One thing I don't understand about the creationist position

[AV1611VET]

But at the same time, creationists insist God could not have done so via evolution.

I'm sure God could have done so via evolution, if He so chose.

He didn't so chose though.

Instead, He did it in six days.

 

[dlamberth]

I'm sure God could have done so via evolution, if He so chose.

He didn't so chose though.

Instead, He did it in six days.

Or, so that particular ancient middle-east Creation Myth goes. Science today has opened the window into a different story.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or, so that particular ancient middle-east Creation Myth goes.

You mythed the point.

Science today has opened the window into a different story.

It sure has.

And Jesus will close it, when the time comes.

 

[FredVB]

Still no good explanation for why creationists say God is somehow powerful enough to make the universe but so powerless as to say that creating things through evolution is beyond him though.

I don't know that this is being said. God is not limited, anyway of creating God would be powerful enough to do. But the revelation I trust shows me God is so good, that there are ways God would create and other ways that being so good God would not use. Death came from curse on the world when rebellion against God started. Rebellion goes on, so the world is worsening with that, and death is spread even right from the prevailing godlessness. But God is so good that at great cost there was provision from God for the deliverance of any of us, and all have opportunity for deliverance and restoration in eternity rather than perish with the cursed world, that many will face instead of taking the opportunity for deliverance provided for them.

Evolution does not really fit with this perspective, so it is that early on I moved away from theistic evolution when I was reading material that spoke of all the gaps in the theory and its evidence with assumptions. Since no one can speak about specifics in which evolution works from the beginning, it is senseless to demand an account of how God would create, as all who say God creates are saying God is powerful enough to create, and that is so, and with no limit of intelligence to work with design for all the creation, in all the details. It was all very good to start with.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know that this is being said. God is not limited, anyway of creating God would be powerful enough to do. But the revelation I trust shows me God is so good, that there are ways God would create and other ways that being so good God would not use. Death came from curse on the world when rebellion against God started. Rebellion goes on, so the world is worsening with that, and death is spread even right from the prevailing godlessness. But God is so good that at great cost there was provision from God for the deliverance of any of us, and all have opportunity for deliverance and restoration in eternity rather than perish with the cursed world, that many will face instead of taking the opportunity for deliverance provided for them.

Evolution does not really fit with this perspective, so it is that early on I moved away from theistic evolution when I was reading material that spoke of all the gaps in the theory and its evidence with assumptions. Since no one can speak about specifics in which evolution works from the beginning, it is senseless to demand an account of how God would create, as all who say God creates are saying God is powerful enough to create, and that is so, and with no limit of intelligence to work with design for all the creation, in all the details. It was all very good to start with.

Why did you respond to a thread that's been inactive for three years? Thread necromancy is not looked on well.

 

[FredVB]

There's no rule about it, and I don't give a ....
I wrote important points that should be said which were an answer and the points stand, there couldn't be anything said in response against them, I knew that anyway. Putting another on an ignore list is a possibility that's not hard to do anyway...

 

[BCP1928]

There's no rule about it, and I don't give a ....
I wrote important points that should be said which were an answer and the points stand, there couldn't be anything said in response against them, I knew that anyway. Putting another on an ignore list is a possibility that's not hard to do anyway...

Yes, you made important points which would be interesting to discuss but doing so at the end of a dead thread is not the most effective way of doing it. Start a new thread.

 

[Ophiolite]

There's no rule about it, and I don't give a ....
I wrote important points that should be said which were an answer and the points stand, there couldn't be anything said in response against them, I knew that anyway. Putting another on an ignore list is a possibility that's not hard to do anyway...

I can certainly say something against your points. Just start a new thread restating your position, alert me by pm, and I shall respond.

 

[Astrid]

There's no rule about it, and I don't give a ....
I wrote important points that should be said which were an answer and the points stand, there couldn't be anything said in response against them, I knew that anyway. Putting another on an ignore list is a possibility that's not hard to do anyway...

It's every creationists dream to hit those
atheistic evos with the irrefutable argument
that leaves them speechless.

That post is just a lot of assertions of
" facts" for which there is no evidence.
Chosen beliefs.

"... evolution does not fit ..perspective..."
As in facts v beliefs



" perspective" being personally selected beliefs
that..somehow..delivers an effoft free download of
Kbowledge beyond that of any scientist on ezrtha

What response might be expected other than that
we're hip to those tricks?

 

[AV1611VET]

What response might be expected other than that we're hip to those tricks?

Try:

Science can take a a hike.

You said it, yourself.

Just in different words:

"That post is just a lot of assertions of 'facts' for which there is no evidence. Chosen beliefs."

 

[dlamberth]

I

That post is just a lot of assertions of
" facts" for which there is no evidence.
Chosen beliefs.

