Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[lucaspa]

Old Earth is not old universe. I believe the 1st day was an age, and that God made the Earth on the second day.

Then the universe is old. After all, the earth is in the universe.

which you may have seen me bust them out like a gattling gun in certain threads

There's one disconnect from reality.

Adam was already in the Garden on day 4, so things were already in motion.

According to scripture, no humans were created until day 6. So while you are telling us to "accept the Bible", you aren't. A bit hypocritical, isn't it?

What you have found is one of the contradictions between the 2 creation stories. You have Adam in the garden to name the animals created on days 5 and 6. BUT, you reject the verse that says humans were created after the animals.

I've mentioned before that plants and herbs were set to die out and produce fossil fuels, and many other things to tilt science-bent theists, but I personally believe a flood occurred.

Did all plants and herbs die out? If they did, then people have no food because Genesis 1:28 only gives them herbs to eat.

Do you believe the flood made all the sedimentary rock with fossils?

Anyways, I don't understand why terminology as far as belief goes is laid out the way it is.

To aid communication. That's what terminology is always for.

The universe is quite irrelevant, I think some YEC's just simply do not want to abandon their standing for the sake of pride.

Genesis 1 has all the stars being created after the earth was created. That would make all the stars, including those in galaxies, younger than the earth. Those stars and galaxies are part of what we call "the universe". Now do you see the relevance?

If you have an old universe but a young earth, then you violate a literal reading that the stars and galaxies are younger than the earth.

 

[lucaspa]

I have an unwavering ability to read between the lines,

Yes, we already know you make it up out of whole cloth. It's not something to be proud of, however.

TE requires much more than mere symbolism or personification to be plausible.

TE only requires reading Genesis 1-8 as the people of the time would have understood it: as theology instead of history. Of course, TE also requires that we accept that God really did create. Creationism denies this.

Revelations has yet to be deciphered to a point where anyone can tell someone else different.

Which means, then, that you can't use it as evidence in an argument. Because you can't tell someone else that your decipher is the absolute correct one.

Have I not made a symmetry of the creation stories?

No. There are 2 creation stories telling 2 mostly different sets of theological beliefs. It's not possible.

 

[lucaspa]

(I currently have the KJV out right now, so that is what I am working with on this post)

Genesis 2:5-7

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

This was day 2 of Creation directly above. We can see that Adam was created on the day He put water on Earth (explained below), connecting how Adam was already there when God produced all animals for Adam to name.

Aren't you ignoring something? Genesis 1:26-31:
"Then God said, "Let us make human beings [fn] in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground." So God created human beings [fn] in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. ... Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good! And evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day."

This clearly says that ALL human beings were created on day 6! Not on day 2.

What you are having a problem with is that the order of creation is different between the 2 creation stories. You cannot reconcile the order without violating one or the other creation story.

This has to be followed very carefully. First, God made the firmament, which divided the waters from the waters. They were divided above and below it.
Then God let the waters below the firmament be gathered unto one place, and let dry land appear.

From this, we can see that water is taking on a entirely different meaning. It is being used to describe everything as a whole, besides the firmament itself, which makes a lot of sense when taking into account what the firmament actually is.

Water isn't taking on an entirely different meaning. The water above the firmament is fresh water, as it comes down as rain, snow, etc. The water below is saltwater as in the seas. By gathering the seas into one place, then dry land appears.

He is not explaining seas as oceans, but rather planets and stars as whole and separated.

Stars, planets, and the moon come later on day 4:
"Then God said, "Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years. Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth." And that is what happened. God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. "

So yes, the earlier verses are talking about the seas, because when Genesis 1 wants to talk about stars, it does so plainly.

Genesis 2:6

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground


There was no water on Earth during the 1st and second day.

Let's look at verse 5: "neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the LORD God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil. "

This talks only about rain, not water anywhere on the earth. There can be seas, but that isn't going to help the growth of plants, is it?

See, what I have constructed in my theology is a direct 'double instance' between the last few days of Creation and the story of Adam & Eve in Eden.

That isn't what you have done. You have made up a story, but you did so by ignoring verses.

I gained this through direct study of the context itself, which is a great personal triumph for me because it provides a direct basing for many other things.

It's a "triumph" to ignore context and verses? I bet you win a lot of games; you just ignore your opponent's score.

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

This does not contradict the days of Creation,

No, it provides a rationalization of the 6 days in Genesis 1. An unnecessary rationalization, I might add. It's an interpolation into Exodus later by the editor.

the beginning was not a day. You can also see that He made the heavens, earth, the sea, and all that is in them.

Genesis 2:4 "These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," See what I bolded? That's a very specific word in Hebrew -- beyom. It limits the time to a 24 hour day. So yes, this says the beginning was a day. A day in which all the heavens and the earth was created. IOW, what it took at least 4 days to create in Genesis 1. It's another contradiction between the creation stories.

