[_ Old Earth _] Can evolution and creation both be true?

[Sparkey]

And when I say, "I cannot simply take your word for it," that is what i mean.

Stating "Most creationists now believe..." without any substantiation or evidence or supportive documentation does nothing to convince me except that I can accept the face value of your statement and conclude that either you are lying or you believe this to be true.

Genesis 1:20-25

These verses plainly say, without any interpretation, that God created fish to reproduce after their own particular kind, birds after their particular kind, and cattle after the cattle kind. Each kind may have many varieties within it, but all creatures reproduce only after their own "kind. " That is why dogs reproduce dogs, monkeys reproduce monkeys, sheep reproduce sheep, etc.

My opinion (my guess) is that you would not lie - so my considered conclusion is, "Gee, it seems that some guy named "The Barbarian" disagrees with some guy named "Sparrowhawke" and although he can not offer any evidence or support for his opinion he seems to be a nice guy.

You see?

How many creationists are there in the world today? Do you know the total number? Of them are you certain that at least 51% believe as you state? Are you defining creationist and creationism as we have defined them herein? Can you quote your sources? Woodmorappe's analysis (from the little I know) focus on the requirements for care and feeding of the animals on Noah's arc.

Contrary to your assertions, Baraminology has been recently advanced as a sub-field of creation science and is offered by them in contrast to Cladistics (beliefs commonly held by taxonomists which conform to classifying species based on "evolutionary history"). I am not endorsing either side at this point but advance this argument to directly refute your statement that you are a spokesman of "most" creationists. Clearly you are not.


~Sparrow

http://www.blueletterbible.org/audio_video/asxgen/?AuthorID=9&commInfo=65&GroupID=4&ID=10664&t=a

 

[Barbarian]

And when I say, "I cannot simply take your word for it," that is what i mean.

I wouldn't say it, if I couldn't show it to you. This, for example, is from the website of the Institute for Creation Research, the largest and oldest of the YE creationist organizations:

Reproductive isolation can occur in a number of ways and result in speciation from one kind of animal through events that isolate one variation (species) from another. Many of these isolation events have been identified and are described as behavioral isolation, ecological isolation, and geographical isolation, to name a few.
http://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/

I'm surprised you didn't know this.

Stating "Most creationists now believe..." without any substantiation or evidence or supportive documentation does nothing to convince me except that I can accept the face value of your statement and conclude that either you are lying or you believe this to be true.

Well, now you know better. Let's look a little farther...

This is from Answers in Genesis, perhaps the second-largest YE group, and although much less scientifically competent then the ICR, they still say:

A major surprise for the researchers was that the mutation they found would have to had occurred fairly rapidly, as the islands on which P. polionotus lives are considered to be less than 6,000 years old.2 This is no surprise to creationists, as such processes (and perhaps other factors affecting the genome) would have occurred rapidly after the Flood, producing variation within the animal kinds (in addition to their already created diversity). Such effects are largely responsible for generating the tremendous diversity seen in the living world.3 In addition, there are many other modern-day examples of adaptation that has occurred quickly.4

These verses plainly say, without any interpretation, that God created fish to reproduce after their own particular kind, birds after their particular kind, and cattle after the cattle kind.

No. If you'll take a look, it doesn't say anything about reproducing after kinds.

My opinion (my guess) is that you would not lie - so my considered conclusion is, "Gee, it seems that some guy named "The Barbarian" disagrees with some guy named "Sparrowhawke" and although he can not offer any evidence or support for his opinion he seems to be a nice guy.

Well, that's settled, now. And take a close look at Genesis; it's not "reproduce according to kind."

How many creationists are there in the world today? Do you know the total number? Of them are you certain that at least 51% believe as you state?

When the two largest organizations admit to speciation, it's pretty good evidence, yes.

Are you defining creationist and creationism as we have defined them herein? Can you quote your sources? Woodmorappe's analysis (from the little I know) focus on the requirements for care and feeding of the animals on Noah's arc.

Woodmorappe's problem was explaining how we could have such a diversity of animals, given the relatively small Ark. His solution was that a few "kinds" were on board, and these rapidly evolved after the flood to produce the new species, genera, and families we see today.

Contrary to your assertions, Baraminology has been recently advanced as a sub-field of creation science and is offered by them in contrast to Cladistics (beliefs commonly held by taxonomists which conform to classifying species based on "evolutionary history"). I am not endorsing either side at this point but advance this argument to directly refute your statement that you are a spokesman of "most" creationists. Clearly you are not.

Well, that's another error. I didn't say I was a spokesman for them. I'm just observing that most of them admit to the fact of speciation. As you might see, if you read Woodmorappe's book, he thinks evoution went a lot farther than speciation. And the ICR endorsed his thesis.

 

[kenmaynard]

I am a little lost. Why can't both be true?

 

[Sparkey]

I am a little lost. Why can't both be true?

I'm lost a little too. Seems somebody had a point to make?

~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

Why can't both be true?

That's what I said. They are.

 

[Crying Rock]

I am a little lost. Why can't both be true?

I'm lost a little too. Seems somebody had a point to make?

~Sparrow

Welcome to Barbarian.

He crawls out from under his bridge now and again. ;) ;)


"...Most creationists now admit speciation is a fact..."

Reference? How many people are there on the earth. How many are creationists? How many of those "admit" macro-evolution is a fact? Show your detailed proof of how you came up with "most"?

 

[Barbarian]

Since both the ICR and Answers in Genesis admit to speciation (and they are the two largest YE organizations) it's rather odd to deny that YE creationists generally accept evolution of new species.

 

[Sparkey]

The mission of the ICR (Institution for Creation Research) is:

ICR equips believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework.

Contrary to your opinion this mission does NOT include mind control or dictation of all Christian thought on the subject.

Further, your logic is flawed sir. Face it. Not only are your conclusions unsubstantiated by your premise(s), your argument is fallacious in that it is an argumentum ad populum. Assertions characterized by argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans") lack worth and are informal fallacies. Abandon them. Even if true and even if you are able to substantiate your assertions the fallacy is obvious - one simply can not prove truth by saying "most believe thus".

totopic

INITIAL DEFINITIONS:

[Evolution] is the prevailing theory accepted by most all leading scientists today. It is arrived at by careful study of our environment and predicts continuing advancement of not only the human race but of all life. The fundamental belief of the evolutionist is one of hope. Study and classification of both plant and animal kingdoms offer many convincing arguments for evolution.

There are multiple "schools of thought" about evolution too. Some scientists adhere to "micro-evolution" thereby reserving their thoughts about speciation to a later point in time when we have collected sufficient evidence for certain proof of the broader aspects of evolutionary theory.

Creationism is the belief that the complexity of the universe, especially life, could not have come about random means. That the universe had a beginning, and that beginning was caused by an intelligent being who is the origin of all things.

~Sparrowhawke

 

[Barbarian]

Contrary to your opinion this mission does NOT include mind control or dictation of all Christian thought on the subject.

I never said anything of the kind. I'm just noting that two largest YE creationist organizations openly admit speciation is a fact. That's very good evidence for the beliefs of YE creationists.

Further, your logic is flawed sir. Face it. Not only are your conclusions unsubstantiated by your premise(s), your argument is fallacious in that it is an argumentum ad populum. Assertions characterized by argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans") lack worth and are informal fallacies.

Perhaps you don't know what "argumentum ad populum" means. It means that if most people accept something it must be true. My point was that most creationists accept speciation. That's not evidence that it's true; it's just an observation about what most YE creationists believe.

Abandon them. Even if true and even if you are able to substantiate your assertions the fallacy is obvious - one simply can not prove truth by saying "most believe thus".

But I didn't say it was true because most YE creationists admit it. I'm just noting that it's sufficiently well established that even most YE creationists don't deny it.

INITIAL DEFINITIONS:

Sparrowhawke wrote:[Evolution] is the prevailing theory accepted by most all leading scientists today. It is arrived at by careful study of our environment and predicts continuing advancement of not only the human race but of all life.

No. It is not about "advancement." That could happen, but it could just as well go to extinction. In fact, all lines eventually go extinct.

The fundamental belief of the evolutionist is one of hope.

For the many, many of us who are Christian it is. But it has nothing to do with evolution. That requires evidence, not hope.

Study and classification of both plant and animal kingdoms offer many convincing arguments for evolution.

There are multiple "schools of thought" about evolution too. Some scientists adhere to "micro-evolution" thereby reserving their thoughts about speciation to a later point in time when we have collected sufficient evidence for certain proof of the broader aspects of evolutionary theory.

See above. Not many of those. Few indeed deny the fact of speciation. But I'm pleased you do understand that speciation is macroevolution.

Kenmaynard wrote:Creationism is the belief that the complexity of the universe, especially life, could not have come about random means.

That's what science says, too. Random chemical changes wouldn't work. Fortunately, chemistry isn't a random process.

That the universe had a beginning, and that beginning was caused by an intelligent being who is the origin of all things.

That is also consistent with science. Science, being unable to go beyond the physical universe, is unable to speak about a Creator. But neither can it deny a Creator.

 

[Sparkey]

Contrary to your opinion this mission does NOT include mind control or dictation of all Christian thought on the subject.

I never said anything of the kind. I'm just noting that two largest YE creationist organizations openly admit speciation is a fact. That's very good evidence for the beliefs of YE creationists.

[quote:1t5zmevo]Further, your logic is flawed sir. Face it. Not only are your conclusions unsubstantiated by your premise(s), your argument is fallacious in that it is an argumentum ad populum. Assertions characterized by argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans") lack worth and are informal fallacies.

Perhaps you don't know what "argumentum ad populum" means. It means that if most people accept something it must be true. My point was that most creationists accept speciation. That's not evidence that it's true; it's just an observation about what most YE creationists believe.

...[/quote:1t5zmevo]

So what then is the point? Your point here is that you were making a pointless statement? Making an argument for the sake of argument alone is simply silly. Further, I would also like to say that I find your tone to be unpleasant and in my estimation it is purposefully so.

Kindly pray about this, ask the Lord to confirm the truth of the statement and repent.

~Sparrowhawke

Even like this: "Lord, if what my brother Sparrow is saying is true and I am not lovely in Your sight (like You want me to be) and if You would like to, then chastise me because I know that you chastise all Your sons and I trust you." Tell Him that you need to have Him draw you close to you and quiet your heart before Him while He accomplishes it and purges you from all unrighteousness. Pray in the Name, trust your God and depart from evil. Do this that His blessings may chase after all the rest of the days of your life!

 

[Free]

I really don't see anything wrong with Barbarian's post or his "tone of voice", much less something he needs to repent of.

 

[Sparkey]

I really don't see anything wrong with Barbarian's post or his "tone of voice", much less something he needs to repent of.

Except to say that my private comments were meant for the ear of The Barbarian himself and not meant to be interpretable by a moderator I do appreciate your reply here and will accept your judgment as if it were from God Himself. I stand corrected and would offer apology to The Barbarian for any offense that he may take from my statements and only hope that he might find value regardless of the opinion of a moderator.

To Free, I can only say, thank you,
~Sparrowhawke

 

[Barbarian]

I don't see anything offensive in Sparrowhawke's reply to me. I admire bluntness. I am by nature blunt, myself. However, I recognize that bluntness can lead to things that are not useful to discourse on a message board, and I will keep that in mind.

 

[Sparkey]

Thank you Sir.

I should probably tell you that I was reporting your post for attempting to hijack the post --mostly because you seemed to be picking apart every single part of my posting --it's kinda senseless when I quote somebody to pick apart the quote because the author that I am quoting can not defend themselves. There is a difference between what I say and what I am quoting --this may be a moot point though.

I too can appreciate bluntness but if it is the only tool in one's toolbox we are less equipped than what our Lord wants for us, correct? So then it is good for us to allow ourselves to be corrected. I will admit that I can be wrong in my impression, that sometimes I form opinions too quickly and that it is possible that 87% of what you have been saying is utterly "on topic" and not an attempt to hijack the thread per se.

It may be that I mis-judged you because of your preferred style of argument (blunt and to the point) but I also recognize "snide" comments when I hear them. As I approach 60 years of age it turns out (just by the odds alone) that I (most of the time) speak to those who are younger than me but it is completely unfair of me to presume you to be that much younger. I too may find myself in a place where I should apologize for my "tone". Mayhaps you are my elder?

In any case it is good for us to occasionally pray and appear before our Lord Commander and accept correction... and as I have witnessed a good indication of this very thing in your previous posting I do salute you.


OOPS !!! Wrong salute (*rofl* --> I can't help it sometimes <-- the tongue is unmanageable)



^,^ that's better, <Well met in Battle, Sparrow (called 'Captain' by some) salutes The Barbarian before Christ the King.> You sir may call upon me in the time of need. I will be proud to fight by your side in the good fight accordingly as the Lord calls us each.

~Sparrow

totopic

So, you think that speciation is possible from a single cell into the entire plant and also animal kingdoms? Surely this isn't what "they" are saying is it?

Simple question - simple answer, right? You may truncate the parts above my signature in response -- the personal things do not need reply except as you see fit.

~Sparhawk <my battle name, given seldom and in respect>

 

[Free]

I really don't see anything wrong with Barbarian's post or his "tone of voice", much less something he needs to repent of.

Except to say that my private comments were meant for the ear of The Barbarian himself and not meant to be interpretable by a moderator I do appreciate your reply here and will accept your judgment as if it were from God Himself. I stand corrected and would offer apology to The Barbarian for any offense that he may take from my statements and only hope that he might find value regardless of the opinion of a moderator.

To Free, I can only say, thank you,
~Sparrowhawke

Something to keep in mind: private messaging is for private comments. If you post comments, they are no longer private and are fair game. :shades

Everyone's good. That's good. It's Friday and that's good too.

 

[jasoncran]

I really don't see anything wrong with Barbarian's post or his "tone of voice", much less something he needs to repent of.

Except to say that my private comments were meant for the ear of The Barbarian himself and not meant to be interpretable by a moderator I do appreciate your reply here and will accept your judgment as if it were from God Himself. I stand corrected and would offer apology to The Barbarian for any offense that he may take from my statements and only hope that he might find value regardless of the opinion of a moderator.

To Free, I can only say, thank you,
~Sparrowhawke

Something to keep in mind: private messaging is for private comments. If you post comments, they are no longer private and are fair game. :shades

Everyone's good. That's good. It's Friday and that's good too.

its five o'clock some where too, sorry i couldnt resist,
bye jason

 

[Barbarian]

Sparrowhawke, forget about it. No hard feelings, no complaints from me. I'm 62, BTW, but try not to act it.

So, you think that speciation is possible from a single cell into the entire plant and also animal kingdoms?

So the evidence indicates.

Surely this isn't what "they" are saying is it?

I don't doubt that as life was brought forth from the earth, there were all sorts of protolife in play, only one of which seems to have survived to leave descendants. The DNA code is very clear on this; it sorts out very well according to phylogenies produced from other lines of evidence. Like Darwin, I don't know exactly how it happened, but also like Darwin, I think God did it.

There are, BTW, now six kingdoms, of which plant and animal are just two. The Monera (true bacteria and cyanobacteria) Archaea (bacteria-like things with affinities to eukaryotes) Protista (single-cell eukaryotes) Fungi (closely related to animals) Plants and Animals.

 

[Bryce]

Sparrowhawke, forget about it. No hard feelings, no complaints from me. I'm 62, BTW, but try not to act it.

So, you think that speciation is possible from a single cell into the entire plant and also animal kingdoms?

So the evidence indicates.

[quote:ao6xaa7b]Surely this isn't what "they" are saying is it?

I don't doubt that as life was brought forth from the earth, there were all sorts of protolife in play, only one of which seems to have survived to leave descendants. The DNA code is very clear on this; it sorts out very well according to phylogenies produced from other lines of evidence. Like Darwin, I don't know exactly how it happened, but also like Darwin, I think God did it.

There are, BTW, now six kingdoms, of which plant and animal are just two. The Monera (true bacteria and cyanobacteria) Archaea (bacteria-like things with affinities to eukaryotes) Protista (single-cell eukaryotes) Fungi (closely related to animals) Plants and Animals.[/quote:ao6xaa7b]


Hey Barbarian, long time no see.

Hows it been?



[/Spam]

 

[Barbarian]

Hey, Bryce. Things have been going well, thank you. And you?

 

[Bryce]

Not bad, had some time so I thought I'd revisit this place


Last time I left this place was void of any people \=