Evolution, Science, and God

[rsc2a]

Except that your YEC and Gap views have never been shown to be true.  In fact, you cannot even explain the contradictory evidence that blocks those views from being credible.

What contradictory evidence? You've provided absolutely none. NONE.

Ahem....

"Using your hermeneutic method, the solar system was created on "day 4". This causes massive problems with your insistence that "evening" and "morning" are referring to solar cycles."

What a buffoon.

It doesn't get borrowed you Moron.

How Christ-like.

The "law" of Gravity has even changed....

Newton's law of Gravity has been superseded by general relativity

The law of gravity didn't change...

..... IDIOT....

WWJD?

 

[rsc2a]

How Christ-like.

1Co 15:36  Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

Q: Provide an example of irony.

A: Someone justifying calling someone a fool for utilizing scientific principles to aid their understanding of Scripture by quoting a passage of Scripture where the person who refuses to utilize said principles is referred to as a fool.

Furthermore....

"Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ..."

"Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people."

Then why in the world are you arguing with yourself?

I'm not. Tell me how I am.

:-\

"That's why I keep asking YEC proponents to address the non-scientific problems with their interpretation. I think it will get to the real problem with their hermeneutic philosophy"

There is no "think" with you. There's only "is". 

Then why don't you address the non-scientific problems with your interpretation?

 

[christundivided]

"Using your hermeneutic method, the solar system was created on "day 4". This causes massive problems with your insistence that "evening" and "morning" are referring to solar cycles."

We don't believe the solar system was created in day 4. Have I said this......NO. If you have a problem with the "text" itself... Then speak up.

How Christ-like.

1Co 15:36  Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

The law of gravity didn't change...

What does superseded mean?

WWJD?

Mar_8:33  But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

 

[christundivided]

A: Someone justifying calling someone a fool for utilizing scientific principles to aid their understanding of Scripture by quoting a passage of Scripture where the person who refuses to utilize said principles is referred to as a fool.

Never called you a fool. I gave you an example of how Paul called those in Corinth a "fool" for what they believed. I've been kind to all you an Moron.

"Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people."

You're the ruler of nothing and such was a general rule not a absolute command for all situations. If it was.... the Paul broke his own absolute rule many times over. I can tell you know very little about the Bible. All you have is a rudimentary knowledge that is lacking any coherent application. Even Paul called for God to "smite" those that hit him.

Act_23:3  Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

Then why don't you address the non-scientific problems with your interpretation?

I've already told you that I don't believe the solar system was made on the 4th day. Move on young man. Move on.

 

[rsc2a]

Never called you a fool. I gave you an example of how Paul called those in Corinth a "fool" for what they believed. I've been kind to all you an Moron.

I'm quitting you on this topic until you learn to show at least a smidge of respect for others...

"Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people."

You're the ruler of nothing and such was a general rule not a absolute command for all situations. If it was.... the Paul broke his own absolute rule many times over. I can tell you know very little about the Bible. All you have is a rudimentary knowledge that is lacking any coherent application. Even Paul called for God to "smite" those that hit him.

Act_23:3  Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

On this topic...

Do you understand the difference in descriptive and prescriptive texts?

....which is itself an important question in spite of the fact that the passage in question doesn't say what you claim it says.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]

Except that your YEC and Gap views have never been shown to be true.  In fact, you cannot even explain the contradictory evidence that blocks those views from being credible.

What contradictory evidence? You've provided absolutely none. NONE. [/quote]

LOL even the ICR says the Gap Theory is garbage:
http://www.icr.org/article/why-gap-theory-wont-work/

So does that other clown organization, Answers in Genesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v10/n1/gap-theory

Work through those. If you survive the experience and want more, let me know.

No, you're just ignoring your own claim. I don't blame you; the claim was wrong. But you most certainly did say:
They know the consistency of the solar and lunar cycles from what we know from "Science".

You ignored what else I wrote.

I ignored nothing at all. You simply shot your mouth off without thinking, and now regret it.

Don't ignore the context. I never said is was an absolute.

That is what "consistency" means.

Not to mention the fact you're accepting ancient mineral deposit made from variable tide patterns to indicate a longer year. What a buffoon.

