Hi Loudmouth:
Willowtree writes:
The source of ALL ID philosophy is the Bible
Loudmouth in response writes:
So it would be fair to call ID non-scientific?
Everyone abides by philosophy.
You are really trying to assert the Bible to not be evidence-based, unlike the claim of science. The Bible, unfortunately, does have a dogma-driven reputation, but this "bad" reputation is actually completely false.
Does Roman's say that God's creation did not come about through evolution?
Yes it does.
And I define "evolution" by its emotive and reportive definition.
Loudmouth, you are an atheist - yes or no ?
If yes, then why do you constantly seek to validate evolution with a source that was written to evidence and declare that God created Adam and animals ?
This indicates acceptance of the source to be an authority and longing for its approval.
Since evolution is consistent with the evidence found in the creation
Evolution within animal kind/species is a fact - but that is all. Quadrupeds did not evolve from bi-peds or birds or vice-versa.
Humans did not evolve. Genesis says God created. The hard evidence for claims of human evolution equates by volume to a box of bones of contention - hardly the amount of evidence needed to make such a definitive proclamation for the history of all humanity. Human evolution is asserted BECAUSE the alternative is not an option. The reason it is not an option is because Romans says God's wrath incapacitates the ability to comprehend Him. Continued defiance toward the percieved encroachments of a Creator triggers the manifestation of the penalty.
ToE has many brilliant God-senseless persons taking the truths of micro-evolution and insisting the process to be nature-wide - all because of the incapacitation.
then this would mean that evolution is a theory that best sees God in his creation.
Emotively and reportively, evolution means the God of Genesis was not involved.
This comment of yours is actually quite ridiculous.
IF evolution were true, then of course.
Random, chance, accident, fluke, mindless, and purposeless are all adjectives that have the dual silent meaning that the God of Genesis was not involved.
Then, I ask, how do these observations, if true, evidence-against God ? Only when this question is asked does the fast as light response come "we never said it does" - but the emotive and reportive meaning remains. Evos have figured out a way to have their cake and eat it too.
If evolution is devoid of Godsense, then evolution would not be reflected in the evidence found in the creation.
Already answered.
How did birds get in the air ? How did the cuckoo bird evolve ? How did migrations of thousands of miles to the exact same locations evolve ? These are gaping holes - also known as the fingerprints of God declared in Romans 1.
The evo explanations are pure comedy.
we do have fine grade morphologocal changes in marine deposits showing small changes over time in shell structure. The end points of this transition could be considered to be macroevolution
"Could be considered" !
That is a huge leap - all because you have spoken up for macro-evolution.
Like I said, micro events taken to macro assumptions, but these generous leaps are consistent with the biggest leap of dogma: The key to the past is the present !
Unlike creationists, real scientists don't have the option of ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit into their theory.
This was my exact complaint which started this particular exchange - only I leveled it at evos in the context of IC systems in defiance of foundational evo doctrine of ultra slow step by tiny step improvement.
IC systems obliterate slow evo processes, in response, evos arbitrarily assert them to be the product of randomness/ATP.
Racism has nothing to do with the theory, only with the rhetoric that panicky creationists put forth. They can't attack evolution on a scientific basis so they have to attack it's proponents. Copernicus could have been a child raping, women murdering, public urinator but his theories about the movement of the celestial bodies is still accurate.
Agreed.
I never cite the skeletons of evolution unless an evo initiates politically correct slander rants as their "refutation" to Biblical reference.
If you want to blame someone for corrupting your translation of Genesis, blame God for making the evidence so convincing.
This is as old as Genesis 3:12, Adam speaking "the woman YOU gave me" caused me to eat.
Adam blamed God - we all do the same - aint nothing new under the sun.
™ Version 4.2
