• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Hi -- Just trying to follow along.

Sure they are, in this thread -- post #170.

Are the only choices that it doesn't happen or that it explains everything? What it explains is marginal considering what would have had to happen.

But that skepticism is not really justified according to that paper:
We strongly emphasize that results bearing on the efficiency of this one pathway as a conduit for Darwinian evolution say little or nothing about the efficiency of other possible pathways. Thus, for example, the present study that examines the evolution of MR protein features by point mutation in duplicate genes does not indicate whether evolution of such features by other processes, such as recombination or insertion/deletion mutations, would be more or less efficient.​

That is justification for the skepticism. The efficiency of this pathway or others are variables, the extent to which they can provide adaptive evolutionary traits is what is at issue.



I googled that quote (its from 1998 by the way). You discussed it here in the thread "Horizontal Gene Transfer - Your Opinion" in November 2010 with "shernren" who pointed out several more recent papers showing that selection deals with the observed rates of mutation so that adaptive evolution is not undermined.


Cheers

Without addressing the particulars you come up with rates for mutations not undermining adaptive evolution? Seriously? I know of far more extraordinary examples of adaptive evolution including a complete gene being produced that keeps artic fish from freezing by producing a special protein that acts like antifreeze.

What makes you think I have the slightest intention of undermining adaptive evolution? Young earth creationism requires it at a far shorter period of time the Darwinian evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Mr.Waffles

Newbie
Jul 13, 2011
280
7
✟15,462.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Because we are talking billions of years of geologic processes, layers of strata, etc, etc. You aren't going to have a perfect fossil record, but can at least infer from the pieces you have and make an educated guess.

Bit of a tired argument, don't you think? I also don't think you understand what you are even implying. It is not a question of an imperfect fossil record, it is a question of gradualism being non-existent in the fossil record. ''Imperfect'' is a massive understatement, try more like ''missing the majority''. Clearly the evidence left for us assumes the conclusion that this is not how biological life functions.

Take the fossil record of our species development. We look pretty damn similar to the creatures that came before, indeed we share features with them all the way down the line. Our DNA matches up about what 98%?

Yes, let's just go ahead and guess we literally came from those hairy dudes. Because what we speculate in our heads somehow trumps reality. Evolutionary mechanisms that are to prove such lineages to be real are non-existent.

Ever think that the creation account was not meant to be read literally? Read around. I've yet to see that point rebuked by any creationist. At least, without resorting to some kind of "Dur bible sayz".

If you care to elaborate on any extra-biblical revelation, please feel free to do so. Regardless if the Genesis account was meant to be read literally or not, that is what the sovereign creator of the universe decided to leave us in His word. Eve got the hair brained idea that what she was given was not enough, look what happened next.

But don't fear, just because your wild fantasy about evolution being an atheistic conspiracy to destroy your faith isn't true,

Feel free to apply ridiculous stereotypes across the board, I'm sure you also think I post Hovind links to all my friendz on facebook.


doesn't mean God did not create the universe, earth, and life. Contrary, the truth is more fabulous than one could possibly imagine. God actually designed a process by which his creation can spring forth in an everlasting cycle of adaptation that ensures life can flourish. We call it..Evolution. :thumbsup:

And I call that not only disengenuous, but also a massive equivocation. Adaptation has nothing to do with ''evolution'', by the way.

So, am I still a christian? :preach:

Only you and God know that.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you care to elaborate on any extra-biblical revelation, please feel free to do so. Regardless if the Genesis account was meant to be read literally or not, that is what the sovereign creator of the universe decided to leave us in His word. Eve got the hair brained idea that what she was given was not enough, look what happened next.
Not sure how you get from God giving us Genesis in his word to us having to take it literally. Nor can I see how a story about Eve disobeying God becomes a warning about not being literalists. Unless God has commanded us to take everything literally, but I don't think he has. God promised Eve her seed would bruise the snakes head, This is what the sovereign creator decided to give us as a promise of redemption, but that doesn't mean it was literal or that we should take it literally. Jesus didn't redeem us by stepping on a four thousand year old snake.
 
