Sparks

5 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Same thing He said about protons and radar waves.    Check your Bible.

He said "Let their be light," and all kinds of things were created in that moment.  He designed time, space and matter at that moment, the various laws like gravity, and naturally, light became a thing.

It might surprise you to know that "Universe" means, one spoken sentence.

25 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

God said these things.   I believe Him.    You should, too.

And the evidence supports scripture in this:

For one thing, 100,000 years rules out YE.    

For another thing, species appearing over that length of time rules out a six day creation period.

How does 100,000 years rule out YE?  Trillions of years would rule it out, but 100,000 years is young and is surely not enough time to 'evolve' man.

What things did God say about evolution?

22 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You'd have to ignore the issue of mornings and evenings, without a sun to have them.    Remove that, and it's less clear that the days are figurative. 

I guess it has never occurred to you that God was the light.  If you fast forward to Revelation, you will see that God will be the literal light again for us all (well those saved), and there will be no sun nor moon required for the new Earth.

Realize that not everything in the Bible symbolism. 

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Ignoring the text, they have inserted the "days" of creation as literal 24 hour days, for example.

So, there is no possibility that the creationists are right about days meaning literal days?  If not, why not?

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

For one thing, 100,000 years rules out YE.    

For another thing, species appearing over that length of time rules out a six day creation period.

As you saw, the "death" introduced by Adam's sin was not a physical one.   God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree, and yet Adam eats and lives on physically for many years after.    If God tells the truth, then it wasn't a physical death.

You seem to make stuff up as fact.  I cannot take your arguments seriously.

9 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Then why do you listen to the additions men have added in YE creationism?

What have they added?  I think you mean Evolution was added.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Seemed pretty clear to me.   Genetic analysis shows that about nine of ten species alive today, evolved in the past 100,000 years.    Which means that most species don't last very long in geologic terms, with about 10% being older than 100,000 years.

As you probably realize, this pretty much rules out YE creationism.    Which is why I was puzzled when you cited it.

How does it rule YE out?  We don't know how long we (as humans) were in Eden, but we do know how long people lasted when they left Eden; about 6,000 years because of the length of time people survived after leaving, by generations listed in the Bible (death was introduced by Adam's sin).

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.   That was the conclusion of the authors of the paper you cited.   Did you read it?

I did read it; the original, and the revamped.  The revamped came along because of so much whining from the evolution community that they had to re-release it with a disclaimer.

Why put a disclaimer if it is so clear?

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

YE creationism is a modern revision of God's word.    Invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the early years of the last century, it was spread to fundamentalists by the Adventists.

I prefer His word to those of men.  Why do you doubt Him?

I don't doubt the Bible or what God said he did.

4 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Your breath is separate from your organs so was Adam's.

You might look into something called Irreducible Complexity.   It would prevent what you are suggesting.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No, that's your misunderstanding.   It merely means that about 90% of existing animals evolved within the last 100,000 years.    It also means that about 10% of them evolved earlier than that.

"Ninety percent of existing animal species evolved within the last 100,000 years" could not in any case be twisted to mean "all animals appeared at the same time."

See above.   You not only revise scripture, you're now revising scientific papers.  

"Within 100,000 years" is not "the same time."    "About 90%" is not "all of them."

Yeah, you put a twist on it to arrive at your conclusion.  There was no evolution of man, he just showed up on the scene.  But that is how evolution theory works, bad science backed by lies.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You have to do a lot of misinterpretation of scripture to arrive at YE creationism.   On the other hand, you have to do a lot of misinterpretation of scripture to arrive at electromagnetic wave theory.    There are a lot of things that are true, that aren't in scripture.

Creationism is what God said he did.  He told us plainly what he did.  Why do you doubt Him?

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Since the Bible is pretty vague on that point, and the evidence clearly shows otherwise, not much point in denying things.    Man became a living soul not because he evolved from other species, but because God intervened and gave him a living soul.

Creationists are willing to admit that He did it.   They just disapprove of the way He did it.

They are just recently evolved.   Neither exist in the fossil record.    It would be interesting to see if one of them has been bar-coded.    Bet you a cookie that if it has, it will fit the "within 100,000 years" that nine of ten modern species show.

Actually, it got started by the observation that artificial selection can change populations.   Then Darwin noticed that natural selection does that for wild populations.    And then fossils started showing up and confirming earlier predictions, and then genetic re-confirmed all of them, and so on.

As I showed you, knowledgeable YE creationists disagree with you.  

You have to do a lot of misinterpretation of scripture to arrive at evolution theory, so you might as well also misunderstand that DNA barcoding shows an arrival of fully functional animals and man at the same time.  This does not mean they merely arrived from evolution on the scene at the same time, but BOOM, they arrived because God created them at the same time, likely minutes apart by counting iterations of mDNA.

4 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Man showed up then God breathed into his nostrils ... BOOM ... Adam was already alive walking around before the breath was given, thus resided living soul.

Like today breath and life when a human dies life within the body lives on for quite awhile, that life is clueless that the breath is gone. In the same way man was clueless of having a soul, until the breath was given. 

I think metamorphosis had a bigger role in creation rather than being mostly confined to the insect world as it is today. 

I think DNA Barcoding is evidence of God breathing life into Adam, but Adam didn't show up first though evolution.

13 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, it shows that most species living today evolved in the last 100,000 years or so.   About 90% of them.   Not "virtually everything."  

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

"It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

But only most of them.   Some are much more ancient.    Horseshoe crabs, for example.   Elephant sharks.  Both with very ancient genomes.    Coelacanths aren't quite like that, since modern species evolved relatively recently.   We just didn't know about the two modern species for a long time.

"Trillions of years" is another of those creationist misconceptions.

Well, no.  Man didn't morph from primordial soup is the point, he just showed up, you know ... whole ... BOOM ... already alive and walking around.  As if God did what he said He did.  I would say the other 10% did, too.

Do you notice how you casually fill in the blanks about Coelacanths, as if you were there to see it, and it is simply fact?   That's how this dumb theory got started, as a rumor like that which, when told enough, people believe.

As I have said, 'Trillions of Years" is something that might as well be since it is all bad science, backed by lies.

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

How can the theory of Darwin's evolution occur with a very young earth?

Exactly.  It didn't happen.

Incidentally, you should check out DNA barcoding which suggests virtually everything showed up at the same time, no more than 100,000 years ago.  That puts a huge dent into the Trillions of Years theory.

I can point you to the white paper if you have an interest.  I found it interesting that the white paper had to be re-released with a disclaimer that said the authors believed in evolution theory, you know, because the paper implied that the whole theory was garbage.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

It still says that in six days God created the Heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them.

Yeah.  And? 

In the Catechism, the Catholics have removed a commandment, and split another to fill in the missing one.  The real 10 are on the left in the material I posted, in Exodus 20, and repeated in Deuteronomy (middle).  The Catechism is listed on the right which is greatly missing material.

I am suggesting you both get on the same page about which set of commandments you plan to debate.  You are talking about Exodus, and he is talking about their Catechism.  They don't agree.

55 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Hitler was wrong.  A lie oft repeated never becomes truth.

Now I demand proof.  You claim that God was referencing an allegory with the Fourth Commandment.  The consequence of that is that the Fourth Commandment, then, is not true.  If God did NOT create the heavens and the earth in six days, that makes God a liar; which means He isn't God at all.

Prove it.  Cite your sources.  Remember, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.  Let's see it.

You are debating a Catholic.  They have rewritten the 10 commandments.

You can see the fact in their Catechism:

The Ten Commandments

46 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I can't think of a parable that isn't a narrative, like Genesis 1-3.   

And you don't think God gave us Genesis 1-3 for specific reasons?

The word parable comes from the Greek and means comparison, analogy or juxtaposition. A parable is a type of narrative with an emotive or moral significance which initiates comparison.

https://ncec.catholic.edu.au/faith/scripture-resources/foundations/key-biblical-understandings/what-is-a-parable/

You misunderstand what is meant by narratives which are stories.    Most of them have a specific purpose, as in the creation account and other parables.

Your man-made classifications are not in the Bible; they are merely things made up to make it read a particular way.

The specific narratives of the Bible are:

Genesis
Exodus
Numbers
Joshua
Judges
Samuel
Kings
Chronicles
Ruth
Ester
Ezra
Nehemiah
The Gospels
... and Acts

A parable is a story, but it is not one of the Biblical narratives, and Jesus is the only one who used parables.  Genesis was not one of His parables.

Go check out Matthew 13 to see the explanation of parables, by Jesus.

Have we ever agreed on anything, ever? 

P.S.  I am not a Catholic, and I don't adhere to their teachings.

32 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

As I showed you, Biblical "kind" puts bats and birds in the same kind.   Pretty much all vertebrates would then be a kind.   

So birds can produce bats?  Sorry, but they cannot.

28 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I know you want to believe that.   But the text itself says it's not a literal history.

Where does it say that?  If you mean a misinterpretation of the material suggests it, a misinterpretation does not count.

28 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I can't think of a parable that isn't.

Jesus spoke in parables for specific reasons he described in Matthew 13. 

You misunderstand what is meant by narratives, which is a Biblical style.  There is another style called poetic form, another called legal material, and another called prophetic, and another called wisdom literature, another called apocalyptic, and another called epistle.   Each style has to be read with the rules that govern that particular genre.  They are not read in the same way, and a parable is not the same as a Biblical narrative.  

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It's not surprising; the parable of creation seems to get the same lack of attention.    But of course most Christians know better than to suggest that creationists "don't want God in the picture."

Creation is not a parable, it's a narrative. 

40 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Comes down to facts.   And even informed creationists realize the facts are very good evidence for evolution.

Facts matter.  

"Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact."

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise

Theories depend on validation of predictions that are later confirmed (or not confirmed).     Here's a few things evolutionary theory predicted:

Transitionals between humans and other apes.

Transitionals between turtles and other anapsids.

Transitionals between reptiles and mammals.

Transitionals between birds and other dinosaurs.

DNA data will match phylogenies based on anatomy and fossil data.

There must have been at one time, fish with functional legs.

There will be traces of chromosome fusion at a precise place in Human Chromosome 2

A change in environment will produce a change in allele frequencies of a population.

And many more.    All of these were verified after the predictions were made.   This is why people for whom evidence matters, accept evolutionary theory.

 

There is none of that, but a lot of people who don't want God in the picture want to believe all that.  Why side with them as a believer, especially when they have not observed any of it?

Now there is microevolution, which is real and happens at every birth, but it is very limited within a kind and so I suggest you not try to stretch it into something it isn't like the evolutionists do. 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

We see it constantly.    Once I watched a man bicycling from Florida to Alaska.    I met him in Missouri, and only watched him go a few hundred yards into the rest stop where I was.    In the same manner, we see all sorts of kinds becoming other kinds today.   Would you like some examples?

No one says "trillions of years."   But as you know your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood admits:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

Dr. Wood can work in his field, because he understands that theories are only provisionally true.   So long as they work, we use them.    He openly prefers his reading of Genesis to the theory, but he recognizes that the theory is highly successful in predicting nature.

"Kinds" in the sense you use it, is a religious belief.  Hence, the Bible referring to bats and birds as the same kind.    They saw whales and fish as the same kind, too.   Because they classified things functionally, rather than by biology.   Consequently, "kinds" has no meaning in terms of science.   The scriptural "bird kind" is pretty much any animal with a backbone that flies.   Pterosaurs, if they existed in Biblical times, would have been classified in "bird kind", too.

Most creationist organizations now admit the fact that macroevolution produces new species, genera, and sometimes families.    They just don't want to call it "evolution."  But as you learned, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.  Microevolution is evolution that does not produce new taxa.   Macroevolution is speciation. 

If they did, Darwin's theory would be refuted.    We're back to the issue of people who object to evolution, generally don't know what it is.

No, that's man's revision of God's word.    He merely says that the Earth brought forth living things according to their kind. (not kinds) Creationists just don't like the way He does it.

No.   The fossil record shows gradual change over time.   This is why evolution can't do all things.   The only evolution that is possible is where each increment of change does not harm the organism.   You would, for example, think that it might be impossible for turtles to evolve from primitive anapsids.    But they did.  And the fossils show how.   Would you like to talk about that?

No, that's a misunderstanding of the way evolution works.   Those lizards we mentioned earlier, evolved a cecal valve over a few decades.   But the transitional forms were still able to reproduce with others of their population.    Now, the population has no lizards without the valve.   Because they depend more on plant material for food, a fermentation chamber is a competitive advantage.    And so it became universal in the population.

This is why we see no transitional forms that can't reproduce with others in the population.   Their genes would be lost to future generations.   Probably happens a lot.  You only see the successful ones.

I can see you solidly believe in this religion and fairy tale.  Good luck with it! 

I still cannot understand why you believe it.  There is zero evidence to support the theory, but you believe you see the evidence, everywhere. 

11 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I notice that people who don't know much about the evidence, tend to be the ones who misinterpret it.   As you see, even YE creationists who are familiar with the evidence admit that it supports macroevolution.

Changes in allele frequencies in populations over time.  

Evolution of new traits in response to environments.   

As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise says, the many transitional fossil series such as reptile-to-mammal fossils.

Genetics, showing common descent.

Observed cases of speciation.

Stuff like that.

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals.    But as your fellow creationists admit, the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory" and "there is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it."

Your argument is essentially that a man can walk 100 meters, but he can't walk 100 kilometers.

It didn't.   We see it happening today.  Like those lizards that evolved a new digestive organ in a few decades.    Like new species evolving from old ones.  

 

We don't see kinds producing other kinds, at all, today.  And to suggest it is happening slowly over trillions of years to is merely to obfuscate the failed evolution theory.  To say so would be to ignore the problems of Irreducible Complexity.  

What I see is that evolutionists mistake speciation for new kinds.  You know the 1,400+ species of bats are still bats.  They won't ever become anything else except bats, and that is their limitations.  God mentioned that you know, that animals come from their own kind. 

This means a zebra, and a donkey, an ass, mules, horses and more that can reproduce together are the same kind, and came from the same kind of common ancestor ... a horse.  Horses will never produce another kind, such as a whale or a corn stalk no matter how much time you give to the problem, but I hope you know your theory would have to work that way if it worked, at all.  Kinds would have to reproduce new kinds that were fully functional, at birth, plus a spouse to reproduce with or the line would die off immediately.