Creation vs. Evolution

[DavisBJ]

Dear BJ,

You are a nutcake ready to be eaten. All you do is try to pick out everything I say, and try to start a war about it. That's exactly what you do. Do you think I would care if I'd cringe because someone called me Michael, Michael, motorcycle? I'll know about the cancer in a couple weeks. I've got a Dr's. Appointment to get a PSA done. Hey, if Susan cared so much about me using her name, I think you are treading water only. She could give a hoot. It's been a few months since I've been checked to see a new PSA bloodwork. Hey, you might wise I am interested in you that way, but don't even entertain the idea. I could not feel less interested. You come up with all of negative things about situations. You're a Debbie Downer. I thought you wanted to be friends. I love people partly by what comes out of their heart, and mouth ... that's how I decide.

Of course, I respect all three of my sisters, and I've had friends that call me something other than Michael. It doesn't faze me, it's all no big deal. I'm hearing talking about the end of the world as we know it, and you are asking me to worry about whether my sister Susan, could care less. I know she doesn't care. So whatever. You're just bummed at Mark S. I would soon steer clear of you. You are a jekyll and hyde. You call me great a few posts ago, and now this. I don't think you even realize what you're doing. And you making cracks about me wanting to date you are out of your mind. That's how your mind works, then I don't want to hear anymore. There's not a chance in hell that I feel like that in the slightest.

Well Davis, you sure know how to destroy a better relationship. Whatever. Shows me where your head and heart are at.

Michael

#30

 

[MichaelCadry]

So you think you can list a number because you're at a loss of words in your reply post. Have at it. Cop-out. Every time you can't answer things, you post a number.

Yes, you're a bona fide evolutionist/atheist who tries to hide from the Word of the Lord.

Michael

 

[Stuu]

Here is another link: Top Ten: Myths About Creation

Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change
We know that species do change—but only within the original kinds God created roughly 6,000 years ago.

So, actually creationist don't believe species change. Not in the way they actually have changed.

Myth 9: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
Creationism begins with the belief that the Bible is God’s infallible Word to us... those in the IDM are not necessarily even Christian, let alone creationists.

Muslims are characteristically creationists. They aren't necessarily christian either.

Myth 8: The Bible Is Not a Science Textbook
The Bible isn’t a science textbook in the sense that it describes exactly how the laws of the universe function

So the bible isn't a science textbook then.

Myth 7: Creationists Have a Narrow/Literal View of the Bible
there’s no reason to think that someone needs to “read into” what the words actually say... a full understanding of the universe begins with Genesis.

No need to read into what the words actually say = literalism; starting with Genesis is about the narrowest view you can get.

Myth 6: Creation Has Been Disproven
The real issue here is not one of proof or disproof

Creationism isn't disproved, apparently, because disproof doesn't apply to it.

Myth 5: Creationists Are Anti-Science
creationists do attack ideas and frameworks that deny God’s authority and place as Creator... The Bible, in fact, commands us to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God

So if the "science" doesn't agree with "god's word", then creationists are anti-science.

Myth 4: There’s No Evidence for Creation
Some aspects of our universe, however, make much more sense in light of the creation account

It's not a matter of disproof, and it's not a matter of evidence either. It's a matter of an 'account'.

Myth 3: Creationists Deny the Laws of Nature
What we do deny, however, is that common descent via evolution is a “law” or “fact.”

So creationists are in denial of at least one fact: the fact that evolution has occurred.

Myth 2: Creationists Ignore the Evidence for Evolution
Creationists pick out the hard facts and expose the parts that are opinion or based on assumptions. This is not ignoring what we don’t like; it’s separating the wheat from the chaff.

No, that really is ignoring what you don't like.

Myth 1: Creationists Want Creationism Taught in Public Schools and Evolution Out
AiG would prefer, instead, that teachers have the freedom to present the creation view if they choose.

Creationists don't want creationism taught in schools, they want teachers to be allowed to teach creationism in school.

AiG: Lying for God since 1980.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

So you think you can list a number because you're at a loss of words in your reply post. Have at it. Cop-out. Every time you can't answer things, you post a number.

Yes, you're a bona fide evolutionist/atheist who tries to hide from the Word of the Lord.

Michael

#31

Stuart

 

[MichaelCadry]

I am not freaking, but I thought, incorrectly, that you had more respect for your sister than you do.

In the multitude of posts where you have traded information with others, it has been clear that you almost desperately want to be friends. Recently you and I negotiated a better relationship, but we have not exchanged the extensive banter that you have with alwight and some of the other posters. Nor will we.

Davis, I have much respect for all three of my sisters and they know it. You are the one with the problem. You just have nothing except to grab on straws. My mom's name is Betty, like Spaghetti. Yippee!! My father's name was Al, what a pal. It's all fine with me and you are making too much of it.

Davis, it's been two nights since you and I decided that was best. I've known Alwight longer and he's become a friend. You are being paranoid. Listen, I've had enough of this for now. If you want to be friends, fine, and if not, fine.

Leave It In God's Hands,

Michael

I value friendships too, but I expect my friends to share some of the core values I have. Included in those is a deep and fundamental respect for women. Your dismissively laughing off the use of your sister’s name as a term of derision is even more surprising in light of the fact that you took umbrage when I joked about your imaginary disembodied companions. You defend your ghosts, but you are not bothered by giving your sister’s name to be crudely used by a sexist joker in return for his continued friendship. Our values, yours and mine, as regards how we think about women are much too divergent for me to want you as a friend in any meaningful way.

Your basic message permeating this whole thread has been that you are a divine messenger, carrying a warning that the end is nigh. Over and over you have asked us to heed your message, or soon it will be too late. In evaluating your credibility, I listen to not only your message, but I observe your demeanor. The list is substantial of the specific things I have seen on your part that convince me that you are at a minimum, someone who has mentally constructed a hopefully benign but still pervasive world of make-believe. If your message was simply that Christ’s return was imminent, then you would be the latest in a very long list of people with the same failed prophetic message over the last 2 millennia. But you take the extra step of imagining yourself as one of the lead players wearing a white hat riding in on a white charger in the upcoming scenes. But alas, Tom Cruise you are not. You might pass as one of the Keystone Cops, though.

You obviously may continue to append “I love you” to posts you send to me, but coming from you there is a strong possibility that is code for “I am a homo looking for a date tonight.” No, let’s keep a pretty substantial distance between us. Your passing out rep points to curry favor seemed just a little bit superficial, but I suppose I won’t need to expect that any more.

BJ, do you actually believe I am looking for a date with you. You must think very highly of yourself. I have no inclination of that, whatsoever!! It makes me sick.

You have your sister that you barter for friendship, and I am uncompromising about defending the honor of my sisters. Had I come into this conversation with a neutral view on Christianity, you would have very effectively convinced me of just how vacuous it is.

How is your prostate cancer doing? I think you view that as the fuse that is burning toward your death, after which you make your dramatic entrance on the great stage. How short is the fuse?

I have tons of close friends everywhere, (not Idaho, etc.), but Washington and Oregon, yes. I post on Twitter too and reach people from around the world who are very interested in what I have to say and I have made many acquaintances and friends there. Of course, I have a lot going on. So spare me.

Michael

 

[noguru]

Because the orbital period of the Moon depends on the semimajor axis, we can, using fossil tidal arrhythmites, know exactly how far the moon was at different periods in the Earth's history.

And from that, we know that the rate of recession varies. Turns out, the major factor in that recession is the energy transferred to the Moon from the Earth by tidal forces on coastlines.

And so, the more coastline, the greater the recession. Which was not so much when there was one continent.

If you take the values that physicists have shown, and the actual orbital period of the moon at different ages, it's well within the limits of geological time.

The numbers are kinda complex, but I think I could do that, if someone wanted to see it.

I am pretty sure that YECs would rather stay in their simple little seemingly protective bubble of (un)awareness.

 

[noguru]

What is plausible deniability and why are you asking about a deceptive tool in an emotional toolbox?

:doh:

 

[The Barbarian]

Genesis is very easy to understand... It is written as literal history.

I understand you want to believe this, but it never has been Christian orthodoxy.

Other Bible authors refer to it as history. Jesus referred to it as history.

Show us where He called it "history."

Most of 'the church' down through the ages have accepted Genesis as history.

Nope. In fact, St. Augustine, considered by Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians as one of the most authoritative theologians, pointed out that it couldn't be literal history.

Modern Hebrew scholars say the text is clearly written as literal history.

Some have. But most don't.

Dr Benno Zuiddam (historian) this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd*century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th*century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve."

But of course, not a literal six day creation. Augustine and other early theologians could not find a way to read that into Genesis. None of that conflicts with the Christian view of Genesis, or of an old Earth.

 

[noguru]

Here is another link: Top Ten: Myths About Creation

Another list of 10 deceptions by AIG. You really should expand your reading material beyond YEC sites if your sincerely want to understand.

 

[alwight]

Grade school kids can read a literally true story that uses a phrase such as "raining cats and dogs". They have no trouble differentiating between the true story and literary devices.

However when a phrase is first used, i.e. not coined, it can only be regarded as literal since there is no generally accepted idiom in place nor context nor indeed any convenient yellow highlighting in the Bible to indicate where literal truth ends and literary license begins.

Genesis is very easy to understand... It is written as literal history. Other Bible authors refer to it as history. Jesus referred to it as history. Most of 'the church' down through the ages have accepted Genesis as history. Modern Hebrew scholars say the text is clearly written as literal history. It seems even atheists believe the style of writing is literal history.

If Genesis is a literal history as you claim and also easy to understand then there would be no problem understanding the true order of creation, right?
Did God create a man and then animals or was it the other way around?
Did God create a man and a woman at the same time or was the woman created later to be a companion for the man?
Thankfully such things are, of course, made abundantly clear in Genesis 1, correct?

Presumably then we could definitely highlight Genesis 2 in yellow as being idiomatic, metaphorical or allegorical?:idea:
(Or is it the other way around? :idunno

After all, as a first time original account, the using of a literary device at this stage would surely be somewhat misleading, since it would have also been the first example of such a literary device being used too?

So Genesis 2 is not quite as literally accurate as Genesis 1 is, right? The "cats and dogs" version perhaps?
I'm really starting to get the hang of it now.

Examples....
Interesting thing about this Hebrew professor, is that he does not believe Genesis, but says the text is written as literal history

If your Hebrew professor here doesn't actually believe it, should you btw?
If Genesis isn't actually true then ancient Hebrew scribes were perhaps simply recording their myths in a literal kind of way, not trying to add their own embellishment or to exaggerate any more than the original story/myth already was?

James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

The Hebrew oral tradition suggests to me at least that the original Hebrew scribes were simply doing their job, recording a story or myth.
In effect Genesis 2 however conveys the ancient Hebrew idea of creation in a somewhat different way to Genesis 1, but that arguably the general idea amounts to the same thing in the end, but perhaps from two slightly different oral traditions?

Dr Benno Zuiddam (historian) this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd*century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th*century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve."

Yes, we should all take more notice of ancient scholars and dead Popes in determining the "True" age of the Earth, but then we might turn to science for what is actually closer to "true".
(The un-highlighted or capitalised "truth") lain:

 

[noguru]

Alwight, as reasonable as your last post is, one still cannot reason with unreasonable people.

 

[noguru]

ignore bin #29

Michael's elevator obviously does not go to the top floor.

:carryon:

 

[alwight]

Alwight, as reasonable as your last post is, one still cannot reason with unreasonable people.

Perhaps I try to be extra-reasonable to such people.

 

[noguru]

Perhaps I try to be extra-reasonable to such people.

I think that kindness and being reasonable are analogous in this sense;

People often mistake kindness for weakness.

 

[noguru]

Perhaps I try to be extra-reasonable to such people.

At any rate, I do respect your effort, perseverance and attempts at being reasonable.

 

[DavisBJ]

So you think you can list a number because you're at a loss of words in your reply post. Have at it. Cop-out. Every time you can't answer things, you post a number.

Yes, you're a bona fide evolutionist/atheist who tries to hide from the Word of the Lord.

Michael

Not really. I have decided I really should focus more on my real area of interest – the defense of science. Though I clearly disagree with some specific claims of theology, it is kinda pointless to argue them with believers who claim their god can do whatever he wants whenever he wants, including creating you yesterday at noon, with all of your memories already implanted in your brand-new brain.

And since science is one thing you have a very poor grasp on, there is little reason to interact with you. You do seem to be able to grasp that my simply counting my responses to you indicates I have not much interest in your brand of silliness, so I use them. Don’t post to me, and I will have no reason to keep the numbers going higher.

Kusper says he’s my friend now. Thanks. Bye bye.

31

 

[DavisBJ]

Barbarian, I am getting the feeling that the moon recession argument that 6days posted is going to be one that the local YECs are not willing to (or capable of) actually defend. It was kinda like a bluff.

 

[The Barbarian]

The usual game is the "Gish Gallop"; throw out as many objections as possible and hope your opponent runs out of time before he can dispose of them all.

Doesn't work on a message board, though.

 

[Jacob]

So, actually creationist don't believe species change. Not in the way they actually have changed.


Muslims are characteristically creationists. They aren't necessarily christian either.


So the bible isn't a science textbook then.


No need to read into what the words actually say = literalism; starting with Genesis is about the narrowest view you can get.


Creationism isn't disproved, apparently, because disproof doesn't apply to it.


So if the "science" doesn't agree with "god's word", then creationists are anti-science.


It's not a matter of disproof, and it's not a matter of evidence either. It's a matter of an 'account'.


So creationists are in denial of at least one fact: the fact that evolution has occurred.


No, that really is ignoring what you don't like.


Creationists don't want creationism taught in schools, they want teachers to be allowed to teach creationism in school.

AiG: Lying for God since 1980.

Stuart

I think you don't understand yet. I hope in the end you do.

 

[Jacob]

Another list of 10 deceptions by AIG. You really should expand your reading material beyond YEC sites if your sincerely want to understand.

I'm actually not going to the sites, I am receiving these specific sites as normal messages from AIG. I would encourage you to read what they have there so you do not have a misconception about what they believe.