As I read the post there was one asserted fact given with explanation that I do agree with. And that is that evolution does not fit into Fred's mental concepts and beliefs. Which we all already knew anyway.

 

[Ace777]

Science can take a a hike.

According to Science there is substantial benefits of hiking. Esp on mental health.

 

[AV1611VET]

According to Science there is substantial benefits of hiking. Esp on mental health.

Maybe she should get going then?

If hiking is linked to mental health, then she's LONG overdue for a walk.

 

[Astrid]

As I read the post there was one asserted fact given with explanation that I do agree with. And that is that evolution does not fit into Fred's mental concepts and beliefs. Which we all already knew anyway.

So?

 

[FredVB]

Try:

Science can take a a hike.

You said it, yourself.

Just in different words:

"That post is just a lot of assertions of 'facts' for which there is no evidence. Chosen beliefs."

Evidence is not meaning anything to anyone without logic. I can use just logic itself to show that God is the best explanation for everything. For Christians it is known that there is great supportive evidence for verifiable things in the Bible, and the very history of the Bible. Faith we have does not exist in an empty vacuum.

As I read the post there was one asserted fact given with explanation that I do agree with. And that is that evolution does not fit into Fred's mental concepts and beliefs. Which we all already knew anyway.

See above. Beliefs I have do have plenty of basis. With such basis, I had to come to a choice between things a long time ago. Something had to be dismissed. Unless evolution has undeniable proof that I haven't yet seen, I would conclude still there are unfounded assumptions with gaps in the theory and its evidence used for support that leave it inconclusive for me. The Bible may be wrong, if it can be proved where it can be verified. I don't expect that but any can try showing that, if they do not have undeniable proof I haven't seen showing evolution of all life happened from primitive life early on.

According to Science there is substantial benefits of hiking. Esp on mental health.

I have been hiking and really enjoying when I did. I walk really well for my age still.

 

[Ace777]

empty vacuum.

A perfect vacuum is not possible because quantum physics states that even empty space is full of virtual particles that are constantly appearing and disappearing. These particles are energy fluctuations that often appear in pairs and cancel each other out, but can have real effects on their surroundings before they vanish. For example, photons can pop in and out of a vacuum.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evidence is not meaning anything to anyone without logic.

What's the logic behind saying that an event that didn't generate any evidence should have?

And since it should have, it should have been discovered.

And since evidence wasn't discovered, it didn't happen.

And the same for an event that did generate evidence, but said evidence was removed?

If the Bible says Event X happened, and science says there is no evidence for Event X, then I'll take science's word for it.

But when science goes the extra mile and says Event X did not happen, then science has overstepped its boundary.

 

[dlamberth]

Evidence is not meaning anything to anyone without logic. I can use just logic itself to show that God is the best explanation for everything. For Christians it is known that there is great supportive evidence for verifiable things in the Bible, and the very history of the Bible. Faith we have does not exist in an empty vacuum.



See above. Beliefs I have do have plenty of basis. With such basis, I had to come to a choice between things a long time ago. Something had to be dismissed. Unless evolution has undeniable proof that I haven't yet seen, I would conclude still there are unfounded assumptions with gaps in the theory and its evidence used for support that leave it inconclusive for me. The Bible may be wrong, if it can be proved where it can be verified. I don't expect that but any can try showing that, if they do not have undeniable proof I haven't seen showing evolution of all life happened from primitive life early on.

There is a lot of direct evidence of a very, very old Earth and Universe. What say you on that subject?

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a lot of direct evidence of a very, very old Earth and Universe.

Okay.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

What say you on that subject?

However old it is, it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

 

[Astrid]

Evidence is not meaning anything to anyone without logic. I can use just logic itself to show that God is the best explanation for everything. For Christians it is known that there is great supportive evidence for verifiable things in the Bible, and the very history of the Bible. Faith we have does not exist in an empty vacuum.



See above. Beliefs I have do have plenty of basis. With such basis, I had to come to a choice between things a long time ago. Something had to be dismissed. Unless evolution has undeniable proof that I haven't yet seen, I would conclude still there are unfounded assumptions with gaps in the theory and its evidence used for support that leave it inconclusive for me. The Bible may be wrong, if it can be proved where it can be verified. I don't expect that but any can try showing that, if they do not have undeniable proof I haven't seen showing evolution of all life happened from primitive life early on.



I have been hiking and really enjoying when I did. I walk really well for my age still.

"there is evidence for verifiable things"
Um yeah since evidence is how you verify.


And yes, Egypt is real; Rome, Rsd Sea, lots of
things in the bible.

So what?

There's evidence for Paris, too.

But

Supernatural stuff is like the whole point of the Bible.

And theres zero evidence for any of it.

Unless you count evidence against.

Like with " flood".

All the evidence any sensible person could want,
to prove there was no flood.