Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?
Apologetics
Junior Member (Idle past 5304 days)
Posts: 19
From: Michigan
Joined: 09-08-2009


Message 46 of 167 (523678)
09-11-2009 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Otto Tellick
09-10-2009 11:43 PM


Re: God using evolution
Otto Tellick writes:
"Larger"?? In what dimensions?
Grammatically Hebrew words typically have a triconsonanta root cosisting of three consonants separated by vowels. Changes in adding or removing of the vowels alters the meaning of a root. prefixes and suffixes are also added to the roots to modify the meaning. You have masculine and feminine in both the verb ad noun forms. Each letter carried a numerical value also. Numbers had special significance in the Hebrew culture.
In other words, do your particular views about the linguistics of the Bible allow you any means for accepting (as opposed to denying) plain truths about the physical reality we occupy?
Yes, since the study of the language of the Bible lets me know that the Bible is to be taken literal.
Since it is literal I can look at observable science, archeology, astronomy, etc. to see if the scripture are true. If the Bible was not literal I would not know what to believe and what not to believe. With this worldview I then do not have to look at the world with a humanistic or naturalistic worldview. So I see observable science (radio halos in Zircon crystals, Carbon 14 in diamonds, etc.) confirming the Bible's accuracy.
objective
Please name a worldview that interpreat evidence in a neutral way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-10-2009 11:43 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Larni, posted 09-12-2009 12:08 PM Apologetics has not replied

  
Apologetics
Junior Member (Idle past 5304 days)
Posts: 19
From: Michigan
Joined: 09-08-2009


Message 47 of 167 (523679)
09-11-2009 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by DrJones*
09-11-2009 8:21 PM


Re: God using evolution
DrJones writes:
Where in the post does he claim that monkies reproduced humans.
...prior to which there are non-human ancestors. And if you go back far enough there are ape-like ancestors, then monkey-like ancestors...
Reverse the order since he is going from present to past. From past to present he has monkey-like ancestors, ape-like ancestors, non-human, then to human. If you are still confused please read a couple of previous posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by DrJones*, posted 09-11-2009 8:21 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by DrJones*, posted 09-11-2009 10:01 PM Apologetics has not replied

  
Apologetics
Junior Member (Idle past 5304 days)
Posts: 19
From: Michigan
Joined: 09-08-2009


Message 48 of 167 (523681)
09-11-2009 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Otto Tellick
09-10-2009 11:08 PM


Re: "The authority of a message"?
Otto Tellick writes:
When people are disagreeing about their faiths, their interpretations of scripture, their notions of God, God's will, God's judgment, etc, etc, what is the basis or process for resolving their disputes?
That is why a literal interpretation is important. In the Biblical world view scripture should settle the disputes. To prove this statement we would have to go into more detail then we probably should.
To the first part of your response. We have those who do not hold to a literal interpretation, that causes them to disagree with others. Some Christians sadly have become confused. They do not know why they believe what they believe. They may not know how observable science attests for the accuracy of scripture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-10-2009 11:08 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by bluescat48, posted 09-12-2009 12:38 AM Apologetics has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 49 of 167 (523685)
09-11-2009 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Apologetics
09-11-2009 9:36 PM


Re: God using evolution
Yes, monkey-like leads to ape-like leads to human-like then to what we would recognize as human. If you understand this from his post why would you make the statement:
monkeys reproducing humans.
which is not what his post is saying.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Apologetics, posted 09-11-2009 9:36 PM Apologetics has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 50 of 167 (523689)
09-11-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Apologetics
09-11-2009 8:30 PM


Re: God using evolution
quote:
You cannot change the scripture to meet your worldview. If Mark wanted to speak of the creation of mankind he would have said that. Instead he said "But from the beginning of creation...". The first step in Hermeneutics (study of scripture) is to allow scripture to interpret scripture.
I would say that the first step in hermeneutics is to understand the passage in context. But I agree that the "analogy of Scripture" is also very important.
quote:
As a literal interpretation this passage fits with the rest of scripture, but with your interpretation you must reinterpret other verses like the first chapter of Genesis.
I don't see that this requires or implies any specific interpretation of Genesis 1. Jesus is telling us that from the time mankind was first created, God intended for mankind to marry and not divorce. This puts no constraints or implications on the interpretation of Genesis 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Apologetics, posted 09-11-2009 8:30 PM Apologetics has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 51 of 167 (523690)
09-11-2009 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Apologetics
09-11-2009 8:12 PM


Re: God using evolution
Coyote writes:
And the "humans have only reproduced humans" works only as far as Homo erectus or Homo habilis, prior to which there are non-human ancestors. And if you go back far enough there are ape-like ancestors, then monkey-like ancestors (more accurately, ape-toothed monkeys). That's what the fossil record and genetic studies have shown, supported by a myriad of other sciences.
Empirical: Based on or characterized by observation and experiment instead of theory.
Please give a better example of your worldviews experimental evidence. What experiments have people with your presuppositions done that has observed monkeys reproducing humans. You must have some since you say you have "empirical" evidence.
Nice try, but we saw you palm that card.
Your definition of "empirical" includes both observation and experiment, but you're trying to hide the observation part, presenting only the strawman of experiment in your second paragraph.
Of course we don't have an experiment whereby monkeys produce humans! Its idiotic to even think such a thing, which is why only creation "scientists" include such references in their writings. But we don't need such an experiment; "empirical" includes both observation and experiment.
And we do have observations covering the time period from geology, paleontology, and genetics, as well as a host of other related fields. And they all show the same overall pattern of relationships that I described.
Now, apparently you don't accept that evidence. So, do you have any evidence to show that the progression from ape-tooth monkeys, to ape-like critters to non-human ancestors, then to early Homo species, then to modern man, didn't occur about as I described?
Evidence--not religious belief! Not strawman arguments culled from creationist websites. Not logic that would flunk a freshman course. Scientific evidence!
And don't forget, we all saw you palm that card. We expect your argument to be more honest next time.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Apologetics, posted 09-11-2009 8:12 PM Apologetics has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 52 of 167 (523699)
09-12-2009 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Apologetics
09-11-2009 9:48 PM


Re: "The authority of a message"?
...observable science attests for the accuracy of scripture.
Give me one example where this is so.
Edited by bluescat48, : clarification

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Apologetics, posted 09-11-2009 9:48 PM Apologetics has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 53 of 167 (523742)
09-12-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Coyote
09-10-2009 10:20 PM


Re: God using evolution
Coyote writes:
There is as of yet no empirical evidence for the existence of deities.
And the "humans have only reproduced humans" works only as far as Homo erectus or Homo habilis, prior to which there are non-human ancestors. And if you go back far enough there are ape-like ancestors, then monkey-like ancestors (more accurately, ape-toothed monkeys). That's what the fossil record and genetic studies have shown, supported by a myriad of other sciences.
"Same with livestock" runs into the same problem. You go back a ways and you find different species, then different genera. This too is supported by the fossil record and genetic studies.
Unfortunately your worldview, essentially a religious belief, is not supported by empirical evidence.
This isn't a factual statement at all Coyote. Your world view of evolution insists that this worlds very organized, complimentary and interdependent ecosystem from plant life up to the most sophisticated life forms each evolve according to RANDOM mutations which can only be based on NATURAL SELECTION for what's best for their own evolutionary process. In other words, when a Marmot allegedly evolves, it isn't concerned about how its evolutionary improvement will compliment the Badger which hunts it. In fact, if anything, it is highly motivated to evolve defense systems which would lead to it protecting itself from remaining prey to that or any animal. After all, one of the cardinal rules of evolution is the desire to improve and survive.
So what we have here is a philosophy which by its very definition works against how the world and all life reacts to the environmental pressures which they face in reality. Evolution denies and ignores the realities of how the world actually works in its desire to explain itself. It defies all known realities when one simply considers the ramifications of what it suggests in rational and reasonable terms. In other words, it doesn't pass the smell test. So plainly speaking, how does your world view support empirical and directly observable evidence in the real world which we all inhabit today?
Life on Earth works in a symbiotic and complimentary way through an organized chain of life. Nothing is wasted at all. Every insect, plant and animal contributes to the survival of the whole ecosystem in a symbiotic fashion. But nothing in the evolutionary theory even describes or expects this outcome in describing what it represents in reality.
Let me offer a metaphor from another post I wrote which will clarify my point regarding the practicality and common sense of creation as I attempt to explain the genomic similarities in various life forms and why they don't prove common descent at all, but CREATION. Imagine that every different form of life is a different type and quality of computer designed and created by God. Where as insects have the computing power of simple calculators, the more advanced the creature, the more advanced the computing machine leading to the human being which is represented by a super computer.
Now, every computer which serves to define every varied type of life on earth have many of the same components in them. It's just that those more complex life forms have more components which the simpler life forms don't have. I mean, even a calculator has a memory chip and a chip to organize its functions, not to mention a simplified yet definite motherboard. Just as a super computer does and an intermediate level computer.
Well, so it is with Gods creation. Many of the same genetic components which define the lower animals also define we human beings. But what matters and counts in the end is that we are the apex of life on earth and no other creature, though by your own theory are what we evolved from which means that they were here first. Yet here we are as the ultimate life form on earth. The question is, why haven't these creatures which existed long before primates ever walked on 2 legs ever advance as we have to become higher, complex thinking creatures with imaginations and creativity as humans have. Surely they have had the time. Now I know those who preach the evolution party line will take offense to my description of evolution, and God knows they hate it when I ask common sense questions like these, but when all is said and done, humans/homo anything were the last and latest forms of life to evolve in the form of primates. So my simplified summation for the sake of time, stands and the question remains, why only human beings have the higher functions which only we possess, again just as Genesis says we were created to have?
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2009 10:20 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Coyote, posted 09-12-2009 11:01 AM Archangel has replied
 Message 55 by Coragyps, posted 09-12-2009 11:11 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 56 by bluescat48, posted 09-12-2009 11:24 AM Archangel has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 54 of 167 (523745)
09-12-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Archangel
09-12-2009 10:36 AM


Re: God using evolution
Nothing of what you write, though seemingly elegant, contradicts what I said in my post.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 10:36 AM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 11:40 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 55 of 167 (523747)
09-12-2009 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Archangel
09-12-2009 10:36 AM


Re: God using evolution
After all, one of the cardinal rules of evolution is the desire to improve and survive.
Where did you find that exceedingly odd "rule," Archangel? Not in the biological literature, I'll bet - more likely in some tract from Kent Hovind, it sounds like.
It's utterly false! A nematode or typanosome almost certainly has no "desire to improve" at all, or anything else we could realistically call a "desire." They're biologically/chemically "driven" to seek nutrition and make babies, I guess, but that's hardly a desire to survive.
Oh, and welcome to EvC!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 10:36 AM Archangel has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 56 of 167 (523749)
09-12-2009 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Archangel
09-12-2009 10:36 AM


Re: God using evolution
After all, one of the cardinal rules of evolution is the desire to improve and survive.
That may be the outcome, but evolution has no direction. Evolution is simply descent with modification. Changes may be benificial, neutral or
harmful. In most cases the harmful don't survive to pass the trait on to offspring. Neutral modifications can become benificial if the environment changes and this modification is helpful to the survival.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 10:36 AM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 12:01 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 57 of 167 (523752)
09-12-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Coyote
09-12-2009 11:01 AM


Re: God using evolution
Coyote writes:
Nothing of what you write, though seemingly elegant, contradicts what I said in my post.
I don't know how you can say this at all. Evolution contradicts reality by claiming to fit with what we observe in the real world when by its very definition, it contradicts reality. According to evolutionary theory, for around 3.5 billion years now since the first simple life spontaneously appeared in that allusive primordial ooze, and the evolutionary process began on earth; all life forms from what ever species, have been on an independent and very selfish journey toward individual perfection for the sake of its own improvement in order to insure its species survival, according to EVOLUTION, THAT IS.
So your secular humanist religion/philosophy, (and I say this not to insult, but to clarify that it isn't science,) describes a very singular and selfish process for survival when in reality we have a world full of plant and animal life which does ADAPT in order to survive changing environmental pressures, this we agree with. But animals defenses against the predators which hunt them have never been proven to have evolved as much as having been inherent in the species. In other words, since the beginning of creation Marmots have been hunted by Badgers, and they have never evolved a defense against them, Although Marmots may have adapted digging claws which complimented the environment that changed over time, they still remained Marmots and never evolved into Badgers or any other species like a bird so they could fly away from their most significant predators.
I mean, can you show that there was ever a direct descendant of the Blow fish which didn't possess a deadly toxin as a natural defense system? Have you evidence that Sea Urchins or Jelly fish have ever NOT had toxic tentacles as natural defense systems? Of course you can't, but that doesn't stop evolution from making massive assumptions which can't be tested or confirmed in labs. You see, there is an old rule in sales that says that "It isn't what you say, but how you say it." This is how evolution works, they explain their perspective in such a way that sounds good, but unless you look at what they assume and claim from the other point of view, you will miss the fact that you are being sold a bill of goods which defies logic and reality as reality works in the REAL WORLD.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Coyote, posted 09-12-2009 11:01 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Huntard, posted 09-12-2009 2:15 PM Archangel has replied
 Message 62 by Coyote, posted 09-12-2009 3:59 PM Archangel has replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 58 of 167 (523755)
09-12-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by bluescat48
09-12-2009 11:24 AM


Re: God using evolution
bluescat48 writes:
That may be the outcome, but evolution has no direction. Evolution is simply descent with modification. Changes may be benificial, neutral or
harmful. In most cases the harmful don't survive to pass the trait on to offspring. Neutral modifications can become benificial if the environment changes and this modification is helpful to the survival.
How convenient, then what you're saying here is that no matter what observations may arise, you guys have it covered in your ever expanding and generalized definition of what evolution is and represents itself as. Have you no absolute laws which define your so called science? But in spite of what excuses you make in debates as you obfuscate and sidestep actual issues, here is what evolution teaches at its most basic level, and it supports me to the T. Natural Selection - Understanding Evolution
And btw, what you are describing is the view of neo Darwinism, not original Darwinism. All you people have learned in 130 years is how to fine tune the excuses and justifications for the inconsistencies which exist in your pseudo science.
And don't think that your focus on a perceived correction of my definition of evolutionary outcome is lost on me as you use that to ignore the meat of my argument regarding the inconsistency of what this philosophy represents in the real world.
Edited by Archangel, : add supporting link:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by bluescat48, posted 09-12-2009 11:24 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by bluescat48, posted 09-12-2009 11:00 PM Archangel has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 59 of 167 (523756)
09-12-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Apologetics
09-11-2009 9:27 PM


Re: God using evolution
You might want to attribute your first paragraph to its source text.
Apologetics writes:
Grammatically Hebrew words typically have a triconsonanta root cosisting of three consonants separated by vowels. Changes in adding or removing of the vowels alters the meaning of a root. prefixes and suffixes are also added to the roots to modify the meaning.
Looks very similar to this:
TheFreeDictionary writes:
Grammatically, Hebrew is typical of the Semitic tongues in that so many words have a triconsonantal root consisting of three consonants separated by vowels. Changes in, or omissions of, the vowels alter the meaning of a root. Prefixes and suffixes are also added to roots to modify the meaning.
Idioma hebrew | Article about Idioma hebrew by The Free Dictionary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Apologetics, posted 09-11-2009 9:27 PM Apologetics has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 60 of 167 (523771)
09-12-2009 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Archangel
09-12-2009 11:40 AM


Re: God using evolution
Archangel writes:
...when in reality we have a world full of plant and animal life which does ADAPT in order to survive changing environmental pressures, this we agree with.
You confuse me Archy. Here you say evolution IS true.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 11:40 AM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 3:12 PM Huntard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024