Design process

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

To say that God did it is a non answer because if you believe in God and something exists then you think God made it. It's a restatement of the observation that it exists. The question cannot be IF God did it, but HOW God did it. Could evolution be the method that God used to design? Was it *POOF* or speaking into existance? Can intelligent design or creationism really claim to be alternatives if they do not investigate the process of design?

 

[AV1611VET]

To say that God did it is a non answer because if you believe in God and something exists then you think God made it.

You left a part out:

• If you believe in God.
• And God says He made it.
• Then I think God made it.

Or, as we put it:

• God said it --- that settles it.

It's a restatement of the observation that it exists.

Okie-doke.

The question cannot be IF God did it, but HOW God did it.

Ex-nihilo is the bottom-line answer to that.

Could evolution be the method that God used to design?

No.

Was it *POOF* or speaking into existance?

Speaking into existence.

Can intelligent design or creationism really claim to be alternatives if they do not investigate the process of design?

These aren't "alternatives" --- they are the explanation; and for anyone who insists they want to investigate it further, I have an Apple Challenge for them to take first; and hopefully that will save a lot of money in the Research Department.

 

[EnCrypto]

Argh. Stupid site. I take the time to write out a lengthy message, then it tells me I haven't posted enough to post a link, and then I go back to find that my message has been erased.

Av, have you ever considered the level of intellect of people thousands of years ago? They, literally, wouldn't have been able to comprehend the concept of evolution, especially if they were told by God.

Contrary to what you may have been told, evolution has been observed and not just at a microscopic level and not just in fossils. It has been observed on islands, among living animals that have diverged into new species.

One example of this are Darwin's Finches, which he found on the Galapagos Islands.

"The ornithologist John Gould soon revealed that the Galapagos birds that Darwin had thought a mixture of blackbirds, "gros-beaks" and finches, were, in fact, twelve separate species of finches."

I'm not allowed to post a direct link, so go to Wikipedia and search Darwin's Finches.

 

[AV1611VET]

Argh. Stupid site. I take the time to write out a lengthy message, then it tells me I haven't posted enough to post a link, and then I go back to find that my message has been erased.

Av, have you ever considered the level of intellect of people thousands of years ago? They, literally, wouldn't have been able to comprehend the concept of evolution, especially if they were told by God.

Contrary to what you may have been told, evolution has been observed and not just at a microscopic level and not just in fossils. It has been observed on islands, among living animals that have diverged into new species.

One example of this are Darwin's Finches, which he found on the Galapagos Islands.

"The ornithologist John Gould soon revealed that the Galapagos birds that Darwin had thought a mixture of blackbirds, "gros-beaks" and finches, were, in fact, twelve separate species of finches."

I'm not allowed to post a direct link, so go to Wikipedia and search Darwin's Finches.

Here's another newbie that thinks he knows everything I've ever said.

For the record, sir --- I believe in evolution --- microevolution --- a.k.a. adaptation.

A species can give rise to a species, not a genera.

 

[Washington]

Here's another newbie that thinks he knows everything I've ever said.

For the record, sir --- I believe in evolution --- microevolution --- a.k.a. adaptation.

A species can give rise to a species, not a genera.

Unsurprisingly, you obviously haven't the slightest idea of what constitutes a genus (btw, it's not "genera." "Genera" is the plural form of "genus").

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

How does speaking into existance work? God puts sound waves out to the universe and they become matter and energy? How do the soundwaves turn into matter and energy?

 

[FishFace]

ex nihilo isn't a "how" it's a "what."

What God did (supposedly) was creation ex nihilo that still doesn't explain the method he employed to produce something out of nothing.

 

[BrainHertz]

....God said it --- that settles it.

Yes, I think it's well understood what your position is on that....

Ex-nihilo is the bottom-line answer to that.

Except for that not being an answer, that is to say, it's just restating the question of creation out of nothing. The question was how, that is, what is the mechanism?

