Does the evidence point at one or several creators?

[Alithis]

I don't like your conclusion? What are you talking about?

I don't even understand how you conjured up your first "conclusion", never less this one. I am not even talking about evolution in the OP, so where you got your nonsense "conclusion" from is a complete mystery to me.

I am trying to understand what the differences found in all of life means and how one can come to the conclusion of one single creator by "neglecting" these differences. My questions has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

You responded to my OP by asserting:

"Neither. because evolution doesnt exist.so its like asking what sound is lettuce."​

May I inform you that, in case it have escaped you so far, it is a premises in my OP that "evolution does not exist".

Therefore, I pointed out that your answer does not make any sense whatsoever. To this you now responded that I don't like your "conclusions". Conclusion of what? And what is it am I not supposed to like?

You don't make much sense to me, and I doubt you do to anyone else either. But I will grant you a second chance to improve yourself in my eyes by explaining yourself.

very kind of you but i refuse on the grounds you simply want to run down many rabbit holes and hide in the dark

 

[In situ]

I'm not surprised that Parker offers the assessment he does. I don't have anything to add since he doesn't represent my point of view on science or the nature of the theory of evolution. I just cited him because his article is an example of the kind of thought patterns that persist among advocates of Creation Science; I cited him, too, because I didn't understand from your OP clearly that you're not honing in on homology, but more on their explanation of evolutionarily distinct characteristics.

I started to reread Parker article again in the hope that he may say something about the issue I raised. Scrolled at the end to see if there was some kind of summary conclusions, but Parker just goes on talking. So went back reading from the start but I did not manage to read much longer than to the third paragraph below the first picture. What he says is jaw dropping ignorant. I simply cannot read this much nonsense in one single go.

The stupidities Parker promotes are insane, the sentence following the three I already quoted goes:

"After all, there’s another reason in our common experience why things look alike."​

Parker just shown two reason for similarities before he wrote this:

1. objects design by humans to be similar
2. living things passing on inherent characteristics

So what is this 3rd alternative then? I am waiting with excitement to here it. And here it comes:

"It’s creation according to a common plan."​

W00t? Is Parker seriously proposing magic as a third alternative? But he then writes:

"That’s why Fords and Chevrolets have more in common than Fords and sailboats. They share more design features in common."​

So.... Parker now equivocate magic with design. Parker is saying that his third alternative, pooffing butterflies and elephants into existence, is somehow the same as human designing things.

Jumping a bit and he says:

"In many cases, either explanation will work, and we can’t really tell which is more reasonable."
​

Such as what? Is it just as reasonable to assume cars are giving birth to other cars and thus this will explain the similarities of cars? Or is is just as reasonable that dog are assumed to be manufacture in factories which would explain why dogs are similar? Or is it just as reasonable to assume that pooffing horses, lizards and dogs into existence is a reasonable explanation for why they all have four legs? Why can't dogs have six legs? After all insects do...

I really feel sorry for Parker if he can't tell the differences and find them all equal reasonable... But hey, then again he believes magic is a viable alternative to explain similarities, so why not....

In a world of magic, anything is possible!

Parker clearly is a big support of the Poof Theory. It is a very popular theory among creationists and it is used to explain the origin of life. It is a quite complex theory but goes something like this:

In the beginning there was no life, and then: POOF! There it was.​

Now, this is why I cannot read or listen to nonsense such as Parker and his ilks produces. My brains simply melts down by all the ignorance, stupidities, deceptions, misrepresentations, not to mention plain outright lies, about what scientists and textbooks actually says...

​

 

[In situ]

very kind of you but i refuse on the grounds you simply want to run down many rabbit holes and hide in the dark

This is not about kindness, because I am not very kind at all. It is about fairness.

In any case, I take it that you are just interested in asserting negative thing about me, my person, without providing any support for what you are saying. In effect you are "arguing" with ad hominem against me.

Shame on you, Christian...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I started to reread Parker article again in the hope that he may say something about the issue I raised. Scrolled at the end to see if there was some kind of summary conclusions, but Parker just goes on talking. So went back reading from the start but I did not manage to read much longer than to the third paragraph below the first picture. What he says is jaw dropping ignorant. I simply cannot read this much nonsense in one single go.

The stupidities Parker promotes are insane, the sentence following the three I already quoted goes:

"After all, there’s another reason in our common experience why things look alike."​

Parker just shown two reason for similarities before he wrote this:

1. objects design by humans to be similar
2. living things passing on inherent characteristics

So what is this 3rd alternative then? I am waiting with excitement to here it. And here it comes:

"It’s creation according to a common plan."​

W00t? Is Parker seriously proposing magic as a third alternative? But he then writes:

"That’s why Fords and Chevrolets have more in common than Fords and sailboats. They share more design features in common."​

So.... Parker now equivocate magic with design. Parker is saying that his third alternative, pooffing butterflies and elephants into existence, is somehow the same as human designing things.

Jumping a bit and he says:

"In many cases, either explanation will work, and we can’t really tell which is more reasonable."
​

Such as what? Is it just as reasonable to assume cars are giving birth to other cars and thus this will explain the similarities of cars? Or is is just as reasonable that dog are assumed to be manufacture in factories which would explain why dogs are similar? Or is it just as reasonable to assume that pooffing horses, lizards and dogs into existence is a reasonable explanation for why they all have four legs? Why can't dogs have six legs? After all insects do...

I really feel sorry for Parker if he can't tell the differences and find them all equal reasonable... But hey, then again he believes magic is a viable alternative to explain similarities, so why not....

In a world of magic, anything is possible!

Parker clearly is a big support of the Poof Theory. It is a very popular theory among creationists and it is used to explain the origin of life. It is a quite complex theory but goes something like this:

In the beginning there was no life, and then: POOF! There it was.​

Now, this is why I cannot read or listen to nonsense such as Parker and his ilks produces. My brains simply melts down by all the ignorance, stupidities, deceptions, misrepresentations, not to mention plain outright lies, about what scientists and textbooks actually says...

​

I scanned through Parker's article again and noticed that he does--slightly--address the idea of "distinct" characteristics, and he does this in reference to Biologist, Michael Land. Maybe have a look at paragraphs 12-15 in Parker's article. Parker describes how Michael Land supposedly made some "adjustments" in his praxis to become more sympathetic to the notions about biology that creationist's often hold.

Again, this isn't going to be an "answer" to your question, but it does at least provide a slice of how "they" think about their position.

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I started to reread Parker article again in the hope that he may say something about the issue I raised. Scrolled at the end to see if there was some kind of summary conclusions, but Parker just goes on talking. So went back reading from the start but I did not manage to read much longer than to the third paragraph below the first picture. What he says is jaw dropping ignorant. I simply cannot read this much nonsense in one single go.

The stupidities Parker promotes are insane, the sentence following the three I already quoted goes:

"After all, there’s another reason in our common experience why things look alike."​

Parker just shown two reason for similarities before he wrote this:

1. objects design by humans to be similar
2. living things passing on inherent characteristics

So what is this 3rd alternative then? I am waiting with excitement to here it. And here it comes:

"It’s creation according to a common plan."​

W00t? Is Parker seriously proposing magic as a third alternative? But he then writes:

"That’s why Fords and Chevrolets have more in common than Fords and sailboats. They share more design features in common."​

So.... Parker now equivocate magic with design. Parker is saying that his third alternative, pooffing butterflies and elephants into existence, is somehow the same as human designing things.

Jumping a bit and he says:

"In many cases, either explanation will work, and we can’t really tell which is more reasonable."
​

Such as what? Is it just as reasonable to assume cars are giving birth to other cars and thus this will explain the similarities of cars? Or is is just as reasonable that dog are assumed to be manufacture in factories which would explain why dogs are similar? Or is it just as reasonable to assume that pooffing horses, lizards and dogs into existence is a reasonable explanation for why they all have four legs? Why can't dogs have six legs? After all insects do...

I really feel sorry for Parker if he can't tell the differences and find them all equal reasonable... But hey, then again he believes magic is a viable alternative to explain similarities, so why not....

In a world of magic, anything is possible!

Parker clearly is a big support of the Poof Theory. It is a very popular theory among creationists and it is used to explain the origin of life. It is a quite complex theory but goes something like this:

In the beginning there was no life, and then: POOF! There it was.​

Now, this is why I cannot read or listen to nonsense such as Parker and his ilks produces. My brains simply melts down by all the ignorance, stupidities, deceptions, misrepresentations, not to mention plain outright lies, about what scientists and textbooks actually says...

​

Yep, people like Parker make we want to scratch my head.And that's why I'm a Theistic Evolutionist. I accepted evolution before I became a Christian; and I still affirm evolution even after becoming a Christian. I just had to learn to "read" the bible in a more academic way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

P.S. I just happened to be googling and came across a website sponsored by the Smithsonian Institute [the link is here]. What I found interesting is that they articulate their own generic taxonomy of positions they think are found among religious people, and in doing so, they have added one position that I hadn't thought of before -- "evolutionary theism." According to them, this position is different from "theistic evolution." Maybe I'm an Evolutionary Theist rather than a Theistic Evolutionist. ...it's not always easy to label these things.

2PhiloVoid

 

[In situ]

Yep, people like Parker make we want to scratch my head.And that's why I'm a Theistic Evolutionist. I accepted evolution before I became a Christian; and I still affirm evolution even after becoming a Christian. I just had to learn to "read" the bible in a more academic way.

What motivated you to become a Christian?

 

[Alithis]

This is not about kindness, because I am not very kind at all. It is about fairness.

In any case, I take it that you are just interested in asserting negative thing about me, my person, without providing any support for what you are saying. In effect you are "arguing" with ad hominem against me.

