Finally Picked a creation stance.

[Philip]

ALL parties are guilty of "explaining away" difficulties in their views.

That is true. However, as TE advocates rest heavily upon secular/naturalistic explanations of evolutionary processes, they are inconsistent - because as they embrace everything that lines up with their evolutionary based views but abandon pure naturalism explanations whenever they are highly problematic, only patching the problems with a response that "God was guiding the process." IF so, then you must admit that no pure naturalism explanations can explain our Creation. And so it would seem that TEs want it both ways - embrace evolution where convenient, cover its gaps with God. Yet TE advocates rarely discuss the serious evidential problems with the various macro-evolutionary evidences. And way before evolution we have the issue of the Big Bang. Evolution is really way down on the list of inexplicable issues for advocates of naturalism. The real question for TE advocates is: Do the evidences we have line up with the various explanations of macro evolution? I say the Cambrian Explosion evidences alone say no, as there was insufficient time involved - certainly not if the Creation unfolded per the common explanations involving evolutionary processes. And so why put so much faith in evolutionary processes if you're merely going to cover over its problems with "God did it."

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
The point isn't that bears CAN do that, the point is that, according to the creationist view, parasitic wasps were created TO DO that.
It's something that we must reconcile with the notion that God created everything AS IS.
If a person has no issues with that, that;s fine and I can accept that.
But we can't deny that the "less than ideal" things of nature, IF they were created to be such, are indeed issues.

Paul, I think nature is "ideal" for its purpose. This temporary life is not supposed to be free from sin and pain. Earthquakes, tornadoes, animals eating other animals and people are all a part of this temporary creation that God created as His means to eradicate sin and evil. I believe this creation is the best possible creation to do what it's supposed to do. Without water that can flood and kill people, we would all die of dehydration. Without fire that can burn and kill, we'd have no warmth on cold nights. Without animals that kill their prey, we'd have no functioning ecosystems.

I really don't see this as a problem of God's creating this temporary creation for its purpose.

Of course and I agree BUT that isn't the issue.
The issue is that God created certain animals AS IS and in doing so He made them THAT WAY and to function in THAT WAY because He wanted to, correct?

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
The point isn't that bears CAN do that, the point is that, according to the creationist view, parasitic wasps were created TO DO that.
It's something that we must reconcile with the notion that God created everything AS IS.
If a person has no issues with that, that;s fine and I can accept that.
But we can't deny that the "less than ideal" things of nature, IF they were created to be such, are indeed issues.

Paul, I think nature is "ideal" for its purpose. This temporary life is not supposed to be free from sin and pain. Earthquakes, tornadoes, animals eating other animals and people are all a part of this temporary creation that God created as His means to eradicate sin and evil. I believe this creation is the best possible creation to do what it's supposed to do. Without water that can flood and kill people, we would all die of dehydration. Without fire that can burn and kill, we'd have no warmth on cold nights. Without animals that kill their prey, we'd have no functioning ecosystems.

I really don't see this as a problem of God's creating this temporary creation for its purpose.

Of course and I agree BUT that isn't the issue.
The issue is that God created certain animals AS IS and in doing so He made them THAT WAY and to function in THAT WAY because He wanted to, correct?

Paul, I believe God either created animals as is, or with the ability to adapt to survive. So, basically yes, God created all life with a specific purpose. I really don't see the issue that you are seeing here.

[PaulSacramento]

ALL parties are guilty of "explaining away" difficulties in their views.

That is true. However, as TE advocates rest heavily upon secular/naturalistic explanations of evolutionary processes, they are inconsistent - because as they embrace everything that lines up with their evolutionary based views but abandon pure naturalism explanations whenever they are highly problematic, only patching the problems with a response that "God was guiding the process." IF so, then you must admit that no pure naturalism explanations can explain our Creation. And so it would seem that TEs want it both ways - embrace evolution where convenient, cover its gaps with God. Yet TE advocates rarely discuss the serious evidential problems with the various macro-evolutionary evidences. And way before evolution we have the issue of the Big Bang. Evolution is really way down on the list of inexplicable issues for advocates of naturalism. The real question for TE advocates is: Do the evidences we have line up with the various explanations of macro evolution? I say the Cambrian Explosion evidences alone say no, as there was insufficient time involved - certainly not if the Creation unfolded per the common explanations involving evolutionary processes. And so why put so much faith in evolutionary processes if you're merely going to cover over its problems with "God did it."

Evolution is simply change over time.
Now, of course not everyone agrees on the HOW and WHY's of it.
Some view that all change is mutation and with no purpose and that genetic change happens first and then the animal adapts.
Some view that environment causes change and the changes eventually allow animals to adapt and survive.
Some view evolution as having no purpose while others view it as a process to ensure the best possible chance for survival.
Some view it as guided, some unguided and some limited guidence.
Why the different views? quite simply because, even though we KNOW that animals change to better survive, we do NOT know exactly how ( some theories) or why ( many don't even explore that part).
I know that OEX and YES and even some evolutionists say that evolution is naturalisim but that isn't the case.
Macro evolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... oscales_05

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
The point isn't that bears CAN do that, the point is that, according to the creationist view, parasitic wasps were created TO DO that.
It's something that we must reconcile with the notion that God created everything AS IS.
If a person has no issues with that, that;s fine and I can accept that.
But we can't deny that the "less than ideal" things of nature, IF they were created to be such, are indeed issues.

Paul, I think nature is "ideal" for its purpose. This temporary life is not supposed to be free from sin and pain. Earthquakes, tornadoes, animals eating other animals and people are all a part of this temporary creation that God created as His means to eradicate sin and evil. I believe this creation is the best possible creation to do what it's supposed to do. Without water that can flood and kill people, we would all die of dehydration. Without fire that can burn and kill, we'd have no warmth on cold nights. Without animals that kill their prey, we'd have no functioning ecosystems.

I really don't see this as a problem of God's creating this temporary creation for its purpose.

Of course and I agree BUT that isn't the issue.
The issue is that God created certain animals AS IS and in doing so He made them THAT WAY and to function in THAT WAY because He wanted to, correct?

Paul, I believe God either created animals as is, or with the ability to adapt to survive. So, basically yes, God created all life with a specific purpose. I really don't see the issue that you are seeing here.

So, God created the parasitic wasp so that it would stun its prey, lay its eggs and the larvae would eat it's pray from the inside out while it was still alive.
And you don't see an issue with God creating that insect to do EXACTLY THAT?

[RickD]

Paul, back near the beginning of this thread, Silvertusk said that the "Theory of Evolution" is what he's referring to. That theory includes macro evolution. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone here arguing against "change over time". It's the macro evolution, and common descent that many of us have problems with.

So, God created the parasitic wasp so that it would stun its prey, lay its eggs and the larvae would eat it's pray from the inside out while it was still alive.
And you don't see an issue with God creating that insect to do EXACTLY THAT?

No. Why should I? What am I missing? You believe the parasitic wasp evolved into the animal that does that, correct? And I assume you believe God gave the wasp whatever it needed in order to be able to evolve to kill its prey that way, correct? If the wasp's methods of killing are so evil, then why did God allow it to evolve that way? You're not suggesting the wasp kills that way because it chooses to by its free will, thereby freeing God from blame, are you?

[RickD]

Paul, this is from your macro evolution link:

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using multiple lines of evidence, including geology, fossils, and living organisms.

So, since macro evolution is not observable, then believing in macro evolution comes from the interpretation of available evidence. So, the evidence for macro evolution really isn't overwhelming. The number of people who interpret the evidence as assuming macro evolution from micro evolution, which is observable, is overwhelming.

Again, look at the Cambrian Explosion. Evidence shows a huge amount of new phyla "suddenly" appearing over a relatively small period of time. Where's the evidence that shows life evolving from non skeletal life to skeletal life?
The Cambrian Explosion fits nicely into the Progressive creation model.

[Kurieuo]

I'd be interested in your take on my last post here Paul.

[Philip]

No. Why should I? What am I missing? You believe the parasitic wasp evolved into the animal that does that, correct? And I assume you believe God gave the wasp whatever it needed in order to be able to evolve to kill its prey that way, correct?

EXACTLY! Ever see lions rip apart a zebra, crocs shred a live wildebeest? Would the lions survive without prey? How can this be evil? Predatory/prey relationships are how the world works. And yet it's evil to kill another human, only because 1) he is made in God's Image and 2) God has commanded us not to, said it is a great evil. Animals were NOT made in God's Image. During OT days, slashing animals throats were part of offerings and the sacrificial system, all ordained by God. Few PETA types back then, eh? PETA would have us ban carnivores, I think. Paul's argument must be called the "Walt Disney approach to Creation."

[PaulSacramento]

Paul, back near the beginning of this thread, Silvertusk said that the "Theory of Evolution" is what he's referring to. That theory includes macro evolution. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone here arguing against "change over time". It's the macro evolution, and common descent that many of us have problems with.

So, God created the parasitic wasp so that it would stun its prey, lay its eggs and the larvae would eat it's pray from the inside out while it was still alive.
And you don't see an issue with God creating that insect to do EXACTLY THAT?

No. Why should I? What am I missing? You believe the parasitic wasp evolved into the animal that does that, correct? And I assume you believe God gave the wasp whatever it needed in order to be able to evolve to kill its prey that way, correct? If the wasp's methods of killing are so evil, then why did God allow it to evolve that way? You're not suggesting the wasp kills that way because it chooses to by its free will, thereby freeing God from blame, are you?

I am not suggesting anything, you are suggesting that God created the wasp to paralyze its prey, lay its eggs in it and have the larvae eat it from the inside out while still alive.
Evolution says that the wasp evolved to that point based on its environment OR by pure chance ( depending on which view you agree with).
Some views of TE would say that the "God given" ability to evolve that the wasp had, because of the demands imposed on them by its environment, led it to evolve that way.
So, it seems that the views we have are that:
The wasp was created to be that way.
The wasp got that way by pure chance.
The wasp got that way based on how it adapted to its environment.

[PaulSacramento]

No. Why should I? What am I missing? You believe the parasitic wasp evolved into the animal that does that, correct? And I assume you believe God gave the wasp whatever it needed in order to be able to evolve to kill its prey that way, correct?

EXACTLY! Ever see lions rip apart a zebra, crocs shred a live wildebeest? Would the lions survive without prey? How can this be evil? Predatory/prey relationships are how the world works. And yet it's evil to kill another human, only because 1) he is made in God's Image and 2) God has commanded us not to, said it is a great evil. Animals were NOT made in God's Image. During OT days, slashing animals throats were part of offerings and the sacrificial system, all ordained by God. Few PETA types back then, eh? PETA would have us ban carnivores, I think. Paul's argument must be called the "Walt Disney approach to Creation."

Now you're trying to be condescending when all I am doing is pointing out a valid issue with the view that God created animals AS IS to do EXACTLY what they do because He WANTS them to do it that way.
If you guys don't see an issue with that, fine.
I am pointing out that it is an issue and I know because I have debated enough skeptics over it.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
Now you're trying to be condescending when all I am doing is pointing out a valid issue with the view that God created animals AS IS to do EXACTLY what they do because He WANTS them to do it that way.
If you guys don't see an issue with that, fine.
I am pointing out that it is an issue and I know because I have debated enough skeptics over it.

What is the issue then? I've asked you more than once, "What am I missing?" I really don't see the issue with God creating all life for a specific purpose, to play its part in the "circle of life", or whatever one wants to call it.

Tell me what I'm missing. What is the issue that you are having trouble with?

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
Now you're trying to be condescending when all I am doing is pointing out a valid issue with the view that God created animals AS IS to do EXACTLY what they do because He WANTS them to do it that way.
If you guys don't see an issue with that, fine.
I am pointing out that it is an issue and I know because I have debated enough skeptics over it.

What is the issue then? I've asked you more than once, "What am I missing?" I really don't see the issue with God creating all life for a specific purpose, to play its part in the "circle of life", or whatever one wants to call it.

Tell me what I'm missing. What is the issue that you are having trouble with?

I think you are missing that GOD created ON PURPOSE an insect that:
Paralyses its prey, lay its eggs in it and have the larvae eat it from the inside out while still alive.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
I think you are missing that GOD created ON PURPOSE an insect that:
Paralyses its prey, lay its eggs in it and have the larvae eat it from the inside out while still alive.

No, I'm not missing that. I just don't understand the issue with it. I also believe God created flies for their specific purpose. Flies stand in dog poop, then fly over to my BBQ pork sandwich, and stand in that too. While that's pretty disgusting too, I don't see the issue with God creating an animal for a specific purpose. What is your problem with a wasp that kills bugs a certain way, when you don't seem to have an issue with a lion that kills another way?

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
I think you are missing that GOD created ON PURPOSE an insect that:
Paralyses its prey, lay its eggs in it and have the larvae eat it from the inside out while still alive.

No, I'm not missing that. I just don't understand the issue with it. I also believe God created flies for their specific purpose. Flies stand in dog poop, then fly over to my BBQ pork sandwich, and stand in that too. While that's pretty disgusting too, I don't see the issue with God creating an animal for a specific purpose. What is your problem with a wasp that kills bugs a certain way, when you don't seem to have an issue with a lion that kills another way?

Actually, the issue isn't mine, the issue is one that is raised by skeptics to counter the argument of a intelligent design and, perhaps more importantly, a loving God that create all AS IS.
It is quite clear that God could have created that wasp so that it still does it's job BUT not in such a horrific way and yet He didn't.
How does one reconcile that?