Guest shiloh357 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Shiloh357 - Your position can't be supported by any evidence or you would have produced some evidence. Frankly you have nothing and trying to redefine evolution is proof that your reasoning is dead in the water. Skirt the issue if you will...you may check other threads in which I qualified in the same exact way. There is no need to redefine evolution as you have chosen your definition and I have chosen mine. As you are aware many YEC hold to any number of evolutionary details, natural selection, mutations, etc. so it all comes down to defining terms. That you find the term "evolution" abhorrent in any manner is a problem you have not me. I am not using "my" definition of Evolution. I am using Evolution in the conventional sense that any scientist would use it. You are operating, evidently from some home-spun definition you have concocted to make your arguments make sense in your mind. ... You are skewing the YEC position. Natural selection and mutations in the YEC view occur within in a given species. That is not "evolution" per se. That is adaptation to environment. The problem is that when people use "evolution" in the conventional sense they are referring to the macro-evolutionary process of one species evolving into another completely different species. (such as lizards evolving into birds). It's quite ironic to watch you accuse someone of a "home-spun" definition of evolution. There is no such thnig as Micro and Macro evolution as you have defined here - creationists have spun their own definitions... Yes there is. Evolutionists like to use the old bait and switch on people when they say there is evidence for evolution. Their 'evidence' amounts to finch beaks and bacteria strains. They try to get people to believe that lizards can evolve into birds simply because bacteria can develop into new strains of bacteria as defense against anti-biotics and other bacteria killing agents. We know the difference between the ability of creatures to adapt and evolve within a species in response to a new environment and the notion that one species can evolve into a new species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted May 30, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Shiloh357 - Your position can't be supported by any evidence or you would have produced some evidence. Frankly you have nothing and trying to redefine evolution is proof that your reasoning is dead in the water. Skirt the issue if you will...you may check other threads in which I qualified in the same exact way. There is no need to redefine evolution as you have chosen your definition and I have chosen mine. As you are aware many YEC hold to any number of evolutionary details, natural selection, mutations, etc. so it all comes down to defining terms. That you find the term "evolution" abhorrent in any manner is a problem you have not me. I am not using "my" definition of Evolution. I am using Evolution in the conventional sense that any scientist would use it. You are operating, evidently from some home-spun definition you have concocted to make your arguments make sense in your mind. ... You are skewing the YEC position. Natural selection and mutations in the YEC view occur within in a given species. That is not "evolution" per se. That is adaptation to environment. The problem is that when people use "evolution" in the conventional sense they are referring to the macro-evolutionary process of one species evolving into another completely different species. (such as lizards evolving into birds). It's quite ironic to watch you accuse someone of a "home-spun" definition of evolution. There is no such thnig as Micro and Macro evolution as you have defined here - creationists have spun their own definitions... Yes there is. Evolutionists like to use the old bait and switch on people when they say there is evidence for evolution. Their 'evidence' amounts to finch beaks and bacteria strains. They try to get people to believe that lizards can evolve into birds simply because bacteria can develop into new strains of bacteria as defense against anti-biotics and other bacteria killing agents. We know the difference between the ability of creatures to adapt and evolve within a species in response to a new environment and the notion that one species can evolve into a new species. You are unable to grasp the evidence available and unable to think on a long time scale. That creationists want to limit our children in these areas is what really scares me about YEC and ID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 You are unable to grasp the evidence available and unable to think on a long time scale. That creationists want to limit our children in these areas is what really scares me about YEC and ID. Yeah, I have heard that before, the small micro changes lead to the larger macro changes and it is hogwash. For one thing, it's never been observed. There is really no way that changes within a species to adapt to environmental conditions will lead to evolving into an entirely different species. To suggest that it can is to believe in the absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted May 30, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted May 30, 2014 You are unable to grasp the evidence available and unable to think on a long time scale. That creationists want to limit our children in these areas is what really scares me about YEC and ID. Yeah, I have heard that before, the small micro changes lead to the larger macro changes and it is hogwash. For one thing, it's never been observed. There is really no way that changes within a species to adapt to environmental conditions will lead to evolving into an entirely different species. To suggest that it can is to believe in the absurd. Again, because of your faith, you are unable to objectively view the evidence. If you get a chance, you should read the book "Your Inner Fish". Even if you don't believe in evolution, it's an interesting read, and if nothing else will help you in your anti-evolution debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolken Posted May 30, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 30, 2014 Shiloh357 - God is still the agent of creation. Created matter still did His bidding. The land didn't create the animals God. You need to read into verse 25 where it says that God made the animals after their own kind. I don’t believe I meant to imply that the land created but rather God through by land/earth/dust. I have read verse 25 and clearly it is explanatory...unless you do not believe that God’s command was the sole operative agent and all sufficient? What follows the command must be an explanation if we are to believe what Genesis and supporting verses state. Quote - Mediate creation does mean that God told the earth to create the animals. It simply means that God created out of physical matter. You are skewing the facts. That is your opinion whereas I believe it is quite possible that “God set in motion at the beginning all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced”. This does not negate that God is the sole creator in any way, simply how God chose to create. As you state “Created matter still did His bidding”, and that is all I am suggesting. Quote - Mediate creation does mean that God told the earth to create the animals. It simply means that God created out of physical matter. You are skewing the facts. (I take it you meant "does not mean") No, I’m not skewing the facts or the written word...scripture says “let the land produce...”, I’m suggesting just what you wrote “created matter did His bidding”...how, by a God ordained process. (And yes, I also use mediate creation as defined as God using an intermediate agency to accomplish His purpose/creation) So mediate creation can be so defined, for as I noted above “At one level mediate creation is irrefutable, at another level it is an openly debatable point.” I simply see in God’s word both levels involved. Further, I have little interest any longer in the details, specifics, debate, and such on evolution...I simply view the term as a process of life’s diversity and the particulars can be battled out elsewhere. As Chesterton said “for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 You are unable to grasp the evidence available and unable to think on a long time scale. That creationists want to limit our children in these areas is what really scares me about YEC and ID. Yeah, I have heard that before, the small micro changes lead to the larger macro changes and it is hogwash. For one thing, it's never been observed. There is really no way that changes within a species to adapt to environmental conditions will lead to evolving into an entirely different species. To suggest that it can is to believe in the absurd. Again, because of your faith, you are unable to objectively view the evidence. If you get a chance, you should read the book "Your Inner Fish". Even if you don't believe in evolution, it's an interesting read, and if nothing else will help you in your anti-evolution debates. No, it is not because of my faith. It is because there is no evidence to support your claim. It is your lack of evidence, and not my faith, that allows me to reject your position for the meaningless drivel that it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Shiloh357 - God is still the agent of creation. Created matter still did His bidding. The land didn't create the animals God. You need to read into verse 25 where it says that God made the animals after their own kind. I don’t believe I meant to imply that the land created but rather God through by land/earth/dust. I have read verse 25 and clearly it is explanatory...unless you do not believe that God’s command was the sole operative agent and all sufficient? What follows the command must be an explanation if we are to believe what Genesis and supporting verses state. Quote - Mediate creation does mean that God told the earth to create the animals. It simply means that God created out of physical matter. You are skewing the facts. That is your opinion whereas I believe it is quite possible that “God set in motion at the beginning all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced”. This does not negate that God is the sole creator in any way, simply how God chose to create. As you state “Created matter still did His bidding”, and that is all I am suggesting. Quote - Mediate creation does mean that God told the earth to create the animals. It simply means that God created out of physical matter. You are skewing the facts. (I take it you meant "does not mean") No, I’m not skewing the facts or the written word...scripture says “let the land produce...”, I’m suggesting just what you wrote “created matter did His bidding”...how, by a God ordained process. (And yes, I also use mediate creation as defined as God using an intermediate agency to accomplish His purpose/creation) So mediate creation can be so defined, for as I noted above “At one level mediate creation is irrefutable, at another level it is an openly debatable point.” I simply see in God’s word both levels involved. Further, I have little interest any longer in the details, specifics, debate, and such on evolution...I simply view the term as a process of life’s diversity and the particulars can be battled out elsewhere. As Chesterton said “for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside of time. So do you believe in Evolution and by that I mean, do believe that God caused species to evolve into entirely different species and do you believe that man is evolved from another species or creature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolken Posted May 30, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 30, 2014 Shiloh357 - So do you believe in Evolution and by that I mean, do believe that God caused species to evolve into entirely different species and do you believe that man is evolved from another species or creature? I simply claim Ecclesiastes 3:11... as you know I do believe in God ordained processes but as to the details I stay away, so involved years ago to no end. I certainly reject naturalism/materialism and of course abiogenesis ... common descent/ancestry seems a stretch I can't reach but little problem with speciation, mutations, natural selection ...sorry best I can do and as far as I go. Now, having confessed to simply "I don't know" I would only add that I'm open to possibility. As for "man" it is possible he evolved to a point where "God breathed in to him the breath of life, as I believe "Our image" to be immaterial/non-physical. Again, as noted we can not know God from beginning to end, so I tend to keep an open mind on some things and close it as quickly as possible on the key issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Verse 26 is so clearly mediate creation as man was made from “dust”, just as were the animals and plants. ~ Even The Very Dust In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1 Was Created By The Word Of God By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33:6 And It Was His Holy Breath That Gave It Life And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7 So This Mediate, This Intervening Agency Is Really Jesus And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9 And Not Some Philosophical Imaginations And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 18:12 Of The Power Of Matter For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens. 1 Chronicles 16:26 While Denying And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31 The Bible Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 ~ Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 Love, Your Brother Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Shiloh357 - So do you believe in Evolution and by that I mean, do believe that God caused species to evolve into entirely different species and do you believe that man is evolved from another species or creature? I simply claim Ecclesiastes 3:11... as you know I do believe in God ordained processes but as to the details I stay away, so involved years ago to no end. I certainly reject naturalism/materialism and of course abiogenesis ... common descent/ancestry seems a stretch I can't reach but little problem with speciation, mutations, natural selection ...sorry best I can do and as far as I go. Now, having confessed to simply "I don't know" I would only add that I'm open to possibility. As for "man" it is possible he evolved to a point where "God breathed in to him the breath of life, as I believe "Our image" to be immaterial/non-physical. Again, as noted we can not know God from beginning to end, so I tend to keep an open mind on some things and close it as quickly as possible on the key issues. So is that a Yes or a No??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts