No Back Door

[AV1611VET]

Cool how the creationist sinks the ark without even trying.

How so?

 

[AV1611VET]

Too many "kinds" to fit on board.

And that was a problem for God?

 

[AV1611VET]

No I meant that the superstitious ignorant pseudoscience nonsense that creationists claim is about a God created universe, is driving people away from faith. In droves!

They'd rather jump ship than admit "God did it"?

Adios ... hope you can swim!

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow, that’s taking the back door off the hinges!

LOL -- never heard that expression.

 

[Speedwell]

They'd rather jump ship than admit "God did it"?

Adios ... hope you can swim!

No, that He did it according to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, that He did it according to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I don't get what the problem is, Speedwell.

I believe God created the universe ex nihilo.

Would you support me if I jumped ship and became an atheist because other Christians believe God used evolution to do it?

I like anchovy pizza.

Should I stop eating pizza (all kinds) because someone says they believe my pizza is sardine?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't get what the problem is, Speedwell.

I believe God created the universe ex nihilo.

Would you support me if I jumped ship and became an atheist because other Christians believe God used evolution to do it?

I would try and talk you out of becoming an atheist because I don't think you would need to. I would urge you to just give up literal inerrancy and remain a Christian.

 

[Kylie]

I don't.

However, a lot of creationists have said that they won't accept evolution until they see that.

My point was that when the people who wrote that "after their kind" stuff were figuring things out, what they saw was entirely consistent with evolution because what they were seeing WAS evolution.

So does Creation.

Yes, but according to creation, there are unicorns, and pregnant goats that look at striped poles will have striped babies.

There's no conclusive evidence of macroevolution after billions of years... why extrapolate from observable variation?

Yes there is. The fossil record and the genetic evidence are huge pieces of evidence. The genetic evidence particularly.

It couldn't mean 'according to what came before,' this was the initial creation.

Sorry, but it sounds like you are saying that the initial creation was constrained by something that hadn't happened yet.

I'm just saying he was careful to include 'after its kind' in a forward-looking comment. This may not be a good analogy, but would you say, "I created a completely new house style, after that kind of house" unless 'maybe' you wanted to make sure everyone knew it didn't include elements of a previous style? Just curious is all, and yes, I might be reading too much into it.

But that doesn't make sense. If you are copying the style of another house, that other house must already exist. But since you are talking about an initial creation, your house analogy would have to be, "I'm building this house to copy the style of a future house that will be built on this land once this house is knocked down."

 

[inquiring mind]

However, a lot of creationists have said that they won't accept evolution until they see that.

What they most likely say is they don't believe in evolution because they don't believe that happens.

My point was that when the people who wrote that "after their kind" stuff were figuring things out, what they saw was entirely consistent with evolution because what they were seeing WAS evolution.

I'm comfortable with the notion that what they saw was most likely considered division within kinds.

Yes, but according to creation, there are unicorns, and pregnant goats that look at striped poles will have striped babies.

I find it strange an evolutionist wouldn't believe in unicorns, with the strange creatures they have hypothesized in some instances, to make macroevolution work.

Yes there is. The fossil record and the genetic evidence are huge pieces of evidence. The genetic evidence particularly.

Pieces... okay, I'll stick with no conclusive evidence then.

Sorry, but it sounds like you are saying that the initial creation was constrained by something that hadn't happened yet.

But that doesn't make sense. If you are copying the style of another house, that other house must already exist. But since you are talking about an initial creation, your house analogy would have to be, "I'm building this house to copy the style of a future house that will be built on this land once this house is knocked down."

Confusing topic, ain't it?

 

[pitabread]

And that was a problem for God?

Magic solves everything.

And creationists wonder why science is at odds with their beliefs...

 

[AV1611VET]

Magic solves everything.

And creationists wonder why science is at odds with their beliefs...

God separates Himself from magic though.

Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

But hard-hearted academia reconnects them.

Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Note: In Bible typology, Egypt is a type of the world.

 

[HitchSlap]

And that was a problem for God?

Nope, it was a problem for Noah.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, it was a problem for Noah.

Haven't we discussed this before; about the Ark being a kind of TARDIS booth?

That is, its inside was bigger than its outside?

 

[HitchSlap]

Haven't we discussed this before; about the Ark being a kind of TARDIS booth?

That is, its inside was bigger than its outside?

Magic.

 

[Kylie]

What they most likely say is they don't believe in evolution because they don't believe that happens.

No, they literally say things like, "I won't believe in evolution until I see a cat give birth to a bird!"

I'm comfortable with the notion that what they saw was most likely considered division within kinds.

Of course that's all they saw, evolution from one type of creature to another takes far longer than a human lifespan.

I find it strange an evolutionist wouldn't believe in unicorns, with the strange creatures they have hypothesized in some instances, to make macroevolution work.

Which suggests that you don't know how evolution works.

Using evolution to hypothesize the kinds of creatures that may have existed is like seeing the number 1 and the number 10 and hypothesizing the existence of a 7.

What you are talking about is like seeing the number 1 and the number 7 and using that hypothesize the existence of green puppies dancing a merengue on the head of a circus elephant.

Pieces... okay, I'll stick with no conclusive evidence then.

We'll add evidence to the list of things you don't understand, shall we?

Confusing topic, ain't it?

Only for people who don't understand science and have a vested interest in denying reality because they'd rather cling to their religious beliefs.

 

[Jimmy D]

Pieces... okay, I'll stick with no conclusive evidence then.

On the one hand, thousands upon thousands of pieces of interlinking evidence from many scientific disciplines, successful predictions, practical applications, no contrary evidence. (The evidence is considered conclusive by the way).

Vs.

ZERO evidence for animals mysteriously popping into existence from nothing apart from a vague, ancient poem. A complete failure to reconcile said poem with observations of the natural world. A mysterious "kind" barrier (that could, as written, also be interpreted as supporting evolution) which can neither be described, defined or measured in any meaningful way.

Let's not pretend that you are considering this objectively.

 

[inquiring mind]

On the one hand, thousands upon thousands of pieces of interlinking evidence from many scientific disciplines, successful predictions, practical applications, no contrary evidence. (The evidence is considered conclusive by the way).

Vs.

ZERO evidence for animals mysteriously popping into existence from nothing apart from a vague, ancient poem. A complete failure to reconcile said poem with observations of the natural world. A mysterious "kind" barrier (that could, as written, also be interpreted as supporting evolution) which can neither be described, defined or measured in any meaningful way.

Let's not pretend that you are considering this objectively.

I do admire the way you guys support each other. Creationists don’t seem to have that same kind (no pun intended) of camaraderie.

 

[Speedwell]

I do admire the way you guys support each other. Creationists don’t seem to have that same kind (no pun intended) of camaraderie.

All we have to unite us is a single body of empirical evidence. But that is more unifying than competing dubious interpretations of an ancient holy book.

 

[HitchSlap]

I do admire the way you guys support each other. Creationists don’t seem to have that same kind (no pun intended) of camaraderie.

We're able to support each other because the scientific method / process builds on objective MILE (multiple independent lines of evidence), we don't have to make up 'facts' or ad hoc explanations. Either evidence is empirical and comports with reality, or it doesn't.

 

[inquiring mind]

All we have to unite us is a single body of empirical evidence. But that is more unifying than competing dubious interpretations of an ancient holy book.

We're able to support each other because the scientific method / process builds on objective MILE (multiple independent lines of evidence), we don't have to make up 'facts' or ad hoc explanations. Either evidence is empirical and comports with reality, or it doesn't.

I'm just going to leave at admiration of the support.