Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Speedwell]

I have already refuted this from Scripture, but you continue to present this fallacy. Genesis was LITERAL HISTORY to Christ and His apostles in the first century.

There was no such thing as "literal history" at the time Genesis was written. It is a modern invention, technically known as "historical positivism" not even attempted by human authors until a couple of centuries ago.

Obviously you have an anti-Dispensationalist bias, but let's stick with the Word of God.

Yes, I have a chip on my shoulder. For my sins, I had to live in the Bible Belt (as a non-YEC Christian) for several years, and what I saw and experienced of the harassment, bullying and even violence meted out to me and people like me when you think you have the upper hand soured me on fundamentalism altogether.

The Gospel hinges on the FACT that because of Adam's disobedience the human race is subject to sin and death. So do your have another gospel?

Correct. As St. Paul tells us, sin and death entered the world through one man, Adam. The theory of evolution has nothing to say on the subject. That you reject it for other reasons is not my problem. Hint: you would do better to learn what Traditional Christians actually believe, rather than making things up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then, as I've said several times... you got a problem, that is, if you want anyone in their right mind to believe you.

The only problem here, is you being scientifically illiterate.

Imagine that, people who are on the losing end of this disagreement calling their opposition a Troll.

"He don't know nuthin'" Seriously, that's the only way some know how to deal with being wrong, and precisely what you are doing..

Did you have some proof you might want to present, or are you just going to continue to blame the lack of such on others?

And it just continues....

 

[DogmaHunter]

so according to you a human will always be a human. this is my position too.

*a* human will be a human, yes. Populations evolve, not individuals.

Populations of homo sapiens might speciate further, sure.
Their descendents will be sub-species of homo sapiens.

It would be correct to call them homo's, just like it is correct to call humans mammals.

 

[DogmaHunter]

and yet we never seen a cat becoming non cat.

I have JUST informed you that in evolution such a thing does NOT happen.

Just how big a of a troll are you?

 

[Roseonathorn]

The heck are you talking about? This post needs a source badly.


-_- the most likely thing I can glean from what you are trying to say is that you misinterpreted this situation: dogs are hybridizing so much with wolves in Northern Europe that the wolves are essentially going extinct, with the future generation consisting of wolf-dog hybrids. In situations like this, a population merger can occur and the resulting population may end up being considered a new species over time.

That is, a new species of wolf develops from immense hybridization with dogs shifting the overall population's gene pool. It happens from time to time, but the result is not that the hybrids end up being considered the same as one of their parent species. Rather, this generates an entirely new species.

You were also suggesting that people were making these hybrids in secret. It is possible that dog breeders were doing that, since hybrids of wolves and dogs are often quite beautiful. But, I would imagine that it is stray dogs breeding with the wolves that contributes to it more.

No Sarah, this is our reality and hybridwolves dna are now called the real wolf dna. Hybridwolves is manmade and let out in the wild and run on the streets of our villages and cities like straydogs and kill cats and dogs and mink snd sheep but are like holy cows not afraid of people and illegal to shoot, it is only a matter of time until they get a taste for kids since they run to schoolyards and skiinghills too. These are hungry as wolves but rather take easier prays or get fed by people but the loners come to peoples yards and I say if You have a dog You should care for it but natures law says You can eat what You kill but wolves kill for fun and does not even eat it and that is why we strongly dislike having our pets killed by these animals that hunt all over the year, it is less moosecalves too. We were fine without the hybrids. We do not like to have our kids eaten by real 100% wolves either thank You very much. The reason they got extinct in our country was that they killed 77 kids and some women according to witnesses in churchbooks if one goes back to 1700-1800 century. I grew up near the forest and I have met many animals face to face including this wolfhybrid on the street actually outside the store and it was probably not hungry this time so both me and my baby were lucky.

 

[Skreeper]

No Sarah, this is our reality and hybridwolves dna are now called the real wolf dna. Hybridwolves is manmade and let out in the wild and run on the streets of our villages and cities like straydogs and kill cats and dogs and mink snd sheep but are like holy cows not afraid of people and illegal to shoot, it is only a matter of time until they get a taste for kids since they run to schoolyards and skiinghills too. These are hungry as wolves but rather take easier prays or get fed by people but the loners come to peoples yards and I say if You have a dog You should care for it but natures law says You can eat what You kill but wolves kill for fun and does not even eat it and that is why we strongly dislike having our pets killed by these animals that hunt all over the year, it is less moosecalves too. We were fine without the hybrids. We do not like to have our kids eaten by real 100% wolves either thank You very much. The reason they got extinct in our country was that they killed 77 kids and some women according to witnesses in churchbooks if one goes back to 1700-1800 century. I grew up near the forest and I have met many animals face to face including this wolfhybrid on the street actually outside the store and it was probably not hungry this time so both me and my baby were lucky.

I think now I've officially heard everything. Apparently now the wolfes long for world domination and are plotting to eat our kids.

The question now is are the lizard people using these mutant wolfes to kill all humans or are really the mutant wolfes the masterminds behind it all and even managed to deceive the mighty lizard people?

THESE QUESTIONS NEED ANSWERS!

 

[Brightmoon]

Do you understand Darwin's ideas? And do they explain where life started? If so, can you please enlighten us.

Actually I do understand Darwin’s ideas as I’ve got a mainstream biology degree. Evolution isn’t Abiogenesis, which is the origin of life from chemicals. Evolution explains how life changes over time due to mutations, an imperfect DNA repair mechanism; and a slowly, continually changing environment due to plate tectonics. A static lifeform would just go extinct. The opposite of evolution is extinction not creationism.

 

[Brightmoon]

rose , sorry to hear that. My understanding is that wolves see large domestic dogs as juveniles and won’t mate with them under normal circumstances. Also my understanding is that wolves are territorial which why they’ll kill or injure a strange dog. Dogs have lost a lot of their instincts so a wolf might mistake typical dog behavior as a threat.

 

[inquiring mind]

What exactly is "superstitious ignorance"? Believing that Adam and Eve were the first humans, that they were direct creations of God, and that the entire human race has descended from them?

If that is "superstitious ignorance" then you don't really believe the one true God. The Lord Jesus Christ treated the creation account as factual and historical, so you don't really believe Him either.

As to "modern science", genuine science does not pretend to explain what it cannot possibly explain. Only the pseudo-science called "evolutionary theory" tries to present pure conjectures as facts.

You got it Micah, the “Evolutionist’s belief” is just piggy-backing on the science community, taking “well-supported” to new heights, claiming the redefined “theory” and equaling themselves to real science theories... so, like real science their belief should be considered proven or factual too, whereas God’s Word is held to the regular old everyday definition of an unproven speculation. Hmmmm. Evidence shows God may have used the evolution process in some form, but many evolutionists aren’t satisfied with that, I think it’s clear, if not stated, they assume abiogenesis and want to project back to and include an “on-its-own origin,” thereby eliminating God and His Word altogether. Christians should use caution.

 

[VirOptimus]

You got it Micah, the “Evolutionist’s belief” is just piggy-backing on the science community, taking “well-supported” to new heights, claiming the redefined “theory” and equaling themselves to real science theories... so, like real science their belief should be considered proven or factual too, whereas God’s Word is held to the regular old everyday definition of an unproven speculation. Hmmmm. Evidence shows God may have used the evolution process in some form, but many evolutionists aren’t satisfied with that, I think it’s clear, if not stated, they assume abiogenesis and want to project back to and include an “on-its-own origin,” thereby eliminating God and His Word altogether. Christians should use caution.

The existance or non-existance of god(s) is outside the realm of science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What exactly is "superstitious ignorance"? Believing that Adam and Eve were the first humans, that they were direct creations of God, and that the entire human race has descended from them?

Yes.

If that is "superstitious ignorance" then you don't really believe the one true God. The Lord Jesus Christ treated the creation account as factual and historical, so you don't really believe Him either.

Why? Because your particular interpretation of your religious scriptures, is the only correct one?

The vast majority of monotheists don't believe bronze age creation stories and instead go with the scientific explanations. Are you really so arrogant to tell all of them that they "don't really believe in god"? Seriously?

As to "modern science", genuine science does not pretend to explain what it cannot possibly explain. Only the pseudo-science called "evolutionary theory" tries to present pure conjectures as facts.

There's nothing pseudo about mainstream biology.
That you aren't aware of the facts, don't understand them, or are required by your particular religious affiliation to deny them doesn't change that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You got it Micah, the “Evolutionist’s belief” is just piggy-backing on the science community, taking “well-supported” to new heights, claiming the redefined “theory” and equaling themselves to real science theories...

The only people redifining what "theory" means in science, are creationists and cdesign proponentsists. Take Michael Behe for example on the Dover trial... One of the ID heroes, being an actual PhD guy. He redefined "scientific theory" in such a way that he could call ID to be such a "theory". The punchline being that under that new definition - astrology ALSO qualifies as a "scientific theory". You know, astrology.... horoscopes and such.

Go figure.

Evolution theory on the other hand, doesn't require any redefining of the word "theory" in scientific context.

so, like real science their belief should be considered proven or factual too, whereas God’s Word is held to the regular old everyday definition of an unproven speculation. Hmmmm. Evidence shows God may have used the evolution process in some form, but many evolutionists aren’t satisfied with that, I think it’s clear, if not stated, they assume abiogenesis and want to project back to and include an “on-its-own origin,” thereby eliminating God and His Word altogether. Christians should use caution.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two different subject. They're even seperate scientific fields.
Evolution theory doesn't address the origins of life itself.
Even if you wish to say that God seeded life on this planet, evolution is perfectly compatible with that (as long as the claim isn't that he created evolved creatures from scratch, which off course is not compatible with the facts of genetics).

 

[xianghua]

Because intelligent design is unfalsifiable.

evolution is unfalsifiable too. so evolution isnt science either.

 

[xianghua]

The clue is in the title. It's UNIDENTIFIED therefore we cannot say if it was designed or not.

realy? you cant detect design here?:

 

[xianghua]

No, ID isnt science as it doesnt meet scientific criterias.

The ToE does meet the same criterias.

so how i can falsify evolution?

 

[xianghua]

Looks like a frisbee

so you can detect design. great!

 

[Speedwell]

realy? you cant detect design here?:

No. Can you tell from the picture whether it is a naturally occurring object or not?

 

[Speedwell]

so you can detect design. great!

Why is it, that after all this time, you still think that form or function are evidence of intelligent design?

 

[Skreeper]

realy? you cant detect design here?:

Are you just acting stupid now? I can't believe I have to explain this to you...

This object is UNIDENTIFIED that means that we do not know what it is. How can you determine if it was designed when you don't even know what it is?!

I hope you get it now.

 

[pitabread]

so you can detect design. great!

I've never suggested people can't detect design. Rather I've continually said it's based on pattern recognition and learned experience.

It also doesn't mean our pattern recognition is infallible as is evidenced by mis-identification of design of non-designed formations (i.e. the face on Mars).