Upvote 0

Sum1sGruj

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2011
535
9
37
On Life's Orb
✟716.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Not sure how you get from God giving us Genesis in his word to us having to take it literally. Nor can I see how a story about Eve disobeying God becomes a warning about not being literalists. Unless God has commanded us to take everything literally, but I don't think he has. God promised Eve her seed would bruise the snakes head, This is what the sovereign creator decided to give us as a promise of redemption, but that doesn't mean it was literal or that we should take it literally. Jesus didn't redeem us by stepping on a four thousand year old snake.

The day a TE maps out the Creation stories in such a way that it fits metaphorically or poetically will be the day that evolution has a place in it.

Point is, saying that evolution fits in the contexts is a logical fallacy, so really, what you are doing is stomping on Genesis and you may not even realize it. I dunno, some TE's have admittingly done away with them altogether, calling them., fairy tales?
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The day a TE maps out the Creation stories in such a way that it fits metaphorically or poetically will be the day that evolution has a place in it.
What to you mean "fits metaphorically or poetically"? Fits with what? Do you mean fits with evolution? Haven't you realised by now? We don't try to. We are not meant to. The bible isn't a science book so trying to read it as one is misreading it. What we can do is look at what the creation stories are saying metaphorically and poetically, there is no need to make it 'fit' what it is already saying.

Point is, saying that evolution fits in the contexts is a logical fallacy, so really, what you are doing is stomping on Genesis and you may not even realize it. I dunno, some TE's have admittingly done away with them altogether, calling them., fairy tales?
So no answer to the complete lack of missing unlinks, just vague accusation of logical fallicies and 'stomping on Genesis'. There should either be no links at all, no transitional forms between created kinds like humans and higher apes, There should be none of the large number of hominid fossils we have found. Or if God was a wildly eclectic designer in his creation randomly creating kinds half way between other created kinds, then you should no only get ape-men you should get hyena men, wolf men, centaurs, batmen, stag men lizard men, and the fossil record should be swamped by missing unlinks that vastly outnumber the transitional forms we have found that fit evolution.

Creationism is so jelly like it can normally accommodate any transitional fossil we find simply by saying they are all the same kind. They can't with human ape transitional forms. Nor can they with transitional forms between the really big animal groupings, between early reptiles and mammals like the therapsids, fish and tetrapods like Tiktaalik, or the reptile bird transitional forms. So why do we only have transitional forms between fish and early land animals found lowest down in the fossil record, as evolution predicts, not between fish and dolphins or fish and ducks? Why aren't there fish wildebeest unlinks?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sum1sGruj

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2011
535
9
37
On Life's Orb
✟716.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
What to you mean "fits metaphorically or poetically"? Fits with what? Do you mean fits with evolution? Haven't you realised by now? We don't try to. We are not meant to. The bible isn't a science book so trying to read it as one is misreading it. What we can do is look at what the creation stories are saying metaphorically and poetically, there is no need to make it 'fit' what it is already saying.

So in other words, Genesis is just a fairy tale.
Read it poetically or metaphorically, and see if it fits. TE's just need to do away with that.

So no answer to the complete lack of missing unlinks, just vague accusation of logical fallicies and 'stomping on Genesis'. There should either be no links at all, no transitional forms between created kinds like humans and higher apes, There should be none of the large number of hominid fossils we have found. Or if God was a wildly eclectic designer in his creation randomly creating kinds half way between other created kinds, then you should no only get ape-men you should get hyena men, wolf men, centaurs, batmen, stag men lizard men, and the fossil record should be swamped by missing unlinks that vastly outnumber the transitional forms we have found that fit evolution.
If an alien came to Earth, it would have many of the same features as our planetary kingdom. Common descent is not necessary to explain the likeness/difference of organisms, as the laws of the universe in which God placed only allow for certain structures of organisms.

You are presenting an argument that cuts it's feet from under itself. You are saying that lizard men and centaurs would be expected if not for common descent, and yet if God made life the way it is, then He could have very well made it without such vain workings.
In other words, God is not such an eclectic designer. At least not with Earth anyways. The way His angels are designed is a different story.

