toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.

[Arthur Brain]

You really dont like the topic do you, anything to obscure the points made on it.

You dont understand what i posted, its that simple. You wont state what you believe no matter how many times you are asked, so it doesnt apply to you. Ive stated who my post is for, you fit it or you dont.

You can answer it or you cant, its really that simple.

I also qualified my thoughts with relevant scripture. Ask yourself why you didnt understand it. There is nothing you could do that would offend btw , so if thats your goal, too bad for you.

If I didn't like or had no interest in the topic I wouldn't post on it. :AMR:

I've understood what you've posted and it wasn't a lack of understanding on my part but rather your own presumptions which lacked any solid foundation I addressed. Trying to make out you've asked me what I believe a myriad times is just beans frankly. You haven't, nor would this thread be the actual place to debate such anyway.

FTR, in case it's somehow not already been apparent I ascribe to theistic evolution.....lain:

I don't need to ask myself that which I already understood in itself. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you feel the need to call the understanding of others into question simply because they disagree with you?

It's not my intent or goal to offend, but if you act condescendingly and presume things erroneously then don't cry foul when you're called on it, simple as.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

Provide them and there'll be something to address....

We're looking for evidence. What evidence do you hope to garner by finding how many YEC papers are peer reviewed?

 

[Lighthouse]

Why make a statement like this, and not provide any evidence? What is the evidence we were "created" to adapt to our environments?

You do realize that my stating that such is what I believe does not require, or necessitate, that I provide any proof or evidence for why I believe such, right? I am just merely stating what I believe.

And if you don't know of any evidence that plants and animals adapt to their environments, through physical changes passed on through genetics then I'm not sure I can help you understand my position at all.

 

[Arthur Brain]

We're looking for evidence. What evidence do you hope to garner by finding how many YEC papers are peer reviewed?

If there's peer reviewed papers that have been passed besides creationist journals it would be something to address Stripe. So can you provide such or not? I've no idea why you'd be reticent to frankly....

 

[Arthur Brain]

Anyone willing to give these a shot that is a christian and believes in theistic evolution?

Well as I've already informed you I go with theistic evolution so unless you need a label before you'll address then how about the former I posted:

Science doesn't deal in supernatural phenomena. You might just as well argue that the parting of the red sea/turning water into wine should make every Christian a 'creationist' by that reasoning. What's more you even state that a day isn't necessarily translated as 24 hours so what actually is your problem with theistic evolution?

Btw, making out that the global science community is somehow all at odds with itself regarding evolution is hardly genuine either...

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Psalm 90:4

2 Peter 3:8

ouch, how does it feel to be wrong?

Do you not even see how these only serve to undermine your own position? If a day can be akin to a thousand years for God and vice versa then what do you suppose that means in relation to time as we can only perceive it? You yourself don't dictate that a 'day' has to comprise of precisely 24 hours.....

 

[Stripe]

I've no idea why you'd be reticent to frankly....

Who's being reticent? :idunno:

First you claimed there were no peer reviewed materials from creationists. When shown wrong on that count you called them names. Now you're pretending like you've not been shown wrong.

And the entirety of your rabbit trail here has nothing to do with evidence. The number of papers written has no bearing on the truth of an idea.

But evolutionists do so love their appeals to authority and popularity. And they react like a vampire to sunlight when it comes to discussions about evidence. :chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Who's being reticent? :idunno:

You dude. Well, not reticent so much as caught in a position where you've little recourse but to resort to the lame deflection below. We're both aware there's no "peer reviewed" and passed papers regarding creationism besides creationist sources, else provide and I'll gladly retract

First you claimed there were no peer reviewed materials from creationists. When shown wrong on that count you called them names. Now you're pretending like you've not been shown wrong.

Erm, noooooo. "Peer review" from creationist journals regarding creationism doesn't count as you're aware. Not sure where I've called anyone names exactly either unless Stripe is an insult nowadays? :idunno:

And the entirety of your rabbit trail here has nothing to do with evidence. The number of papers written has no bearing on the truth of an idea.

Hey dude, you made the claim that there's such out there. Ain't my fault you couldn't back it up. Had you there'd be something to address. Shame.

But evolutionists do so love their appeals to authority and popularity. And they react like a vampire to sunlight when it comes to discussions about evidence. :chuckle:

And you do so love to deflect with the same tired (S)tripe and chuckle at your own posts ad nauseam. Where it comes to evidence there's tons to support an old earth. You OTOH can't even provide backup for which you claim even upon request.