Heaven and firmament is a constant in my theology that never once is synonymous with stars and space (waters), but rather the mount of God.

Then your theology is contradicted by scripture. I'll stick to Christian theology and avoid your theology, thank you.

The firmament is wholly parallel to everything, in between everything else (waters above and below). Exactly how we picture Heaven as not being of this realm.

I'm afraid you haven't got it. Genesis 1 is the Babylonian cosmology. That cosmology has a flat earth with a crystal dome -- the firmament -- over it. Above the dome are the sun and moon and stars. Also above the dome are storehouses of rain, snow, fog, hail, etc. There are windows in the firmament for these things to fall to earth. I strongly suggest the essay by Nahum M. Sarna, "Understanding Creation in Genesis" in Is God a Creationist? Edited by Roland Frye, pp. 157-158. Or you can read Sarna's book Genesis.

 

[lucaspa]

There's one thing that amuses me about common descent, and it's the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, spent a half a billion years to become liveable, and then life began a half billion years after that.

Earlier in this thread you stated that you believed the earth was billions of years old but that life was only created 12,000 years ago. Isn't it even more amusing that God would wait like that?

 

[lucaspa]

And how does the age of the Earth refute creationism? Because God made everything 'brand new' and not 'as is'? It's a classic example of material logic. If I made a rock appear from thin air, how old would it be?

Depends on what the rock is. If God made the earth "as is" in the recent past, there should be lots of igneous rock but no sedimentary or metamorphic rock. Unless, of course, God lies to us.

You see, sedimentary rock and metamorphic rock show signs of a process that takes time. There's no need for God to simulate that time if it didn't happen. The earth does not need miles of sedimentary rock on it for plants, animals, and people to live on it. All we need is igneous rock with a layer of topsoil.

What you have is God making the earth appear old when it is really young. But the fact is that God can easily have the earth appear young when it really is! Then we would conclude, from God's Creation, that the earth is indeed young. To do otherwise is to set up a lie.

And yet it is a practical impossibility even in a controlled, sophisticated lab.

Oh no, it's been done in the lab thousands of times by now. Even at high school science fairs. And you can do it in your own kitchen. I'll give you the recipe at the end of the post. Do it yourself.

We simmer up a protein, allegedly, after all this time, and that is somehow supposed to propose that a complete organism eventually formed in an uncontrolled, chaotic world? And in such relatively short time, to boot.,

Strawman. Not a protein, but quintillions of them. Heat up a mixture of amino acids (as would have been found in the primitive ocean) in a tidal pool or hydrothermal vent and they form proteins. Quntillions of them. These, however, are not "random". They have internal ordering thanks to the R groups on the amino acids. Then either add water (the tide comes back in) or move to cooler water (ejected from the hydrothermal vent) and the proteins associate into cells. The ordering comes from the interaction of the R groups and water. This isn't "chaotic"; it is controlled by chemistry.

The math is extremely flawed. That is what happens when one only believes in one way, the godless way, and so even one in a quadrillion can be sketched as being more probable if you situate subjective reasoning in such a way.

The math that is flawed is the creationist math. The math I quoted is based on observations. BTW, remember we are all Christians here, so there is no "godless way".

So, based on observations, here is the sequence with the odds:
1. Formation of amino acids from primordial precursors (water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, oxygen, hydrogen, etc.) [M-U experiments and Miller and Orgel].
2. Formation of proteinoids by polymerization of sets of amino acids. [Fox and others].
3. Formation of microspheres by contact of proteinoids with water [Fox and others].
4. Synthesis of RNA within the microspheres [Fox]
5. Replication of RNA. [Orgel]
6. Development of the genetic code.
The first 5 steps have been done in the lab. I will be happy to provide a full set of references if you are interested. They are simple chemical steps whose probability is close to 1 (100% likely to happen). Step 5 also depends upon the chemical properties of RNA and is nearly 100% likely to happen. Recent papers have shown a Darwinian step by step process to get to the current genetic code. It's probability is also 1.

It's like the standard model., it works so long as you can tweak the variables.

Not really. The permitted variables are quite wide. For instance, you don't need homochiral amino acids, a racemic mixture works just fine. The reactions occur in a wide variety of atmospheres, temperatures, pH, and salinity.

Basically, your statement indicates that you are completely ignorant of what I am talking about.

How is God in control of a universe that, according to the finishing equation of TE ideals, works by itself? Like dominoes falling, God would have no need to keep a guiding hand.

Because the universe does not "work by itself! Like dominoes, God is necessary to sustain gravity so that the dominoes will fall. Those dominoes don't fall unless God wills them to fall. What fools you is that God wills this each and every time.

As far as that goes, we are not really even 'alive' so to speak. We are simply just the natural coursing of the universe and our neurons in our brain are firing in lieu of cause and effect.

"in lieu of" means "instead of". Yes, our thoughts are the firing of our neurons in our brain as a result of cause and effect. After all, turn off the neurons and we turn off thinking.

I think the trouble you are having is with the word "natural". What does that mean to you? Are things that are "natural" involve God or not involve God, in your view?

Ah yes, now the recipe:
Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7145 and one bottle of R 7131 amino acids solutions (you need both to get all the amino acids http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/formulation/M5550for.pdf ). They will cost you about $40 plus shipping for both. Empty the bottles into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 30 more minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. They are alive. If this is too "artificial" for you, then put the solution out on a hot rock for the afternoon and let it evaporate. Then add water (rain).

 

[Sum1sGruj]

[/color]
Depends on what the rock is. If God made the earth "as is" in the recent past, there should be lots of igneous rock but no sedimentary or metamorphic rock. Unless, of course, God lies to us.

And so what if I made all these rocks because I am a creator of beauty and diversity? Am I lying or fooling someone because of my artistic ability? Because I didn't wish for a dull, flavorless reality?
And what is age? Age is just the duration of particle movement. So really, age is just a man-made process to distinguish the progression of things. We have simply just gone awol with it and have tried to prescribe it to everything.

What you have is God making the earth appear old when it is really young. But the fact is that God can easily have the earth appear young when it really is! Then we would conclude, from God's Creation, that the earth is indeed young. To do otherwise is to set up a lie.

The magnetism of the Earth tells a different story. So does the rate that the moon is moving away, in which a long time ago, would have been so close to Earth that it's axis and gravity would have been screwed and chopped, hardly livable at all.

The truth is that there is plenty of evidence for young Earth. What has happened is that Deistic/atheistic assumptions have brought on a juncture of claiming all the evidence to form it's ideas and then telling creationists to pretty much eff off.

So, based on observations, here is the sequence with the odds:
1. Formation of amino acids from primordial precursors (water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, oxygen, hydrogen, etc.) [M-U experiments and Miller and Orgel].
2. Formation of proteinoids by polymerization of sets of amino acids. [Fox and others].
3. Formation of microspheres by contact of proteinoids with water [Fox and others].
4. Synthesis of RNA within the microspheres [Fox]
5. Replication of RNA. [Orgel]
6. Development of the genetic code.
The first 5 steps have been done in the lab. I will be happy to provide a full set of references if you are interested. They are simple chemical steps whose probability is close to 1 (100% likely to happen). Step 5 also depends upon the chemical properties of RNA and is nearly 100% likely to happen. Recent papers have shown a Darwinian step by step process to get to the current genetic code. It's probability is also 1.

Basically, your statement indicates that you are completely ignorant of what I am talking about.

All of this is that infamous 'double play' in science, in which you affirm an idea by pretty much just repeating the same moot things over again.

The simple fact is that the chances of life naturally occurring in the universe is less then 0.01% over 4 billion years. I am going to assume that you are or was once in the field of biology and that you simply do not realize the universal probability of life occurring. You only see it after the fact when all variables are accounted for, such as the perfectly balanced Earth with a perfectly balanced axis, distance from the sun, perfect counter gravity from the moon, and an abundant amount of atmospheric and earthly elements to support life without volatile substances that prohibit it.

And even then, all ya have is a bunch of proteins. We have figured out the simplest steps of life!.. it's just too bad the rest practically impossible. So it does take nothing less then God to make it all happen. But God did not make the world the way you want to see it, and the mechanism for common descent doesn't even exist.

Because the universe does not "work by itself! Like dominoes, God is necessary to sustain gravity so that the dominoes will fall. Those dominoes don't fall unless God wills them to fall. What fools you is that God wills this each and every time.

Kind of a stretch to say that, especially when it implies that He willed several mass extinctions and allowed early humans to suffer.
And also:

Yes, our thoughts are the firing of our neurons in our brain as a result of cause and effect. After all, turn off the neurons and we turn off thinking.

That pretty much concludes that we are not God's image, but rather a sentient reflection of the universe which He created. By extension, we are the universe itself and really do not differ between what we call life and a rock. And there is no point in bringing up that we were created from the dust of the Earth because it seems by TE's standing that we were made by a prohibitive probability of cause and effect, and so why did God land on 'dust'? Why would He make us central to being created and returning to dust if we in fact are products of cause and effect stretching from the deep expanses of space since the beginning of time and therefore not even originating on Earth? We were not intimately made according to TE, and to say that we were still made in such a way because of His infinite power (along with everything else of God according to TE) is no more reasonable to anything a YEC presents.

 

[lucaspa]

And so what if I made all these rocks because I am a creator of beauty and diversity? Am I lying or fooling someone because of my artistic ability? Because I didn't wish for a dull, flavorless reality?

