Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Dear The Barbarian,

A lawyer cannot evolve from a lizard and vice versa! You are too funny!! And yet, there WHAT is? See Post #8019. Chameleons are fun though. I've seen one of them a few times, once in Florida. The rest, at pet stores.

Neanderthal men did not evolve from apes or chimps. You just don't get it. Well, of course I love you regardless of what you believe. I guess I'm just dealing with you being a Catholic who believes in evolution. I don't know why you won't accept the Creation story. You somehow think that Moses was not told correctly about Adam and Eve, and the creation of the Earth and man, etc.

Praise God!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

It's been awhile since I've heard from you. You didn't answer my last post to you. Are you okay and doing well? I hope all is okay. Yes, if you want to paint your apt., but all means, go ahead and paint it. I've told you all that I know so far, except tons of other things that have happened to me. I've lost track of how many angels have visited me, 7 to 10 times. Sometimes, they are in my visions too. Like my vision about the tornadoes. There was one angel there. And then my vision about Phoenix. That's another right there. Plus, I initially was visited by 3 angels within the span of 3 weeks. Oh well, I know you don't want to hear it. I hope that all is okay with you and that you are very happy!!


Much Love Coming Your Way!!!

Michael

Hi Michael, I'm half Irish and they have an expression "away with the fairies" which rather seems to apply quite well to you.
Or is that away with the angels? :think:
Has Mark been sending you stuff to smoke? :idunno:

 

[6days]

You gave an example of a lizard adapting. Your belief that lizards can evolve into Lawyers (or any other kind of animal) is unscriptural

Not in the Christian Bible. What are you reading?
The evolution of a new structure is precisely what your new doctrine says cannot happen. And yet there it is.

You were previously shown you were wrong about lizard evolution. Making strawman arguments about it now, does not change that your beliefs are still wrong.


God's *Word tells us "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


The lizard adapted RAPIDLY to a new environment. It was still the same kind of animal.*


The lizards adapted and changed RAPIDLY which is the Biblical creationist model. I have posted previous that God has given creatures genomes and mechanisms allowing survival in various environments. There are many examples of RAPID adaptation and speciation. But finches are always finches.... fish are always fish...flies are always flies etc.


Re the "new" structure in lizards... It really isn't new since other lizarda also have cecal valves. And....it seems the DNA in the lizards without the cecal valve have the same DNA as lizards that 'evolved' cecal valves.*

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/

The genetic info allowing lizards to be herbivores was quite likely there from creation. *(And also supports the Biblical model of vegetarian animals in God's "very good" creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

You were previously shown you were wrong about lizard evolution.

But you can't discuss the particulars. Everyone knows why.

God's *Word tells us "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Yep. Your problem is, you don't approve of the way He did it.

(Sound of goal posts being frantically repositioned)

The lizard adapted RAPIDLY to a new environment.

Yep. Mutation and natural selection. If such drastic changes can happen in a few decades, then it's not hard to see how millions of years can make even greater changes.

It was still the same kind of animal.

But you guys can't come up with a testable definition of "kind", so that's just another dodge.

The lizards adapted and changed RAPIDLY which is the Biblical creationist model.

Nope. There's nothing at all about evolution in the Bible. You just copied a little from real science and pasted "Biblical" to it. Many creationists have now admitted that new species, genera, and families evolve.

Which would put humans and chimpanzees in the same "kind."

Rock and a hard place for you.

I have posted previous that God has given creatures genomes and mechanisms allowing survival in various environments.

It's called "mutation and natural selection." Darwin first noted it, although no one had yet figured out how variation actually happened. It took a different evolutionist (Gregor Mendel) to figure that out.

There are many examples of RAPID adaptation and speciation. But finches are always finches.... fish are always fish...flies are always flies etc.

That argument says "primates are always primates." And again, you've put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind.

Re the "new" structure in lizards... It really isn't new since other lizarda also have cecal valves.

Sharks and many others have them, too. It's a handy new structure to increase digestive volume. The reason it's new for this species, is that there never was such a structure for them, before.

And....it seems the DNA in the lizards without the cecal valve have the same DNA as lizards that 'evolved' cecal valves.*

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/

You've been fooled on that one. The DNA is mitochondrial DNA, which is not the same as lizard DNA. You see, mitochondria are really endosymbiotic bacteria, with their own, bacterial DNA. And because it's more constant, it's often used to trace descent.


Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 25; 105(12): 4792–4795.
Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrčaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population [supporting information (SI) Fig. 5].

Surprise.

The genetic info allowing lizards to be herbivores was quite likely there from creation.

Another creationist "just so" story, with no evidence to support it. You're just making it up as you go, now.

 

[Yorzhik]

Common descent is at least a rational, falsifiable explanation based in evidence from all natural sciences...

Common descent is falsifiable, and has been falsified repeatedly by the evidence. But your eyes always glaze over instead of looking at the evidence.

... even if you don't like it for whatever reason.

One of the many reasons I don't like common descent is the scientific evidence. But you are too irrationally committed to your common descent dogma to consider the evidence.

"God-did-it" miraculously because that's what is written in an ancient scripture, is at best hearsay, at worst an irrational, un-falsifiable, faith based belief,...

It's not irrational if it is true, and lucky for us the scientific conclusions are consistent with the bible. But you would rather rely on consensus rather than evidence because you are irrational.

... regardless of any scientific conclusions no matter how rigorous and well evidenced.

The rigorous and well evidenced science points to intelligent design and against common descent. But your faith in common descent makes your eyes glaze over before you can even consider the evidence.

 

[everready]

Evolution An Ancient Pagan Idea

Evolution An Ancient Pagan Idea

As I read the works of the Greek philosophers, who lived between about 600–100BC, I was amazed to discover primitive evolutionary theory and vast ages long before Darwin and modern assumptions. The fragments of Anaximander (c. 610–546 BC) taught that ‘humans originally resembled another type of animal, namely fish.1 There was Democritus (c.460–370BC) who taught that primitive people began to speak with ‘confused’ and ‘unintelligible’ sounds but ‘gradually they articulated words.’2 Epicurus (341–270BC) taught that there was no need of a God or gods, for the Universe came about by a chance movement of atoms.3

The Greeks borrowed some of these ideas from the Babylonians, Egyptians and Hindus, whose philosophies extended back centuries before. For example, one Hindu belief was that Brahman (the Universe) spontaneously evolved by itself like a seed, which expanded and formed all that exists about 4.3 billion years ago.6 These Hindus believed in an eternal Universe that had cycles of rebirth, destruction and dormancy, known as ‘kalpas’, rather like oscilla*ting big bang theories. We also read in the Hindu Bhagavad Gita that the god Krishna says, ‘I am the source from which all creatures evolve.’7

Some of the Babylonians claimed that they had astronomical inscriptions on clay tablets for 730,000 years; others, like Berosus, claimed 490,000 years for the inscriptions.4 The Egyptians claimed that they had understood astronomy for more than 100,000 years.8

The early Christian Church Fathers constantly argued with the pagans about the age of the earth, or about the age of civilization. They were unanimous that God had created the earth less than 6,000 years before they wrote.9 For example, one of the most influential, Augustine (AD354–430), in his most famous work, City of God, has a whole chapter, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, where he says:

https://christianreformedink.wordpr...and-theology/evolution-an-ancient-pagan-idea/


everready

 

[6days]

God's Word tells us "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Yep. Your problem is, you don't approve of the way He did it.

It isn't a matter of approving how God did it... it's a matter of believing what He says.*

If we continue on from the avove verses we read "God saw all that he had made,*and it was very good.*And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

The lizard adapted RAPIDLY to a new environment.

Yep. Mutation and natural selection. If such drastic changes can happen in a few decades, then it's not hard to see how millions of years can make even greater changes.

That is evolutionism.... not science.

If we don't believe God's Word, then you can fall for almost any explanation. The evidence is that animals can often adapt or even speciate in only a couple generations. Lizards remain lizards... testimony to the truth of scripture.*

It was still the same kind of animal.

But you guys can't come up with a testable definition of "kind", so that's just another dodge.

You have been given definitions several times... by several people so that's just another dodge.*(The lizard was still a lizard)
(As if you can give a definition to words such as 'species' that all scientists totally agree with)

The lizards adapted and changed RAPIDLY which is the Biblical creationist model.

Nope. There's nothing at all about evolution in the Bible.

Correct... Common ancestry beliefs are contrary to scripture.

*

I have posted previous that God has given creatures genomes and mechanisms allowing survival in various environments.

It's called "mutation and natural selection."

Yes... those are just two of the mechanisms which allow creatures to adapt.

There are many examples of RAPID adaptation and speciation. But finches are always finches.... fish are always fish...flies are always flies etc.

That argument says "primates are always primates." And again, you've put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind.

God created man in His image. Animals were created after their kind. (See Gen. 1)

Re the "new" structure in lizards... It really isn't new since other lizards also have cecal valves.

Sharks and many others have them, too. It's a handy new structure to increase digestive volume. The reason it's new for this species, is that there never was such a structure for them, before.

Calling it new does not make it new. *As you say.. cecal valves exist in other creatures....and in other lizards.*

And....it seems the DNA in the lizards without the cecal valve have the same DNA as lizards that 'evolved' cecal valves.

The DNA is mitochondrial DNA, which is not the same as lizard DNA.

The article says "*Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."
Should they have only analyzed the MtDNA, it night be beneficial to analyze all the DNA. The rapid change suggests the info pre-existed in the DNA.
Lizards remain lizards. The evidence points to our omniscient Creator programming a code into creatures allowing survival ...even allowing rapid change to adapt to various environments.*

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Michael, I'm half Irish and they have an expression "away with the fairies" which rather seems to apply quite well to you.
Or is that away with the angels? :think:
Has Mark been sending you stuff to smoke? :idunno:

Dear Alwight,

I'm part Irish too, and English, Al. On my Mom's side of the family. In my instance, it must be 'away with the angels.' No, I'm not smoking any pot. It would probably help my glaucoma though. I have been talking with Mark about once a week. All is going well and he says to tell you 'Hi!' every time I talk with him. I talked with him about 5 days ago. You do know that I wrote you a long post before this last one and you never answered it? See Post #8012. Check it out. Will chat with you again soon, Buddy!!!

Cheerio Mate!!

Michael

:zoomin:

You're :first:

 

[MichaelCadry]

As I read the works of the Greek philosophers, who lived between about 600–100BC, I was amazed to discover primitive evolutionary theory and vast ages long before Darwin and modern assumptions. The fragments of Anaximander (c. 610–546 BC) taught that ‘humans originally resembled another type of animal, namely fish.1 There was Democritus (c.460–370BC) who taught that primitive people began to speak with ‘confused’ and ‘unintelligible’ sounds but ‘gradually they articulated words.’2 Epicurus (341–270BC) taught that there was no need of a God or gods, for the Universe came about by a chance movement of atoms.3

The Greeks borrowed some of these ideas from the Babylonians, Egyptians and Hindus, whose philosophies extended back centuries before. For example, one Hindu belief was that Brahman (the Universe) spontaneously evolved by itself like a seed, which expanded and formed all that exists about 4.3 billion years ago.6 These Hindus believed in an eternal Universe that had cycles of rebirth, destruction and dormancy, known as ‘kalpas’, rather like oscilla*ting big bang theories. We also read in the Hindu Bhagavad Gita that the god Krishna says, ‘I am the source from which all creatures evolve.’7

Some of the Babylonians claimed that they had astronomical inscriptions on clay tablets for 730,000 years; others, like Berosus, claimed 490,000 years for the inscriptions.4 The Egyptians claimed that they had understood astronomy for more than 100,000 years.8

The early Christian Church Fathers constantly argued with the pagans about the age of the earth, or about the age of civilization. They were unanimous that God had created the earth less than 6,000 years before they wrote.9 For example, one of the most influential, Augustine (AD354–430), in his most famous work, City of God, has a whole chapter, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, where he says:

https://christianreformedink.wordpr...and-theology/evolution-an-ancient-pagan-idea/


everready

Dear everready,

I see you've done some homework. It doesn't surprise me at all to find out that evolutionism is a part of paganism. Same about the big bang theory. A seed!! Ha! And they had no real basis for time at all. The pagans just all exaggerated how much time it took them. It doesn't surprise me any. What matters is what it says in the Bible. If I believe what is said in the Bible, I have done God no wrong. But if I say that it took God a million years instead of six days to do the Creation, then He will want to know why I believed that. So I will just let God affirm what exactly is the case. That way, I don't have to answer Him for it. If I was supposed to say that God created man 1.5 million years ago and don't, then it is my fault. But if vice versa, then it is not my fault. I'd rather it not be my fault.

