Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[TheReasoner]

Anyone got a picture of a

Omphaloceratops ?

Sure. In my head. I'm not a good artist so I fear it'll stay there though. Shame. I'm thinking it might do some damage as a monster in my next humorous D&D campaign as a home-made monster.

 

[Mr Dave]

Forgive me, hadn't seen this go into a second thread, been busy. Trying to sneak my way back in

 

[TheReasoner]

Forgive me, hadn't seen this go into a second thread, been busy. Trying to sneak my way back in

wb

 

[AV1611VET]

And where is the magic "non-division" barrier?

For one -- time.

Blending mzungu's point in with mine gives this scenario:

You go into a room and are asked to divide 15,991,807,866,425,904,321 by 17,999,114.8888847965233109.

30 seconds later, you hear: "Time's up! Turn in your paper, please."

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, his "Omphalos-but-I'm-too-proud-to-call-it-Omphalos" canard.

There's really no point in trying to correct his silly theological errors at this point, is there?

You'll never correct it by mislabeling it, will you?

I hope you don't run a dry cleaners; if you do, are you having trouble keeping customers for some reason?

 

[AV1611VET]

As much as this may offend AV but I agree with the poster who said that AV and the many others like him serve a purpose here in showing those who visit these forums the fallacy of his kind of thinking.

You're not offending me, sandwiches; you don't know the kind of encouragement I've gotten in the past.

It's all worth it.

And you may roll your eyes at this, but I have learned so much from you guys, that I can truly appreciate the verse that says: iron sharpeneth iron.

 

[AV1611VET]

He's a lost cause, but unless he's exposed, he'll try to convince newbies that he knows what he's talking about.

If you have ever noticed, I don't normally respond to newbies.

If a newbie shows up and asks a question, I usually watch the answers to see who is saying what.

I dread having to repeat myself and going through something all over again.

My single biggest fear here, is that I'll inadvertently contradict myself and set myself back five years.

That's one of the biggest reasons I qv many of my answers.

And call me paranoid, but when a newbie shows up and singles me out for conversation, I get the impression they came here after reading something on another site.

I do make exceptions on occasion; if I think they're sincere.

 

[TheReasoner]

For one -- time.

Blending mzungu's point in with mine gives this scenario:

You go into a room and are asked to divide 15,991,807,866,425,904,321 by 17,999,114.8888847965233109.

30 seconds later, you hear: "Time's up! Turn in your paper, please."

Thats when I think to myself: Thank God for my TI89! ;-)

Your comparison is one I understand, but it's still not correct. There has been ample time for evolution to occur to the current point. It's not totally random you know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thats when I think to myself: Thank God for my TI89! ;-)

You mean this thing?

 

[sandwiches]

True that -- I was referring to the futility of trying to educate AV.

He's a lost cause, but unless he's exposed, he'll try to convince newbies that he knows what he's talking about.

John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Could we say he's the tares among wheat?

 

[Nostromo]

For one -- time.

Are there any other barriers?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are there any other barriers?

Possibly a quota placed on them, which would explain a sudden dying out.

 

[Tiberius]

Okay, here's a recap of what's been going on with me and AV1611VET...

In the old thread, I asked:

If there is some barrier that stops evolution from going too far, please describe this barrier and how it works.

AV repsonded with:

Time

(Never mind that he didn't describe how it works to prevent macroevolution...)

I replied to this with:

Now, AV, if you could describe how time fullfills the requirements for this hypothetical barrier to macroevolution that you have proposed? I mean, even if we grant your embedded age idea, then the Earth looks like it has been around for billions of years, right? So then we should see the evidence of macro evolution, shouldn't we?

And AV replied with:

No -- there is no such a thing as macroevolution.

So I asked for some clarification:

Ah, because there hasn't been enough time for it to have occured, right? Isn't that what you said in the previous thread?

Now, either AV is playing dumb or he's getting forgetful, because he responds to this by asking:

Did I?

As you can see, AV, you certainly did. I quoted it up there, and I even gave you a link to that particular post of yours.

So, let me sum up your position:

Macroevolution is impossible because there has not been enough time for it to have occured.

Is that what you meant when you proposed time as a mechanism by which macroevolution is impossible?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that what you meant when you proposed time as a mechanism by which macroevolution is impossible?

Yes --

For what? the eight time? going from cyanobacterium to man requires millions of years to do; and the earth has only gone around the sun some 6100 times.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes --

For what? the eight time? going from cyanobacterium to man requires millions of years to do; and the earth has only gone around the sun some 6100 times.

Okay, goody. We've got a foundation that we can work with here...

Now, let me ask you another question, this time, regarding your idea of embedded age.

Embedded age means that while the world was created about 6000 years ago, it responds to any testing as though it was several billion years old, yes? (In other words, without the Bible we'd have nothing to tell us that the world was only 6000 years old or so.)

So we can have radio dating that tells us that rocks are millions of years old, despite the fact that they were only created a few thousand years ago.

And we can have cosmological evidence that tells us that the universe is billions of years old, despite the fact that it was only created a few thousand years ago.

Is this correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, goody. We've got a foundation that we can work with here...

Now, let me ask you another question, this time, regarding your idea of embedded age.

Embedded age means that while the world was created about 6000 years ago, it responds to any testing as though it was several billion years old, yes? (In other words, without the Bible we'd have nothing to tell us that the world was only 6000 years old or so.)

So we can have radio dating that tells us that rocks are millions of years old, despite the fact that they were only created a few thousand years ago.

And we can have cosmological evidence that tells us that the universe is billions of years old, despite the fact that it was only created a few thousand years ago.

Is this correct?

Yes -- and as long as you're using the infinitive "to be", we're fine; but if you plan to come back now and say this same evidence says "formed" or "grew", we're going to have a problem.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes -- and as long as you're using the infinitive "to be", we're fine; but if you plan to come back now and say this same evidence says "formed" or "grew", we're going to have a problem.

Don't worry, AV, that's not where I am going.

Where I'm going is here:

Why is it that we can have tectonic activity that suggests that mountains have been growing and eroding for many thousands of years, radio dating that suggests that radioactive isotopes have been decaying for millions of years and cosmological evidence that suggests the universe has been expanding for billions of years, but we can't have genetic and fossil evidence that suggests that life has been evolving for millions of years (what you call macroevolution)?

I mean, if the evidence suggests that rocks have been around for millions of years (even if you say they were created only a few thousand years ago), doesn't the evidence also suggest that life has been evolving for millions of years (even if you think that life was created only a few thousand years ago)?

In short, shouldn't you accept and agree that an examination of the real world supports the idea of macroevolution?

 

[Nathan Poe]

For one -- time.

Blending mzungu's point in with mine gives this scenario:

You go into a room and are asked to divide 15,991,807,866,425,904,321 by 17,999,114.8888847965233109.

30 seconds later, you hear: "Time's up! Turn in your paper, please."

Of course -- Creationists believe in 30-second classes.

More than enough time to teach everything they have worth teaching about Creationism.

 

[Nostromo]

Yes -- and as long as you're using the infinitive "to be", we're fine; but if you plan to come back now and say this same evidence says "formed" or "grew", we're going to have a problem.

You say that God left no evidence of creation, so what can you really expect of people. If they're going to actually look at the world to try and discover how things work (and not just looking specifically at origins) they can't help but conclude something other than special creation.

I know you love your analogies, so let's say you look in the paper and respond to an advert for the sale of a 2010 Ferrari 458. You go to see the seller and ask to see the paperwork, and it confirms the car as a 2010 Ferrari 458. The garage door opens and instead of something that looks like a Ferrari, you have something that looks just like a 1960 Series II Land Rover. You check it over and everything seems to fit with the idea that it actually is a 1960 Land Rover, it's even got the VIN plate with a serial that matches the Land Rover factory records as having been built in 1960.

The seller insists the documentation is correct and claims to have seen the "Ferrari" being made in early 2010. What would you believe?

Heck, to avoid the obvious first complaint, we can even say God wrote the documentation.

 

[dad]

There's four ways to reconcile the facts:

False. You mean that in your head you see four ways.

1) The Creation account and possibly the genealogies are not literally true.

Not possible.