It seems to me that the creationist argument is just... silly.

[Willtor]

If your argument is that creationists are arguing in favor of abiogenesis -- or that this topic is not mentioned in the evolutionist texts... then you have a little more research to do.

The OP has already set the context - abiogenesis in a discussion about evolutionism.

As for abiogenesis - that brings us to Miller-Urey, and utter failure.

A 60 year old "dead end"

If.

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

That is a matter of rightly discerning the word of God. Peter wasn't saying that a day can be different lengths of time. He was saying that such measurements of time, for God, are irrelevant. If we follow through with your understanding, then yes, we can say that a day might be a thousand years, but then we also have to find evidence where a thousand years was really only a day.

...

You're ignoring the plain meaning of the text. Why would you blatantly disbelieve it?

 

[miamited]

You're ignoring the plain meaning of the text. Why would you blatantly disbelieve it?

Hi willtor,

I don't 'disbelieve' it. I just disagree that the plain meaning of the text is what you say. So, if there's any disbelieving, it's that I 'disbelieve' you. For me, the plain meaning of the text is that to God a day that we know is as a thousand years and a thousand years that we know is just like a day to God.

You see, Peter was reflecting on and recounting what the psalmist had written:

For a thousand years in your sightare like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

Further, even if one were to assume your position, that passage only addresses the word 'day' in the creation account. God gave several qualifiers as to what He meant us to understand as the length of time of the 'days of creation'. So, to accept your interpretation, then we have to throw out all the qualifiers and say, "Well, it uses the word 'day' and here's what Peter said about God's understanding of a 'day'.

But, God wrote the Scriptures for those He created to understand and He knew that this issue of 'what is a day' would come up because He knows that 'day' is one of those words that can have a few different meanings and He knew that the psalmist and Peter would one day write what they wrote. He also knows the beginning from the end and so He also knew that the time would come would men would not put up with sound doctrine, but rather fill their itching ears with what they wanted to hear. So, God put in the qualifiers so that men could read the creation account and understand that His use of the word 'day' here was not to be confused as some arbitrary length of time, but rather was defined as consisting on one evening and one morning.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

I don't 'disbelieve' it. I just disagree that the plain meaning of the text is what you say. So, if there's any disbelieving, it's that I 'disbelieve' you. For me, the plain meaning of the text is that to God a day that we know is as a thousand years and a thousand years that we know is just like a day to God.

You see, Peter was reflecting on and recounting what the psalmist had written:

For a thousand years in your sightare like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

Further, even if one were to assume your position, that passage only addresses the word 'day' in the creation account. God gave several qualifiers as to what He meant us to understand as the length of time of the 'days of creation'. So, to accept your interpretation, then we have to throw out all the qualifiers and say, "Well, it uses the word 'day' and here's what Peter said about God's understanding of a 'day'.

But, God wrote the Scriptures for those He created to understand and He knew that this issue of 'what is a day' would come up because He knows that 'day' is one of those words that can have a few different meanings and He knew that the psalmist and Peter would one day write what they wrote. He also knows the beginning from the end and so He also knew that the time would come would men would not put up with sound doctrine, but rather fill their itching ears with what they wanted to hear. So, God put in the qualifiers so that men could read the creation account and understand that His use of the word 'day' here was not to be confused as some arbitrary length of time, but rather was defined as consisting on one evening and one morning.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Why is it that when we interpret the Bible, you are allowed to disagree with me (as opposed to disagreeing with the text) but I am not allowed to disagree with you (as opposed to disagreeing with the text)?

To put it another way: As long as you argue that I am disagreeing with the text, I will argue that you are disagreeing with the text. If you decide to have a conversation with me, as equals who are in disagreement with what the proper interpretation of the Bible is, then I will accept that and do likewise.

 

[Blue Wren]

As a creationist, I find it amusing when my biology textbooks say something like: "evolution couldn't leave [this] to chance" or "evolution solved this issue by..."

Evolution is a religion absent a ruler, a Lord.

It's not God the Creator that makes them uncomfortable, it's the King of Kings part.

Can you please, show me a biology textbooks that says what you claim it says?????

If evolution is a religion, is Einstein's Theory of Relativity, also a religion???
Or "just a theory"?

 

[supersoldier71]

Can you please, show me a biology textbooks that says what you claim it says?????

If evolution is a religion, is Einstein's Theory of Relativity, also a religion???
Or "just a theory"?

Why all the ???? did I offend you? Do you doubt my veracity?

Second: my mistake, it was a Psych textbook, "Experience Psychology", King 2013, McGraw-Hill

Third: strawman. Not relevant to the discussion.

 

[Doveaman]

Well, when the Miller-Urey experiment is discussed, evolution is not what's being discussed. But, in any case, I don't think this is correct. After all, God can only be known by faith. Evolution can be known by evidence and reason.

God is known by faith, but faith (belief, trust, confidence, assurance) is based on evidence and reason. It is not blind faith. Do you have a blind faith in God?

On the other hand, evolution theory (the idea that men and apes have the same grandparents) is based purely on speculation with an overactive imagination about observations.

 

[Doveaman]

... and great theologians like St. Athanasius and St. Augustine. Them too.

Why call them great? No one is great except God alone (Mar 10:18).

Again, maybe they were wrong, but flippancy does more harm than help when you argue against taking Genesis figuratively.

Flippancy is when you rely on science to explain Genesis or any other part of the Bible.

 

[Doveaman]

Can you please, show me a biology textbooks that says what you claim it says?????

If evolution is a religion, is Einstein's Theory of Relativity, also a religion???
Or "just a theory"?

A theory is just a theory. But if we use that theory to interpret the Bible, it becomes a religion.

 

[Doveaman]

And your faith hinges on this? To put it another way, if they succeed in making life from non-life in the lab, you will lose your faith?

