Creation vs. Evolution

[Interplanner]

Here's the essentials.
1:1 is a section title. These are found throughout Moses. They are not 'action' in the account.
1:2 has the verb tense of 'when God began creating/forming the earth, it was formless and void.' It is not as though it didn't exist or that other things didn't exist, but it was being formed from the chaotic material mentioned.

'Formless and void' is 'tohu wa-bohu'. It is an expression also found in Jer 4:23 meaning that a divine judgement has taken place. So whatever was going on was disapproved and destroyed, and was a dark watery orb, and then was formed into what we now know.

2 Peter 3 corroborates certain parts of this. The heavens existed long ago, but more recently the world was 'formed' through water and out of water. It leaves unclear whether the earth was also as long ago as the heavens. But certainly the 'forming' is more recent than the 'existing long ago.' He doesn't mention 'formless and void' per se, but it is clear that material was there, and that when you form something it had an unformed existence.

 

[noguru]

I thought that was my question to you. Why don't you answer it?



But I thought you said you listen to every word He says?? And you don't obey what He says?? How do you reconcile that with yourself??

You don't really mean to call Him your master, do you? I mean, He really isn't your master, right?

This is why discussing things with you is futile. You evade my answers, questions, distort my words and downright lie about what i post.

Yes i think Jesus was a great teacher. Do you?

Yes, he is my master. I try to gain understanding by quiet calm contemplation.

Yes, i am human so i err.

Will i have to repeat this again?

"Never argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

 

[noguru]

Funny how that works, isn't it? All these extra-confident creationists at ToL who are so sure that it's trivially easy to overturn the operational framework of all the life sciences....

....yet not a single one of them can be bothered to actually write up a manuscript and send it in to a journal. It's a mystery I tell ya.

The extra confident creationists on this site are a joke. They are too inept to actually step up to the plate. That is why they all gather here. To pat each other on the back, and complain about how the scientific community does not listen to them.

 

[Jose Fly]

The extra confident creationists on this site are a joke. They are too inept to actually step up to the plate. That is why they all gather here. To pat each other on the back, and complain about how the scientific community does not listen to them.

To be fair, the YEC's here are no different than any of the others I've encountered in other forums over the last decade. They're all almost perfect illustrations of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

But really that's not about creationism as much as it is about fundamentalism. Most fundamentalists (from whatever religion) share a set of psychological traits that once you're aware of them, it's quite entertaining to see them manifest themselves.

 

[Cross Reference]

This is why discussing things with you is futile. You evade my answers, questions, distort my words and downright lie about what i post.

Yes i think Jesus was a great teacher. Do you?

Yes, he is my master. I try to gain understanding by quiet calm contemplation.

Yes, i am human so i err.

Will i have to repeat this again?

"Never argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

That isn't what you said. You said He, Jesus Christ, was your master. Are you now saying you disobey Him? He really isn't your master after all and now you are blaming everyone else for your rebelling against Him. Sounds that way to me. Bet it does to everyone else, as well. Perhaps you would like to walk back some of your inane thinking. Go ahead. I'll be patient. I won't laugh.

I wonder if evolution makes allowances for a rebellious nature? Oops! Is "nature" was it is when discussing evolution?

 

[Interplanner]

Has anyone wrestled with 'formless and void' in Gen 1 yet?

 

[noguru]

That isn't what you said. You said He, Jesus Christ, was your master. Are you now saying you disobey Him? He really isn't your master after all and now you are blaming everyone else for your rebelling against Him. Sounds that way to me. Bet it does to everyone else, as well. Perhaps you would like to walk back some of your inane thinking. Go ahead. I'll be patient. I won't laugh.

I wonder in evolution makes allowances for a rebellious nature?

I have not contradicted what i said the first time. Your inability or unwillingness to understand has no bearing on me.

Evolution is about biodiversity. Rebellion is a human psycho social judgement.

Someday you will figure this out, i hope.

 

[DavisBJ]

It's possible for us to have a useless organ that has nothing to do with common ancestry beliefs. Our bodies have the accumulated effect of thousands of years of mutations. We are not as fit as God's original design.

But that is not answering the question I asked. If an organ HAS A USEFUL FUNCTION, could it still be a vestigial organ?