Thanks And Praise The Lord, Everready,

Michael



:zoomin:

 

[zoo22]

Dear zoo22,

What do you think of what I had to share? Do you believe and have faith concerning it? Certainly we have all waited long enough for Jesus to return again. You can see that everything is ripe for His coming. I testify from what I've heard from the Lord and the angels. I am like a candlestick and olive tree standing before the God of the whole earth. I'm trying to prepare the way of the Lord Jesus. I post on Twitter also and have believers from all over the world. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama I have also spoken to because they tweeted to me. I'm doing the best of sharing my testimony as a witness of what I've heard and seen regarding Armageddon. We've been going through the Tribulation for years now, if you didn't now. It will culminate in an even harder Tribulation, with fires, earthquakes, floods, etc. where people cannot be reached by aid to them. The roads will be impassible, soon cars won't have any gas to run them, there shall be no electricity, A/C, lights, heat, Internet, etc. Drinking water shall become scarce. The world will go back to living like it was in many years we had before us. But, Jesus will return and the state of the Earth will be greatly improved so that there will be no violence and the lion shall lay down like the lamb, and the lion shall eat straw, believe it or not. The meek shall inherit the earth. 1/3 of the people on earth shall inherit the earth. 1/3 shall go to heaven, and 1/3 shall go to sleep in the dust and live again in another earthly body or earthly vessel. They will have one last chance to choose good over evil, and Jesus over Satan.

God Be With You In The Days To Come!!

Michael

So an end of September armageddon?

Yippee!!

Yippee, armageddon?

 

[alwight]

Common descent is falsifiable, and has been falsified repeatedly by the evidence. But your eyes always glaze over instead of looking at the evidence.

I'm probably not as convinced by your assertions and claims of how incredulous common descent is as I am by the general scientific evidence based consensus indicating its factuality. The incredulity of a miraculous alternative, for some reason, doesn't seem to worry you quite so much Yorzhik?

One of the many reasons I don't like common descent is the scientific evidence. But you are too irrationally committed to your common descent dogma to consider the evidence.

Then publish your findings, I'm sure your Nobel Prize is in the bag.
As an agnostic atheist, common descent is simply an explanation of the evidence as far as I'm concerned, it hasn't got to be right or wrong to change that. If however it is true, which I believe it is, then only your more fundamental beliefs will have been undermined, not mine.

It's not irrational if it is true, and lucky for us the scientific conclusions are consistent with the bible. But you would rather rely on consensus rather than evidence because you are irrational.

Hang on a minute, what is so wrong in my thinking that trained natural scientists who overwhelmingly do accept common descent as factual and part of Darwinian evolution, must all be wrong and those with a creationist agenda are right?
Creation is your pre-conclusion to which the evidence needs to be desperately retrospectively force fitted. Unlike science you are not simply led by the evidence while contradictory evidence is simply ignored or dismissed.

The rigorous and well evidenced science points to intelligent design and against common descent. But your faith in common descent makes your eyes glaze over before you can even consider the evidence.

Well, Creationist bald assertions will make my eyes glaze over at least.
Remember it's you who desperately needs common descent to be false, I'll happily accept whatever is reasonably true, which seems to be errr..common descent.:idea:

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by 6days
God's Word tells us "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Barbarian chuckles;
Yep. Your problem is, you don't approve of the way He did it.

It isn't a matter of approving how God did it...

It is. And you don't.

it's a matter of believing what He says.

Yep. The "life ex nihlo" belief of YE creationism is directly refuted by Genesis.

And the notion that it's all literal is refuted by St. Paul in 5 Ephesians:

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

As St. Augustine wrote, long before evolutionary theory appeared:
For St. Paul says: “Now all these things that happened to them were symbolic.”2 And he explains the statement in Genesis, “And they shall be two in one flesh,”3 as a great mystery in
reference to Christ and to the Church.
St. Augustine Genesi Ad Litteram

If we continue on from the avove verses we read "God saw all that he had made,*and it was very good.*And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

As even the early Christians knew, "Yom" did not mean literal days, but rather categories of creation. Augustine made that clear, and no one thought to argue with him about it.

Only after YE creationism was invented early in the 20th century, did we see that become a controversy. And then only with those who did not accept the direct meaning of the Bible.

The lizard adapted RAPIDLY to a new environment.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. Mutation and natural selection. If such drastic changes can happen in a few decades, then it's not hard to see how millions of years can make even greater changes.

That is evolutionism.... not science.

Guess how I know you aren't a scientist. Scientists know better.

Barbarian explains why YE creationism is a snare:
If we don't believe God's Word, then you can fall for almost any explanation.

The evidence is that animals can often adapt or even speciate in only a couple generations. Lizards remain lizards.

And humans, evolving from other primates, remain primates. You're giving away the farm, here.

Barbarian observes:
But you guys can't come up with a testable definition of "kind", so that's just another dodge.

You have been given definitions several times...

But you can't remember it? Pity. A suspicious person would think...

(As if you can give a definition to words such as 'species' that all scientists totally agree with)

That's one of the great problems for creationism. As Darwin pointed out, if species evolved into new species, it should be nearly impossible to define what a species is. And that's the case. It is one of the reasons scientists reject creationism. If you were right, then it should be easy to do so. But at all levels of taxonomy, we see blurred edges, instead of nice neat categories.

This is why you can't provide a testable definition of "kind."

The lizards adapted and changed RAPIDLY which is the Biblical creationist model.

Barbarian chuckles:
Nope. There's nothing at all about evolution in the Bible.

6Days walks into it:

Correct... Common ancestry beliefs are contrary to scripture.

There's nothing about protons or DNA in the Bible, either. So your belief is that protons and DNA are contrary to scripture? Seriously?

There are many examples of RAPID adaptation and speciation. But finches are always finches.... fish are always fish...flies are always flies etc.

Barbarian observes:
That argument says "primates are always primates." And again, you've put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind.

God created man in His image.

So do you think God has a chin, or a simian shelf like the Neandertals? Or are you beginning to realize that the image is not our appearance, but our minds and souls?

Animals were created after their kind. (See Gen. 1)

Only you don't approve of the way He did it.

Re the "new" structure in lizards... It really isn't new since other lizards also have cecal valves.

Barbarian observes:
Sharks and many others have them, too. It's a handy new structure to increase digestive volume. The reason it's new for this species, is that there never was such a structure for them, before.

Calling it new does not make it new.

But the fact that it only recently evolved in this species is new.

As you say.. cecal valves exist in other creatures....and in other lizards.*

So if humans evolved tails and opposable toes, and a throat sac, that wouldn't be evolution, because other primates have them?

And....it seems the DNA in the lizards without the cecal valve have the same DNA as lizards that 'evolved' cecal valves.

Barbarian observes:
You've been fooled on that one. The DNA is mitochondrial DNA, which is not the same as lizard DNA. You see, mitochondria are really endosymbiotic bacteria, with their own, bacterial DNA. And because it's more constant, it's often used to trace descent.

Should they have only analyzed the MtDNA

They wanted to be sure that these evolved lizards were the descendants of the original population. So that made sense.

it night be beneficial to analyze all the DNA.

It will be different. All populations change in allele frequency over time. Even if you don't see much change, that happens. So, without identifying the specific genes that produced this new structure, it wouldn't help.

The odds are that the structure, being analogous, had different genes involved.

Lizards remain lizards.

Pretty much as humans and chimps, descending from a common ancestor, remain primates. Rock and a hard place.

The evidence points to our omniscient Creator programming a code into creatures allowing survival ...even allowing rapid change to adapt to various environments.*

Pleased to hear you admit it. It happened long before life appeared, though. It's part of the rules by which His universe works.

At this point, you've surrendered pretty much everything else. Why not just set your pride aside, and accept it His way?

 

[6days]

It isn't a matter of approving how God did it...
it's a matter of believing what He says.

Yep. The "life ex nihlo" belief of YE creationism is directly refuted by Genesis.

As in the previous times you used that argument....

It's still a strawman... and you are still dishonest to keep using it.*
*

If we continue on from the above verses we read "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

As even the early Christians knew, "Yom" did not mean literal days, but rather categories of creation. Augustine made that clear, and no one thought to argue with him about it.

"Categories of creation" is your addition to scripture. Your arguments were shown to be false before. Hebrew professors from every major university in the world tells us the context of the creation days in Genesis was normal days.*

Only after YE creationism was invented early in the 20th century, did we see that become a controversy.

You were also shown this was a false argument so you are dishonest to keep using it. Even in Pauls day, Christians argued against evolutionists (Epicureans believed life came from matter).*

That is evolutionism.... not science.

Guess how I know you aren't a scientist. Scientists know better.

Guess how I know you aren't a scientist...or certainly not a good one. You think evolutionism is science. *You have a metaphysical belief system about origins that is contradictory to scripture. .. and contradictory to observable, testable science. *(Even several evolutionists have admitted that evolutionism / common ancestry beliefs is a "religion")

*

The evidence is that animals can often adapt or even speciate in only a couple generations. Lizards remain lizards.

And humans, evolving from other primates, remain primates.

You are moving goalposts and contradicting scripture. The lizards remained lizards.**

Correct... Common ancestry beliefs are contrary to scripture.

There's nothing about protons or DNA in the Bible, either. So your belief is that protons and DNA are contrary to scripture? Seriously?

