Taking Questions on Creationism

[AV1611VET]

Yes, too much linking... Science and Evolution just try to project backwards too far. If for no other reason, and with faith aside, the rock wall that all the unanswerable questions present for abiogenesis should make Creation and a Creator the most reasonable answer for our beginning.

Absolutely!

 

[inquiring mind]

That is an argument from ignorance. It has not worked out well in the past. But I am glad to see that yo you accept the theory of evolution.

I believe many aspects of TOE do exist, but only in the form and to the extent of variation and adaptations.

You see you moved the goalposts all the way to abiogenesis and evolution does not depend upon that. All that evolution requires is the existence of life.

I understand that, and complete lack of understanding makes a supernatural comparison completely in line. It seems the more reasonable answer even if in your case it’s by default.

It does not matter if it arose naturally, was planted by aliens, or miraculously poofed into existence. Once self reproducing single celled life existed evolution followed.

But, more evolution seems to take place in the theories themselves than in the real, observable world, and they are masked by vast amounts of time and speculation of links. Science needs to stick with actual biological change, accept that it has limits, and give up pole vaulting over rock walls.

 

[Speedwell]

I believe many aspects of TOE do exist, but only in the form and to the extent of variation and adaptations.


I understand that, and complete lack of understanding makes a supernatural comparison completely in line. It seems the more reasonable answer even if in your case it’s by default.


But, more evolution seems to take place in the theories themselves than in the real, observable world, and they are masked by vast amounts of time and speculation of links. Science needs to stick with actual biological change, accept that it has limits, and give up pole vaulting over rock walls.

No "limits" have been detected.

 

[pitabread]

The answer is in your question.

Dichotomy: a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

Creation: 1
Science: 0

But there is no reason they are a dichotomy. That's your claim. So why make them into a dichotomy?

Just a clean slate.

That doesn't make sense.

 

[pitabread]

Things were a lot different back then.

Things don't look like they were different back then though.

That's like looking at a snowman that is half melted and thinking that's the way he's always been.

So according to your philosophy, if we see a half-melted snowman we have to assume they were just made that way?

Why should we assume that? If a snowman looks half-melted, we would assume they are that way as a result of the process of melting. Especially given we know how melting works and what the resulting outcome of melting would look like.

You're just trying to argue in favor of a deceptive universe. But that's a philosophical dead-end.

 

[inquiring mind]

No "limits" have been detected.

These would seem like a good bet: the origin of the universe, the origin of life and how it could have formed from inanimate matter, or how ‘information’ in our DNA came about to be acted upon in the first place, the complexity of some body parts, and our consciousness.

 

[Speedwell]

These would seem like a good bet: the origin of the universe, the origin of life and how it could have formed from inanimate matter, or how ‘information’ in our DNA came about to be acted upon in the first place, the complexity of some body parts, and our consciousness.

None of those seem to have any bearing of why the scope of biological evolution has limits.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

The created generation had no scars and was created not to die.

It's telomeres were not moving toward separation; not like they are today.

And you evidence for this is ?

 

[pitabread]

I understand that, and complete lack of understanding makes a supernatural comparison completely in line. It seems the more reasonable answer even if in your case it’s by default.

Appeals to the supernatural is not more reasonable answer, since said answer provides zero explanatory power. For example, no creationist can begin to answer the question of how a supernatural being created living things. And most creationists don't even seem interested in trying to answer that.

It's a non-starter.

 

[pitabread]

Again, you can't compare today with what existed back in 4004 BC.

Why not? We have no reason to think anything in 4004 BC was any different. Certainly the universe doesn't give any indications things were different.

You're just making a dad-style argument and appealing to the concept of a deceptive universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually it doesn't.

The created generation had no scars and was created not to die.

It's telomeres were not moving toward separation; not like they are today.

Again, you can't compare today with what existed back in 4004 BC.

And how do you know this? Where in the Bible does it make that claim? I don't want your misinterpretation of Genesis. And of course even before the "fall" there was death in the Garden of Eden story. Creationists tend to ignore that.

By the way, I am still waiting, how do you know that the Earth is a globe?

 

[inquiring mind]

None of those seem to have any bearing of why the scope of biological evolution has limits.

I think it’s undeniable that evolutionist’s ultimate goal is projecting back into these… if they could.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not? We have no reason to think anything in 4004 BC was any different. Certainly the universe doesn't give any indications things were different.

You're just making a dad-style argument and appealing to the concept of a deceptive universe.

Which was made by God and therefore AV is claiming that God lied. Creationists don't get this. They always try to ask others "Why do you think that God lied" and have fits when one points out that it was the creationist that made the claim that God is a liar. I have never claimed that. I have always said that if the Christian God is real then Genesis cannot be read literally because he cannot lie.

 

[pitabread]

I think it’s undeniable that evolutionist’s ultimate goal is projecting back into these… if they could.

The scope of biological evolution is to explain the diversity of species.

 

[pitabread]

Which was made by God and therefore AV is claiming that God lied. Creationists don't get this. They always try to ask others "Why do you think that God lied" and have fits when one points out that it was the creationist that made the claim that God is a liar. I have never claimed that. I have always said that if the Christian God is real then Genesis cannot be read literally because he cannot lie.

This is why I've never understood why creationists make an appeal to a deceptive universe. It seems like they inherently disregard the very creation they are trying to defend.

I also think that said creationists probably really are engaged in Bibliolatry, but that's ultimately an issue between them and their god.

In a weird way, I do somewhat respect organizations like AiG, ICR, etc, for at least trying to argue that the Earth and universe have the appearance of 6000 years. Granted their arguments don't hold up, but at least they seem to avoid arguing for a deceptive universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe many aspects of TOE do exist, but only in the form and to the extent of variation and adaptations.

Then you need to drop your argument where you move the goal posts so much. Worse yet there do not appear to be any such limits. In fact all of the scientific evidence out there disagrees with you. There is no evidence for your incorrect beliefs.

I understand that, and complete lack of understanding makes a supernatural comparison completely in line. It seems the more reasonable answer even if in your case it’s by default.

Only if you want to keep admitting that "God" as you perceive him to be does not exist. The God of the Gaps problem is one of those of unmovable faith that were constantly shown to be wrong when they said "God does not work that way, if he did he would not exist". Why have an opposition to evolution? Why are you performing what looks to me an act of blasphemy of telling God how he created the universe when his work should tell you how he did it? The work of your God disagrees with your claims. And though the Bible would be his work as well it is your interpretation that appears to be wrong. Just as no one thinks that Jesus is literally a "Door", one should not take Genesis literally.

But, more evolution seems to take place in the theories themselves than in the real, observable world, and they are masked by vast amounts of time and speculation of links. Science needs to stick with actual biological change, accept that it has limits, and give up pole vaulting over rock walls.

Once again there is no evidence of limits. Creationists have been making that claim endlessly and yet they cannot find one piece of evidence that supports them. And scientists are not allowed to "speculate" in the sense that you used that term. Their original idea may be a speculation, but then they go on to test their concept. Not just once but countless times. The theory of evolution has been tested hundreds of thousands of times. Minor corrections constantly arise, but the theory itself has only gotten stronger. This is why some Christians are rather amazed at the obvious blasphemy of creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is why I've never understood why creationists make an appeal to a deceptive universe. It seems like they inherently disregard the very creation they are trying to defend.

I also think that said creationists probably really are engaged in Bibliolatry, but that's ultimately an issue between them and their god.

In a weird way, I do somewhat respect organizations like AiG, ICR, etc, for at least trying to argue that the Earth and universe have the appearance of 6000 years. Granted their arguments don't hold up, but at least they seem to avoid arguing for a deceptive universe.

If they get educated well enough it is the last resort. AV has been debating this long enough so that he cannot deny certain observations that show that he is wrong. His answer has to be "God lied" though he will not let himself see that he said that, or to admit that he is wrong.

 

[inquiring mind]

Then you need to drop your argument where you move the goal posts so much. Worse yet there do not appear to be any such limits. In fact all of the scientific evidence out there disagrees with you. There is no evidence for your incorrect beliefs.

Oh, I've given up on presenting evidence that you'd recognize anyway. I'm just saying that your lack of understanding, and the inability of evolutionists in general to 'actually' connect deep-time links, should by default make Creation the more reasonable choice for our being here. There is no evidence for your belief beyond speculation.

Only if you want to keep admitting that "God" as you perceive him to be does not exist. The God of the Gaps problem is one of those of unmovable faith that were constantly shown to be wrong when they said "God does not work that way, if he did he would not exist". Why have an opposition to evolution? Why are you performing what looks to me an act of blasphemy of telling God how he created the universe when his work should tell you how he did it? The work of your God disagrees with your claims. And though the Bible would be his work as well it is your interpretation that appears to be wrong. Just as no one thinks that Jesus is literally a "Door", one should not take Genesis literally.

And, why should I take your interpretation over mine... when you don't even believe in God.

Once again there is no evidence of limits. Creationists have been making that claim endlessly and yet they cannot find one piece of evidence that supports them. And scientists are not allowed to "speculate" in the sense that you used that term. Their original idea may be a speculation, but then they go on to test their concept. Not just once but countless times. The theory of evolution has been tested hundreds of thousands of times. Minor corrections constantly arise, but the theory itself has only gotten stronger. This is why some Christians are rather amazed at the obvious blasphemy of creationism.

Yeah, right

 

[inquiring mind]

In a weird way, I do somewhat respect organizations like AiG, ICR, etc, for at least trying to argue that the Earth and universe have the appearance of 6000 years.

Great, keep reading... the Lord willing, one day it will hit you like a ton of bricks, and 'ages' will fall by the wayside.

 

[pitabread]

Great, keep reading... the Lord willing, one day it will hit you like a ton of bricks, and 'ages' will fall by the wayside.

For the record, I'm completely secure in my own philosophical beliefs. I'm not about to convert any time soon, if that's what you think will happen.

The fundamentals of Christianity are completely illogical to me.