Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,170
- 7,469
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
England.
(It's a joke, son, a joke.)
Seriously ... is it?Bad joke.
Evolutionary theory basically insists on similarities between species as evidence of common descent rather than a Common Designer, right?
In other words, you have 2 explanations for the data, and one is that a single Designer caused it, and another is common descent. That's the debate.
The idea then of common descent hinges on the idea that there is something to descend from, and thus must of necessity contain a plausible explanation for how this first life got here. If there is no plausible explanation, then the idea of a common Designer, or force even, carries more weight.
It is not easy. It requires dedicated study of religion and philosophy, committed acquisition of broad ranging secular knowledge, an appreciation of human nature, honest self examination, awareness of the spiritual, and comprehensive reflection upon the all of this. In my experience that leads to the conclusion that while God may exist, there is no compelling reason to believe she does. Ongoing decades of further study and reflection have not yet changed that assessment, but I would prefer you not characterise any of this as easy.It is so easy for some to say there is no need of God for everything there is.
You are making an assessment of probability (luck is a matter of probability) without having more than a tiny fraction of the data required to make a meaningful assessment. Consequently your assessment is without any objective value. If you derive comfort from believing it to be the case, I have no problem with that, but you cannot use a flawed argument as objective justification of your position.But for it to be this way, or any way resembling this way with it all working out so well, without looking at the problems in the world from humanity's doing to take such into account, would be so overwhelmingly lucky.
I am confident that sentence means something to you, but I have parsed it up and down, left and right, backwards and forwards, but it simply makes no sense. If it is important to your argument would you like to take another try?I can't have faith in that with it just working out so, and such perspective does not provide for anything as necessary existence, which I know there must be, which explains anything here.
Again, I am afraid that sentence does not parse.I can trust God, and with basis for the trust that is not with such leap of faith against what counters it.
Which God?But some indeed are not even willing to address God sincerely, to know any truth of God.
Ophiolite said:It is not easy. It requires dedicated study of religion and philosophy, committed acquisition of broad ranging secular knowledge, an appreciation of human nature, honest self examination, awareness of the spiritual, and comprehensive reflection upon the all of this. In my experience that leads to the conclusion that while God may exist, there is no compelling reason to believe she does. Ongoing decades of further study and reflection have not yet changed that assessment, but I would prefer you not characterise any of this as easy.
You are making an assessment of probability (luck is a matter of probability) without having more than a tiny fraction of the data required to make a meaningful assessment. Consequently your assessment is without any objective value. If you derive comfort from believing it to be the case, I have no problem with that, but you cannot use a flawed argument as objective justification of your position.
I can trust God, and with basis for the trust that is not with such leap of faith against what counters it.
I am confident that sentence means something to you, but I have parsed it up and down, left and right, backwards and forwards, but it simply makes no sense. If it is important to your argument would you like to take another try?
Which God?
3. Micro-evolution: This is what evolutionists used to rely on as proof, things like Darwin's finches, but as creationist models predict micro-evolution as well, there is no conclusive evidence for common descent here.
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.3. Micro-evolution: This is what evolutionists used to rely on as proof, things like Darwin's finches, but as creationist models predict micro-evolution as well, there is no conclusive evidence for common descent here.* laughs *
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.
Microevolution, to be exact.Yep, sounds like evolution.
Microevolution, to be exact.
My foot.Potato / potato
No creationist that I know would quote Genesis 1:11 and say that it's an example of evolution.Jimmy D said:(In botany we would expect to see a fruit tree yield a fruit tree, anything else would not be evolution)
No creationist that I know would quote Genesis 1:11 and say that it's an example of evolution.
sorry but god could have created the first life and evolution is how it got here, though there are many evidences towards it being natural, sticking god where he's not needed kills your arguments.
ANd on same designer means same design fails, unless you want to claim god is incompetent, because not only does he use simular designs, he uses the same designs and then modifies them, like with humans, he took the design of monkey, took all the same base genes, and then modified, or broke them to get a human. And we can see this in our DNA, we have many of the genes for making a monkey that we no longer need or use, but are still there, just broken. We have many genes for smells we can no longer use and so on.
It be like if god built a car using parts from a truck and just bending and reshaping the parts and those that are left over are welded to the frame of the car, they have no use, but are still there for some weird reason.
Like the car doesn't even run in diesel, but all the parts a car would need to run on disel is still there, they just have small parts missing, and holes in them.
In that write up, there is a picture of a rabbit, and the title is "Rabbit kind".
Good point!So, the bible YEC baraminologist scientists conclude that all rabbits form a 'rabbit kind', but deny that humans and chimps do, even though human and chimp mtGenome % identity is greater than for rabbits!
I define "kind" as "genus."Fun fact - Human "kind" and rabbit "kind" are actually both part of Euarchontoglire "kind".
You're the first time I've seen someone answer this question.Several have proposed that humans and chimps do in fact belong in the same genus. The primary resistance to this seems to me to be of 1 of 2 types - concerns that this would necessitate a re-assessment of many taxonomic classifications based on the criterion used to make that proposal (an age-of-rank criterion) or plain old human chauvinism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?