mind does not see boundaries"

 

3 things whihc aren't mutually dependant or the same.

GJ at extenign your vocabulary.

tell that to the hindu humanist.

 

"they do not employ boundaries or limitations in their social lives. Everything must change, progress, evolve, etc.)"

 

k you;re referrign to the "atheist have no morals" claim.

FU!

i have my morals, i draw them from empathy and rational thinking, not a book that tells me i get to keep slaves and i get to kill non believers.

there are MANY more issues on how the moral "codes" planted throughout the bible are just outdated and just plain wrong in modern society.

 

the arguemnt has been thoroughly debunked many times, including the "where do morals come from" part.

euthypho's dilemma dude.

 

"It's that evolutionism doctrine"

doctirine? you're just begging for me to expose the irony.

 

"that impresses the mentality onto it's believers that when someone argues against specific aspects of evolution, that they are arguing against "change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next"."

 

as explained in my reply above. if you argue science, argue science don't argue fairy tales.

yo're pullign the sematic trick on us by predefining what the ToE applies to, instead of using the scientific usage.

 

START TO ARGUE SPECIFICALLY FOR ONCE!

i rly understna dwhy the other sites banned you for using wrong terminology...

 

"It's these implications that must be dismantled if there is to be any objective reasoning with the evolution community."

 

what? WHAT>? don't tell me you don't find i laughable you expect us to dismiss science when you debunk a homemade strawman.

 

" No one would argue against natural selection, understanding science."

 

yet you do, you fail grasping how macro evolution is simply the accumulation of micro evolution. you just DON"T want to grasp it i suppose....we've explained to you, and the ID people, time and time agian, the principales of the accumulation of mutations, yet you still argue like we never explained it.

 

"As a creationist, if you submit that all creation has a design that is a part of every organism, the evolutionary mind is trained to assume that you argue against very basic principles of actual science like"

 

when you start to say "well evolution cannot explain this design, thereofre god..." OFC WE INTERVIENE. ToE DOES explain how these systems can form. there is NO NEED to invoke any supernatural entity AT ALL, so WHY people keep doing it.

 

you're misrepresentign our problems 9tails. you're misrepresenting a lot....

 

"We argue against a lot of the IMPLICATIONS. Like the bio diversity treaty or overpopulation."

 

1) what do you think the biodiversity treaty is?

 

2) do you have even the bacis understandign of ecology? populations always flat of at the resource limit...ALWAYS. it's only logical that they do, how can they use more then there is.

 

"Not to mention that even in the midst of abeomutosis"

i'll just point this out to everyone who doesnt know this.

abeomutosis =

"but creation science in baraminology has the term abeomutosis: the science of variable changes over a period of time due to adaptation and reproduction. but never outside the original lineage of baramins."

 

now the funny thing is, you people never specify the criteria of a baramin.

and the other thing is that you people essntially say, you can go 1 metre, 10 metre, not a kiometer.

 

this term also fails to understand how speciation works.

i've explained this SO MANY times to you 9 tails. i've ven linked video's.

 

do you want me to explain how speciation works again, or not?

 

"a design can be and is followed, by all organisms"

yet this design is constantly changing and adapting to the whim of the natural selection it's surroundign dictate to it.

 

"Just because trees bloom, wilt and adapt does not mean they abandon their original functionality."

 

firts of all vauge, second of all again again failure to udnerstand ToE, and thridly

genehomology and junk DNA.

You lose.

 

"

 

i've been over this in length with the 4 origins argument.

even if god DID make the first living cell. that's all he'd have to do to, natural selection will promts that single species to diversify into different forms, and you'd end up with organism that superficially don't look anythign liek each other.

 

even IF god causes the universe. the earth and life can still form by natural processes, and life can stil diverse without natural processes.

 

"Evolution IMPLIES common ancestry of all life back to 1 organism. Abiogenesis IMPLIES that non-living materials self assembled the functionality of the 1rst organism. Each idea IMPLIES the other."

 

LOL...do you ned see how you failed at making your point apparent?

you tell us evolution imples on a single ancestor, yet you fail to make clear how that would mean that that first organism formed.

instead you start from the other side.

you go D->C->B->A and then A<-5<-4<-3<-2<-1, k my statement is vauge, but it's a bit hard to make clear the leap in logic you're making here.

 

"So that if you argued against common ancestry, they would then IMPLY that you argue against all of science and are therefore a nincumpoop."

 

you fail to understand what our criticism is adressed to for the main part.

it's the arugment you present and how you present them, that's where you fail to even make a god basis.

 

we don't argue agaisnt you'r conclusion if you cannot even reach one through logic or science.

 

 

"f you can't win an argument, just rearrange the definitions and terms so that you can explain your way out of the situation."

 

IRONY.

 

"It's called circular reasoning."'

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! NNNNNOOOOO!!!

tha't NOT what circular reasoning is.

let me give you a clear cut example.

 

The bible is correct (conclusion) because the bible sais it is correct (argument), and it is correct (conclusion) because the bible is correct (argument).

 

or soemthign liek it..

point is, somethign that is selfaffiriming is circular reasoning, NOT what you said it was.

 

"Does that similar design prove that we had a common ancestor? No, of course not."

 

why the hell did the designed make it appear so then? how come we find so much genehomology and morphological similarity, and how come we are alb eto reconstruc a working theorie from LOOKING at these "common designs".

 

either it's commen ancestory, or god is doing his utmost to make it appear so.

 

:You can believe that if you like, don't know what the appeal is, but your free anyway."

 

well i know what your appeal is. and why you don't want to give your up.

 

"the evolutionist mind sees the design and identifies that we're both primates and concludes that we're family."

 

and seeing as we share so many characteristics coupled witht the fossil evidence this is so crazy to conclude because?????

 

"o add insult to lack of critical thinking, they lash out at those that question the idea."

 

if you make a jackass of your self. you bet ur ass i'll laugh at you.....

 

"More of those boundaries they are trying to destroy I guess."

 

still vague..but i can at least respond to this.

 

demonstrate the boundries to me. and yes, i know you can't.

 

 

to bad 9tail that this new thread has added shockingly little to the overall content of your arguments.

 

in essence this is the same old "deluded god denying evolutionists" rant, but then rephrased.

 

 

Well, you missed one important factor, 325. The doctrines of evolution are crap. There is not 1 reason why I would think, even for a second, that I am related to apes, certainly not all of life, that is a stupid unfounded idea.

 

Abiogenesis the same, someone reached into their butt and pulled that fairy tale out. And the age of the earth? My earth is not possibly older than 10 thousand years.

 

My family is not taught that garbage, no more than we would willingly attend a scientology convention. In fact, our church has a group that works to keep evolutionism out of schools, as it is a dangerous silly idea.

 

Wax on, wax off. Come on man, we've been through this.