What's wrong with evolution?

ThatRobGuy · Sep 15, 2006

...I think the main problem that YEC's have with Evolution is the free-will concept...this sounds funny, but let me explain...

According to the bible, humans are the only species capable of an afterlife due to the knowledge of accountability....according to the bible, God only allows those into heaven who freely choose him....well, at what point along the evolutionary time-line did the species gain enough intelligence to make that decision? It leaves the option of seeing other forms of primates in the afterlife....I think that's hard for people to fathom.

AV1611VET · Sep 15, 2006

LightHorseman said:
But the container wouldn't be 2 months old, it would be a day old with the apearance of 2 months age. Its stil only existed for a day though, whatever it looks like?

Read the question, Horseman --- I blinked a 2-month-old container into existence.

You're saying it's not 2-months old???

Giant · Sep 15, 2006

I think until you personaly respond to Gods call and feel Him in your life - giving revelation - you will never fathom creation nor God and His awesome ways

LightHorseman · Sep 15, 2006

well, at what point along the evolutionary time-line did the species gain enough intelligence to make that decision? It leaves the option of seeing other forms of primates in the afterlife....I think that's hard for people to fathom.

At the point when man chose labour of the fields and to labour in child birth (due to brain size) rather than idylic, unacountable Edenic existance... so somewhere between chimps and Homo sap sap I'd say.

Non humans in heaven doesnt bother me particularly. I'd expect dolphins and orcas to be a shoe in... and I'd miss my dog otherwise.

LightHorseman · Sep 15, 2006

I think until you personaly respond to Gods call and feel Him in your life - giving revelation - you will never fathom creation nor God and His awesome ways

Sooo... I'm guessing that means you arent going to tell me what evidence you need to see evolution proved? Don't say I didn't offer.

AV1611VET · Sep 15, 2006

miniverchivi said:
...I think the main problem that YEC's have with Evolution is the free-will concept...this sounds funny, but let me explain...

I don't know --- but I wish a YEC would show up and put an end to this.

I'm beginning to think people here are just accusing me of being a YEC just to get a rise out of me.

LightHorseman · Sep 15, 2006

Read the question, Horseman --- I blinked a 2-month-old container into existence.

You're saying it's not 2-months old???

I read the question. I wonder if this is one of those text/phrasing issues, rather than an inherent misunderstanding, however, at the moment, I can see a container, occupying a space where there was no container before. Time elapsed since containers apearance? 24 hours. Container is therefore 24 hours old. Closer chemical and spectrograph analysis reveals that the material the container is made of correlates to a container 2 months old. Only rational explanation, testing is flawed. Because the container is only a day old, despite the empiracle evidence.

ThatRobGuy · Sep 15, 2006

AV1611VET said:
I don't know --- but I wish a YEC would show up and put an end to this.

I'm beginning to think people here are just accusing me of being a YEC just to get a rise out of me.

I wasn't accusing.....I was speaking in generalities....The only post I read was the OP before making my own post.

AV1611VET · Sep 15, 2006

LightHorseman said:
I read the question. I wonder if this is one of those text/phrasing issues, rather than an inherent misunderstanding, however, at the moment, I can see a container, occupying a space where there was no container before. Time elapsed since containers apearance? 24 hours. Container is therefore 24 hours old. Closer chemical and spectrograph analysis reveals that the material the container is made of correlates to a container 2 months old. Only rational explanation, testing is flawed. Because the container is only a day old, despite the empiracle evidence.

There is no lapse of 24-hours --- I said today.

How old is the 2-month-old container 1/10,000,000,000[sup]th[/sup] second after I blinked it into existence?

Giant · Sep 15, 2006

night dudes....Im off to bed. I will read up in the morning

God bless you all.....and me

AV1611VET · Sep 15, 2006

miniverchivi said:
I wasn't accusing.....I was speaking in generalities....The only post I read was the OP before making my own post.

Hi, Mini

I wasn't talking about you.

Sorry --- this is very frustrating.

LightHorseman · Sep 15, 2006

How old is the 2-month-old container 1/10,000,000,000th second after I blinked it into existence?

the container is 1/10.000.000.000th of a second old 1/10,000,000,000th of a seond after it is blinked into existance. Even if it is undistinguishable chemically or physically from an identicle container 2 months old.

However, telling that the container is other than 2 months old without some sort of concrete evidence, like having watched it blink into existance, would be extremely difficult.

But hypothetically, I start a stop watch the instant you blink it into existance, containers age=time elapsed on stop watch. Even if the conatainer apears to be billions of years old. Its still only been there as long as the watch says. I was waving my hand through the space it now occupies a few seconds before you blinked it, there was nothing there.

LightHorseman · Sep 15, 2006

For the record, I don't think I've accused anyone of being anything...

except newguy101, and I already got in trouble for that

dawiyd · Sep 15, 2006

AV1611VET said:
Not hardly, sir.

Let's use a perishable as an example.

Say I blinked a gallon of milk into existence today, inside of a 2-month-old container, which I also blinked into existence today.

According to YEC, the milk should be fresh.

According to BEC, the milk has expired.

That's the difference.

You can't apply age to something that is created ex . The age of an object starts when it comes into this existence.

You embedded age notion is a logical fallacy and can't exist. This embedded age isn't age itself of the object, but more a notion of it looking older then it actually is. Which isn't age.

In summary you can't embed age into an ex nihilo object.

AV1611VET · Sep 15, 2006

LightHorseman said:
However, telling that the container is other than 2 months old without some sort of concrete evidence, like having watched it blink into existance, would be extremely difficult.

Okay, if you're not going to take my word that it's 2 months old in this hypothetical scenario, and continue to argue the point, I may as well drop it.

LightHorseman · Sep 15, 2006

Okay, if you're not going to take my word that it's 2 months old in this hypothetical scenario, and continue to argue the point, I may as well drop it.

I'm taking your word that you blinked it into existance a millionth of a second ago! Just because it LOOKS 2 months old doesn't mean it IS two months old. I'll take your word whatever way you like... it can be a second old or two months old. But if you blinked it into existance a second ago, no matter how old it LOOKS doesnt change how old it IS

Jase · Sep 15, 2006

Giant said:
I think until you personaly respond to Gods call and feel Him in your life - giving revelation - you will never fathom creation nor God and His awesome ways

Nor will you ever fathom creation if you cling to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Creation itself is more trustworthy than one's interpretation of Genesis.

Human civilization has existed longer than 6,000 years, therefore, humans have been around longer than 6,000 years.

TheInstant · Sep 15, 2006

Giant said:
I think until you personaly respond to Gods call and feel Him in your life - giving revelation - you will never fathom creation nor God and His awesome ways

So...did God reveal to you that evolution is wrong, or what?

rmwilliamsll · Sep 15, 2006

Giant said:
I think until you personaly respond to Gods call and feel Him in your life - giving revelation - you will never fathom creation nor God and His awesome ways

ok.
is this a religious or a scientific statement?
can scientists detect the age of the earth without this religious revelation that God is the creator of the universe?
if man is in the image of God, and this is God's world, is it any wonder that science can say all kinds of truthful things about the physical universe without explicitly acknowledging God as Creator?
simply put, does your statement belong in a science forum or general apologetics? does the level of the discussion matter? can you do science without talking about God?

flip it around.
lots of scientists are Christian, some are Buddhist, a few are communist. is a Christian going to be a better scientist because he attributes this universe to God's handiwork than any other scientists who doesn't? will it make any difference in either of their science work?

i like Luther's quote:
i'd rather be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian prince.

i'd prefer my doctor to be knowledgable and a good doctor and an atheist than be a Christian and incompetent as a doctor. If i can get both that is the best way, but at the level of medicine, i'd prefer competence in the medicine rather than knowledge of theology.

LightHorseman · Sep 15, 2006

"Let me start by saying that many people would not come back because of ignorant pathetic creepy people like yourself. Secondly do not lable me because i asked a question. You are a creepy creepy person." from SharonHolly777 directed at moi

What was the question, your creepiness?

What's wrong with evolution?

Part of the IT crowd

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

...Down Under - Melbourne, Vic.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

...Down Under - Melbourne, Vic.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hooraytheist

avid reader

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency