Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I don't address references to one's family. Those are off limit.

I agree. It's not the first time he's introduced us to his family.

Regardless, a belated Merry Christmas to you one and all.

 

[Doveaman]

I'd suggest you spend a little time studying Anthropology and getting a better handle on the subject before you wade in and get your wings singed Oh Doveaman.

Anthropology can take a hike.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Anthropology can take a hike.

Take a hike right long with it, kid.

 

[justlookinla]

Don't be shy. We all know how this is explained by Moses and Jesus.

No it's not. The process isn't explained, the event is presented.

It's something which doesn't settle too comfortably with the current science but it's nonetheless reasonably understood --- and to the faithful, we trust that this is how they (and many still) believed it had been accomplished. Allow me to elucidate us:

approximately 6000 years ago:

a). '....the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. ....'*
b). '....the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. ....'**-

*- Genesis 2
**- Genesis 2

It seems it wasn't beyond Jesus to read this and draw the sort of conclusion most of us would do by simply reading it:

approximately 4000 years later:

c). '...."Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'....'***

***- Matthew 19

some time after Jesus, St. Paul's letters contain the following --- which makes it clear that such beliefs were held to be so in the Early Church:

d). '....So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man. ....'****

****- 1 Corinthians 15

sometime in 2006 ~ Neil Shubin and his team discovered :

e). Obviously these ( a, b, c & d ) are very ancient ideas and as we learn more about our distant past, we're coming to understand through both the fossil record and DnA --- that they might have imagined these great events but it's more likely that we emerged from the oceans. *****/******

*****- (i.e. Tiktaalik -- read Neil Shubin's site: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ )

******- '....Tiktaalik was almost certainly not our direct ancestor, but a distant cousin......' ( http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/casey-luskin-em.html : current blogs by PZ Meyers : http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ )

You're free to embrace whatever faith-based belief you choose.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

No it's not. The process isn't explained, the event is presented.

Nonsense. The explanation though simple is still an explanation of that process.

You're free to embrace whatever faith-based belief you choose.

Are you saying that you have absolute free will? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism )

Are you saying that Evolution is a faith-based belief? ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html )

Are you a Christian?

 

[justlookinla]

Nonsense. The explanation though simple is still an explanation of that process.

No it's not. It does not explain the process from dirt to human, only that it happened.

Are you saying that you have absolute free will?

No.

Are you saying that Evolution is a faith-based belief?

The particular view of the process of Darwinist evolution is faith-based.

Are you a Christian?

Yes.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

No it's not. It does not explain the process from dirt to human, only that it happened.

Please read it. The explanation ( I grant it is simple but it is there for those who are prepared to read it )

No.

So do you believe in the three major sets of beliefs common to all Christians? Creed / Confession & Catechism ( https://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html & http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/westminster3 & http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/largecatechism.html )

The particular view of the process of Darwinist evolution is faith-based.

Rubbish. Read please. ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html )

Yes.

Non-denominational? Are you an Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist - - which one of the many are you closest to?

 

[justlookinla]

Please read it. The explanation

That doesn't explain the process whereby it happened. Please copy and paste the part that describes the process if you will. Simply saying that God took dirt and created man isn't describing the process.

So do you believe in the two major sets of beliefs common to all Christians? ( https://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html )

I'm not a creedal Christian, but I'm still a Christian.

Rubbish. Read please. ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html )

I read. Would you please indicate the part which offers evidence, based on the scientific method, for the process which produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago. I see several references to common ancestry, but this isn't about common ancestry, it's about the process. Darwinist evolution is more than claims about common ancestry.

Non-denominational?

Doesn't matter.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

That doesn't explain the process whereby it happened. Please copy and paste the part that describes the process if you will. Simply saying that God took dirt and created man isn't describing the process.

It did that in my initial reply.

Please read it. The explanation ( I grant it is simple but it is there for those who are prepared to read it )

I'm not a creedal Christian, but I'm still a Christian.

How can you be ?

Aren't the books of the New Testament full too the brim with Creeds ? ( https://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html )

Are you not aware that the Apostle's Creed is merely a simplification of what is there in long hand, similarly too the Confessions and Catechisms? ( http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/westminster3 & http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/largecatechism.html )

I read. Would you please indicate the part which offers evidence, based on the scientific method, for the process which produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago. I see several references to common ancestry, but this isn't about common ancestry, it's about the process. Darwinist evolution is more than claims about common ancestry.

Hold your horses cowboy-cowgirl (?) -- one thing at a time, you stated that Evolution is faith-based.

I would like you to please address that first before we start getting into anything else.

It is very simple, read what I linked and respond or don't. ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html )

Doesn't matter.

Of course it matters.

If you're a Christian you have beliefs, faith-based beliefs. Or do you have none?

 

[justlookinla]

It did that in my initial reply.

Please read it. The explanation ( I grant it is simple but it is there for those who are prepared to read it )

There's no explanation of the process in that link. I ask you again, please copy and paste the part that describes the process if you will.

How can you be ?

Aren't the books of the New Testament full too the brim with Creeds ?

Are you not aware that the Apostle's Creed is merely a simplification of what is there in long hand, similarly too the Confessions and Catechisms?

