Read the whole post, bacteria do not fit the hypothesis.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
:clapping:
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Based on What?
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
You posted you did not believe design exists.
Actually, your advice concerning what creationists do was very helpful.
It is worth noting the person was not a creationist.
B
buffalo
Guest
Why are you so hung of on the 100% literal issue. You already know and I pointed out we don’t. Does the fact it is not 100% literal negate the flood? Is that your claim?
Yes, God created ex nihilo.
I don’t impose the god of BUC, evolutionists do. I refute it.The complexity of the universe is a testament to God. To figure it out takes much thinking indeed. I submit blind unguided chance is a less satisfying solution. That requires less thinking.
B
buffalo
Guest
The point I was trying to make is the story points to a real flood with real survivors. The Chiastic structure focuses on God remembering Noah.
B
buffalo
Guest
Please point this out in humani generis.
Code:
[The Truth Behind Noah's Flood](http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm) - Scientific American Forntiershttp://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/images07/popup2.gif
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/images07/noah6.gif
One has to ask, if the flood did not happen why did God promise not bring another? One cannot repeat what has not happened.
B
buffalo
Guest
Dinosaur bones have been dated by radiocarbon (Carbon-14) Dates generally range from 22,000 to 39,000 Carbon-14 years before present
The dates themselves are not as important as the fact that there is measurable Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones. If dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, there should not be one atom of Carbon-14 left in their bones!
First, the data (from dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm, a page of the Paleochronology Group, with Hugh Miller, Josef Holzschuh, and Jean de Pontcharra)
http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS940x940~forums/50713079/2dadd8b7e62d4940b3099d0d3c56e650
B
buffalo
Guest
You originally answered you didn’t agree with the idea. Now you are using a number. Has your position changed and now we just have to come to a number we agree with?
meltzerboy
New member
Maybe the Flood did happen literally but on a smaller scale because what was known about the size of the earth at that time was limited. And the interpretation of the Flood can be taken both literally and didactically.
H
HansTrappist
Guest
Was never refuted “decades before he even finished school” because the studies on HIV, E.Coli and Malaria were not done until relatively recently. It is obvious you have not read Behe’s book nor really delved into his superior arguments.
Also, your irrational and uncharitable hostility towards Behe and Intelligent Design is oh so revealing. :blushing:
Add to that multiple floods at different times and different places through history and we have multiple flood accounts from different cultures.
S
samiam1611
Guest
:clapping:
I have read this entire mind-numbingly repetitive thread and concluded that your questions are of much importance and a lot of posts have been a waste because the answers to these questions were not established from the beginning.
If you asked me I would say there is a few versions of creationism ranging from mild nuances to significant differences. These differences are worth mentioning and the similarities are as well, which I will get to in a minute.
The definition(s)/types of evolution are more cohesive. I will get to that in a minute.
The definition of intelligent design is quite clear cut, HOWEVER it is often conflated with other positions.
I think it is poor form, though in many (most?) cases unintentional when the various positions are used incorrectly. I think taking the titles of these positions at face value (i.e. interpreting them literally by the words they contain as opposed to the full meaning) is the main problem.
These are the definitions I suggest, which I would like you guys to read carefully. I am getting them from Wikipedia which I think is a good place to look for this type of thing because Wikipedia is a widely widely read resource. To counter-act the bias some people accuse Wikipedia (or me) of, I will show you that even a ridiculous website like Conservapedia (a Christian website) actually uses the same definitions. PLEASE do not take this as an endorsement of Conservapedia, rather it is me playing devil’s advocate in case someone wants to object to my use of Wikipedia on the basis of bias.
Evolution:
Wikipedia:
The change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
**
Conservapedia:**
The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster’s dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: “a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations…”
Emphasis added by me. Note that this “encyclopedia” entry wisely distinguishes methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism. So those that invoke atheism into the discussion need not do so. If one must do so, all you are really pointing out (but clearly do not understand) is that atheists who believe in evolution and theists who believe in evolution are espousing the same thing - but that does NOT mean the theists are espousing an atheistic idea!
Also notice the word preexisting. Stop conflating abiogenesis with evolution. If you have a problem with abiogenesis, fine. You can still fully embrace evolution without embracing abiogenesis if that’s how you want to be. I am not saying the two are not related, but please please please consider the evidence for evolution independent of abiogenesis.
So to sum up - a person who accepts the general notion of evolution as the majority of scientists/evolutionary biologists define it, is not making any statement on their belief in God one way or the other when they say they believe in evolution.
Intelligent Design:
Conservapedia:
Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.
…Intelligent causes include the actions of an intelligent agent…manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot.
**
Wikipedia:**
Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism presented by its proponents as a theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
These definitions are not identical in the sense that Wikipedia goes on to say ID is NOT empirically testable, but put that aside for the moment. Instead, please note the definition of theistic evolution from Wikipedia:
"the position that “evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God…[it] accepts that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God.”
As you can see, theistic evolution, which is what Farsight, Judas, and others are supporting, is not the same thing as Intelligent Design even though they are not rejecting the idea that God is intelligent or that God did not guide the process. (If I may be so bold to say that.)
In summary, it is important to note that Intelligent Design is a rejection of important aspects of evolution where as theistic evolution is an acceptance.
More to come re: creationism
F
Farsight001
Guest
No, it does NOT have subtle layers. It has one single statement definition. The ID advocates are adamant that it has layers, but it quite simply does not.
Everyone is supposed to take that approach. However, I don’t get the impression that you do, as every time someone presents you with evidence of evolution, you either ignore it or move the goalposts. If you really do want the evidence, then study evolution formally. Take classes at a nearby college. academicearth and a few other websites have entire semester’s worth of lectures uploaded online. They might have a good one on evolution. Or find an evolution textbook and read it.
No. Its being made cogently. The detractors simply believe they know more than they do, and it causes confusion for everyone involved.
No one has proposed this as an argument.
kettle logic is only applicable to the pot. Are we making the same copious fallacies, multiple ones in nearly every post? Not really.
Like I said, the case has been made just fine. The creationists love to add all these “layers” to the issue that convolutes things.
Evolution, in all its complexity, is actually very simple to grasp. Do random mutations occur? Yes. Are these random mutations sometimes negative and sometimes positive? Yes. Do they decrease/increase the likelihood of survival? Yes. And does this decreased/increased likelihood of survival decrease/increase the odds of that organism passing on its negative/positive mutation to its offspring? Yes. Boom. Evolution. “macro” and “micro” and all these “layers” and such are all red herrings.
B
buffalo
Guest
So are we all in agreement now that the flood was not impossible?
Add to that multiple floods at different times and different places through history and we have multiple flood accounts from different cultures.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Then what was the point of trying to prove to me earlier? No, Lack of 100% Literal
does not negate the Flood, but when we try desperately trying to grab at anything
we can to protect the story, that’s a problem.
Then don’t say, “We do believe God did it. The alternative is ‘every-
thing came from nothing’ - the god of BUC (blind unguided chance).”
But you’re the one saying that Evolution is “blind unguided chance,” ultimately, irrefutably,
without any possible exception, PERIOD. I don’t say that. People who believe in evolution
AND “God did it” don’t say that. What you are doing is FORCING evolution to say it, lock
the door, and swallow the key, and bind all who buy into evolution to that BUC principle.
We can agree on this, “complexity of the universe is a testament to God,” Paul said it him-
self, Nature testifies of God, etc, and that we can always learn more and more about God’s
Creation, and it will take a lot of thinking. You can take the position of “BUC is a less satis-
fying solution,” I’m not going to dispute that, because I don’t force BUC upon evolution like
you keep doing.
Revisiting the Flood portion of our discussion:
*]I listed a a while back a few things that Creationists take seriously
and verifiable by their fake science called Intelligent Design, World
Flood was part of that list,
*]You said that you believe the Flood and offered at least three differ-
ent ideas as supporting evidence for the Flood, which were KINDA
weak, sorry, but they don’t prove the Flood as literal,
*]About thirty posts later, however, you were saying that, “Catholics
do not believe it to be 100% literal,” which is fine, either way, Fine,
but with that in mind, why would do you take the Creation account
as 100% literal and/or attack evolution in favor of Creationism?
B
buffalo
Guest
I do not respect Wikipedia. Don’t know much about the other one.
- Status