One thing I don't understand about the creationist position

[pitabread]

And the OP is about *how* "god" created things. So after you check Genesis and find nothing about mechanism, then where are you?

That seems to be when creationists either start writing extra-Biblical narratives or give up. At least that's been my experience.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

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?

Science still hasn't been able to explain how living species were created.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Literally breathed? Does God have lungs?

It is a metaphor used to distinguish man from all of God's creation. You may not be familiar with this type of figurative language often used in the bible. There are several genres in scripture. It helps to understand them when critiquing its contents.

 

[pitabread]

It is a metaphor used to distinguish man from all of God's creation. You may not be familiar with this type of figurative language often used in the bible. There are several genres in scripture. It helps to understand them when critiquing its contents.

Oh, I'm familiar with the use of figurative language. It's just that such use gets fuzzy when talking to Biblical literalists because I never know how literal they are actually being.

And if we talking about a metaphorical or figurative creation of human kind, then why would this necessarily preclude an evolutionary process?

 

[Speedwell]

It is a metaphor used to distinguish man from all of God's creation. You may not be familiar with this type of figurative language often used in the bible. There are several genres in scripture. It helps to understand them when critiquing its contents.

Yes, we are familiar with it, some of us subscribe to it, but the point being argued here is that it must be literally true.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Oh, I'm familiar with the use of figurative language. It's just that such use gets fuzzy when talking to Biblical literalists because I never know how literal they are actually being.

And if we talking about a metaphorical or figurative creation of human kind, then why would this necessarily preclude an evolutionary process?

I already explained it, you just do not accept it. Evolution puts all creation under one umbrella when in fact scripture tells us otherwise. Evolution does not allow God into its paradigm.

 

[Speedwell]

I already explained it, you just do not accept it. Evolution puts all creation under one umbrella when in fact scripture tells us otherwise. Evolution does not allow God into its paradigm.

That is a teleological proposition which not all Christians accept. It is distinct from the material process of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

I already explained it, you just do not accept it. Evolution puts all creation under one umbrella when in fact scripture tells us otherwise.

I don't know what you mean by evolution putting "all creation under one umbrella"?

Evolution does not allow God into its paradigm.

Sure it does. Why wouldn't it?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Yes, we are familiar with it, some of us subscribe to it, but the point being argued here is that it must be literally true.

Unfortunate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I already explained it, you just do not accept it. Evolution puts all creation under one umbrella when in fact scripture tells us otherwise. Evolution does not allow God into its paradigm.

Evolution is a science. Science works to explain by natural means the natural world. Since gods and the like aren't "natural" then they aren't used as explanations in a scientific model.

[As a non-biologist, I'm rather impressed by how well their evolution theory works to explain so much of biology.]

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I don't know what you mean by evolution putting "all creation under one umbrella"?



Sure it does. Why wouldn't it?

Evolution tells us we come from apes. God did not breathe into the nostrils of apes. It is flawed from start.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution tells us we come from apes. God did not breathe into the nostrils of apes. It is flawed from start.

But you just said that God wasn't literally breathing into anything. I'm not understanding your objection here.

This begs another question: if humans are supposed to be a uniquely distinct creation (such that we're ruling out evolution), why do we share more characteristics with other species, especially other apes?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Evolution is a science. Science works to explain by natural means the natural world. Since gods and the like aren't "natural" then they aren't used as explanations in a scientific model.

[As a non-biologist, I'm rather impressed by how well their evolution theory works to explain so much of biology.]

They have yet to find the transitional fossil that proves the theory of evolution and that fact remains under wraps for the sake of Darwinism.

 

[pitabread]

They have yet to find the transitional fossil that proves the theory of evolution and that fact remains under wraps for the sake of Darwinism.

Except loads of transitional fossils have been found. That's not a secret at all. They're well documented in the scientific literature.

 

[Speedwell]

Evolution tells us we come from apes. God did not breathe into the nostrils of apes. It is flawed from start.

I thought you said it is a metaphor.

 

[pitabread]

I thought you said it is a metaphor.

Yeah, this is getting really confusing.

 

[Speedwell]

They have yet to find the transitional fossil that proves the theory of evolution and that fact remains under wraps for the sake of Darwinism.

Ignoring for the time being the erroneous notion that scientific theories are to be "proved" you are floating an egregious conspiracy theory to support your position. Why is that?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Except loads of transitional fossils have been found. That's not a secret at all. They're well documented in the scientific literature.

Fact is, the notion of a link has widely become unpopular so we will never get the connection affirmed scientifically.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Ignoring for the time being the erroneous notion that scientific theories are to be "proved" you are floating an egregious conspiracy theory to support your position. Why is that?

Hummm?

 

[Speedwell]

Fact is, the notion of a link has widely become unpopular so we will never get the connection affirmed scientifically.

Unpopular? Unpopular with whom? What has popularity to do with science?