One thing I don't understand about the creationist position

[BobRyan]

What humans have found is that evolution yields superior results to direct design.

not in real life.

In real life direct design is the best and most efficient.

Leave a bunch of cars "on their own " for a few decades and see if they come up with "better cars".

 

[BobRyan]

So I'm off to bed. Fun discussion. My current take-away is that the god of creationists has human limitations imposed by creationists for reasons of literalism. .

that was your starting premise and it was fully debunked because it is illogical to argue that anything an infinite God can do -- a finite being can always explain in detail

your premise was demonstrated to be flawed.

 

[prodromos]

According to your idea of "good." of course, which must be the same as God's.

It's the one God taught me.

 

[pitabread]

Are you proposing that instead of creating Adam from dust on day 6 you would "edit the text" to say "no animals existed - God took dust and formed it into simple starter animals then formed other animals from earlier animals then finally formed man from earlier animals all in one evening-morning 24 our day"?

That "complete rewrite idea" -- not in the OP

My response was to your question as to why God might have used evolution. I simply pointed out it's more consistent with what is observed in nature. There is no sense in harping on about it. You asked a question and I answered it.

1. Here again - not the OP

For the record, you keep raising things not in the OP either. I'm simply responding to what you're posting.

If you don't want me to respond to your questions and posts, I can just put you back on ignore and be done with the conservation. It's no skin off my nose.

 

[pitabread]

that was your starting premise and it was fully debunked because it is illogical to argue that anything an infinite God can do --

I'm glad you see that your position is illogical.

Have a good night.

 

[prodromos]

After all, we're talking about an all-powerful God with no human limitations, right?

So why do you wish to restrict God to working within your human limitations, your limited and flawed understanding of how God creates?

 

[St_Worm2]

...why couldn't God have used evolution? Why explicitly rule that out?

Hello Pitabread, here's part of it (I apologize if this has already been discussed in your thread as this is a blind post). It's not that God couldn't have used evolution, it's the fact that He told us that He didn't

Genesis 1
11 God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be alights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”
21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”
23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
​

"after their kind". The Bible tells us that God created a process that allows the different kinds of plants and animals that He made to reproduce, and to maintain the unique characteristics of their own species. This tells us that Biblically, evolution (which speaks of reproduction across species lines, IOW, of a reproduction that is NOT "according to its own kind") is a false explanation of origins.

I'm sure that our TE folks have an answer for the argument ("after their kind"), but since you asked why YEC do not consider "evolution" to be the means that God used (in the Creation), this is one of the reasons that we give.

I hope that is helpful.

--David

 

[Subduction Zone]

not in real life.

In real life direct design is the best and most efficient.

Leave a bunch of cars "on their own " for a few decades and see if they come up with "better cars".

Do cars reproduce? If not your example fails from the get go.

 

[NBB]

I've asked creationists repeatedly over the years how God created living species. Yet I have found that creationists are unable to provide an answer to that (outside of vague reference to supernatural powers).

But at the same time, creationists insist God could not have done so via evolution.

So if we don't have an explanation for how God created living species, why couldn't God have used evolution? Why explicitly rule that out?

Lets say God used evolution, thats very different to normal evolution, it would mean God intervened and designed. I have issues with evolution because evolutionist say its enough to explain animals without the need for a creator at all. In my view thats impossible and there is evidence for design.

 

[Strathos]

Because most creationists have been taught the lie that evolution is inherently atheistic. When they hear 'evolution', they falsely think it means that not only life, but the earth and the universe came into being 'by accident' and there is no creator.

When in reality, all evolution says is that the living creatures on earth are all descended from different creatures that adapted to better survive in their environments over time. Nothing about origins.

 

[UnpopularOpinion]

I've asked creationists repeatedly over the years how God created living species. Yet I have found that creationists are unable to provide an answer to that (outside of vague reference to supernatural powers).

But at the same time, creationists insist God could not have done so via evolution.

So if we don't have an explanation for how God created living species, why couldn't God have used evolution? Why explicitly rule that out?

simply there would be death before sin , when bible teaches death is due to man's sin

 

[fwGod]

I've asked creationists repeatedly over the years how God created living species. Yet I have found that creationists are unable to provide an answer to that (outside of vague reference to supernatural powers).

Pretty ridiculous to ask a creationist a creation question then reject it because it was creationist.

But at the same time, creationists insist God could not have done so via evolution.

Right. Because the two completely oppose each other.

So if we don't have an explanation for how God created living species,

There is an explanation but you reject it.

why couldn't God have used evolution? Why explicitly rule that out?

Because that wouldn't be creation out of nothing, it would be God using evolution that you insist already existed.

That would satisfy you but why should God who is a supernatural being use a non-supernatural method?.. how would that show that God is God who can do something original instead of taking what already exists and claim as his own?

Why should God be no different than Batwoman?

 

[Speedwell]

Pretty ridiculous to ask a creationist a creation question then reject it because it was creationist.
Right. Because the two completely oppose each other.
There is an explanation but you reject it.
Because that wouldn't be creation out of nothing, it would be God using evolution that you insist already existed.

That would satisfy you but why should God who is a supernatural being use a non-supernatural method?.. how would that show that God is God who can do something original instead of taking what already exists and claim as his own?

Why should God be no different than Batwoman?

No, it would be God creating the process of evolution, not using process that already existed.. When non-YECs suggest that God used evolution, they do not mean that God used an already existing process.

 

[BobRyan]

So I'm off to bed. Fun discussion. My current take-away is that the god of creationists has human limitations imposed by creationists for reasons of literalism. .

that was your starting premise and it was fully debunked because it is illogical to argue that anything an infinite God can do -- a finite being can always explain in detail

your premise was demonstrated to be flawed.

I'm glad you see that your position is illogical.

That is the sort of "compelling" response I was expecting - it is let as an "exercise for the reader" to sort that one out.

 

[BobRyan]

Do cars reproduce? If not your example fails from the get go.

hint: evolution from dust to adult human does not exist and cars do not reproduce if left to themselves over time.

the point remains

 

[BobRyan]

What humans have found is that evolution yields superior results to direct design. I posted a snippet above about that.

"Direct manufacture" is not the be-all-and-end-all of design and manufacture processes. In fact, the reason humans don't use evolutionary algorithms as a standard design process is due to the unique outputs and non-standardization that results.

Evolution proposes 100's of millions of years to get from dirt/dust to fully functioning adult human and piles upon piles of dead animals all along the way ... random failed attempts being the most common event rather than success.

Obviously. (even evolutionists are on record commenting on what a waist what an inefficient system that is)

Are you proposing that instead of creating Adam from dust on day 6 you would "edit the text" to say "no animals existed - God took dust and formed it into simple starter animals then formed other animals from earlier animals then finally formed man from earlier animals all in one evening-morning 24 our day"?

That "complete rewrite idea" -- not in the OP

My response was to your question as to why God might have used evolution.

Indeed you make no case at all for that suggestion other then some apparent interest on your part to take the hyperfast-saltation (read "miracle goes here") of going from dust to a fully functioning adult human in less then one evening-and-morning 24 hr period same-as-the-day-in-Ex20 and slapping the label "evolution" on it.

I simply pointed out it's more consistent with what is observed in nature.

In nature we "observe" that 50,000 generations of prokaryotes over decades of time do NOT produce anything at all except "more prokaryotes". As observations in nature - in real life -- demonstrating the most inefficient system imaginable for getting to a Eukaryote from a prokaryote.

For the record, you keep raising things not in the OP either. I'm simply responding to what you're posting.

I don't mind the other subjects you bring up but it derails your own thread to go there - if you start a thread on that topic it would be more helpful.

 

[Speedwell]

You still here? I expected you would have chewed your leg off and limped home by now.

 

[BobRyan]

If you don't want me to respond to your questions and posts, I can just put you back on ignore and be done with the conservation. It's no skin off my nose.

You still here? I expected you would have chewed your leg off and limped home by now.

hint: make a factual statement on topic -- it might generate useful dialogue

Substance is funny that way.

But I have to ask the question "is this thread about trying to find ways not to have dialogue with Creationists"??


Initially I assumed that was not the case.

We can see a lot of self-talk between evolutionists on these threads where the creationist POV is not tolerated. But what is the point of that? How is that even useful??

 

[pitabread]

But I have to ask the question "is this thread about trying to find ways not to have dialogue with Creationists"??

Initially I tried to have a dialog with you, but your instance on copy-pasting the same responses over and over even after I'd already responded to specific points made it incredibly obnoxious and difficult.

As a result, I think our particular conversation has run its course. I'm putting you on ignore now and won't be replying to you further.

 

[pitabread]

There is an explanation but you reject it.

I've been down this road before. It's quite a short road, because when one tries to get into the details of how God specifically did things, one quickly releases those details aren't there.

Because that wouldn't be creation out of nothing, it would be God using evolution that you insist already existed.

I'm not quite following what you mean by "you insist already existed"? What am I insisting that already existed? The process of evolution?

That would satisfy you but why should God who is a supernatural being use a non-supernatural method?.. how would that show that God is God who can do something original instead of taking what already exists and claim as his own?

Answering questions with a question isn't an answer.

Why should God be no different than Batwoman?

Okay, I wasn't expecting *that* response.