A Question for Creationists

Archaeopteryx · Oct 21, 2013

AV1611VET said:
He is the Third Person of the Godhead, for starters.

"It" is a "He."

In this case, an Author.

My spirit bears witness.

Right. That's a very vague answer, if one can even call it that. I asked you how you reached that conclusion.

Thank you for demonstrating what I've been saying here for years:

Until you guys learn to understand NOTHING, you'll never understand ANYTHING.

Someone (I can't remember who) even made it his signature.

"Understanding NOTHING" would be a good motto for Ken Ham.

Indeed I do.

If my wife said she left work via the east exit, I could take the lazy approach and believe her, or I could go view the security tapes.

Your wife, I assume, exists and is able to speak for herself and, if suspicion arose about whether she did indeed take the East exit, could defend her claim.

Given that each issue has at least two theories behind it, I'd say you guys have a pretty impressive backlog of theories to work on.

Take the moon for example.

You now have five theories that are in the COLD CASE files, and one theory that was just advanced last month.

And yet science marches on. With ongoing work and in time the number of plausible theories decreases and important conceptual breakthroughs are made, paving the way for improvements in medicine, engineering, technology, policy, etc. Your one theory (God did it) remains fundamentally unchanged despite changes to our broader understanding of the world. It becomes dogma; immutable, but ossifying, not edifying.

EternalDragon · Oct 21, 2013

Archaeopteryx said:
And yet science marches on. With ongoing work and in time the number of plausible theories decreases and important conceptual breakthroughs are made, paving the way for improvements in medicine, engineering, technology, policy, etc. Your one theory (God did it) remains fundamentally unchanged despite changes to our broader understanding of the world. It becomes dogma; immutable, but ossifying, not edifying.

You would not have any of that without God. What you don't realize is we are using what God created, studying what God created and we are also creating as God creates. (Man is created in the image of God)

frogman2x · Oct 21, 2013

Archaeopteryx said:
Creators can't come out of nothing either, at least not in my experience of any being that has ever "created" anything.

I ask you how the moon came into being. You answer my question and I will continue. Of course it will be easier to run away. But then every one will know you have just been blowing smoke

Have you ever considered your experience may not be as complete as that of ohters?

Archaeopteryx · Oct 21, 2013

EternalDragon said:
You would not have ay of that without God.

How do you know that?

Archaeopteryx · Oct 21, 2013

frogman2x said:
I ask you how the moon came into being. You answer my question and I will continue. Of course it will be easier to run away. But then every one will know you have just been blowing smoke

Have you ever considered your experience may not be as complete as that of ohters?

And I asked you how God created the moon.

Delphiki · Oct 21, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Here is your question:

You don't know what is really happening, either, do you?

If not, why?

Because the road to full knowledge (epignosis) starts with knowing Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

That word knowledge is epignosis in Strong's Concordance.

Well, ol' J.C. apparently makes you think you know everything, at least.

frogman2x · Oct 21, 2013

OllieFranz said:
Not in those words, but you do akmowledge that a mutation in a gene {which is the same as the creation of a new allele for that gene) can produce a new trait, like albinism or hemophilia, and that this new trait can be heritable.

It can be inheriterd but blood is not a new trait. Both the albino and the hemiphilliac were going to get blood. The mutation only altered the blood they received.

But if a mutation destroys a gene and replaces it with a new, completely different gene, then although he inherited the new gene from his parent, his parent does not have the gene -- or more specifically the parent only has the gene in one cell, the seminal cell that mutated, and in the gametes (sperm or eggs) that that cell creates. At the same time, he does not inherit the old gene which was destroyed in the seminal cell. At least not from that parent.

I am not convinced what you have posted is accurate. How about a source. If this new gene causes a change in the species, you might have leg to stand on but it won't. The offspring will not only be the exact same species as its parents, its offsprisngs will be the same species as well.

He will inherit the corresponding gene from the other parent, but it will be unpaired. Likewise, the new gene will not have a pair-mate. Unpaired genes can still express themselves in traits, but are more susceptible to damage, because there is not as much redundancy.

Okay, but does it ever resuslt in a change of species?
As I explained above.

