My theory on creation.

[mark kennedy]

The theory of evolution encompasses both the mechanisms of biological evolution as well as the outcome (i.e. common descent).

There's no equivocation there. Just a basic understanding of what the ToE encompasses.

Yes it is equivocation, you encompass two different things and pretend they are the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Desperate? I'm little more the bored watching you beat up on an argument I never made.

You were the one that jumped into the argument and began personal attacks, and then complained when they were turned back on you. Perhaps you need to be clearer in yourposts.

First of all evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, not the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means. That particular fallacy is called equivocation.

Whoa! If you are going to be so obviously wrong why even debate here? Common ancestry is not an assumption, it is a conclusion supported by mountains of evidence. And your definition is incomplete. Yes, evolution is a change of alleles in a population, but you are ignoring the consequences of those changes. It appears that you are attempting to make the long ago refuted "micro evolution but not macro evolution" claim.

The Genesis account of creation defines 'creation' perfectly well.

Created

The phrase, 'heaven and the earth', is a Hebrew expression meaning the universe. All we really get from this passage is that the cosmos and earth were created, 'in the beginning'. The perspective of creation week is from the surface of the earth, starting with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2). In the chapter there are three words used for God's work in creation. The first is 'created' ('bara' H1254) a very precise term used only of God.

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...(Vines Expository Dictionary)​

Made
It is used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), then again to describe the creation of life (Gen 1:21). Finally, in the closing verses, it is used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27). The word translated, 'made' (asah 6213) , has a much broader range of meaning and is used to speak of the creation of the 'firmament' (Gen 1:7), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:16), procreation where offspring are made 'after his/their kind' (Gen 1:25) and as a general reference to creation in it's vast array (Gen 1:31).

Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s Dictionary). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52).​

Set
Then there is a third term when God 'set' (nathan H2414), the lights of the sun, moon and stars so that their light is regularly visible from the surface of the earth. In this way the narrative shifts from the very precise word for 'created' to the more general 'made', and then the much broader use of 'set'.

Set (nathan H5414) A primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (Gen 1:17, Gen 9:13, Gen 18:8, Gen 30:40, Gen 41:41). Elsewhere translated ‘put’, ‘make’, ‘cause’, etc.​

The creation account has great significance for the rest of Scripture and how these terms are used in the original and their natural context is essential to really following the text as it was intended to be understood.

God created the universe (Gen. 1:1), life in general (1:21) and man in particular (Gen. 1:27). The term 'bara' is used once for original creation, once for the creation of life and three times for the creation of Adam and Eve. God also created Israel:

Especially striking is the use of bara in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks of comfort based upon God’s past benefits and blessings to His people. Isaiah especially wants to show that, since Yahweh is the Creator, His is able to deliver His people from captivity. The God of Israel has created all things: “I have made the earth, and created (bara) man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens and all their host have I commanded” (Isa. 45:12). The gods of Babylon are impotent nonentities (Isa. 44:12-20; 46:1-7), and so Israel can expect God to triumph by effecting a new creation, (Isa.: 43:16-21; 65:17-25). (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: By W. E. Vine, Merrill Unger)



The operative word was history, and you are obvious.



Unless of course, they were acquired from God. This account of creation was literally written in stone, it's part of the Ten Commandments and the whole reason for the Sabbath.

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Gen. 20:11)
​

God created life which is distinctly different from pagan myths, when tracing things back to original creation they invariably ended up with an elemental deity, earth, air, fire or water. This Babylonian myth indicates two water elementals, fresh and salt water apparently:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being. (Enuma Elish, the Epic of Creation)​

Notice at creation the 'gods' didn't even exist.

Obviously the doctrine of creation is the heart of the emphasis but the text also describes creation as being largely a matter of separation. The light from darkness, waters above and below, land and sea. The word (בָּדַל badal H914) is used five times in the creation account then not used again until Exodus, 'The vail shall divide (H914) unto you between the holy place and the most holy' (Exo. 26:33). This is no coincidence, the idea of sanctification is literally the idea of separation, something set aside for God's exclusive use.

Too long and mostly nonsense that looks like it was copied and pasted from other failed arguments. When you start arguing semantics you have essentially lost the argument.

The plain and simple fact is that the Earth was not "made" by magic. Unless you want to call gravity magic. And we know that man is the product of evolution. If you want to debate the science that is fine with me, but I am not playing silly games with Bible verses.

I have merely pointed out that the same science that shows the flat Earth verses cannot be taken literally also shows that the book of Genesis is allegory at best. You have yet to show a strawman there.


By the way, you do realize that there is a rebirth of Flat Earth beliefs by many Christians, don't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes it is equivocation, you encompass two different things and pretend they are the same.