Common ancestry beliefs are contrary to scripture. Your argument is another strawman.*

Animals were created after their kind. (See*Gen. 1)

Only you don't approve of the way He did it.

As in the previous times you used that argument....
It's still a strawman... and you are still dishonest to keep using it.*

So if humans evolved tails and opposable toes, and a throat sac, that wouldn't be evolution, because other primates have them?

When mutations cause deformity in humans, we call it corruption of our genome. *

The odds are that the structure, ('new' cecal valves) being analogous, had different genes involved.

So you believe.*

I believe the rapid 'evolution' of the valves is evidence the genetic information / the genes were already there triggered by a genetic switch.*

Lizards remain lizards.

Pretty much as humans and chimps, descending from a common ancestor, remain primates.

You confuse your beliefs with science... and try move goal posts. The lizards remained as lizards.

The evidence points to our omniscient Creator programming a code into creatures allowing survival ...even allowing rapid change to adapt to various environments.

Pleased to hear you admit it. It happened long before life appeared, though.

More silly pseudoscience and unscriptural beliefs from you. God did not program a code into creatures "before
*life appeared."

DNA is*evidence that points to our omniscient Creator programming a code into creatures allowing survival ...even allowing rapid change to adapt to various environments.

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Rom 1:20

 

[MichaelCadry]

So an end of September armageddon?

Yippee, armageddon?

Dear zoo22,

I don't know which month. You see? I don't know the day, the hour, or even the month. Nothing is going to change that. Jesus said no man knows the day or hour, except the Father only. Probably sometime in October, but that's only a guess. Also, I mean Yippee, Jesus Returning. Not Yippee, Armageddon. See how things can be misunderstood. Have to be so careful of how you express yourself. Thanks tons, zoo!! Our reward is soon to come!! His Return is our reward!! I miss Him Sooo Badly!

Much Love, In Christ!!

Michael

:cloud9:

:zoomin:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yep. The "life ex nihlo" belief of YE creationism is directly refuted by Genesis.

As in the previous times you used that argument....

No creationist will stand up and explain it.

It's still a strawman...

Well, let's take a look...

The Bible says God created life 'ex nihilo' or 'out of nothing.'
The verb 'bara' is used three separate times in Genesis 1, as
a matter of fact.
http://paracleteforum.org/archive/email/apologetics/evolutionbio/dialogue.html

And you are dishonest to keep denying it. If you don't happen to believe that part of YE creationism, great.

Barbarian oberves:
As even the early Christians knew, "Yom" did not mean literal days, but rather categories of creation. Augustine made that clear, and no one thought to argue with him about it.

"Categories of creation" is your addition to scripture.

Nope. Just observing what the early Christians believed.

Only after YE creationism was invented early in the 20th century, did we see that become a controversy.

You were also shown this was a false argument so you are dishonest to keep using it.

Well, let's look at that, then...

Praised by both creationists and evolutionists for its comprehensiveness, the book meticulously traces the dramatic shift among Christian fundamentalists from acceptance of the earth's antiquity to the insistence of present-day scientific creationists that most fossils date back to Noah's flood and its aftermath. Focusing especially on the rise of this "flood geology," Ronald L. Numbers chronicles the remarkable resurgence of antievolutionism since the 1960s, as well as the creationist movement's tangled religious roots in the theologies of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Adventists, among others. His book offers valuable insight into the origins of various "creation science" think tanks and the people behind them. It also goes a long way toward explaining how creationism, until recently viewed as a "peculiarly American" phenomenon, has quietly but dynamically spread internationally--and found its expression outside Christianity in Judaism and Islam.

Surprise.

(Sound of straw being fabricated)

Even in Pauls day, Christians argued against evolutionists (Epicureans believed life came from matter).

As you learned, evolutionary theory is not about the way life began. If you doubt this, show me in Darwin's theory or in genetics where this is asserted. This isn't the first time you've been called on that untruth.

(Barbarian cites scientific theory)

That is evolutionism.... not science.

Barbarian observes:
Guess how I know you aren't a scientist. Scientists know better.

Guess how I know you aren't a scientist...

The same way you "know" that evolutionary theory is about the beginning of life.

You think evolutionism is science.

Why even bother with that falsehood? I've repeatedly told you that "evolutionism" is a creationist strawman, completely at odds with evolutionary theory. You have a metaphysical belief system about origins that is contradictory to scripture. .. and contradictory to observable, testable science.

The evidence is that animals can often adapt or even speciate in only a couple generations. Lizards remain lizards.

