As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[o_mlly]

Miracles will do that.

Good one.

“Knowing how it could change the lives of canines everywhere, the dog scientists struggled diligently to understand the Doorknob principle”.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm still waiting on any evidence of creation.

Creation was a process, of which you're standing on its product.

You might as well look at this:

... and say, "I'm still waiting on any evidence of its creation."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Creation was a process, of which you're standing on its product.

You might as well look at this:

... and say, "I'm still waiting on any evidence of its creation."

But we know that a cake is created by people. We have masses of evidence for that.
But we do not have evidence for god-led (that sounds wrong but it's the only wording I can come up with) creation.

 

[HitchSlap]

Creation was a process, of which you're standing on its product.

You might as well look at this:

... and say, "I'm still waiting on any evidence of its creation."

Cute.

 

[AV1611VET]

But we know that a cake is created by people. We have masses of evidence for that.

True. True. You can recreate one under controlled conditions.

But we do not have evidence for god-led (that sounds wrong but it's the only wording I can come up with) creation.

None was generated.

(I'm just trying to convince you to stop wasting your time waiting for someone to produce it.)

 

[HitchSlap]

1) Divine revelation, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the constant teaching of the Magisterium.
2) Read the source material as listed in #1

Humans wrote the bible, and most of them were anonymous.

3) The animating principle of the human person

The what?

4) The human soul works through its functioning human body.

You've seen a soul?

5) Same answer as #3

The what?

6) Examine a corpse and a living person

One is living, one is not.

7) Offer a rational alternative
Anything else?

You're not alive, then you're born, then you die, then you're not alive anymore.

Pretty simple, really.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

None was generated.

(I'm just trying to convince you to stop wasting your time waiting for someone to produce it.)

I'll stop waiting for someone to produce it when people admit that they can't, and they stop trying to use it as science.

 

[HitchSlap]

True. True. You can recreate one under controlled conditions.None was generated.

(I'm just trying to convince you to stop wasting your time waiting for someone to produce it.)

Gaslighting is a dishonest tactic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

An exercise in rational thinking on the plausibility that evolution theory fully explains the human being?

An exercise on judging and ranking explanations by rational criteria.

OK. To disagree productively, we must first agree. As a rational thinker, which First Principles of Philosophy do you accept and how do you define those principles?

Frankly, we don't need to be explicit about the First Principles of Philosophy to have a reasonable discussion. The rest of your question is a non-sequitur - if I accept a principle, I'm accepting something that already has a definition.

I get the impression you're unwilling or unable to engage in a direct discussion about the title claim of this thread. If you just wanted to state your opinion and prefer not to argue your case, just say so and we can move on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Cute.

Munchalicious scrumptalectable!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Man ... science must be a drag when it comes to the things of God.

Do you accept every exotic claim that people make? Those are very simple questions that anyone making an exotic claim should be prepared to answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Humans wrote the bible, and most of them were anonymous.

Then the Bible exposes them.

Even using large font, which is considered shouting.

 

[Yttrium]

The use of the passive voice leaves one wanting. Who does the "considering"? Once "considered", is it fixed? If not then your sources as evidence of direct observation of speciation are pretty much useless as evidence. And fundamental logic tells us that the first observation of a thing is not necessarily the first instance of a thing.

The following lists speciation lab experiments. Results are in the "Reproductive Isolation" column, with "Pre-zygotic" or "Post-zygotic" indicating successful speciation. References are listed in the table if you don't trust Wikipedia.

Laboratory experiments of speciation - Wikipedia

Looking forward to your casual dismissal!

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll stop waiting for someone to produce it when people admit that they can't,

I'll admit that they can't.

... and they stop trying to use it as science.

They should stop trying to use it as science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you accept every exotic claim that people make?

Nope.

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

It's the *different methods* that was the point.

Of course, if the same technicians use the same apparatus to make the measurement then additional measurements may not have the added impact of improving reliability or accuracy.

Geological dating relies on multiple methods to determine age, just as other fields do to determine critical measurements.

The whole point is to have techniques with different biases and sources of error.

Not to mention replication, multiple samples, sharing samples with different labs. statistical analyses etc. all of which decrease the uncertainty in a given measurement. definitely not a scientist.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll admit that they can't.They should stop trying to use it as science.

To be fair, when it comes to you and your views on creation... it really doesn't matter either way just because your views are very unique.

 

[AV1611VET]

To be fair, when it comes to you and your views on creation... it really doesn't matter either way just because your views are very unique.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is either a compliment or an insult. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Even I can't say.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

1) Divine revelation, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the constant teaching of the Magisterium.
2) Read the source material as listed in #1
3) The animating principle of the human person
4) The human soul works through its functioning human body.
5) Same answer as #3
6) Examine a corpse and a living person
7) Offer a rational alternative
Anything else?

OK, so some people told you it's true and wrote it down, so you believe it - and 'divine revelation' - was that a personal epiphany? the voice of God?

So, it's the 'animating principle' of the human person in a functioning body, which makes the difference between living and non-living - IOW what used to be called the 'breath of life', life force, or élan vital. The study of biology has shown that idea is, at best, metaphorical.

When the blood supply to the brain ceases (permanently), brain cells stop functioning due to lack of oxygen, and coherent brain function also ceases. Most of the cells in the body will continue to function for some time before they too succumb. The human body is no different from that of other mammals in that respect. The concept of a human 'soul' as an animating force is redundant. I was hoping for something more interesting.

There's no need for a rational alternative - as above, a literal soul is as redundant as phlogiston; my question concerned the various other soul concepts, some of which are held by Christians whose specific beliefs differ from yours.

But never mind.