 

[DavisBJ]

Has anyone wrestled with 'formless and void' in Gen 1 yet?

If Christians are still wrestling with what is really meant by such passages after several thousand years, then that is pretty clear evidence that the Old Testament is a really poor document at conveying what God must have wanted people to know.

 

[DavisBJ]

Kdall made the claim:

In other mammals, the arrector pili serve the purpose of fluffing hair up in order to increase body warmth. We no longer even have the hair necessary to make these pili useful

6days questioned the validity of kdall’s claim:

Your assumptions in that statement are all based on your belief system... not science.

6days, what would be required for you to agree that Kdall’s description of what the arrector pili do is correct? Since no organ in any animal comes with a label attached that explains it purpose, then what do you demand of science before you agree that science had correctly discerned the function an organ performs?

Evolutionists have made similar arguments in the past about many organs they thought had become useless due to common ancestry. Science later proved them wrong.

From your nominal stance of carefully itemizing every misstep you have ever heard that science has made, I understand why you say this. To my mind, it sounds like you view science as a bunch of bumbling buffoons who occasionally accidentally get something right.

Likewise with goosebumps.... there are other possible Answers than just dismissing something as vestigial because you don't understand it.

Recognizing something as vestigial is not dismissing it. It is simply recognizing that it no longer plays the important and necessary function that it did in ancestral forms. And it is exactly what would be expected in the process of evolution.

As to other possible explanations for the “why” of a feature (like goosebumps), bring them on. Science is not adverse to better explanations.

Also, it possible we have features that God designed into us which have lost function due to mutations and genetic burden.

I don’t think science has any issue with the possibility that functionality can be lost for any number of reasons. If we find some “left-over” biological feature that serves no apparent function, that sure sounds like another candidate for being vestigial. (Like rudimentary eyes in some cave dwellers who live in total darkness.)

BTW.... goosebumps quite likely are a heightened emotional response.... nothing at all to do with hairy ancestors.

Ok, let’s play science. Do hairy animals get goosebumps when there is no change in their environment beyond it getting colder? Would the goosebumps aid such an animal in tolerating the cold?

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear DavisBJ,

I'm really sorry that you had to have an appendectomy. I keep wondering when mine is going to go. It's not something I would like, and it could be fatal.

Yeah, you really need to have a heart to heart talk with your God, and ask Him why He did such a crappy job of design there.

I have always been careful of pains in the right abdomen and elsewhere {left abdomen, etc.}. I hope you did not experience much pain from it. Eeeeeekkk!!

Don’t sweat it, Michael. Modern medicine has been able to pretty well put a patch over the malfunctions of your vestigial appendix. It’s a rather minor operation now, with little aftereffects.

I do hope your problem is solved with the removal of your appendix, and that the other organs in your body do fine.

Appendix removed decades ago. I have some other medical issues, but nothing that is relevant to our current discussions. Now excuse me because I just stepped on my tail.

 

[6days]

But that is not answering the question I asked. If an organ HAS A USEFUL FUNCTION, could it still be a vestigial organ?

As you said....it comes down to how we define words.
Our hands are useful. In a broad sense, evolutionists could say our hands are vestigial, because they believe it formerly had a different function in the past.
The answer to your question is "no".
..... but it could be "yes". it depends on the definition.

 

[6days]

6days, what would be required for you to agree that Kdall’s description of what the arrector pili do is correct?

Yes...he correctly described what it does in animals.

*To my mind, it sounds like you view science as a bunch of bumbling buffoons who occasionally accidentally get something right.

Not at all. Science improves the quality of our lives.*

Recognizing something as vestigial is not dismissing it. It is simply recognizing that it no longer plays the important and necessary function that it did in ancestral forms. And it is exactly what would be expected in the process of evolution.

If you are interested I can provide quotes from evutionists who admit to dismissing things not worthy of research because they assumed it was evolutionary leftovers / biological remnants.

Re. what evolution expects...*
The same statement can be made for Biblical creation. We expect to find things designed for purpose and function... some of which shows the I'll effects of thousands of years of accumulated mutations.*

As to other possible explanations for the “why” of a feature (like goosebumps), bring them on. Science is not adverse to better explanations.

I did suggest one function... it gives us a heightened awareness to pleasure, fear and more. It also seems there may be other functions such ad trapped heat in response to cold...or even provide oil to the skin to keep it healthy.*

*If we find some “left-over” biological feature that serves no apparent function, that sure sounds like another candidate for being vestigial. (Like rudimentary eyes in some cave dwellers who live in total darkness.)

That better fits the Biblical creation model. A intelligently designed feature that has been lost.

 

[Cross Reference]

I have not contradicted what i said the first time. Your inability or unwillingness to understand has no bearing on me.

Sure you have, you just don't have anything going for you that might cause you to see that.

To me, if I was to ask for an example of what evolution produces in a man, I would expect something as you are, intellectually that is..All over the map in character.

Evolution is about biodiversity. Rebellion is a human psycho social judgement.

Did your "master" tell that to you?

Evolution is about trying to convince that everything improves over time without the assistance from anything outside itself. I know, I know, sounds stupid and it is but, you want to believe that so whatta ya going to do.

Someday you will figure this out, i hope.

Hope?? What part does hope play in evolution? Perhaps you should ask your "master" who guides you.

 

[MichaelCadry]

However I think that the Nobel committee will probably require somewhat more than your belief and impression of Darwin himself Michael.
You might want to start with providing evidence showing a young Earth and a global flood, that would really cut to the chase and rule out Darwinian evolution at a stroke, without having to delve into all that nasty technical stuff like speciation, common descent, fossil record and genetics.

Dear alwight,

Is that what Darwin did? Provided evidence of an old Earth and no global flood? Did Darwin proclaim beyond all doubt the technical stuff like speciation, common descent, fossil records and genetics??

To An Understanding And Cool Fellow,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

However I think that the Nobel committee will probably require somewhat more than your belief and impression of Darwin himself Michael.
You might want to start with providing evidence showing a young Earth and a global flood, that would really cut to the chase and rule out Darwinian evolution at a stroke, without having to delve into all that nasty technical stuff like speciation, common descent, fossil record and genetics.

The Nobel committee will be quite surprised by the evidence given shortly. So did you check into my online book? Do you want a copy sent to you? I'll need you to PM your address to me, or a neighbor's address who will forward the package to you. Or your brother, who can give the book and Proof Pages package to you. I will destroy your address once I put it on the envelope, so not to worry. May God Grant You Serenity and Joy!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Well thank you for the permission Michael. Also i think you should note that i have more confidence in my spirituality than yours. I do not see spirituality as a contradiction of reality. My spirituality enhances my real experiences. I do not use spirituality to hide from reality.

Thanks for getting back to me, noguru. It sounds like your spirituality is doing just fine. I'm glad to hear it. You don't need my permission or anything, noguru. Remember that you are loved and cared about.

Praise Jesus!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Funny how that works, isn't it? All these extra-confident creationists at ToL who are so sure that it's trivially easy to overturn the operational framework of all the life sciences....

....yet not a single one of them can be bothered to actually write up a manuscript and send it in to a journal. It's a mystery I tell ya.

Dear Jose Fly,

I've written a book that is as good as any journal. So there you go. I sent the manuscript to the Library of Congress. My books are available at the downtown main Phoenix Library, since 2003. So that's 13 years. It is plenty of time since then. That's one reason why I believe that the Lord will return soon.

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Funny how that works, isn't it? All these extra-confident creationists at ToL who are so sure that it's trivially easy to overturn the operational framework of all the life sciences....

....yet not a single one of them can be bothered to actually write up a manuscript and send it in to a journal. It's a mystery I tell ya.

Okay, I've got to take off for a few hours. Chat with you all then!!

God Gave You His Most Precious Gift, His Son!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

The Nobel committee will be quite surprised by the evidence given shortly. So did you check into my online book? Do you want a copy sent to you? I'll need you to PM your address to me, or a neighbor's address who will forward the package to you. Or your brother, who can give the book and Proof Pages package to you. I will destroy your address once I put it on the envelope, so not to worry. May God Grant You Serenity and Joy!!

Michael

Michael, the purpose of an on-line forum is to present our words of wisdom openly. If you have something worthwhile that should be said then post it here where we can all see it, I don't do homework. If you have something special to say then I promise I'll be keen to read your book, but tbh so far I haven't been particularly encouraged to do so.