If they succeed in making life from non-life in the lab, it will demonstrate that life from non-life came from the life of an intelligent designer, confirming the Genesis account of man being formed from dust.

Besides, the resurrection of Jesus proves that life can come from non-life. We don't need science to know that.

 

[abysmul]

Nobody was there to witness our collective origin, nobody was there to witness the origin of our planet or our universe. All we have are various bits of information that we can use to infer/deduce/interpret to arrive at what we each "believe" to have happened and when and how and even why it happened.

 

[Willtor]

God is known by faith, but faith (belief, trust, confidence, assurance) is based on evidence and reason. It is not blind faith. Do you have a blind faith in God?

On the other hand, evolution theory (the idea that men and apes have the same grandparents) is based purely on speculation with an overactive imagination about observations.

If evolution gets completely debunked, that has no bearing on abiogenesis.

Why call them great? No one is great except God alone (Mar 10:18).
Flippancy is when you rely on science to explain Genesis or any other part of the Bible.

I don't think that's a proper use of the word, "flippancy." I appreciate that you don't think using science to explain Genesis is a good thing (and I'm not entirely sure how that enters the conversation, because I don't), but it wouldn't be flippant. Flippant means, frivolous, or writing something off casually.

If they succeed in making life from non-life in the lab, it will demonstrate that life from non-life came from the life of an intelligent designer, confirming the Genesis account of man being formed from dust.

Besides, the resurrection of Jesus proves that life can come from non-life. We don't need science to know that.

Then why fight abiogenesis if you know its possible?

 

[Willtor]

Nobody was there to witness our collective origin, nobody was there to witness the origin of our planet or our universe. All we have are various bits of information that we can use to infer/deduce/interpret to arrive at what we each "believe" to have happened and when and how and even why it happened.

Right on. It's all about forensics. In particular, one hypothesizes a thing and identifies these bits of information that would either be consistent with or undermine it, and then the community goes out and looks for any of that information.

 

[Papias]

KW wrote:

Papias wrote:

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies
Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Since you posted a biased source as a supposed authority, I can do the same.

I posted a biases source? Um, no. I posted from the National Academies of Science - originally established by President Lincoln in 1863, and today the source for independant, expert information. They include hundreds of Christians too, as well as members of other faiths. They agree because that's what the evidence shows.

You, however, posted from the icr, which you and I agree is a biased source.

FACT: noun
1. Something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2. Something known to exist or to have happened:
3. A truth known by actual experience or observation; something known.

Yep, that all applies to evolution - which is both a fact and a theory. As shown by the Christians in the National Academies of Science.

Hmmm. After removing the trash talk and insults from you post, there's not much left.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Papias]

Nobody was there to witness mountains starting, nobody was there to witness the subduction. All we have are various bits of information that we can use to infer/deduce/interpret to arrive at what we each "believe" to have happened and when and how and even why it happened.

So we can't know that plate tectonics exists or that it can make mountains.

In fact, this line of thinking quickly leads to last thursdayism.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Blue Wren]

Why all the ???? did I offend you? Do you doubt my veracity?

Second: my mistake, it was a Psych textbook, "Experience Psychology", King 2013, McGraw-Hill

Third: strawman. Not relevant to the discussion.

1st. I was not offended, no. I was incredulous.

2nd. A psychology textbook, is it not the same at all as a biology textbook, no.

3rd. LOL. I was taking down the strawman, that you had made, by saying evolution is a religion, with reason. If you think evolution, is a religion, it is logical to wonder, if you also think other scientific theories are religions, yes. Saying that evolution is just a theory, shows that you do not understand what a scientific theory is. It is pointless, trying to have a conversation, about science then. It was relevant to your post, yes. That you couldn't get that, that shows another problem, a big one.

 

[Saricharity]

Sigh.

What is a scientific theory?

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.


And here is another definition.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

I don't know about everyone else but I learned what a theory was in like fourth grade science.

Can evolution be repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation?

Perhaps THAT is the question., however I agree debating about it seems to be useless for both sides of the debate.

 

[Blue Wren]

Sigh.

What is a scientific theory?

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.


And here is another definition.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

I don't know about everyone else but I learned what a theory was in like fourth grade science.

Can evolution be repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation?

Perhaps THAT is the question., however I agree debating about it seems to be useless for both sides of the debate.

No use, at all.

 

[Willtor]

Sigh.

What is a scientific theory?

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.


And here is another definition.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

I don't know about everyone else but I learned what a theory was in like fourth grade science.

Can evolution be repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation?

Perhaps THAT is the question., however I agree debating about it seems to be useless for both sides of the debate.

Yeah. Evolution is routinely tested and re-tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As applies to forensics, a lot of that testing is prediction of what kinds of things will be discovered and what will not be discovered. In this regard, evolution is just about the most well-tested (and well-attested) theory in science.

 

[Audacious]

Sigh.

What is a scientific theory?

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.


And here is another definition.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

I don't know about everyone else but I learned what a theory was in like fourth grade science.

Can evolution be repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation?

Perhaps THAT is the question., however I agree debating about it seems to be useless for both sides of the debate.

Evolution can be observed and, thus, confirmed; we have observed speciation occur in nature, and there are a lot of transitional fossils which also confirm evolutionary theories. It also is extraordinarily reliable for predictions of what kind of fossils we'll find in certain geographic areas. So yes, it is a very well-confirmed theory which is considered by 90% of biologists to be a fact based upon the analysis and collection of data.

Evidence for Evolution (UC Berkeley)
The Predictive Power of Evolutionary Biology (National Center for Science Education) (NCSE is "biased" towards believing 98% of scientists, but it's a well-sourced document here so I'm sure we can all ignore that.).