Help a (creationist) brother out?

[Job 33:6]

Has everyone here read Paul Seely, of the Westminster Theological Seminary's writings on the firmament?

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/seelypt1.pdf

1. "The Firmament and the Water Above, Part I: The Meaning of raqia' in Gen 1:6–8." The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227–40

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... A lot of adults transitioning from farm life jobs (that made them physically stronger) to city life jobs (where they may become more sedentary) is a form of microevolution (adaptation & variation). But, the city life eventually changing them into a different physical entity altogether (macroevolution) is just connecting dots that are too widely spaced in my opinion.

You're confusing physiological adaptation, which occurs in individuals, with evolutionary adaptation, heritable changes which occur in populations over generations.

 

[Astrid]

If for the purpose of this discussion you accept the Genesis account, then you are also accepting that every living thing was created and multiplied according to their kind. To me, that seems to rule out changes of magnitude (macroevolution).

Seems to but why?
TOE never anywhere disagrees with
" after their kind"!
No offspring are exactly like either parent.

Its always " after their kind " and always a little
different- right?

Its like kids speak their parents' language but
over the generations, it changes.
More generations,and it changes a lot.

Is not so?

As for what it seems to say, consider that it seems to say
that Pi=3.
So it must be 3?

A Jesuit priest told me God gave us brains to think with,
and he expects us to use them.

So we do a little thinking and some math and
realize that the evidence
goes against what the bible seems to say.

 

[Bradskii]

If for the purpose of this discussion you accept the Genesis account, then you are also accepting that every living thing was created and multiplied according to their kind. To me, that seems to rule out changes of magnitude (macroevolution).

But you say microevolution is currently happening. My question is: what is going to stop the changes? At what point does evolution cease to work?

 

[durangodawood]

...Its like kids speak their parents' language but
over the generations, it changes.
More generations, and it changes a lot....

Most English speakers probably know more Japanese than old-English

Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas.

Capiche?

 

[inquiring mind]

But you say microevolution is currently happening. My question is: what is going to stop the changes? At what point does evolution cease to work?

They may not stop, but that doesn't mean they will have the magnitude of change TOE proposes.

 

[Astrid]

Most English speakers probably know more Japanese than old-English

Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas.

Capiche?

Better axe the original afteritskindist

 

[Bradskii]

They may not stop, but that doesn't mean they will have the magnitude of change TOE proposes.

Again, that is just an empty claim. And it defies logic. You're still arguing that the pebble never gets to the Pacific. If you have nothing to add then I think we're done. Thanks for your input.

 

[inquiring mind]

Again, that is just an empty claim. And it defies logic. You're still arguing that the pebble never gets to the Pacific. If you have nothing to add then I think we're done. Thanks for your input.

I've enjoyed it... are you absolutely sure that pebble wouldn't completely wear away before it reached the Pacific???

 

[Bradskii]

I've enjoyed it... are you absolutely sure that pebble wouldn't completely wear away before it reached the Pacific???

That would be the equivalent of an extinction. The Pacific represents the present. If I may, I'll change the pebble to a small toy with wheels. And there are millions of people setting off on the journey with their toy. You can make changes to it to suit the terrain but you're never certain what the terrain is likely to be. So changes are a bit hit and miss. And sometimes people will hit upon an improvement, purely by chance. But most others won't and will fall by the wayside.

But if your improvement works, you add something else. Or remove something you think isn't necessary. And sometimes it does nothing. But sometimes it works a lot better. So over time (and remember we were talking of tens of thousands of years) your little toy looks less and less like the one you started with. Until it looks nothing like it did. But it works a lot better than it did. But you still pass all the tens of thousands that didn't make it.

OK, you might say that it will still be something that moves along the gound, so it's the same 'kind'. But after tens of thousands of years of development, it might look more like a tank than a toy. Just like the Wrights first means of flight was a toy compared to a Space Shuttle. You'd be stretching this definition of 'kind' well past the breaking point if you try to convince anyone that the Wright Flyer and the Shuttle Atlantis are the same.

 

[Astrid]

That would be the equivalent of an extinction. The Pacific represents the present. If I may, I'll change the pebble to a small toy with wheels. And there are millions of people setting off on the journey with their toy. You can make changes to it to suit the terrain but you're never certain what the terrain is likely to be. So changes are a bit hit and miss. And sometimes people will hit upon an improvement, purely by chance. But most others won't and will fall by the wayside.

But if your improvement works, you add something else. Or remove something you think isn't necessary. And sometimes it does nothing. But sometimes it works a lot better. So over time (and remember we were talking of tens of thousands of years) your little toy looks less and less like the one you started with. Until it looks nothing like it did. But it works a lot better than it did. But you still pass all the tens of thousands that didn't make it.

OK, you might say that it will still be something that moves along the gound, so it's the same 'kind'. But after tens of thousands of years of development, it might look more like a tank than a toy. Just like the Wrights first means of flight was a toy compared to a Space Shuttle. You'd be stretching this definition of 'kind' well past the breaking point if you try to convince anyone that the Wright Flyer and the Shuttle Atlantis are the same.

There a big prob with micro and macro erosion.
Just coz you can make a lil thingy in the dirt with
a water hose ( micro) dont mean you can make the
grand canyon that way. ( macro)
No more than enough rain drops could fill a ocean.

