Help me out here guys.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This is why He documented it --- so we wouldn't be deceived about the length of time the universe has existed.

But only YECs like you think the "documents" produced by Hebrew Priests about 2,700 years ago should be interpreted to mean the universe has been in existence for only 6,100 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

But only YECs like you think the "documents" produced by Hebrew Priests about 2,700 years ago should be interpreted to mean the universe has been in existence for only 6,100 years.

QV Post 35, please --- and I thought you said this was "off topic"?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

QV Post 35, please --- and I thought you said this was "off topic"?

It is but so is your YEC interpretation of the Bible. I will end this here for my part.

 

[Braunwyn]

This is why He documented it --- so we wouldn't be deceived about the length of time the universe has existed.

Why have embedded age at all then?

 

[Assyrian]

Originally Posted by Chalnoth
Possible? Well, sure, but who would want to worship that kind of a deity? One who knows so little about biology that he has to use a trial and error process to find the "right" organism? One who is content to kill off nearly all species that ever live on a regular basis? One that is just fine with letting organisms perish, sometimes in horribly painful ways, simply because they were born with the wrong combinations of genes?

This is one of the reasons why the Bible is against evolution --- qv points 2 & 3.

I find it odd that Creationists who insist God would never be responsible for the deaths of animals in evolution have no problem claiming he wiped out almost every creature on the face of the planet in a global flood.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=46317370&postcount=110

 

[AV1611VET]

Why have embedded age at all then?

So we can live in a mature universe --- one that can sustain life.

Without it:

1. Adam and Eve couldn't have gotten married.
2. Adam and Eve couldn't have been able to converse with God.
3. Adam couldn't have been able to name the animals.
4. In short --- Adam and Eve wouldn't have been able to exist.

And I haven't even mentioned the plants and animals.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find it odd that Creationists who insist God would never be responsible for the deaths of animals in evolution have no problem claiming he wiped out almost every creature on the face of the planet in a global flood.

Death is portrayed as an enemy of God ---

[bible]1 Corinthians 15:26[/bible]

So why would there be death in Genesis 1?

 

[Gawron]

"Perfectly demonstrating that we don't "all know what we are talking about here", since the whale ancestor you talk about is not an ancestor of ours."

Which leads me to wonder if you can understand the consruct of a sentence, much less the nature of the theory of evolution. If you accept that all life on earth arouse from a "common ancestor," then all life on earth can trace its heritage back along the evolutionary tree to that common ancestor. What you probably meant to say was that the whales are not 'direct' ancestors of man, but you either accept the notion that we all came from the same place or you dont.

"Why do you have such strong opinions about something you don't seem to know much about? Wouldn't it be a good idea to learn about a subject before criticizing it?"

Why don't you guys learn a new debate tactic? You have no idea of my qualificaitons, you simply read a statement you disagree with and evoke Knee Jerk Response Number Five, attack the poster by stating he isn't "enlightened" enough to understand.

 

[Braunwyn]

So we can live in a mature universe --- one that can sustain life.

Without it:

1. Adam and Eve couldn't have gotten married.
2. Adam and Eve couldn't have been able to converse with God.
3. Adam couldn't have been able to name the animals.
4. In short --- Adam and Eve wouldn't have been able to exist.

And I haven't even mentioned the plants and animals.

Sorry, this still doesn't make sense to me. If God were a real super-natural omnipotent being life could be sustained without any of the above criteria. No need for evidence beyond 6,000 years. Adam and Eve would have been able to exist. Actually, it's interesting that you put limitations on to your god. I haven't come across such a position so far on the board until now.

 

[Chalnoth]

Which leads me to wonder if you can understand the consruct of a sentence, much less the nature of the theory of evolution. If you accept that all life on earth arouse from a "common ancestor," then all life on earth can trace its heritage back along the evolutionary tree to that common ancestor. What you probably meant to say was that the whales are not 'direct' ancestors of man, but you either accept the notion that we all came from the same place or you dont.

The proper term is cousins, not ancestors. Whales are our cousins. As are all life forms.

Why don't you guys learn a new debate tactic? You have no idea of my qualificaitons, you simply read a statement you disagree with and evoke Knee Jerk Response Number Five, attack the poster by stating he isn't "enlightened" enough to understand.