And humans, evolving from other primates, remain primates. You're giving away the farm, here.

You are moving goalposts

Nope. Just applying your criteria to primates.

The lizards remained lizards.

And chimpanzees and humans evolving from a common ancestor, remained primates.

Common ancestry beliefs are contrary to scripture.

That's the usual creationist belief. It's why Agassiz, a creationist, denied that blacks and other humans were related.

(Claim that if it's not in scripture, it's not true)

Barbarian chuckles:
There's nothing about protons or DNA in the Bible, either. So your belief is that protons and DNA are contrary to scripture? Seriously?

Common ancestry beliefs are contrary to scripture.

In the sense that DNA is contrary to scripture. Claiming that it can't be true, if it's not in scripture, puts you in a rather exposed position.

Barbarian asks:
So if humans evolved tails and opposable toes, and a throat sac, that wouldn't be evolution, because other primates have them?

When mutations cause deformity in human...

How about a straight answer? Is the evolution of new structures (even if they exist in some other kinds of organisms) evolution, or not?

The odds are that the structure, ('new' cecal valves) being analogous, had different genes involved.

I believe the rapid 'evolution' of the valves is evidence the genetic information / the genes were already there triggered by a genetic switch.*

Show us that evidence. Sounds like making it up as you go.

Lizards remain lizards.

Pretty much as humans and chimps, descending from a common ancestor, remain primates.

The lizards remained as lizards.

And primates remained primates, even if we got humans and chimpanzees out of it.

The evidence points to our omniscient Creator programming a code into creatures allowing survival ...even allowing rapid change to adapt to various environments.

Pleased to hear you admit it. It happened long before life appeared, though.

God did not program a code into creatures "before
*life appeared."

God created the rules that determined how life would arise from the earth, and in His wisdom, made it adaptable to changes in environment.

He didn't say "Oh, wait, in the 20th century, someone is going to put some Italian wall lizards on an inhospitable island; I better program in some code for a cecal valve."

You're trying to bring God down the IDer "space alien."

IDer Michael Behe, in Darwin's Black Box, suggested that the "designer" was a time-traveling cell biologist.

Weird ideas, and bad science.

 

[everready]

Barbarian chuckles, will you be chuckling when you see his face?

You'll remember this statement when you do.

"So do you think God has a chin, or a simian shelf like the Neandertals? Or are you beginning to realize that the image is not our appearance, but our minds and souls?"


Revelation 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?


everready

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm probably not as convinced by your assertions and claims of how incredulous common descent is as I am by the general scientific evidence based consensus indicating its factuality.

Consensus does not indicate factuality. You should look at the evidence instead.

The incredulity of a miraculous alternative, for some reason, doesn't seem to worry you quite so much Yorzhik?

Wherever the evidence leads. I'm not committed to dogma, unlike you.

Then publish your findings, I'm sure your Nobel Prize is in the bag.

Regardless of the prizes I win, if you look at the evidence it points to mutation + natural selection being entirely incapable of creating the diversity of life we have today.

As an agnostic atheist, common descent is simply an explanation of the evidence as far as I'm concerned

And his eyes glaze over... again.

 

[everready]

Barbarian observes:
Yep. The "life ex nihlo" belief of YE creationism is directly refuted by Genesis.



No creationist will stand up and explain it.



Well, let's take a look...

The Bible says God created life 'ex nihilo' or 'out of nothing.'
The verb 'bara' is used three separate times in Genesis 1, as
a matter of fact.
http://paracleteforum.org/archive/email/apologetics/evolutionbio/dialogue.html

And you are dishonest to keep denying it. If you don't happen to believe that part of YE creationism, great.

Barbarian oberves:
As even the early Christians knew, "Yom" did not mean literal days, but rather categories of creation. Augustine made that clear, and no one thought to argue with him about it.



Nope. Just observing what the early Christians believed.

Only after YE creationism was invented early in the 20th century, did we see that become a controversy.



Well, let's look at that, then...

Praised by both creationists and evolutionists for its comprehensiveness, the book meticulously traces the dramatic shift among Christian fundamentalists from acceptance of the earth's antiquity to the insistence of present-day scientific creationists that most fossils date back to Noah's flood and its aftermath. Focusing especially on the rise of this "flood geology," Ronald L. Numbers chronicles the remarkable resurgence of antievolutionism since the 1960s, as well as the creationist movement's tangled religious roots in the theologies of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Adventists, among others. His book offers valuable insight into the origins of various "creation science" think tanks and the people behind them. It also goes a long way toward explaining how creationism, until recently viewed as a "peculiarly American" phenomenon, has quietly but dynamically spread internationally--and found its expression outside Christianity in Judaism and Islam.

