• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Please, only the most ignorant use the term "fully formed". Why shoot down your own poor argument by using such a term.

Tell them....

How Does a Single Cell Become a Whole Body? | DiscoverMagazine.com

"It remains one of biology's deepest enigmas. How does an egg, a tiny squishy blob of a cell, grow into a fully formed organism--a sinuous worm, a delicate fly, a perfect human baby?"


The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe

"The modern definition of abiogenesis, however, is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals, rather than the old Aristotelian concept of abiogenesis, which postulated the formation of fully-formed complex organisms by spontaneous generation."


How did life originate?

"Living things (even ancient organisms like bacteria) are enormously complex. However, all this complexity did not leap fully-formed from the primordial soup."


 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Tell them....

How Does a Single Cell Become a Whole Body? | DiscoverMagazine.com

"It remains one of biology's deepest enigmas. How does an egg, a tiny squishy blob of a cell, grow into a fully formed organism--a sinuous worm, a delicate fly, a perfect human baby?"


The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe


"The modern definition of abiogenesis, however, is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals, rather than the old Aristotelian concept of abiogenesis, which postulated the formation of fully-formed complex organisms by spontaneous generation."


How did life originate?

"Living things (even ancient organisms like bacteria) are enormously complex. However, all this complexity did not leap fully-formed from the primordial soup."

This is a series of equivocation errors on your part. They were not using the term in the same sense that creationists use that term. In fact did you even read your last one? It was pointing out how your use of the term is nonsensical. The second one also points out that your version is nonsensical. And the first was on how a body develops. That was a massive series of fail that you just posted.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
For further information about "kinds" here's a very good and detailed source.
Biblical Kind
Here you can see that a "kind" can cover anything from the pictures above to near species level.

Thank you for the link....that was very interesting.

The conclusion is also interesting.....

"Conclusion

The Hebrew word for "kind" in the Bible can be very specific. Although "miyn" (Strong's Concordance H4327) may sometimes refer to a broad class of animals, it certainly also refers to animals at nearly the species level of classification. There is no Biblical support for the assertion that genetic information cannot be gained, nor for any "change barrier" that restricts how far a "kind" may evolve."


Reading the last sentence says a lot about the writer and his ideas. This, I gather, is to lead the reader to his conclusion...that 'evolution' is part of the creative process. I guess it is if your definition of "evolution" in this statement is really only "adaptation". Of course genetic information can change....but it is restricted to within a "kind". There is a "change barrier" that restricts how far that change can go, which applies to all creatures. The gaps in the "chain" of evolution are proof of this. The truth is...there never were any gaps to fill in the first place.

This part too was enlightening.....

"The Biblical usage of "kind" is close to the scientific usage of "species". The Biblical phrase "after their kind" is commonly interpreted to imply fixity of species in Genesis 1, but this interpretation is not consistent with the usage in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Species is defined scientifically as reproductive isolation; organisms are of the same species if they can interbreed successfully, and are of different species if they cannot. In the case of fossils, where the reproductive test cannot be conducted, different species are distinguished by morphology (physical characteristics). If two fossils look different enough, they are classified as different species. A panel of scientists may judge the differences in morphology. This practice also matches the Biblical usage, where different organisms are identified by how they look. If two populations can be reliably distinguished, then they are different Biblical "kinds".

Fossils form a large part of science's conclusions regarding how species evolved. But "Morphology" is their idea and taken to extremes that can never be verified. Their "test" for relationship is not really all that scientific though, is it? They basically use the "Biblical" method to identify which creature is of the same, or a similar "kind". They look for physical similarities. They find fossil bones millions of years apart and if they exhibit "similarity" it is assumed that they are related and have evolved their differences. Interpretation is what leads to their conclusion....not really exact science though, is it?

The other part that caught my attention is this...the use of the word "bara"....

"Bara: to create, form, make, produce; to cut, to cut down; to engrave, to carve. This word occurs in the very first verse of the Bible (Gen 1:1). Bara emphasizes the initiation of the object, not manipulating it alter [sic] original creation. The word as used in the Qal [the simple active or stative form of the conjugation] refers only to an activity which can be performed by God. Entirely new productions are associated with bara (Ex. 34:10; Num. 16:30; Ps 51:10; Is 4:5; 41:20; 48:7; 65:17, 18; Jer. 31:22). The word also possesses the meaning of "bringing into existence" in Is. 43:1; Ezek 21:30; 28:13, 15. Therefore, it is not surprising that it is used in Gen 1:1, 21, 27; 2:3. There is every reason to believe that bara was creation ex nihilo (out of nothing).

Unfortunately for Spiros Zodhiates, the Bible contradicts his last sentence about creation ex nihilo. Humans and animals were not created out of nothing; according to Genesis 2, we were created out of dirt. Genesis 2 also contradicts Zodhiates' assertion that bara does not refer to manipulating something after the original creation; God manipulated the soil in Genesis 2 to form humans and the animals."


This is a misconstrued notion. The word "bara" is entirely appropriate since there was one Creator who brought matter into existence and one 'fabricator' who put matter together to form all that exists in the universe.

Bible writers identify the agency "through" whom the Creator brought life to this lifeless planet. Genesis 1:26..."Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness".....The Creator becomes an "us" and an "our". There was a team of two, using the power that emanates from the Creator....his spirit or active force. (Genesis 1:2)

John 1:2-3 identifies the "Logos" (the pre-human Jesus)...."This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

So we have an assistant with the Creator....his "firstborn son". The Creator has no beginning but as the progenitor of all life, he gave capacity to others to pass life on to others. Not in just one way.

The apostle Paul identified Jesus as this one...."He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all things were made to exist" (Colossians 1:15-17)

The agent is himself a creation. (Revelation 3:14)

So clearly, the Bible teaches that there is one Creator and one who was used by him to bring all things into existence. It speaks of the 'things visible and invisible' so it covers all that exists, whether seen or unseen.

It is one thing to skim the contents of links and assume a conclusion....but another to actually comprehend what they say.
 
Last edited:

Sapiens

Polymathematician
I'm fine with not making creationist arguments in schools - the problem is that they are practically a foundation of Darwinian teaching, as long as they are formed to explicitly support Darwinism.

e.g. the 'bad design' argument- the old laryngeal nerve in the Giraffe etc- are often held ups as 'proof' of unguided evolution. Teachers in many countries are forbidden to allow any counter argument- that's not in the best interest of science. In this case it means ignoring what science has learned about the elegant multi-functionality of that nerve since the argument was formulated- that's anti science

If Darwinism is scientifically sound, it should be able to compete on it's own merits, not by censorship and tilting the playing field to suit Victorian age science
It did compete on it's own merits, and it won, ages ago, and repeatedly. You are just expressing loser sour grapes and being afflicted with Black Knight syndrome, stomping about on half a leg proclaiming that you only suffered a flesh wound and demanding a completely redundant rematch. Insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting, this time, a different result.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Once again you're making it up as you go, there is no logical fallacy known as an "argument from supposition." But, the word supposition, today, indicates an assumption, hypothesis, or theory. In logic, the notion of substitution is retained in the first meaning of supposition, which is the same as that of signification, that is, "the name stands for the thing—nomen supponit pro re." As Aristotle observes, "it is impossible in a discussion to bring in the actual things discussed; we use their names as signs instead of them" (Soph. elen. 165a 5). St. Thomas Aquinas points out that what the name stands for is called the substance of the name, namely, that which underlies the name (In 3 sent. 6.1.3 ). So yes, science proudly uses supposition, with the blessing of Aristotle, Aquinas and the O.E.D. You are as ignorant about the details of your mother t

Parading your education again?
121fs725372.gif
Am I supposed to be impressed?

If science proudly uses supposition with the blessing of Aristotle and Aquinas and the O.E.D. that is not exactly the same as having the blessing of the Creator IMO. Sorry if you got mixed up with your gods there...
352nmsp.gif


Do you know my mother?
297.gif
What has she got to do with this?

How science works with respect to proof has been explained to you many times, yet you still fail to grasp it ... or is it willful misunderstanding?

Oh, I don't fail to grasp it at all....there is no misunderstanding....I fail to accept what is clearly just a bunch of ideas without a shred of real evidence to back them up.

Have multiple examples of evidence have been provided to you? Do I need to go back and list them for you?

Please do...you know how I love links. Scientists always end up...
budo.gif


Just a proviso....the evidence cannot be based on faith or belief. And it has to have objective substantiation....IOW it can't just be agreed upon by other proponents of evolution. That is like creationists backing up other creationists. It doesn't mean much.

That's what makes for a horse race, unlucky for you that your riding a broken down nag.

Well one of us needs to put their lame horse out of its misery.....

images


Wont it be interesting to find out who?
128fs318181.gif
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Parading your education again?
121fs725372.gif
Am I supposed to be impressed?
Naw, that would take discernment.
If science proudly uses supposition with the blessing of Aristotle and Aquinas and the O.E.D. that is not exactly the same as having the blessing of the Creator IMO. Sorry if you got mixed up with your gods there...
352nmsp.gif
I'll go with Aristotle and Aquinas and the O.E.D. rather than Father Fairy Tale.
Do you know my mother?
297.gif
What has she got to do with this?
That should have read: "So yes, science proudly uses supposition, with the blessing of Aristotle, Aquinas and the O.E.D. You are as ignorant about the details of your mother tongue." I fixed it.
Oh, I don't fail to grasp it at all....there is no misunderstanding....I fail to accept what is clearly just a bunch of ideas without a shred of real evidence to back them up.
Nope, clearly you failed to grasp it due to willful misunderstanding. There is no doubt.
Please do...you know how I love links. Scientists always end up...
budo.gif



Just a proviso....the evidence cannot be based on faith or belief. And it has to have objective substantiation....IOW it can't just be agreed upon by other proponents of evolution. That is like creationists backing up other creationists. It doesn't mean much.
Science is always objectively substantiated, that is definitionally what separates it from subjective belief systems like yours.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
This is a series of equivocation errors on your part. They were not using the term in the same sense that creationists use that term. In fact did you even read your last one? It was pointing out how your use of the term is nonsensical. The second one also points out that your version is nonsensical. And the first was on how a body develops. That was a massive series of fail that you just posted.
Is that all you've got to say?

I hope so!

(Back on ignore you go.)
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Naw, that would take discernment.
I'll go with Aristotle and Aquinas and the O.E.D. rather than Father Fairy Tale.
That should have read: "So yes, science proudly uses supposition, with the blessing of Aristotle, Aquinas and the O.E.D. You are as ignorant about the details of your mother tongue." I fixed it.
Nope, clearly you failed to grasp it due to willful misunderstanding. There is no doubt.
Science is always objectively substantiated, that is definitionally what separates it from subjective belief systems like yours.

I see where this heated argument is going


Rambo vs. Rambette
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Of course it's true. It is absolutely true. It is the one thing in ours lives that is invariable. From the time our mothers are suddenly and absolutely pregnant to the moment we suddenly and absolutely die all changes in all life that can be observed are sudden. There are no observable exceptions. Bread is either infected with mold or it is not. Being a "little" moldy just means we can cut off the bad part, not that it isn't infected.

We see these sudden changes in species as well.

Given enough time and a proper cause perhaps any animal might evolve but species rarely have time to evolve before a bottleneck wipes out those with similar behavior and causes a sudden change.
No, somethings happen quickly and some slowly. In the case of new species formation it is a matter of the hypervolume of unoccupied niche space.
So you're ignoring evidence and ignoring the logic and then blaming me for it.
No, your claims for evidence are empty, I am ignoring nothing, I am stating that your evidence is not what you claim it is.
What new nonsense is this?
No nonsense, clear truth: You really should ask yourself why you and those whom you run with are not taken seriously, the answer might open your eyes and your brain.
This might actually be good advice but it has two problems; I don't think in italics or taxonomies.
Then perhaps you should stay away from terms and topics that require italics or involve taxonomies. Remember, "Flies do not go into closed mouths."
I don't believe in rabbits and if I did I'd not think of them as Rabbits.
"Rabbit" is not a genus name, no need for caps.
And, while I shouldn't need to point this out, I'm not much impressed by man's omniscience. I don't believe in "intelligence" and most of what we call knowledge is really belief.
It is clear that you are an unbeliever.
...And this is relevant, how?
Do you know where the term "Homo omnisciencis" comes from and whom you are jumping into bed with when you use it?
The state of the art in science tends to be closer to reality than 1890's science or 1940's science. As I said earlier I believe science will eventually approach a model that is reflective of reality. However we'll never really know any details of any of the significant changes of the past because without some understanding of consciousness and behavior there is no means to gather details.
Quite a claim with no evidence. Go ahead, make a case.
Science education in school does many kids more harm than good. Metaphysics should be taught early and then emphasized throughout just to prevent the harm. Everyone should know that science doesn't really evolve, it is reinvented from time to time as old theory falls by the wayside or is amended by new experiment. "Learning" science in a vacuum of metaphysics in more akin to indoctrination than education. The sorry state of the world today can be laid at the feet of education and what people call "science".
I agree, but I suspect for rather different reasons.
"Survival of the fittest" and the "id" killed more people in the 20th century than the Inquisition and all the holy wars ever fought put together.
Science or Engineering ... do you know the difference? Either or a lack of understanding of the nature of man?
"Science" is the most powerful force for peace and prosperity ever invented by any species but instead it is used largely to suppress people and invent new means to exterminate them.
Science is not a force it is a tool. So much for your self-pronounced vaunted grasp of metaphysics.

You seem to have failed to do your homework in a bunch of areas, all in all a poor showing. Good try though, takes some guts. I'd give it a D+.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Naw, it's headed to my putting Deeje back on ignore.


Creationists put those that can answer their questions on ignore and those that understand the sciences put those on ignore that can't answer their questions. And the creationists wonder why no one takes them seriously.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
objectively substantiated......

....by others with the same viewpoint.

But try to get a consensus on specifics of the causes and mechanics of descent with modification, or on the ToL, and there's very little complete agreement among evolutionary scientists.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
....by others with the same viewpoint.

But try to get a consensus on specifics of the causes and mechanics of descent with modification, or on the ToL, and there's very little complete agreement among evolutionary scientists.


With any major theory there is going to be some disagreement about details, but I am betting the disagreement is much smaller than you think that it is. Disagreements between scientists are part of the process of forming better and more accurate explanations. Scientists test their ideas to see which ones are wrong. Creationists of course do not do this because their ideas were shownn to be wrong a long long time ago. It makes the process rather pointless for them.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
....by others with the same viewpoint.

But try to get a consensus on specifics of the causes and mechanics of descent with modification, or on the ToL, and there's very little complete agreement among evolutionary scientists.

With any major theory there is going to be some disagreement about details, but I am betting the disagreement is much smaller than you think that it is. Disagreements between scientists are part of the process of forming better and more accurate explanations. Scientists test their ideas to see which ones are wrong. Creationists of course do not do this because their ideas were shown to be wrong a long long time ago. It makes the process rather pointless for them.
There is no doubt that we went from point a to point b, this is universally agreed to. There is discussion on the exact route, the shoes we wore, the color of our jacket, etc. Creationists try to impeach the journey by pointing to disagreements about where we crossed the street. How droll, indeed.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Well then you have completely misunderstood my intentions. I do not post to convince atheists
I think you mean atheists and theists who believe in evolution don't you? Belief in evolution by religious tradition
For too long atheism
And theism as represented by an awful lot of theists as per the link above.
The reason it's still a theory and not proven fact is because science has no substantive evidence for what they claim, apart from the imaginitive musings of their fellow atheists
And an awful lot of theists as per the link above.
Science ignores the more important question....how did life originate?
Chemical evolution. Research | Center for Chemical Evolution

Everybody take a good look at how Deeje constantly singles out atheists as the bad guys and then take a look at the statistics I posted in the beginning where for example 28% of Mainline Protestants (THEISTS) believe humans evolved over time due to natural processes. Why does she have it in for atheists and simply doesn't mention all the theists who also believe in evolution?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
No, somethings happen quickly and some slowly.

It's already been admitted that slow change was assumed from the outset.

No, your claims for evidence are empty, I am ignoring nothing, I am stating that your evidence is not what you claim it is.

All observed change in all life is sudden. This includes change in species. There were wolves and presto; dogs.

You really should ask yourself why you and those whom you run with are not taken seriously, the answer might open your eyes and your brain.

Consensus is irrelevant and I "run" with no one. What in the world are you doing on a religion site? Bringing faith to the primitives?

Then perhaps you should stay away from terms and topics that require italics or involve taxonomies. Remember, "Flies do not go into closed mouths."

I don't speak in "Italics". I don't agree with "Others" about the nature of proper nouns because I know words are symbolic rather than representative as in Ancient Language.

Do you know where the term "Homo omnisciencis" comes from and whom you are jumping into bed with when you use it?

So far as I know I invented it.

Consensus is irrelevant. It merely establishes a pecking order in the sciences. It has no relationship to truth or reality.

Science or Engineering ... do you know the difference? Either or a lack of understanding of the nature of man?
Science is not a force it is a tool. So much for your self-pronounced vaunted grasp of metaphysics.

Everything homo omniscience believes is acted out in the real world. A belief in unfit individuals and a lack of culpability for your subconscious murdering is the brain child of evolution and freudian thought.

You seem to have failed to do your homework in a bunch of areas, all in all a poor showing. Good try though, takes some guts. I'd give it a D+.

I never did homework.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
There is no doubt that we went from point a to point b, this is universally agreed to. There is discussion on the exact route, the shoes we wore, the color of our jacket, etc. Creationists try to impeach the journey by pointing to disagreements about where we crossed the street. How droll, indeed.

Crossed the street? No.

More like took a fork in the road.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Thank you for the link....that was very interesting.
You're welcome.
Bible writers identify the agency "through" whom the Creator brought life to this lifeless planet. Genesis 1:26..."Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness".....The Creator becomes an "us" and an "our". There was a team of two, using the power that emanates from the Creator....his spirit or active force. (Genesis 1:2)

John 1:2-3 identifies the "Logos" (the pre-human Jesus)...."This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

So we have an assistant with the Creator....his "firstborn son". The Creator has no beginning but as the progenitor of all life, he gave capacity to others to pass life on to others. Not in just one way.

The apostle Paul identified Jesus as this one...."He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all things were made to exist" (Colossians 1:15-17)

The agent is himself a creation. (Revelation 3:14)

So clearly, the Bible teaches that there is one Creator and one who was used by him to bring all things into existence. It speaks of the 'things visible and invisible' so it covers all that exists, whether seen or unseen.

It is one thing to skim the contents of links and assume a conclusion....but another to actually comprehend what they say.
And for those who want even more detail, you will find an awful lot of detailed information in the Urantia Book. Home | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation

"21:0.1 (234.1) THE Creator Sons are the makers and rulers of the local universes of time and space. These universe creators and sovereigns are of dual origin, embodying the characteristics of God the Father and God the Son. But each Creator Son is different from every other; each is unique in nature as well as in personality; each is the “only-begotten Son” of the perfect deity ideal of his origin." Paper 21 - The Paradise Creator Sons | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation
 
Top