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

[Stripe]

Barbarian is the most honest poster on TOL. Go Barbie!first:

Atheists seem to love Barbie for some reason. :idunno:

 

[Angel4Truth]

I said:

Hello again, you didnt ask me for evidence of anything, you TOLD me that i believed a "YEC DOCTRINE" and when I* ASKED YOU where i could see it, you gave me a link to a BLOG - and insisted its what i* BELIEVE.

To which you responded:

No, I said YECs do. And then added that not all of them do.

Thats not true, here is what you said that i responded to where all this started:

You said

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

I said this in response to your claim that YEC's have a doctrine and nowhere did you initially state that not all of them do, that was your later change when others called you on a later mistake in the blog you posted - i said and asked and clearly stated my position:

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'

To which you then posted your bad blog post here:

The God of the Bible created all life ex nihilo (out of nothing) during six, 24 hour days of abrupt Creation. Created honey bees continue to exist as they were made, “after their kind”, as revealed in Genesis 1:21, 24.
http://www.2cor13verse5.com/?tag=ex-nihilo

All plant and animal life was created ex nihilo.
http://quizlet.com/4536238/print/

To which i replied

Wow you got one website, where does it say it speaks for all YEC's?

Also i see no specific doctrine there that covers all yecs like you said

And other posters keep telling you the blog post was unacceptable and why, and stating that none of us believe in ex nihilo - an other poster said

Sorry -- not acceptable. Anybody can make a blog

and you said

In this case, a YE creationist, who says what you claim YE creationsts don't.

Young Earth creationists peddling "life ex nihilo." If you reject that part of YE, then congratulations

Then another poster said

You know I don't believe that, nor does any other YEC around here.

And you replied

Not since we've been pointing out that part of YEC denies God's word.

Why set yourself up for that, then?

No one set up anything, you pulled that blog out of the air and then tried to prove we all believe what some random blog says and then you keep pushing the point ignoring us telling you we dont believe that.

To which another poster pointed out here - they said

You're the one who posted a link that flatly refuted your own claim.

To which you responded:

hey guy is a YE creationist, and he's asserting "life ex nihilo." Just what you claim YECs don't do.

So you were STILL attempting to claim we all believe what you misread on random persons blog, when that isnt even what THEY were saying, because you read it wrong. Yet you are still insisting mr random persons blog is some kind of 'authority' stating YEC 'doctrine' your words remember, i posted them above.

Then you are told again, we do not believe that stuff there, to which you PUSHED FURTHER, ignoring all the posts telling you we dont believe that - you said

ut the fact remains. The guy is a YE creationist, and he's asserting "life ex nihilo." Just what you claim YECs don't do.

No amount of dancing is going to change that. If you were to say "well, some YE creationists don't accept "life ex nihilo", then you wouldn't have anyone questioning your honesty.

But denial isn't doing you any good.

The Oxford Engish dictionary has an entry for it:
ex nihilo
Pronunciation: /ˈeks ˈnē(h)əlō, ˈnī(h)əlō/
adverb
formal
out of nothing: the fashioning of life ex nihilo by God


Ex Nihilo is Latin for "out of nothing." The Bible teaches that God spoke and created life "Ex Nihilo."
http://discoverlife.net/ministries/youth-ministry

It's just a false doctrine preached by YECs.

When we dont believe that and have told you that over and over. You keep acting as if no one said anything, and that your random blog person is all authority on what YEC's believe.

And you told AGAIN, we dont believe that and AGAIN, you act as if random blog teaches some kind of YEC doctrine that youve already been told multiple times that we dont believe, and that you MISREAD

another poster cites that here

That's not what he's saying Barbarian. Go back and read the link. It's a quiz. You referenced a true-false question. The answer is false. Whoever made this quiz is claiming that life ex-nihilo is false, not true.

You failed. Try again, or give it up. But remember -- blogs don't count.

To which you responded yet AGAIN, ignoring we dont believe it and refusing to acknowledge YOUR error - you said

Stamping your foot and insisting isn't going to help you. I showed you a number of sites, in which YECs assert life ex nihilo. Don't blame me, deal with them.

The guy is a YE creationist, and he's asserting "life ex nihilo." Just what you claim YECs don't do.

When blog doesnt say that, and we dont believe it either, you keep acting as if we believe that when youve been told we dont.

Your told AGAIN by another poster about your blog

That's not what he's saying Barbarian. Go back and read the link. It's a quiz.

