What's wrong with evolution?

[EnemyPartyII]

Now you people are just making words up!

 

[shernren]

Wikiality or Wikiolatry?

Wikiality.

 

[Tomk80]

All this talk of "age" is a red herring, since the real logical problem is the appearance of "history", not just age.

I could not agree more.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Now you people are just making words up!

all words are made up by someone at sometime in the past.
what the wiki and the net in general are doing is speeding up the process and codifying it much faster than in the even recent past. that is the point of a word like wikiality. not only is it a brandnew frankenword but it describes the idea and process of the wiki creating a new reality-reality by consensus.

thanks everyone who mentioned wikiality. now to work it into my Sunday School talk tomorrow.

 

[USincognito]

Now you people are just making words up!

Irony wrapped in satire and covered in a fresh coat of parody. It's like the Sphinx having a "Roman Nose" attached to it. Check out my "The Word - a metasatire" thread post 30 or 31 and the Google hits for a word that didn't exist 3 months ago.

rmwilliams, I'd love to get a Readers Digest version of your Sunday School lesson, could you post it to The Word thread?

Tom, that's the most confounding part of telling people Omphalos is inconsistent with the nature of God. It's not just the trees having fruit for the asps and vipers to suck the nutrition out of in Eden that caused the appearance of history problem, it's millions and billions of years of events like the K/T boundry Iridium layer and chalk and erosion on the Appalacians, etc. etc. They just don't seem to understand that if they insist on Omphalos, they worship Loki, not YHWH.

 

[birdan]

Along with Wikiality, don't forget Colbert's other coined word: truthiness.

Maybe we should coin a new word for creationists' arguments vs. evolution: logicness?

 

[USincognito]

I think fingersinearsiness would be more appropriate, but to cumbersome in English. Maybe there's a German version that is beyond "volkabeln."

 

[AV1611VET]

All this talk of "age" is a red herring, since the real logical problem is the appearance of "history", not just age.

I also think AV claiming he's not a YEC is a perfect example of Wikiality.

Okay --- pick any of the six days of creation --- and tell me what history was present.

Be specific, please --- and remember --- we're talking ex nihilo creation.

 

[BVZ]

Let me give you an illustration:

Suppose you create a single beautiful rose inside of a pot, and you create it to rely on sunlight for photosynthesis. The next day, you create the sun. You then have a "secretary" document this in his own words.

6000 years later, people will look back and:

• reject you and your secretary and claim the rose had to have come after the sun
• believe you and your secretary, but claim the secretary wrote figuratively
• believe the rose came one day before the sun, taking both you and your secretary literally
• et cetera

OK. I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that there is more than one way to interpret the bible? Thats what I've been saying.

Anyway, this scenario doesn't really represent out situation. In your example, the people in its future (us) will have the following to thier disposal:

* The documentation of the secretary.
* The world that was created by the master of the secretary.

Now, there are certain things in the world (created by the master of the secretary) that disproves statements made by the secretary when he wrote the documentation. This does not mean that the secretary was being dishonest or anything, he just did the best he could.

But when statements in the documentation contradict the handiwork of God Himself, I think I'll go with the handiwork of God Himself thank you very much.

I submit you don't know the history of the earth. Case in point: describe the earth on day four of its existence, from an evolutionary standpoint, then drop back five days and describe what's there.

Since the earth was created out of a dust cloud which slowly acumulated, I don't think theres a clear definitive point in time where you can say "The Earth exists from here on!" on a time scale.

Besides, since there would be no life present, evolution would not exist yet, so I don't think it's possible to describe the earth from an 'evolutionary' standpoint 4 days after the world started existing, whatever that means.

 

[Tomk80]

Okay --- pick any of the six days of creation --- and tell me what history was present.

Be specific, please --- and remember --- we're talking ex nihilo creation.

None. Which is the exact problem with your version of YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK. I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that there is more than one way to interpret the bible? Thats what I've been saying.

There are many ways to interpret the Bible, but only one is the right one.

The point of my scenario is that mixing science into the creation event causes one to come to the wrong conclusion (viz., that the earth was created before the sun).

 

[BVZ]

There are many ways to interpret the Bible, but only one is the right one.

The point of my scenario is that mixing science into the creation event causes one to come to the wrong conclusion (viz., that the earth was created before the sun).

I am sure you think your interpretation is the right one.

However, I still maintain that when any interpretation of the bible (written by humans inspired by God) conflicts with reality, (created by God directly), then the interpretation must be flawed. Because claiming that reality is flawed because it conflicts with your interpretation is just.... weird.

Its like telling God: "Sorry, see this world you created? See this evidence proving that you created in specific ways? Its wrong. Because my interpretation of the bible sais so!"

 

[AV1611VET]

I am sure you think your interpretation is the right one.

However, I still maintain that when any interpretation of the bible (written by humans inspired by God) conflicts with reality, (created by God directly), then the interpretation must be flawed. Because claiming that reality is flawed because it conflicts with your interpretation is just.... weird.