In this case, yes. There are limits to "artistic ability" before that ability becomes lying. We are not talking gemstones We are talking the dull sedimentary rock like the chalk cliffs of Dover. Yes, they are white, but they are formed from the bodies of sea-living shelled organisms. So, those organisms have to die, settle to the bottom, consolidate to form rock, and then be pushed up above the surface. All that gives the appearance of a long period of time passing. Now you are saying that God just zapped it into existence in its present form in the recent past. No age. That's not "artistic ability", that's deception. No way around it.

Or take ice cores from glaciers and arctic ice. In summer dust blows in on top of the glaciers. In winter snow falls. So glaciers have alternating layers of dust and ice. A combination is a year. All this is buried and under the surface. The artistic part of a glacier is the whiteness and glistening of the ice on the surface. If God wanted an artistic glacier, it could be of solid ice with no layers. After all, God could zap a glacier like that, right? Ice miles thick? No problem. So there is no artistic purpose served by having these yearly layers that show glaciers to be hundreds of thousands of years old and the passage of time. The only effect is to deceive us into thinking the earth is old.

One final example: radioisotopes. There are 64 nuclides that have half-lives in excess of 1,000 years. Of these, 47 have half-lives in the range 1,000 to 50 million years. Seven must be excluded from this analysis because they are being generated by interaction with cosmic rays or the decay of other nuclides. If the earth were new (within 10,000 years) then there should be significant amounts of all 40 nuclides in the earth's crust. If, on the other hand, the earth is billions of years old, then these 40 nuclides should have decayed, leaving no trace. We would then be able only to find nuclides with very long half-lives. So how many of the 40 short half-lived nuclides can we find in the crust? None. Zip. Of the 17 nuclides with half-lives greater than 50 million years, we can find detectable amounts of all 17. So why would God exclude the shorter-lived isotopes? No artistic purpose being served. No "diversity". In fact, the opposite of diversity. The only result of this is to indicate that the earth is very old. Deception.

And what is age? Age is just the duration of particle movement. So really, age is just a man-made process to distinguish the progression of things.

Age is "man-made"? If that were the case, don't you think every human would refuse to age? Age and the passage of time have nothing to do with being "man-made". The earth orbits the sun as one measure of the passage of time. Are you saying that men make that happen?

The magnetism of the Earth tells a different story. So does the rate that the moon is moving away, in which a long time ago, would have been so close to Earth that it's axis and gravity would have been screwed and chopped, hardly livable at all.

Sorry, but both of these are PRATT. So much so that even the YEC organization Answers in Genesis lists them as refuted arguments that creationists should no longer use. We can go into the details if you want.

The truth is that there is plenty of evidence for young Earth.

Again, what matters is the evidence against. As you have noted, there is lots of evidence against. You try to get rid of it by saying that God made the world look old. Now you say God does make the earth look young after all. Now again you have a deceptive God. Make it look old. Make it look young. And here I thought God was supposed to deal only with truth. Not your god, apparently.

What has happened is that Deistic/atheistic assumptions have brought on a juncture of claiming all the evidence to form it's ideas and then telling creationists to pretty much eff off.

Sorry, but the age of the earth was decided by theists. By 1800 it was known that the earth was very old.

All of this is that infamous 'double play' in science, in which you affirm an idea by pretty much just repeating the same moot things over again.

Please show how any of these are "moot".

The simple fact is that the chances of life naturally occurring in the universe is less then 0.01% over 4 billion years.

You only see it after the fact when all variables are accounted for, such as the perfectly balanced Earth with a perfectly balanced axis, distance from the sun, perfect counter gravity from the moon, and an abundant amount of atmospheric and earthly elements to support life without volatile substances that prohibit it.

Here's one problem with the "calculations": none of this has to be "perfect". The axis can vary quite a bit, the distance from the sun can vary quite a bit (ever hear of the liquid water zone?), you don't need the moon. Any planet forming in solar systems of second generation or later stars is going to have enough of the right elements, and any planet smaller than Jovian is not going to have the hydrogen atmosphere. You have made the erroneous assumption (garbage in) that because we know life arose on earth, then any planet life arises on must be exactly the same as earth. That is false.

And even then, all ya have is a bunch of proteins.

No, please pay attention. What you have is a living cell. The proteins form the cell.

We have figured out the simplest steps of life!.. it's just too bad the rest practically impossible.

What rest? Making the earth? C'mon, with a hundred billion stars in our galaxy and billions of galaxies, the odds are 1 that a planet would be like earth, by chance. Just like if enough lottery tickets are sold, the odds are 1 that one of the tickets will be a winner. The odds that your ticket will be the winner is still large, but it is certain that there will be a winning ticket. However, with the parameters being wider than you falsely portray, the odds are even better.

I've never understood the reasoning of people who want to claim that life only arose on earth. These same people talk about the "waste" of evolution, but never consider the massive amount of waste they are talking about. Quadrillions of stars, even more planets, and this is the only one that has life. As the movie Contact noted: "That's an awful lot of wasted space."

the mechanism for common descent doesn't even exist.