To which you cite YET ANOTHER source to insist STILL that we believe something we have all told you we don't believe- you said here:

If so, what about the others?

One is an Oxford dictionary entry defining the doctrine. And two are from YE creationists asserting life ex nihilo. Precisely what you denied.

Ex Nihilo is Latin for "out of nothing." The Bible teaches that God spoke and created life "Ex Nihilo."
http://discoverlife.net/ministries/youth-ministry

And then you are told AGAIN -

You failed. Try again, or give it up. And remember -- blogs don't count.

To which you STILL persist with a total lie here:

I don't think denial will help, Jack. If you want to claim that you don't believe it, that's one thing. But I've shown you that other YECs do believe it, and proclaim it on the net. Why is so hard for you to admit it? You don't have to believe it that way. If you don't want to go the full YEC way, it doesn't hurt anything. I'll be happy to agree that some of you don't believe in life ex nihilo. And if you really don't, then you're no more in conflict with scripture than theistic evolution is.

Learn from it.

If they have a statement from a YE blogger, they do. Remember, it's what YECs believe.

Then you are told no one believes it again here and you reply STILL :

But as you see, the YEC doctrine of life ex nihilo is still advocated by YECs. Apprently not all of you. But it's easy enough to find on the net, isn''t it?

And yet again after more objection from several posters, you push the lie

Well, the argument seemed to be that YECs don't think like that. Clearly, some of them think so strongly enough to put it on the web for others.

And i was so amazed by your lame logic and claim of authority of what we all believe even though we were telling you - that i asked

So if i quote a blog from someone who is a stark crazy loon that happens to believe in old earth evolution theory, then i can claim you all believe that???????

And you have a scientific mind with logic like that??????

And another member replied

I'm sure we could find some evolutionary blog by an atheist who denies the existence of God. Then we could ridicule The Barbarian for not fully embracing the evolutionary mindset.

But then again, I think I'd feel pretty sleazy adopting that sort of tactic. I've gotta live with myself, after all.

Which is exactly what you were doing!!

And then you said again

Barbarian observes:
If they have a statement from a YE blogger, they do. Remember, it's what YECs believe.

and then responded to my post with this total LIE

Notice, I pointed out that not every YEC creastionist believes the whole thing. Some don't accept "life ex nihilo." If you were honest, you'd do the same thing in your hypothetical. If. I merely accepted the evidence showing that life ex nihilo is a YE doctrine, and added (based on new evidence) that not all of them believe it.

You never did that, you never pointed that out, in fact you did the opposite and kept lying and lying , insisting we all believed it because your blog was by a YEC and they said so (even though they didnt say so, you read it wrong)

Now back to your last post - i said

While that might be what you are doing now, that is not what you did before your blog posting was shown to trip up your point

So now you claim this

Up till now, YECs here haven't said they didn't accept it.

Notice, I pointed out that not every YEC creastionist believes the whole thing. Some don't accept "life ex nihilo." If you were honest, you'd do the same thing in your hypothetical. If. I merely accepted the evidence showing that life ex nihilo is a YE doctrine, and added (based on new evidence) that not all of them believe it.

Which is a TOTAL LIE. You did no such thing, you pointed out no such thing, this is a total fabrication you invented because everyone is calling you on it and you screwed up with your own link when you didnt read what it said.

Then you are basically called a liar over and over again by another poster because you keep lying.

Then i said

Hello again, you didnt ask me for evidence of anything, you TOLD me that i believed a "YEC DOCTRINE"

You replied:

No, I said YECs do. And then added that not all of them do.

No, I TOLD YOUi was a YEC and i didnt believe what you claimed we all believe, which led to the blog post that you screwed up by not reading when i asked for your "YEC Doctrine" and nowhere did you say not all of them believe something, you just keep saying you did that.

then you say

I did? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out I didn't. Why would you lie about something like that?

I didn't lie about anything, you gave a link to a blog and said all YECs believe that as their doctrine. Remember you were speaking with several of us YECers all at the same time. YOU are who keeps lying.

Then i said

I said i believe no such thing and you kept pushing that while others tolD you they believe no such nonsense either and that even your "so called " evidence (which is a blog for petes sake)

And you equivocate YET again with this response, which contradicts what you JUST said - you say now that you agree and said yourself that not all of us believe ex nihilo, yet you say this right after

By a YEC who happens to believe the YEC doctrine of "life ex nihilo." Whether he does it in a letter or a blog shouldn't matter. Don't you see what this looks like to other people?

