[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[zeke]

You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not evidential

Then you admit you are not capable of impeaching God's word regarding the creation of life?

Your opinion as to Newton's status is irrelevant, as is his opinion as to the role of God offered in evidence of God's existence and role in creation.

Do you or do you not agree that Newton was a reputable scientist who believed God created in the beginning?

Continuing to offer your false dilemma, either/or fallacy has no more evidential merit Han it did the first time round.

No false dilemma at all - Wald was correct - there are only two choices regarding life on this planet – special creation or life coming from non-life via random chance (an absurdity). Your “turtles all the way down" remains meaningless but entertaining.

 

[lordkalvan]

Then you admit you are not capable of impeaching God's word regarding the creation of life?

No, I simply point out that your assertions as to what is God's word, how that word should be understood or whether it is God's word at all are not evidential

Do you or do you not agree that Newton was a reputable scientist who believed God created in the beginning?

Irrelevant to anything other than your wish to argue from perceived authority simply because you see that authority as supporting your point of view. Do you or do you not agree that Newton was a reputable scientist who believed in alchemy?

No false dilemma at all - Wald was correct - there are only two choices regarding life on this planet – special creation or life coming from non-life via random chance (an absurdity). Your “turtles all the way down" remains meaningless but entertaining.

You have failed to demonstrate either that your choices are the only ones available, or that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is 'an absurdity', no matter how often you repeat them.

 

[zeke]

No, I simply point out that your assertions as to what is God's word, how that word should be understood or whether it is God's word at all are not evidential.

Are you saying scholars do not use God's word as evidence?

Irrelevant to anything other than your wish to argue from perceived authority simply because you see that authority as supporting your point of view.

It's a valid point - do you agree that Newton was a reputable scientist who believed God created? Is that a hard question for you?

Do you or do you not agree that Newton was a reputable scientist who believed in alchemy?

Of course. Do you agree that Principia is considered to be one of the most important scientific books ever written?

 

[lordkalvan]

Are you saying scholars do not use God's word as evidence?

Read what I wrote. You have not shown that whatever you or anyone else uses is God's word or that you (or they) have correctly interpreted it in either case.

It's a valid point - do you agree that Newton was a reputable scientist who believed God created? Is that a hard question for you?

An argument from authority remains an argument from authority. Assume I accept your point, the question is, so what? Newton was a reputable scientist who believed in alchemy. Does this add credibility to the idea that base metals can be transmuted into gold?

Of course. Do you agree that Principia is considered to be one of the most important scientific books ever written?

So what does all this have to do with the price of fish? I am puzzled as to the point you are trying to make. Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins are respected and reputable scientists who are Christians, who believe God created and yet who also accept and support the evidence for evolutionary theory, but I doubt that you agree with them on this.

 

[zeke]

You have not shown that whatever you or anyone else uses is God's word or that you (or they) have correctly interpreted it in either case.

Are you saying the Judeo-Christian Bible is not accepted by scholars as God's word?

An argument from authority remains an argument from authority. Assume I accept your point, the question is, so what? Newton was a reputable scientist who believed in alchemy. Does this add credibility to the idea that base metals can be transmuted into gold?

You miss the point again - Newton was a reputable scientist who believed God created the universe. Easy concept but one that remains difficult for your to admit. Why?

So what does all this have to do with the price of fish? I am puzzled as to the point you are trying to make. Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins are respected and reputable scientists who are Christians, who believe God created and yet who also accept and support the evidence for evolutionary theory, but I doubt that you agree with them on this.

I agree with them that theism is correct and atheism is folly. I respect their right to believe via faith that all creatures have a universal common ancestor but their belief is not proven via the scientific method.

 

[lordkalvan]

Are you saying the Judeo-Christian Bible is not accepted by scholars as God's word?

All scholars or some scholars? And so what? Again, what point are you trying to make?

You miss the point again - Newton was a reputable scientist who believed God created the universe. Easy concept but one that remains difficult for your to admit. Why?

If you explain the point you are trying to make - and answered my questions as well - it would perhaps help advance understanding.

I agree with them that theism is correct and atheism is folly.

Your and their agreement that something is 'folly' does not make it 'folly'.

I respect their right to believe via faith that all creatures have a universal common ancestor but their belief is not proven via the scientific method.

And they would disagree with your assertion and cite relevant evidence to support their understanding, see for example Kenneth Miller at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-evolution.html.

Is this 'folly' on their part?

 

[zeke]

All scholars or some scholars? And so what? Again, what point are you trying to make?

The point that you have never impeached God's word as evidence that God created in the beginning.

Your and their agreement that something is 'folly' does not make it 'folly'.

But it is God who condemns atheism as folly.

Is this 'folly' on their part?

It is their faith in evolutionism that is a folly.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Second, the fossil record shows numerous transitionals between humans and other primates.

Talk is cheap - where are these "numerous transitionals" you boast about?

Pretty much everywhere. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we have a transitional for you.

Or if you don't know what a "transitional" is, let me know and we'll help you.

Let me know what you want to do.

 

[Ambrose]

Barbarian observes:
I accept all of it, without reservation. YE creationists accept some of it, but not all of it.



Yep. I accept that living things were brought forth by the earth, but YE creationists cling to "life ex nihilo."



Remember, I accept it as it is. Christians have always known that much of Genesis is not meant to be literal history.



As ancient Christians wrote, it's absurd to imagine literal mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.



Jesus says God is a spirit and spirit has no body. God doesn't have fingers or a nose or eyelids. The "image" is in God's spirit and mind.



If you accept the Bible, you acknowledge that we came from the Earth like all the rest, but then God gives each of us a spirit and soul directly.



There may have been an actual flood. There was a great flood in the Middle East, about the right time. But there wasn't a worldwide flood and the the Bible doesn't say there was one.

.

All living things brought forth by the earth, Exept for man.. Remember Genesis 1:11 says

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.

Genesis 1:24 says

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

Then Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let US make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

And as for the flood. If there was safe ground then why did he have to build such a massive ark and take a creature of every kind onto it? Why could they have not just gone to the safer ground and why every species? That would have been alot easier than that. Surely every species wasnt only in that local area at the time. It would have been WAAAYYY easier to just leave the area.

I know im a little behind on this but i still had to give my input on this one. I could put the verses after that but i am sure you are familiar with those.

 

[Barbarian]

All living things brought forth by the earth, Exept for man..

Man, too. He was formed from the earth like any other animal. What made him different was that God directly gave him (and all of us) a soul.

And as for the flood. If there was safe ground then why did he have to build such a massive ark and take a creature of every kind onto it?

There is always safe ground, but people still drown.

Why could they have not just gone to the safer ground and why every species? That would have been alot easier than that. Surely every species wasnt only in that local area at the time. It would have been WAAAYYY easier to just leave the area.

Assuming that they could outrun the wall of water when the Mediterranean broke through and flooded the basin. We don't know how much of it is allegory. It isn't even certain that the story is entirely literal history. We just know that there was a great flood in the Middle East, about the right time.

 

[Ambrose]

There is always safe ground, but people still drown.

But everyone dosnt drown

 

[zeke]

Barbarian observes:
Second, the fossil record shows numerous transitionals between humans and other primates.

Then present those 'numerous transitionals' (second request). You talk much but present nothing. Remember, no dead-end ape lines, please. Dead-enders do not qualify as 'transitionals'. You're up,

 

[zeke]

We don't know how much of it is allegory. It isn't even certain that the story is entirely literal history.

The record of Noah's Flood is historical narrative and it was obviously a global flood...

Genesis 7:19–20 (NKJV)
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian challenges Zeke:
Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we have a transitional for you.

Or if you don't know what a "transitional" is, let me know and we'll help you.

Let me know what you want to do.

(Zeke refuses to do so)

So we'll see if he can draw the line between therapsids and primitive mammals.

Let's see what you can do, Zeke. If you have no idea what therapsids are, I'll go find some for you to look at. Do I have to do that for you, too?

 

[zeke]

Barbarian challenges Zeke:
Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we have a transitional for you.

I have asked you to provide your alleged common ancestor of man and chimp and present a fossil line of descent from that ape-like man-creature ending with man and chimp. Thus far you have run away. Can you not do what you claimed you can do (third request)? You're up - two strikes -

 

[lordkalvan]

The point that you have never impeached God's word as evidence that God created in the beginning.

So was it all scholars or just some scholars? As soon as you can unequivocally demonstrate that what you allege to be God's word is, indeed, God's word and that you have interpreted it correctly you may have a point, but until you have done this you are simply engaging in rhetoric.

But it is God who condemns atheism as folly.

Well, as it's yourself telling us what is and isn't folly, you'll readily understand that this is just more rhetoric.

It is their faith in evolutionism that is a folly.

As you have yet to show that acceptance of evolutionary theory amounts to folly or is a matter of faith, you'll see why I have difficulty accepting your unsupported assertions as convincing argument.

 

[zeke]

So was it all scholars or just some scholars? As soon as you can unequivocally demonstrate that what you allege to be God's word is, indeed, God's word and that you have interpreted it correctly you may have a point, but until you have done this you are simply engaging in rhetoric.

Then we can understand that you cannot impeach God's word. Very good.

Well, as it's yourself telling us what is and isn't folly, you'll readily understand that this is just more rhetoric.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."​

God has spoken - where does that leave you my friend? Do you say in your heart there is no God?

 

[zeke]

As you have yet to show that acceptance of evolutionary theory amounts to folly or is a matter of faith, you'll see why I have difficulty accepting your unsupported assertions as convincing argument.

You again misunderstand - biological evolution is science - Darwinian naturalism is pseudoscience and remains folly based on faith.

 

[Barbarian]

Then present those 'numerous transitionals' (second request).

Since you dodged responding to my answer, I gave you and easier one. See above.

You talk much but present nothing. Remember, no dead-end ape lines, please. Dead-enders do not qualify as 'transitionals'. You're up,

Let's look at the evidence for humans now...

Pelvis:

Legs:

Dental arcades:

Skulls:

As you see, Australopithecines are nicely transitional between conventional apes and humans.

 

[zeke]

Let's look at the evidence for humans now...

You can't present your 'numerous transitionals' can you? There are none - right? Regardless of your hands waving in the air Australopithecines is simply a dead-end ape line. But you gave it your best. Is that about it?