I know.
Hear what? The evidence that species adapt to their environments, aka micro-evolution?
toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Bible says God created the Earth and all in it in six days from nothing. :idunno:
Nothing that now is was not created by Him.
It doesn't say He created it "A long time" or "Back in my day".
And people were created from the dust of the Earth on day 6.
Zeke
Well-known member
All hail the god of science, no design needed for creation or computers, cars, trains, airplanes, houses, birds, deer, flys, fleas, elephants, dogs, just natural elements thrown together at random.
noguru
Well-known member
The evidence we have leads to the conclusion that nature is not entirely random. It is stochastic. The only random part of evolution is the distribution of genetic variation. There are many other factors that are guided because they utilize preceding natural processes (cause and effect).
"One cannot change the wind, but one can adjust their sails."
Biological organisms do not create the wind, but many kinds of seeds have become dependant on the wind to disperse them. Is their dispersal pattern an intentional design of some being for which you have empirical evidence, or is it a stochastic natural process? What does the evidence indicate?
A few years back I sailed through the Carribean with an agnostic Bavarian Capt.. Everytime the weather changed in our favor I would say "Thank God". Everytime the weather turned against us he would say "Where is your God now?". I would say "Well one of us, probably you, must have pissed Him off." Then we both laughed and got about the business of controlling the boat.
Oh, and where did I say anything about a God of science? Are you saying that God is not the "God of science and nature"?
Perhaps in your zealous attempt to oppose that which you do not understand, you are speaking blasphemy? :think:
Last edited:
As you know, that was never the orthodox understanding. Christians had always recognized that the "days" were not literal days. Some dissented from that, but the YE position is no older than the last century.
That's not at issue. The issue is that you are unwilling to accept the way He did it.
In one of the two versions in the Bible. The sequence is different in the second story. That, and things like mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them, convinced Christians that it was not a literal history.
some other dude
New member
barbie said:
No barbie. Stripe (and others here) are unwilling to accept the way you say He did it.
It's an important distinction, one that I'm sure will be too difficult for your befuddled mind to comprehend. :idunno:
Comes down to evidence. Science has it; they don't.
You betcha. And it's why they lost the argument a long time ago. Notice even younger evangelicals are turning away from creationism. It was always a stumbling block for those who might have otherwise come to God.
(Sod waves the white flag to let us know he's done)
Well, you know how dumb and befuddled barbarians are... :thumb:
But at least this time, you attempted to make an argument. Well done, Sod.
Nog pretty well dissected the assumptions in your post, but it bears repeating that Darwin's great discovery was that it didn't happen randomly. That's why we can predict what will happen to a population under different forms of environment.
And the other important point is that you should avoid conflating designed things, made by creatures, with created things, made by God. Huge difference there. Turns out that even stone age people are very good at distinguishing design from natural things.
IDers, for some reason, have some a perceptual deficit in that regard.
some other dude
New member
Evidence that is interpreted one way by you and your ilk, and another way by others.
See? I told you you'd be too befuddled to understand. :idunno:
To avoid embarrassing you further, I'll cut the rest of your befuddled rant.
Que?
Genesis 2
1Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
He then goes back and gives a little detail to the 6th day, regarding Adam and the creation of Eve.
I was in a car accident. I was driving down the road and this person pulled out in front of me when I was going 40 mph. And I washed my car and vacuumed it. It is totaled now. I was going to McDonald's.
So, I wrecked a car then vacuumed it.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
The second story starts in Genesis 2:4: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created...". This is most likely a story from another source. The sequence of creation in that story is:
1: Heaven and earth
2: Sea
3: Garden
4: The male human
5: Animals
6: The female human
Some differences from Genesis 1-2:3
1: Animals are created before humans in the first story. In the second story the animals are created as companions for the male human.
2: Humans are created male and female in one act of creation, the female is not created from the male as is the case in the second story.
3: Animals are created on separate occasions in the first story. The birs and sea animals are created before the land animals. In the second story they are all created at the same time. Of course there is a reason for this if you read Genesis 1 in detail, it is a very schematic poetic order of creation.
You usually don't insert "This is the story of when..." in the middle of a story do you?
Not to mention that the linguistic differences in the two stories starts exactly where you expect them to, namely in Genesis 2:4. Not just stylistically, but choice of words as well. The name YHWH is only used in the second story, the first story exclusively uses Elohim.
To claim there are no differences between the two is simply false. The narrative differences are obvious in English, but if you add an analysis of the Hebrew it becomes obvious that it is linguistically different as well.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
some other dude said:
Evidence that is interpreted as supporting the theory of evolution by roughly 99.999999% of trained biologists. In terms of percentage there are more historians that deny the holocaust than there are academically trained biologists that deny the theory of evolution.
It is not a difference of interpretation, it is simply right and there is wrong in this case. Creationists are wrong.
some other dude
New member
Selaphiel
Well-known member
In the same sense that is your opinion that modern medicine is better at treating illnesses than a shaman.
some other dude
New member
No, in the same sense that people interpret evidence differently.
Evolutionists like barbie accept the evolutionists' version.
Creationists do not.
Evolutionists like barbie accept the evolutionists' version.
Creationists do not.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
There is no difference of opinion among those who are actually trained and qualified to examine the evidence. There are no peer reviewed papers that support creationism.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
One would have to wonder why that is if creationism actually fits the evidence. Global conspiracy?
:noid:
some other dude
New member
Selaphiel
Well-known member
It is funny how creationists become hardcore relativists when they are faced with that fact.
Creationists are welcome to their opinion, as long as they do not try to pass their erroneous views as science in the schools. The shaman can also hold his opinion, still I will still claim that shamanism is a bunch of nonsense.