[_ Old Earth _] Archaeopteryx?

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

Or, instead of just going with our personal preferences, we can look at the evidence, and see that He was a lot more creative and powerful than creationsts are willing to accept. He produced a universe in which all this wonderful life evolves as He intended.

"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny  and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do)."  Stephen Jay Gould


Barbarian wrote:

Nope. Creationists, for example are befuddled by the fact that the only transitionals we see are between related species. No bird/mammal, or crab/sea urchin intermediates.

LOL. Creationists know the only ‘transitionals we see’ are in evolutionary imaginations. What befuddles them is the fact that you think a few similarities classify as proof for ‘transitionals.’ A hamburger must be a transitional between a whoopee cushion and a hockey puck. Now you have me worried. Why don’t we see ‘transitionals’ between mail boxes and coffee mugs? The other befuddling thought is why it’s so important to you. If you narrow all these ‘transitionals’ down to a few good ‘kinds’, what difference will it make? Now, if you were just trying to prove the Bible was wrong or the non existence of God, it would make some sense.


Barbarian wrote:

Evolutionary theory can explain why. But creationists can only scratch their heads and say "Godmustadunnit."

Obviously, God’s artistic style evolved from one creature to another. The various divisions and categories you put them into may even reflect some of this creative flow …and how will that change life as we know it? Do you have a point for all this? Are you saying God didn’t do it? :o

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Creationists, for example are befuddled by the fact that the only transitionals we see are between related species. No bird/mammal, or crab/sea urchin intermediates.

What befuddles them is the fact that you think a few similarities classify as proof for ‘transitionals.’

As you learned, all the evidence shows this to be. And creationists are still baffled as to why newly found transitionals are always those predicted by evolutionary theory, but never one which is ruled out by the theory.

A hamburger must be a transitional between a whoopee cushion and a hockey puck.

You think that's how it works? No wonder you hate science. If it was like that, I'd hate it, too.

Now you have me worried. Why don’t we see ‘transitionals’ between mail boxes and coffee mugs?

Because they're artifacts?

The other befuddling thought is why it’s so important to you.

In science, knowledge is valued for it's own worth.

If you narrow all these ‘transitionals’ down to a few good ‘kinds’, what difference will it make?

Actually one kind. And we have learned something very basic about living things. Granted, such knowledge often becomes useful. But that's not why we look for it.

Now, if you were just trying to prove the Bible was wrong or the non existence of God, it would make some sense.

Don't see how. As you learned, evolution shows us a God much greater and more intelligent than the creationist's God.

 

[unred typo]

As reznwerks is so fond of saying: you can have your own opinions but not your own facts. A pattern of pompously declaring something to be a fact when it hasn’t even happened is quite clear in most of the following Barbarian post:

Barbarian wrote:

As you learned, all the evidence shows this to be.

As who learned? Here is our first and second examples of declaring something to be a fact when it hasn’t even happened except in Barbarian’s mind. He simply, like God, declares that all the evidence undeniably supports his position and I have somehow acknowledged all this great evidence. Not really, Barbarian. We haven’t agreed on any conclusive proof for your ‘transitionals.’ My transitional creatures remain the same kinds, and they are given improvements by God in a few weeks, months, or years, not millions of years of evolution.


Barbarian wrote:

And creationists are still baffled as to why newly found transitionals are always those predicted by evolutionary theory, but never one which is ruled out by the theory.

Who is baffled? I have not heard any creationist declare he is baffled by this and I don’t see any examples offered by Barbarian other than his opinion. Here is our third example of subjectively declaring something to be a fact when it hasn’t even happened except in the Barbarian’s mind.



Barbarian wrote:

You think that's how it works? No wonder you hate science. If it was like that, I'd hate it, too.

Our fourth example of declaring something to be a fact when it hasn’t even happened except in Barbarian’s mind. Barbarian states not only that I hate science, but that it is no wonder that I do. Actually, I love true science. I hate lying, phony junk science.



Barbarian wrote:

Because they're artifacts?

I’m not going to count this one. He thinks he’s being cute. I agree. Cute. :bday:


Barbarian wrote:

In science, knowledge is valued for it's own worth.

Knowing that something is a lie is equally as valuable. Common sense is invaluable. Wisdom is priceless.


Barbarian wrote:

Actually one kind. And we have learned something very basic about living things. Granted, such knowledge often becomes useful. But that's not why we look for it.

By we, I hope you mean you and your ToE friends. Otherwise, this is #5.

Barbarian wrote:

Don't see how. As you learned, evolution shows us a God much greater and more intelligent than the creationist's God.

Here he is winding up as he started, with yet another example of declaring something to be a fact when it hasn’t even happened except in the Barbarian mind. The next thing he’ll probably proclaim is that he is delighted that everyone has now been converted into ToE evolutionists, and he doesn’t need to continue this discussion.

Your god of Darwinian Evolution is spineless bit of protoplasm swirling in the sewer of a yawning cosmos. He can’t even create a living thing without getting in his own way.

 

[Barbarian]

As reznwerks is so fond of saying: you can have your own opinions but not your own facts. A pattern of pompously declaring something to be a fact when it hasn’t even happened is quite clear in most of the following Barbarian post:

Barbarian wrote: Quote:
As you learned, all the evidence shows this to be.

As who learned?

You have. You aren't ready to admit it, but you know. The emotional reaction you evince shows that you know it.

Here is our first and second examples of declaring something to be a fact when it hasn’t even happened except in Barbarian’s mind. He simply, like God, declares that all the evidence undeniably supports his position and I have somehow acknowledged all this great evidence. Not really, Barbarian. We haven’t agreed on any conclusive proof for your ‘transitionals.’ My transitional creatures remain the same kinds, and they are given improvements by God in a few weeks, months, or years, not millions of years of evolution.

Well, that's a great example of "declaring something to be a fact when it hasn’t even happened except in unread typo's mind. He simply, like God, declares that all the evidence undeniably supports his position."

Barbarian observes:
And creationists are still baffled as to why newly found transitionals are always those predicted by evolutionary theory, but never one which is ruled out by the theory.

Who is baffled?

Creationists. They are without an explanation, except a shrug and "Godmustadunnit."

I have not heard any creationist declare he is baffled by this and I don’t see any examples offered by Barbarian other than his opinion.

That's a testable claim. Explain it. I've challenged Jon Sarfati himself to explain it, and he cut and ran.

Unred typo suggests evolutionary theory says:

A hamburger must be a transitional between a whoopee cushion and a hockey puck.

Barbarian chuckles:
You think that's how it works? No wonder you hate science. If it was like that, I'd hate it, too.

Our fourth example of declaring something to be a fact when it hasn’t even happened except in Barbarian’s mind. Barbarian states not only that I hate science, but that it is no wonder that I do. Actually, I love true science.

See above. You don't even know what it is. If that silly stuff is what you think evolution is about...

Now you have me worried. Why don’t we see ‘transitionals’ between mail boxes and coffee mugs?

Barbarian suggests:
Because they're artifacts?

I’m not going to count this one.

Yeah, you really set yourself up for that one. Living things are different than artifacts.

Barbarian observes:
In science, knowledge is valued for it's own worth.

Knowing that something is a lie is equally as valuable. Common sense is invaluable. Wisdom is priceless.

Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.

Barbarian observes:
Actually one kind. And we have learned something very basic about living things. Granted, such knowledge often becomes useful. But that's not why we look for it.

By we, I hope you mean you and your ToE friends.

Scientists. Some creationists are allergic to knowledge.

Barbarian observes:
Don't see how. As you learned, evolution shows us a God much greater and more intelligent than the creationist's God.

Here he is winding up as he started, with yet another example of declaring something to be a fact when it hasn’t even happened except in the Barbarian mind.

I've seen enough denial to know what it's like.

Your god of Darwinian Evolution is spineless bit of protoplasm swirling in the sewer of a yawning cosmos.

Nope. He's the God of Abraham. The God Who created the cosmos (and you, BTW, so you might be a bit more respectful of Him). He's quite a bit more powerful than the creationists little nature diety, who prances about making a rabbit here, and a tree there. My God is for real. And He's a lot greater than you may ever acknowledge.

But that won't change a thing.

He can’t even create a living thing without getting in his own way.

Sorry. He created all living things, by creating the earth, which brought them forth as He ordained. That's what Genesis says.

You need to believe it, even if it doesn't suit you very well.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

You have. You aren't ready to admit it, but you know. The emotional reaction you evince shows that you know it.

If you think I’m emotional about this, or that I’ve accepted your unfounded assertions as evidence, you are severely self deluded. You know nothing about what I’m ready to admit and I find your psychological ploys quite amusing. Does ‘laughing out loud’ qualify as an emotional reaction in your estimation?



Barbarian wrote:

Well, that's a great example of "declaring something to be a fact when it hasn’t even happened except in unread typo's mind. He simply, like God, declares that all the evidence undeniably supports his position."

If you would re read what I wrote, you’d see I am simply declaring what I believe and reiterating for your benefit how my position differs from yours. I really think you should let me decide whether I have accepted your viewpoint as fact or not.



Barbarian wrote in reply to the question of who was baffled by his “transitionals†theories:

Creationists. They are without an explanation, except a shrug and "Godmustadunnit."

I think the word you should use is not ‘baffled’ but ‘unimpressed’. The only mystery to anyone is how you evolutionists manage to claim to find any of the transitionals you are looking for, let alone just the predicted ones.



Barbarian wrote:

That's a testable claim. Explain it. I've challenged Jon Sarfati himself to explain it, and he cut and ran.

It is a rather pointless endeavor, since even evolutionists can‘t agree that there are any transitionals, let alone “always†the “predicted†ones. Maybe you should have asked him to explain why he still beats his wife. :wink:



Barbarian wrote:

See above. You don't even know what it is. If that silly stuff is what you think evolution is about...