Shame on you, Christian...

lol make false accusation much ? im aserting that the entire line of questioning is as i said ..like asking what sound is lettuce.. is a nonsensical question in light of the Truth that God created the heavens and the earth . so, the so called evidence your using to ask the question is false misunderstood waffle to begin with . nothing to do with your "person' .. nice try though did you bang away on the report button lol ?

 

[Alithis]

P.S. I just happened to be googling and came across a website sponsored by the Smithsonian Institute [the link is here]. What I found interesting is that they articulate their own generic taxonomy of positions they think are found among religious people, and in doing so, they have added one position that I hadn't thought of before -- "evolutionary theism." According to them, this position is different from "theistic evolution." Maybe I'm an Evolutionary Theist rather than a Theistic Evolutionist. ...it's not always easy to label these things.

2PhiloVoid

theistic evolution has been around quite some time .. i referred to it earlier as agnostics posing as Christians

 

[In situ]

P.S. I just happened to be googling and came across a website sponsored by the Smithsonian Institute [the link is here].

I am not impressed with their "definition" of science:

"Science is a way to understand nature by developing explanations for the structures, processes and history of nature that can be tested by observations in laboratories or in the field."​

In fact it is a rubbish definition of science. If this is science, then pretty much anything can be said to be science.

What I found interesting is that they articulate their own generic taxonomy of positions they think are found among religious people, and in doing so, they have added one position that I hadn't thought of before -- "evolutionary theism."

Theistic evolution is an umbrella term for theists which accept evolutionary theory. As such I would say that 'evolutionary theism' falls under the umbrella term.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What motivated you to become a Christian?

When I "became" a Christian many years a go, it was for one or two of the usual, psychological reasons that people typically do become Christians-- like fear of death, for one, and an initial encounter with theological ideas in a book (~the Bible) that I had never encountered before, as a close second. Interestingly enough, for some reason, the idea of hell didn't register on my cognitive radar as a major concern. I guess the newness to me of the person of Jesus and what I perceived about His goodness at the time overshadowed all that bible talk about "fire and brimstone."

Now, years later, I believe and continue to believe for other, much more advanced academic reasons.

Mmmmm ... that's really the short of it, In situ.

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting... but this is the Smithsonian Institute we are talking about, not a Christian institution by any means. From whence do you take your definition of science, may I ask?

2PhiloVoid

 

[In situ]

lol make false accusation much ?

Then who said "you don't like my conclusions" and who said "your are crawling into your rabbit whole" etc, without motivating it, despite been ask to do so?

l im aserting that the entire line of questioning is as i said ..like asking what sound is lettuce.. is a nonsensical question in light of the Truth that God created the heavens and the earth . so, the so called evidence your using to ask the question is false misunderstood waffle to begin with . nothing to do with your "person'

You don't need to explain yourself. After I slept on it I realize where you are coming from. I understand why you wrote what you wrote.

Do I still think you made a mistake? Yes, I do. Because you do not recognize the fact that my premise is that "evolution does not exists". As such I take it you cannot admit you been in error.

Like I first asked you; did you post in error or not. Remember?

nice try though did you bang away on the report button lol ?

I am not in favor of censor opinions or how people express themselves (since that wont change peoples mind anyway). I may disagree or dislike it though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

theistic evolution has been around quite some time .. i referred to it earlier as agnostics posing as Christians

Well, I can't stop you from doing so. But, if I literally believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins, and that He rose again ... literally ... then I'm not sure it is for you to judge the quality of my faith.

 

[In situ]

I "became" a Christian ... for one or two of the usual, psychological reasons .... like fear of death

Was that cognate with the difficulties of the thought of losing loved once?

 

[In situ]

theistic evolution has been around quite some time .. i referred to it earlier as agnostics posing as Christians

Her we go again, the no true scotsman fallacy.

 

[In situ]

I'm not sure it is for you to judge the quality of my faith.

I felt a bit tempted to press the report button for him saying you are not a Christian... :-D

 

[In situ]

Interesting... but this is the Smithsonian Institute we are talking about, not a Christian institution by any means.

I am ignornat about who the Smithsonian Institute are or what they do. I ventilated my personal opinions only and my own opinions can of course be in error, which they mostly are.

From whence do you take your definition of science, may I ask?

I would not say I take my "definition" of science from anywhere, but at the same time I take it from everywhere. With that I mean I have a certain sense of what science is about and is not about. Science is not just about making observation, explanation and testing them. Science is more than that. Science is a systematic study which looks for a deeper understanding of what has been observed. This is what differ science from mere observing, explaining and testing, because those things everyone does all the time anyway - that is basically how our minds works.

Again, this is my opinion only.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Was that cognate with the difficulties of the thought of losing loved once?

No, at the beginning of my faith I wasn't so much concerned with the state of loved ones as might be viewed in the long term of the great bye-and bye. Mostly, I was trying to look for various ways to cope with a dysfunctional family situation; I needed some hope for that and for the understanding that I would die someday myself, all of which might sound kind of self-centered, but ... there it is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I felt a bit tempted to press the report button for him saying you are not a Christian... :-D

... I'll leave that up to you!