Sure it does. It's called heredity! Think about it, your cousins and you already demonstrate common descent. Don't you all descend from a common ancestor?

Kind of a stretch to say that, especially when it implies that He willed several mass extinctions and allowed early humans to suffer.

No stretch. He sustained gravity. He also sustains gravity so you don't go flying off the earth. You want Him to stop?

Of course, you believe in the Flood, right? So you think God directly caused a mass extinction! I think you should consider your own position before you try to project its weaknesses on evolution.

That pretty much concludes that we are not God's image, but rather a sentient reflection of the universe which He created.

The phrase "in his image" never referred to either our physical or psychological makeup anyway. That wasn't what the phrase meant when Genesis 1 was written.

The phraase cannot have referred to our physical appearance, could it? After all, God has no physical appearance, right? So how can we be in his image physically?

By extension, we are the universe itself and really do not differ between what we call life and a rock.

Of course we are not the universe itself. The universe is an objective thing outside ourself. If we were the universe, then there was no universe until humans evolved, and we know that wasn't the case.

Rocks are composed of inorganic chemicals. Life is composed of organic chemicals. We differ in one respect from rocks, at least: we can communicate with God; rocks can't.

And there is no point in bringing up that we were created from the dust of the Earth

No point, because in Genesis 1 it says that God created us by speaking men and women into existence.

because it seems by TE's standing that we were made by a prohibitive probability of cause and effect, and so why did God land on 'dust'?

He didn't. Scripture tells us 2 different ways God created us. That should be a neon sign not to read Genesis 1-3 literally. Too bad you ignore these obvious signs from God.

Why would He make us central to being created

Are you sure we are central to being created or is that hubris? I think you have hit upon one of the creationist objections to evolution: it makes humans less intrinsically special and more dependent on God. You want God to owe you. If you are central to creation, then you can demand that God treat you nice. "Hey, I'm central to creation. You gotta be nice to me." If, instead, we evolved, then the only reason we are special to God is because God chooses to regard us as special. Hurts your pride to be dependent on God, doesn't it?

therefore not even originating on Earth?

Of course humans originated on earth.

We were not intimately made according to TE,

According to God. And there's the pride again.

to say that we were still made in such a way because of His infinite power (along with everything else of God according to TE) is no more reasonable to anything a YEC presents.

Of course we were made because of His power. If He had stopped using His power, evolution would have stopped.

 

[Jazer]

So there is no artistic purpose served by having these yearly layers that show glaciers to be hundreds of thousands of years old and the passage of time. The only effect is to deceive us into thinking the earth is old.

There is a purpose, it is the earth cleaning itself. There was a lot of pollution when I was a kid. Because man was putting out more garbage then the earth could deal with. Now they are cutting back on the pollution, so the earth is able to keep up with keeping itself clean. Even the river here is safe to swim in now and it has fish in it.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

In this case, yes. There are limits to "artistic ability" before that ability becomes lying. We are not talking gemstones We are talking the dull sedimentary rock like the chalk cliffs of Dover. Yes, they are white, but they are formed from the bodies of sea-living shelled organisms. So, those organisms have to die, settle to the bottom, consolidate to form rock, and then be pushed up above the surface. All that gives the appearance of a long period of time passing. Now you are saying that God just zapped it into existence in its present form in the recent past. No age. That's not "artistic ability", that's deception. No way around it.

Man has fooled itself, and instead of blaming themselves or perhaps God for that matter, they pin it on creationists. It's that simple. The gears of philosophy and logic are right there, and people choose to run on material reasoning, which is good for day to day life, but is quite ridiculous to pin on creation when talking about divine happenings and an Almighty God.

Age is "man-made"? If that were the case, don't you think every human would refuse to age? Age and the passage of time have nothing to do with being "man-made". The earth orbits the sun as one measure of the passage of time. Are you saying that men make that happen?

No, and please do not pretend that I was issuing such a non-sensible thing. Geez, I could see if it was something complex but., what?

Age is not determined by today and tomorrow, age is determined by movement. If everything was still, nothing would age. It's a fundamental of physics. The whole argument on an old Earth is based on where matter is conditioned and placed. When you put it in that light, it really is not some huge contrary.
All it is, is a poor and exaggerated aspect of material reasoning.

Sorry, but both of these are PRATT. So much so that even the YEC organization Answers in Genesis lists them as refuted arguments that creationists should no longer use. We can go into the details if you want.

The reason why is because so long as their is the tiniest, ridiculous possibility of something contrary, automatically, science just has to claim it for itself and tell creationists to eff off. It's a belittling juncture.
Just like I said before, the evidence is everywhere, it just depends on type of glasses you are wearing. If you see the world through creationism, you will see it as a creationist. If you look through the world as an evolutionist, you're going to see the world as evolutionism.
That is just the way it is, and material logic is has no place in religion. It's just that simple.

Besides, Jason Lisle, PhD in astrophysics, is in AiG and still has a big issue with the magnetism of the Earth and the rate of the moon moving away from Earth. I stay pretty up to date with these things. I am a creationist, after all.

Again, what matters is the evidence against. As you have noted, there is lots of evidence against. You try to get rid of it by saying that God made the world look old. Now you say God does make the earth look young after all. Now again you have a deceptive God. Make it look old. Make it look young. And here I thought God was supposed to deal only with truth. Not your god, apparently.

And the evidence against it is subjective. I notice you didn't speak on the mechanism for common descent. Speaks volumes, because if you are in fact educated in biology, then you know more then anyone that it's practically impossible and that you all are just relying on time to keep it afloat until some miracle happens.

Of course, you believe in the Flood, right? So you think God directly caused a mass extinction! I think you should consider your own position before you try to project its weaknesses on evolution.

Forgive me for saying so, but it is always this same stupid contrary that is somehow supposed to give reason on why God pillaged and harassed creatures for over 3 billion years with mass extinctions, carnal violence, disease, etc. etc. etc.
Animals have souls, but they do not know of good and evil. Which makes the whole thing despicably malevolent and vain, and it goes against the Gospel.

There are many reasons why God created the flood. Perhaps it saved more lives in the long run. Perhaps the animals died out because He was trying to make a point to Noah that He does not mess around.
There are many reasons, but there are NONE for 3 billion years of evolution. It's a bogus theology as far as I'm concerned, and hurts much more then just creation alone but that is something many TE's are completely oblivious of., I am not speaking of anyone specifically, but it really is not surprising given the way a lot of people generally interpret the Bible.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Creationists ignore the fossil evidence that shows steady evolution.

Only any informed paleobiologist will tell you gradualism and the fossil record are invariably incompatible. This is easily understood if you actually do look over the patterns themselves, which leads me to question if you are properly informed on what it is you are commenting on?

@ the OP, no it isn't really an oxymoron as much as it is a replacement. You either believe the narrative Genesis presents (allegory or not) or the narrative evolution presents.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

@ the OP, no it isn't really an oxymoron as much as it is a replacement. You either believe the narrative Genesis presents (allegory or not) or the narrative evolution presents.

TE's have to abandon the Creation stories altogether. There really is just no reconciling them with evolution no matter how much one twists the contexts, interprets them metaphorically, etc.
It's just doesn't work, even with the most open-minded rationale.
So do not let any of that fool you, Mr. Waffles. It's a logical fallacy.


Anyways, the fossil record is like a puzzle with many missing pieces. All it takes is one piece that doesn't fit anywhere and it's game over.
They say all they have found so far fits, and I say it's irrelevant, because obviously there are billions of pieces we will never find and who is anyone to say they that all of them are compatible? I find the extraordinary omnipotence of science quite ravishing

Take that with the already existing problem that the fossil record is not solid. In fact, the only people who say that it is are the average Joe wishers and a handful of scientists who cater to them.
It's almost a religion in itself, which is exceedingly funny in it's own way because it requires faith to believe it., though nobody will ever admit it.

 

[Assyrian]

Anyways, the fossil record is like a puzzle with many missing pieces. All it takes is one piece that doesn't fit anywhere and it's game over.
They say all they have found so far fits, and I say it's irrelevant, because obviously there are billions of pieces we will never find and who is anyone to say they that all of them are compatible? I find the extraordinary omnipotence of science quite ravishing

So when creations go on about missing links even though we have found loads, they really don't have any unlinks what so ever? And shouldn't there be vastly more of these unlinks than links if creationism is true? Why should it only be transitional fossils between human and apes we found? Shouldn't half man half crocodile be just as likely (or unlikely)? Or a human - horse transitional? Where are all the half man half ibis or half women half fish? If each these unlinks are just as likely in the fossil record, then together they must vastly outnumber the missing links. Yet all the unlinks are missing, we have only found missing links. Simple explanation is the missing unlinks don't exist.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

So when creations go on about missing links even though we have found loads, they really don't have any unlinks what so ever? And shouldn't there be vastly more of these unlinks than links if creationism is true? Why should it only be transitional fossils between human and apes we found? Shouldn't half man half crocodile be just as likely (or unlikely)? Or a human - horse transitional? Where are all the half man half ibis or half women half fish? If each these unlinks are just as likely in the fossil record, then together they must vastly outnumber the missing links. Yet all the unlinks are missing, we have only found missing links. Simple explanation is the missing unlinks don't exist.

Some of the fossils probably don't fit, that's the irony of it. Until you have gathered it altogether (or most of it), it's purely guesswork. It's scientists playing with a puzzle they think they have stumbled upon, and have no idea whatsoever on a mechanism for common descent at that.

