Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

You guys,

You all ignored my post here. Why do you do this to me? It has a place here under the subject: Creation. So I'm not off-topic. There is no YEC.

Once we have established whether evolution or creation is true Michael then we can move on to the specific nature of any god that remains.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The problem I have with the creationist is that the creationist in his mind has seen fit to use the book of Genesis in a way in which Genesis was not primarily given to us in what we are supposed to learn from the book of Genesis.

Satan has gotten himself a double header with this one. Fist off he's got the world believing a lie - evolution. Secondly he's gotten Christians to ignore the primary focus of the book of Genesis. IMO its a waste of my time debating evolutionists. I have no desire whatsoever to win the debate because I have been completely persuaded by scripture that God spoke and we appeared. There are those who struggle to take this on faith? It is not my problem, they can take it up with God themselves. Later.

To let you know how I feel, speaking to my brothers and sisters in Christ and Christ in you all, take for example king David. In what way do you suppose David taught the book of Genesis during his mid week bible studies ( If threats what he had or called them)? Since the theory of evolution was non existent, what was the study about?

To be gracious to you and to your labor of love in arguing against evolution, I would concede that David himself would give you his amen in your use of Genesis because of the spiritual battle going on in our day and time. But think about what spiritual battle he had during his own day and think on how the book of Genesis would be used by him to argue:

Jehovah is God
Israel is a chosen people
The world and its false gods are to be condemned and rejected.

I would that there were a thread dedicated to the study of Genesis that completely ignores the evolutionary theory and focuses on Genesis as it was originally given!

King David would have taught that Adam was made in the image of God and that God formed him from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life.

When it comes to dealing those who say man has evolved from and ancient ancestor common to apes we say that Adam was made in the image of God and that God formed him from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life.

I think you should start another thread.

--Dave

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Dave,

Yes, we did not 'descend' from apes. They were a whole different creation. Just because they have similarities doesn't make them people. Chimps are different than apes. God made them that way. The chimp is not descended from the apes. So everyone has similar genes, genomes, or DNA, that does not matter. Most likely, so does the lungfish and the whale or shark have similar DNA or whatever. But God created them each separately because He had a GREAT IMAGINATION and liked VARIETY! God created MAN! That's what we should get through our heads.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

As an "evolutionist" I can happily accept Genesis as allegory but if you have simply presupposed that Genesis is a factual narrative and true in all respects, and that God spoke a man into existence fully formed then you are surely a Young Earth Creationist whether you want to argue with "evolutionists" or not.

Dear Alwight,

God did speak a man into existence fully formed, but He had to put him together using chemistry. He is a great Chemist and can create a man from the ground or the rocks sitting on the ground. The elements and minerals are what does it. Hydrogen and Oxygen He probably made water of, since man is 90% or so of water.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

So, in summery we have = Evolution is factual compliments all the evidence.

Creationism = complete bolux

Hedshaker,

You should know better! Evolution does not fully complement factual evidence. Creationism does. It is not bolux or botox, or whatever you want to call it. It is OEC just as close as it is YEC. Just a difference in the amount of Years!

God Bless You, Hedshaker,

Michael



:think:

:wazzup:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Once we have established whether evolution or creation is true Michael then we can move on to the specific nature of any god that remains.

Dear Alwight,

You know I care about you quite a bit (don't blush), but by the time you've established whether evolution OR creationism is true, we'll never get to the question of the nature of God. Jesus is coming soon. That will give you full proof and factual info.

Listen to Dave and 6days!! They know what they're talking about!! PLEASE TRY!!

In Christ's Love,

Michael

:salute:

:deadhorse:

:cheers:

 

[6days]

6Days, name the Geology associations that agree with you about the age of the geologic column, please

To start with there are groups such as RATE, an international team of PhD geologists and physicists who believe the Biblical account of a young earth is supported by geology. I believe we can also find smaller local or even national organizations such as the Creation Geology Society.

Then, lets look how Biblical creationist geologists are 'infiltrating' secular geologist groups. It concerns and bothers atheists that Biblical creationists are growing in numbers. Here is an article from an anti-creationist website.

"Creationists are infiltrating US geology circles .....
The attempt by creationist "scientists" to present themselves as part of mainstream US geology is described in the July edition of Earth, the magazine of the American Geological Institute, by Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education – an organisation whose mission is to ensure that evolution continues to be taught in US schools."

INTERESTING...THE NCSE DOES NOT HAVE A MISSION OF PROMOTING SCIENCE AS THEIR NAME INDICATES.
The article continues, ...
"... so-called "Young Earth" creationist geologists – who sometimes hold advanced degrees in geology despite believing that the planet Earth is only a few thousand years old ..."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/creationists_infiltrate_us_geology/

Next... the largest Christian association of geologists is the Affiliation of Christian Geologists. They consider themselves biblical creationists but are an old earth association. A smaller group within the ACG of about 30% believes the geological evidence supports the young earth interpretation.

Another article
"At this year’s GSA (Geological Society of America)meeting, many papers were presented by Christian geologists. Four noteworthy papers were delivered by young-earth creationists. These papers specifically focused on answering points of issue between old-earth and young-earth creationists in the areas of sedimentation and tectonics.....
there are many within the GSA that take seriously the creation and Flood narrative text of the Bible. Their numbers and prominence within GSA appear to have been growing over the years"
http://www.icr.org/article/christian-geologists-influential-at/

 

[DFT_Dave]

Do you suppose Evolution predicts incomplete or partial lifeforms?

It predicts evolving life forms. Is there a difference between incomplete and partial?

--Dave

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear David and 6days,

I respect you both very much and know that you know a lot of answers. Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate you finding the answers that I mostly cannot. I try though, eh?

God Bless Your Work On Earth, And Soon, Your Work In Heaven!!

MichaelC

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

It predicts evolving life forms.

--Dave

And does this in your view require incomplete lifeforms?

 

[DFT_Dave]

And does this in your view require incomplete lifeforms?

Not enough info. An incomplete life form seems like an oxymoron, an incomplete life form may not have life, depending on how you define it, or qualify it.

Is an incomplete life form like the sound of one hand clapping?

--Dave

 

[intojoy]

King David would have taught that Adam was made in the image of God and that God formed him from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life.



When it comes to dealing those who say man has evolved from and ancient ancestor common to apes we say that Adam was made in the image of God and that God formed him from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life.



I think you should start another thread.



--Dave

Ok

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Not enough info. An incomplete life form seems like an oxymoron, an incomplete life form may not have life, depending on how you define it, or qualify it.

Is an incomplete life form like the sound of one hand clapping?

--Dave

Recall if you will, that you have made the statement that the fossil record represents life "whole and complete" as creation science presupposes, yes? Yet now you seemingly have no concept of what incomplete life could or even might be, by which to contrast it with or which to attribute to Evolution or even if you could attribute such a thing to evolution at all. Absent some contrary arrangement, one wonders how you could have made any proclamation to begin with, nevertheless to assert it as some vindication of creation science.

 

[Stripe]

Recall if you will, that you have made the statement that the fossil record represents life "whole and complete" as creation science presupposes, yes? Yet now you seemingly have no concept of what incomplete life could or even might be, by which to contrast it with or which to attribute to Evolution or even if you could attribute such a thing to evolution at all. Absent some contrary arrangement, one wonders how you could have made any proclamation to begin with, nevertheless to assert it as some vindication of creation science.

Evolutionists love unreasonable demands. This is like saying we need to know what half a star is before we can call something a complete star.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Evolutionists love unreasonable demands. This is like saying we need to know what half a star is before we can call something a complete star.

We do if you are claiming the absence of half-stars as the validation of some postulate.

 

[Stripe]

We do if you are claiming the absence of half-stars as the validation of some postulate.

Moving from unreasonable demands to straw men, are we?

 

[Tyrathca]

Well then, the entire topic hinges on whether mutational load is a result of entropy or not.

I think it is. Therefore, I did not lie. A lie would have been if I knew they were not but claimed your quote said they did.

But you were quoting me about what I was saying. And you clearly knew I was not using the mutational load as interchangeable with entropy, in fact I actively disagreed with you whenever you tried to do that. So to call it an "admission" by me is a lie because whatever you may think of the subject clearly was not the same as what I thought or said and you knew that.

But now that the technical definition of what a lie is has been explained to you, let's find out if mutational load really is a natural state of entropy. I submit it is, and we can start with this video that simple talks about what entropy is.

Oh great now we are using dumbed down videos made for laymen as evidence of what physics predicts rather than... I don't know.... using actual physics to predict things?

All you really got out of that video was the statement "things tend to get more disordered over time" didn't you? The video doesn't even talk about mutations anyway.

Because of what entropy is, as energy is transferred to create the next generation, the molecules will tend toward disorder.

Are fridges subject to entropy?

Your quote says as much.

No it doesn't, I should know since I wrote it.

However, you come along and then claim that Natural Selection can weed out the mutational load. Here is your quote again:

And I told you then and now that mutational load and entropy are not the same thing and that "It doesn't mean you can substitute mutation load and entropy where ever you find it whenever you want to". Yet you keep doing it with my own statements even.

So the obvious next question would be, since you agree that mutations occur from one generation to the next, is what causes those mutations fundamentally? If it mutations aren't a state of entropy, then what is it?

They are just changes, they occur for a number of reasons via a number of physical processes. Is motion a state of gravity? The question is just as well formed.

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

You know I care about you quite a bit (don't blush), but by the time you've established whether evolution OR creationism is true, we'll never get to the question of the nature of God. Jesus is coming soon. That will give you full proof and factual info.

Listen to Dave and 6days!! They know what they're talking about!! PLEASE TRY!!

In Christ's Love,

Michael

:salute:

:deadhorse:

:cheers:

Thanks Michael,
I don't expect anything to be concluded here but it exercises the mind and if Jesus does come back in the meanwhile then so be it, I'll have some different questions to ask.

Btw Dave and 6days are YECs and clearly don't know what they're talking about.lain:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Recall if you will, that you have made the statement that the fossil record represents life "whole and complete" as creation science presupposes, yes? Yet now you seemingly have no concept of what incomplete life could or even might be, by which to contrast it with or which to attribute to Evolution or even if you could attribute such a thing to evolution at all. Absent some contrary arrangement, one wonders how you could have made any proclamation to begin with, nevertheless to assert it as some vindication of creation science.

That's not what I said. I said God created man and all the animals whole and complete.

The fossil record shows sudden appearance and stasis. Stasis is species showing little if any change. That's what one would expect it Genesis is correct.

The original pairs of living things would have a very rich genetic code for all the diversity to come. The biodiversity would be a dispersion of traits from kind to sub-kind, species to sub-species.

The geology of Genesis is flood and catastrophic so there would be many fossils in the large layers that would be laid down by water--sedimentary. And lots of coal from large areas of plant life. Which is what we see.

Large bodies if water would be trapped as water receded after the flood and held back by sedimentary layers and uplifts of harder rock. These large lakes would cut through soft layers in spots where a natural river would form in a short time and cause canyons to be cut quickly through those soft layers. One such large ancient lake would be Hopie Lake behind the Colorado Plateau and the canyon would be the Grand the Canyon.

--Dave

 

[Jukia]

T

The geology of Genesis is flood and catastrophic so there would be many fossils in the large layers that would be laid down by water--sedimentary. And lots of coal from large areas of plant life. Which is what we see.

So all our coal was formed during/after the Flood? All in the last 4000 +/- years? Got any energy geologists who support that position???