I know what true science is and I know the ToE isn’t even a good facsimile.



Barbarian wrote:

Yeah, you really set yourself up for that one. Living things are different than artifacts.

You seriously believe you have a point here? OK. You’re right. Mailboxes and coffee mugs only appear to be living things during extreme weather conditions. What was I thinking?



Barbarian wrote:

Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.

Another gem.



Barbarian wrote:

Scientists. Some creationists are allergic to knowledge.

It’s good to know scientists have “learned something very basic about living things†and narrowed their loose ends down to one kind. Why didn’t God think of that?
It’s brilliant in it’s simplicity. All living things are related in that they are alive. And as you just taught us, mailboxes and coffee mugs are not, so they don‘t get transitionals either. I think this idea has promise. Keep thinking.



Barbarian wrote:

I've seen enough denial to know what it's like.

I bet you have. And denigration. And rejection. And bitterness. And frustration. Why don’t you just renounce the ToE and join us? We YECs aren’t so bad once you get to know us. :-D



Barbarian wrote:

Nope. He's the God of Abraham. The God Who created the cosmos (and you, BTW, so you might be a bit more respectful of Him). He's quite a bit more powerful than the creationists little nature diety, who prances about making a rabbit here, and a tree there. My God is for real. And He's a lot greater than you may ever acknowledge.

But that won't change a thing.

I believe he just spoke things into existence.
I don’t recall God ‘prancing’ in Genesis. Are you allowed to add that to scripture? I’ve been told adding is a serious offence. :o I haven’t been able to get the scripture reference from you yet, but that’s what you tell me.


Barbarian wrote:

Sorry. He created all living things, by creating the earth, which brought them forth as He ordained. That's what Genesis says.

You need to believe it, even if it doesn't suit you very well.

Do you own a Bible? If not, I can send you a couple links to fine online sources.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian on learning:
You have. You aren't ready to admit it, but you know. The emotional reaction you evince shows that you know it.

If you think I’m emotional about this, or that I’ve accepted your unfounded assertions as evidence, you are severely self deluded.

I see your denial. But your behavior is more eloquent.

Barbarian wrote: Quote:
Well, that's a great example of "declaring something to be a fact when it hasn’t even happened except in unread typo's mind. He simply, like God, declares that all the evidence undeniably supports his position."

(More denial)

Barbarian observes:
Creationists. They are without an explanation, except a shrug and "Godmustadunnit."

I think the word you should use is not ‘baffled’ but ‘unimpressed’.

So unimpressed, they can't come up with a rational explanation...

The only mystery to anyone is how you evolutionists manage to claim to find any of the transitionals you are looking for, let alone just the predicted ones.

As you learned, Archaeopteryx has more dinosaur characteristics than bird ones. What creationists cannot explain is why the transitionals are always the predicted ones, but never the ones that can't exist under evolutionary theory. No bird/mammal transitionals. No jellyfish/arthropod transitionals. This is what has them baffled.

Barbarian wrote: Quote:
That's a testable claim. Explain it. I've challenged Jon Sarfati himself to explain it, and he cut and ran.

It is a rather pointless endeavor, since even evolutionists can‘t agree that there are any transitionals, let alone “always†the “predicted†ones.

Someone's had a little fun with your gullibility on that. Why do we see mixtures of characters where evolutionary theory predicts it, but not where it does not?

Maybe you should have asked him to explain why he still beats his wife.

I would have been happy with a straight answer from him.

(unred typo explains what he thinks evolutionary theory is)

A hamburger must be a transitional between a whoopee cushion and a hockey puck.

Barbarian observes:
See above. You don't even know what it is. If that silly stuff is what you think evolution is about...

I know what true science is and I know the ToE isn’t even a good facsimile.

I see what you think it is. You'd be much more effective, if you learned about it before you talk about it.

Barbarian observes:
Yeah, you really set yourself up for that one. Living things are different than artifacts.

You seriously believe you have a point here?

Yeah. Artifacts and living things are quite different.

OK. You’re right. Mailboxes and coffee mugs only appear to be living things during extreme weather conditions.

Um. How so?

Barbarian observes:
Some creationists are allergic to knowledge.

It’s good to know scientists have “learned something very basic about living things†and narrowed their loose ends down to one kind. Why didn’t God think of that?

That's the point. He did.

It’s brilliant in it’s simplicity. All living things are related in that they are alive.

And they all show genetic relatedness, and biochemical affinities, and transtional characters, and so on.

I think this idea has promise. Keep thinking.

As I said, the more you learn about biology, the better it will be for you. But there's a hazard; you might learn something that changes your mind.

Barbarian observes:
I've seen enough denial to know what it's like.

I bet you have. And denigration. And rejection. And bitterness. And frustration.

From really hard core creationists, sometimes. But not usually all of that at once.

Why don’t you just renounce the ToE and join us? We YECs aren’t so bad once you get to know us.

You're not bad.

Just wrong.

Barbarian on his God:
Nope. He's the God of Abraham. The God Who created the cosmos (and you, BTW, so you might be a bit more respectful of Him). He's quite a bit more powerful than the creationists little nature diety, who prances about making a rabbit here, and a tree there. My God is for real. And He's a lot greater than you may ever acknowledge.

But that won't change a thing.

I believe he just spoke things into existence.

That's a start. Why not accept all of it, then?

I don’t recall God ‘prancing’ in Genesis.

Me neither. But then there's a lot in creationism that isn't in Genesis.

Barbarian observes:
Sorry. He created all living things, by creating the earth, which brought them forth as He ordained. That's what Genesis says.

You need to believe it, even if it doesn't suit you very well.

(Request to provide evidence for this)

Do you own a Bible?

Several. Here's a KJV cite:

Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

 

[unred typo]

duplicate :

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote: I see your denial. But your behavior is more eloquent.

If you mean my behavior of taking time to answer your posts, you have missed the entertainment factor in all this and if it ever stops raining, you’ll see far less emotion.

Barbarian wrote:
So unimpressed, they can't come up with a rational explanation...

Why bother to explain a phenomena that doesn’t exist except in evolutionary visions and dreams? You think getting someone to debate it will give it legitimacy.

Barbarian wrote:
Someone's had a little fun with your gullibility on that. Why do we see mixtures of characters where evolutionary theory predicts it, but not where it does not?

Why do you see only what you want to see? I think that would be a good question to ask your psychoanalyst.

Barbarian wrote:
I would have been happy with a straight answer from him.

He probably has better things to do than play twenty questions with someone who doesn‘t take time to comprehensively read the opponent‘s posts.

Barbarian wrote:
I see what you think it is. You'd be much more effective, if you learned about it before you talk about it.

You seriously think my sarcastic comments about coffee mugs and mailboxes reflect my understanding of the ToE? *blink-blink*

Barbarian wrote:
Yeah. Artifacts and living things are quite different.

Where would we be without evolutionists to help us differentiate between mailboxes and
Woodchucks?

Barbarian wrote:
Um. How so?

Um. :rolling eyes: :incredulous stare:

Barbarian wrote:
That's the point. He did.

Well, that’s not what he said in Genesis.

Barbarian wrote:
And they all show genetic relatedness, and biochemical affinities, and transtional characters, and so on.

Excuse me for stating the obvious but they were all made of the same elements with features that would help them to live on the same planet which necessitates some degree of related characteristics.

Barbarian wrote:
As I said, the more you learn about biology, the better it will be for you. But there's a hazard; you might learn something that changes your mind.

It is not a hazard to change your mind if you are learning more truth and not just the fabricated theories espoused by the ToE cultists.

Barbarian wrote:
From really hard core creationists, sometimes. But not usually all of that at once.

I apologize if my blunt comments personally offend your sensitive ego but some things just need to be said without mincing words.

Barbarian wrote:
You're not bad.
Just wrong.

I glad to see you don’t demonize your opponents. I agree that the enemy is Satan, after all is said and done.

Barbarian wrote: That's a start. Why not accept all of it, then?

I do accept all of Genesis. Have you read more than the verse you’ve quoted?

Barbarian wrote:
Me neither. But then there's a lot in creationism that isn't in Genesis.

My take on creationism is that God created everything just as it is recorded in Genesis. I don’t know what you think creationism is. That’s why I have a certain disdain for labels.

Barbarian wrote:
Several. Here's a KJV cite:

Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

That’s only part of the account. Here’s what you missed:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness *was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over *all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. 1 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

I’ve been told adding to Genesis is a serious offence. I still haven’t been able to get the scripture reference from you yet, but that’s what you keep telling me. Have you had time to check any of your several Bibles?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I see your denial. But your behavior is more eloquent.

If you mean my behavior of taking time to answer your posts,

More the emotional content of your posts.

(suggesting that creationists are unimpressed by the fact that the only transitionasl known are those predicted by evolutionary theory)

Barbarian observes:
So unimpressed, they can't come up with a rational explanation...

Why bother to explain a phenomena that doesn’t exist except in evolutionary visions and dreams?

You've already seen a transitional that is a mix of dinosauran and avian characteristics. Why aren't there any mammal/bird transitionals? Creationists are completely befuddled by that fact.

You think getting someone to debate it will give it legitimacy.

I think, that you, like all other creationists, know why it's true, and like them, you will not even venture an explanation.

Barbarian observes:
Someone's had a little fun with your gullibility on that. Why do we see mixtures of characters where evolutionary theory predicts it, but not where it does not?

Why do you see only what you want to see?

You've seen that Archie is a mix of bird and dinosaur. Show me a mix of bird and mammal, or any other not predicted by evolutionary theory.

Barbarian observes:
I would have been happy with a straight answer from him.

[quote[He probably has better things to do than play twenty questions...[/quote]

Especially, when he can't explain any of them.

Barbarian observes:
I see what you think it is. You'd be much more effective, if you learned about it before you talk about it.

