1. 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!

Featured Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Deeje, Mar 11, 2018.

  1. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,293
    Ratings:
    +4,393
    Religion:
    Christian
    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."


     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,921
    Ratings:
    +23,550
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,744
    Ratings:
    +7,616
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    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.
     
    #483 Deeje, Mar 26, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Sapiens

    Sapiens Polymathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,548
    Ratings:
    +2,718
    Religion:
    None
    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.
     
  5. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,744
    Ratings:
    +7,616
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Parading your education again? [​IMG] 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...[​IMG]

    Do you know my mother? [​IMG] What has she got to do with this?

    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.

    Please do...you know how I love links. Scientists always end up...[​IMG]

    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.

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

    [​IMG]

    Wont it be interesting to find out who? [​IMG]
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Sapiens

    Sapiens Polymathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,548
    Ratings:
    +2,718
    Religion:
    None
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,293
    Ratings:
    +4,393
    Religion:
    Christian
    Is that all you've got to say?

    I hope so!

    (Back on ignore you go.)
     
  8. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,050
    Ratings:
    +1,735
    I see where this heated argument is going



    Rambo vs. Rambette
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  9. Sapiens

    Sapiens Polymathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,548
    Ratings:
    +2,718
    Religion:
    None
    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.
    No, your claims for evidence are empty, I am ignoring nothing, I am stating that your evidence is not what you claim it is.
    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.
    Then perhaps you should stay away from terms and topics that require italics or involve taxonomies. Remember, "Flies do not go into closed mouths."
    "Rabbit" is not a genus name, no need for caps.
    It is clear that you are an unbeliever.
    Do you know where the term "Homo omnisciencis" comes from and whom you are jumping into bed with when you use it?
    Quite a claim with no evidence. Go ahead, make a case.
    I agree, but I suspect for rather different reasons.
    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.

    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+.
     
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,921
    Ratings:
    +23,550
    Religion:
    Atheist
    It is amazing, you make a series of foolish errors and rather than thanking me for pointing them out to you, you run and hide.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Sapiens

    Sapiens Polymathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,548
    Ratings:
    +2,718
    Religion:
    None
    Naw, it's headed to my putting Deeje back on ignore.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,921
    Ratings:
    +23,550
    Religion:
    Atheist

    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.
     
  13. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,293
    Ratings:
    +4,393
    Religion:
    Christian
    ....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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,921
    Ratings:
    +23,550
    Religion:
    Atheist

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Sapiens

    Sapiens Polymathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,548
    Ratings:
    +2,718
    Religion:
    None
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. ArtieE

    ArtieE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Messages:
    6,187
    Ratings:
    +1,295
    Religion:
    None
    I think you mean atheists and theists who believe in evolution don't you? Belief in evolution by religious tradition
    And theism as represented by an awful lot of theists as per the link above.
    And an awful lot of theists as per the link above.
    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?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,833
    Ratings:
    +269
    Religion:
    not applicable
    It's already been admitted that slow change was assumed from the outset.

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

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    I never did homework.
     
  18. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,833
    Ratings:
    +269
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Crossed the street? No.

    More like took a fork in the road.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. ArtieE

    ArtieE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Messages:
    6,187
    Ratings:
    +1,295
    Religion:
    None
    You're welcome.
    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
     
  20. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,945
    Ratings:
    +4,759
    Trying to show and explain science to Jehovah's Witnesses is like offering a ham sandwich to an Orthodox Jew.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
Loading...