Kitzmiller v. Dover, Intelligent Design VS Theistic Evolution.

[RV_Wizard]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And as you learned earlier, the text itself says that the "yom" of creation are not literal 24 hour days.

You really need to get some new lies.  That one has been so thoroughly debunked even you don't believe it any longer.  But let's play it your way.  Evening and morning were the first day.  Let's say that day was a million years long.  It would be followed by a million year night.  Since nothing can live a million years without sunlight, every living thing died.  How about the fourth commandment, which is based on the creation week.  You need to work for six million years before you can rest for a million years.  That's a LOT of overtime.

Jesus, who was there, said that in the beginning God created man male and female.  The Bible says were were created in God's image.  You claim Adam and Even had parents who were ALMOST human, but not quite.  Show us how that conforms to God's word.

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Nothing in scripture opposes biological evolution.

You mean nothing is Scripture CONFORMS TO biological evolution.

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And even many creationist organizations have now retreated to accepting a limited amount of common descent to include new species, new genera, and even sometimes new families.

Observed speciation does not equal molecules to man.

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That is a finding from genetics, not evolutionary theory. 

Genetics is PART of evolution theory.  Nothing reproduces without genes.  You tell people that man and apes share a common ancestor.  That is, of course, a lie.  Man's only ancestor is the will of his Creator,

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You really need to get some new lies. 

That's your go-to whenever you don't like stuff that's been debunked so often that even you don't believe it any longer.    Everyone notices.   C'mon.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

But let's play it your way.  Evening and morning were the first day.  Let's say that day was a million years long. 

You're assuming that these were actually periods of time.   But in Hebrew they don't have to be so.    They are merely aspects of God's creation.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

How about the fourth commandment, which is based on the creation week. 

Show me where in scripture it says that if a figurative verse is repeated, that converts it to a literal history.    I don't see that anywhere.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Jesus, who was there, said that in the beginning God created man male and female. 

God makes it very clear what was there in the beginning, and humans were not. 

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.  2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.    Jesus was speaking of the beginning of our race.

Again, you're adding your own wishes to scripture to make it more acceptable to  you.

Nothing in scripture opposes biological evolution.   Nothing in scripture mentions it, just as nothing in scripture mentions protons.   There are many things that are true that aren't in scripture.    It's about God and man and our relationship, while you keep trying to make it about other things.   And in doing so, you miss everything He's telling you.

And even many creationist organizations have now retreated to accepting a limited amount of common descent to include new species, new genera, and even sometimes new families.

Observed speciation does not equal molecules to man.       

You keep forgetting that evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population, not about the origin of life.   It's one of the most difficult things for YECs to understand. 

And common descent is a finding from genetics, not evolutionary theory. 

Genetics is PART of evolution theory.

Nonsense.   You might as well claim that chemistry is part of evolutionary theory.    Evolutionary theory was around long before genetics was a science.    Genetics informs evolutionary theory.   So does chemistry.   But neither of them is part of evolutionary theory.

You tell people that man and apes share a common ancestor.

Humans are apes.    We are hominoids:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hominoids

That is, of course, a lie.

And again, your go-to when you come up against facts you don't like.   It's very noticeable.

Man's only ancestor is the will of his Creator

And here, you're confusing man's body, which is produced by nature, with his soul, which is given directly by God, as He tells us in Genesis.

Why not just set your pride aside and accept it His way?

 

 

 

Edited April 30 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Darwin allowed that some god could have made the first living thing because he couldn't explain the origin of life. 

More recently, scientists have found convincing evidence that God and Darwin had it right.   Why not just accept it His way?

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The Bible states that all animals and man were created by God in a day.

100% false.  Maybe if you read the Bible a little you'd learn that even revising it into a literal narrative, that creationist belief won't work.   It seems that in order to make your point you have to misrepresent everything.

Common descent is a finding from genetics, not evolutionary theory. 

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

According to who?

Geneticists.  

Genetics. One of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from gene sequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Let's see what Britannica has to say about it.

More convincing is what real scientists say about it.   Your article:
The virtually infinite variations on life are the fruit of the evolutionary process. All living creatures are related by desc.ent from common ancestors. Humans and other mammals descend from shrewlike creatures that lived more than 150 million years ago; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes share as ancestors aquatic worms that lived 600 million years ago; and all plants and animals derive from bacteria-like microorganisms that originated more than 3 billion years ago.

Doesn't say anything about the evidence.    Do you even read what you quote here?

[RV_Wizard]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You're assuming that these were actually periods of time. 

WHAT??????  If the evening and morning doesn't signify a period of time, pray tell what DO they signify?  Why not just admit that you don't believe a word of it?  I always said that to believe in evolution and the Bible you have to have a solid understanding of neither.  In your case, you simply misrepresent both.

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Show me where in scripture it says that if a figurative verse is repeated, that converts it to a literal history. 

FIGURATIVE???  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.  That's God's word, carved by God Himself onto a stone tablet.  Either God's lying or you are.  Guess who we believe?

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

God makes it very clear what was there in the beginning, and humans were not. 

So Jesus lied also?  The beginning doesn't mean the first second of the first day.  The beginning of creation was a six day event.
 

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Jesus was speaking of the beginning of our race.

He absolutely was not.  Your version of reality is so twisted I'm beginning to wonder if you're even from this planet.

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Genetics informs evolutionary theory.   So does chemistry.   But neither of them is part of evolutionary theory.

You mean YOUR definition of evolutionary theory.  Have you contacted Britanica yet for the correction?  How about explaining to us how reproduction works without genes.  Seriously, you could be a comic book.

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Humans are apes. 

Your classification, not God's.  Our only connection with apes is that God created us both on day six.

 

[RV_Wizard]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

More recently, scientists have found convincing evidence that God and Darwin had it right. 

Darwin claimed a contradictory means of creation, so they can only both be right in a disturbed and illogical mind.  Speciation does not equal origination.

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

100% false.  Maybe if you read the Bible a little you'd learn that even revising it into a literal narrative,

Perhaps if you actually read the Bible rather than taking excerpts out of context from atheist websites you would see how absolutely foolish that statement is.

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

More convincing is what real scientists say about it. 

We KNOW what scientists say about it.  Science is the study of the natural world.  It cannot account for the supernatural, and thus cannot prove or disprove a single thing in the Bible.  You put your faith in the science of man and shun the word of God.  I do hope you find the truth before it's too late.  EVERYTHING you believe is wrong.

[The Barbarian]

More recently, scientists have found convincing evidence that God and Darwin had it right. 

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Darwin claimed a contradictory means of creation

He wrote that God created the first living things.    If this seems contradictory to you, that would explain a lot of things you've written here.

Maybe if you read the Bible a little you'd learn that even revising it into a literal narrative

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Perhaps if you actually read the Bible rather than taking excerpts out of context from atheist websites

Don't have any idea what atheist websites say about it.  But it clearly misled you.  Here's a better place for you to learn what it says:

https://www.biblegateway.com/

Worth checking out.   Read and learn.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

We KNOW what scientists say about it.  Science is the study of the natural world.  It cannot account for the supernatural, and thus cannot prove or disprove a single thing in the Bible. 

You have learned something from our conversations.  Well done.   The Bible is about God and man and our relationship.   Science can't comment on that.   Neither is the Bible a science text.    If you try to get science from the Bible or God from science, you'll end up completely misled.

And that's the part you still haven't figured out.

 

[The Barbarian]

You're assuming that these were actually periods of time. 

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

WHAT??????

It is commonly suggested that this is such a “plain reading” of Scripture—so obviously clear and true—that the only people who doubt it are those who have been influenced by Charles Darwin and his neo-Darwinian successors. The claim is often made that no one doubted this reading until after Darwin. (This just isn’t true—from ancient rabbis to Augustine to B. B. Warfield—but that’s another post for another time.)

So it may come as a surprise to some contemporary conservatives that some of the great stalwarts of the faith were not convinced of this interpretation.

• Augustine, writing in the early fifth century, noted, ”What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine” (City of God 11.7).
• J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), author of the 20th century’s best critique of theological liberalism, wrote, “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each.”
• Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young (1907-1968), an eloquent defender of inerrancy, said that regarding  the length of the creation days, “That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.”
• Theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003), one of the most important theologians in the second half of the twentieth century and a defender of Scriptural clarity and authority, argued that “Faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on the recency or antiquity of the earth. . . . The Bible does not require belief in six literal 24-hour creation days on the basis of Genesis 1-2. . . . it is gratuitous to insist that twenty-four hour days are involved or intended.”
• Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer (1916-2004), a strong advocate for inerrancy, wrote ”On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four hour day.”

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/

Genesis 1 does not give scientific facts. What then is it for? Primarily, it reveals God as Creator. The things that other people worshiped are not gods. Rather, they were created by the true God, who rules over the chaos “god,” who has power to command the ocean “god.” God is above the powers of nature; he is supernatural. Each day of creation dismisses more deities — light and darkness, earth and sky, land and water, sun and moon and stars, fish and birds, animals and even man. They are all created, having no power except that appointed by the Creator God. Archer writes:

“The purpose of Genesis 1 is not to tell how fast God performed His work of creation (though, of course, some of His acts, such as the creation of light on the first day, must have been instantaneous). Rather, its true purpose was to reveal that the Lord God who had revealed Himself to the Hebrew race and entered into personal covenant relationship with them was indeed the only true God, the Creator of all things that are.”

It is also possible that some of the described events, especially those in day 4 (which we have already admitted) and in 2:4-7, are out of their original order. This is also within biblical literary style. Bruce K. Waltke writes:

“As so often happens in Scripture, historical events have been dischronologized and reconstructed for theological reasons. For example, the nations listed in Genesis 10 came into existence after the confusion of languages at Babylon recounted in Genesis 11, but the writer has dischronologized events in order to put the nations under Noah’s blessing, not under the Babylon’s curse. According to Genesis 35:16-18, Benjamin was born in Canaan, but less than 10 verses later it lists Benjamin among Jacob’s sons born in Paddan-Aram, presumably to represent the youngest patriarch as taking part in the return of all Israel from the exile in Paddan-Aram. Biblical writers display a freedom in representing historical events for theological reasons.” (“The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One,” Crux, December 1991, volume 27, number 4, page 7).

Days grouped in a pattern

There is also a schematic arrangement. In the first group of three days, God organized motionless spaces by separating one from another; in the second group of three days, God formed things to fill and “rule” over those spaces. The sun and moon and stars occupy and govern the light and darkness; the fish and birds fill and rule the water and air; the animals fill the land, and humans rule all.

Another theological reason for the six days of creation is the Sabbath. A one-day creation could demonstrate God’s power over all other powers, but we are given a pattern of six days and a day of rest. The Sabbath commemorates God as Creator, as having all power. It does not matter whether creation was actually done in six days. What matters is that the week is assigned to correspond to creation. Using that pattern, God told the Israelites to take a break from their occupations on the Sabbath, a break from their concerns with created things, so they can remember the Creator. This is one of the ritual laws that became obsolete when Christ died.

Faith and facts

None of the interpretations of Genesis 1 has explained everything. But it is clear that we cannot require a strictly literal reading. The difficulties involved in literalism show that the account is not intended strictly literally. It is right to allow exploration and to suggest some possible nonliteral explanations.

https://www.gci.org/articles/genesis-1-are-the-six-days-of-creation-literal-or-figurative/

Genetics informs evolutionary theory.   So does chemistry.   But neither of them is part of evolutionary theory.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You mean YOUR definition of evolutionary theory. 

Well, that's a testable assumption...

Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/evolution

Biological evolution is the change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/biological-evolution

A good source, accessible to those with little biological knowledge...

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/hardy-weinberg-equilibrium/a/allele-frequency-the-gene-pool

When learning about science, it's smart to consult science sources.   Otherwise, you will get misled.  As happened to you, this time.

Humans are apes.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Your classification, not God's.

I didn't give humans and chimps almost-identical genes.   God did.   And because we can test that with organisms of known descent, we know that they indicate common descent.   Humans and chimps are more closely related than either is to any other ape.

 

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

He wrote that God created the first living things.    If this seems contradictory to you,

He ALSO said that man and apes share common ancestry, which is the part that runs contrary to the Scriptures.  Do you have a hard time understanding that, or are you being dishonest?  He also said that man took millions of years to evolve.  God said He created man in a day.  Are those two things the same in your world?

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Don't have any idea what atheist websites say about it. 

You quote the same distortions of Scripture.

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You have learned something from our conversations. 

I told that to you.  I also said that the only way to believe in the Bible and evolution is to understand neither.  Millions of years do not equal a day.  Creation from the dust of the earth does not equal billions of years of evolution.  Adam and Eve had no parents.

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Augustine, writing in the early fifth century

Augustine was a heretic.  Much of the dogma he championed had no basis whatever in the Scriptures.

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

J. Gresham Machen

The evening and the morning = one rotation of the earth.  it is not necessarily 24 hours.  Since the earth's rotation is slowing, it's likely slightly shorter than that.

The opinions of your 20th century apologists are irrelevant.  Trying to compromise truth with a lie results in a lie every time.  The standard of truth is not the opinions of man, but the word of God.

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Genesis 1 does not give scientific facts.

It gives facts and a specific timeline for a supernatural creation that science cannot disprove.  Is is supported by the written words of God in Exodus 20:11.

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

In the first group of three days, God organized motionless spaces by separating one from another; in the second group of three days, God formed things to fill and “rule” over those spaces. The sun and moon and stars occupy and govern the light and darkness; the fish and birds fill and rule the water and air; the animals fill the land, and humans rule all.

You don't believe in a six day creation.  You deny every Bible verse that contradicts what you have chosen to believe.

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Humans are apes.

Perhaps in your ancestry.  Mine were created by God in His image.

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I didn't give humans and chimps almost-identical genes.   God did

Given that genes code physical characteristics and given that we share a large percentage of characteristics with apes, only a complete idiot would expect to see enormous differences in the genes.  That shows a commonality of design, not heredity.

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

He ALSO said that man and apes share common ancestry, which is the part that runs contrary to the Scriptures. 

Nothing in scripture denies the fact.   C'mon.    You're still trying to force a literal revision onto Genesis.   Your word is not God's word.   Do you have a hard time understanding that, or are you being dishonest? 

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

He also said that man took millions of years to evolve. 

God never said how long it took.   You're still adding things to His word.

Don't have any idea what atheist websites say about it.  Your distortions of scripture are quite similar to those of atheists, though.    Extreme YECs and atheists are determined to make God's word inconsistent with His creation.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You don't believe in a six day creation. 

I'm pointing out that Christians have usually considered them to be figurative, just as you learned Jewish theologians have generally done so.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The evening and the morning = one rotation of the earth. 

If you have to change the meaning of "evening" and "morning" to make your new doctrines work, isn't that a tip-off for you?

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Mine were created by God in His image.

The image in in our minds and souls.  God doesn't have elbows and fingers or a humn body.   Jesus says that God is a spirit.   And He tells us that a spirit has no body.   Why not just believe Him?

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Given that genes code physical characteristics and given that we share a large percentage of characteristics with apes, only a complete idiot would expect to see enormous differences in the genes. 

Thing is, even broken genes and viral remnants are very much the same in human and chimp genomes.    Why would God fake virus infections and mutations that broke genes?    Wouldn't it just be better to accept that He did it the way He made it look like He did it?

 

[RV_Wizard]

On 5/1/2025 at 7:05 AM, The Barbarian said:

Nothing in scripture denies the fact.  

EVERYTHING in Scripture denies the lie.  Of course, you don't accept the authority of the Scriptures, so naturally you refuse to believe it.

On 5/1/2025 at 7:05 AM, The Barbarian said:

God never said how long it took. 

That's a lie.  God PERSONALLY carved into stone tablets the six day creation.  You've been shown this, but you prefer to lie about it.

On 5/1/2025 at 7:05 AM, The Barbarian said:

I'm pointing out that Christians have usually considered them to be figurative,

Not for the first 52 centuries, s has been proven to you several times.

On 5/1/2025 at 7:05 AM, The Barbarian said:

If you have to change the meaning of "evening" and "morning" to make your new doctrines work,

Please explain what you're talking about.  The definition of a day is STILL a rotation of the earth; an evening and morning.

On 5/1/2025 at 7:05 AM, The Barbarian said:

God doesn't have elbows and fingers or a humn body. 

When did you see Him last?

On 5/1/2025 at 7:05 AM, The Barbarian said:

  Why would God fake virus infections and mutations that broke genes? 

You say they are broken, but since you've never created life from dust, I give no credibility whatever to anything you say.