You seriously think my sarcastic comments about coffee mugs and mailboxes reflect my understanding of the ToE? *blink-blink*

So, just so we know that your "I knew that" response is right, how about telling us what you think it actually says?

Barbarian observes:
Yeah. Artifacts and living things are quite different.

Where would we be without evolutionists to help us differentiate between mailboxes and Woodchucks?

Since you conflated the two, I guess that is obvious...

OK. You’re right. Mailboxes and coffee mugs only appear to be living things during extreme weather conditions.

Barbarian wrote:
Um. How so?

Um. :rolling eyes: :incredulous stare:

Keep in mind, that one is no nuttier than some other things creationists believe.

Barbarian observes:
And they all show genetic relatedness, and biochemical affinities, and transtional characters, and so on.

Excuse me for stating the obvious but they were all made of the same elements with features that would help them to live on the same planet which necessitates some degree of related characteristics.

Again, what stumps creationists is why very similar organisms, with very similar lifestyles, when they appear to have evolved from two unrelated lines of organisms, have quite different details of structure, and have quite different genomes.

Why would thylacines, which look and act very much like wolves, have physiologies and genes more like a koala than a wolf? Why would they be marsupials?

Why do we see vertebrate ears made of bones that are gill supports in fish? Why do we see that bears and giraffes and fish and octopi all have complex eyes with a lens, retina and the rest, but only the mammals have the retina in backwards?

There are many, many such questions that leave creationists scratching their heads.

Barbarian observes:
As I said, the more you learn about biology, the better it will be for you. But there's a hazard; you might learn something that changes your mind.

It is not a hazard to change your mind if you are learning more truth and not just the fabricated theories espoused by the ToE cultists.

I read the denial, but the emotional escalation is more eloquent.

Barbarian observes:
I've seen enough denial to know what it's like.

I bet you have. And denigration. And rejection. And bitterness. And frustration.

Barbarian observes:
From really hard core creationists, sometimes. But not usually all of that at once.

I apologize if my blunt comments personally offend your sensitive ego

I'm hard to offend. I'm actually sympathetic. I can see how hard this is for you.

Barbarian observes:
You're not bad.
Just wrong.

I glad to see you don’t demonize your opponents.

Never hate your opponent. Causes you to make mistakes.

I agree that the enemy is Satan, after all is said and done.

Yep. But the real enemy is within. Beat that one, and you have it made.


Barbarian observes:
That's a start. Why not accept all of it, then?

I do accept all of Genesis. Have you read more than the verse you’ve quoted?

I first read Genesis 1 in 1954. And I've paid a lot of attention to it since then.

Barbarian wrote:
Me neither. But then there's a lot in creationism that isn't in Genesis.

My take on creationism is that God created everything just as it is recorded in Genesis.

Me too. And it rules out YE creationism, since it expressly denies "ex nihilo" creation of life.

Barbarian wrote:
Several. Here's a KJV cite:

Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

That’s only part of the account. Here’s what you missed:

(other verses saying the earth and waters brought forth life)

Yeah, those, too.

I’ve been told adding to Genesis is a serious offence.

I don't remember saying "serious offense", but it is definitely forbidden.

I still haven’t been able to get the scripture reference from you yet, but that’s what you keep telling me. Have you had time to check any of your several Bibles?

Sorry no. Ran across it some time ago, but didn't jot down the verse. I'll have more time this weekend.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:
You've already seen a transitional that is a mix of dinosauran and avian characteristics. Why aren't there any mammal/bird transitionals? Creationists are completely befuddled by that fact.

Unred reply: That’s easy to explain. As I attempted to tell you before, as God created the various kinds, his creative style evolved and he used some features over and over. For instance, he gave some wings. Pterodactyls are identified by science as a flying dinosaur but it may just be the same kind of animal as a bat. Bats are mammals and they have wings and the ability to fly. Several kinds of insects have wings and can fly. They are not related but they have similar features. You choose a few features to focus on and use them to determine if animals are transitionals. That doesn’t prove any ancestral connection. It only shows that they share like features and were created by the same artist.

Barbarian wrote:I think, that you, like all other creationists, know why it's true, and like them, you will not even venture an explanation.

Unred reply: I have given this explanation more than once on this forum but you refuse to acknowledge my efforts to enlighten you. As you wish.

Barbarian wrote:You've seen that Archie is a mix of bird and dinosaur. Show me a mix of bird and mammal, or any other not predicted by evolutionary theory.

Unred reply: I’m not playing that game any more. I gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation and you deny that I even had an answer. It’s not even an interesting question but I indulged you with a reasonable solution to your ‘baffling’ mystery only to have you repeat the same question. Maybe I should type a little s l o w e r?

Barbarian wrote:So, just so we know that your "I knew that" response is right, how about telling us what you think it actually says?

Unred reply: Sure, when you correct my carbon dating analogy instead of giving it a cursory dismissal. I didn’t see you making a better one to replace my 'faulty' version. I’m not going to waste my time writing a careful treatise so you can just say, ‘no, that’s wrong.’

Barbarian wrote:Keep in mind, that one is no nuttier than some other things creationists believe.

Unred reply: You could say the truth is stranger than fiction then.

Barbarian wrote:Again, what stumps creationists is why very similar organisms, with very similar lifestyles, when they appear to have evolved from two unrelated lines of organisms, have quite different details of structure, and have quite different genomes.
Why would thylacines, which look and act very much like wolves, have physiologies and genes more like a koala than a wolf? Why would they be marsupials?
Why do we see vertebrate ears made of bones that are gill supports in fish? Why do we see that bears and giraffes and fish and octopi all have complex eyes with a lens, retina and the rest, but only the mammals have the retina in backwards?
There are many, many such questions that leave creationists scratching their heads.

Unred reply: Dear Barbarian, there is no mystery about it. If you see any creationist baffled by those scenarios, they have just been ‘not seeing the forest for the trees.’ As I said, the entire living creation was all made of the same elements with the same basic features that would help them to survive on the same planet which necessitates some degree of similarities in their DNA and structure. They also have a wide variety of traits that just show the style and imagination of the creative genius who made them. I believe there are features that have been built in expressly to allow the creature to adapt to a world that has been marred with the death and destruction that sin brings with it. Even if creatures do evolve, which remains debatable, that doesn’t mean they were not created in “kinds†that were intended to reproduce after their “kindsâ€Â.

Barbarian wrote:I read the denial, but the emotional escalation is more eloquent.

Unred reply: If your emotion meter is going off, you’re just picking up a reading of yourself. I’m quite immune to this kind of technique. If you enjoy thinking this bothers me, please feel free to fantasize to your heart’s content.

Barbarian wrote:I'm hard to offend. I'm actually sympathetic. I can see how hard this is for you.

Unred reply: Only because you imagine that you have overwhelmed me with ‘undeniable evidence’ since you can’t imagine it’s a total fabrication so you imagine how this might effect you. I’m not you and you don’t know me. I am perfectly comfortable with my theories and nothing about the ToE sham has shaken them. I never rush to adjust my view to suit the latest evolutionary find since they change so regularly. I simply rework it into my creationist theory on a trial basis. When new evidence rules it out, I go back to my original. As I told you, all I care is that it doesn’t conflict with Genesis, which I believe to be completely literal and logical truth. The rest is inconsequential details. The tides go in and out but the ocean remains the same.

Barbarian wrote:Never hate your opponent. Causes you to make mistakes.

Unred reply: Indeed. Love your enemies and those that despitefully use you. Love ya, man. *grin*

Barbarian wrote:Yep. But the real enemy is within. Beat that one, and you have it made.

Unred reply: Yup, that’s where Satan strikes… the tender underbelly; heart, mind and soul.

Barbarian wrote:I first read Genesis 1 in 1954. And I've paid a lot of attention to it since then.

Unred reply: That’s fine. Too bad you got sucked into the whole ‘millions of years’ scam. That really puts Genesis into the toilet, not to mention Jesus being ‘truth.’ Atheists realize this but you apparently haven’t caught on.

Barbarian wrote:Me too. And it rules out YE creationism, since it expressly denies "ex nihilo" creation of life.

Unred reply: Excuse my ignorance but exactly how are you using Genesis to rule out YE creationism? That’s just a bizarre statement, IMHO.

Barbarian wrote:(other verses saying the earth and waters brought forth life)
Yeah, those, too.

Unred reply: You missed the day one through seven blow by blow. You just slide by all that and add millions and millions of years ago? I thought you didn’t add to scripture?

Barbarian wrote:I don't remember saying "serious offense", but it is definitely forbidden.

Unred reply: And a few million/billion years doesn’t count?

Barbarian wrote:Sorry no. Ran across it some time ago, but didn't jot down the verse. I'll have more time this weekend.

Unred reply: That’s fine. I can wait. I’ve have less time this weekend.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You've already seen a transitional that is a mix of dinosauran and avian characteristics. Why aren't there any mammal/bird transitionals? Creationists are completely befuddled by that fact.

Unred reply: That’s easy to explain. As I attempted to tell you before, as God created the various kinds, his creative style evolved...

First, nothing about God evolves. He is perfect and eternal.

and he used some features over and over.

So why don't we find transitionals between any groups except those predicted by evolutionary theory? That was the question. Creationists are completely unable to explain that.

For instance, he gave some wings. Pterodactyls are identified by science as a flying dinosaur

No they are not. The only flying dinosaurs are birds.

but it may just be the same kind of animal as a bat.

Nope. Multiple bones in lower jaw, one bone in middle ear, one condyle on the atlas vertebrae, ... very long list. It's a reptile, not a mammal. Also the wing is very much different from that of bats.

Bats are mammals and they have wings and the ability to fly. Several kinds of insects have wings and can fly. They are not related but they have similar features.

No. Insect wings aren't remotely like bat wings, we are talking about transitional features. Why don't we see transitionals between any groups that aren't linked by evolutionary theory?

You choose a few features to focus on and use them to determine if animals are transitionals.

So explain why we see dinosaurs with feathers and birds with dinosaur characteristics? But nothing to connect birds and mammals? In order to decide whether organisms are transitional, you focus on the apomorphies, the things that make each of the two groups distinct from other animals.

So, you can't use "wings" since they exist in many different forms. But you can use the number and arrangement of bones in wings. You can't use eggs, since many organisms have eggs. But you can use reptillian or avian eggs. This is why platypuses are transitional between reptiles but not birds: they lay eggs, but they are reptillian eggs.

That doesn’t prove any ancestral connection. It only shows that they share like features and were created by the same artist.

Barbarian observes:
I think, that you, like all other creationists, know why it's true, and like them, you will not even venture an explanation.

I have given this explanation more than once on this forum...

You're avoiding the question that was asked, and answering one you made up yourself. The question is not why analogus structures exist in animals; it's why transitional structures exist only between organisms predicted to be related by evolutionary theory.

Why do we see dinosauran ribs, hips, vertebrae, etc. in a primitive bird, but not in mammals? Why do we see threrapisd traits in primitive mammals, but not in birds?

Why do you see transitional wings in insects that are still used as gills? (the evidence indicates insect wings evolved from biramous appendages use for gills in more primitive organisms, and they are still used as gills in some insects), but not birds?

Creationists find a lot of ways to avoid answering the question. You chose one of the more popular ones.


Quote:
Barbarian wrote:You've seen that Archie is a mix of bird and dinosaur. Show me a mix of bird and mammal, or any other not predicted by evolutionary theory.

Unred reply: I’m not playing that game any more. I gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation and you deny that I even had an answer. It’s not even an interesting question but I indulged you with a reasonable solution to your ‘baffling’ mystery only to have you repeat the same question. Maybe I should type a little s l o w e r?


Quote:
Barbarian wrote:So, just so we know that your "I knew that" response is right, how about telling us what you think it actually says?

Unred reply: Sure, when you correct my carbon dating analogy instead of giving it a cursory dismissal. I didn’t see you making a better one to replace my 'faulty' version. I’m not going to waste my time writing a careful treatise so you can just say, ‘no, that’s wrong.’


Quote:
Barbarian wrote:Keep in mind, that one is no nuttier than some other things creationists believe.

Unred reply: You could say the truth is stranger than fiction then.


Quote:
Barbarian wrote:Again, what stumps creationists is why very similar organisms, with very similar lifestyles, when they appear to have evolved from two unrelated lines of organisms, have quite different details of structure, and have quite different genomes.
Why would thylacines, which look and act very much like wolves, have physiologies and genes more like a koala than a wolf? Why would they be marsupials?
Why do we see vertebrate ears made of bones that are gill supports in fish? Why do we see that bears and giraffes and fish and octopi all have complex eyes with a lens, retina and the rest, but only the mammals have the retina in backwards?
There are many, many such questions that leave creationists scratching their heads.


Unred reply: Dear Barbarian, there is no mystery about it. If you see any creationist baffled by those scenarios, they have just been ‘not seeing the forest for the trees.’ As I said, the entire living creation was all made of the same elements with the same basic features that would help them to survive on the same planet which necessitates some degree of similarities in their DNA and structure. They also have a wide variety of traits that just show the style and imagination of the creative genius who made them. I believe there are features that have been built in expressly to allow the creature to adapt to a world that has been marred with the death and destruction that sin brings with it. Even if creatures do evolve, which remains debatable, that doesn’t mean they were not created in “kinds†that were intended to reproduce after their “kindsâ€Â.


Quote:
Barbarian wrote:I read the denial, but the emotional escalation is more eloquent.

Unred reply: If your emotion meter is going off, you’re just picking up a reading of yourself. I’m quite immune to this kind of technique. If you enjoy thinking this bothers me, please feel free to fantasize to your heart’s content.


Quote:
Barbarian wrote:I'm hard to offend. I'm actually sympathetic. I can see how hard this is for you.

Unred reply: Only because you imagine that you have overwhelmed me with ‘undeniable evidence’ since you can’t imagine it’s a total fabrication so you imagine how this might effect you. I’m not you and you don’t know me. I am perfectly comfortable with my theories and nothing about the ToE sham has shaken them. I never rush to adjust my view to suit the latest evolutionary find since they change so regularly. I simply rework it into my creationist theory on a trial basis. When new evidence rules it out, I go back to my original. As I told you, all I care is that it doesn’t conflict with Genesis, which I believe to be completely literal and logical truth. The rest is inconsequential details. The tides go in and out but the ocean remains the same.


Quote:
Barbarian wrote:Never hate your opponent. Causes you to make mistakes.

Unred reply: Indeed. Love your enemies and those that despitefully use you. Love ya, man. *grin*


Quote:
Barbarian wrote:Yep. But the real enemy is within. Beat that one, and you have it made.

Unred reply: Yup, that’s where Satan strikes… the tender underbelly; heart, mind and soul.


Quote:
Barbarian wrote:I first read Genesis 1 in 1954. And I've paid a lot of attention to it since then.

Unred reply: That’s fine. Too bad you got sucked into the whole ‘millions of years’ scam. That really puts Genesis into the toilet, not to mention Jesus being ‘truth.’ Atheists realize this but you apparently haven’t caught on.


Quote:
Barbarian wrote:Me too. And it rules out YE creationism, since it expressly denies "ex nihilo" creation of life.

Unred reply: Excuse my ignorance but exactly how are you using Genesis to rule out YE creationism? That’s just a bizarre statement, IMHO.


Quote:
Barbarian wroteother verses saying the earth and waters brought forth life)
Yeah, those, too.

Unred reply: You missed the day one through seven blow by blow. You just slide by all that and add millions and millions of years ago? I thought you didn’t add to scripture?

Quote:
Barbarian wrote:I don't remember saying "serious offense", but it is definitely forbidden.

Unred reply: And a few million/billion years doesn’t count?

Quote:
Barbarian wrote:Sorry no. Ran across it some time ago, but didn't jot down the verse. I'll have more time this weekend.

Unred reply: That’s fine. I can wait. I’ve have less time this weekend.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You've already seen a transitional that is a mix of dinosauran and avian characteristics. Why aren't there any mammal/bird transitionals? Creationists are completely befuddled by that fact.

Quote:
Unred reply: That’s easy to explain. As I attempted to tell you before, as God created the various kinds, his creative style evolved...


First, nothing about God evolves. He is perfect and eternal.

Quote:
and he used some features over and over.


So why don't we find transitionals between any groups except those predicted by evolutionary theory? That was the question. Creationists are completely unable to explain that.

Quote:
For instance, he gave some wings. Pterodactyls are identified by science as a flying dinosaur


No they are not. The only flying dinosaurs are birds.

Quote:
but it may just be the same kind of animal as a bat.


Nope. Multiple bones in lower jaw, one bone in middle ear, one condyle on the atlas vertebrae, ... very long list. It's a reptile, not a mammal. Also the wing is very much different from that of bats.

Quote:
Bats are mammals and they have wings and the ability to fly. Several kinds of insects have wings and can fly. They are not related but they have similar features.


No. Insect wings aren't remotely like bat wings, we are talking about transitional features. Why don't we see transitionals between any groups that aren't linked by evolutionary theory?

Quote:
You choose a few features to focus on and use them to determine if animals are transitionals.


So explain why we see dinosaurs with feathers and birds with dinosaur characteristics? But nothing to connect birds and mammals? In order to decide whether organisms are transitional, you focus on the apomorphies, the things that make each of the two groups distinct from other animals.

So, you can't use "wings" since they exist in many different forms. But you can use the number and arrangement of bones in wings. You can't use eggs, since many organisms have eggs. But you can use reptillian or avian eggs. This is why platypuses are transitional between reptiles but not birds: they lay eggs, but they are reptillian eggs.

That doesn’t prove any ancestral connection. It only shows that they share like features and were created by the same artist.

Barbarian observes:
I think, that you, like all other creationists, know why it's true, and like them, you will not even venture an explanation.

Quote:
I have given this explanation more than once on this forum...


You're avoiding the question that was asked, and answering one you made up yourself. The question is not why analogus structures exist in animals; it's why transitional structures exist only between organisms predicted to be related by evolutionary theory.

Why do we see dinosauran ribs, hips, vertebrae, etc. in a primitive bird, but not in mammals? Why do we see threrapisd traits in primitive mammals, but not in birds?

Why do you see transitional wings in insects that are still used as gills? (the evidence indicates insect wings evolved from biramous appendages use for gills in more primitive organisms, and they are still used as gills in some insects), but not birds?

Creationists find a lot of ways to avoid answering the question. You chose one of the more popular ones.


Barbarian observes:
You've seen that Archie is a mix of bird and dinosaur. Show me a mix of bird and mammal, or any other not predicted by evolutionary theory.

Unred reply: I’m not playing that game any more. I gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation and you deny that I even had an answer.

You didn't answer my question. Instead, you asked another one, and answered that. That similar solution evolve in similar circumstances is not the issue. What is the issue is why we only see transtional birds with dinosaur characteristics, but neve mammal charactieristics. Why we see primitive insects with annelid characteristics, but not echinoderm characteristics. Remember we are speaking of apomorphies, those things characteristic of each group.

It’s not even an interesting question

For creationists, it's apparently terrifying. They go to extraordinary efforts to avoid answering it.

Barbarian suggests:
So, just so we know that your "I knew that" response is right, how about telling us what you think it actually says?

Unred reply:
Sure, when you correct my carbon dating analogy instead of giving it a cursory dismissal...

In other words, you can do it, but the evil Barbarian won't let you. That dodge won't help you. Besides, you got an extended discussion of C14. What more do you want to know?

