How to choose between creation and evolution.

[OldWiseGuy]

Acknowledging the obvious mistakes you made. That would be a start.
Acknowledging that what things appear to be, are often not what they actually are.

I would put that way down on my list of important things. Most things are what they appear to be.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science doesn't require "faith".
Science has an impeccable track record of getting things right.

Your entire home is filled with its successes.
The fact that you're even reading this, says enough.

Most of us wouldn't even be alive today, if it wasn't for scientific progress.

I have acknowledged all this, all except evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Charles Darwin defined it:

All change in the organic as well as in the inorganic world being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)​

​

What page or chapter is that on?

​

 

[mark kennedy]

​

What page or chapter is that on?

​

In the sixth edition it's in the Preface, I'm not sure which edition it first appeared in but it wasn't in the first edition. It's like the second paragraph of the Preface, he attributes it to Larmark.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It will decompose, and parts of it will be incorporated in other living organisms. Parts of it will become part of the earth, after various biological and other processes. Some of the non-water 30% it may end up dissolved in water, becoming part of the water table or eventually make its way to the ocean. Some of it may end up being compressed and turned into rock. Some may be released as gasses due to decomposition. And yes, some of it may end up as 'dust' at some time. But, what has that got to do with the origin of life?

You are using the word 'dust' to mean everything physical. It doesn't have that meaning. Dust is one particular physical state of matter among many. Dust is tiny, dry, particles of solid matter. There are lots of things that aren't dust.

"Dust" was merely the choice of the translators. "Earth" would be a better choice. Man returns to the earth from whence he came, meaning we return to the elemental states of which we were made. Man is "earthy", meaning material as opposed to being spiritual . The bible is correct.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So, you're proposing a completely unrealistic scenario where a body is left completely untouched, even by microorganisms. What is the point of that?

Even if it magically was left in an untouched state, there's no reason to believe that it will become dust and blow away. Some of it may become incorporated in the earth on which it lies. But, what is the point of discussing utterly unrealistic scenarios?

And finally, you've given no explanation about what the fate of a dead body has to do with the origin of life. It appears you are tap dancing away from the discussion in hand. Do you have anything more to say about the origin of life, e.g. some evidence for your own position, or have you conceded that point?



I did answer. And what you described isn't a 'small truth', it's just plain wrong. On top of being irrelevant. If you feel that I have missed the point, you could start by describing what your point is. As the only thing I can see is that you're talking about God creating man from dust, but seemingly trying to define all physical matter, except and oddly water, as dust.

I don't see how accepting falsehoods, which is what it seems you expected me to do, contributes to 'honest discussion'.

Man was made from the "earth", which of course includes water.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

He explained in reasonable detail what happens to a dead organism. Which is what you asked for...

He's playing "gotcha". He knows very well what the term means.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Man was made from the "earth", which of course includes water.

Getting closer. People are made from physical matter, yes.

"Dust" was merely the choice of the translators. "Earth" would be a better choice. Man returns to the earth from whence he came, meaning we return to the elemental states of which we were made. Man is "earthy", meaning material as opposed to being spiritual . The bible is correct.

Surprisingly enough, when people use the term dust I think that they are referring to 'dust'.

I've just looked up the Biblical meaning of dust here: Dust Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary and it agrees with me. Again, I don't feel unjustified in applying that meaning of dust.

And if you look through the thread, there is no indication that we had switched context so that 'dust' should mean anything different from the everyday (and according to that link the Biblical) meaning of 'dust'.

 

[bhsmte]

Studying anatomy confirms design. Studying evolution is confusing. I need order.

Should science follow your thinking?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Getting closer. People are made from physical matter, yes.



Surprisingly enough, when people use the term dust I think that they are referring to 'dust'.

I've just looked up the Biblical meaning of dust here: Dust Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary and it agrees with me. Again, I don't feel unjustified in applying that meaning of dust.

And if you look through the thread, there is no indication that we had switched context so that 'dust' should mean anything different from the everyday (and according to that link the Biblical) meaning of 'dust'.

The meaning couldn't be clearer. We are made from the elements of the earth (for what else would we be made of).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Should science follow your thinking?

Surgeons should, if they are operating on me.

 

[bhsmte]

Surgeons should, if they are operating on me.

Good luck with that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Good luck with that.

I meant that they should focus on the 'design' of my body, not evolution, during the procedure.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The meaning couldn't be clearer. We are made from the elements of the earth (for what else would we be made of).

He said dust. I still don't think that there was any way I could have been expected to know that he meant 'elements of the earth'. And, I did check to see if dust was used differently in religious circles than it is normally, but the results I found gave me the normal meaning that I interpreted it as.

EDIT: I've researched further, and find bizarre, to me, interpretations of dust but not the one that you mention. Spiritual Meaning of Dust NETBible: Dust (the latter says that dust is the material out of which God formed man, but doesn't specify that that isn't the normal meaning of the word 'dust'.

If he had said that we are 'made from the elements of the earth', then that would be clear.

Given what I've found when I've researched this in hindsight, I still don't think that even in a Christian context, that I could be expected to know what he meant.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In the sixth edition it's in the Preface, I'm not sure which edition it first appeared in but it wasn't in the first edition. It's like the second paragraph of the Preface, he attributes it to Larmark.

Ah, OK. I was looking at the 1st edition - I just wanted to see the context.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

He said dust. I still don't think that there was any way I could have been expected to know that he meant 'elements of the earth'. And, I did check to see if dust was used differently in religious circles than it is normally, but the results I found gave me the normal meaning that I interpreted it as.

EDIT: I've researched further, and find bizarre, to me, interpretations of dust but not the one that you mention. Spiritual Meaning of Dust NETBible: Dust (the latter says that dust is the material out of which God formed man, but doesn't specify that that isn't the normal meaning of the word 'dust'.

If he had said that we are 'made from the elements of the earth', then that would be clear.

Given what I've found when I've researched this in hindsight, I still don't think that even in a Christian context, that I could be expected to know what he meant.

Most Christians understand the meaning as being the material that man was formed from.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Most Christians understand the meaning as being the material that man was formed from.

How would they know what that material was, if we're talking about a supernatural event by an omnipotent God who could do anything?

 

[mark kennedy]

Ah, OK. I was looking at the 1st edition - I just wanted to see the context.

Ok it's also in the third edition, I found it on Talk Origins. This is the extended quote:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect to the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing of already existing forms, and much to use and disuse, that is, to the effects of habit. To this latter agency he seemed to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature; -- such as the long neck of the giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees. But he likewise believed in a law of progressive development; and as all the forms of life thus tend to progress, in order to account for the existence at the present day of simple productions, he maintains that such forms are now spontaneously generated. (The Origin of Species Preface to the Third Edition by Charles Darwin)
​

I bolded the part I originally quoted.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How would they know what that material was, if we're talking about a supernatural event by an omnipotent God who could do anything?

The materials are the elemental materials of the 'earth'. He made us from the earth so we can die and 'pass away'. In the resurrection we will be made of spirit, and won't die. Mortal (earthy) life is just a temporary phase. We are an artist's 'sketch', to be discarded when the final portrait is completed.

 

[Speedwell]

How would they know what that material was, if we're talking about a supernatural event by an omnipotent God who could do anything?

If it is not explicitly stated, maybe it's not important.