Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Michael,

You are my very best wacky nutso goofball friend.

Sometimes it can be quite beneficial to set aside enough time to gain an honest understanding of opposing viewpoints. The PZMeyers video that noguru linked to recently might offend you, but that does not diminish the message it contains. In contrast, I have read the Christian scriptures cover to cover multiple times, biblical commentaries, magazines, blogs, and even your on-line missive. You prefer to argue from ignorance. You think that is a good idea?

DavisBJ

Mr. BJ,

You will get your answer from what is to come.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

The truth hurts sometimes, Michael.



You can protest all you like, but it is obvious that you are inept at most things including science. It is inept people like you who tend to adopt the same sort of theological beliefs you have. Rather than having the courage to address your errors, you seek to hide them in claims of faith in God. I think that people like you are putting up a facade, as you have a very tenuous grip on reality. And to compensate you fall right into more non sense to run from your own ineptitude.

The first sentence in this post was a comment on who you call friends. I am not inept at science. I had the courage to address my errors, so who are you joking? I don't have to put up a facade. It's been the real me since I joined TOL. Just wait a little while longer. Enjoy your time down here.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael,

You are my very best wacky nutso goofball friend.

Sometimes it can be quite beneficial to set aside enough time to gain an honest understanding of opposing viewpoints. The PZMeyers video that noguru linked to recently might offend you, but that does not diminish the message it contains. In contrast, I have read the Christian scriptures cover to cover multiple times, biblical commentaries, magazines, blogs, and even your on-line missive. You prefer to argue from ignorance. You think that is a good idea?

DavisBJ

I am not your very best wacky nutso goofball anything.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Michael,

Of course you have no intention of answering my post. You are a creationist, after all. For you it is sufficient to invent lies about the big bang being based on Biblical ideas, and then to compound your perfidy by refusing to back your claim.

(Usual damnation rhetoric goes here)

That is the phrase you used as if I had damning rhetoric towards you. I did not and you've crossed the line dude. You will receive in yourself what you dished out and tons more. You really don't think there's a Heaven and a Hell, and a Lake of Fire, eh. If I were you BJ, I'd be scared indeed, to be honest. You'll see.

Michael

 

[noguru]

Dear BJ,

Yes, I still am unsure about these OEC or YEC beliefs. YEC is more new to me, but there is also the chance that I was right all along believing the way I did before 6days told me otherwise. Who knows? God knows that it doesn't amount to a hill a beans either way. The crux of my message is that Jesus is Returning soon. Also, to help out those who need help, if you can. I'm really tired of going through this, so I will end my reply now. I believe in a forgiving God, which you don't believe in any God at all. I am getting the main point of my message through to others in this world. To love each other and help each other. That is my main message. So any other mistakes are basically trivial. There's many who have to go through all of it without reading my book. They will fare just fine.

That's All, Mr. BJ,

I am sorry Michael, but while I applaud your motive here and your initiative, I do not agree that all else is trivial. Methodology is at least as important as the goal, if not more so. And accuracy about the reality around us is of utmost importance no matter what the goal. Your methodology for being "accurate" has much to be desired. You are not thorough in your own research nor have you developed useful critical thinking skills. Also you think that the "authority" of another person who claims to be a Christian is somehow a free ticket to authority and therefore accuracy.

If you consider what you are doing here, perhaps you might be open to seeing the error in your methodology.

 

[noguru]

There was sacred text on the scrolls. That is why science wanted to read the scrolls. It doesn't matter which type of science was used, but that science was used to authenticate and read the scrolls. So science does rely on holy scriptures at times, which is what I meant all along. Evidently, I did not explain it well enough earlier. I must use simpler language. God told me to use small words to write my book, something that anyone would be able to understand. Which Branch of Science used to read the scrolls is still Science. Do you understand?

Michael

This is inaccurate Micheal, science is not relying on "Holy Scripture" in this example. People who are investigating "Holy Scripture" are relying on science to aid in the authentication/verification of any claims about such text.

 

[MichaelCadry]

MichaelCadry,
re: "...you don't believe in...the Immaculate Conception..."

Are you sure you mean the immaculate conception and not the virgin birth?

I mean both. It just gives me more ammo. The Immaculate Conception means Mary getting {Overshadowed} pregnant by the Holy Spirit of God. The Virgin Birth means Jesus being born of Mary, who was most likely, still a Virgin. Thanks for your help rstrats. I'm beginning to find you more and more competent and spiritual, and knowledgeable.

May God Walk With You!

Michael

:angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture:

​

 

[noguru]

The first sentence in this post was a comment on who you call friends. I am not inept at science. I had the courage to address my errors, so who are you joking? I don't have to put up a facade. It's been the real me since I joined TOL. Just wait a little while longer. Enjoy your time down here.

Michael

Again, I do not see your protests here as negating my conclusions about your choices and methodology. You are inept at most things Michael, and science is only one of those many things.

The facade I speak of is in regard to your level of confidence in any position you take on a matter. Not in you "not being you". Do you understand? It is not that you are not being you, it is the level of confidence that you advertise (to the public) about your opinions.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Michael,

Again you provide a superb example of your infantile understanding of science. The nearest major galaxy to ours is the Andromeda Galaxy, at a distance of over 2 million light years away. In the realm of astronomy, that means the Andromeda Galaxy is equivalent to your next-door neighbor in Phoenix. Almost every other galaxy is farther away, most are much much farther. Assume as a spirit I find I need a cup of sugar, and I decide to jog over to the neighboring Andromeda Galaxy to borrow a cup. I’ll hurry right back, but you shouldn’t wait up for me, since at a full spiritual speed it will only take me about 5 million years to get there and back.

Come on, Michael, quit embarrassing yourself.

With God, EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE!! If He wanted to be in another galaxy, He could be there in an INSTANT. You don't know God!!


Michael

 

[Cross Reference]

It's actually Billions of years, not millions so you're way out from the get go. And there are plenty of educated Christians who accept the evidence for evolution.

Ken Miller is highly respected for his work in the science of evolution, and was a key witness opposing intelligent design at the Dover trial. He is also a devout Catholic.

You're not even wrong :jawdrop:

1. If God created it all, why would it matter how long it took? Could He have not done it in a day?

2. For creatures to reproduce/procreate, both male and female would have had to appear on the scene simultaneously. Can the theory of evolution support that fact? I don't think so.

 

[noguru]

(Usual damnation rhetoric goes here)

That is the phrase you used as if I had damning rhetoric towards you. I did not and you've crossed the line dude. You will receive in yourself what you dished out and tons more. You really don't think there's a Heaven and a Hell, and a Lake of Fire, eh. If I were you BJ, I'd be scared indeed, to be honest. You'll see.

Michael

So Michael, let me get this straight.

You are afraid of hell and damnation, but you are not afraid of being inaccurate?

 

[noguru]

1. If God created it all, why would it matter how long it took? Could He have not done it in a day?

It does not matter "how long it took God" to do anything.

With God all things are possible.

What matters is being accurate about how those things were achieved.

 

[noguru]

2. For creatures to reproduce/procreate, both male and female would have had to appear on the scene simultaneously. Can the theory of evolution support that fact? I don't think so.

Your quandary here demonstrates that you do not understand population genetics or how and when sexual reproduction appeared as a novel variation in reproductive methodologies.

Did you get this line of argument from Ray Comfort, or is it your original idea?

 

[Cross Reference]

It does not matter "how long it took God" to do anything. What matters is being accurate about how those things were achieved.

Good! Then we agree that Item 2. was achieved by God Who could only have performed it, right?

 

[Cross Reference]

Your quandary here demonstrates that you do not understand population genetics or how and when sexual reproduction appeared as a novel variation in reproductive methodologies.

Quandry?? Speak for yourself. I stated a fact you choose to ignore.

 

[noguru]

Quandry?? Speak for yourself. I stated a fact you choose to ignore.

Your quandary is based on a misunderstanding. It is not a fact.

Sexual reproduction appears first in animals that reproduced asexually. And the variation, which was novel at one point, was passed on in breeding populations. If you truly understood what is proposed in these areas of study, you would not have even asked this question.

 

[noguru]

Good! Then we agree that Item 2. was achieved by God Who could only have performed it, right?

I accept that God is behind all that happens in the universe because I am a theist. But this specific theistic proposal is logically irrelevant to determining how God achieved these results.

 

[Hedshaker]

1. If God created it all, why would it matter how long it took? Could He have not done it in a day?

If the flying spaghetti monster created it all, why would it matter how long it took? Could He have not done it in a day?

2. For creatures to reproduce/procreate, both male and female would have had to appear on the scene simultaneously.

All creatures evolved, that's why it's called evolution. Humans share a common ancestor with the great apes. It's not that difficult to understand.

Can the theory of evolution support that fact? I don't think so.

Well you best inform the scientific community so they can organise your Nobel prize. Good luck with that

 

[Cross Reference]

Your quandary is based on a misunderstanding. It is not a fact.

Sexual reproduction appears first in animals that reproduced asexually. And the variation, which was novel at one point, was passed on in breeding populations. If you truly understand what is proposed in these areas of study, you would not have even asked this question.

Why not?? You have no facts. Your studies are not based on facts. What's left except theory dishonestly advanced as fact.
And you know it all as a fact?? I don't think so.

2. So when did the "fact" of any "variation" happen/occur in a much needed timely fashion, you can't say or even if it did at all, regardless of any time factor. So why the fiction as fact??

 

[noguru]

I mean both. It just gives me more ammo. The Immaculate Conception means Mary getting {Overshadowed} pregnant by the Holy Spirit of God. The Virgin Birth means Jesus being born of Mary, who was most likely, still a Virgin. Thanks for your help rstrats. I'm beginning to find you more and more competent and spiritual, and knowledgeable.

May God Walk With You!

Michael

:angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture:

​

Michael, this is inaccurate. "Immaculate Conception" refers to Mary's sinful/sinless nature in regard to "original sin", which was proposed by the church at some point between the first century AD and the 4th century AD. The idea is that "original sin" would have eliminated Jesus from being "sinless" if his biological mother had "original sin". So Mary must have been born sinless (the immaculate conception of Mary) to clear that side of his family from original sin.

The virgin birth is the claim that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit.

On his paternal side Jesus would have been "sinless", but on his maternal side, Jesus would still have been carrying "original sin" and would therefore not have been "the perfect sacrifice", if the Church had not come up with the idea of the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary.

Immaculate conception of Mary