Creationism is so jelly like it can normally accommodate any transitional fossil we find simply by saying they are all the same kind. They can't with human ape transitional forms. Nor can they with transitional forms between the really big animal groupings, between early reptiles and mammals like the therapsids, fish and tetrapods like Tiktaalik, or the reptile bird transitional forms. So why do we only have transitional forms between fish and early land animals found lowest down in the fossil record, as evolution predicts, not between fish and dolphins or fish and ducks? Why are't there fish wildebeest unlinks?
How about parrots? Every trait they have is an anomaly to evolution. But I could go on naming off all kinds of things that is wrong with common descent and evolutionism becomes jelly, accommodating anything with poor guesswork and in some cases nothing at all except circularity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So in other words, Genesis is just a fairy tale.
Sure, as long as you are not a Christian. I don't see how a disciple of Christ could make that mistake. After all Jesus of Nazareth went around teaching through stories and metaphors. If Genesis is a fairy tale doesn't that mean the parables were fairy tales too? Is there really no difference between Christ and Hans Christians Andersen? Sounds to me like Jesus had a very different attitude to metaphors and parable, than you do. Jesus valued these stories highly as means of teaching truth. Perhaps as his disciple you could do with learning from him.

Read it poetically or metaphorically, and see if it fits. TE's just need to do away with that.
See if it fits what? You haven't explained this or addressed what I said in my last post.

If an alien came to Earth, it would have many of the same features as our planetary kingdom. Common descent is not necessary to explain the likeness/difference of organisms, as the laws of the universe in which God placed only allow for certain structures of organisms.
There is no reason for your aliens even to have DNA, or if they do, for it to be made of the same four nucleic acid molecules life on earth uses, nor for its proteins to be made up from the set of 20 amino acid molecules we use. There certainly are limitations in structure based on the laws of the universe, but the range of possible forms defined by the need to function together under the laws of this universe, is much wider that the the range of forms constrained by must be able to be produced by modification of an existing organism and must function under the laws of the universe. Which means there are a wide variety of possible forms that could not be formed by descent with modification. But these are all missing. We know feathers work and have been used by a wide variety of birds and dinosaurs. So why no feathered bats? Bones are adaptable to a wide range of shapes too. So why not have bats with the finger structure of a bird wing? Why not men with fur and the skull structure closer to a wolf than a chimp? Or with the skin and teeth of a crocodile? What is there to contradict the laws of physics in giving a dolphin gills?

You are presenting an argument that cuts it's feet from under itself. You are saying that lizard men and centaurs would be expected if not for common descent, and yet if God made life the way it is, then He could have very well made it without such vain workings.
In other words, God is not such an eclectic designer. At least not with Earth anyways. The way His angels are designed is a different story.
Your problem is that he is an eclectic designer, but he only went for eclectic designs that fit common descent, the half man/half ape, the half bird/half dinosaur, the half early reptile/half early mammal. Creationism has two choices, either God created separate distinct kinds and there should be no transitional forms between kinds, or he was an eclectic designer picking bits and pieces of designs shared between widely different kinds, wolf men and feathered bats. What creationism cannot explain is why God only created transitional forms that fit evolution.

How about parrots? Every trait they have is an anomaly to evolution. But I could go on naming off all kinds of things that is wrong with common descent and evolutionism becomes jelly, accommodating anything with poor guesswork and in some cases nothing at all except circularity.
Are you talking about traits like colour that can be explained by sexual selection? Perhaps if parrots had bat wings, leopard teeth or suckled their young you might have a point. But parrots fit quite nicely into avian evolution.
 
Upvote 0

JVPITER

Newbie
Mar 10, 2011
57
6
✟15,214.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Hi mark

Papias said:
To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. ... Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new.
No one is denying that this happens.
JVPITER said:
Sure they are, in this thread -- post #170.
Are the only choices that it doesn't happen or that it explains everything? What it explains is marginal considering what would have had to happen.

They're not the only choices -- but nevertheless, it is incorrect to claim that information cannot be added to the genome, and it is incorrect to state that nobody makes such a claim, which is what I was pointing out.

I agree the mere fact that information can be added to the genome doesn't explain much by itself. Many other concepts play a part in explaining biodiversity, like selection.

mark kennedy said:
What has raised skepticism is what can be reasonably expected from gene duplication ... (Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues, Protein Science 2004)
JVPITER said:
But that skepticism is not really justified according to that paper:
We strongly emphasize that results bearing on the efficiency of this one pathway as a conduit for Darwinian evolution say little or nothing about the efficiency of other possible pathways. Thus, for example, the present study that examines the evolution of MR protein features by point mutation in duplicate genes does not indicate whether evolution of such features by other processes, such as recombination or insertion/deletion mutations, would be more or less efficient.​
That is justification for the skepticism. The efficiency of this pathway or others are variables, the extent to which they can provide adaptive evolutionary traits is what is at issue.

Yes, the efficiency of all the pathways is what is at issue. But blanket skepticism of all the pathways is not justified by this paper because -- as the authors explicitly state -- only one pathway was examined and the results cannot be extrapolated to any other pathways. Therefore, that skepticism is not really justified according to that paper.

mark kennedy said:
JVPITER said:
I googled that quote (its from 1998 by the way). You discussed it here in the thread "Horizontal Gene Transfer - Your Opinion" in November 2010 with "shernren" who pointed out several more recent papers showing that selection deals with the observed rates of mutation so that adaptive evolution is not undermined.
Without addressing the particulars you come up with rates for mutations not undermining adaptive evolution? Seriously? I know of far more extraordinary examples of adaptive evolution including a complete gene being produced that keeps artic fish from freezing by producing a special protein that acts like antifreeze.

What makes you think I have the slightest intention of undermining adaptive evolution? Young earth creationism requires it at a far shorter period of time the Darwinian evolution.

What makes me think you intend to undermine adaptive evolution is your statement "A mutation is a disruption of the existing information, not a viable means for creating new information." (post #178).

Adaptive evolution requires new information; undermining the idea that mutations can add new information thus undermines adaptive evolution.

If you accept new information being added to the genome driving adaptive evolution, what do you think is the mechanism that adds the new information?

Cheers
 
Upvote 0

Sum1sGruj

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2011
535
9
37
On Life's Orb
✟716.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Sure, as long as you are not a Christian. I don't see how a disciple of Christ could make that mistake. After all Jesus of Nazareth went around teaching through stories and metaphors. If Genesis is a fairy tale doesn't that mean the parables were fairy tales too? Is there really no difference between Christ and Hans Christians Andersen? Sounds to me like Jesus had a very different attitude to metaphors and parable, than you do. Jesus valued these stories highly as means of teaching truth. Perhaps as his disciple you could do with learning from him.

So what is it? Is Genesis a historical document or is it just a fairy tale? Either way, it hurts TE considerably, because you are forced to either call it a fairy tale or have it mar your theology.

See if it fits what? You haven't explained this or addressed what I said in my last post.
It's a very simple inquiry that TE's dance around with. It is not rocket science.

There is no reason for your aliens even to have DNA, or if they do, for it to be made of the same four nucleic acid molecules life on earth uses, nor for its proteins to be made up from the set of 20 amino acid molecules we use.
Yes there is. There is a limit to how life can be produced, unless of course you are implying that there are a bunch of elements we know nothing about.

Your problem is that he is an eclectic designer, but he only went for eclectic designs that fit common descent, the half man/half ape, the half bird/half dinosaur, the half early reptile/half early mammal.
And what do we have to base an opinion that this world isn't eclectic? Think of a dull world, and this one seems pretty surreal in relevance.

Are you talking about traits like colour that can be explained by sexual selection? Perhaps if parrots had bat wings, leopard teeth or suckled their young you might have a point. But parrots fit quite nicely into avian evolution.
Sexual selection doesn't even touch the surface on explaining the traits of a parrot. It's not even relevant in the full context. Tigers and their stripes took a back-bending twist of thought to explain, and in the end, had absolutely nothing to do with sex. Like I said, the animal is a complete anomaly. Every trait it has is completely alien to the hierarchy it is placed in by default.
Only a fool would believe such an absurd 'explanation'. It's not even an explanation, but a suggestion that's long just been sitting on the table. And only for their pigment, at that. The truth is that they have no idea how the parrot 'happened'.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There is no reason for your aliens even to have DNA, or if they do, for it to be made of the same four nucleic acid molecules life on earth uses, nor for its proteins to be made up from the set of 20 amino acid molecules we use.

Isn't that interesting, even though that is the only way anyone has ever seen life work, you have no reason to think that it would be DNA based.

There certainly are limitations in structure based on the laws of the universe,

If you mean the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance I would agree (see my signature).

but the range of possible forms defined by the need to function together under the laws of this universe, is much wider that the the range of forms constrained by must be able to be produced by modification of an existing organism and must function under the laws of the universe. Which means there are a wide variety of possible forms that could not be formed by descent with modification.