I didn’t see you making a better one to replace my 'faulty' version.

In other words, you have no idea what evolutionary theory is about. Good enough.

I’m not going to waste my time writing a careful treatise so you can just say, ‘no, that’s wrong.’

If you know what it is, that won't happen, will it?

Barbarian observes:
Again, what stumps creationists is why very similar organisms, with very similar lifestyles, when they appear to have evolved from two unrelated lines of organisms, have quite different details of structure, and have quite different genomes.

Why would thylacines, which look and act very much like wolves, have physiologies and genes more like a koala than a wolf? Why would they be marsupials?

Why do we see vertebrate ears made of bones that are gill supports in fish? Why do we see that bears and giraffes and fish and octopi all have complex eyes with a lens, retina and the rest, but only the mammals have the retina in backwards?

There are many, many such questions that leave creationists scratching their heads.

Dear Barbarian, there is no mystery about it.

Note above. You went to an elaborate rationalization why you won't answer it.

If you see any creationist baffled by those scenarios, they have just been ‘not seeing the forest for the trees.’ As I said, the entire living creation was all made of the same elements with the same basic features that would help them to survive on the same planet which necessitates some degree of similarities in their DNA and structure. They also have a wide variety of traits that just show the style and imagination of the creative genius who made them. I believe there are features that have been built in expressly to allow the creature to adapt to a world that has been marred with the death and destruction that sin brings with it. Even if creatures do evolve, which remains debatable, that doesn’t mean they were not created in “kinds†that were intended to reproduce after their “kindsâ€Â.

If the tapdance is over, how about explaining why mammals, which evolutionary theory says evolved from reptiles, have transitionals that lay reptillian eggs, but not avian ones? How about explaining why such organisms have the reptillian shoulder structure, but not the dinosaurian one?

This is a complete mystery to creationists, but science has a very simple explanation that is consistent with the evidence. Mammals evolved from therapsids, so the transitionals have characters of both classes. Birds evolved from primitive dinosaurs, so they have the characters of those organisms.

Barbarian observes:
I read the denial, but the emotional escalation is more eloquent.

If your emotion meter is going off, you’re just picking up a reading of yourself. I’m quite immune to this kind of technique. If you enjoy thinking this bothers me, please feel free to fantasize to your heart’s content.

And few of us are affected by denial.

Barbarian observes:
I'm hard to offend. I'm actually sympathetic. I can see how hard this is for you.

Barbarian suggests:
Never hate your opponent. Causes you to make mistakes.

Indeed. Love your enemies and those that despitefully use you. Love ya, man. *grin*

Good to see that you can keep Christian in the ways that count.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. But the real enemy is within. Beat that one, and you have it made.

Yup, that’s where Satan strikes… the tender underbelly; heart, mind and soul.

Rather, Conquer the beast within, and the beast without will have no purchase on your soul.

Barbarian observes:
I first read Genesis 1 in 1954. And I've paid a lot of attention to it since then.

That’s fine. Too bad you got sucked into the whole ‘millions of years’ scam.

It's what the evidence shows. Christians have had various views of how long the universe was here before man, from "always here, created eternally" to "created in an instant." There is no Christian position on how old the universe is.

That really puts Genesis into the toilet, not to mention Jesus being ‘truth.’

Since a logical reading of Genesis, as St. Augustine pointed out over 1500 years ago, makes six literal days absurd, it's clear that can't be so. He was speaking of the fact that it is absurd to speak of literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them. There are certainly creationist interpretations that can be logically mapped on Genesis, but YE creationism is directly refuted in that, and in God's Word that He did not create life "ex nihilo."

Atheists realize this but you apparently haven’t caught on.

Atheist and YE creationist are united in their understanding of Genesis, because they both have the same objective; to make science and faith incompatible.

Barbarian observes:
Me too. And it rules out YE creationism, since it expressly denies "ex nihilo" creation of life.

Excuse my ignorance but exactly how are you using Genesis to rule out YE creationism?

Two ways. First, see above for St. Augustine's observation on the absurdity of literal days. Second, God says that He created life naturally, not ex nihilo.

Barbarian wroteother verses saying the earth and waters brought forth life)
Yeah, those, too.

Unred reply: You missed the day one through seven blow by blow.

See above. It's logically insupportable to read them as literal days.

You just slide by all that and add millions and millions of years ago?

No. If I only knew the Bible, I would have no idea how old it was. Some things, God let's us find out for ourselves.

I thought you didn’t add to scripture?

I don't. I accept the existence of electrons, too. But they still aren't part of scripture.

Barbarian wrote:
I don't remember saying "serious offense", but it is definitely forbidden.

And a few million/billion years doesn’t count?

See above. There are many things that are true, that are not in Scripture.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:First, nothing about God evolves. He is perfect and eternal.

First, where do you find that God is perfect? And what do you mean by that?
Since you seem to have trouble finding things in your Bibles, here are three of the verses dealing with the perfection of God. I found that most instances of ‘perfect’ in scripture refer to men.

Job 37:16 Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?

Psalm 18:30 [As for] God, his way [is] perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he [is] a buckler to all those that trust in him.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Barbarian wrote:
If the tapdance is over, how about explaining why mammals, which evolutionary theory says evolved from reptiles, have transitionals that lay reptillian eggs, but not avian ones? How about explaining why such organisms have the reptillian shoulder structure, but not the dinosaurian one?
This is a complete mystery to creationists, but science has a very simple explanation that is consistent with the evidence. Mammals evolved from therapsids, so the transitionals have characters of both classes. Birds evolved from primitive dinosaurs, so they have the characters of those organisms.

Here is simple explanation just for you: God created what you call “primitive dinosaurs†with what you call “primitive dinosaur†“charactersâ€Â, and then he created what you call “dinosaur/ bird transitionals†with what you call dinosaur/ bird transitional “characters†and then he created what you call “birds†with what you call bird “characters†and then he created what you call “mammals†with what you call mammal “characters†and then he created what you call mammal/therapsid transitionals with what you call mammal/therapsid transitional “characters†and then he created what you call therapsids with what you call therapsid “characters†and so on. On the seventh day, he rested.
If you don’t like that one, let me know and I’ll fix you up with another. If you have any changes in the order of your evolutionary sequence, please let me know beforehand so I can make the necessary adjustments. :-D

Barbarian wrote: Since a logical reading of Genesis, as St. Augustine pointed out over 1500 years ago, makes six literal days absurd, it's clear that can't be so. He was speaking of the fact that it is absurd to speak of literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

God is not on our clock, the earth’s rotation is set to his. Evening/ morning are halves of a day‘s work for God. One half is called evening which is the first period of the day, and the other is morning or the last half of approximately a twenty four hour period of time. God called light; ‘day’ before there was a sun. He called darkness; ‘night’ before there was a moon. This shows that the darkness is not the light and darkness on earth produced by the setting and rising of the sun. The night and day here mean the light and the absence of light in the cosmos. Since this happened before the creation of the stars, moon or sun, this is an indication that the evening and morning are not dependant on the sunlight or moonlight hours either but on the time span involved. The sun and moon were placed so as to be lights in the expanse of the sky to ‘rule’ the day and the night. The sun is to light up the period of time known as the morning. The moon is set to be the light during the time known as evening. (These words are probably not even God’s words for these time periods, unless his language is English. If I had to guess his language of one that exists on earth, I would say it’s probably Hebrew.)
The morning was simply declared by God to be the time of day when the sun is shining just as the evening was to be associated with the setting of the sun and the time of darkness. This is not the same moment around the world, or the same duration, but changes according to where you are standing.
In fact, your whole argument is moot because the darkness is not darkness all around the world at once anyway. The only thing that remains the same around the earth is the (approximate) 24 hour rotation. Whether you are in Ireland or South Africa or the Arctic or the Equator, it takes the same length of time for the earth to make a rotation on it’s axis. So the time in Genesis is the time of a rotation, not the subjective light and dark period, or the relatively local ‘setting’ or ‘rising’ of the sun. Your confusion is caused because we naturally associate morning with sunrise and evening with sunset and that is how we mark the beginning and ending of our own 24 hr time period. It doesn’t matter how many segments of time you divide it into, it’s still one rotation, split into halves by God.

Barbarian wrote:In other words, you have no idea what evolutionary theory is about. Good enough.

Here is the definition you want:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:
"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
………………………………...................................................................
Standard dictionaries are even worse.
"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers
"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's
These definitions are simply wrong.

Happy? So now what? I won't put it in my own words or you might think I was messing with their perfection. As I said, this is for your interpretation of the evidence. Mine doesn’t need millions of years or go from the “earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
That just isn’t “natural†for a dynamic creator like our God.

Barbarian wrote: Second, God says that He created life naturally, not ex nihilo.

Technically, it says he created the heaven and the earth, his spirit moved over the waters and he divided light from darkness on the first day. It doesn’t say ‘from nothing’ but if he is the only creator and he created everything, it would naturally be his creation, not something that he found. Since it took the entire first day, it must have been an extensive work of as great a magnitude and intricacy and as the other days. Not much being said about the rest of the galaxies, they are either none of our business, or just a huge expansion area for a later project.

By the fifth day, the waters of the earth are commanded to bring forth living things from flying creatures to greawhales. The sixth day God commands that the earth bring forth more living creatures who will inhabit the land. If you want to say this creating isn’t “ex nihiloâ€Â, but from the earth and waters on the earth that he just created a couple days ago, fine. You get as technical as you like, but there isn’t much “wiggle room†in the time frame, imho. How natural is it to command water to bring forth fish and flying creatures? Seems to be quite natural for God.

 

[Barbarian]

First, where do you find that God is perfect? And what do you mean by that?

By that, I mean that He is, in every way, good, and powerful and knows all things.

Since you seem to have trouble finding things in your Bibles,

I've shown you quite a few things so far.

here are three of the verses dealing with the perfection of God. I found that most instances of ‘perfect’ in scripture refer to men.

Job 37:16 Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?

Job is especially apt, because Job is telling us that God cannot be completely understandable to men, and that He is of a different order entirely.

"Perfect in knowledge" is omniscience, which means He knows everything.

I believe you missed one in Deuteronomy, and possibly elsewhere.

Barbarian observes:
If the tapdance is over, how about explaining why mammals, which evolutionary theory says evolved from reptiles, have transitionals that lay reptillian eggs, but not avian ones? How about explaining why such organisms have the reptillian shoulder structure, but not the dinosaurian one?
This is a complete mystery to creationists, but science has a very simple explanation that is consistent with the evidence. Mammals evolved from therapsids, so the transitionals have characters of both classes. Birds evolved from primitive dinosaurs, so they have the characters of those organisms.

Here is simple explanation just for you: God created what you call “primitive dinosaurs†with what you call “primitive dinosaur†“charactersâ€Â, and then he created what you call “dinosaur/ bird transitionals†with what you call dinosaur/ bird transitional “characters†and then he created what you call “birds†with what you call bird “characters†and then he created what you call “mammals†with what you call mammal “characters†and then he created what you call mammal/therapsid transitionals with what you call mammal/therapsid transitional “characters†and then he created what you call therapsids with what you call therapsid “characters†and so on.

Well, actually, mammals preceded birds and dinosaurs. And why is it you only find transitions between groups earlier predicted to be related by evolutionary theory? I've asked this several times, and you've declined to explain that each time.

Barbarian observes:
Since a logical reading of Genesis, as St. Augustine pointed out over 1500 years ago, makes six literal days absurd, it's clear that can't be so. He was speaking of the fact that it is absurd to speak of literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

God is not on our clock, the earth’s rotation is set to his. Evening/ morning are halves of a day‘s work for God. One half is called evening which is the first period of the day, and the other is morning or the last half of approximately a twenty four hour period of time. God called light; ‘day’ before there was a sun. He called darkness; ‘night’ before there was a moon.

This is why Augustine said it was absurd to take it literally. God may be omnipotent, but language is meant to communicate. If you take it literally, He said something logically impossible.

In fact, your whole argument is moot because the darkness is not darkness all around the world at once anyway.

Another absurdity. So you can't have morning and evening (which are defined by the sun) everywhere on the planet.

Barbarian observes:
In other words, you have no idea what evolutionary theory is about. Good enough.

(cuts from a science book and pastes)

That's pretty good. Here's an easy answer:
"Change in allele frequencies in populations over time."

Happy? So now what? I won't put it in my own words or you might think I was messing with their perfection. As I said, this is for your interpretation of the evidence. Mine doesn’t need millions of years or go from the “earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
That just isn’t “natural†for a dynamic creator like our God.

The evidence is that it is natural for him. He's still doing it, and it takes a lot of time.

Barbarian wrote:
Second, God says that He created life naturally, not ex nihilo.

Technically, it says he created the heaven and the earth, his spirit moved over the waters and he divided light from darkness on the first day. It doesn’t say ‘from nothing’ but if he is the only creator and he created everything, it would naturally be his creation, not something that he found.

Not the universe. Life.

By the fifth day, the waters of the earth are commanded to bring forth living things from flying creatures to great whales. The sixth day God commands that the earth bring forth more living creatures who will inhabit the land. If you want to say this creating isn’t “ex nihiloâ€Â, but from the earth and waters on the earth that he just created a couple days ago, fine.

So we can rule out YEC. OEC still remains consistent with Genesis to that point.

You get as technical as you like, but there isn’t much “wiggle room†in the time frame, imho.

Augustine seems to have it right. It can't be logically reconciled with literal days.

How natural is it to command water to bring forth fish and flying creatures? Seems to be quite natural for God.

He makes soil and water, and from that, living things emerge. And not by magic. He builds a world that does it.
Remarkable.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote on the perfection of God: By that, I mean that He is, in every way, good, and powerful and knows all things.

Job is especially apt, because Job is telling us that God cannot be completely understandable to men, and that He is of a different order entirely.

"Perfect in knowledge" is omniscience, which means He knows everything.

I believe you missed one in Deuteronomy, and possibly elsewhere.

It was presumptuous of me to think I could find the verse(s) that you base your understanding of the perfection of God upon. Quoting the entire Bible would not suffice. Of course I believe that God is perfect in knowledge and knows everything that possibly can be known at every moment of the present time and the every detail of the past, including the thoughts and intentions of every creature ever created. The future is not a thing to be known since it remains undone until it happens. That is not to say that God can not make an educated and informed hypothesis of what might happen in any given situation and know what he can do to change all circumstances to suit his purposes, and often does. There is no way to know free will actions that he has not initiated. There is no way to know what will happen when a creation is put in the control of a free willed being such as man. God’s knowledge increases as days pass by. There are several instances where God says he will wait to see what man will do and base his actions upon that outcome. To me this indicates that God can and does learn and increase in his perfect knowledge. As soon as it happens, God knows it perfectly.

That said, I see no reason to assume he can’t increase in his creativity as he expands his limitless knowledge. I think that he becomes more amazing with every passing moment and at every moment he is the most amazing being that could ever be at that moment in time.

Barbarian wrote: I've shown you quite a few things so far.

Yes, you have. Some good and some bad. I actually do enjoy our little discussions as it gives me a chance to stimulate my brain and force me to update my thinking from time to time and evaluate the scriptural accuracy of my theories. I don’t enjoy repeating the same arguments ad nauseum and re explaining the obvious or dealing with unfounded accusations but if there is a comprehension problem, I try to help with an adequate explanation.

I am still waiting to hear where your Bible says not to add to Genesis and where you find that God can‘t increase in creativity.

Barbarian wrote: Well, actually, mammals preceded birds and dinosaurs. And why is it you only find transitions between groups earlier predicted to be related by evolutionary theory? I've asked this several times, and you've declined to explain that each time.

That surprises me. I thought you would a least try to accommodate the order of things created in Genesis. Apparently your version of it is the fairy tale edition. You may switch around the mammals and bird-to-dinosaur order but I can’t pretend to say it will line up with the Genesis account. Apparently, this isn’t a concern of yours. Go figure.

As for why you “only find transitions between groups earlier predicted to be related by evolutionary theory“, I have explained this phenomena. You ToEists only see what you want to see and regard all other evidence as anomalous and bury it from view. It’s somewhat akin to making a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Barbarian wrote: This is why Augustine said it was absurd to take it literally. God may be omnipotent, but language is meant to communicate. If you take it literally, He said something logically impossible.

That would be a archaic explanation for simplistic people. There is a more reasonable clarification for astute Bible believers. The familiarity of the evolved language is hampering your understanding of the original concepts. You are equating the words translated as ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ with our use and not as they were used ‘in the beginning’. The ‘`ereb’ was the first half of the day and the ‘boqer’ was the latter part. We mark these times by the subjective rise and set of the sun and that is perfectly fine because God immediately associated the sun and moon with these time periods the same day he created them. No problem, but it masks the use of God for those time frames.
God was not waiting for the sun to go down or rise to tell if a day had passed. The evening to God is just the first division of his day and the morning was the remaining part. These time segments are God’s, not man’s. Man is given the same segments to divide his workday and work week by. God literally sets our time schedule to his. We synchronize our timepieces with our Father’s cosmic clock and he teaches us how to tell time by the ‘moving of the hands’ of the sun and moon and planets. Much of the book of Enoch deals with time keeping. God wants us to know what time it is and understand the hour is late and the end of all things earthly is near.

Barbarian wrote: Another absurdity. So you can't have morning and evening (which are defined by the sun) everywhere on the planet.

They are only defined by the sun and moon here on earth. We are God’s children and he has put us under his time schedule. If we lived on Jupiter, Jupiter would have revolved at God‘s ‘24-hour-day’ speed.

Barbarian wrote:
UT (cuts from a science book and pastes)
That's pretty good. Here's an easy answer:
"Change in allele frequencies in populations over time."

I didn’t use that one because it doesn’t really express the lengths that the ToE goes to in order to distance itself from the obvious timescale of Genesis.

Barbarian wrote: The evidence is that it is natural for him. He's still doing it, and it takes a lot of time.

There are the magic words: “it takes a lot of time“.

Barbarian wrote: Not the universe. Life.

If he created the universe and the earth from nothing and a couple days later pulled life from the elements of that creation, it is same as creating from nothing.

Barbarian wrote: So we can rule out YEC. OEC still remains consistent with Genesis to that point.

Noooo… OEC has completely ignored the plain understanding of Genesis. I don’t mind dropping the “ex nihilo†from the account since it doesn‘t expressly read that way anyways. I won’t have any problem with saying that God called life from the waters or earth’s surface on the fifth and sixth literal days of creation.
For the record, I am not connected with YEC or ID proponents formally but my views are consistent with a young earth paradigm as stated in the Bible and the book of Jasher. I’m not sure exactly what other YECs believe and they may not agree with my theories either.

Barbarian wrote: He makes soil and water, and from that, living things emerge. And not by magic. He builds a world that does it.
Remarkable.

You think it would be less magical because you add billions of years? How trite. Making soil and water is as every bit as magical as the miracle of life whether he speaks it into existence or fashions it with his hands or uses a bowl and spoon. The soil and water do not engender life, God speaks and the creatures emerge.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Well, actually, mammals preceded birds and dinosaurs. And why is it you only find transitions between groups earlier predicted to be related by evolutionary theory? I've asked this several times, and you've declined to explain that each time.

That surprises me. I thought you would a least try to accommodate the order of things created in Genesis.

Allegories tend to break down, if you try to make them specific histories.

Apparently your version of it is the fairy tale edition. You may switch around the mammals and bird-to-dinosaur order but I can’t pretend to say it will line up with the Genesis account.