 

[EnCrypto]

Here's another newbie that thinks he knows everything I've ever said.

For the record, sir --- I believe in evolution --- microevolution --- a.k.a. adaptation.

A species can give rise to a species, not a genera.

No, I don't think I know anything about you specifically, I never made such assumptions, but I'm familiar with the common creationist beliefs, which is why I said "Contrary to what you may have been told".

Microevolution and macroevolution aren't actually two different things. They're both evolution, the distinction is arbitrary. It's like initially believing in geocentrism, then accepting that Earth revolves around the Sun, but insisting all of the other planets revolve around Earth.

Creationists used to refute the concept of animal "families" posed by Darwin as part of evolution. Now they accept it and use it to help them try and explain Noah's Ark, referring to "kinds". Over the past 150 years, Christians have come around to a lot of Darwin's observations.

Oh, and the point about those finches... that isn't adaptation, that is evolution, what you would call "macroevolution". All of those finches share a common ancestor, one species of finch that populated different islands, and over time they diverged. Now they are so diverged that they have become 12 different species.

Dogs are an example of adaptation. These finches are an example of speciation.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I don't think I know anything about you specifically, I never made such assumptions, but I'm familiar with the common creationist beliefs, which is why I said "Contrary to what you may have been told".

I've been told a lot of stuff --- but I'm a die-hard KJVO --- literal-translation, no-nonsense kind of guy. If science disagrees with Scripture, then science is wrong.

Microevolution and macroevolution aren't actually two different things. They're both evolution, the distinction is arbitrary.

I'm familiar with that line of reasoning. It's like taking the number 1 and if you add it enough times, it becomes number 10. But the thing is, we serve a God Who is a God of boundaries ---

[bible]Psalm 74:17[/bible]

--- and before something evolves enough times to start a new genus, it reaches a boundary it cannot cross. As I'm fond of saying: nature is hostile to, but obedient to, God.

Creationists used to refute the concept of animal "families" posed by Darwin as part of evolution. Now they accept it and use it to help them try and explain Noah's Ark, referring to "kinds". Over the past 150 years, Christians have come around to a lot of Darwin's observations.

I don't though, and God has blessed me with the ability to use the Scriptures to explain much of how God orchestrated the Flood.

Oh, and the point about those finches... that isn't adaptation, that is evolution, what you would call "macroevolution". All of those finches share a common ancestor, one species of finch that populated different islands, and over time they diverged. Now they are so diverged that they have become 12 different species.

But they are still species, and before they become genera, they reach the end of the line.

Dogs are an example of adaptation. These finches are an example of speciation.

I believe in speciation, I do not believe in generiation (to coin a phrase).

 

[tntsue]

Av, have you ever considered the level of intellect of people thousands of years ago? They, literally, wouldn't have been able to comprehend the concept of evolution, especially if they were told by God.--Encrypto's comment

my comment: Adam had to be pretty intelligent to name all the animals ...Think about it ...It caused Adam to vocalize his first words...he made intelligent choices after observing the different animals and then assigned them names....Just making vocalization would have been a very amazing feat in my opinion, because he had never heard any one else talking before......Every intelligent person believed in God's special creation until Darwin came on the scene, which wasn't too very long ago.

One example of this are Darwin's Finches, which he found on the Galapagos Islands. ---Encryptos comment

My comment-Hey if those finches became tigers...now that would be interesting. Finches producing other finches is just proving creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi there, Sue! Glad to see you "down here" in Creation & Evolution!

Av, have you ever considered the level of intellect of people thousands of years ago?

I'm fond of saying that if Eve were alive today, she could very well be teaching advanced quantum physics in our best universities. I'd guess that Adam and Eve had IQ's well into the 200 range.

They, literally, wouldn't have been able to comprehend the concept of evolution, especially if they were told by God.

Jesus would have though, and He taught creation.