An awkward and wordy expression of Darwinian descent with modification, this one is much more elegant and concise:

It’s clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. However, there are specific solutions that were arrived at during the development of life on Earth which may be peculiar to Earth. The structure of the DNA double helix. (Robert Weinberg, MIT Biology Professor)​
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sure, as long as you are not a Christian. I don't see how a disciple of Christ could make that mistake. After all Jesus of Nazareth went around teaching through stories and metaphors. If Genesis is a fairy tale doesn't that mean the parables were fairy tales too? Is there really no difference between Christ and Hans Christians Andersen? Sounds to me like Jesus had a very different attitude to metaphors and parable, than you do. Jesus valued these stories highly as means of teaching truth. Perhaps as his disciple you could do with learning from him.
So what is it? Is Genesis a historical document or is it just a fairy tale? Either way, it hurts TE considerably, because you are forced to either call it a fairy tale or have it mar your theology.
I'm not forced to call it a fairy tale, but it is interesting you could not answer my reply.

See if it fits what? You haven't explained this or addressed what I said in my last post.
It's a very simple inquiry that TE's dance around with. It is not rocket science.
So no answer there either. And you still haven't addressed what I said two posts before:
What to you mean "fits metaphorically or poetically"? Fits with what? Do you mean fits with evolution? Haven't you realised by now? We don't try to. We are not meant to. The bible isn't a science book so trying to read it as one is misreading it. What we can do is look at what the creation stories are saying metaphorically and poetically, there is no need to make it 'fit' what it is already saying.
There is no reason for your aliens even to have DNA, or if they do, for it to be made of the same four nucleic acid molecules life on earth uses, nor for its proteins to be made up from the set of 20 amino acid molecules we use.
Yes there is. There is a limit to how life can be produced, unless of course you are implying that there are a bunch of elements we know nothing about.
Why would you need new elements for a different set of amino acids, nucleic acids or an alternative to DNA?

And what do we have to base an opinion that this world isn't eclectic? Think of a dull world, and this one seems pretty surreal in relevance.
Yet it all fits in the twin nested hierarchy of descent with modification. An eclectic world would have bats with feathers, dolphins with gill or any of a vast range of mix and match attributes that break the nested hierarcy of common descent.

Sexual selection doesn't even touch the surface on explaining the traits of a parrot. It's not even relevant in the full context.
So no reference to actual problems parrots are supposed to pose.

Tigers and their stripes took a back-bending twist of thought to explain. Like I said, the animal is a complete anomaly. Every trait it has is completely alien to the hierarchy it is placed in.



Only a fool would believe such an absurd 'explanation'. It's not even an explanation, but a suggestion that's long just been sitting on the table. And only for there pigment, at that. The truth is that they have no idea how the parrot 'happened'.
Do you have an argument here rather than name calling? How about telling us why Parrots couldn't evolve.
 
Upvote 0

Sum1sGruj

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2011
535
9
37
On Life's Orb
✟716.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I'm not forced to call it a fairy tale, but it is interesting you could not answer my reply.

It's interesting that your basis for not taking it as a historical document is quite unfounded and wishful. I really didn't think you were actually determined to get a reply to the rest. But TE's never surprise me with that.
Genesis is too specific to not be true. What does the measurements of a boat have to do with a foundation of morals? How is the Earth being annihilated historically reveal itself as a parable?

What to you mean "fits metaphorically or poetically"? Fits with what? Do you mean fits with evolution? Haven't you realised by now? We don't try to. We are not meant to. The bible isn't a science book so trying to read it as one is misreading it.
The questions defeat themselves. You cannot call something true and false at the same time. If evolution cannot fit into Genesis metaphorically or poetically, then evolution is wrong according to it.

Yet it all fits in the twin nested hierarchy of descent with modification. An eclectic world would have bats with feathers, dolphins with gill or any of a vast range of mix and match attributes that break the nested hierarcy of common descent.
I'll use the old TE approach and say 'prove it'. I did not know you were a paragon of truth ordained by God and to know how God would paint the universe. Why isn't space so diverse and surreal? Space is just a repeat of a repeat all the way from one end to the other.

So no reference to actual problems parrots are supposed to pose.
So as long as no one reveals it to you, it's false? That is why TE's are ridiculous. Creationists are required to consolidate their truth, and TE's just sit on their imaginary high horse.
I issue the truth. You have to register it. I do not jump through hoops when it is a waste of time. Nothing will avail you, and you will clutch the theory as it falls apart, not the Bible. That is precisely why you demand others to tend to you when the truth of the matter can be found out in 2 minutes flat. It's a circular defense mechanism that all TE's share and is garbage because it's not as if one isn't going to go digging around looking for a refutation anyways no matter how true the latter is., which is the point.

So if you are looking for me to be extra-liberal to TE, then you are looking in vain. Theistic evolution is inherently dismissive of creationism, it's believers attack creationists, the theology is extremely extra-biblical and contradictory, and relies on the fallibility of man's suggestions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

Sum1sGruj

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2011
535
9
37
On Life's Orb
✟716.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Could have some esoteric numerosophic meaning? I should ask a Kabbalist they know about that stuff.

That's just ridiculous. Most of what we know about Noah is that he was a drunk who sent himself, his family, and two of every animal on a boat while the world was annihilated.
He is also part of the genealogy. Are we to say he was fictional? That would have to be the case to call Genesis a giant fairytale.

TE's do not know the bounds in which they cross with their 'theology'. Not only does it disrupt the Pentateuch, it also destroys the idea of sin and many other things. It completely warps the Bible altogether, well past reconciliation.
The fact that TE's are mostly oblivious to these things is an indication of what they put first. When these things are brought up, they patch it with something ridiculous to uphold what they clearly put first.
How many ways can one put it? They generalize themselves with that junction and then wonder why creationists treat them like a bunch of Dawkins.

The Bible is not a science textbook, it is something much more. TE's should not see that as a defense for their ideas, because surely there would be a mere trace of indication on how God made life in such away. There isn't. TE's think that because God made us from the dust of the Earth, that it somehow overrides the incredible detail speaking directly against evolution.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

philadiddle

Drumming circles around you
Dec 23, 2004
3,719
56
44
Canada
Visit site
✟4,522.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The fact that TE's are mostly oblivious to these things is an indication of what they put first.
I would recommend that you take the time to understand people's views before you argue against them with your strawman versions of their beliefs in your head.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I would recommend that you take the time to understand people's views before you argue against them with your strawman versions of their beliefs in your head.

The distinctive feature of theistic evolution is that it's not a positive argument, it simply undermines creationism. In that case the proper course of action is to defend your beliefs, while justifying why this is warranted Scripturally. That's exactly what he is doing, these are the points raised:

  • Noah is also part of the genealogy. Are we to say he was fictional?
  • TE's do not know the bounds in which they cross with their 'theology'.
  • It disrupts the Pentateuch,
  • It destroys the idea of sin and many other things.
  • It completely warps the Bible altogether, well past reconciliation.
  • The fact that TE's are mostly oblivious to these things is an indication of what they put first.
  • When these things are brought up, they patch it with something ridiculous to uphold what they clearly put first.

His final, profoundly frustrated question.

How many ways can one put it?

I concur.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Isn't that interesting, even though that is the only way anyone has ever seen life work, you have no reason to think that it would be DNA based.
All life on Earth uses DNA, but we are no talking about life on earth are we? Gruj brought up aliens. But your Robert Weinberg quote says it quite well, the DNA double helix may just be a particular solution arrived at one earth.

If you mean the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance I would agree (see my signature).
No that is about inheritance. What Gruj brought up are physical and biochemical constraints on designs based on the laws of the universe, designs that wouldn't work even if you made the organism from scratch, the way the ratio of volume to surface area decreases with size, that means insects and spiders that breath through their skin couldn't grow to giant Hollywood sizes and survive in our atmosphere. Lethal mutations show us there are genomes that do not work given the laws of biochemistry.