Indeed, since Genesis is not an historical account that's not a problem for Christians.

As for why you “only find transitions between groups earlier predicted to be related by evolutionary theory“, I have explained this phenomena.

Not yet. Why only the ones predicted?

You ToEists only see what you want to see and regard all other evidence as anomalous and bury it from view.

I'd be open to a counter-example, so far as I know, none exist. If the theory is wrong, why is it batting 1.000 now?

It’s somewhat akin to making a self-fulfilling prophesy.

All you need is one example. But there are none. That's pretty hard to ignore.

Barbarian observes:
This is why Augustine said it was absurd to take it literally. God may be omnipotent, but language is meant to communicate. If you take it literally, He said something logically impossible.

That would be a archaic explanation for simplistic people.

"Archaic" and "simplistic" would not be words one normally uses for Augustine.

And I'm not very open to "well the words meant something else back then" argument. If so, then one could argue that other words meant something else, too,and the whole structure falls apart. Once you argue anything doesn't really mean what it says, then inerrancy is gone.

(cuts from a science book and pastes)
That's pretty good. Here's an easy answer:
"Change in allele frequencies in populations over time."

I didn’t use that one because it doesn’t really express the lengths that the ToE goes to in order to distance itself from the obvious timescale of Genesis.

There is no timetable in Genesis. No expression of how long it actually took.

Barbarian observes:
The evidence is that it is natural for him. He's still doing it, and it takes a lot of time.

There are the magic words: “it takes a lot of time“.

He has a lot of it. Centuries or days are all the same to Him.

Barbarian on YE notions of ex nihilo creation:
Not the universe. Life.

If he created the universe and the earth from nothing and a couple days later pulled life from the elements of that creation, it is same as creating from nothing.

Nope. Even if you can resolve the logical difficulties of a six day creation, willing the earth to bring forth living things, cannot be creation of life ex nihilo.

Barbarian observes:
So we can rule out YEC. OEC still remains consistent with Genesis to that point.

Noooo… OEC has completely ignored the plain understanding of Genesis.

For most Christians, the plain understanding of Genesis is as an allegory.

I don’t mind dropping the “ex nihilo†from the account since it doesn‘t expressly read that way anyways. I won’t have any problem with saying that God called life from the waters or earth’s surface on the fifth and sixth literal days of creation.

So if you break with YEC on that, why not accept all of Genesis?

For the record, I am not connected with YEC or ID proponents formally but my views are consistent with a young earth paradigm as stated in the Bible and the book of Jasher. I’m not sure exactly what other YECs believe and they may not agree with my theories either.

To which "Book of Jasher" do you refer?






Quote:
Barbarian wrote: He makes soil and water, and from that, living things emerge. And not by magic. He builds a world that does it.
Remarkable.


You think it would be less magical because you add billions of years? How trite. Making soil and water is as every bit as magical as the miracle of life whether he speaks it into existence or fashions it with his hands or uses a bowl and spoon. The soil and water do not engender life, God speaks and the creatures emerge.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote: Allegories tend to break down, if you try to make them specific histories.

Not much of an allegory if you don’t even get the order of the animals right. For someone who is so picky about being misquoted, you don’t mind misquoting God very much.

Barbarian wrote: Indeed, since Genesis is not an historical account that's not a problem for Christians.

I always wondered at what point, if any, people like you figure that Genesis or the Bible is actual history.

Barbarian wrote: Not yet. Why only the ones predicted?

LOL. OK, just for you, Barb. The reason you think you “only find transitions between groups earlier predicted to be related by evolutionary theory†is because you only see what you want to see and regard all other evidence as anomalous and discard it.

Barbarian wrote: I'd be open to a counter-example, so far as I know, none exist. If the theory is wrong, why is it batting 1.000 now?

That’s about all it’s batting. You have a problem with zeros and decimal points, don’t you? If you would reduce your figures by 3 or 4 zeros, we could have a nice agreeable discussion, I bet.

Barbarian wrote: All you need is one example. But there are none. That's pretty hard to ignore.

Really? Watch this.

Barbarian wrote: "Archaic" and "simplistic" would not be words one normally uses for Augustine.
And I'm not very open to "well the words meant something else back then" argument. If so, then one could argue that other words meant something else, too,and the whole structure falls apart. Once you argue anything doesn't really mean what it says, then inerrancy is gone.

LOL. Like when you trash the whole account in Genesis as a allegory and a poor one at that? I’m not saying the words for ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ meant something else back then, I’m saying evening was the first part of the day and morning was the last part, just as it is today according to Jewish time keeping. Beginning on the fourth day, God made the last part of the day called morning ( in English ) to be the time when the sun appeared in the sky around earth and sunset to mark the beginning of evening.
You can take inerrancy as far as I’m concerned. That only leads to Bible worship. The Bible has all the information you need to live a life pleasing to God. It doesn’t have to be inerrant.

Barbarian wrote: There is no timetable in Genesis. No expression of how long it actually took.

Besides the first 7 days of creation, Genesis 5: 1 through 32 takes you right up to the time of the flood. If you can add, you’ll have a pretty good idea of how long it took to get to the point where God created man until he decided to destroy man from off the face of the earth, except for Noah and his family.

Barbarian wrote: He has a lot of it. Centuries or days are all the same to Him.

It won’t take any years off his life but he gets weary of waiting for man to repent, what makes you think he wants to sit around watching the paint dry on his new creation?

Barbarian wrote: Nope. Even if you can resolve the logical difficulties of a six day creation, willing the earth to bring forth living things, cannot be creation of life ex nihilo.

So if you break with YEC on that, why not accept all of Genesis?

I do accept all of Genesis and as written, literally, not a fairy tale version. There are no logical difficulties, just our ignorance of how God did so much with nothing.

Barbarian wrote: To which "Book of Jasher" do you refer?

The real one, of course. Here's a link to one online copy: http://earth-history.com/Pseudepigrapha ... -intro.htm

Barbarian wrote: Barbarian wrote: He makes soil and water, and from that, living things emerge. And not by magic. He builds a world that does it.
Remarkable.

You think it would be less magical because you add billions of years? How trite. Making soil and water is as every bit as magical as the miracle of life whether he speaks it into existence or fashions it with his hands or uses a bowl and spoon. The soil and water do not engender life, God speaks and the creatures emerge.

I see you had no comment to add to my last statement. Maybe you would prefer the scientization of the language of Genesis instead of the quaint rendering of the account in magical sounding phrases? How about if you say God rearranged the various molecules of the natural elements and chemicals to produce a series of physical organisms and ordered the genetic code within the cells of those biological structures to reproduce in accordance with the DNA instructions he gave them? Or make up something yourself. It’s your forte.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian wrote: Allegories tend to break down, if you try to make them specific histories.

Not much of an allegory if you don’t even get the order of the animals right.

There isn't even an order. It's one reason we know it isn't literal.

For someone who is so picky about being misquoted, you don’t mind misquoting God very much.

Which of the verses I posted do you think I've altered? Maybe it's your Bible that isn't right.

Barbarian
wrote: Indeed, since Genesis is not an historical account that's not a problem for Christians.

I always wondered at what point, if any, people like you figure that Genesis or the Bible is actual history.

There's a good deal of literal history in the Bible, most of it occuring after humans had the ability to write. Go figure.

Barbarian on why creationists are befuddled by transitionals only occuring where science predicts them to occur:
Not yet. Why only the ones predicted ?

LOL. OK, just for you, Barb. The reason you think you “only find transitions between groups earlier predicted to be related by evolutionary theory†is because you only see what you want to see and regard all other evidence as anomalous and discard it.

That's easy to test. Show me a counter-example. Where are the bird/mammal ones? The octopus/butterfly ones?

Barbarian observes:
If the theory is wrong, why is it batting 1.000 now?

That’s about all it’s batting.

Batting 1.000 means you get a hit every time.

You have a problem with zeros and decimal points, don’t you?

I don't think so.

If you would reduce your figures by 3 or 4 zeros, we could have a nice agreeable discussion, I bet.

Maybe baseball isn't your metaphor.

Barbarian, on the absence of any transtionals, but those predicted by science:
All you need is one example. But there are none. That's pretty hard to ignore.

Really? Watch this.

(did you forget something here?)

Barbarian oberves:
"Archaic" and "simplistic" would not be words one normally uses for Augustine.

And I'm not very open to "well the words meant something else back then" argument. If so, then one could argue that other words meant something else, too,and the whole structure falls apart. Once you argue anything doesn't really mean what it says, then inerrancy is gone.

LOL. Like when you trash the whole account in Genesis as a allegory and a poor one at that?

Nope. First, it's pretty silly to equate "allegory' with "trash."

And second, it's a pretty good one. The best I know about.

I’m not saying the words for ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ meant something else back then, I’m saying evening was the first part of the day and morning was the last part, just as it is today according to Jewish time keeping.

By definition, "morning" is before the sun is directly overhead.

You can take inerrancy as far as I’m concerned. That only leads to Bible worship. The Bible has all the information you need to live a life pleasing to God. It doesn’t have to be inerrant.

I think that's a sensible position.

Barbarian observes:
There is no timetable in Genesis. No expression of how long it actually took.

Besides the first 7 days of creation,

Actually, 6. But as Augustine pointed out, they can't be literal days.

Genesis 5: 1 through 32 takes you right up to the time of the flood. If you can add, you’ll have a pretty good idea of how long it took to get to the point where God created man until he decided to destroy man from off the face of the earth, except for Noah and his family.

Doesn't fit. But then, it doesn't say that the flood covered the whole earth. It says it covered all the land (eretz), which can mean all the earth, or a small part of it.

Barbarian wrote:
He has a lot of it. Centuries or days are all the same to Him.

It won’t take any years off his life but he gets weary of waiting for man to repent, what makes you think he wants to sit around watching the paint dry on his new creation?

My guess is that He took a lot of enjoyment in the way His creation unfolds. I doubt if He gets bored.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Even if you can resolve the logical difficulties of a six day creation, willing the earth to bring forth living things, cannot be creation of life ex nihilo.

So if you break with YEC on that, why not accept all of Genesis?

I do accept all of Genesis and as written, literally, not a fairy tale version. There are no logical difficulties, just our ignorance of how God did so much with nothing.

Most Christians wouldn't agree with you, although there are good Christians on all sides of the issue.

Barbarian asks:
To which "Book of Jasher" do you refer?

The real one, of course. Here's a link to one online copy: http://earth-history.com/Pseudepigrapha ... -intro.htm

Hmm... pretty unlikely. Here's a place to learn about the various modern versions (the ancient version no longer exists)

Barbarian observes:
He makes soil and water, and from that, living things emerge. And not by magic. He builds a world that does it.
Remarkable.

You think it would be less magical because you add billions of years?

Nope. Because He creates nature with the intent of using it to create life.

I see you had no comment to add to my last statement. Maybe you would prefer the scientization of the language of Genesis instead of the quaint rendering of the account in magical sounding phrases? How about if you say God rearranged the various molecules of the natural elements and chemicals to produce a series of physical organisms and ordered the genetic code within the cells of those biological structures to reproduce in accordance with the DNA instructions he gave them?

Nope. That would be back to God shoving the clouds around to make weather.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote: There isn't even an order. It's one reason we know it isn't literal.

You might be right about it not having much of an order. It is quite general but the point is that they were created on the 4th and 5th days and it doesn‘t make a lot of difference if it means literal days but if it means millions of years, it sucks as an allegory.

Barbarian wrote: Which of the verses I posted do you think I've altered? Maybe it's your Bible that isn't right.

I said that wrong. You don’t misquote God, you misinterpret scripture. You fabricate a creation story that has no correlation to the one in Genesis and say Genesis is an allegory of your fairy-tale.

Barbarian wrote: There's a good deal of literal history in the Bible, most of it occuring after humans had the ability to write. Go figure.

God’s prophet, Enoch was born while Adam was still alive, and he wrote many books according to Jasher. Translations of them are still being circulated.

Barbarian wrote: That's easy to test. Show me a counter-example. Where are the bird/mammal ones? The octopus/butterfly ones?

No one but no one is even looking for those. Yecs don’t need them and neither do evolutionists. If the ToE crowd finds them, they ignore them and deny any significance to shared characteristics, except for the ones that prove their theory.

Barbarian wrote: Batting 1.000 means you get a hit every time.
Maybe baseball isn't your metaphor.

I guess not. Maybe you should switch to baseball and do something important with your time.

Barbarian wrote: Nope. First, it's pretty silly to equate "allegory' with "trash."
And second, it's a pretty good one. The best I know about.

When you take a perfectly good literal history and turn it into a fairy tale, you’ve trashed the historicity of the record. If I take your birth announcement and say it’s just an allegory for your actual decent from a test tube, and you were really made from altered ape DNA and it took 39 years for you to grow hair, teeth and learn to talk, and your adopted parents really picked you up at the lab as a baby but you actually were a 40 year old dwarf, would you say that I had trashed your record?

Barbarian wrote: By definition, "morning" is before the sun is directly overhead.

That’s our definition of it. God said the evening and the morning were the first day, the next evening and morning were the second day, the next evening and morning were the third day, then he created the sun, moon and placed lights in the sky for signs and for determining the seasons and the evening and morning were the fourth day. If this is an allegory, exactly what is all that about?

Barbarian wrote: Actually, 6. But as Augustine pointed out, they can't be literal days.

It can be a day by God’s watch, without either the sun or the moon. This isn’t rocket science. Maybe if it were, you wouldn’t have such a problem. Maybe you’re over-thinking it.

Barbarian wrote: Doesn't fit. But then, it doesn't say that the flood covered the whole earth. It says it covered all the land (eretz), which can mean all the earth, or a small part of it.

Doesn’t fit what?
Nope…it was a total deluge. The flooding of the River Gihon centuries earlier was a partial flooding of a third of the earth but Noah’s flood was all the earth. If it were partial, why would God promise never to destroy the world by flood again?

Barbarian wrote: My guess is that He took a lot of enjoyment in the way His creation unfolds. I doubt if He gets bored.

Why do you think he would get pleasure from watching the horror show of nature devouring it’s weak and innocent? The world he created was a good place and everything in it was good and food didn’t scream and cry and writhe in pain and terror. All the creatures and man ate herbs and seeds and fruit. Subjecting the world to the carnage of death and pain was only necessary because of the sin and evil that man chose over the good will of God. God did not create it that way.

Barbarian wrote: Most Christians wouldn't agree with you, although there are good Christians on all sides of the issue.

And this should concern me how?

Barbarian wrote: Hmm... pretty unlikely. Here's a place to learn about the various modern versions (the ancient version no longer exists)

Apparently your link about Jasher has disappeared but my Jasher is alive and well, thank you anyways. I think I read it before.

Barbarian wrote: Nope. Because He creates nature with the intent of using it to create life.

Your addition to Genesis? It actually says he created the earth with land and seas and vegetation on the second and third days, and called the creatures having life from the earth, on the fifth and sixth days. No millions of years to wait.

Barbarian wrote: Nope. That would be back to God shoving the clouds around to make weather.

Not quite. The weather is pretty much on auto pilot, along with the rest of nature since the fall of man and 1/3 of the angels. Doesn’t it say that The Word was with God and without him was nothing made that was made? Sounds like he spoke everything into existence by the power of his Word.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
There isn't even an order. It's one reason we know it isn't literal.

You might be right about it not having much of an order. It is quite general but the point is that they were created on the 4th and 5th days and it doesn‘t make a lot of difference if it means literal days but if it means millions of years, it sucks as an allegory.

Actually it's the other way. If you create plants, and so sun, then it's all wrong. But in allegories, time doesn't have to count, so if God was using figurative language, it makes sense. And that's the only way it makes sense, as the early Christians like Augustine admitted.

Barbarian ask:
Which of the verses I posted do you think I've altered? Maybe it's your Bible that isn't right.

I said that wrong. You don’t misquote God, you misinterpret scripture.

Most Christians would say you have done that.

Barbarian observes:
There's a good deal of literal history in the Bible, most of it occuring after humans had the ability to write. Go figure.

(claims that Enoch wrote Jasher)

Seems unlikely, since the versions circulating have anachronisms that could not have been written by Enoch.

Barbarian observes: That's easy to test. Show me a counter-example. Where are the bird/mammal ones? The octopus/butterfly ones?

No one but no one is even looking for those.

People look for fossils. Often the significance of such fossils is not determined until much later. And yet, no one finds any such transitionals.

If the ToE crowd finds them, they ignore them and deny any significance to shared characteristics, except for the ones that prove their theory.

That's quite an accusation. Show us. Are we to take it that such transitionals have never been found because of a conspiracy among scientists?

Barbarian observes:
Batting 1.000 means you get a hit every time.

You have a problem with zeros and decimal points, don’t you?

Barbarian chuckles:
I don't think so. Maybe baseball isn't your metaphor.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. First, it's pretty silly to equate "allegory' with "trash."
And second, it's a pretty good one. The best I know about.

When you take a perfectly good literal history...

But we've already shown that it isn't literal history.

Barbarian observes:
By definition, "morning" is before the sun is directly overhead.

That’s our definition of it.

Once you toss out accepted meanings, then anything is possible.

Barbarian observes:
Actually, 6. But as Augustine pointed out, they can't be literal days.

It can be a day by God’s watch,

His watch says a day is as a thousand years, if you take scripture literally.

Barbarian observes:
Doesn't fit. But then, it doesn't say that the flood covered the whole earth. It says it covered all the land (eretz), which can mean all the earth, or a small part of it.

Nope…it was a total deluge. The flooding of the River Gihon centuries earlier was a partial flooding of a third of the earth but Noah’s flood was all the earth.

That's another reason we know "eretz means only part of the earth, since no river can flood even a third of the continent it's on (else it would have to flow upstream).

If it were partial, why would God promise never to destroy the world by flood again?

Didn't say "world." It says "eretz", which means "land."

Barbarian on God's patience:
My guess is that He took a lot of enjoyment in the way His creation unfolds. I doubt if He gets bored.

Why do you think he would get pleasure from watching the horror show of nature devouring it’s weak and innocent? The world he created was a good place and everything in it was good and food didn’t scream and cry and writhe in pain and terror.

Always has, since He created it. Why would He create Satan, knowing what Satan would do? Why Adam and Eve, knowing what they would do? God is not fair as we count fairness.

Barbarian observes:
Most Christians wouldn't agree with you, although there are good Christians on all sides of the issue.

And this should concern me how?

Just pointing out that most people who love and follow God have come to a different decision.

Barbarian wrote:
Hmm... pretty unlikely. Here's a place to learn about the various modern versions (the ancient version no longer exists)

Apparently your link about Jasher has disappeared but my Jasher is alive and well, thank you anyways.

There are quite a few Jashers circulating. None of them are considered authentic by scholars.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Because He creates nature with the intent of using it to create life.

Your addition to Genesis?

Nope. He says that he created the earth and then it brings forth life.

No millions of years to wait.

The actual time is not given. Some things, He lets us find for ourselves.

Barbarian on creationism:
Nope. That would be back to God shoving the clouds around to make weather.

Not quite. The weather is pretty much on auto pilot, along with the rest of nature since the fall of man and 1/3 of the angels.

Why do you think He wasn't smart enough to do it that way before?

Doesn’t it say that The Word was with God and without him was nothing made that was made? Sounds like he spoke everything into existence by the power of his Word.

He made nature. And from that, all the rest unfolded.