It's blatantly obvious that you know nothing about what you're talking about because of what you say about the subject. Here, I'll show you an example. You state:

Speciation is another term which has at least 12 different meanings, but we all know what we are talking about here. Macro-evolution is the process which attempts to explain how some 'ancestor' of ours crawled out of the sea, became a land mammal, and then for some reason crawled back into the sea and became whales.

No ancestor of ours did this. Evolution works on populations, and changes occur slowly over multiple generations. But you are talking here as if evolution works by the choice of individuals. Nothing could be farther from the truth. And besides, we have multiple fossils spanning the very changes you're talking about here (which took place over ~400-500 million years).

But you don't seem to be aware of any of this, so I think we're perfectly justified in stating that you don't have a clue about evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

Death is portrayed as an enemy of God ---

[bible]1 Corinthians 15:26[/bible]

So why would there be death in Genesis 1?

For the same reason I gave the last time you QVed that old thread of yours. I gave a detailed reply which you weren't able to answer. Why bring it up again? http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=46317370&postcount=110

Is Satan an enemy of God? Why do we see him in the Garden before the fall? Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. I pointed out that God had created Satan before he became God's enemy. All you were able to say was that he had a different name back then. So what?

Just because death is described as God's enemy now does not mean it was always God's enemy. God created Satan before he rebelled and was given th new title. If we can read of one who is now God's enemy, in the garden of Eden before the fall, why can't death which is now God's enemy have also been part of God's original creation?

As I said in my reply 1Cor 15:26 is not even talking about the creation of the world and simply does not say anything about whether there was death or not in Gen 1.

So why would there be death in Genesis 1?

For the same reason we see the snake in Gen 3:1

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Chalnoth:

"Creationists' doubts are simply unreasonable, usually because they have no understanding of science or of evolutionary theory."

Again, this is the typical response of the opposition to anyone who questions any tenant of evolutionary theory. The problem is that the primary rationale for neo-Darwinist evolution through random mutations and genetic drift...is the lack of conclusive evidence of non-randomness, intentionality or design.

The lack of conclusive evidence for hyptheses #2 and #3 doesn't constitute support for hypothesis #1. It violates Chamberlain's Rule of Multiple Working Hypotheses.

If evolution is driven by an external (or innate) intelligence...and that intelligence happens to be God...Then the banishment of the subject from the classroom is a War on Science.

We don't know what drives evolution of species. We pretty well know what drives evolution within species.

I don't have any problem at all with teaching that the neo-Darwinist hypothesis is the most widely accepted version of evolutionary theory. I do have a problem with the dogmatic defense of neo-Darwinism as the only acceptable theory.

If God did it...God is not supernatural.
If the universe has a collective consiousness...it's not supernatural.
If it's random mutation and genetic drift...the fossil record shouldn't constitute clear evidence of punctuated equilibrium.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, this still doesn't make sense to me. If God were a real super-natural omnipotent being life could be sustained without any of the above criteria. No need for evidence beyond 6,000 years. Adam and Eve would have been able to exist. Actually, it's interesting that you put limitations on to your god. I haven't come across such a position so far on the board until now.

Let me ask you a question, Braunwyn --- which statement makes more sense to you:

1. 30-year-old man weds 30-year-old woman.
2. 1-day-old man weds 1-day-old woman.

 

[Gawron]

"But you are talking here as if evolution works by the choice of individuals."

No, you are deriving meanings from my post which simply are not there. Stop with the grade school tactics. I will be back later to further address the issue.

 

[Braunwyn]

Let me ask you a question, Braunwyn --- which statement makes more sense to you:

1. 30-year-old man weds 30-year-old woman.
2. 1-day-old man weds 1-day-old woman.

I don't see what it has to do with making the earth seem billions of years old as criteria for creating Adam and Eve, from dirt, at the age of 30. I like to think I have a pretty creative imagination but I can't grasp where your coming from.

 

[Assyrian]

My problem is the claim '30 year old' man made in one day. It is self contradictory.

 

[AV1611VET]

For the same reason I gave the last time you QVed that old thread of yours. I gave a detailed reply which you weren't able to answer.

No --- I ignored it. Your statements sliced and diced the Bible up like a veg-o-matic, and I usually don't answer allegorical exegeses.

