Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[Roderick Spode]

What's relevant is that your "flood" did not happen.

But what are facts to you? Irrelevant, eh?

Just certain claims to being facts.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I believe God created all things; does that make me a creationist? The salient difference seems to be that diamberth and I are good with the way He did it.

I would say it does make you a creationist. But probably not a biblical creationist.

I'm good with the way He did it as well. Even if it means having to reject claims from fallible humans.

I think YEC is completely wrong. However, I notice that intelligent and honest and even sincerely Christian YE creationists do exist.

I would say that's a good thing. Obviously that's not everyone's view here.

 

[Roderick Spode]

First with the Big Bang. Than evolving sun, planets and galaxies. After a few billion years, material was gravitational pulled together to form our solar system which included this earth.

Not supernatural at all. The Life Force that Panentheist are aware of is the essence of Life. As an example, the Love a new mother has for her new born child, or the gleam in the eyes of an infant laughing, or the pull of beauty that flowers has on a person, or the bees flying from bloom to bloom.

You make Louie Armstrong sound like a panentheist.

And we Human Beings are all with in it as One. We can not be separate from it.

We're all creations of God, so in a sense we can not separate ourselves from Him in some respects. We can separate ourselves in a relational sense with God just as we can with our fellow man.

For myself, calling something supernatural calls into the arena the Roman/Greek Pagan gods in how they were said to operate. But God, as I know God is direct with no need to woo-woo this and that. Everything with out exceptions changes and evolves over time.

Well, in general word definitions are not optional. But to imply we are all one in a purely natural/scientific sense for myself implies a form of the supernatural. It might be different than, or sound different than various forms or claims of the supernatural.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Hasn’t human intelligence been constantly insulting itself on this particular topic decade after decade? Scientists are constantly updating their predictions on the age of the earth and the existence of man. Every 10 years or so they arrive at a different number. If you ask someone a question and they keep giving you a different answer over and over at some point you have to question their knowledge on this particular subject.

Yes! I absolutely agree!

 

[Lost4words]

So for the Creationists, whats the deal with Ostrich wings? They cant fly, but fit well within Evolutionary Theory. Intelligent design? Maybe God accidentaly added a too many numbers on his calculater when he was trying to calculate the correct weight and wing ratio for optimum flight performance.

They are like that because many years ago, an Ostrich from the Ark got too close to a volcano and got his wings singed!! The chicks were then born like it!

 

[Ophiolite]

Hasn’t human intelligence been constantly insulting itself on this particular topic decade after decade? Scientists are constantly updating their predictions on the age of the earth

Those are not predictions. Those are estimates. If you will take the time (no conscious pun intended) to investigate the nature of those updates over the past couple of hundred years you will discover the following:

• The early estimates of age were , compared with the current ones, quite small - tens, or hundred of millions of years
• There were large error bars attached to those ages
• As technology and understanding increased the age estimates grew and the error bars shrank
• For around half a century the age has been estimated at approximately 4.5 billion years.
• Changes in this interval have been refinements of tens of millions, then millions of years, so that we are now discerning the age of distincct phases in planetary formation

I am not clear why you would view a systematic improvement in technology that reduces the errors of the estimates to be a "constant insult". Rather it seems a tribute to human ingenuity and perseverance; something to be celebrated, not denigrated. It seems that your motivation is frustration that the evidence based estimates do not align with your beliefs. That does not justify your baseless and ill informed attack. By all means declare that your faith forbids you to accept the evidence, but please do not misrepresent that evidence, as you have done here.

 

[BCP1928]

And as I recall mentioning; the First Amendment is not a popularity contest.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in the right to free expression allows teaching sectarian religious doctrine to public schoolchildren, whether that doctrine is Christian or not, popular or not.

 

[BCP1928]

Then I guess the creation of Adam and Eve as mature adults would be a lie?

I don't know whether you can properly say it is a lie. But it seems like an odd thing to do. Do you have any theological rational for it? It's the same with any version of "Last Thursdayism." Sure, it's possible, God can do anything, But why?

 

[BCP1928]

Hasn’t human intelligence been constantly insulting itself on this particular topic decade after decade? Scientists are constantly updating their predictions on the age of the earth and the existence of man. Every 10 years or so they arrive at a different number. If you ask someone a question and they keep giving you a different answer over and over at some point you have to question their knowledge on this particular subject.

Their knowledge is imperfect. Their theories are only accepted provisionally and can be modified as new information becomes available. That's how science works. Science cannot, does not, claim absolute truth. So what?

 

[The Barbarian]

But scientists have long known that wings first evolved for other purposes than flight.

Just like they long knew (76 years) that Pluto was our ninth planet.

Changing a name is hardly revolutionary.

God is a lot smarter than you seem willing to have Him be.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I know He's smarter than me. I suspect you have way too much confidence in your intelligence.

We do have tails.

No, we don't.

I just showed you that we do. They are just vestigial. But the bones, muscles, and connective tissue are still right where they should be. Only tiny and inside our bodies.

They are part of a bone structure that should have been folded over and joined to the lower spine, but weren't.

Wrong. They even retain the nerves of a tail.

Is this a "vestigial hangman's noose"?

(section of rope)

Vestigial is a term generally used to describe degenerate body structures that seem to have lost their original functions in the species over an evolutionary timescale.

