Evolution credible?

[lucaspa]

Today at 03:55 PM nomad said this in Post #59

God has inspired it to be written that He created the Heavens and Earth.  He says He did it in 6 days and on the seventh rested. 

TWO SEPARATE CONCEPTS HERE. It is the tragedy of creationism that creationists tie them together.  The first statement is theological: God created the Heavens and Earth.  Notice that there is no how there.  God is free to create however He wants.

Now we have a "how".  6 days and rested on the 7th. 

Evolution; the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state.

That's not the definition. That is Aristotlean 'moving to get closer to the divine" and not evolution. 

I don't believe this to be true.  I believe each species, family, phylum and so on were uniquely created with purpose and intent.

You can believe that, but it's wrong.  What's worse, it damages Christianity. If you are correct, then it's God's intent to force rabbits to eat their own feces and grasshoppers to be eaten alive from the inside out by digger wasp larvae (just like the movie Alien).  Got yourself a nice sadistic god there.  Then it's God's intent that He wasn't smart enough to unfuse the thumb in the bear hand so that pandas could have a thumb but instead deliberately made the makeshift one.  Got yourself a pretty stupid god there.  Then was it God's intent that He forgot how he made a good eye in the octopus and turned around and made a less-good eye for all vertebrates? Got yourself a god with Alzheimer's.

The problem with special creation, besides the evidence being against it, is that it really makes a god that isn't worth worshipping. But hey, if you want to worship a god that is sadistic, stupid, and suffering from Alzheimer's, go ahead.  I wonder if that god will remember to save you?

No where does it state anything to the contrary therefore it is as it is. 

But the contrary is stated.  In Genesis 2:4b it says that God created the heavens and the earth within (beyom) a day.  Not 6 days, a single day. What's more, the sequence of creation is all different. In Genesis 1 plants first, then water creatures and flying creatures, then animals, then humans plural both men and women created together.  In Genesis 2 we have a single man, plants, animals, birds (no water creatures) and a single woman. In Genesis 1 God speaks everything into existence, including all the living organisms (humans included). In Genesis 2 God forms the man and the animals from the dust of the ground and the woman from one of man's ribs.

What this tells you, Nomad, is that neither story is to be read literally. They aren't histories. If they were, they wouldn't contradict. So what is the theological message of each of the Genesis creation stories?

I don't need evidence to accept this as a fact. 

You do need, as a Christian, to explain to us why you have God lying to everyone.  Why His Creation doesn't match with what you say is His Word.

I will, however, never be swayed from what I have stated as how creation came to be.

OK. We'll just keep taking your claims and testing them for our benefit and anyone else interested. We understand that you will never change your mind. I for one don't care if you do or don't.  It's your salvation, not mine.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 02:16 AM Just said this in Post #53

Where have you seen manufacture by a deity? You must back your absurd claims up.

Just, try to keep track of the conversation and don't make things up.  The Argument from Design claims that biological organisms are manufactured entities.  Your attempted response was that human manufacture was natural and, therefore, somehow different from manufacture by a deity. I am simply saying that your claim is not valid. 

What we are discussing is whether your response to the Argument from Design is valid. We are not discussing the validity of the Argument from Design. I already posted way back the argument than invalidates the Argument from Design: Darwinian selection is an algorithm to get design.

lucaspa

[lucaspa] That argument says biological organisms are manufactured artifacts -- like the computer or Peterbuilt.  A manufactured artifact requires an intelligent entity to do the manufacturing.

Since there is no evidence for an intelligent creator that has been provided, I have nothing to argue against.

LOL! Circular reasoning. The Argument from Design says that the designs in biological organisms are the evidence!  If the Argument from Design is valid, then there is no escaping the inferrence of an intelligent creator -- just as there is no escaping the inference of an intelligent creator from finding a watch on the heath. Or, if you follow science fiction, from finding a monolith on the moon (2001, A Space Odyssey). 

What you have to do is show that there is another method for biological organisms to be designed other than an intelligent entity.  I did that in my post.  You didn't.

I said that it could not be created suddenly as it requires different parts and components.

The time it takes to be "created" is not important to the Argument from Design. All that matters is that you have no other explanation for it having been created by an intelligent entity -- humanity.

What's more we cannot create anything, merely re-arrange the order of things as we have done to produce the Peterbuilt.

There are no Peterbuilts in nature. And there is no way for unassisted nature to make a Peterbuilt.  Instead, an entity outside that nature to step in and make the Peterbuilt. This is what the Argument from Design says happened to make biological organisms. Whether the material was rearranged (formed from dust) or poofed into existence, you can't get around the inference of an intelligent entity.

Does this mean a Deity can only manufacture things this way (only out of existing things)? Thats what the word manufacture stipulates.

The Argument from Design isn't concerned with whether or not it limits deity.  What it does, if not refuted properly, is prove the existence of a deity.

I said: "Manafacturing by humans is a natural process.

Is a bird's nest or a termite mound not natural??"

How do you come to this conclusion? 


I merely said that it is a natural process (which everything real is).

Notice that your conclusion is in your premise.  You presume that everything real is "natural" and then conclude that manufacturing by humans is a natural process. 

The previous arguement was based on the fact that something like this could not be naturally occuring - which it is.

Strawman.  The Argument from Design is that it requires the intervention of an intelligent entity to get the object.  The entity must manufacture the object -- whether a Peterbuilt, computer, nest, or beaver dam.  That is, left to itself, the environment is incapable of making a Peterbuilt or bird's nest or beaver dam.

And that is what happens. There is no process, without humans, that will mine the ore, process it, machine it, and assemble it into a Peterbuilt.  Any argument there? The earth was around for 4.5 billion years before humans came along. Any Peterbuilts on it?

Therefore, when you see such an object, you know there was an intelligent entity. Now, I know you are going to quibble here about whether birds and beavers are intelligent.  However, the same applies: you need the entity to get the nest or the dam.  In the 4.495 billion years before birds and beavers, no dams and no nests.

So, looking at biological organisms, the Argument from Design says they have designs.  And they do.  Wings for flying.  Fins for swimming. Eyes for seeing. Etc, Etc, Etc.  So, unless there is a process within the environment to get these things, you have to infer that they were manufactured by an intelligence.  Just like you did for the Peterbuilt.

Your argument didn't counter this.  But there is a counter.  This time you may get it right: Darwinian selection made the wing, fin, eye, etc.  Since there is a process within the environment that can manufacture these designs, it is no longer valid to infer an outside intelligence.

 

[Just]

There are no Peterbuilts in nature. And there is no way for unassisted nature to make a Peterbuilt.  Instead, an entity outside that nature to step in and make the Peterbuilt.

as I have said before.....
humans are natural,
Therefore what a human creates is also natural.
if we are not natural - when did we stop becoming natural? (I assume that other animals are natural, why are they natural and we are not.)
Why is a bird's nest natural and a human's house not?

 

Peterbuilts are natural, because they do exist without intervention from outside this universe - humans are naturally existing.
If you say they are not natural, then by definition nothing is natural (assumine you believe that god created everything).


 

Ps- learn to use the quote function. like this: (quote)BLAH LBAH BLAH(/quote)
Use square brackets instead of round. ie [ ]