He makes the claim directly. Oh, one link showed someone who presented it as a false proposition. But the others didn't.

Another lie, you were shown the blogger you quoted doesnt even believe it himself, you misread, yet now you insist AGAIN, that they beleive it and again, seem to claim mr random blogger as some kind of authority even though we told you what we believe ourselves.

Then i said

AVOIDED, AVOIDED AND AVOIDED.

And you lie again - you said

That's not honest of you, either. I pointed out the difference. And of course, you're proposing to paint all scientists with the accusation, while I agreed that not all YECs believe life ex nihilo.

Your the liar, you never did that, you pointed out no difference and instead did the opposite by claiming repeatedly that we believe something you misread and even did it again in this same post.

And i said again

Then you lied, then you equivocated, and side stepped and then you acted like you never said what you did and now you ask me for something you never asked me for WHILE YOU TRY TO INSIST, THAT I STILL BELIEVE SOMETHING I NEVER SAID I BELIEVED TO BEGIN WITH.

To which you responded with your lie again - you said

We've already gone over that. I said nothing at all about what you personally believe. In fact, I acknowledged that some YECs don't believe it. Remember, getting angry and lying about what people say, is always a bad idea.

You keep lying and then accusing others of what youre doing. That generally makes people angry.

Now i'm done with you, I have no time for liars.

 

[Stripe]

Now i'm done with you, I have no time for liars.

Barbarian has a long history of lying. Hope you can live up to your standard here. Trust me, he will not let you alone for a good long time.

 

[alwight]

Barbarian has a long history of lying. Hope you can live up to your standard here. Trust me, he will not let you alone for a good long time.

Nonsense, you lot only kick off when religious doctrine enters the fray, were you all so discerning about real evidence and science we might actually get somewhere.

 

[Stripe]

Nonsense, you lot only kick off when religious doctrine enters the fray, were you all so discerning about real evidence and science we might actually get somewhere.

Perhaps this thread isn't for you. Feel free to hold up your evidence in one of the threads that doesn't marginalise you. :thumb:

 

[voltaire]

I said:

To which you responded:


Thats not true, here is what you said that i responded to where all this started:

You said

I said this in response to your claim that YEC's have a doctrine and nowhere did you initially state that not all of them do, that was your later change when others called you on a later mistake in the blog you posted - i said and asked and clearly stated my position:



To which you then posted your bad blog post here:



To which i replied

And other posters keep telling you the blog post was unacceptable and why, and stating that none of us believe in ex nihilo - an other poster said and you said


Then another poster said

And you replied

No one set up anything, you pulled that blog out of the air and then tried to prove we all believe what some random blog says and then you keep pushing the point ignoring us telling you we dont believe that.

To which another poster pointed out here - they said

To which you responded:



So you were STILL attempting to claim we all believe what you misread on random persons blog, when that isnt even what THEY were saying, because you read it wrong. Yet you are still insisting mr random persons blog is some kind of 'authority' stating YEC 'doctrine' your words remember, i posted them above.

Then you are told again, we do not believe that stuff there, to which you PUSHED FURTHER, ignoring all the posts telling you we dont believe that - you said

When we dont believe that and have told you that over and over. You keep acting as if no one said anything, and that your random blog person is all authority on what YEC's believe.

And you told AGAIN, we dont believe that and AGAIN, you act as if random blog teaches some kind of YEC doctrine that youve already been told multiple times that we dont believe, and that you MISREAD

another poster cites that here

To which you responded yet AGAIN, ignoring we dont believe it and refusing to acknowledge YOUR error - you said



When blog doesnt say that, and we dont believe it either, you keep acting as if we believe that when youve been told we dont.

Your told AGAIN by another poster about your blog To which you cite YET ANOTHER source to insist STILL that we believe something we have all told you we don't believe- you said here:



And then you are told AGAIN -



To which you STILL persist with a total lie here:



Then you are told no one believes it again here and you reply STILL :



And yet again after more objection from several posters, you push the lie

And i was so amazed by your lame logic and claim of authority of what we all believe even though we were telling you - that i asked

And another member replied Which is exactly what you were doing!!

And then you said again and then responded to my post with this total LIE



You never did that, you never pointed that out, in fact you did the opposite and kept lying and lying , insisting we all believed it because your blog was by a YEC and they said so (even though they didnt say so, you read it wrong)

Now back to your last post - i said

While that might be what you are doing now, that is not what you did before your blog posting was shown to trip up your point

So now you claim this

Which is a TOTAL LIE. You did no such thing, you pointed out no such thing, this is a total fabrication you invented because everyone is calling you on it and you screwed up with your own link when you didnt read what it said.

Then you are basically called a liar over and over again by another poster because you keep lying.

Then i said

You replied: No, I TOLD YOUi was a YEC and i didnt believe what you claimed we all believe, which led to the blog post that you screwed up by not reading when i asked for your "YEC Doctrine" and nowhere did you say not all of them believe something, you just keep saying you did that.

then you say

I didn't lie about anything, you gave a link to a blog and said all YECs believe that as their doctrine. Remember you were speaking with several of us YECers all at the same time. YOU are who keeps lying.

Then i said And you equivocate YET again with this response, which contradicts what you JUST said - you say now that you agree and said yourself that not all of us believe ex nihilo, yet you say this right after

Another lie, you were shown the blogger you quoted doesnt even believe it himself, you misread, yet now you insist AGAIN, that they beleive it and again, seem to claim mr random blogger as some kind of authority even though we told you what we believe ourselves.

Then i said

And you lie again - you said

Your the liar, you never did that, you pointed out no difference and instead did the opposite by claiming repeatedly that we believe something you misread and even did it again in this same post.

And i said again

To which you responded with your lie again - you said You keep lying and then accusing others of what youre doing. That generally makes people angry.

Now i'm done with you, I have no time for liars.

He is infuriating. He puts bill clinton to shame. He puts clinton's spin meisters to shame. I have never run across another person who claims to be christian who is as wicked as this man.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No, I said YECs do. And then added that not all of them do.

Thats not true,

Well, let's take a look...

Post 361:
Notice, I pointed out that not every YEC creastionist believes the whole thing. Some don't accept "life ex nihilo." If you were honest, you'd do the same thing in your hypothetical. If. I merely accepted the evidence showing that life ex nihilo is a YE doctrine, and added (based on new evidence) that not all of them believe it.

post 367
I noted that some YECs, for whatever reason, reject "life ex nihilo." If you're one of those, I've already mentioned your dissent.

Post 347
But as you see, the YEC doctrine of life ex nihilo is still advocated by YECs. Apprently not all of you. But it's easy enough to find on the net, isn''t it?

Post 334
"No true Scotsman", um? Sorry there you are. Young Earth creationists peddling "life ex nihilo." If you reject that part of YE, then congratulations. But there's more to learn.


So you have no excuse. No matter how upset you are, lying about what other people said will only make it worse for you.

You keep lying and then accusing others of what youre doing. That generally makes people angry.

As you see, you really have no excuse for this. I clearly and repeatedly made it clear that I knew some YECs don't buy life ex nihilo. And you read the posts. Even if you didn't, there is no post where I said you personally believed it.

Now i'm done with you

You were done when you posted something you knew wasn't true.

I have no time for liars.

That's the rub. You have to live with yourself.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
When are you going to show us that math that disproved evolution?

Stipe replies:

I provided the maths in the thread you're talking about. Feel free to address it.

Guess I missed that. How about you give us a link so we know you're telling the truth this time?

 

[Tolken]

In an attempt to return to the original proposition ... The best argument for theistic evolution and OEC come directly from the Biblical record. There is in fact unison between the Genesis account and science once one dismisses the extremes on either side. If one choses to study Genesis 1, and supporting Bible verses, with Chestertonian "sufficient delicacy" it becomes apparent that the "literal" interpretation supports TE and OEC.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian asks:When are you going to show us that math that disproved evolution?Stipe replies:Guess I missed that. How about you give us a link so we know you're telling the truth this time?

Sure!

 

[The Barbarian]

A reasonable person could conclude so. A reasonable person.

 

[Stripe]

In an attempt to return to the original proposition ... The best argument for theistic evolution and OEC come directly from the Biblical record. There is in fact unison between the Genesis account and science once one dismisses the extremes on either side. If one choses to study Genesis 1, and supporting Bible verses, with Chestertonian "sufficient delicacy" it becomes apparent that the "literal" interpretation supports TE and OEC.

Funny. The supporting verses all say "Six days" and "The whole Earth". :idunno:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
When are you going to show us that math that disproved evolution?Stipe replies:Guess I missed that. How about you give us a link so we know you're telling the truth this time?

Stipe replies:
Sure!

The loser is a hand gesture made by extending the thumb and index fingers, leaving the other fingers closed to create the letter L, interpreted as "loser", and generally given as a demeaning sign.

For Stipe, that's mathematical evidence. That's why you have your reputation for dishonesty, Stipe. You would probably be better off just admitting you made it up.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian asks:When are you going to show us that math that disproved evolution?Stipe replies:Guess I missed that. How about you give us a link so we know you're telling the truth this time?Stipe replies:Sure! For Stipe, that's mathematical evidence. That's why you have your reputation for dishonesty, Stipe. You would probably be better off just admitting you made it up.

:rotfl:

:mock: :loser:

 

[Tolken]

Funny. The supporting verses all say "Six days" and "The whole Earth". :idunno:

Yes, and so how does six fiat/command days in any way negate Gen. 1?

 

[Stripe]

Yes, and so how does six fiat/command days in any way negate Gen. 1?

It doesn't.

 

[Tolken]

It doesn't.

So again it is clear that there is a distinct pattern or uniformity to the Gen. record of creation. As Capron notes there are four parts -the fiat, the fulfillment, post fulfillment activity, and the day - and a simple reading would perhaps lead one to conclude all occurs within the day. However it becomes clear that the fulfillment sections are explanatory or parenthetical allowing a separation between the fulfillment and the numerical day. Thus though the days are literal it permits an indeterminate time span, overlapping of the fulfillments, and the processes, which become paramount, to be set in motion. "And God said..." is the sole operating agent subsequent statements of “...And God made..” does not impose such declarations as operative. Why then does "Let the land produce..." (or bring forth) not allow for theistic evolution since explicity God commands an incipient process.

 

[Stripe]

As Capron notes there are four parts -the fiat, the fulfillment, post fulfillment activity, and the day - and a simple reading would perhaps lead one to conclude all occurs within the day. However it becomes clear that the fulfillment sections are explanatory or parenthetical allowing a separation between the fulfillment and the numerical day. Thus though the days are literal it permits an indeterminate time span, overlapping of the fulfillments, and the processes, which become paramount, to be set in motion. "And God said..." is the sole operating agent subsequent statements of “...And God made..” does not impose such declarations as operative.

So you read day and that means billions of years. I read day and get day.

Why then does "Let the land produce..." (or bring forth) not allow for theistic evolution since explicity God commands an incipient process.

Because the bible says "Six days".

And it does so in passages without the patterns.

Why is it wrong to accept creation in six days?

 

[Tolken]

So you read day and that means billions of years. I read day and get day.

Because the bible says "Six days".

And it does so in passages without the patterns.

Why is it wrong to accept creation in six days?

The problem that I have with a strict reading of six days is that it fundamentally sets aside the actual natural systems invoked by God in Genesis. As we all know to give meaning and purpose to such processes requires extended time frames, overlaps, and continuous functions. I believe we all recognize that the created processes in Genesis are still present with us today.

I'm suggesting that God set in motion the creation in six days, not necessarily consecutive, by His commands. Therefore one can confidently state that God created (through natural processes) all in six days. Yet the fulfillment is not constrained by a time period nor does the fulfillment cease as complete within that 24 hr. time frame. We do know that many of these processes are continuous so that each day would be a starting point for an ongoing process. "Incipience" is an appropriate way a viewing the processes within each day. This view strongly holds first and foremost Biblically but also in unison with what science has explained.

 

[Stripe]

The problem that I have with a strict reading of six days is that it fundamentally sets aside the actual natural systems invoked by God in Genesis. As we all know to give meaning and purpose to such processes requires extended time frames, overlaps, and continuous functions. I believe we all recognize that the created processes in Genesis are still present with us today.

I'm suggesting that God set in motion the creation in six days, not necessarily consecutive, by His commands. Therefore one can confidently state that God created (through natural processes) all in six days. Yet the fulfillment is not constrained by a time period nor does the fulfillment cease as complete within that 24 hr. time frame. We do know that many of these processes are continuous so that each day would be a starting point for an ongoing process. "Incipience" is an appropriate way a viewing the processes within each day. This view strongly holds first and foremost Biblically but also in unison with what science has explained.

Or maybe it really did all take six days. :idunno: