I guess this is the current state of creationism

[Kenny]

I listened to a seminar whereas the main speaker was a Jewish theologian who is heavily involved with the archaeology on this, and he spent about an hour going through the comparison between the two. It clearly shows the parallels but also the differences, and it's likely that we did what all cultures do, namely take the narratives of others and rework them to fit our own teachings. If you want to see a more recent example, look up "Santa Claus" at Wikipedia and see how he's changed over the last several centuries.

We also see a parallel with the Flood accounts and the Gilgamesh narrative. But, ether way, the importance of both the Creation and Flood accounts really isn't "Did these really happen?" but "What are the lessons in regards to moral and values to be learned?". Even if these events did happen as written, that's really no where near as important as the morals and values taught.

Although I this point I still hold onto the position that it did, you have a great outlook for both life application as well as for finding out how to keep the ties that bind us together.

To explain:
Yes, life application of "What are the lessons learned". What a great way to approach issues as well as stories!

Ties that bind us together: WOOHOO! Too many times we major on minors. OK... we disagree on whether it happened... but does that mean make it and issue and break fellowship? Or find how we can throw a rope out to each other and travel together. THAT is life and living.

Well, since my posts are golden, no "dialogue" is really necessary, right?

No comeback... yes!

 

[Kenny]

Like this?

... and this?

... and this?

... and this?


These are all beautiful examples of you meant? No, they are effective and honest critiques of your massive faceplants. That's all you've got? If so, you're not even playing in the minors yet. This is the current state of creationism, eh?

You are advancing discredited hogwash and complaining that you don't get the respect you think you deserve based on the misapprehension that we are standing in equal positions on a level playing field, but that is demonstrably false. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not to your own facts and the accepted facts trump your beliefs.

Let's just say that evolution is the basis for racism.

 

[Deeje]

The only people who deny overarching scientific conclusions are people who have a vested interest in doing so. They make no sound arguments and can offer no worthwhile evidence for their miraculous position.

You do realise that you are defining evolutionary science in that description too? I have yet to see a "sound argument" from any evolutionist.

Science has a "belief" about how life on this planet diversified, but are clueless as to how life began. That one question, when answered correctly could shoot the whole theory down, leaving it without a leg to stand on. Yet they pretend it doesn't matter. Bring up the subject of abiogenesis and watch them scatter.

Why we even have these conversations is really beyond me... although I do admit that I thoroughly enjoy listening to all the mental hoola-hooping that occurs.

We have these conversations because some people are torn, having spiritual leanings but being bullied into submission by the education system and their peers. Those who have belief in the Creator need to know what a complete snow job macro-evolution is and how to defend their belief in God without being made to feel worthless and ignorant for believing what they see with their own eyes and acknowledge in their own hearts.

The more people listen, the better educated they become...and the less excuse they will have to deny the works of the greatest scientist who has ever existed...the very founder of true science itself.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No no no.....what science has is "evidence" that is interpreted to support their theory.

Germs are a fact. The flow and resistance of electricity are facts. Gravity is a fact. Hold a match up to oxygen, 'tis a fact it will ignite.

You do understand that it was God who required the sacrifice in the first place,

If it was god, for one it's cruel to kill an animal in such a way, and for two we know today that is so unsanitary as we know about blood born pathogens. God apparently did not, or he wouldn't have suggested that in some other god's book.

 

[Sapiens]

Let's just say that evolution is the basis for racism.

No, let's not, I'd rather not look that foolish. Feel free to do so if you want to however.

 

[Deeje]

Germs are a fact. The flow and resistance of electricity are facts. Gravity is a fact. Hold a match up to oxygen, 'tis a fact it will ignite.

Shadow, no one disputes these things. Facts are not hard to find because we proof of their existence......OTOH, conjecture, supposition and suggestion masquerading as facts are a dime a dozen in evolutionary science.

If it was god, for one it's cruel to kill an animal in such a way, and for two we know today that is so unsanitary as we know about blood born pathogens. God apparently did not, or he wouldn't have suggested that in some other god's book.

Who said it is cruel to kill animals? People kill animals and poultry for food by the thousands every day. As long as it is done humanely, no one is complaining except perhaps the vegans among us. God authorized the killing of animals for only two reasons....food and sacrifice. Killing for sport was not included. When an animals was killed for food, its blood had to be poured out on the ground and covered with earth......it was symbolically and respectfully returning the life of the animal to God. It also made sure that the blood was not consumed along with the animal, which had to be properly bled according to God's law.

Acknowledging blood born pathogens was the reason why God gave sound hygiene laws to his people thousands of years before "science" discovered the reason why people get sick from contaminated water and from the spread of disease by people not washing their hands. That in itself is reason enough for me to believe that the wisdom of God has educated his people for millenniums and that they benefited from obedience to his wise direction.

 

[Deeje]

No, let's not, I'd rather not look that foolish

Too late.....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Shadow, no one disputes these things. Facts are not hard to find because we proof of their existence......OTOH, conjecture, supposition and suggestion masquerading as facts are a dime a dozen in evolutionary science.

That makes no since; To claim that science has facts except for the one scientific theory that poses such an imminent threat to Conservative Christianity. Conjecture and supposition are not a part of seeing so much vast similarities in the genes from humans to apes and even dogs and daffodils. There is nothing masquerading as fact when we can see gradual changes in the fossil record and even see that pigs have an almost nearly identical internal anatomy as humans.

Who said it is cruel to kill animals?

When not killed for survival (food or a rabid wolverine going after you) it is cruel. No matter how humane the method of execution, it is cruel, needless, and unjust killing.

Acknowledging blood born pathogens was the reason why God gave sound hygiene

If god acknowledged that he would not have created a ritual that involves bird's blood being slung around. And sound hygiene does not include saying there is a difference in how long a woman is "unclean" based on her birthing a male or female child, but god included that but of nonsense in his book.

 

[Deeje]

That makes no since; To claim that science has facts except for the one scientific theory that poses such an imminent threat to Conservative Christianity. Conjecture and supposition are not a part of seeing so much vast similarities in the genes from humans to apes and even dogs and daffodils. There is nothing masquerading as fact when we can see gradual changes in the fossil record and even see that pigs have an almost nearly identical internal anatomy as humans.

I will invite you to provide this evidence that poses such a terrible threat to conservative Christianity. If you mean creationism, then I am fully in agreement. I am not a YEC proponent and believe a position of that kind does Christianity no favors, OTOH there are those of us who believe in an old earth and a slow progressive creation over eons of earth time. This agrees with both science and the Bible. It involves adaptation, since this involves processes that can be proven....but it does not involve macro-evolution, which cannot be proven by any testable method.

Science cannot categorically state that there is no Creator responsible for all the diversity we see on earth today....all they can say is that they believe their own theory about how it happened. We who support ID have our beliefs too....so at the end of the day, you merely have two belief systems to choose from. Neither of them have scientific proof for their validity.

If you think that science has proven that amoebas can become dinosaurs or that humans are related to bananas....then what can I say? You be the judge of what is fantasy and what is truth.

When not killed for survival (food or a rabid wolverine going after you) it is cruel. No matter how humane the method of execution, it is cruel, needless, and unjust killing.

I am supposing that you are a vegan then? You are entitled to believe as you wish. I eat meat in moderation because it is not against any law of God or man to refrain.

If god acknowledged that he would not have created a ritual that involves bird's blood being slung around. And sound hygiene does not include saying there is a difference in how long a woman is "unclean" based on her birthing a male or female child, but god included that but of nonsense in his book.

Since we no longer have to practice those things, your point is moot. There were obviously reasons for all the laws given to Israel. No one pretends to know all the details as why they were given. Since he is the Creator, we acknowledge his right to call the shots. He possesses knowledge that we do not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This agrees with both science and the Bible. It involves adaptation, since this involves processes that can be proven....but it does not involve macro-evolution, which cannot be proven by any testable method.

That doesn't agree with science because if it did then it would include macro evolution. This "I'll accept adaption but not one species gradually growing into another" is why evolution poses such a threat to Christian beliefs, because it leaves no room for such things, as it science reveals all life is related and shares a common ancestor, and that there was not any sort of creation event where different species were separately and individually created.
Personally, I feel that science adds much more merit to the idea that all life is sacred, because we are all of one family, a collective family of Earthlings, and we are all related. None of this all made individually and separately with humans put at the top stuff.

Science cannot categorically state that there is no Creator responsible for all the diversity we see on earth today

Science doesn't attempt to. It has made a creator entirely unnecessary, but science remains perfectly neutral towards such a notion.

If you think that science has proven that amoebas can become dinosaurs or that humans are related to bananas....then what can I say? You be the judge of what is fantasy and what is truth.

Science doesn't say amoebas turned into dinosaurs. It says that amoebas over countless generations evolved, with each new generation branching out further from the original, with each new generation inheriting mutated traits from the parent generation, with these traits compiling over eons that allowed for dinosaurs to eventually emerge.
The best way I have seen it said is that evolution is "full of change that no one sees." We are not exact copies of our parents, any children you may have are not perfect copies of you and another, though there are similarities, there are also changes, some more apparent than others, but over time they add up.

Since we no longer have to practice those things, your point is moot.

The point is indeed valid because a) Jesus said at least three times the law and prophets are not to be done away with, and b) (the bigger point) they are some of the bad ideas and incorrect knowledge god allegedly passed down to people.

 

[Deeje]

That doesn't agree with science because if it did then it would include macro evolution.

You do understand that 'adaptation' is the only kind of 'evolution' that science can actually prove...don't you?

There is no way to prove that macro-evolution ever happened. Its a suggestion.

This "I'll accept adaption but not one species gradually growing into another" is why evolution poses such a threat to Christian beliefs, because it leaves no room for such things, as it science reveals all life is related and shares a common ancestor, and that there was not any sort of creation event where different species were separately and individually created.

Ummm.....evolution is not a threat to true Christian beliefs, because it is an unprovable theory that has no basis in fact....it comes straight out of scientist's vivid imaginations. There is no proof that any prehistoric creatures had any ancestors in common...that is an assumption. They find the bones of a couple of creatures, millions of years apart, and jump to conclusions based on 'similarities' in bone structure......that is not science...that is guesswork. We could look at those same bones and see two different acts of creation, millions of years apart.....science cannot prove that their version is correct....they just ridicule anyone who disagrees with their conclusions.

Science doesn't attempt to. It has made a creator entirely unnecessary, but science remains perfectly neutral towards such a notion.

If there is no Creator, then men of science have no one to answer to for their mismanagement of this earth then have they? How convenient!

They better hope that what they believe is true eh? (Revelation 11:18) It is science that we largely have to blame for this world's disgusting pollution problem. They make a fortune burning fossil fuels, which science discovered and helped them to extract from under the ground....but they don't seem to be in a hurry to clean up the mess they have left whilst they were laughing all the way to the bank. That is someone else's problem apparently. It is so huge that no one wants to take responsibility for it. Plastic is a petroleum by product. In the meantime our marine life is dying at the rate of knots from choking on all that plastic! And you want to save animals?

Science doesn't say amoebas turned into dinosaurs. It says that amoebas over countless generations evolved, with each new generation branching out further from the original, with each new generation inheriting mutated traits from the parent generation, with these traits compiling over eons that allowed for dinosaurs to eventually emerge.

Do you understand that they have no proof that "branching" ever happened? It is assumed that it did for the purpose of selling their theory. Adaptation has never been demonstrated to extend outside of a single taxonomic family. IOW, birds remained birds, fish remained fish and animals remained animals....and only within their own kind. There has never been a case where one kind eventually morphed into another kind, no matter how much time you want to throw at it. If you have the proof for that, I'd love to see it. It cannot be based on belief however.

The best way I have seen it said is that evolution is "full of change that no one sees."

Funny, but I believe in a God "that no one sees".....amazing! We each have 'invisible' components to our belief systems.

The point is indeed valid because a) Jesus said at least three times the law and prophets are not to be done away with, and b) (the bigger point) they are some of the bad ideas and incorrect knowledge god allegedly passed down to people.

So, you are an expert on the Bible now?

Really?

Jesus said that he came 'not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it'.

Let me just acquaint you with what Jesus actually said.....

Matthew 5:17-18...."Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place."

Now the latter part of that statement has a clue about the timeframe. What were "all things" that had to "take place"?
It was the shedding of Jesus blood that fulfilled the law and took it away. There was no further need for temporary animal sacrifices because Jesus' sacrifice was "once for all time"....never needing to be repeated like the weekly offerings under the Law of Moses.

Matthew 22:35-40..."And one of them, versed in the Law, asked, testing him: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 He said to him: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.”

Jesus took the whole basis of the Law and summed it up in just two...the only two that now applied to Christ's followers....love of God and neighbor.

Paul confirmed this is Romans 10:4...."For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness."

 

[Kenny]

No, let's not, I'd rather not look that foolish. Feel free to do so if you want to however.

How many Australian Aborigines were shipped to the British museum in an attempt to determine if they were the "missing link"?

Did Korah Wills, mayor of Bowen, Queensland in 1866, describe how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen?

Did Amalie Dietrich, a German evolutionist, ( the 'Angel of Black Death') ask that Aborigines be shot for specimens?

 

[Jose Fly]

Let's just say that evolution is the basis for racism.

“The anti-Semitism of the new movement was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” [Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

Martin Luther: On the Jews and Their Lies

"The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be 'servants of servants,' that is 'servantsextraordinary!' Although only Canaan is mentioned specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham's family through Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham's descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and black--essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity." [Henry Morris The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148]

 

[Kenny]

“The anti-Semitism of the new movement was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” [Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

Martin Luther: On the Jews and Their Lies

"The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be 'servants of servants,' that is 'servantsextraordinary!' Although only Canaan is mentioned specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham's family through Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham's descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and black--essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity." [Henry Morris The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148]

I don't think that addressed any of my points about evolutionist positions mentioned

 

[Sapiens]

I don't think that addressed any of my points about evolutionist positions mentioned

Sure it did. The founder of all Protestantism, long before evolution was considered, poisoned the well himself.

 

[Kenny]

Sure it did. The founder of all Protestantism, long before evolution was considered, poisoned the well himself.

nice two step

 

[Sapiens]

nice two step

Two-step, four-step, it no matter ... true-step is all that counts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You do understand that 'adaptation' is the only kind of 'evolution' that science can actually prove...don't you?

If you're saying science proves things, you don't understand science. By necessity science doesn't claim to prove things as its needs require it to be left open for new and better evidence.

Matthew 5:17-18...."Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place."

Jesus gave prophecies that have not yet come yet. It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of law, and until Jesus' return not all things have been fulfilled.

Funny, but I believe in a God "that no one sees".....amazing! We each have 'invisible' components to our belief systems.

Because of DNA, there is nothing invisible about the things I know of evolution.

 

[Deeje]

If you're saying science proves things, you don't understand science. By necessity science doesn't claim to prove things as its needs require it to be left open for new and better evidence.

You know that science cannot prove anything, so how does it have the high ground here? Why not teach evolution as a theory if it cannot be proven......but we all know that this is not the case. Even High School students are taught not to question the science.....if they do question, they might find holes you can drive a Mack Truck through.

I know I did.

Jesus gave prophecies that have not yet come yet. It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of law, and until Jesus' return not all things have been fulfilled.

Indeed he did. I believe that we are living in the "last days" of this world system. The signs are becoming more and more evident as time goes on. The thing that fulfilled the law and took it out of the way was Jesus death and resurrection. Fulfilling the law had nothing to do with the judgment at the time of the end. Jesus gave us a separate sign for that. (Matthew 24:3-14)

Because of DNA, there is nothing invisible about the things I know of evolution.

DNA is the building code for biological things, both animate and inanimate. If you believe that you share DNA with a banana, then that can only mean one of two things.....that bananas eventually evolved into humans....or God used the same basic genetic materials to construct all living things on this planet. I know which one I accept. You are free to choose whatever sits well with your reasoning ability.

 

[Kenny]

Two-step, four-step, it no matter ... true-step is all that counts.

Like I said, evolution is the foundation of racism as per aforementioned historical evidence presented according to evolutionists.