Taking Questions on the Creation

[Nathan Poe]

Incorrect. Because Evolution and the Creation are two different things.

So Creationism is completely useless in dealing with life today.

 

[MoonLancer]

That's one of the first things I learned when I came here --- that evolutionists detached themselves from how life started by coming up with this Abiogenesis stuff.

It was never attached except by people like you. Evolution never claimed to explain the origins of life, only creations claimed that.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was never attached except by people like you. Evolution never claimed to explain the origins of life, only creations claimed that.

Before you get to pointing fingers though, I find it interesting that you guys do the exact same thing by conflating evolution when arguing against creation.

 

[MoonLancer]

Before you get to pointing fingers though, I find it interesting that you guys do the exact same thing by conflating evolution when arguing against creation.

You will find creation and evolution but heads because most creationists want creation to replace evolution in science class.

If evolution is true, it proves the Christian creation wrong because creation gets the order of life confused. BUT evolution does not make claims to origins of the universe or life, but by association creation is wrong because of indirect implications

 

[AV1611VET]

You will find creation and evolution but heads because most creationists want creation to replace evolution in science class.

No --- what I find is evolutionists saying anything about creation. What does evolution even remotely have to do with creation?

 

[MoonLancer]

No --- what I find is evolutionists saying anything about creation. What does evolution even remotely have to do with creation?

theirs no such thing as an evolutionist, unless you mean everyone that is not a creationist.

Creation has nothing to do with evolution except with evolutions indirect implications, so why do creationists want it to replace evolution? Because they want a culture war.

 

[AV1611VET]

theirs no such thing as an evolutionist, unless you mean everyone that is not a creationist.

Huh???

Creation has nothing to do with evolution except with evolutions indirect implications, so why do creationists want it to replace evolution? Because they want a culture war.

Give me a break --- what creationist wants creationism to replace evolution? Atheistic Abiogenesis --- yes; evolution --- no.

And I thought TEs were on evolution's side, anyway?

 

[thaumaturgy]

what creationist wants creationism to replace evolution? Atheistic Abiogenesis --- yes; evolution --- no.

So, lemme get this straight:

Creationists don't want to displace evolution, so they believe that some animals which are not represented early on in the geologic record actually evolved from animals that were there?

Here all along I though Creationists believed in "special creation" which meant that all forms were created, rather than evolved.

In your case, or in the case of the "baraminologists", the way they get around the patently obvious nature that life has indeed changed over time is to rely on one nebulous word in the Bible: "Kinds".

Which, of course, they can't really define except in a frame which will allow them to answer whatever question is posed at the moment, but provides no actual information moving forward (it is, afterall, still quite nebulous).

Here I thought Creationists didn't believe in evolution (except for "microevolution" which they've had to be drug kicking and screaming to accept only because they cannot deny the patently obvious facts before them anymore).

Huh.

So, if I see NO EVIDENCE OF HUMANS in the oldest part of the rock record and I see no evidence of even mammals for millions and millions of years in the rock record, I'm supposed to assume that TRILOBITES were somehow an "Ape Kind" which will allow for Creationists to claim that the APE KIND was always there...just they were all trilobites?



Creationism is easy!

 

[AV1611VET]

Here all along I though Creationists believed in "special creation" which meant that all forms were created, rather than evolved.

That's news to me --- although I'll admit --- I'm not a TE. If they believe God created the earth 4.57 billion years ago, then created mankind 1 million years ago (or whatever), then I'd say they have a problem with God's statement that He ceased His [creative] work after Day Six. (Although, for the record, they get around this problem by interpreting Genesis figuratively - I assume.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

No --- what I find is evolutionists saying anything about creation. What does evolution even remotely have to do with creation?

Here's an example of what I think the actual argument is:

Trilobites in oldest rocks, NO MAMMALS.

LATER ON, in younger rocks (no matter how you decide to "date them") we see mammals.

IN BETWEEN there were numerous transitional forms through amphibians then reptiles and then on to mammals.

Creationist: The mammals were created after the arthropods (trilobites)

Evolutions: The mammals evolved from earlier life forms

The creationist relies on a literal interpretation of the Bible and an intense dislike for thinking about humans as just other animals.

The "evolutionist" relies on a model predicated on proven factors (genetic mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection) coupled with literally mountains of evidence that life has changed over time to draw their conclusion.

Of course we know that creationists don't value science because when science goes up against their literal interpretation of the Bible they will jettison science so fast it would make your head spin.

It is like saying you like Joe Schmoe, you think he's God's gift to your home town. Until Joe wears a pink shirt into work one day and then suddenly you think Joe is some kinda weirdo and you don't want anything to do with him. Maybe you're afraid Joe will make you look bad if you stay friends with him. Maybe Joe represents something to you you don't like when you see the pink shirt. Has Joe fundamentally changed? No, he's just worn a pink shirt to work.

Fair-weather friend. What creationists really like is things that agree with their preconception, not things that just tell them what is there.