At all angles, ToE just IS NOT AS EXTRAORDINARY AS PEOPLE PORTRAY IT. It's quite frustrating really. Evolutionists can sit there all day preaching this and that, but as soon as someone starts asking the *real* questions, that is where the circularity and dipping & dodging starts to unfold. It's an embarrassment to science, really, to have these people pump it up to be so much more then it is. It makes the real thinkers lose faith in the scientific field in general.

 

[gluadys]

It's scientists playing with a puzzle they think they have stumbled upon, and have no idea whatsoever on a mechanism for common descent at that.

Really? It seems to me the mechanism of common descent is pretty obvious.

At all angles, ToE just IS NOT AS EXTRAORDINARY AS PEOPLE PORTRAY IT. It's quite frustrating really. Evolutionists can sit there all day preaching this and that, but as soon as someone starts asking the *real* questions, that is where the circularity and dipping & dodging starts to unfold. It's an embarrassment to science, really, to have these people pump it up to be so much more then it is. It makes the real thinkers lose faith in the scientific field in general.

OK. I haven't read the thread through so I am probably asking you to repeat, but could you give me one or two examples of *real* questions?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Really? It seems to me the mechanism of common descent is pretty obvious.

And that is exactly what gets people to believe a lie., by portraying something as 'obvious' when it is not even there.
The biggest mistake is going on a presupposition of a fallible science. You gained such a ridiculous idea by listening to people lie to you. That's pretty much what it is, there is no need to be fancy with it.
The truth is that there is no mechanism, either independent or combined from others, that explains common descent. The only reason it is an idea is because of this exaggerated fossil record we have.

 

[Mikecpking]

And that is exactly what gets people to believe a lie., by portraying something as 'obvious' when it is not even there.
The biggest mistake is going on a presupposition of a fallible science. You gained such a ridiculous idea by listening to people lie to you. That's pretty much what it is, there is no need to be fancy with it.
The truth is that there is no mechanism, either independent or combined from others, that explains common descent. The only reason it is an idea is because of this exaggerated fossil record we have.

What do you mean by an 'exaggerated fossil record'?

 

[Assyrian]

Some of the fossils probably don't fit, that's the irony of it.

Where do you get the 'probably'? Unless you have some way of working out the likelihood, all you have is wishful thinking. It is no different to the people addicted to the "You Have Won $25,000,000!" letters they keep getting in the post. Even though they have spent their life savings replying to earlier letters, there are so many of these letters, one of them one of them must be the jackpot!

Until you have gathered it altogether (or most of it), it's purely guesswork. It's scientists playing with a puzzle they think they have stumbled upon,

You don't need all the pieces to see what the jigsaw puzzle is. Once you have enough pieces to tell the picture is a sailboat in a storm, you know it isn't alpine goats, a rose garden or the empire state building.

and have no idea whatsoever on a mechanism for common descent at that.

At all angles, ToE just IS NOT AS EXTRAORDINARY AS PEOPLE PORTRAY IT. It's quite frustrating really. Evolutionists can sit there all day preaching this and that, but as soon as someone starts asking the *real* questions, that is where the circularity and dipping & dodging starts to unfold. It's an embarrassment to science, really, to have these people pump it up to be so much more then it is. It makes the real thinkers lose faith in the scientific field in general.

I suppose the thing to do here is wait for these 'real questions' to come up. More often than not all they amount to is personal incredulity and vague and undefined rhetoric about 'information'. In the mean time I am still waiting for your explanation about the missing unlinks.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

What do you mean by an 'exaggerated fossil record'?

I mean exactly what it is., exaggerated. Even the way you have posted the question just echoes 'who in their right mind would believe the fossil record is not completely true?'

The answer is, anyone who can see how exaggerated it is.

Where do you get the 'probably'? Unless you have some way of working out the likelihood, all you have is wishful thinking. It is no different to the people addicted to the "You Have Won $25,000,000!" letters they keep getting in the post. Even though they have spent their life savings replying to earlier letters, there are so many of these letters, one of them one of them must be the jackpot!

You don't need all the pieces to see what the jigsaw puzzle is. Once you have enough pieces to tell the picture is a sailboat in a storm, you know it isn't alpine goats, a rose garden or the empire state building.

I suppose the thing to do here is wait for these 'real questions' to come up. More often than not all they amount to is personal incredulity and vague and undefined rhetoric about 'information'. In the mean time I am still waiting for your explanation about the missing unlinks.

I'm still waiting for your explanation of how common descent is possible.
Until someone can figure that out, the fossil record is nothing but a wishful jigsaw of poorly developed ideology.

Missing 'unlinks' are kind of irrelevant in that respect. There are billions we will never find, and evolutionists cheaply, and ridiculously, cling on to that idea. Are TE's commited to God or science? I would suggest some be very careful with that. All it does it get the blood boiling for others who want to find truth and constantly have to deal with peoples mere 'commitment' to evolution. It's a mockery to truth.