I don't disagree with the Apostle's Creed. That's not what I base my faith upon though.

Hold your horses cowboy-cowgirl (?) -- one thing at a time, you stated that Evolution is faith-based.

I would like to please address that first before we start getting into anything else.

The Darwinist explanation for the process whereby all life was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago is faith-based.

It is very simple, read what I linked and respond or don't.

I did read what you linked. I didn't find evidence, based on the scientific method, for the Darwinist claims of the process whereby all life was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago. Now, since you offered the link and claim there is evidence, based on the scientific method, for the process (you are claiming that aren't you?), please indicate the part which offers this evidence. I suspect your response will be anything but actually specifically identifying the content in the link which allegedly offers such evidence.

Of course it matters.

If you're a Christian you have beliefs, faith-based beliefs. Or do you have none?

Being non-denominational or not doesn't matter.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

There's no explanation of the process in that link. I ask you again, please copy and paste the part that describes the process if you will.

Of course there is.

I don't disagree with the Apostle's Creed. That's not what I base my faith upon though.

You're not making sense.

The Darwinist explanation for the process whereby all life was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago is faith-based.

Let's start at the beginning. This thread is about why you're not an evolutionist, not why you're not a Darwinist.

What is Evolution? ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html )

Being non-denominational or not doesn't matter.

It matters because it helps me to understand what it is that you believe. So what is it then that you believe? (considering your response thus far to the simple process explained by Moses, Jesus and St. Paul, I'd say you're still a beginner at the study of the books of the Bible.) ---- How long have you been a Christian?

 

[justlookinla]

Of course there is.

For the third time, please copy and paste the part that describes the process if you will.

You're not making sense.

I don't care what the Apostle's Creed says. It's not my source of spiritual truth.

Let's start at the beginning. This thread is about why you're not an evolutionists, not why your not a Darwinist.

What is Evolution? ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html )

Darwinism is just one view of evolution. I embrace evolution, not Darwinist evolution.

It matters because it helps me to understand what it is that you believe. So what is it then that you believe?

About what? I believe in Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

For the third time, please copy and paste the part that describes the process if you will.

There's really no reason for that any longer. (I refer your last sentence here)

I don't care what the Apostle's Creed says. It's not my source of spiritual truth.

Oh.

Darwinism is just one view of evolution. I embrace evolution, not Darwinist evolution.

Excellent.

About what? I believe in Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Oh.

 

[justlookinla]

There's really no reason for that any longer. (I refer your last sentence here)

Well....that's disappointing. I was hoping for a step by step process of how God created Adam.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Well....that's disappointing. I was hoping for a step by step process of how God created Adam.

It's certainly not a step-by-step process, but it does provide us with certain steps for both Adam and Eve.

Perhaps some of the paintings of William Blake might help you, or perhaps a few of Davian's cartoons.

 

[justlookinla]

It's certainly not a step-by-step process, but it does provide us with certain steps for both Adam and Eve.

Perhaps some of the paintings of William Blake might help you, or perhaps a few of Davian's cartoons.

Nope, don't help.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Nope, don't help.

You say you have no creed but you do have one: 'I'm not God therefore I can't explain the process. It's far beyond human ability to create humans therefore it remains a mystery'

In order to uphold your creed you are deliberately ignoring what is right in front of your nose. Give it another read but this time put your creed to one side. ( read )

Then answer the following two questions:

1. How Did God Create Adam?
2. How Did God Create Eve?

 

[justlookinla]

You say you have no creed but you do have one: 'I'm not God therefore I can't explain the process. It's far beyond human ability to create humans therefore it remains a mystery'

In order to uphold your creed you are deliberately ignoring what is right in front of your nose. Give it another read but this time put your creed to one side. ( read )

For the fourth time, please copy and paste the part that describes the process if you will.

Then answer the following two questions:

1. How Did God Create Adam?
2. How Did God Create Eve?

I don't know. Neither do you apparently know the process.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

For the fourth time, please copy and paste the part that describes the process if you will.

It's in the body of this thread so there is no need to cut 'n paste again.
You already said you read it and got nothing.
This we know is because of your creed: 'I'm not God therefore I can't explain the process. It's far beyond human ability to create humans therefore it remains a mystery'

I don't know. Neither do you apparently know the process.

I don't know what you know as you seem to be crouching behind your creed: 'I'm not God therefore I can't explain the process. It's far beyond human ability to create humans therefore it remains a mystery'

I won't be replying to you again as it's all there for you to read and think about. If you get nothing, then you get nothing.

Goodbye.

 

[justlookinla]

It's in the body of this thread so there is no need to cut 'n paste again.
You already said you read it and got nothing.
This we know is because of your creed: 'I'm not God therefore I can't explain the process. It's far beyond human ability to create humans therefore it remains a mystery'

The reason you're spending time evading simply cutting and pasting is because the information asked for doesn't exist.

I don't know what you know as you seem to be crouching behind your creed: 'I'm not God therefore I can't explain the process. It's far beyond human ability to create humans therefore it remains a mystery'

I won't be reply to you again as it's all there for you to read and think about. If you get nothing, then you get nothing.

Goodbye.

I don't know the process. You don't know the process.

Buh bye.