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]

Here is one of my posts I archived --- CLICK HERE

 

[EnCrypto]

I've been told a lot of stuff --- but I'm a die-hard KJVO --- literal-translation, no-nonsense kind of guy. If science disagrees with Scripture, then science is wrong.

Scripture says that whales are fish and that rabbits chew their cud. Science says whales are mammals and rabbits don't chew their cud.

I'm familiar with that line of reasoning. It's like taking the number 1 and if you add it enough times, it becomes number 10. But the thing is, we serve a God Who is a God of boundaries ---

--- and before something evolves enough times to start a new genus, it reaches a boundary it cannot cross. As I'm fond of saying: nature is hostile to, but obedient to, God.

Go to Wikipedia and look up what Genus actually is. We can't actually have a proper debate if you're not using proper definitions.

I don't though, and God has blessed me with the ability to use the Scriptures to explain much of how God orchestrated the Flood.

So you make a lot of inferences about what happened when the literal answers are either contradictory or not present?

But they are still species, and before they become genera, they reach the end of the line.

I believe in speciation, I do not believe in generiation (to coin a phrase).

Once again, please look up the proper definition of these words.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scripture says that whales are fish...

Chapter and verse on that, please?

... and that rabbits chew their cud. Science says whales are mammals and rabbits don't chew their cud.

CLICK HERE

 

[Nitron]

my comment: Adam had to be pretty intelligent to name all the animals ...Think about it ...It caused Adam to vocalize his first words...he made intelligent choices after observing the different animals and then assigned them names....Just making vocalization would have been a very amazing feat in my opinion, because he had never heard any one else talking before......Every intelligent person believed in God's special creation until Darwin came on the scene, which wasn't too very long ago.

No, they didn't. There were Buddhists, Deists, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans and everything in between. By using the Bible as proof that the bible is possible, you are using circular logic.

Hey if those finches became tigers...now that would be interesting. Finches producing other finches is just proving creationism.

The good old dog/cat argument. There can never be any proof of creationism, since anything can be the way God made it. Give those finches millions of years and huge environmental change, and their tiny variations would accumulate to make something completely different.

As to a finch producing a tiger, this would disprove evolution as there is such a low chance of an animal giving birth to a radically different species, much less one that already exists.

 

[Logic_Fault]

Ex-nihilo is the bottom-line answer to that.

Didn't we just go over this with you here? Your "creatio ex nihilo" is not an answer to the question of HOW your god created anything.

No.

Why? Be specific.

These aren't "alternatives" --- they are the explanation;

Except that they don't actually explain anything at all. Asserting something as truth without anything to back it up doesn't make it convincing, factual nor particularly useful.

and for anyone who insists they want to investigate it further, I have an Apple Challenge for them to take first; and hopefully that will save a lot of money in the Research Department.

Are you seriously still beating that dead horse? How many ways can people tell you that your "challenge" is nothing of the kind. Have you no shame at all?

 

[EnCrypto]

Chapter and verse on that, please?

I believe you're familiar with the Story of Jonah.

Click Here

That actually doesn't address my point. Unless you're saying that God changed rabbits for some arbitrary reason without mention, or changed whales?

I'm honestly confused, could you walk me through it?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Every intelligent person believed in God's special creation until Darwin came on the scene, which wasn't too very long ago.

and now every intelligent person accepts evolution. Try to understand why that is.

One example of this are Darwin's Finches, which he found on the Galapagos Islands. ---Encryptos comment

My comment-Hey if those finches became tigers...now that would be interesting. Finches producing other finches is just proving creationism.

finches were changing in response to new ecological niches. adaptation = evolution.

 

[FishFace]

CLICK HERE

AV please... don't embarrass yourself.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

AV please... don't embarrass yourself.

At this point, I am honestly suspecting that AV1611VET derives a certain sort of masochistic pleasure from being publicly humiliated. I really cannot see any other reason why he would bring up this thread over and over again.