As J. Dwight Pentecost put it, the Allegorical Method establishes the mind of the reader as the sole authority for interpretation.

Debating literal vs allegorical is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall.

Why bring it up again?

Because I believe it.

Is Satan an enemy of God?

Yes.

Why do we see him in the Garden before the fall?

You don't.

I pointed out that God had created Satan before he became God's enemy. All you were able to say was that he had a different name back then. So what?

I pointed out more than that, Assyrian. I pointed out that Lucifer shouted for joy and sang praises to God the day the earth was created.

Just because death is described as God's enemy now does not mean it was always God's enemy.

I strongly disagree. Is death going to be friendly in Eternity Future? (Please answer this.)

For the same reason we see the snake in Gen 3:1

There was no snake in Genesis 3:1.

 

[plindboe]

Which leads me to wonder if you can understand the consruct of a sentence, much less the nature of the theory of evolution. If you accept that all life on earth arouse from a "common ancestor," then all life on earth can trace its heritage back along the evolutionary tree to that common ancestor. What you probably meant to say was that the whales are not 'direct' ancestors of man, but you either accept the notion that we all came from the same place or you dont.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. If you are aware that the theory doesn't state that early whales are our ancestors or that individuals evolve, I'm happy. Of course it would have made communication clearer, had you not over simplified, and stuck several hundred million years of evolution into a single sentence, in an attempt to mock the theory.

Why don't you guys learn a new debate tactic? You have no idea of my qualificaitons, you simply read a statement you disagree with and evoke Knee Jerk Response Number Five, attack the poster by stating he isn't "enlightened" enough to understand.

I've never actually heard a creationist who knew what the theory states, or didn't suffer from serious lack of critical thinking skills, so perhaps I can be a bit too quick to judge sometimes. Hopefully you'll show my first impression wrong, and we'll end up with some interesting discussions.

Peter

 

[Chalnoth]

Again, this is the typical response of the opposition to anyone who questions any tenant of evolutionary theory. The problem is that the primary rationale for neo-Darwinist evolution through random mutations and genetic drift...is the lack of conclusive evidence of non-randomness, intentionality or design.

Nope. The primary rationale for evolution through random mutations and natural selection is evidence. We see it happening all the time. We understand how different mutations occur. We are able to show that those mutations are random with respect to fitness. We can produce predictions of expected genetic divergence between species and, lo and behold, the predictions match observation to within the experimental errors.

You can huff and puff all you want about the possibility of an intentionality or design, but until you can present evidence of it, we're as justified in believing that it occurs as we are justified in believing that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. There is no evidence against such a teapot, but that doesn't mean there's any reason to believe one is out there.

If evolution is driven by an external (or innate) intelligence...and that intelligence happens to be God...Then the banishment of the subject from the classroom is a War on Science.

No, because we don't put untested, unevidenced theories into the classroom. We teach students tested, valid science, not unsubstantiated guesses.

We don't know what drives evolution of species. We pretty well know what drives evolution within species.

Sure we do. It's the exact same thing that drives evolution within species.

I don't have any problem at all with teaching that the neo-Darwinist hypothesis is the most widely accepted version of evolutionary theory. I do have a problem with the dogmatic defense of neo-Darwinism as the only acceptable theory.

If ID advocates had any valid arguments to present, you might have a point. They don't, so you don't.

If it's random mutation and genetic drift...the fossil record shouldn't constitute clear evidence of punctuated equilibrium.

"Punctuated equilibrium" isn't sudden. It's still a gradual process. It's just a gradual process that is faster at some times than at others. Oh, and by the way, we now understand fully why there is this "punctuated equilibrium" apparent: it comes from the mathematical principle of self-ordered criticality. Basically, a system that has the property of self-ordered criticality has the property that it approaches metastable states where one a significant change to the state occurs, the resultant change to the system is not proportional to the change in the state.

In other words, sometimes evolution happens slowly, sometimes more quickly. It's still gradual. Just not constant.

 

[Braunwyn]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. If you are aware that the theory doesn't state that early whales are our ancestors or that individuals evolve, I'm happy. Of course it would have made communication clearer, had you not over simplified, and stuck several hundred million years of evolution into a single sentence, in an attempt to mock the theory.

The communication error wasn't on your part. Her post read the same way for me as well.