Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Subduction Zone]

God made a basic design for the 'innards' and uses it in a variety of creatures, just as car makers do. How different can creatures be living in the same ecosphere?

How would you test this claim? What reasonable observation would refute it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The evolutionary process including the lineage thereof is well documented (regardless of whether you believe it or not).

You can go over papers on evolution with a divining rod and never find how the changes occur at the level that they must happen for the process to work. There are only giant leaps, leaps that would require thousands of minute changes at the molecular or even atomic level. These changes are nowhere to be found in these writings. Truly the devil is in the details, or lack thereof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can go over papers on evolution with a divining rod and never find how the changes occur at the level that they must happen for the process to work. There are only giant leaps, leaps that would require thousands of minute changes at the molecular or even atomic level. These changes are nowhere to be found in these writings. Truly the devil is in the details, or lack thereof.

What are you talking about? There are countless examples of small change, except that creationists demand that those are "microevolution".

Tell me, why is there no evidence for creationist beliefs?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So did it come true about the king of Babylon? (I don't know Babylonian history.)

Other than the answer to this question, let's keep it to creation/evolution. This bit was irrelevant to the topic.

It was relevant in that the bible describes something similar to the story of evolution.

Except in the biblical account a lion stands up with the heart of a man, instead of a monkey.

Since the topic is "another thing I don't understand" I posted this just to give light on the only reference that resembled evolution in this sense. There are others also, but equally symbolic.

But it's more of an aside to consider - I don't think the teachings have always explicitly been against scientific conclusions. The bible does say elsewhere that men could be gods but are as beasts - so I'm not exactly sure what the issue is over. Thanks for replying - negatory on other historical sources on the king eating grass.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was relevant in that the bible describes something similar to the story of evolution.

Except in the biblical account a lion stands up with the heart of a man, instead of a monkey.

Since the topic is "another thing I don't understand" I posted this just to give light on the only reference that resembled evolution in this sense. There are others also, but equally symbolic.

How is that similar to evolution? If you think evolution is at all like that there is no wonder that you do not accept it.

 

[DamianWarS]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

there is a difference and the fact that we have genetic similarity makes the difference all the more noticable. Our difference is in our abilities. We may not see the best, run the best, hunt the best, etc... Yet somehow we are on top with no competition

 

[Gregory Thompson]

How is that similar to evolution? If you think evolution is at all like that there is no wonder that you do not accept it.

You assume I don't accept it.

I just accept what is true as parallel to other things that are proven true.

Evolution tends to be represented as a picture of how apes became humans. So I associated the pictures painted as similar. The science of it, I don't disagree. The ideological conclusions, I'll pass on - but the raw data makes for good parables.

In terms of genetic adaptation, I have no problem with the concept.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It was relevant in that the bible describes something similar to the story of evolution.

Except in the biblical account a lion stands up with the heart of a man, instead of a monkey.

Since the topic is "another thing I don't understand" I posted this just to give light on the only reference that resembled evolution in this sense. There are others also, but equally symbolic.

But it's more of an aside to consider - I don't think the teachings have always explicitly been against scientific conclusions. The bible does say elsewhere that men could be gods but are as beasts - so I'm not exactly sure what the issue is over. Thanks for replying - negatory on other historical sources on the king eating grass.

I reread the bible quote and I neither see anything related to evolution, or reality. I now suggest to Daniel that he lay off the peyote.

(He did too much LDS in college. --J.T. Kirk)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I reread the bible quote and I neither see anything related to evolution, or reality. I now suggest to Daniel that he lay off the peyote.

(He did too much LDS in college. --J.T. Kirk)

Perception is relative, even if we agree we see the colour red - there is no guarantee that we are seeing the same thing.

 

[Hammster]

Anything can be claimed as a "satanic lie". It's just a cheap form of gaslighting at the end of the day.

Sure, everything can be claimed a Satanic lie. Some things actually are, though.

 

[Hammster]

Why not?

Because of the biblical evidence for a six day creation.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

On the first day God said let there be light, this set the standard for what a day was for creating.

On the fourth day, God created sun, moon, and stars so humans could have their own way of keeping time.

Thus the seven days of creation and the billions of years revealed by carbon dating are going by two different clocks. One of which cannot be examined by scientific observation.

Furthermore, in biblical times a year was 360 days - today it is 365 days - we have no data as to how many days a year was a billion years ago. The data simply is not available.

So I can see why there's an issue with creationism, but I don't have an issue with it because I can accept ideas in parallel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because of the biblical evidence for a six day creation.

The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence. What you will find in the Bible is that many believed the six day creation, but that is not evidence for it. And many modern Christians have a different interpretation than you do. I am sure that you are aware of that.

 

[dlamberth]

I’m not sure what creation supporters you engage with, but my primary objection is that evolutionism isn’t supported by scripture.

I hear what your saying, at the same time I just don't understand the objection of what the earth is telling us about how life forms evolved through evolution. It just bobbles my mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On the first day God said let there be light, this set the standard for what a day was for creating.

On the fourth day, God created sun, moon, and stars so humans could have their own way of keeping time.

Thus the seven days of creation and the billions of years revealed by carbon dating are going by two different clocks. One of which cannot be examined by scientific observation.

Furthermore, in biblical times a year was 360 days - today it is 365 days - we have no data as to how many days a year was a billion years ago. The data simply is not available.

So I can see why there's an issue with creationism, but I don't have an issue with it because I can accept ideas in parallel.

Oh my! Carbon dating only goes back roughly 50,000 years. We can investigate geologic time by various means. How do you test your biblical beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

there is a difference and the fact that we have genetic similarity makes the difference all the more noticable. Our difference is in our abilities. We may not see the best, run the best, hunt the best, etc... Yet somehow we are in top with no competition

We can think the best. That gives us quite an edge.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Oh my! Carbon dating only goes back roughly 50,000 years. We can investigate geologic time by various means. How do you test your biblical beliefs?

Apologies, science isn't my forte but noting patterns that may result in inconsistencies is. What if a billion years ago a year was 782 days?

Well, I went through a lengthy disillusionment process. I looked at textual variants and tested for the best fruit/results and went with that. In general, the bible is useless without a heart connection to God, so that's the main thing, and everything springs from there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You assume I don't accept it.

I just accept what is true as parallel to other things that are proven true.

Evolution tends to be represented as a picture of how apes became humans. So I associated the pictures painted as similar. The science of it, I don't disagree. The ideological conclusions, I'll pass on - but the raw data makes for good parables.

In terms of genetic adaptation, I have no problem with the concept.

No, you assume. I go by evidence. There is apparently no scientific evidence for creationist beliefs. There are mountains of evidence for evolution. No assumptions needed.

And the fact that you have ape ancestors is only a small part of evolution. There are no ideological conclusions. Both assumptions and ideological conclusions are creationist tendencies. They are not those that follow the sciences. All one has to do is to follow the evidence.

 

[klutedavid]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

We have a whole lot in common with other species.

Yet, there is an enormous difference between us and every other species.

We debate the existence of a creator on the internet.

We ponder the existence of the universe.

We invented nuclear weapons and pointed them at each other.

Something of magnitude is missing from evolutionary biology.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No, you assume. I go by evidence. There is apparently no scientific evidence for creationist beliefs. There are mountains of evidence for evolution. No assumptions needed.

And the fact that you have ape ancestors is only a small part of evolution. There are no ideological conclusions. Both assumptions and ideological conclusions are creationist tendencies. They are not those that follow the sciences. All one has to do is to follow the evidence.

The rhetoric in this post is not much different than religious speak.

You can believe that, but until I can independently verify it myself, me taking your word for it would just be another religion.