Creation vs. Evolution

[Catholic Crusader]

I think what I told you before is that we all have biased start positions. I start with the position that God's Word is absolute truth. You seem to start with the bias that everything can be explained by natural processes.
The best fit for the evidence,,,the most logical is that "In the beginning, God created"

The "either/or" mindset and thinking usually leads nowhere. "Both/And" thinking is often better.
God's Word IS absolute truth, but God is also the author of natural law and He set into motion the natural processes. Evolution, if understood correctly and not the way atheists understand it, is totally compatible with Genesis.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think what I told you before is that we all have biased start positions.

No, you said that AiG's framework is unscientific because it shows they will not follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I start with the position that God's Word is absolute truth.

Which means you are also operating under a framework that you admitted was unscientific. Yet you continue to use it to declare that "science agrees with God's word" (which was actually your starting position).

There are so many problems there....the circular nature of it all, how you assume your conclusion from the start, applying a non-scientific framework to science....yet you seem completely oblivious to all of them.

 

[Caino]

Dear Caino,

Nice try, but I am not portraying God as some sort of charlatan or magician, or in ANY false light. That is your doing. God can do whatever He wants. If we, as His children, cannot believe that He created Adam and Eve as young adults rather than two 5-year-old children, then so be it. Heck, Eve may have been 15, but she sure wasn't 7 years old! Don't feed us bologna, Caino. You are just in the defense mode because of your belief in some Urantia book instead of the Holy Bible. That's all that this amounts to.

Michael

No, God cannot do whatever he wants, that's the Santa Clause belief in a magical God. God cannot do the un-Godlike thing. God does everything his way, the natural way. God didn't create us grownup and perfect, we evolve as persons just like life evolved on a very old earth.

Before I found the UB I knew the earth was old just by common sense. I live in some of the oldest mountains in the world. I knew the Noah story was a fiction by the same common sense.

You dismiss the fact of atomic decay, who could even reason with such a mind?

 

[redfern]

Lets finish our chat on genetics first. You made some obviously incorrect statements which you failed to address.

My quick answer would be yes, since if I am wrong, I want to understand very clearly where. But I do have some reservations. Are you suggesting we “baby-step” through the nitty-gritty of the genetics question, as opposed to simply tossing “Here’s what my authority says on the subject” back and forth? If willing to get into details, are you up to dealing with the required biology and mathematics?

And I am not going to simply let the ice-core question fade into history. You presented a link (The Lost Squadron) in support of your side, and I feel very strongly that is an inaccurate impression that article makes. Quid pro quo?

Rosenritter hasn’t indicated a willingness to examine the ice-core question in depth, even though my “baby-step” suggestion is an echo of something he asked for recently of another poster.

 

[6days]

My quick answer would be yes, since if I am wrong, I want to understand very clearly where.

You seem to have a fundamentally incorrect impression about mutations and our genome. Your arguments are similar to the ones evolutionists had about 15 years ago, or more. See post 21240

 

[6days]

The "either/or" mindset and thinking usually leads nowhere. "Both/And" thinking is often better.
God's Word IS absolute truth, but God is also the author of natural law and He set into motion the natural processes. Evolution, if understood correctly and not the way atheists understand it, is totally compatible with Genesis.

I disagree ...except for the part that God's Word is absolute truth.
It seems like you are suggesting we believe God's Word but try to make it fit with secular ideas.
If physical death is not the result of first Adam's sin....then the purpose of Christ's physical death and resurrection is destroyed.

 

[6days]

No, you said that AiG's framework is unscientific because it shows they will not follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I didn't say that Jose. I think you are a bit forgetful?

 

[6days]

God can do whatever He wants.

Yes:first:

 

[Rosenritter]

You have continually avoided answering the challenge to engage, so I assume this is just embarrassed bluster.

Carry on!

No, I really think that you've never bothered to think this through. You have a tiny organism that can reproduce itself. Then you believe that it somehow changes this perfect mechanism and breaks it into a set that requires two different beings to make it work, like the safety we have to launch nuclear weapons?

 

[Rosenritter]

Yet again Rosen you show your ego. Clearly you are just sooo much smarter than all the experts who've studied this and thus why the problems so obvious to you seem nonexistent tho them. Couldn't possibly be that you're ever mistaken.....

I'll inform textbook writers to stop looking to published research and just ask you for your opinion on all matters. No need for evidence when we have the mighty Rosen's opinions!

I'm glad that you've finally seen sense to bow to my superior understanding. Please see that you remember this lesson.

 

[Rosenritter]

I think what I told you before is that we all have biased start positions. I start with the position that God's Word is absolute truth. You seem to start with the bias that everything can be explained by natural processes.
The best fit for the evidence,,,the most logical is that "In the beginning, God created"

1. Stating one's starting assumptions is proper intellectual honesty.

2. Stating what one starts off intending to prove or disprove is one of the first steps of the scientific method.

Seems Jose doesn't recognize either.

 

[Rosenritter]

My quick answer would be yes, since if I am wrong, I want to understand very clearly where. But I do have some reservations. Are you suggesting we “baby-step” through the nitty-gritty of the genetics question, as opposed to simply tossing “Here’s what my authority says on the subject” back and forth? If willing to get into details, are you up to dealing with the required biology and mathematics?

And I am not going to simply let the ice-core question fade into history. You presented a link (The Lost Squadron) in support of your side, and I feel very strongly that is an inaccurate impression that article makes. Quid pro quo?

Rosenritter hasn’t indicated a willingness to examine the ice-core question in depth, even though my “baby-step” suggestion is an echo of something he asked for recently of another poster.

Redfern, not ignoring you particularly. This is our Canadian Thanksgiving weekend. Here, let me help out to save time. Please tell me you aren't assuming that dark rings in ice are "annual" ice rings?

 

[6days]

Redfern, not ignoring you particularly. This is our Canadian Thanksgiving weekend.

Happy Thanksgiving

Please tell me you aren't assuming that dark rings in ice are "annual" ice rings?

Yes... that is sort of a general assumption, but then they try back it up with oxygen isotope comparisons and other methods.

 

[Tyrathca]

I'm glad that you've finally seen sense to bow to my superior understanding. Please see that you remember this lesson.

:chuckle: the funny thing is I'm really not sure if you're serious or not

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[gcthomas]

No, I really think that you've never bothered to think this through. You have a tiny organism that can reproduce itself. Then you believe that it somehow changes this perfect mechanism and breaks it into a set that requires two different beings to make it work, like the safety we have to launch nuclear weapons?

You apparently have not read my posts. I suggested that the first sexual reproduction arose in the form of hermaphrodites in parallel to the common subdividing method, so no method was broken. This would, of course, allow sexual dimorphism to arise gradually.

Please, if you are going to pretend to debate, then at least pretend to have read the other half of the argument. I normally have to reserve slower repeats only for those with educational shortcomings.

 

[Rosenritter]

You apparently have not read my posts. I suggested that the first sexual reproduction arose in the form of hermaphrodites in parallel to the common subdividing method, so no method was broken. This would, of course, allow sexual dimorphism to arise gradually.

Please, if you are going to pretend to debate, then at least pretend to have read the other half of the argument. I normally have to reserve slower repeats only for those with educational shortcomings.

You're jumping WAY too far ahead. Or rather assuming what it is you seek to prove. You're starting with "hermaphodytes?"

.

of or denoting a person, animal, or plant having both male and female sex organs or other sexual characteristics.

Attempting to "prove" a gradual change from non-sexual self-replication to having both male and female organs is already assuming "male and female." Start the scenario without male and female sex organs.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days & Rosenritter,

I do hope that your Thanksgiving was superior and enjoyable as EVER. We must enjoy these holidays while we can, because we never know if we will have the chance to see them again in the future in the same way. Did you have turkey? Oh, it all sounds scrumptious. I cannot wait for ours to happen!! Hope it was definitely memorable!!

In God, We Treasure!!

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

You're jumping WAY too far ahead. Or rather assuming what it is you seek to prove. You're starting with "hermaphodytes?"

.


Attempting to "prove" a gradual change from non-sexual self-replication to having both male and female organs is already assuming "male and female." Start the scenario without male and female sex organs.

That would be silly.

Most flowering plants have both male and female sex organs in every flower -- are you saying that these plants must have two sexes as well that just haven't been discovered yet?

 

[6days]

Most flowering plants have both male and female sex organs in every flower

Oh, well that explains the origins of sex then!! Mix together some sugars, amino acids, and lipids...Stir in lots of time and Voila...Both sexes together in a flower

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The "either/or" mindset and thinking usually leads nowhere. "Both/And" thinking is often better.
God's Word IS absolute truth, but God is also the author of natural law and He set into motion the natural processes. Evolution, if understood correctly and not the way atheists understand it, is totally compatible with Genesis.

I disagree ...except for the part that God's Word is absolute truth.
It seems like you are suggesting we believe God's Word but try to make it fit with secular ideas.
If physical death is not the result of first Adam's sin....then the purpose of Christ's physical death and resurrection is destroyed.

I am not at all suggesting that we try to make God's Word fit with secular ideas. I am suggesting that you have wrongly interpreted Genesis.

Genisis 1 is meant to teach one thing and one thing only:

That God created everything out of nothing, that he created man in his own image, that man seperated himself from God through disobedience, and that God immediately set about the long - or at least it seems long to us - process of healing that rift, a process which culminated with the death and resurrection of Christ. That is ALL it teaches.

Everything in Genesis is meant to convey that truth, but it is done in the ancient Semitic style of writing, using allegories, fantastic imagery, and all based on traditions that were handed down for centuries. I do not believe there was a serpent, or a tree, or a garden, etc. These are all images & allegories, in a certain style of writing, meant to convey the fundamental truth I stated above.