I've heard about that.

 

[inquiring mind]

That would be the equivalent of an extinction. The Pacific represents the present. If I may, I'll change the pebble to a small toy with wheels. And there are millions of people setting off on the journey with their toy. You can make changes to it to suit the terrain but you're never certain what the terrain is likely to be. So changes are a bit hit and miss. And sometimes people will hit upon an improvement, purely by chance. But most others won't and will fall by the wayside.

But if your improvement works, you add something else. Or remove something you think isn't necessary. And sometimes it does nothing. But sometimes it works a lot better. So over time (and remember we were talking of tens of thousands of years) your little toy looks less and less like the one you started with. Until it looks nothing like it did. But it works a lot better than it did. But you still pass all the tens of thousands that didn't make it.

OK, you might say that it will still be something that moves along the gound, so it's the same 'kind'. But after tens of thousands of years of development, it might look more like a tank than a toy. Just like the Wrights first means of flight was a toy compared to a Space Shuttle. You'd be stretching this definition of 'kind' well past the breaking point if you try to convince anyone that the Wright Flyer and the Shuttle Atlantis are the same.

Not the same, but the same kind... in this case a flying machine.

 

[Hark]

A few weeks ago, a creationist claimed:

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."​

I asked for evidence for this claim, no response. I provided a link for a genome database search tool to help this creationist find the evidence he apparently thought existed, to no avail.

Can any creationist provide what your creationist brother was incapable of doing?

Or shall we chalk this u to lame 'winessing'?

Can't your observation in nature confirm that? Like why polar bears aren't found in tropical jungles? Etc.

One thing I have noticed in nature is that there is no macroevolution happening at all. Evolutionists keeps giving an example of microevolution, as the bird is still a bird or a lizard is still a lizard, claiming that to be macroevolution when it is not.

The Law of Biogenesis cites that life did not come from nothing, but life comes from similar life. That means there is no genetic information in fishes to start growing legs. It can become a different kind of fish but still a fish.

Although genetic traits have been known to diminish due to deformities, that is hardy macroevolution. One can attribute that to the second law of thermodynamics as created systems or order tend to go to disorder or breaking down.

Course, the way science keeps changing the laws as if they are bendable and the theory of evolution as if it is not, I doubt any one can see the truth between real science and that false science which is what the evolution theory is. Only Jesus can expose it for that false science that it is.

 

[Bradskii]

Not the same, but the same kind... in this case a flying machine.

Yeah, just like a penguin, an eagle, a bat, a butterfly, an emu, a chicken...

 

[inquiring mind]

Yeah, just like a penguin, an eagle, a bat, a butterfly, an emu, a chicken...

You got me there.

 

[inquiring mind]

Seems to but why?
TOE never anywhere disagrees with
" after their kind"!
No offspring are exactly like either parent.

Its always " after their kind " and always a little
different- right?

Its like kids speak their parents' language but
over the generations, it changes.
More generations,and it changes a lot.

Is not so?

As for what it seems to say, consider that it seems to say
that Pi=3.
So it must be 3?

A Jesuit priest told me God gave us brains to think with,
and he expects us to use them.

So we do a little thinking and some math and
realize that the evidence
goes against what the bible seems to say.

Nothing against thinking, for sure... and yes this world will provide you with all kinds of assistance in dismissing what the bible says.

 

[Astrid]

Nothing against thinking, for sure... and yes this world will provide you with all kinds of assistance in dismissing what the bible says.

You totally misunderstand.
Who wants to " dismiss" it?
Im talking about attempting via brains
to understand it.
Surely you wont go with " jesus is a door" and Pi=3
just because you read it?
Or do you?

 

[inquiring mind]

You totally misunderstand.
Who wants to " dismiss" it?
Im talking about attempting via brains
to understand it.
Surely you wont go with " jesus is a door" and Pi=3
just because you read it?
Or do you?

If you mean Jesus is the door (metaphor) to our salvation, yes, I believe it. I know what Pi is, but I'm not familiar with it in this context.

 

[coffee4u]

Your statement was "You only think creation can't be true because you hold that God is not true." is rendered false by the existence of evolution accepting Christians.

No it is not, I already gave 3 explanations for why some might hold the view of theistic evolution and how I held it myself for about a year after becoming a Christian.

>>>"hypothesis of abiogenesis."
Oh please with the fancy wording as if this makes everything you say somehow more factual.
Meaning: Quote: "The modern hypothesis of abiogenesis holds that the primitive life on Earth originated from lifeless matter and it took millions of years to transpire."
Yeah, because I too can Google.

It means evolution from non life to man through naturalistic means over millions of years just as I said in less flowery terms.

The amount I know about evolution is reflected in the amount of understanding you have about spiritual matters.

 

[Bradskii]

Nothing against thinking, for sure... and yes this world will provide you with all kinds of assistance in dismissing what the bible says.

Only if you take sections literally. Like Genesis. In which case you are making a rod for your own back. And I don't understand why. Accepting that Genesis is metaphorical doesn't lessen the bible. It doesn't detract from what Jesus tried to teach us. It shouldn't affect one's faith in the slightest.

But it does mean that you have to struggle to justify other sections of the written word that are frankly unjustifiable. Like putting homosexuals to death. Like stoning people who work on the Sabbath. Like explaining how trees can talk and a man can live inside a whale.