Variable tide patterns?  Such as not laying down a particulate layer on an annual basis?
What an interesting claim. Present your evidence.

More:
http://www.scribd.com/arbab64/d/9498374-Length-of-DayEarth-rotation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html
http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-5-dating-methods.html

You can also say that the Chevy Camaro has evolved.  But neither the Camaro or the atmosphere actually "evolve". Both have changed, and the  term "evolve" gets borrowed as a shorthand way to express that thought. However, "evolve" is a biological term.  Neither the earth nor the atmosphere evolve because evolution involves reproduction. Last time I checked, the rocks, wind, rain, etc. don't have offspring.

It doesn't get borrowed you Moron.

Yes, it does, Jethro.

The word "evolve" and "evolution" covers changes in the atmosphere. Here.... Let me give a textbook definition. Will you accept it....?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolve
b : to produce by natural evolutionary processes

LOL and "natural evolutionary processes" are biological in nature. 
Would you like a bigger gun to shoot yourself in the foot with?

A surpassingly stupid comment by you.  The fundamentals of reality around us, the natural world, doesn't change.  If you think it does, then identify the changes in the law of gravity.  Identify the changes in heat transfer. Identify the change in the entropic principle.

The "law" of Gravity has even changed....

Newton's law of Gravity has been superseded by general relativity..... IDIOT....

You really are dumber than a bag of hammers, aren't you?

You're wrong for two reasons:

1. The law of gravity did not change. Our understanding and mathematical expression to describe gravity changed.  But the force of gravity itself is the same today as it was during Newton's time.  Gravity acts just the same today as it did back then. Once again: you're too stupid to tell the difference between (a) a change in the yardstick, and (b) a change in the item being measured.  You mistake (a) for (b), as usual.

2. Newton's law was not superseded; it was subsumed in general relativity. That is why Newton's laws are still taught at high school and college level, because for all values short of highly relativistic speeds, Newton's laws accurately describe gravity. If Newton had been superseded, then Newton wouldn't be taught anymore.

Duh.

But the foundation of reality around us is constant.

Ever heard of the "Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope". Obviously you haven't.

Obviously you're wrong. But please - *do* continue to demonstrate your stupidity for the audience.  I'm sure they're all interested in what an 8th grade education can provide.

Many scientist expect to find that the speed of light has changed over time by viewing "older" parts of the galaxy. You're not all you're cracked but to be "red".

Scientists do not expect to find any such thing.  You've been listening to YEC garbage again. The speed of light is a constant.
http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/quantumgrav.html

The scientific tools are refined. But the science they are measuring does not change. You're so utterly clueless that you can't tell the difference between the yardstick and the thing being measured.

Sure... the tools just change... Get a life. You have to be a freshman in college who loves to think he's got a handle on everything.

LOL you blew it and made a mistake. Now you can't admit it. Typical arrogance of the know-nothing that gets backed into a corner with no place to hide.

I just know this material far better than you ever will. That upsets you.  Naturally.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]
We don't believe the solar system was created in day 4. [/quote]

Even though the text clearly says it was:

14 Then God said,

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=rsc2a]On this topic...

Do you understand the difference in descriptive and prescriptive texts?[/quote]

You're kidding, right?

Our resident rocket scientist thinks that if the equations for gravity get improved to better estimate the effects of gravity, that somehow means gravity itself changed - instead of the equation changing to suit the observations.

Given that, what *chance* does Jethro have of understanding two different text types?

 

[rsc2a]

You really are dumber than a bag of hammers, aren't you?

Obviously you're wrong. But please - *do* continue to demonstrate your stupidity for the audience.

To be fair to all, I'll re-iterate what I told christundivided....

Debates that resort to insults and ad homs aren't edifying*. Tear into each others' "facts" and logic all you want though. 

*While you haven't been as bad as him in this respect, when the debate degenerates to this, it ceases to be useful and doesn't speak well to non-believers.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I haven't, and am not going to, read this whole thread, so forgive me if these questions have already been asked of our resident evolution proponents. 

Do you believe the axiom "the key to the past is in observing the present"?  If so, does such uniformitarianist/naturalistic and inflexible a priori suppositions preclude you from believing that natural processes were ever differerent than they are today?

Secondly, how do you account for the fact that evolutionary theory means that you insist that there was death before man ever fell and had the curse placed on him and creation?

 

[rsc2a]

I haven't, and am not going to, read this whole thread, so forgive me if these questions have already been asked of our resident evolution proponents. 

I refuse to answer questions for people who aren't willing to read the thread. 

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Do you believe the axiom "the key to the past is in observing the present"?  If so, does such uniformitarianist/naturalistic and inflexible a priori suppositions preclude you from believing that natural processes were ever differerent than they are today?[/quote]

Possibly. That's why I'm not dogmatic about my beliefs in this area (creation). However, since science consistently provides correct answers for what we can observe and because the historical, literary, and cultural contexts allow (require?) an interpretation regarding creation that is consistent with science, I see no reason to reject either the science or the Biblical interpretation.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Secondly, how do you account for the fact that evolutionary theory means that you insist that there was death before man ever fell and had the curse placed on him and creation?[/quote]

Is Genesis referring to a spiritual death or physical death? Is this application of death limited to mankind or does it apply to all creation? Even further...was the Garden metaphorical* or real place at a real time?

* I'm not saying I believe (or disbelieve) this. Like Izzy's thought experiment on page 7, I don't know that this is true, but maybe it is.

 

[christundivided]

I'm quitting you on this topic until you learn to show at least a smidge of respect for others...

No you won't.

On this topic...

Do you understand the difference in descriptive and prescriptive texts?

Sure. What do want to know about them? I have some time later on. I can do a little one on one training if you like.

 

[christundivided]

You really are dumber than a bag of hammers, aren't you?

Obviously you're wrong. But please - *do* continue to demonstrate your stupidity for the audience.

To be fair to all, I'll re-iterate what I told christundivided....

Debates that resort to insults and ad homs aren't edifying*. Tear into each others' "facts" and logic all you want though. 

*While you haven't been as bad as him in this respect, when the debate degenerates to this, it ceases to be useful and doesn't speak well to non-believers.

I knew he had it in him. I just refuse to believe he was any different than I am. All this "holier than thou" theatrics gets really boring.

 

[christundivided]

Scientists do not expect to find any such thing.  You've been listening to YEC garbage again. The speed of light is a constant.
http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/quantumgrav.html

I'm glad you know where I get all my information. In fact..... I was listening to a science channel special called "through the worm hole". Ever heard of it? It was the show on "time". I rather like the show. It discusses how physicist are so wrapped in mathematics that they can't see the obvious. Just because the #'s don't change.... doesn't mean the "equation" meets reality. Reality is not all about "mathematics". Mathematics is man made. As such, it will never be perfect and unchanging.

The scientific tools are refined. But the science they are measuring does not change. You're so utterly clueless that you can't tell the difference between the yardstick and the thing being measured.
I just know this material far better than you ever will. That upsets you.  Naturally.

Not really. I bet that I've scored higher than you on most any test we have in common. Just because I know the subject.... doesn't mean I agree with it. You have to play the game in this life. You have be part of the system but you don't have to swallow it hook line and sinker.

LOL even the ICR says the Gap Theory is garbage:
http://www.icr.org/article/why-gap-theory-wont-work/

So does that other clown organization, Answers in Genesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v10/n1/gap-theory

Work through those. If you survive the experience and want more, let me know.

You fail to realize that we have this in common. They think you're nuts and I'm nuts. Does that tell you anything?

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]
We don't believe the solar system was created in day 4.

Even though the text clearly says it was:

14 Then God said,

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]
I knew he had it in him. I just refuse to believe he was any different than I am.
[/quote]

I *am* different from you. 
After all, I know what I'm talking about.

All this "holier than thou" theatrics gets really boring.

I made no such claims.
But as we've seen, if you need a strawman, you just make one up on the fly.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]

Scientists do not expect to find any such thing.  You've been listening to YEC garbage again. The speed of light is a constant.
http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/quantumgrav.html

I'm glad you know where I get all my information. In fact..... I was listening to a science channel special called "through the worm hole". [/quote]

Find the link and the date of the broadcast.  It's far more likely that you mis-heard / misunderstood / weren't paying attention.  The speed of a light is a universal constant. Period.

The scientific tools are refined. But the science they are measuring does not change. You're so utterly clueless that you can't tell the difference between the yardstick and the thing being measured.

I just know this material far better than you ever will. That upsets you.  Naturally.

Not really. I bet that I've scored higher than you on most any test we have in common.

2. You certainly didn't score higher than me on any test related to science. It's all you can manage, just to type a sentence without containing a scientific error in it.
2. Not that such boasting as yours matters one whit; since on the internet, such claims are pretty empty because they're unprovable.
3. This isn't about test scores anyhow. It's about your lack of education on the topic, while simultaneously rejecting it. 

Just because I know the subject.... doesn't mean I agree with it.

You do *not* know the subject.
If you knew the subject, you wouldn't make obvious mistakes about what evolution says.

Even if a person disagrees with something, they ought to be able to accurately restate the key points, definitions, etc. of the position they reject.
If they can't do that, then their uninformed opinion and rejection of the topic is worthless. 
You have to play the game in this life. You have be part of the system but you don't have to swallow it hook line and sinker.

LOL even the ICR says the Gap Theory is garbage:
http://www.icr.org/article/why-gap-theory-wont-work/

So does that other clown organization, Answers in Genesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v10/n1/gap-theory

Work through those. If you survive the experience and want more, let me know.

You fail to realize that we have this in common. They think you're nuts and I'm nuts. Does that tell you anything?

1. LOL nice try at changing the subject.  You asked for evidence that the Gap viewpoint was scientifically wrong.  I gave it to you, from two sources that are supposedly creationist.  Where is your analysis of their position? Where is your examination of their claims?  Oh, that's right:  you don't actually engage in any heavy lifting; too much work involved.

2. As for what ICR and AIG reject - it tells me nothing at all.  All three of you are wrong.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]AGAIN. Genesis 1 does not detail the original creative action of God in the Universe. [/quote]

AGAIN, that's not what Genesis says. 
1. Are you contradicting Genesis? Explain upon what basis you consider yourself of sufficient importance to correct Genesis.
2. Where is your evidence that it does not describe the orignial creative action?
3. Links, sources, and names please.  No more handwaving and question-begging.

So you can throw you accusations toward me in the garbage. They don't fit. They never will.

Except when they *do* fit - like now.

Attack the "gap theory"..... P.S. It might help if you really understood the "gap theory".

I understand it.  That's precisely *why* I reject it.

 

[christundivided]

Find the link and the date of the broadcast.  It's far more likely that you mis-heard / misunderstood / weren't paying attention.  The speed of a light is a universal constant. Period.

You don't know for sure. You haven't be able to measure it throughout the known Universe. This may soon change. I'm not going to do your work for you. Find it yourself.

1. LOL nice try at changing the subject.  You asked for evidence that the Gap viewpoint was scientifically wrong.  I gave it to you, from two sources that are supposedly creationist.  Where is your analysis of their position? Where is your examination of their claims?  Oh, that's right:  you don't actually engage in any heavy lifting; too much work involved.

2. As for what ICR and AIG reject - it tells me nothing at all.  All three of you are wrong.

You posted a link without pointing out anything you agree with. Nothing. Obviously you don't agree with everything they post..... so... be diligent. Point something out. The arguments they make are silly.

 

[christundivided]

AGAIN, that's not what Genesis says. 
1. Are you contradicting Genesis? Explain upon what basis you consider yourself of sufficient importance to correct Genesis.
2. Where is your evidence that it does not describe the orignial creative action?
3. Links, sources, and names please.  No more handwaving and question-begging.

1. Nope
2. If you really want to discuss this... I will start another thread.
3. I apologize for calling you a idiot and a moron. Don't call me stupid, uneducated, or anything else and I will not return fire. It often amazes me how people want to draw a line with "moron" and "idoit" while calling someone stupid.