Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Hedshaker,

I am on a new Gateway computer that I just bought today. My computer guy installed it. Cool, eh? It is so much faster and nifty.

There is no nonsense in me. Only God and Jesus Christ, which you are going to find out you needed so sorely and chose not to, just because of your dumb, scientific mind.

It's tricky, but you've got to think about it for a bit!!

Many Blessings Upon You, If You'd Accept Them,

MichaelC

 

[MichaelCadry]

Not from what I can see.

Dear Un,

Check out Genesis 2:19, "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them."

Much Love in Christ,

Michael

:sigh:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

Yes, the penguins aren't perfect, but for them, they do fine. They are made that way because God wants it that way for now.

God's Blessings Upon Your Heart and Mind,

Michael

 

[Stuu]

Dear noguru,

Yes, the penguins aren't perfect, but for them, they do fine. They are made that way because God wants it that way for now.

God's Blessings Upon Your Heart and Mind,

Michael

I think you could be wrong. Your god might be very angry that, because of Adam's sin and all the genetic degeneration that has found its way into the penguins' genomes causing them to waddle in an amusing way on dry land thus making them something of a laughing stock, actually it doesn't "want it that way for now", and indeed is plotting for the demise of these innocent animals, perhaps via Divine Climate Change, so that things can be once again acceptable in its sight.

That fantasy version is just as likely as yours.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Or maybe since penguins display voracious homosexual proclivities, they are the work of the devil and your god is struggling to deal with that situation, what with all the sinners in the world troubling it with requests for help over where they left their car keys. The god character certainly doesn't "want it that way for now" and would prefer to overcome the devil and encourage the penguins to lead a purer lifestyle, difficult as that is currently.

Could you not keep a closer eye on your car keys? That would help, I think.

Stuart

 

[Jacob]

Dear Un,

Check out Genesis 2:19, "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them."

Much Love in Christ,

Michael

:sigh:

I see it now. Thanks.

 

[Hedshaker]

There is no nonsense in me. Only God and Jesus Christ, which you are going to find out you needed so sorely and chose not to, just because of your dumb, scientific mind.

It's tricky, but you've got to think about it for a bit!!

Many Blessings Upon You, If You'd Accept Them,

That's it! That's the very nonsense I'm talking about. But don't worry. People do recover and you can too with a little effort...... but let's see what you think after your predictions fail :comeout:

Though I suspect they'll probably get a time extension instead :deadhorse:

 

[6days]

No.

Stuart

So chickens are not descendants of a bird with teeth?
:juggle:

 

[6days]

Dear 6days,
You are wrong and I'm too tired to retype my explanation. See my Post 1 on this thread. Read it.

I see quite a few things in that posts which are errors. For example you seem to think that Genesis One and two, are two separate creations. That would contradict other theology in the Bible, plus it contradicts the plain reading of the text. It is not uncommon in literature for the author to provide an outline at the beginning, then flesh out details after that. Genesis ch 2 compliments Ch 1 providing more details, and it even tells you that this is the purpose.
Genesis 2:4
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven"

 

[Stuu]

So chickens are not descendants of a bird with teeth?
:juggle:

No, I think I am wrong about that. 'Birds' emerged in the Jurassic, 150 million years ago, so the theropod dinosaur ancestors of modern birds that could fly and lost their teeth 60 to 80 million years ago are all, apparently, called birds.

Stuart

 

[6days]

So chickens are not descendants of a bird with teeth?

No, I think I am wrong about that. 'Birds' emerged in the Jurassic, 150 million years ago, so the theropod dinosaur ancestors of modern birds that could fly and lost their teeth 60 to 80 million years ago are all, apparently, called birds.

Ok, so we sort of agree!

We just don't agree on the timeline. I think you are out by about 60 to 80 million years.

And, we agree that chickens not having teeth seems to be a loss of information, not a gain.
(Supporting the Creation model)

 

[Stuu]

Ok, so we sort of agree!

I think we sort of don't. Arguing over the significance of the word 'bird' gives you no excuse for signing me up to abandoning reality and adopting a fantasy conspiracy version of natural history.

We just don't agree on the timeline. I think you are out by about 60 to 80 million years.

Well, I'm not wrong, and you are. It really is that simple.

And, we agree that chickens not having teeth seems to be a loss of information, not a gain.
(Supporting the Creation model)

No, that is a moronic interpretation. It is a gain of information, if anything. The ancestors had teeth, modern chickens still have the genes to produce teeth, but the extra information added is the part that switches off the production of teeth given the environment in which the chickens currently survive (strictly it's probably better to consider the wild junglefowl stock from which chickens were domesticated).

The only good thing about your post is that you didn't call it a 'creation theory'. There is no theory of creation, because there is no evidence to support creationist claims. The 60-80 million year fact is entirely based in evidence, and there is no evidence that contradicts it.

Stuart

 

[MichaelCadry]

I think we sort of don't. Arguing over the significance of the word 'bird' gives you no excuse for signing me up to abandoning reality and adopting a fantasy conspiracy version of natural history.


Well, I'm not wrong, and you are. It really is that simple.


No, that is a moronic interpretation. It is a gain of information, if anything. The ancestors had teeth, modern chickens still have the genes to produce teeth, but the extra information added is the part that switches off the production of teeth given the environment in which the chickens currently survive (strictly it's probably better to consider the wild junglefowl stock from which chickens were domesticated).