Vestigial - Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary

The word vestigial describes a degenerate body structure that seems to have lost its original function in the species over an evolutionary timescale.

www.biologyonline.com

This sort of thing is why some assume creationists are dishonest. I think it's more a matter of ignorance than dishonesty, but you can surely see why some might think otherwise.

 

[The Barbarian]

(regarding creationist divisions)
Should, but since they depend on human revisions of scripture, there's really no way to come to a general agreement, even on very fundamental things.

That's because we have a sworn enemy, bent on using divide-and-conquer tactics to keep the family of God at odds with each other.

I've heard it asserted that creationism is an invention of Satan to divide God's people, but I've never heard that he invented different versions of it to divide creationists against each other.

 

[Astrid]

But scientists have long known that wings first evolved for other purposes than flight.


Changing a name is hardly revolutionary.

God is a lot smarter than you seem willing to have Him be.


I know He's smarter than me. I suspect you have way too much confidence in your intelligence.

We do have tails.


I just showed you that we do. They are just vestigial. But the bones, muscles, and connective tissue are still right where they should be. Only tiny and inside our bodies.


Wrong. They even retain the nerves of a tail.

(section of rope)

Vestigial is a term generally used to describe degenerate body structures that seem to have lost their original functions in the species over an evolutionary timescale.

Vestigial - Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary

The word vestigial describes a degenerate body structure that seems to have lost its original function in the species over an evolutionary timescale.

www.biologyonline.com

This sort of thing is why some assume creationists are dishonest. I think it's more a matter of ignorance than dishonesty, but you can surely see why some might think otherwise.

Dishonest, or ignorant? It's generally both.
I'd be so happy to be shown even one exception.

 

[The Barbarian]

I would say it does make you a creationist. But probably not a biblical creationist.

As we discussed, evolution is entirely compatible with scripture. Most of the world's Christians belong to denominations that acknowledge evolution is compatible with scripture. We are biblical creationists, but not YE creationists.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think YEC is completely wrong. However, I notice that intelligent and honest and even sincerely Christian YE creationists do exist.

I would say that's a good thing. Obviously that's not everyone's view here.

Problem is, many of the most prominent among YE creationists are giving you guys a bad name.

 

[The Barbarian]

I've never seen ID described as a religion. If it was considered a religion before the trial, there would have been no need for a trial at all. And the court never decided ID itself is a religion. From wikipedia:

Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

That's pretty much a religion, if it can't free itself of its religious assumptions.

One of the problems however is that whether or not it is science is not what the trial is about. If ID is unconstitutional, then it not being science is irrelevant.

True. If a mouse is not a manufactured device, then there's no point arguing whether or not it's a motorcycle.

 

[Astrid]

Their knowledge is imperfect. Their theories are only accepted provisionally and can be modified as new information becomes available. That's how science works. Science cannot, does not, claim absolute truth. So what?

I don't see any problem with making refinements
in age estimations any more than in improving
computer speed.

The creoplaint ( creationist complaint, like
"creofact ", for false / inane excuse for a fact ) about science always goes "science keeps changing, bible
stays same, therefore bible right, science wrong".

I wish they'd just do an acronym and save bandwidth.

Like " SCBD" for "science change bible dont".
( therefore MRYW)

 

[BCP1928]

I don't see any problem with making refinements
in age estimations any more than in improving
computer speed.

The creoplaint ( creationist complaint, like
"creofact ", for false / inane excuse for a fact ) about science always goes "science keeps changing, bible
stays same, therefore bible right, science wrong".

I wish they'd just do an acronym and save bandwidth.

Like " SCBD" for "science change bible dont".
( therefore MRYW)

Yes, and creationists are entirely baffled as to why anyone would reject the absolute unchanging truth of their divinely authored holy book for the imperfect human knowledge offered by science.

 

[Astrid]

Yes, and creationists are entirely baffled as to why anyone would reject the absolute unchanging truth of their divinely authored holy book for the imperfect human knowledge offered by science.

I'd give some real consideration- and rightly
so! - to people's assertions that their interpretation
of bible verses was god inspired and therefore
infallible, IF they all were god inspired to the
same interpretation.

Instead, it changes every time another person
gets inspired.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you want to kill people who are witches?

No.

You want to stone to death people working on Sunday?

No.

You figure the Earth doesn't move, since the Bible says it won't be moved?

No.

Tell us about that.

Witches today are WINOs (Witch In Name Only).

They aren't the kinds of witches that prevailed in Old Testament times.

But I'll make a deal with you.

You find me a bona fide witch today, who has the power to call Samuel's spirit down from Heaven; put that witch through due process of law, and I'll pray for her soul if she gets the death penalty.

How's that?

And your attempts to make Bible believers into vigilantes are deplorable.

Is that how you view us?

 

[BCP1928]

No.



No.



No.



Witches today are WINOs (Witch In Name Only).

They aren't the kinds of witches that prevailed in Old Testament times.

But I'll make a deal with you.

You find me a bona fide witch today, who has the power to call Samuel's spirit down from Heaven; put that witch through due process of law, and I'll pray for her soul if she gets the death penalty.

How's that?

And your attempts to make Bible believers into vigilantes are deplorable.

Is that how you view us?

Only the Christian Nationalists.