tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post5189046430033624044..comments2023-10-25T10:45:54.660-05:00Comments on Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: Evolution for Creationists Part FourAIGBustedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-21660516030782544652008-04-02T13:20:00.000-05:002008-04-02T13:20:00.000-05:00I may have to turn off the "Anonymous Comments" Op...I may have to turn off the "Anonymous Comments" Option if I keep getting retarded comments from creationists. I have the suspicion that these are all from the same person. Question Mark.AIGBustedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-55269879520348669472008-04-02T12:08:00.000-05:002008-04-02T12:08:00.000-05:00In response to the attack on the Genesis account.....In response to the attack on the Genesis account...<BR/><BR/>Genisis 2 simply gives us more imformation. It expands on chapter one. It doesn't in the slightest bit contradict it!!<BR/><BR/>Your reading skills are like that of an ape. You must have inherited them from your dad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-59298792475554588732007-12-12T05:37:00.000-06:002007-12-12T05:37:00.000-06:00Thanks for this "Evolution for Creationists" secti...Thanks for this "Evolution for Creationists" section, it's a pretty good, easily understandable resource. Your blog on the whole is pretty interesting. Keep rebutting those creationsit lies :).Lithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14779710561019460004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-74442850261368997402007-11-29T09:40:00.000-06:002007-11-29T09:40:00.000-06:00Hey! Just been reading lots of atheistic blogs and...Hey! Just been reading lots of atheistic blogs and of course plugging my own. The Crazy Christian Blog. Check it out and feel free to comment! If you’ve already been, come back again, the page is updated daily and now there is a new poll! Have a godless day!!!<BR/><BR/>http://crazychristianblog.blogspot.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-36306444857540046252007-11-28T15:12:00.000-06:002007-11-28T15:12:00.000-06:00The very least we can ask of any system, scientifi...The very least we can ask of any system, scientific or religious, is that it not be blatantly self-contradictory. Creationists like to nitpick the theory of evolution in an attempt to put scientists on the defensive. However, when it comes to examining the underpinnings of biblical creation, they have been getting a free pass - which is too bad, since biblical creation does not even live up to this minimal standard.<BR/><BR/>I have confronted creationists a few times with the following. I doubt if anything would de-program them, but at least this seems to take them aback, since they rarely know their own bible:<BR/><BR/>Creation proponents believe in "the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture and in the literal historicity of Genesis, with its record of six-day Creation"[1] . If we examine Genesis, we find that chapter 1 and chapter 2 tell different stories*. In chapter 1, plants and animals were created before any human, yet in chapter 2, man was created first, then the plants, the animals, and lastly, woman. Moreover, in Chapter 1 of Genesis the Creator is the "Elohim". Elohim is a Hebrew word that arises from combining Eloah, which denotes a singular female deity, with "-im", a male plural. So Elohim is literally "male-female Deities". Contrast this with chapter 2, were the creator is "YHWH Elohim" which gets translated into English as "Lord God" but more literally is "Lord of Gods". So the agent of creation is different from one chapter to the next as well.<BR/><BR/>We conclude that scripture contains two different and entirely incompatible creation stories. The creationists should called to account - which scriptural creation story is the correct one? Which one is incorrect? How does one know? How can inerrant Scripture contain something incorrect?<BR/><BR/>*It is very important here to be careful of which translation one is using. The New International Version inserts a past tense in Genesis 2 that reads as if God had already created the plants and animals before man, yet such past tense does not occur in the original Hebrew. The King James version is true to the original in this regard. See http://www.biblegateway.com/ to compare. <BR/>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR/><BR/>[1] http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-090a.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-1586356467399468002007-11-28T14:23:00.000-06:002007-11-28T14:23:00.000-06:00Some good stuff, AiGB. I'll be looking more thorou...Some good stuff, AiGB. I'll be looking more thoroughly through your links during my spare time (like I have much).<BR/><BR/>Regarding the part about "dragons", I did a <A HREF="http://berlzebub.blogspot.com/2007/05/argument-for-fairy-tale.html" REL="nofollow">post</A> about it early on. An interesting note is that "dragon" appears 13 times in revelations alone.Berlzebubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12781519370029903495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-57281070697680977382007-11-28T12:13:00.000-06:002007-11-28T12:13:00.000-06:00Hi Donnie!I'm aware that the Cretaceous was 65 mya...Hi Donnie!<BR/><BR/>I'm aware that the Cretaceous was 65 mya, but I just decided to be liberal and put the estimation at 40 mya, since anything at or before that time period would completely contradict everything we know about human evolution.AIGBustedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-57107277338236370742007-11-28T09:45:00.000-06:002007-11-28T09:45:00.000-06:00Nice post -- this should have been the first part,...Nice post -- this should have been the first part, IMHO, as it addresses the most basic of complaints ("Just a theory" for example).<BR/><BR/>The "kinds" issue and baraminology are always going to be something die-hard creationists cling to. I totally agree with your assessment of new "kinds" evolving through radical compounded speciation, but know (from experience) that it's not enough to satisfy a YEC.<BR/><BR/>In any case, nice post(s), it's good to have a very quick-reference resource for the most common YEC claims.<BR/><BR/>Oh -- did you know that the myth of the Cyclops (greek myth) is likely derived from someone who found an elephant skull? I remember reading that in Zoobooks magazine back when I was a kid. The reason is due to the size of their nasal cavity. Check into it, it's pretty neat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-75739426761628761972007-11-28T09:20:00.000-06:002007-11-28T09:20:00.000-06:00I believe you have an error in your discussion of ...I believe you have an error in your discussion of "dragons". Aside from your debatable suggestion that some dinosaurs survived long enough to appear with human ancestors in the fossil record, you have the time scale wrong.<BR/><BR/>The Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary is 65my ago, not 40my as you state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com