The irresolvability of the creation/evolution debate

Hi Robert,You've already been given quite a bit of feedback about clarity and focus, so I'll just quote from the Forum Guidelines:

2. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

​

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

​

10. Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.

Please immediately begin presenting the specifics of your harmonization of Genesis and evolution, or cease posting to this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Quick as I can
Open Genesis..Day Six..Drop 24hr time constraint...(most people do)
Insert evolution on Day Six and Day Seven
Allow any number of years you see fit
Examine events dealt unto Adam...an obvious experiment properly constructed.God has not been removed
Evolution does fit
The scientific method is there in Chapter Two
No cause to say nay to faith
No cause to say nay to science
A creationist can say 'God did it'
A scientist can say 'with science'
I realize this is far to brief
But it sure be clear enough...
Of course I am able to rebuttal at great length
As for personal attacks...being referred to as an idiot was not
addressed by admin.
farewell

Have you ever actually debated creationists? You brought it on yourself with your grand claims and insults and general troll like behavior. The moderators are here to protect members from trolls, not vice versa.--Percy

Evolutionists, while not particularly concerned with what the story is, have this nasty little habit of insisting upon evidence to back up their story.Creationists, while not particularly concerned with evidence to back up their story, have this nasty little habit of insisting upon the story.So your solution is to get each to drop the bit that they insist upon.I don't see any problem with your plan so far. Continue.P.S. I'd bet that the admin meant concisely more then curtly. For someone who expects others to put on their little detective hats if they are to get your meaning you don't seem to be putting on your own, Dick Tracy. You might want to work a bit harder on the "Tracy" part.

---

Don't do that Dave.

Hi, Thief.I guess you're espousing a theistic evolution perspective. I'm a theistic evolutionist myself, but, as Lyx2no said so eloquently, I'm not particularly concerned with what the story ends up to be, so long as the story matches the evidence.So, the proper way to approach the problem is to start with nothing but physical evidence, and formulate theories from there. As Lyx2no has also pointed out, this is where a standard creationist would disagree with me, and that's why the debate is unresolvable.----- So, what you're proposing is that God created whatever in the first few days, and then His creations evolved from that point.You want science to exclude abiogenesis (life from raw materials) and adopt a form of baraminology, and, if they do so, everybody's happy.Sounds okay to me, I guess. Except, in order to match up with the evidence, the "kinds" would have to be very primitive organisms, and not "cat," "fish" and "horse" kinds, as creationists generally want. They would have to be even more generic than "mollusc," "arthropod" and "chordate."Furthermore, like most biologists, I see that the evidence for abiogenesis is mounting, and the evidence for universal common ancestry (all organisms from a single, one-celled ancestor) has been strong for a long time.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Play along with me just a bit more...back to a moment just before life begins on this earth...some light poetry to follow.
"My God did spit...and the earth took form
With His breath He gave it speed and direction"
He was not there when we came out of the water
He didn't have to be.
He wasn't there when we climbed into the trees to escape with our lives
He wasn't there when we found our courage and came down.
For the most part the Genesis narrative is little more than someone giving full credit to a Deity for all existence...all of it.
But then comes Chapter Two
The list of actions dealt unto Adam has all the earmarks of a controlled experiment. (Let me point out that some experiments are not done prove hypothesis...but are performed to alter the course or development of the subject)
I find it remarkable that anyone living at the time of Moses would write such narrative.
Yes of course, the Genesis narrative is third person hearsay, at best.
And we can debate Who told him such things if you like.
What I want you to look at are the details of the event.
I see a specimen selected...and isolated into ideal living conditions
Sheltered and kept..his life span was greatly extended
Apparently the experiment was going well, but, all men die...so...
The man was given a 'deep sleep' and a rib was taken from him.
The rib was increased, and a female was made.
I see...anesthesia...major surgery...cloning..and genetic engineering
Adam was given his twin sister for a bride...she had no navel
This is not evolution. Therefore I keep evolution in Day Six and Seven
Chapter Two is manipulation, it is science, it is separate from other creations.
More later

You are suspended for 12 hours. Learn to post both on topic and relevant stuff.

Hi Thief,After reading your message I noticed that AdminNosy had already suspended you. This seems to have have expired already so I'm going to suspend you again, and here's my reaction to your post:After you've had warnings from two moderators and admonishments from innumerable participants about debating clearly and forthrightly and just in general getting on with what you have to say, your response is to ask people to just play along with you a bit longer?If you want frivolous conversation, find a thread in the [forum=-14] forum. The science and religion forums are for serious discussion.See you in 24 hours.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director