Issues with Creation

[Underdog77]

Words are words. The meaning attached to them is what is important.

That's a bunch of gibberish. Words are used to depict the meaning of your thoughts otherwise how would we ever know what someone means?

 

[Bushido216]

I have seen no indisputable half-and-half.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html

 

[Bushido216]

That's a bunch of gibberish. Words are used to depict the meaning of your thoughts otherwise how would we ever know what someone means?

Then expand that to a whole collection of words.

 

[Underdog77]

I claim that the Bible as anything but a treatise on theological matters is unreliable. Despite the gap between its writing and the present day, the countless translations and re-translations, and the obvious culture differences, the theology remains as clear as ever. To me, that is what is meant by Inspired and Preserved by God.

So pretty much whatever you want to be true is true. You posess the ability to say what God said, what God meant, and what has been preserved.

To claim, however, that you know what God wanted us to know is HUBRIS to the highest degree. We cannot possibly know God's mind on this, and we can only take away from the Good Book what it each means to us. Why do you think that God's people are split into different religions, and those religions into different denominations? Judaism, Christianity, (and if you're willing to accept it) Islam all have radically different takes on God and the divinities thereof. To claim that you of all people can understand God's intentions is ludicrous.

Why? God gave us His word, said it was His word, and I believe it. That is how I know what God meant for us to know. That's not ludicrous, just faith in God.

 

[Underdog77]

You have completely missed the point of all of my posts.

As to the amphibian bit. Yes, we can do many things a fish can do, like swim. However, when one species shares morphological traits with another species, it is indicative of relatedness. I'm not claiming that fish and amphibians are related. I'm more indicating a path through which land organisms could have evolved back into water based animals or vica versa.

uh-huh?!

 

[gluadys]

Also, how did two transitionals in the world meet, mate, and provide another transitional offspring? The chances of this happening are slim to none.

Because there were not just two of them. Transitionals, like all creatures, are members of a species. It is the species that is transitional, not isolated individuals.

 

[theFijian]

Theistic Evolution is just a disgusting compromise of both evolution and creationism.

Creationism complies with not only science but also the Bible. The Bible says God created in 6 literal days.

Evolution was a theory thought up by MAN to explain the world without using God as an influence or as creator.

Theistic Evolution just adds God into the equation of evolution. When you do that anything is possible because you supernatural powers mixed in.

I hate TE and OEC more than I do the common atheistic evolution belief. I hate it more because all it did was make the impossible (evolution) possible by saying God did it. Once you say "God did it" anything that would normally be thought as folly can then be plausible.

It's like mixing a liberal with a conservative and getting a 'whatever'. When you mix those two you get someone who has morals (the conservative) but compromises them to appeal to all (the liberal). That's what TE/OEC are, compromises that appeal to lies to attract those not willing to believe in creationism.

God said one thing, OEC/TE/Evolution defy it but I believe it.

I don't normally post in this forum but the vitriol you have been spouting has forced my hand. This is one of the most ignorant posts I have ever come across.

The Bible says God created in 6 literal days.

No, your interpretation says it is literal. God did not use the words 'literal day' did he? Do you know what the bible says about those who add to His Word?

Evolution was a theory thought up by MAN to explain the world without using God as an influence or as creator.

The stupidity of this statement is quite self-evident. Evolution is not concerned with how life began but how it has developed, I'm sure you know this but you choose to misrepresent it.

As for being man-made, do recognise this? F=ma, Newton's second law of motion. Does it include reference to God as influence and creator? Is it man-made? Is it as wicked as evolution?

God said one thing, OEC/TE/Evolution defy it but I believe it.

What OEC/TE defy is your fallible literal interpretation.

 

[gluadys]

In evolution, major changes must take place all the time. Maybe not instantly but even with slow changes you will eventually have an appendage that is no longer a fin and not yet a leg/foot/arm/whatever. You have to account for this lack of mobility. Predators must have a lot to eat back then because without being able to move, or at least move efficiantly, fish and birds and insect and mammels would be easy prey.

Well, at the time ancient fish were developing limbs which became legs and feet, there were no mammals, birds or reptiles to prey on them. Only other fish. And being able to creep onto land, however slowly, would certainly be an advantage in getting away from a predator that was confined to water.

Also check my reply to potluck in which I posted a number of links to modern and ancient "fish with feet". Please tell me in what respect they "lack mobility".

And once that one transitional was eaten, the world had to wait for another one to appear.

That's a big problem with evolution, not only do the transitionals have to form, not only do two of them have to find each other in this big world (I mean my goodness, most thinking humans have a rough time finding their own mate and we have the internet, I wonder how hard it would be for a transitional) and produce tranistional offspring, but it must survive! Every transitional stage had to survive even when most of the time it was handicapped in one way or another!

But transitionals don't appear as single individuals. They appear as species, slightly modified from their parent species.

 

[Bushido216]

So pretty much whatever you want to be true is true. You posess the ability to say what God said, what God meant, and what has been preserved.
Why? God gave us His word, said it was His word, and I believe it. That is how I know what God meant for us to know. That's not ludicrous, just faith in God.

Blatantly ignoring me and attempting to reverse an arguement aren't honest debate tactics. I have clearly explained why your position is both intellectual dishonest, it is also intellectually lazy. Your inability, or unwillingness, to grasp any points made contrary to your own is deeply unsettling.

 

[gluadys]

How many fish do you flopping up on land? Very few.

Have you looked at those pictures of lungfish, Acanthostega, the mudskipper, the batfish and the spotted handfish yet?

 

[gluadys]

That's insane! The fish that have today are either the same fish that existed 'millions' of years ago or fish that have evolved further than those 'millions' of years ago.

There are better chances of fishing flopping today than millions of years because they have had all that time to evolve!

But most of them have evolved to adapt better to the ocean/river/lake environment. You can't evolve in two opposite directions at the same time. And the better the adaptation to marine life, the more difficult it becomes to change to a terrestrial form.

Nevertheless, the mudskipper is doing it.

 

[gluadys]

1) There must have been one that evolved first. Without the first one then the population could never have been produced. I understand your thinking in that the population changed but there must have been that first one that changed just little.

Sure, but since it has changed only a little, it is still inter-fertile with its unchanged relatives. It can still mate with an unchanged individual. But it passes on the new change to its offspring, so then there are more than one changed individual. Reproduction and natural selection take care of spreading the new variation through the population.

2) Even thinking the populations evolved, there still ought to be transitional forms. And if you believe the populations evolved, there ought to be millions and millions (and that's a conservative number...I'm proud to be a conservative Christian ) of transitional fossils.

Millions of transitional forms, of course. Every species that came from a parent species and produced a daughter species is transitional. Every living species is actually or potentially transitional.

But why would most of them be fossilized?

Gradual or not there ought to be fossils, and many of them, where we can see intermediate bodies.

And where we have fossils, we do have intermediate forms.

Can you explain why any of the transitional fossils listed here:

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm#Transitionals

are not transitional? Are you using a unique definition of transitional, not used in science?

 

[gluadys]

A prime example is "The Da Vinci Code". It claims to be truth but is packed full of lies.

Oh? I thought it claimed to be a novel. Good one, too. Read it in less than 3 working days.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

That's insane! The fish that have today are either the same fish that existed 'millions' of years ago or fish that have evolved further than those 'millions' of years ago.

There are better chances of fishing flopping today than millions of years because they have had all that time to evolve!

No. The first fish to evolve proto legs would have the advantage because they had no competition. Millions of years later, a fish with proto legs would have a hard time. Any advantage it could give the fish has already been taken by another organism that is the product of millions of years of fine-tuning. It's like someone trying to take on Microsoft. It is possible in theory but very unlikely.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Give me a site, a book, an article, or point me in the right direction so that I may read about evolution being observed.

Seriously, if it has been observed then that would be something so miraculous that scientists would have published it somewhere.

Evolution has been observed through the fossil record, the similarities in DNA, experiments in selective breeding. There is more to observation than being able to videotape something.

 

[Underdog77]

No, your interpretation says it is literal. God did not use the words 'literal day' did he? Do you know what the bible says about those who add to His Word?

I did not add to His word I just explained in simple easy to understand terms. The Bible doesn't have to say 'literal', we can look at the context and derive it easily. You probably don't say the word literal when you talk to people do you? No, the context explains its meaning.

 

[Underdog77]

Blatantly ignoring me and attempting to reverse an arguement aren't honest debate tactics. I have clearly explained why your position is both intellectual dishonest, it is also intellectually lazy. Your inability, or unwillingness, to grasp any points made contrary to your own is deeply unsettling.

You have explained nothing. You view is false and you do not have sufficient data to uphold it.

Your inability, or unwillingness, to grasp the fact that you are wrong is unsettling but prophesied.

 

[Underdog77]

Evolution has been observed through the fossil record,

give me a good link

the similarities in DNA,

that's not observation

experiments in selective breeding.

that's not evolution. that's genetic manipulation. Evolution happens naturally in the real world. Or at least that's how it has to be observed in order for it to be a possible theory for the creation of the world.

 

[Faith In God]

[sign]subscription[/sign]

 

[theFijian]

The Bible doesn't have to say 'literal', we can look at the context and derive it easily.

Thanks for at least being honest and admitting that it is your interpretation that makes it literal, and your interpretation is of course quite fallible.