The only good thing about your post is that you didn't call it a 'creation theory'. There is no theory of creation, because there is no evidence to support creationist claims. The 60-80 million year fact is entirely based in evidence, and there is no evidence that contradicts it.

Stuart

Dear Stuart,'

There is evidence to support creationist claims. It's called the Holy Bible. That is our magazine or book that has all of our 'scientific' information in it.

Praise Jesus!

Michael

 

[Stuu]

Praise Jesus!

Why?

Stuart

 

[Jacob]

And yet it is a fact of natural history that there never was a time when only two humans existed.

Stuart

The following may be food for thought for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vATGWklTeEc

 

[Stuu]

The following may be food for thought for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vATGWklTeEc

I'm afraid I won't be watching 41 minutes of the moron Craig. Give me population biologists or geneticists but not this idiot.

It is well known from the fossil record, and from molecular evidence that there has been a continuous population of the species in our line of descent. So it is all for the creationists to propose: do they literally mean there was a time of only two people (or eight people), exactly when was this, and exactly what evidence discounts the distribution of hominid fossils and the molecular evidence that show a continuous population of humans that had it's severest bottleneck about 70,000 years ago with as few as a thousand individuals remaining?

For those who are still fans of Adam and Eve, just imagine what it would have been like for them to share the burden of carrying every human-specific parasite created by god, to share with their descendents.

Stuart

 

[Jacob]

I'm afraid I won't be watching 41 minutes of the moron Craig. Give me population biologists or geneticists but not this idiot.

It is well known from the fossil record, and from molecular evidence that there has been a continuous population of the species in our line of descent. So it is all for the creationists to propose: do they literally mean there was a time of only two people (or eight people), exactly when was, this, and exactly what evidence discounts the distribution of hominid fossils and the molecular evidence that show a continuous population of humans that had it's severest bottleneck about 70,000 years ago with as few as a thousand individuals surviving.

For those who are still fans of Adam and Eve, just imagine what it would have been like for them to share the burden of carrying every human-specific parasite created by god, to share with their descendents.

Stuart

He talks about Christians who do or don't believe in original sin. He discusses the issue of sin and death with the fall of Adam and Eve, and how each of us have sinned against God.

 

[noguru]

He talks about Christians who do or don't believe in original sin. He discusses the issue of sin and death with the fall of Adam and Eve, and how each of us have sinned against God.

I have heard many preachers "dance" around that subject. They usually avoid other logical possibilities and try to push their own fools errand conviction on others. Do you think he says anything I have not heard before?

I am curious though, why would you even bring this up in a discussion of science?

Are you trying to sway scientific conclusions based on the conviction of someone pushing their theological convictions?

Do you think we should interpret theology first and then base our scientific conclusions on that?

If the answer to the last question is "yes", do you now see how you are trying to push a specific religion using science?

Oh by the way, I do believe in original sin. I believe Adam committed it because he had knowledge of good and evil. As well as every person (except Jesus) since him. I just don't need there to have been only two people 10k years ago to accept what Adam represents as well as what original sin is.

In my opinion YEC's theology is the most logically askew set of ideas I have ever seen. It is just that they are usually too stupid to realize it in themselves.

Many of them chose to belittle or ignore any intellectual ideas which seem to contradict their theological convictions by choosing names like "Untellectual".

 

[Stuu]

He talks about Christians who do or don't believe in original sin. He discusses the issue of sin and death with the fall of Adam and Eve, and how each of us have sinned against God.

I did notice at the start he was about to talk about genetic diversity from breeding pairs of sheep marooned on islands. But as you might appreciate, the point is there are many different lines of evidence that converge on the fact that the story of Adam and Eve is fiction.

As for sinning against an imaginary friend because two imaginary humans exercised their 'god-given' curiosity and were subsequently given imaginary punishments, along with a serpent; such stories are for those interested in the ignorant infancy of one particular religious culture, or the very gullible who are vulnerable to the political ambitions of dictators who tell such stories with a straight face. It's a story of an immoral god.

Stuart

 

[Jacob]

I have heard many preachers "dance" around that subject. They usually avoid other logical possibilities and try to push their own fools errand conviction on others. Do you think he says anything I have not heard before?

I am curious though, why would you even bring this up in a discussion of science?

He talks about genes... apparently the idea that it is possible by looking at people's genes to determine we came from one man and one woman.

Are you trying to sway scientific conclusions based on the conviction of someone pushing their theological convictions?

The fact of creation is important in the discussion of man and the fall. Some people do not believe there ever was a fall. But there was a time when sin entered the world in reference to man.

Do you think we should interpret theology first and then base our scientific conclusions on that?

I think science is not incompatible with Theology or the Bible.

If the answer to the last question is "yes", do you now see how you are trying to push a specific religion using science?

I actually don't see this at all. What does a person's religious practice have to do with whether or not there was one man and one woman in the beginning?

Oh by the way, I do believe in original sin. I believe Adam committed it because he had knowledge of good and evil. As well as every person (except Jesus) since him. I just don't need there to have been only two people 10k years ago to accept what Adam represents as well as what original sin is.

I believe Adam and Eve's sin was the original sin of man.