An awkward and wordy expression of Darwinian descent with modification, this one is much more elegant and concise:
It’s clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. However, there are specific solutions that were arrived at during the development of life on Earth which may be peculiar to Earth. The structure of the DNA double helix. (Robert Weinberg, MIT Biology Professor)​
No I wasn't describing descent with modification, I was comparing the constraints imposed by descent with modification, with the constraints imposed by the rules of physics and chemistry. They are different constraints. The variety of life on earth is certainly constrained by the need to be able to live and function withing the laws of physics and chemistry, but the variety of life forms past and present is also constrained by what can be produced by descent with modification, it all fits the twin nested hierarchies. Separately created kinds would need to fit the laws of the universe, but there is no reason for created kinds to the pattern of descent with modification, to produce intermediate forms between the different kinds, but only those predicted by evolution and the evolutionary tree of life.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's interesting that your basis for not taking it as a historical document is quite unfounded and wishful.
I wasn't discussing my basis for not taking the creation account as literal history, I was discussing your dismissal of metaphor and parable as 'fairy tale'. Of course when you haven't got a leg to stand on, it is easier for you to pretend I was saying something else.

I really didn't think you were actually determined to get a reply to the rest. But TE's never surprise me with that.
Is that because you keep changing the subject when you can't reply?

Genesis is too specific to not be true. What does the measurements of a boat have to do with a foundation of morals? How is the Earth being annihilated historically reveal itself as a parable?
Actually I take the flood story as an account describing a real but local event. But you should realise the bible is full of symbolic numbers, and very specific descriptions in symbolic and apocalyptic passages. Having numbers and specific descriptions does not make a passage literal.

What to you mean "fits metaphorically or poetically"? Fits with what? Do you mean fits with evolution? Haven't you realised by now? We don't try to. We are not meant to. The bible isn't a science book so trying to read it as one is misreading it. What we can do is look at what the creation stories are saying metaphorically and poetically, there is no need to make it 'fit' what it is already saying.
The questions defeat themselves. You cannot call something true and false at the same time. If evolution cannot fit into Genesis metaphorically or poetically, then evolution is wrong according to it.
Did Jesus really work as a shepherd and die for his sheep? If it isn't literally true how can it be true and false at the same time? If Genesis isn't talking about evolution metaphorically, how is that supposed to make evolution wrong? You argument doesn't make sense. I think it is probably because you don't really get how the bible speaks in metaphors, if you did you wouldn't confuse them with fairy tales.

I'll use the old TE approach and say 'prove it'. I did not know you were a paragon of truth ordained by God and to know how God would paint the universe. Why isn't space so diverse and surreal? Space is just a repeat of a repeat all the way from one end to the other.
Prove what? Prove there are transitional forms with features intermediate between other forms? All you have to do is look up the different hominids with features spanning between humans and other apes, or all the transitional forms from birds to feathered dinosaurs. You could look at the therapsids with jaws intermediate between early reptiles and mammals. Prove that they fit the evolutionary tree of life? You just have to look at where all these transitionals are found and compare it with what evolution says. Prove that there are no unlinks with features that combine those of animals that shouldn't be directly related, like bats with feathers and bird wings or dolphins with gills? But you already admit these unlinks have never been found.

So as long as no one reveals it to you, it's false?
No as long as you can't come up with an argument, you can't come up with an argument. Are you actually expecting me to address arguments you can't come up with?

That is why TE's are ridiculous.
wow :doh:

Creationists are required to consolidate their truth, and TE's just sit on their imaginary high horse.
Science has been confirming and consolidating evolution for the past 150 years, in all this time creationism hasn't come up with a single decent argument against it. Is creationism required to consolidate its arguments? Of course they are. The problem is they can't.

I issue the truth. You have to register it. I do not jump through hoops when it is a waste of time. Nothing will avail you, and you will clutch the theory as it falls apart, not the Bible. That is precisely why you demand others to tend to you when the truth of the matter can be found out in 2 minutes flat. It's a circular defense mechanism that all TE's share and is garbage because it's not as if one isn't going to go digging around looking for a refutation anyways no matter how true the latter is., which is the point.
If creationism was the truth, it would have a lot less difficulty trying to fit the real world God created. It is because TEs care about the truth that they cannot deny all the evidence that supports evolution.

So if you are looking for me to be extra-liberal to TE, then you are looking in vain. Theistic evolution is inherently dismissive of creationism, it's believers attack creationists, the theology is extremely extra-biblical and contradictory, and relies on the fallibility of man's suggestions.
Given the way you keep refusing to discuss theology we are not going to take your word for it.
 
Upvote 0