Its like telling God: "Sorry, see this world you created? See this evidence proving that you created in specific ways? Its wrong. Because my interpretation of the bible sais so!"

"My interpretation", as you call it, was in use long before I was born.

Even Jesus interpreted Scripture that way.

My flowerpot scenario bears repeating:

If you were to create, ex nihilo (out of nothing) a beautiful rose, then the next day, create the sun for the rose to live by, how do you think scientists 2000 years down the road, who don't believe in creation, would interpret the events on creation day?

• The rose --- then the sun.
• The sun --- then the rose.

 

[LightHorseman]

However, I still maintain that when any interpretation of the bible (written by humans inspired by God) conflicts with reality, (created by God directly), then the interpretation must be flawed. Because claiming that reality is flawed because it conflicts with your interpretation is just.... weird.

Its like telling God: "Sorry, see this world you created? See this evidence proving that you created in specific ways? Its wrong. Because my interpretation of the bible sais so!"

I have posted something similar before... only in my post it ends with JohnR7 trying to tell God that bats are birds because the Bible says so...

 

[AV1611VET]

I have posted something similar before... only in my post it ends with JohnR7 trying to tell God that bats are birds because the Bible says so...

[bible]Leviticus 11:19[/bible][bible]Deuteronomy 14:18[/bible]

As I have said before, the bat is at the end of a list of animals called "fowl" and "birds".

This is a literary device that is used even in today's English.

Example:

Joe has several Fords:

• Falcon
• Fairlane
• Galaxy 500
• Focus
• and a Volkswagon

Please select from the following seafood menu:

• Perch
• Lobster
• Oyster
• Crab
• Catfish
• and your choice of salad

 

[Tomk80]

[bible]Leviticus 11:19[/bible][bible]Deuteronomy 14:18[/bible]

As I have said before, the bat is at the end of a list of animals called "fowl" and "birds".

This is a literary device that is used even in today's English.

Example:

Joe has several Fords:

• Falcon
• Fairlane
• Galaxy 500
• Focus
• and a Volkswagon

Please select from the following seafood menu:

• Perch
• Lobster
• Oyster
• Crab
• Catfish
• and your choice of salad

So the lapwing is not a bird?

 

[BVZ]

"My interpretation", as you call it, was in use long before I was born.

The age of an opinion/thoery/interpretation of the bible has no effect on its validity.

Even Jesus interpreted Scripture that way.

You base this statement on the KJV I assume? Which, according to logic you used previously, does not exist, since Jesus does not mention the KJV?

My flowerpot scenario bears repeating:
If you were to create, ex nihilo (out of nothing) a beautiful rose, then the next day, create the sun for the rose to live by, how do you think scientists 2000 years down the road, who don't believe in creation, would interpret the events on creation day?

• The rose --- then the sun.
• The sun --- then the rose.

If evidence was found that the rose was created from nothing before the sun, they would beleive that. If evidence was found that the sun has existed before the earth was inhabitable, they would believe that. Scientists would believe whatever they found evidence for.

If they found evidence that changes thier view, thier view changes. Remember, that by definition, evidence can only come from nature, which is God's creation. Evidence is PART OF Gods creation. God's creation spawned all evidence found by scientists. Evolution is supported by evidence created by God himself.

Does your interpretation of the bible, which is based on you, your mind, and your ability to reason, not fall short of Gods creation itself?

(Edited to fix broken quote)

 

[theFijian]

[bible]Leviticus 11:19[/bible][bible]Deuteronomy 14:18[/bible]

As I have said before, the bat is at the end of a list of animals called "fowl" and "birds".

This is a literary device that is used even in today's English.

Example:

Joe has several Fords:

• Falcon
• Fairlane
• Galaxy 500
• Focus
• and a Volkswagon

Please select from the following seafood menu:

• Perch
• Lobster
• Oyster
• Crab
• Catfish
• and your choice of salad

Ah yes that well used literary device...the restaurant menu.

 

[AV1611VET]

If evidence was found that the rose was created from nothing before the sun, they would beleive that. If evidence was found that the sun has existed before the earth was inhabitable, they would believe that. Scientists would believe whatever they found evidence for.

BVZ, please answer the scenario as I conveyed it --- okay? --- or don't answer it at all.

Once again ---

• YOU create a rose ex nihilo.
• The next day, YOU create the Sun.
• 2000 years later, what will scientists conclude, using today's standards of interpreting evidence?

When you answer by saying: "If evidence was found that the rose was created from nothing..."

INSTEAD OF:

"If evidence was found that I created the rose from nothing..."

I begin to suspect you're dodging my answer.

You know as well as I do what they're gonna conclude.

Please have the courtesy to admit that those scientists would come to the wrong conclusion --- unless you believe otherwise --- (and I don't see how you can).

 

[Chalnoth]

Science can well find evidence of a creator. That's not so much a problem. The problem is identifying the creator. Science alone could never provide you with a name or identity of a creator. So BVZ wasn't dodging your question at all. He gave a full and complete answer.