Hardly surprising really but oh well....

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, this is kinda spooky as I've just switched channels to channel 4 in the UK where the presenter announced that "The Big Bang Theory is next, or as creationists call it: The Theory...."

:rotfl:

Oh well, it made me laugh....

lain:

 

[Stripe]

You dude. Well, not reticent so much as caught in a position where you've little recourse but to resort to the lame deflection below. We're both aware there's no "peer reviewed" and passed papers regarding creationism besides creationist sources, else provide and I'll gladly retract

You want creationist papers not written by creationists now?

You've already been given a link that provides plenty of examples of creationists' papers in secular peer-reviewed publications.

But even if there were none, you're not furnishing anything related to evidence. The number of papers written does nothing to alter the truth of an idea.

Erm, noooooo. "Peer review" from creationist journals regarding creationism doesn't count.

:darwinsm: Typical atheist. Assert the lack of an item, then, when shown the item, insist it does not count.

Where it comes to evidence there's tons to support an old earth.

Great! Write about that! Then you'd be on topic. :thumb:

You OTOH can't even provide backup for which you claim even upon request.

Contrary to your delusions, I'm not here to jump every time you make an irrational demand.

And you've been furnished with what you ask for.

Get back to us when you're willing to discuss evidence. :thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

You want creationist papers not written by creationists now?

You've already been given a link that provides plenty of examples of creationists' papers in secular peer-reviewed publications.

But even if there were none, you're not furnishing anything related to evidence. The number of papers written does nothing to alter the truth of an idea.

Um, no, I want examples of peer reviewed and passed creationist papers accepted in general science journals. I was pretty clear on that so you've either got such or you don't dude. Which is it? I'm getting the impression it's none, is that correct?

:darwinsm: Typical atheist. Assert the lack of an item, then, when shown the item, insist it does not count.

I'm not an atheist. Typical of you to make the same blunder time and again but no matter as tiresome as it is. If you need to have it explained why a creationist paper needs to be passed by a non creationist panel in regards to actual science, due process, peer review etc then this really is getting beyond a joke.

Great! Write about that! Then you'd be on topic. :thumb:

No need. It's as abundant as your lack of support for your own position dude. I can easily provide some links for you though if you need, and unlike yourself I'll do so.

Contrary to your delusions, I'm not here to jump every time you make an irrational demand.

Had I made an irrational demand you'd have had a point dude. I didn't. I just asked you to provide some links for your own claim. A shame they weren't forthcoming but hey ho....

And you've been furnished with what you ask for.

Well.....no, no I haven't. You've not provided anything yet Stripe but I live in hope

Get back to us when you're willing to discuss evidence. :thumb:

Well.....when you're ready to provide the evidence for that which you claim then gladly dude. Please provide it.

 

[Stripe]

when you're ready to provide the evidence for that which you claim then gladly dude. Please provide it.

:AMR:

You want evidence that the bible says "Six days" and "The whole Earth"?

 

[Arthur Brain]

:AMR:

You want evidence that the bible says "Six days" and "The whole Earth"?

Nooooooooooo, I want some evidence that creationist papers have passed peer review in general science journals as requested.

 

[Stripe]

Nooooooooooo, I want some evidence that creationist papers have passed peer review in general science journals as requested.

You have it.

So, now what? Do you have anything rational to present?

 

[Arthur Brain]

:AMR:

You want evidence that the bible says "Six days" and "The whole Earth"?

Oh, and does 'day' have to implicitly mean '24 hours' to you Stripe? if so you might want to tell A4T that as she's not seemingly so sure on the matter....

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

You have it.

So, now what? Do you have anything rational to present?

Eh?

Where?

:AMR:

 

[Arthur Brain]

You have it.

So, now what? Do you have anything rational to present?

You do realize that I'm asking for creationist papers that pass the mark after peer review aside from creationism journals right? Just to be sure?

 

[Stripe]

Oh, and does 'day' have to implicitly mean '24 hours' to you Stripe? if so you might want to tell A4T that as she's not seemingly so sure on the matter....

Yes. A day implies 24 hours to me.

What does it imply to you?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes. A day implies 24 hours to me.

What does it imply to you?

So it could only be six literal 24 hour days for creation then? Give or take a few minutes/seconds?

 

[Stripe]

So it could only be six literal 24 hour days for creation then? Give or take a few minutes/seconds?

That's what the bible says. Creation took six days. :thumb: