Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Why are you making false statements again? You know this isn't true.

Why are you making false statements again?  You know, it is true.

 

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Why are you making false statements again?  You know, it is true.

Do you find "I know you are, but what am I?" effective debate material?

I do think you are unqualified to effectively discuss genetics and evolution. That does not mean it is the same for everyone else I disagree with.

[omega2xx]

52 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Do you find "I know you are, but what am I?" effective debate material?

I do think you are unqualified to effectively discuss genetics and evolution. That does not mean it is the same for everyone else I disagree with.

Thank you for masking my  point.

[The Barbarian]

On 8/21/2019 at 7:49 AM, Justin Adams said:

I see we are no longer encouraged to think much. So easy to latch onto something that requires little imagination. Can you imagine God using so-called evolution over millions of years of natural selection? All those partly formed animals etc as He 'experimented'. The one legged goat. How did it survive to breed? Especially if its eyes were only partly formed. It is mass ugliness of gargantuan proportions to imagine this 'progress'. I mean; the amoeba in the swamp... how did it get fins? How can it know to swim? How would it know what land was? Millions of years is a cop out - it means LESS than zero.

 There are countless transitional forms in the fossil record, all of them both fully-formed and transitional.    Did you really think evolution means 1-legged goats?

 

[The Barbarian]

On 12/20/2019 at 11:50 AM, omega2xx said:

If they disagree with you, you declare them not qualified, without any discussion.  There are Christian scientist more qualified than you who reject evolution.

It is true that you don't have the understanding of biology to effectively argue about evolution.   It is also true that there are scientists (more of them Muslim than Christian) who deny evolution.  Comparing the lists from Discovery Institute's "Scientists who doubt Darwin" and "Project Steve", it turns out that about 0.3% of people with doctorates in biology or a related field, do not accept evolutionary theory.   There are a lot more Christians in biology than that.

Check here to learn about Christians in biology:
We in the American Scientific Affiliation believe that God is both the creator of our vast universe and is the source of our ability to pursue knowledge — also, that honest and open studies of both scripture and nature are mutually beneficial in developing a full understanding of human identity and our environment.

https://network.asa3.org/

 

BioLogos invites the church and the worldto see the harmony between science and biblical faithas we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.

https://biologos.org/

[omega2xx]

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It is true that you don't have the understanding of biology to effectively argue about evolution.   It is also true that there are scientists (more of them Muslim than Christian) who deny evolution.  Comparing the lists from Discovery Institute's "Scientists who doubt Darwin" and "Project Steve", it turns out that about 0.3% of people with doctorates in biology or a related field, do not accept evolutionary theory.   There are a lot more Christians in biology than that.

Check here to learn about Christians in biology:
We in the American Scientific Affiliation believe that God is both the creator of our vast universe and is the source of our ability to pursue knowledge — also, that honest and open studies of both scripture and nature are mutually beneficial in developing a full understanding of human identity and our environment.

https://network.asa3.org/

 

BioLogos invites the church and the worldto see the harmony between science and biblical faithas we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.

https://biologos.org/

You are the one who does not understand genetics and DNA.  You say I don't because I reject  what you have accepted by faith alone.

I will offer you the same problems I offered One Opinion.  Provide the evidence for natural selection and explain how plant life survived millions of years without the sun.  There is also no provable evidence between Biblical faith and evolution.  "After their kind' is such a simple concept, even cave men can understand it. and it refutes evolution.  It is also proved thousands  of times every day and can't be falsified.

Love, peace, joy

 

[The Barbarian]

31 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You are the one who does not understand genetics and DNA.

I've repeatedly corrected misunderstandings you had about these things.

32 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You say I don't because I reject  what you have accepted by faith alone.

I accept God by faith alone. Everyone else needs evidence. 

Why do you think it's wrong to have faith in God?

33 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I will offer you the same problems I offered One Opinion.  Provide the evidence for natural selection

Sure...

In some cases, we can directly observe natural selection. Very convincing data show that the shape of finches' beaks on the Galapagos Islands has tracked weather patterns: after droughts, the finch population has deeper, stronger beaks that let them eat tougher seeds.

In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection. A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution. These changes can often be observed and documented.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_26

It's not controversial.   Even honest creationists admit the fact of natural selection:

So, right over here we’ve got these oryx, beautiful creatures and very, very pale colors.  The wild range of the oryx is right on the southern end of the Sahara desert.  And so you can see their coloration makes sense.  If you get a really dark colored one, that’s going to be really easy for predators to find, and so they end up being these really beautiful, light colors.  And that’s an example of where selection would take a variation and turn it into an adaptation.

YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood   What is Natural Selection?

37 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

explain how plant life survived millions of years without the sun.

They didn't.   As you learned earlier, the "yom" of the "creation week" are categories of creation, not literal days.   The sun existed before the Earth was formed.

Genesis is consistent with evolution, and with most forms of creationism.   Genesis does rule out literal days, and the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo."  But otherwise, it's neutral on evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

18 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I've repeatedly corrected misunderstandings you had about these things.

No, you have only presented your understanding of the subject and that without any verifiacle evidence.

I accept God by faith alone. Everyone else needs evidence. 

Why do you think it's wrong to have faith in God?

Sure...

Why are you trying to change the subject?  This is not about accepting God, it is about accepting/rejecting  what is presented as evidence for evolution.

 

18 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

In some cases, we can directly observe natural selection. Very convincing data show that the shape of finches' beaks on the Galapagos Islands has tracked weather patterns: after droughts, the finch population has deeper, stronger beaks that let them eat tougher seeds.

In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection. A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution. These changes can often be observed and documented.

As usual, you present something that is not evidence., indicating you don't understand what constitutes evidence.  Seeing a trait in living species in no way indicates it had not always been that way. Evidence requires you show what the beak was before it is as it is now and has been the same throughout history and still is in each species  of finches, and THE CAUSE  of it changing.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_26

It's not controversial.   Even honest creationists admit the fact of natural selection:

A few do, most do not.  Another of your problems is trying to paint all creationist with the same brush that is not the majority view.  Do you think that is being honest? Every one knows the peppead moth was a set up to try and make evolution look possible.

So, right over here we’ve got these oryx, beautiful creatures and very, very pale colors.  The wild range of the oryx is right on the southern end of the Sahara desert.  And so you can see their coloration makes sense.  If you get a really dark colored one, that’s going to be really easy for predators to find, and so they end up being these really beautiful, light colors.  And that’s an example of where selection would take a variation and turn it into an adaptation.

Even if what that says is true, and it  is not, the species has not changed .  The oryxes are still orixes.  Only some of the traits have changed and anyone who know beans about genetics knows all traits are determined by which genes are dominant and which ones are recessive.

YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood   What is Natural Selection?

They didn't.   As you learned earlier, the "yom" of the "creation week" are categories of creation, not literal days.  

As you should have learned earlier, the evidence points to yom in specific cases ALWAYS  refers to a 24 hour day as we know it today.  Since you did not learn it yet I will give it again and maybe it will sink in this time:  When yom  has a number associated with it, it ALWAYS  means a literal 24 hour day---plant life could no have lived millions of years without the sun.

The sun existed before the Earth was formed.

What a  pitiful comment when the Bible specifically makes that comment false.  Let me suggest you read what God did on the 4th day.

Genesis is consistent with evolution, and with most forms of creationism.   Genesis does rule out literal days, and the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo."  But otherwise, it's neutral on evolution.

Let me also suggest you take a course in remedial reading.  Genesis clearly makes all of what you have just said, false.  When God created man in His image(Gen 1:27) that was ex nihilo.

Love, peace, joy

 

 

[The Barbarian]

13 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Why are you trying to change the subject?  This is not about accepting God, it is about accepting/rejecting  what is presented as evidence for evolution.

I have to disagree.   I you accepted God's word without reservations, this wouldn't be a problem for you.    Your rejection of evidence is not a religious issue.

 

15 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

As usual, you present something that is not evidence., indicating you don't understand what constitutes evidence.  Seeing a trait in living species in no way indicates it had not always been that way. Evidence requires you show what the beak was before it is as it is now and has been the same throughout history and still is in each species  of finches, and THE CAUSE  of it changing.

No, that's wrong.   In this case, the changes in size and shape of beaks under natural selection was documented by the Grants on Daphne Major in the Galapagos.   Directly observed and documented.

Barbarian observes:

It's not controversial.   Even honest creationists admit the fact of natural selection:

18 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

A few do, most do not.  Another of your problems is trying to paint all creationist with the same brush that is not the majority view.

I'm just pointing out that two YE creationists who have actual knowledge of the evidence, readily admit it.    You're citing people who don't know about it.

So, right over here we’ve got these oryx, beautiful creatures and very, very pale colors.  The wild range of the oryx is right on the southern end of the Sahara desert.  And so you can see their coloration makes sense.  If you get a really dark colored one, that’s going to be really easy for predators to find, and so they end up being these really beautiful, light colors.  And that’s an example of where selection would take a variation and turn it into an adaptation.

YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood   What is Natural Selection?

As you learned, even AiG admits the fact of natural selection.   Would you like me to show you, again?

the "yom" of the "creation week" are categories of creation, not literal days.  

23 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

As you should have learned earlier, the evidence points to yom in specific cases ALWAYS  refers to a 24 hour day as we know it today. 

No, that's wrong.   Even ancient Christians knew that isn't true.   YE creationism is a very modern revision of scripture.

The sun existed before the Earth was formed.

24 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

What a  pitiful comment when the Bible specifically makes that comment false. 

Over a thousand years ago, St. Augustine clearly showed that the text itself shows that the "yom" of Genesis are not literal days.    As he showed, it is absurd to imagine literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

Genesis is consistent with evolution, and with most forms of creationism.   Genesis does rule out literal days, and the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo."  But otherwise, it's neutral on evolution.

26 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Genesis clearly makes all of what you have just said, false.  

It's all there in Genesis.   No point in denying it.   God says that the Earth brought forth living things, not ex nihilo.

Of  course Adam was directly given a living soul, ex nihilo.    His body was brought forth by the earth as any other animal.   

 

[omega2xx]

On 1/9/2020 at 1:30 PM, The Barbarian said:

I have to disagree.   I you accepted God's word without reservations, this wouldn't be a problem for you.    Your rejection of evidence is not a religious issue.

Have you forgotten, I am a fundamentalist, and we we accept all of God's word without question.  You OTOH  reject a simple concept that refutes evolution."after their kind.," which is proved thousands of times every day by repetition and can be seen.  I don't reject evidence, I reject what you consider evidence, but can't be proved.

No, that's wrong.   In this case, the changes in size and shape of beaks under natural selection was documented by the Grants on Daphne Major in the Galapagos.   Directly observed and documented.

Here is a perfect exampled  of what is not evidence.  The different beaks that have been observed were on different species of finches.  You can;'t show what caused the different traits of the beaks to change.  Since the original finches were not about to become extinct, there was no need for their beaks to change.  Also, to get a new beak, the parents would have to have  gene for the new beak.  There is no genetic way this is possible.

Barbarian observes:

It's not controversial.   Even honest creationists admit the fact of natural selection:

I'm just pointing out that two YE creationists who have actual knowledge of the evidence, readily admit it.    You're citing people who don't know about it.

This is the main  problem with what you consider evidence,   You can only cite 2 YE creations  who  it a fact, and since I can name many more who reject it, their OPINIONS are not evidence. 

 

So, right over here we’ve got these oryx, beautiful creatures and very, very pale colors.  The wild range of the oryx is right on the southern end of the Sahara desert.  And so you can see their coloration makes sense.  If you get a really dark colored one, that’s going to be really easy for predators to find, and so they end up being these really beautiful, light colors.  And that’s an example of where selection would take a variation and turn it into an adaptation.

YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood   What is Natural Selection?

As you learned, even AiG admits the fact of natural selection.   Would you like me to show you, again?

Don't show me WHO accepts it, show me the evidenced they use to support it.  I really doubt if anyone with AIG  accepts natural selection.

the "yom" of the "creation week" are categories of creation, not literal days.  

They are  not and I have shown you several times why they are literal.  Would you like me to show you again?

No, that's wrong.   Even ancient Christians knew that isn't true.  

They did not and you have  just made up something for which you, as usual, can't support.

YE creationism is a very modern revision of scripture.

Again, as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.  YE is  not a revision.  It is an interpretation of chapter 5  of Genesis.  It is also irrelevant since the Bible does not give the age of the earth.   Evolution needs billion of years, so they made something up to try and help their cause, but they also can';t prove the age of the earth, and if you knew anything about the dating methods used, you would know they are all based on some assumptions,except possibly C14.

The sun existed before the Earth was formed.

I can't believe you said that when the Bible clearly show it was not.  If you want to say YE is  revision, start with that statement.  That is a true revision.

Over a thousand years ago, St. Augustine clearly showed that the text itself shows that the "yom" of Genesis are not literal days.    As he showed, it is absurd to imagine literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

Another thing I have show that is possible, but as usual nothing I say can overcome your ignorance of what is possible.  So I will try to teach you one more time---All that is needed for a evening and morning is light and the earth rotation.

Genesis is consistent with evolution, and with most forms of creationism. 

Not true.  "After their kind," rules out evolution.

  Genesis does rule out literal days, and the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo."  But otherwise, it's neutral on evolution.

If you understand the language. Genesis requires each day to be literal.  Evolution tries to rule it out because it does not fit their need for billions  of years or the TOE is exposed for the scientific fraud it is.

Since there was not  life, except  for "God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, before Gen 1:1, life was created ex nihilo.

It's all there in Genesis.   No point in denying it.   God says that the Earth brought forth living things, not ex nihilo.

Again you are showing your theology is ignorant of Hebrews.  "Created" means "out of nothing."  Heb 11:3 reinforces this.

Of  course Adam was directly given a living soul, ex nihilo.   

Not given a living soul, he became a living soul.

His body was brought forth by the earth as any other animal.  

You finally got something right.  Adam's body was "formed" not created.  His body was not brought into being ex nihilo

Love, peace, joy