Nope, you falsely claimed an a priori assumption. Common descent is explained by evolution. It is not only a conclusion drawn from that it is massively supported by evidence at all levels. What evidence do you have for your beliefs?

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope, you falsely claimed an a priori assumption. Common descent is explained by evolution. It is not only a conclusion drawn from that it is massively supported by evidence at all levels. What evidence do you have for your beliefs?

Again, evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwinian evolution is the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. The former is evolutionary biology and the latter is an a priori naturalistic assumption. Classic equivocation.

 

[pitabread]

Darwinian evolution is the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

Mark, this has been explained to again and again: Claiming this as a definition of "Darwinian evolution" is highly misleading. For someone who continually rants about equivocation all the time, you'd be better off just calling it what you really mean: metaphysical atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwinian evolution is the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. The former is evolutionary biology and the latter is an a priori naturalistic assumption. Classic equivocation.

Nope, no matter how many times you repeat that error that will not be the case. Perhaps you do not know what a "a priori" means. Or "assumption".

There is no equivocation on my side. You sound a lot like a creationist that has made countless logical fallacies and now merely parrot the terms that you do not understand.

 

[Speedwell]

Mark, this has been explained to again and again: Claiming this as a definition of "Darwinian evolution" is highly misleading. For someone who continually rants about equivocation all the time, you'd be better off just calling it what you really mean: metaphysical atheism.

That would spoil his "argument."

 

[mark kennedy]

You were the one that jumped into the argument and began personal attacks, and then complained when they were turned back on you. Perhaps you need to be clearer in yourposts.

I will be as clear or as obscure as I see fit, I need neither your permission nor your approval. Your the one who has sold out to fallacious logic, don't blame me if you can't muster the substantive arguments that would have saved you from circling the drain with these fallacious taunts.

Whoa! If you are going to be so obviously wrong why even debate here? Common ancestry is not an assumption, it is a conclusion supported by mountains of evidence. And your definition is incomplete. Yes, evolution is a change of alleles in a population, but you are ignoring the consequences of those changes. It appears that you are attempting to make the long ago refuted "micro evolution but not macro evolution" claim.

My definitions are from a Biblical Lexicon and apparently, you didn't see fit to even read it let alone comment on it. Macroevolution is a clutch phrase, it's easier to equivocate micro and macro when you never bother to define the limits beyond which things cannot evolve, see my signature.

Too long and mostly nonsense that looks like it was copied and pasted from other failed arguments. When you start arguing semantics you have essentially lost the argument.

The arguments always work, why reinvent the wheel everytime I encounter the same fallacious arguments.

The plain and simple fact is that the Earth was not "made" by magic. Unless you want to call gravity magic. And we know that man is the product of evolution. If you want to debate the science that is fine with me, but I am not playing silly games with Bible verses.

The word you are looking for is miracles, get your facts straight.

I have merely pointed out that the same science that shows the flat Earth verses cannot be taken literally also shows that the book of Genesis is allegory at best. You have yet to show a strawman there.

I have clearly identified no less then three fallacious arguments, not the least of which is a flat earth with modern cosmology.

By the way, you do realize that there is a rebirth of Flat Earth beliefs by many Christians, don't you?

There is no such thing, there is no such thing as cosmology and geology in Scripture. I explained the difference and you ignored it, the rest is just shooting down these rhetorical fallacies like skeet. It's kind of fun, just a little too easy.

Nope, no matter how many times you repeat that error that will not be the case. Perhaps you do not know what a "a priori" means. Or "assumption".

I know what they mean, your grasping at straws.

There is no equivocation on my side. You sound a lot like a creationist that has made countless logical fallacies and now merely parrot the terms that you do not understand.

There are at least three and now we can add begging the question of proof in circles, a double fallacy.

 

[pitabread]

That would spoil his "argument."

I suppose that is true. It just amazes me that someone could continually engage in the same rhetorical obfuscation after being called out on it so many times previously. Who does he think he's fooling at this point?

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, this has been explained to again and again: Claiming this as a definition of "Darwinian evolution" is highly misleading. For someone who continually rants about equivocation all the time, you'd be better off just calling it what you really mean: metaphysical atheism.

I didn't define it, Charles Darwin did:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

I suppose that is true. It just amazes me that someone could continually engage in the same rhetorical obfuscation after being called out on it so many times previously. Who does he think he's fooling at this point?

Random personal remarks, that's the way to take the party line.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will be as clear or as obscure as I see fit, I need neither your permission nor your approval. Your the one who has sold out to fallacious logic, don't blame me if you can't muster the substantive arguments that would have saved you from circling the drain with these fallacious taunts.

Wrong again, and you should not complain about taunts when you go out of your way to earn them.

My definitions are from a Biblical Lexicon and apparently, you didn't see fit to even read it let alone comment on it. Macroevolution is a clutch phrase, it's easier to equivocate micro and macro when you never bother to define the limits beyond which things cannot evolve, see my signature.

Try finding an unbiased source if you want your claims to have any validity. And no, "macroevolution" is a bogus creationist phrase that arose because they cannot deal with fact of evolution.

The arguments always work, why reinvent the wheel everytime I encounter the same fallacious arguments.

Now you are only fooling yourself.

The word you are looking for is miracles, get your facts straight.

They are one and the same. The fact that you believe in magic is only made more palatable by avoiding the obvious.

I have clearly identified no less then three fallacious arguments, not the least of which is a flat earth with modern cosmology.

Nope, you only claimed to do so and ran away from the refutation.

There is no such thing, there is no such thing as cosmology and geology in Scripture. I explained the difference and you ignored it, the rest is just shooting down these rhetorical fallacies like skeet. It's kind of fun, just a little too easy.

Of course there is. I can find video after video by Flat Earth believers. There is no organized belief, but you will find that they base their beliefs upon the Bible. And no, you explained nothing.


And you should not make false claims about others. You have not shot down anything.

I know what they mean, your grasping at straws.

More false claims. You are getting boring.

There are at least three and now we can add begging the question of proof in circles, a double fallacy.

Nope, you have not shown one yet. And please, you really need to quit trying to claim that others are using logical fallacies. You clearly have no clue on how to use those.[/quote]

 

[mark kennedy]

Wrong again, and you should not complain about taunts when you go out of your way to earn them.

This has never been anything personal for me and I have been doing this too long to resort to those kind of fallacious personal attacks. You haven't made a single point stick, your posts are shrinking in size and substance and you will not address the substance of mine. Game over, thanks for playing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't define it, Charles Darwin did:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

Random personal remarks, that's the way to take the party line.

You have yet to show an apriori assumption.

Do you even understand what the term means?

 

[mark kennedy]

You have yet to show an apriori assumption.

Do you even understand what the term means?

Two pedantic one liners, your ad hominem fallacy crashed and burned. This is little more then fish in a barrel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This has never been anything personal for me and I have been doing this too long to resort to those kind of fallacious personal attacks. You haven't made a single point stick, your posts are shrinking in size and substance and you will not address the substance of mine. Game over, thanks for playing.

Oh my! More false claims. I made no "fallacious personal attacks". You have. Every time that you try to use logical fallacies and fail you try to use them as personal attacks.

You have only ignored the points. Now if you want to discuss how we know that you are the product of evolution I would be more than happy to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Two pedantic one liners, your ad hominem fallacy crashed and burned. This is little more then fish in a barrel.

Now you are merely repeating your false claims.

Mark, when you claim that someone made an ad hominem the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrat that an ad hom was actually used.

And you really should study the Ninth Commandment a bit more. Just a helpful hint.

 

[mark kennedy]

Now you are merely repeating your false claims.

Mark, when you claim that someone made an ad hominem the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrat that an ad hom was actually used.

And you really should study the Ninth Commandment a bit more. Just a helpful hint.

That's three more pedantic one liners and nothing of substance with regards to the content of my posts.

Oh my! More false claims. I made no "fallacious personal attacks". You have. Every time that you try to use logical fallacies and fail you try to use them as personal attacks.

You have only ignored the points. Now if you want to discuss how we know that you are the product of evolution I would be more than happy to do so.

That's classic ad hominem rhetoric, you just make the claim without the slightest mention of the substance of my posts. In my experience debaters don't recover from this and you succumbed early. You didn't even try to make a real argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's three more pedantic one liners and nothing of substance with regards to the content of my posts.

Your posts were shown to be vacuous nonsense. We are long past that now.

And more false claims.

It seriously appears that you do not understand the meaning of half of the terms that you use.

 

[Speedwell]

I didn't define it, Charles Darwin did:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species) .​

Which you misrepresent as an unequivocal statement of metaphysical materialism in order to justify your smear of non-Protestant Christians, accusing us of abandoning "essential Christian theism."​

 

[mark kennedy]

Your posts were shown to be vacuous nonsense. We are long past that now.

And more false claims.

It seriously appears that you do not understand the meaning of half of the terms that you use.

Subject: me,
content: derogatory pedantic remarks.

If you had a problem with my terms you would have addressed my definitions with better ones. You didn't even try, that's fallacious rhetoric and it's a cruel taskmaster.