Surprise.

(Sound of straw being fabricated)



As you learned, evolutionary theory is not about the way life began. If you doubt this, show me in Darwin's theory or in genetics where this is asserted. This isn't the first time you've been called on that untruth.

(Barbarian cites scientific theory)



Barbarian observes:
Guess how I know you aren't a scientist. Scientists know better.



The same way you "know" that evolutionary theory is about the beginning of life.



Why even bother with that falsehood? I've repeatedly told you that "evolutionism" is a creationist strawman, completely at odds with evolutionary theory. You have a metaphysical belief system about origins that is contradictory to scripture. .. and contradictory to observable, testable science.



And humans, evolving from other primates, remain primates. You're giving away the farm, here.



Nope. Just applying your criteria to primates.



And chimpanzees and humans evolving from a common ancestor, remained primates.



That's the usual creationist belief. It's why Agassiz, a creationist, denied that blacks and other humans were related.

(Claim that if it's not in scripture, it's not true)

Barbarian chuckles:
There's nothing about protons or DNA in the Bible, either. So your belief is that protons and DNA are contrary to scripture? Seriously?



In the sense that DNA is contrary to scripture. Claiming that it can't be true, if it's not in scripture, puts you in a rather exposed position.

Barbarian asks:
So if humans evolved tails and opposable toes, and a throat sac, that wouldn't be evolution, because other primates have them?



How about a straight answer? Is the evolution of new structures (even if they exist in some other kinds of organisms) evolution, or not?

The odds are that the structure, ('new' cecal valves) being analogous, had different genes involved.



Show us that evidence. Sounds like making it up as you go.



Pretty much as humans and chimps, descending from a common ancestor, remain primates.



And primates remained primates, even if we got humans and chimpanzees out of it.



Pleased to hear you admit it. It happened long before life appeared, though.



God created the rules that determined how life would arise from the earth, and in His wisdom, made it adaptable to changes in environment.

He didn't say "Oh, wait, in the 20th century, someone is going to put some Italian wall lizards on an inhospitable island; I better program in some code for a cecal valve."

You're trying to bring God down the IDer "space alien."

IDer Michael Behe, in Darwin's Black Box, suggested that the "designer" was a time-traveling cell biologist.

Weird ideas, and bad science.

You say Augustine made it clear, like this?

‘Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000[9] years have yet passed.’ - Augustine -


everready

 

[The Barbarian]

You say Augustine made it clear, like this?

In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Augustine also doesn’t envisage original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

And this...

Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions.

He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' should be interpreted:

As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself.

God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture.

It wasn't necessary for God to create each individual species (let alone each individual living thing) in the process called Special Creation. Instead, the Creator provided the seeds of the Universe and of life, and let them develop in their own time.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm

Yep. Not bad for his time.

‘Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000[9] years have yet passed.’

While Augustine realized that the "days" of Genesis could not be literal, the science of his time did not support a very ancient Earth. Notice, though, that he realized this could be faulty, and wrote that we should, if the evidence indicates, revise our beliefs accordingly.

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we may find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. We should not battle for our own interpretation but for the teaching of Holy Scripture. We should not wish to conform the meaning of Holy Scripture to our interpretation, but our interpretation to the meaning of Holy Scripture."
St. Augustine De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim

Here's another of his thoughts:

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do what we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
Ibid

 

[everready]

In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Augustine also doesn’t envisage original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

And this...

Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions.

He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' should be interpreted:

As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself.

God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture.

It wasn't necessary for God to create each individual species (let alone each individual living thing) in the process called Special Creation. Instead, the Creator provided the seeds of the Universe and of life, and let them develop in their own time.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm

Yep. Not bad for his time.



While Augustine realized that the "days" of Genesis could not be literal, the science of his time did not support a very ancient Earth. Notice, though, that he realized this could be faulty, and wrote that we should, if the evidence indicates, revise our beliefs accordingly.

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we may find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. We should not battle for our own interpretation but for the teaching of Holy Scripture. We should not wish to conform the meaning of Holy Scripture to our interpretation, but our interpretation to the meaning of Holy Scripture."
St. Augustine De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim

Here's another of his thoughts:

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do what we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
Ibid

Your saying Augustine laughs Christians to scorn when we say God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it in 6 days?

everready