The fact is that the theories have no base whatsoever and cannot consolidate what it so endearingly flaunts as 'truth'. If you are missing a lot of pieces, all you have is an ugly guesswork of fossils. But it's thousands out of billions, not 10s out of 100s. There aren't even that many discovered fossils.
Do you know what that amounts to? A convenient lie until some miracle approaches the theories that can redeem all of their issues.
A sad thing that TE's had forgotten is the theory is prime on justifying atheists, and so in this secular world, of course it is going to be twisted, manipulated, boosted up, and curve-balled to everyone. It's quite foolish, actually, especially when the theories have real opposition to their fake masquerades.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm still waiting for your explanation of how common descent is possible.

Sex basically. Mummy organisms getting together with daddy organisms and having little baby organisms that are genetically sightly different, with the better variations, the ones most suited to the different environments becoming more common and the worse ones dying out. It really is very simple, you just don't want to see it. But we are not responsible for that.

Until someone can figure that out, the fossil record is nothing but a wishful jigsaw of poorly developed ideology.

No it is an incomplete jigsaw puzzle whose pieces fit evolution perfectly and contradict creationism.

Missing 'unlinks' are kind of irrelevant in that respect. There are billions we will never find, and evolutionists cheaply, and ridiculously, cling on to that idea.

No the billion of fossils we haven't found don't help you. You need to explain the one we have found and the clear patter we see. Creationism could explain no missing links, or an abundance of unlinks that don't fit evolution alongside a few links that do. But what we find is an abundance of links confirming evolution with all the unlinks missing. Unless creationism can explain God's love of creating transitional forms that fit common descent, the fossil evidence supports evolution and contradicts creationism.

Are TE's commited to God or science? I would suggest some be very careful with that. All it does it get the blood boiling for others who want to find truth and constantly have to deal with peoples mere 'commitment' to evolution. It's a mockery to truth.

You might as well ask if TEs are committed to God or truth, or to God or reality. There is no contradiction. God created the reality science is studying, the truth it is discovering. The problem is trying to combine God with your denial of the reality he created.

The fact is that the theories have no base whatsoever and cannot consolidate what it so endearingly flaunts as 'truth'. If you are missing a lot of pieces, all you have is an ugly guesswork of fossils. But it's thousands out of billions, not 10s out of 100s. There aren't even that many discovered fossils.
Do you know what that amounts to? A convenient lie until some miracle approaches the theories that can redeem all of their issues.
A sad thing that TE's had forgotten is the theory is prime on justifying atheists, and so in this secular world, of course it is going to be twisted, manipulated, boosted up, and curve-balled to everyone. It's quite foolish, actually, especially when the theories have real opposition to their fake masquerades.

Most large natural history museums will have several million fossils in their collections. Then you have all the collections in universities. That more than enough to see the pattern emerging, a pattern where life on earth is linked by transitional forms, with a compete absence of unlinks that would contradict evolution.

Is evolution misused by some atheists to try to argue against God? Sure. You know what helps them the most? Creationists denying reality because they think it contradicts the bible.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Sex basically. Mummy organisms getting together with daddy organisms and having little baby organisms that are genetically sightly different, with the better variations, the ones most suited to the different environments becoming more common and the worse ones dying out. It really is very simple, you just don't want to see it. But we are not responsible for that.

Doesn't explain it at all. Not that there is actually an explanation. And to think TE's try to tell creationists they know nothing about such things. It seems we are the only one's that see it for what it is. And that is an absolute fact.

No it is an incomplete jigsaw puzzle whose pieces fit evolution perfectly and contradict creationism.

It fits perfectly to how evolutionists want to see it. As far them actually fitting perfectly, that is a lie within a lie. First of all, the mechanism for common descent is unfounded, despite how people word smith and falsely portray it. Second, the gaps between the fossils they have found are ridiculously far apart. One would expect to find more., but people just settle on Dawkin's bogus statement that 'we find one, and there are two gaps'. It's a cheap answer bearing no weight.

You might as well ask if TEs are committed to God or truth, or to God or reality. There is no contradiction. God created the reality science is studying, the truth it is discovering. The problem is trying to combine God with your denial of the reality he created.

And all that is just blabbery. I think TE's are just a little scared because we have entered the time where the theory does not get to live by it's heralded ideas anymore, but rather has to put it's money where it's mouth is at.
People do not realize it, but creationism is coming back in many ways. Sure, we will never be able to knock science away from how it treats religion in general., that's just how militant scientists are. But as far as evolution goes, evolutionism isn't fairing so well. It's just the big fad of heralding it that is keeping it together.

I see that TE's do not fair so well when the crux of the matter is brought up. They cannot handle their own medicine.