Remember, at all points in this discussion:

Science never claims to be 100% correct.
Religion never claims to be even 0.000001% incorrect.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That's news to me --- although I'll admit --- I'm not a TE. If they believe God created the earth 4.57 billion years ago, then created mankind 1 million years ago (or whatever), then I'd say they have a problem with God's statement that He ceased His [creative] work after Day Six. (Although, for the record, they get around this problem by interpreting Genesis figuratively - I assume.)

Oh, sorry, I thought when you used the word "Creationist" you meant creationists, not Theistic Evolutionists. My bad.

I know you seem to have some problems with words and terms.

So, are you now re-defining Creationist as Theistic Evolutionist?

Maybe you should have this debate with Ken Ham (LINKY)

 

[AV1611VET]

Thaumaturgy, if you have any questions for me concerning the Creation, feel free to ask me, and I'll do my best to answer.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumaturgy, if you have any questions for me concerning the Creation, feel free to ask me, and I'll do my best to answer.

OK, I've got a couple:

1. Are you God?

2. Why do you insist on denying the facts of what the rocks and our bodies and the mountains of data tell us?

3. Depending on how you answer #2, I'll restate: Are you God?

 

[AV1611VET]

2. Why do you insist on denying the facts of what the rocks and our bodies and the mountains of data tell us?

What rocks? Show me these rocks in Genesis 1.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That's one of the first things I learned when I came here --- that evolutionists detached themselves from how life started by coming up with this Abiogenesis stuff.

Do you understand the chemistry underlying abiogenesis? Or do you just call it "stuff" when you are ignorant of the concept?

You want to know why abiogenesis was introduced? Like your Apple Challenge we are given a set of data of the appearance of life from elements and compounds that exist naturally that are NOT alive. We see the evidence of life showing up.

What would you assume?

It is a model (still in progress, we've only had about 50 years, while you religious folks have had several thousand years to develop your ideas and "prove them out"). The model is still under development, but again it doesn't rely on any "unstated" or "unevidenced" factors.

That's where religion excels.

Creationists, debating only Evolution, should not insist on making Evolutionists explain how life started.

And "evolutionists" will tell you, as they have ad nauseam, that evolution has nothing to say about origins, but if you insist on asking an unrelated question then there's a similarly scientific answer.

Why does that bother you enough to call it "stuff"? Do you think the scientists got together and said "We really hate God, let's gin up some way to deny god! I know, we can make up a way to make life!"

No, that isn't how science works, no matter how much you and your ignorant "kind" wish it was. Science merely looked around and said "Barring any unexplainable phenomena, how do we explain how life came about?"

The answers start with:

What is life made up of: Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, etc.

THERE IS NOTHING IN YOUR BODY THAT ISN'T ON THE PERIODIC TABLE OF THE ELEMENTS. There is nothing on the periodic table (save the transuranic elements, and technicium anymore) that isn't evidence in NON-LIVING NATURE.

Further: organic chemistry teaches us the basic compounds of life (amino acids, sugars, etc.) can and do occur absent obvious life here on earth. In other words we find some of these materials in METEORITES from space.

The conclusion is: WE ARE CHEMICALS. Which means we follow chemical rules. The key now is to figure out which chemical rules and reactions lead to the formation of Life.

Until someone can find something in the human body that is beyond nature I think we have to face the very real possibility that WE ARE PURELY NATURAL BEINGS WHO ARE INTIMATELY PART AND PARCEL OF NATURE.

What you and your creationist buddies need to stick with in "origins" debates is "What happened before the Big Bang" Or similar "ultimate creation" questions. That's the only gap you can fill because the questions rapidly approach "meaningless" at that point. EVERYONE at that point is equally unevidenced.

Stick with the unfalsifiable and unevidenced. That's all you can do.

 

[thaumaturgy]

What rocks? Show me these rocks in Genesis 1.

Let me add a couple new questions:

4. Why does your entire universe and world exist in a single page of a single book of unknown origin?

5. Why do you insist on denying the physical evidence of the physical universe all around you and expanding out billions of lightyears in every direction in preference to a single page of a single book of unknown authorship?

6. Are you scared of the world and physical reality of which that single page of that single book of unknown origin is but one single tiny part?

(I thought you were going to answer my question on creation. Huh.)

 

[Nathan Poe]

What rocks? Show me these rocks in Genesis 1.

In the heads of people who don't know etiological mythology when they see it.

 

[Catherineanne]

What rocks? Show me these rocks in Genesis 1.

You are quite right. There is no mention whatever of rock in Genesis 1.

Formless and empty Earth, dry land called 'land' which produces vegetation, but no rock.

Does this mean that there is no rock on earth, because Genesis does not say it was created? Is rock just a theory created by people who want to discredit the Scriptures?

Alternatively, can we assume the creation of rock, even though it is not mentioned, because we have evidence all around us that rock was created, since it exists?

I await your answer with interest.

 

[Catherineanne]

Please cite reference.

Find it for yourself. Or tell me I am making it up.

 

[Catherineanne]

It's called VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRATION --- 'nuff said --- now could we please get back to the OP?

Where in the Bible does it say 'verbal plenary inspiration'?

Is not the word used 'inspired'?

And doesn't this mean 'breathed life into'?

Does not Genesis say that God 'breathed life into' Adam, not that he used verbal plenary inspiration on him?