two important questions for Servant

Hi Schrafinator,I think your original post quite interesting. The thread's decay into the standard bickering does not discount the original post's probic value.I want to respond to parts of your post as follows:1-para 3) "...to have evolved exactly as if there was no common creator, but what is the point of that?"
1-para 4) "...only creates more questions and doesn't explain anything at all."2) "...must be falsifiable, and have positive evidence to support it."I use the symbol BAE001 instead of other phrases relating to "creationism". This is mostly because I still have a hope of a highly structured discussion independent of the emotion present here.BAE001 - A theory that fits the "tree of life"BAE001.1 - God's big bang (not directly relevant to this discussion)
BAE001.2 - God's organizing the planet earth (not directly relevant...)
BAE001.3 - God's organization of the "tree of life"
BAE001.3.a created DNA components from "the dust of the earth"
He started with a comparatively simple structure (consider your grandfather playing with leggos with you) and progressed to the very complex.
BAE001.3.b created quietly (from Him) self-sustaining and self-reproducing
The DNA was made to be dividing and combining and to exist within a cell.
BAE001.3.c created variety
At many points along the way He placed the DNA into a cell to verify and realize a new species.
BAE001.3.d interacted with reality
Because the DNA was being produced over time, interactions with the universe happened (vitamin C defect, etc). Thus, any defects due to these interactions (cosmic rays, etc) were carried forward into the more complex life.Now, the above outline can be poplulated with every aspect of evolution so why not accept BAE001? What is the point of not accepting? If only to avoid an absolute authority then the refusal to accept does not make God not exist. Yes, God does make things more complex. With the the existence of God comes absolute Truth and absolute Law.One could complain "what is the point of that" if there was no logic in creation but I am hard pressed to find basis for complaint in the fact that there is logic.A fact does not need to be falsifiable; a theory does. To put that limitaiton on the existence of God is illogical. All the evidence that supports evolution also supports BAE001.I look forward to your response,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

Hi Schrafinator and Crashfrog,I had not heard of theistic evolution so I did a little research. I believe that my post was on quite a different topic. If you agree then we can proceed; if not then I will have to explain more clearly - possibly below.First, do you agree that theistic evolution means that God started life and provided a little guidance but evolution actually did all the "work"?What I am proposing is that God did all of the design up front (the DNA) and rendered (as in gif or bmp) later. This is an effort to explain why common ancestry is so apparent. But please read on before responding.I think that I finally understand your common point of view and I respect it. Does the following rephrase do your view justice: even if God did all the design up front it would make no difference in the study of evolution because science must exclude God from that study? This question is directed more toward Schrafinator (who allows that God might exist) than toward Crashfrog (who feels joy and peace knowing that God does not exist) so as to not put Crashfrog in the position of having to disagree with something disagreeable.Hi Schrafinator. I think I understand your comment "...according ...strenuously" Does my position statement make it clear that I stand with the Creationists? To further clarify, I firmly believe that Adam and Eve were my first parents. I do allow that not all Creationists will agree with all that I believe, however. I am assuming that your statement regarding my "brand of religious belief" was a prequalifier to the next sentence. If not, then please feel free to clarify.It has been a pleasure,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

Hi Schrafinator,Having seen Crashfrog's latest post and not having seen one from you, I momentairly ass/u/me that you agree with that post which leads me to post the following question:You are asking a Creationist to provide a theory of Creation without God in it? If so then, quoting you, "...what's the point?" In case this is not true, I continue.I have povided a theory of end-to-end Creation (not theistic evolution) which explains as well as the theory of evolution the apparent relationship of the DNA of all living things.I look forward to your related post.Bob, Alice, and Eve

Hi Percy,
Thanks for your post.I wish to point back to the request at the head of this thread which is "Can you please provide a scientific theory of Creation that accounts for all the evidence just as well as or better than tToE. It must also be falsifiable and have positive evidence to support it."1) The request was for a scientific theory of Creation - which I gave. This is not my view - it is an answer to the request.
2) I am using the same evidence that tToE uses - not faith. My proposal says that things seem to have a common ancestry because the DNA was continiously built up - before, not after, life started.
3) Theistic evolution proposes that God started with single-celled life and let evolution take it's course. My proposal shows a way that every baseline plant and animal could have been designed before any life was created. The two proposals are very different.
4) I am not presenting scientific evidence for God; I am working to prove that Quetzel's first rule of evidence (all theories must be falsifiable) results in an absurdity. Sharfinator simply restated that portion of the rule so I again countered.I hope this clears up the matter for you.Very best wishes,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

This post covers "faith", "built up", and "baseline", Scharfinator. I will do "falsafiability" and "evidence" in another post. Thanks for your patience.First, "faith". You said: My theory is a direct response to your request which is: Faith would be involved/used only if God had told me to post that theory. Faith is doing what God asks with no physical evidence to support the why. Are you suggesting that God told me to post the theory?Now, the second and third item of this post.
I have extended my theory and begun to add clarification. This is a result of questions and critiques presented by my peers.See part 3.a in my theory for what I mean by "built up".
See part 3.c in my theory for what I mean by "baseline" (and 3.e for a why).
I am also adding corallary (sp?) 3.e and item 3.f (3.f for Wounded King) and part 4. 3.e could adapt and vary
That this can and will happen is, of course, because of 3.b and 3.d
3.f was capable of dying
4 - God's completion of the earth (not yet relevant to this discussion)More to come,
Bob Alice, and Eve

Beautifully said, Percey.While I will be working mostly with "Scharf", this deserves a thank you, and I do thank you.And we agree that I am not trying to prove to others that God exists.Bob, Alice, and Eve

Hi Wounded King (and Schrafinator),Thanks for your gental and instructive response. Like Percy, you deserve special thanks. Thank you.My point was to show that Schrafinator's request is invalid and I think that has been done by those who responded.Schrafinator (and Quetzal by inference) and anyone else, does not a serious problem remain then? We agree that tToE can be proven false. If it is proven false then will the conclusion be that we do not exist?All other scientific theories could be replaced with another should one be proven false. It seems to me that tToE is so all-encompasing that there is no scientific alternate available. I would be interested in knowing what you see as the alternative to tToE. You may say that we can worry about that when it happens (tToE == FALSE) but what if tToE is proved false to everyone by God's appearance.And here, as I see it, is the absurdity produced by the falsifiability rule. God can not be proved false - according to scientific definition. tToE can not be proved true - according to scientific definition. One or the other must be true because we exist - unless you see an alternative explanation. So, while tToE is a great game, tToE produces nothing of value.As always, I appreciate in advance, your thoughtfullness.Quetzal, if you are around, the library sent me a booklet on hair care. I thought that was quite funny.Bob, Alice, and Eve

And, BTW, evidence of the supernatural is not acceptable (Rule 1 if I remember correctly)! I will continue to fight against rules 1 and 2 in the context of EvC.And S/He/It could show up and say "I did it with evolution" and I would accept that just as easily as I would accept "Adam and Eve were your first parents and were specially created." One or the other will happen.And there are only the two ultimate possibilities!! Right now the evidence appears to favor evolution. When S/He/It appears will evidence for the supernatural suddenly become scientific?Unless logic has completely failed, the seeming abundance of gods does not prove that there is no God.If evolution is proved false will all the proposed benefits disappear? Are the proposed benefits really that closely tied to evolution?Thank you for your posts. If I failed to respond to anyone then I will post again. While I think that I have proved that Schrafinator's request was impossible to respond to in a meaningful way, you may not so I will respond to new posts also.Bob, Alice, and Eve

I see the distinction. You stated it more clearly than I was able to. I think these two concepts may assist me in making my point.When God becomes observable will God be a theory? If God says 'I made the earth out of old material in six "days" and created Adam and Eve' will that be contrary to the evidence so make the theory of God unacceptable to scientists?Thank you Crashfrog. I truely do appreciate your patience in this. I look forward to your response.Bob, Alice, and Eve

Hi Percy,I think I may have responded to much of your post in my post to Crashfrog but I did want to acknowledge your fine statement(s). Thanks.To be sure I understand, I rephrase once more as follows: there can be no scientific evidence of the supernatural.I am not sure what you mean by "There are no such rules here." unless in the context of my misstatement above. Quetzal posted four rules of scientific evidence and no one disagreed with them.Finally, I agree that scientifically, there is only one explanation to our existence. I could editorialize but will pass since I think my involvement in this thread is finished.Thanks again,
BAE

I hope that my thanks and closing comments are not an imposition on your good nature to this point. So, thank you......Crashfrog. I am confident that the God of fellowship will be available for questions. I have a list myself. In the mean time, I count on neighbors like you to keep me out of the groups you mentioned....PaulK. Possibly He will let us watch Him create another world in six whatevers?...Mark24 (and Loudmouth). I absolutely do not promote "goddidit" (is that how you spell it, Crashfrog?). Knowing how things work is important and is part of why we were created. I hope you will not be disappointed when things move from theory to fact, though....Percy. I assumed that the "rules of science" would apply to all discussions. I have not figured out what the name of each division/level here is (forum, topic, thread, ...). Quetzal posted the rules in "Age" I think. I do not disagree with the rules; just what I see as a misuse of them.Thanks again. It is a great experience to see your minds at work.Bob, Alice, and Eve

Hi all,
As I suggested before, the Creator created the DNA of every living thing "before it was in the earth" (Gen 2:5) including the ability to replicate. He extended each simple string of DNA to get a more complex string. Thus, the appearance of a common ancestor.Then He rendered (as in .bmp or .jif) each DNA string into its mature earthly form.We wonderful humans from Adam onward are a special part of that creation. We notice His work and recognize Him in it - or not.Hope this rephrase of an earlier post is helpful.Bob, Alice, and Eve

Hi Sylas,I can't tell if your post is intended as direction or a question.If it is direction, then "thank you" and I ammend my suggestion to "two strings of DNA; one male and one female".If it is a question then I don't understand it. How would the reproduction from DNA created by my proposed method be different from the reproduction proposed by tToE?Thanks from an ever-learning
Bob, Alice, and Eve

Thanks for the feedback, Sylas.First, my original statement (nearer the start of this thread) was "the baseline of every living thing" and that is what I meant to repeat. By baseline, I mean sexually independent. Adam and Eve were, in this regard, the baseline for humans.Your follow-on was interesting in that I am not sure that "creator of all the world" means the same thing to each of us. Are you suggesting that God create's every quark (or whatever the smallest item is) and continues re-creation with every breath of air and bite of food? Would this mean that the "food' from the mother does not enter into (is not assimilated by) the developing offspring? And so on?My understanding of "orthodox Christian belief' is that each of us is re-created daily from the "dust of the earth" (the existing material) by a (natural?) process set up by the Creator.I look forward to your response.
BAE

Sylas, I want to continue this discussion . I started to then got interrupted so could not finish my post for today. I deleted the email notification so am re-notifying myself.
Thanks for your patience,
BAE