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

[eameece]

Sure they can. Take a houseplant, and put it in a closet for 24 hours. I'm willing to bet it'll still be alive when you take it back out.

And that's in the dark. You can supply it with artificial lighting and leave it in there indefinitely. I mention that because God said "let there be light" before He created the sun, moon, and stars. So, it's no problem either way you want to look at it -- the plants were already receiving light, which they could have done without for a single day anyway.

So then those plants that received "the light" could have been around a lot longer than Voltaire said between the 3rd and 4th day.

Assuming of course the "light" was as strong as that provided by the sun, which is doubtful.

 

[eameece]

The best argument I can think of for theistic evolution would be something like "the scientists say evolution is a fact, and I believe in God, so He must have had something to do with it."

The best argument against it would be the Holy Bible.

And the Holy Bible of course does not refute evolution.

 

[eameece]

Neo-Darwinism is atheistic. It does not invoke any kind of universal mind, creative intelligence, or teleology to explain evolution. It is not compatible with theistic evolution. If you believe that neo-Darwinism can completely explain evolution, then you're either an atheistic materialist or a believer in a superfluous God.

That is true, I agree with that.

 

[eameece]

A demonstration of macro evolution in the lab might be a big first step.

It's the way real science is done! :thumb:

They'll have to find a powerful anti-aging device first! Or maybe a time machine.

Hey, maybe if they invent a time machine, they can rig it up to send you and your folk back to the Jurassic period where you belong.
:idea:

 

[eameece]

noguru takes entire quote and posts it here:



Then what exactly were you implying?

Perhaps you should have just left out the part "in the lab", or not followed it up with the comment you chose?

noguru embarks on an impossible dream; to pin down the dinosaur on anything he says.

 

[eameece]

I have not proposed that fish turned into people. The naturalistic model proposes that there were many intermediate forms between fish to amphibians, amphibians to ancient reptiles, ancient reptiles to mammals, and mammals to humans.

We have covered all of this evidence before many times, yet you refuse to acknowledge there is any evidence. Because you have a prior committment to a static literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.



What is that simple mechanism?

noguru embarks on the impossible dream of getting Stripe to change his Stripes. That is impossible; all Stripe will ever do is throw out items of received authoritarian dogma and mock anyone who disagrees.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why wont a christian theistic evolution believer answer my questions ive posted here?

If you believe the virgin birth, then why cant you believe creation?

I hope you agree with me that both are true. Your only difficulty is that you don't approve of the way God handled creation.

There is ample scientific evidence that a virgin birth isnt possible....

Miracles are always possible. Science doesn't rule out miracles. But the habit of YE creationists, adding unscriptural miracles to get out of logical difficulties, that's a bad practice.

 

[some other dude]

Jesus evolved over millions of years in Mary's womb? :freak:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why wont a christian theistic evolution believer answer my questions ive posted here?



I hope you agree with me that both are true. Your only difficulty is that you don't approve of the way God handled creation.



Miracles are always possible. Science doesn't rule out miracles. But the habit of YE creationists, adding unscriptural miracles to get out of logical difficulties, that's a bad practice.

So you believe the bible, except where it said God did it all in 6 days since science says otherwise?

Do you believe only some of the bible is true or all of it?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Jesus evolved over millions of years in Mary's womb? :freak:

:rotfl:

 

[The Barbarian]

So you believe the bible, except where it said God did it all in 6 days

It's all true. The problem, as you know, is that "yom" doesn't translate out to "day" in that context. Indeed, it's impossible to have mornings and evenings with no Sun. As you might also know, God rules out the YE creationist doctrine that life was created from nothing. The fact that the timing and sequence of creation is different in the two creation stories in Genesis tells us that it's not a literal history.

Do you believe only some of the bible is true or all of it?

Unlike YE creationists, I accept all of it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Jesus evolved over millions of years in Mary's womb?

That's a common misconception of non-scientists. Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. Don't blame you for not knowing that, but keep it in mind, next time.

 

[Angel4Truth]

As you might also know, God rules out the YE creationist doctrine that life was created from nothing.

Funny, i'm a young earth creationist and im not familiar with that doctrine, can you point me to it?

I do not believe its 24 hour days, i believe the time frame is 1000 year 'days'

 

[voltaire]

So then those plants that received "the light" could have been around a lot longer than Voltaire said between the 3rd and 4th day.

Assuming of course the "light" was as strong as that provided by the sun, which is doubtful.

The plants would have died within a week if the sun was not there.

As for the other light that existed before day 3, it was not as strong as that of the sun, otherwise there was no need for the sun. If it was as strong as the sun, the plants would have burnt to a crisp on day 4 when the sun was created. It would take a power source close to that of the sun to create light strong enough for plants to stay alive like the electrical light sources that keep them alive indoors today. You doubt me? take the area that a electric lamp shine on and multiply it until you reach the surface area that the sun reaches today. That is how much power you need from your other light source on days 1 through 3. Plants can survive for 24 hours without sunlight anyway, so the talk of another day 3 light source is moot.

 

[Alate_One]

So you believe the bible, except where it said God did it all in 6 days since science says otherwise?

Do you believe only some of the bible is true or all of it?

Do you believe the world is flat and the sky holds up water with a dome?

Or that stars could fall to earth?

Do you believe all of the bible or just some of it?



With the virgin birth you're dealing with a singular event, that even YECs acknowledge is normally impossible. So saying it's scientifically impossible is superfluous.

Could God have created the world 6000 years ago in a miraculous event? Sure. But the world we see has lots of evidence for an old earth and organisms that have changed over a very long period of time. There's no reason for that evidence to be placed there if the earth is actually 6000 years old. If it's really billions of years old, all of that evidence suddenly makes sense.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Funny, i'm a young earth creationist and im not familiar with that doctrine, can you point me to it?

That's just one of his pet strawmen. You won't get anything like a cite from a creationist source concerning this from Barbie. At best, you'll just get a convoluted argument as to why he thinks this is what creationists believe.

 

[Ktoyou]

Ha! Republicans are religious right conservatives who want schools to teach intelligent design. It's part of the culture wars.

No!
You have been duped, and don't know it.

 

[Stripe]

Do you believe the world is flat and the sky holds up water with a dome?

No.

Or that stars could fall to earth?

No.

Do you believe all of the bible or just some of it?

All of it.

Could God have created the world 6000 years ago in a miraculous event? Sure. But the world we see has lots of evidence for an old earth and organisms that have changed over a very long period of time. There's no reason for that evidence to be placed there if the earth is actually 6000 years old. If it's really billions of years old, all of that evidence suddenly makes sense.

Now would be a good time to present that evidence. :thumb:

 

[some other dude]

Evolution happens to populations,

Yes, I believe you've been making that claim for ten years. With as little success in getting it accepted then as now. :chuckle:

What is they say about trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results?

not individuals.

And Homo Sapien individuals do not conceive asexually.

Don't blame you for not knowing that, but keep it in mind, next time.

 

[voltaire]

It's all true. The problem, as you know, is that "yom" doesn't translate out to "day" in that context. Indeed, it's impossible to have mornings and evenings with no Sun. As you might also know, God rules out the YE creationist doctrine that life was created from nothing. The fact that the timing and sequence of creation is different in the two creation stories in Genesis tells us that it's not a literal history.



Unlike YE creationists, I accept all of it.

If yom doesn't translate into day what does it translate into?