The tip of the ice berg

[ottawak]

You'll die and go to Hell waiting to get evidence that God created the universe ex nihilo.

Unless you "see the Light" before it's too late -- and I pray that happens.

It would be nice to think that you were praying for his salvation, not his conversion to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Too bad I can't imagine such an extraordinary thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would be nice to think that you were praying for his salvation, not his conversion to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Too bad I can't imagine such an extraordinary thing.

Ai yi yi.

I pray for his salvation.

I don't pray for people to believe this, that, and the other thing.

First things first.

Prioritize.

 

[eleos1954]

The mathematical probabilities that you claim are being ignored by so many... surely you remember you own objections and complaints, right?

eh ... there are various ideas about it .... and different calculations .... really basically either one sees intelligent design or believes of millions/billions of blind (accidental) random occurrences over billions of years.

 

[ottawak]

eh ... there are various ideas about it .... and different calculations .... really basically either one sees intelligent design or believes of millions/billions of blind (accidental) random occurrences over billions of years.

There are other options. ID is not actually very popular with Christians who reject "biblical" creationism. Of course, people who reject ID, Christians and others, don't believe that your "millions/billions of blind (accidental) random occurrences over billions of years" accurately characterizes evoltuion, either. So it appears that you have proposed a false dichotomy.

 

[Astrid]

eh ... there are various ideas about it .... and different calculations .... really basically either one sees intelligent design or believes of millions/billions of blind (accidental) random occurrences over billions of years.

This is a demonstration of basic editorial cant,
not an actual either / or.
Local ordnances probably prohibit my showing
how to similarly make your side look stupid.

 

[Astrid]

There are other options. ID is not actually very popular with Christians who reject "biblical" creationism. Of course, people who reject ID, Christians and others, don't believe that your "millions/billions of blind (accidental) random occurrences over billions of years" accurately characterizes evoltuion, either. So it appears that you have proposed a false dichotomy.

In fairness, our author may well know so
little that it seemed an accurate descriotion.

 

[eleos1954]

There are other options. ID is not actually very popular with Christians who reject "biblical" creationism. Of course, people who reject ID, Christians and others, don't believe that your "millions/billions of blind (accidental) random occurrences over billions of years" accurately characterizes evoltuion, either. So it appears that you have proposed a false dichotomy.

macro evolution and creation are mutually exclusive ,,, those who try to mesh the two are compromising what His written word teaches. It does not teach we evolved from animals.

 

[ruthiesea]

eh ... there are various ideas about it .... and different calculations .... really basically either one sees intelligent design or believes of millions/billions of blind (accidental) random occurrences over billions of years.

Traits are carried from parent(s) to off spring. Genetic changes may aid in the organism reproducing, in which case they will be passed on, may be detrimental, in which case they may or may not be passed on, or neutral. Some changes are not the result of genetic changes but of existing genes being turned on or off. There is also the issue of recessive and dominant genes. So, blind and random chances are not as important as you make them out to be. However, over millions of years of environmental pressure many changes can occur within the limits of what survives.

 

[ottawak]

macro evolution and creation are mutually exclusive ,,, those who try to mesh the two are compromising what His written word teaches. It does not teach we evolved from animals.

But Intelligent Design does. I'm afraid I am not quite seeing your point, but compromising what you think His written word teaches does not seem like a serious issue to me.

 

[eleos1954]

Traits are carried from parent(s) to off spring. Genetic changes may aid in the organism reproducing, in which case they will be passed on, may be detrimental, in which case they may or may not be passed on, or neutral. Some changes are not the result of genetic changes but of existing genes being turned on or off. There is also the issue of recessive and dominant genes. So, blind and random chances are not as important as you make them out to be. However, over millions of years of environmental pressure many changes can occur within the limits of what survives.

Where did the original genes come from? Evolved how? From what?

We understand a lot about genetic code and how it works .... how did the genetic codes "evolve" .... begin.

 

[eleos1954]

But Intelligent Design does. I'm afraid I am not quite seeing your point, but compromising what you think His written word teaches does not seem like a serious issue to me.

If you dismiss Genesis you dismiss God. It's not what I "think" is written in His Word .... it's what IS written in His Word.

 

[driewerf]

eh ... there are various ideas about it .... and different calculations .... really basically either one sees intelligent design or believes of millions/billions of blind (accidental) random occurrences over billions of years.

The ToE and all the other sciences are not a matter of believe, but well evidenced knowledge. Deal with it.

 

[driewerf]

macro evolution and creation are mutually exclusive ,,, those who try to mesh the two are compromising what His written word teaches. It does not teach we evolved from animals.

Your argument is pure an argument from authority. And is part of the iceberg that is below the water, from which the ToE is bur the tip of the iceberg.
Arguments from authority go against the scientific method and leaves the people less acquainted with what is science and what it isn't. This once more shows that creationists are fundamentally not anti evolution, but anti science.

 

[AV1611VET]

This once more shows that creationists are fundamentally not anti evolution, but anti science.

I'd say we're more suspicious of science, than anti.

 

[ottawak]

If you dismiss Genesis you dismiss God. It's not what I "think" is written in His Word .... it's what IS written in His Word.

By what authority do you interpret the Bible to me?

 

[ottawak]

If you dismiss Genesis you dismiss God. It's not what I "think" is written in His Word .... it's what IS written in His Word.

By your standards, ID dismisses Genesis. Why do you support it?

 

[ottawak]

I'd say we're more suspicious of science, than anti.

Nothing to be suspicious of. Science quite openly dismisses your creation story.

 

[Astrid]

macro evolution and creation are mutually exclusive ,,, those who try to mesh the two are compromising what His written word teaches. It does not teach we evolved from animals.

I does not teach how to vaccinate for smallpox either.
A lot ofvthings dont get taught.
It would have been super friendly. Very easy
to do under the most primitive conditions.
Quite the oversight.

As for His word, its not dictation. It is
"Inspired".

As for compromising, well, only a True Christian
or Scotsman knows the True reading.

But for many of the less arrogantly self satisfied,
it seems wise to look at what is written right into the
earth itself, into the very fabric of reality.
Which writer many take to be God.

The " writing" is difficult many times but it never
lies, its not open to as many readings as there are
Christians sects. With study it always boils down
to what is true.
For example-
The earth orbits the sun, and the sun is not a
perfect sphere, though in the day that was held
a compromise of the Lords word by people ready
to pull your arms off if you read what is written into
the very fabric of reality.

How are you so sure?

 

[ruthiesea]

Where did the original genes come from? Evolved how? From what?

We understand a lot about genetic code and how it works .... how did the genetic codes "evolve" .... begin.

That’s abiogenesis, a different issue.

 

[Astrid]

That’s abiogenesis, a different issue.

And QFA- questions from ignorance- are really worthless.

We can see lifevis here, and that evolutiin has taken place.
Not knowing every detail doesnt change that any
more than not knowing who broke the window is going
to make it whole.