Lets start with the Wikipedia article, and if you read and understand that, we can look at more scholarly works.

It seems to me links in the message do nor link. At least I can never get them too. I will go back to the notification and see if I can get it to link. If I can, I will get back to you.

Most of that article was over my science pay grade. What I read did not mention a new trait reulting fromwhat they sai and they did not mention the off springwould or could evolve into a different species and to me, that is the bottom line.

To get more technical would not serve any purpose. If you believe all of what they said will result in evolution into a new species, that's fine. I just don't believe it is genetically possible. If it was, why don't we see new species today?

EternalDragon · Oct 21, 2013

Archaeopteryx said:
How do you know that?

Simple logic.

Archaeopteryx · Oct 21, 2013

EternalDragon said:
Simple logic.

Simple logic does not dictate the necessity of deities.

Smidlee · Oct 21, 2013

Archaeopteryx said:
And I asked you how God created the moon.

By His word (code) of course. That's how we create stuff... with information. If we want to add a moon to World of Warcraft we just "code" it in. The Bible does says creation was God's finger work.

frogman2x · Oct 21, 2013

Archaeopteryx said:
How do you know that?

Easy. Matter cannot create itself out of nothing.

frogman2x · Oct 21, 2013

Archaeopteryx said:
And I asked you how God created the moon.

I ask you how we got a moon. You answer my question and I will answer yours.

Archaeopteryx · Oct 21, 2013

Smidlee said:
By His word (code) of course. That's how we create stuff... with information. If we want to add a moon to World of Warcraft we just "code" it in. The Bible does says creation was God's finger work.

That's a metaphor, not an explanation. You could say he programmed it, authored it, painted it, sculpted it, built it, etc ad nauseum, without actually explaining how he did it.

Archaeopteryx · Oct 21, 2013

frogman2x said:
Easy. Matter cannot create itself out of nothing.

Neither do creators spring out of nothing.

Archaeopteryx · Oct 21, 2013

frogman2x said:
I ask you how we got a moon. You answer my question and I will answer yours.

If I recall correctly, I asked you first. I don't know how the Earth acquired a moon. That is not my area of expertise. Yet you seem to know how it happened, so enlighten us.

Smidlee · Oct 21, 2013

Archaeopteryx said:
That's a metaphor, not an explanation. You could say he programmed it, authored it, painted it, sculpted it, built it, etc ad nauseum, without actually explaining how he did it.

The only way to know exactly how God did it is the same as World of Warcraft, you have to be outside the universe looking at the code. I could spend hundreds of hours in World of Warcraft yet I would have a limit knowledge of how the game works without access to the code.

In both cases the universe (WoW) needs matter (pc), energy (electricity), and information (code, software). The one that more real to me is information. Everything I know of the outside world is a recreation of my brain (information).

Archaeopteryx · Oct 21, 2013

Smidlee said:
The only way to know exactly how God did it is the same as World of Warcraft, you have to be outside the universe looking at the code. I could spend hundreds of hours in World of Warcraft yet I would have a limit knowledge of how the game works without access to the code.

In both cases the universe (WoW) needs matter (pc), energy (electricity), and information (code, software). The one that more real to me is information. Everything I know of the outside world is a recreation of my brain (information).

Which is again, a metaphor. You could also say that the universe is a canvas on which God paints. The canvas is the universe, matter is the paint and God's brush strokes are the information. That doesn't tell me how deities create universes, it merely refurnishes the claim that they do in the form of a metaphor.

AV1611VET · Oct 21, 2013

Archaeopteryx said:
Simple logic does not dictate the necessity of deities.

It's simply theological.

Archaeopteryx · Oct 21, 2013

AV1611VET said:
It's simply theological.

Theology . . . is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isnt there." - Robert A. Heinlein

AV1611VET · Oct 21, 2013

Archaeopteryx said:
I don't know how the Earth acquired a moon.

I thought I explained that earlier.

A Question for Creationists

Wanderer

Counselor

frogman2x

Guest

Wanderer

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

frogman2x

Guest

Counselor

Wanderer

Veteran

frogman2x

Guest

frogman2x

Guest

Wanderer

Wanderer

Wanderer

Veteran

Wanderer

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Wanderer

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency