How God can create through evolution:

[Audie]

FIFM

[abelcainsbrother]

Me thinks Audi takes it personal and is offended by anyone who does not accept evolution even when they explain why and it has nothing to do with God or creationism.I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist because of the evidence they use but Gap creationism is just so much more believable based on much of the very same evidence evolution scientists use.I go by evidence to make my decision.

The evidence in the earth is not evidence life evolves but it is evidence that a former world existed on this earth with different life in it than this world until that former world perished and then there was a gap of time until God made this world we now live in,this why no fossil found shows any transition at all like evolutionists teach but were all fully formed creatures that just lived in the former world until they died and until that former world perished. Here look at all of the different kinds of life that lived in the former world.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=f ... gws_rd=ssl

[Philip]

Audie wrote:
I have an uncle still stuck in Mao's cultural revolutioHe is as open to evidence and change as any creationist.

Crackpot: I see. Think skulls, intransigence and stubbornness run in your family it seems.

Interesting.

Crackpot, let's not make personal insults or attacks, please! If you want to attack an opinion or position someone has, fine. But it's not cool to attack or be insulting to others. You've been warned!

[Audie]

Me thinks Audi takes it personal and is offended by anyone who does not accept evolution

Why yes, ab, you have most perspicaciously hit upon the key to not just understanding me
but all women; I dont think at all; why, i'm scarcely capable of it, should I even try.

No, it is all about emotions, inherently incapable of logic; it is how women are.

Meanwhile, you, with no formal training and little to no knowledge of biology or geology, no evident effort at all use your powers to understand better and know more than any scientist on earth.

Awesome.

[crochet1949]

I'm a creationist who's done a great deal of research about evolution. I've gotten into some interesting discussions on another Forum. And , you're correct, I know next to nothing about 'deep time'.

As for the 6- day creation. I've commented previously, God has given us an example to follow. Six days to work and then take a rest. Obviously He didn't need the rest, but He knows that We Do.

Please -- please - leave O'Bama out of this.

[Audie]

I'm a creationist who's done a great deal of research about evolution.

So, in all that, did you turn up a fact contrary to ToE?

[abelcainsbrother]

Me thinks Audi takes it personal and is offended by anyone who does not accept evolution

Why yes, ab, you have most perspicaciously hit upon the key to not just understanding me
but all women; I dont think at all; why, i'm scarcely capable of it, should I even try.

No, it is all about emotions, inherently incapable of logic; it is how women are.

Meanwhile, you, with no formal training and little to no knowledge of biology or geology, no evident effort at all use your powers to understand better and know more than any scientist on earth.

Awesome.

Just don't take it personal if others reject evolution. You do not have to have formal training to examine the evidence they use for evidence life evolves to know and understand it is not evidence that backs up what they explain. I have more convincing evidence the Gap Theory is true when I compare evidence.It is even more believable of a theory based on the evidence in the earth even if you don't understand how the bible teaches it.I would teach it from a biblical perspective because it came from a biblical perspective but I would not even have to. A former world that had different life in it than this world that perished before God made this world is a much more believable theory than life evolves.

This is why in the 1980's in Universities evolutionists lost in debates to Gap Theory creationists,so much so that they stopped debating them because they lost and would only debate YEC.etc.

[crochet1949]

Audie -- For one thing -- animals only mate with like kind. Like is only going to produce more 'like'. It's a generation by generation 'thing'. There are those who are So 'bound and determined' that the ToE is the Only logical conclusion that nothing else is seriously considered. Partly because ,in the realm of higher education, Bible belief is openly ridiculed. And no one wants to be thought of as uneducated.

ToE says that man came from chimps. Chimps reproduce chimps / generation by generation. So - you tell Me HOW a chimp produced a human being. Are there not still chimps reproducing chimps. And people are still reproducing more people.

Even 'way back then' all those thousands of years ago -- life was lived one day at a time / generation by generation. So - where did the first two people come From in order to continue to reproduce babies to grow up into adults.

[Audie]

Me thinks Audi takes it personal and is offended by anyone who does not accept evolution

Why yes, ab, you have most perspicaciously hit upon the key to not just understanding me
but all women; I dont think at all; why, i'm scarcely capable of it, should I even try.

No, it is all about emotions, inherently incapable of logic; it is how women are.

Meanwhile, you, with no formal training and little to no knowledge of biology or geology, no evident effort at all use your powers to understand better and know more than any scientist on earth.

Awesome.

Just don't take it personal if others reject evolution. You do not have to have formal training to examine the evidence they use for evidence life evolves to know and understand it is not evidence that backs up what they explain. I have more convincing evidence the Gap Theory is true when I compare evidence.It is even more believable of a theory based on the evidence in the earth even if you don't understand how the bible teaches it.I would teach it from a biblical perspective because it came from a biblical perspective but I would not even have to. A former world that had different life in it than this world that perished before God made this world is a much more believable theory than life evolves.

This is why in the 1980's in Universities evolutionists lost in debates to Gap Theory creationists,so much so that they stopped debating them because they lost and would only debate YEC.etc.

This thing you keep doing, saying I am upset, taking it personally, blah etc is nothing but a shabby
rhetorical trick, false and shameful.

How about you quit it? You diminish yourself with every falsehood, stop
while you' ve a trace of something left. Or dont, its your loss.

As for what you believe, the easiest person to fool is yourself, and you seem to have succeeded.

[abelcainsbrother]

Me thinks Audi takes it personal and is offended by anyone who does not accept evolution

Why yes, ab, you have most perspicaciously hit upon the key to not just understanding me
but all women; I dont think at all; why, i'm scarcely capable of it, should I even try.

No, it is all about emotions, inherently incapable of logic; it is how women are.

Meanwhile, you, with no formal training and little to no knowledge of biology or geology, no evident effort at all use your powers to understand better and know more than any scientist on earth.

Awesome.

Just don't take it personal if others reject evolution. You do not have to have formal training to examine the evidence they use for evidence life evolves to know and understand it is not evidence that backs up what they explain. I have more convincing evidence the Gap Theory is true when I compare evidence.It is even more believable of a theory based on the evidence in the earth even if you don't understand how the bible teaches it.I would teach it from a biblical perspective because it came from a biblical perspective but I would not even have to. A former world that had different life in it than this world that perished before God made this world is a much more believable theory than life evolves.

This is why in the 1980's in Universities evolutionists lost in debates to Gap Theory creationists,so much so that they stopped debating them because they lost and would only debate YEC.etc.

This thing you keep doing, saying I am upset, taking it personally, blah etc is nothing but a shabby
rhetorical trick, false and shameful.

How about you quit it? You diminish yourself with every falsehood, stop
while you' ve a trace of something left. Or dont, its your loss.

As for what you believe, the easiest person to fool is yourself, and you seem to have succeeded.

I was not trying to offend you. I can only go on what you type but not everybody has accepted evolution and it does not mean they are ignorant about it if they do. Atleast I have convincing evidence behind what I believe.Did you look at them fosssils of the life that lived on the former world until it perished? That is what the fossils tell us. They simply show us the life that lived millions of years ago and alot of that life we no longer have,but some we do.There is no way you could look at them and believe life evolves because they don't tell us that.

[Audie]

Audie -- For one thing -- animals only mate with like kind. Like is only going to produce more 'like'. It's a generation by generation 'thing'. There are those who are So 'bound and determined' that the ToE is the Only logical conclusion that nothing else is seriously considered. Partly because ,in the realm of higher education, Bible belief is openly ridiculed. And no one wants to be thought of as uneducated.

ToE says that man came from chimps. Chimps reproduce chimps / generation by generation. So - you tell Me HOW a chimp produced a human being. Are there not still chimps reproducing chimps. And people are still reproducing more people.

Even 'way back then' all those thousands of years ago -- life was lived one day at a time / generation by generation. So - where did the first two people come From in order to continue to reproduce babies to grow up into adults.

It is fine not to believe / believe in something. One migh not believe in the existence of Australia, the wisdom of asking taxi drivers for hot stock tips, the rhetoric of Hillary, or the valifity of Marxist theory.

Generally, it is best to have an informed, thought through reason for belief or disbelief.
Perhsps you'd think it insensible of me to disbelieve the bible for some silly reason like
that I thought it said I'd go to hell if I ate an oyster.

Similarly, skepticism about anything in science may be reasonable and informed, or uninformed
and unreasonable.

A person might think statements about the speed of radio waves are wrong, because they'd noticed
that two stations with the same programing were a few seconds apart. That should be easy to clear up!

In the case of evolution, or other theories, they can never be proved true, only potentially proved
false. The radio station thing might appear to, but does not disprove that radio waves move at the speed of light.

If one claimed light speed false for the radio station reason, well, that is kinda foolish, dont you think so?

ToE might yet prove false, but it wont be shown false with mistakes or misunderstanding.

One mistake you made is the thing about chimps. Simply not so; chimps are no more said to be ancestral to humans than the othervway 'round.

You made several other errors as well. If you'd like them identified, with explanation, I can do so.
I dont want to take the time if you are not interested. Just, if you are going to reject evolution
or perhaps supply side economics it might be sensible to have valid rather than imaginary reasons.

[crochet1949]

Audie
Has it not been the case that Biblical / Genesis creation was accepted for a Long time -- since the Bible was available to read because people acknowledged God's existence and His Word as authority? In fact, the Bible was brought To this country by one of the groups of original settlers and used as first text book. People used it to learn to read from. People lived by the Ten Commandments. People never questioned the authority of God's Word.

Darwin's Origin of the Species was pretty much grabbed up by those who really wanted an alternative To God's Word. Seemed like Anything was better than a Higher Power being responsible for this world / man in particular being here.

Since it's been obvious that we Are here, there needs to be an explanation for us. And the reality Is that ,other than the fact that everything Is Here, there's really No Reason For this world and animals, us To be here. There's no reason For any chemicals to gel together Randomly and Happen to form into material and Happen to begin the process of 'life' in primitive form. And then to, ever so gradually, develop / evolve Into living, breathing life and That 'life' gradually forming more sophisticated life until Man gradually comes into Today's reality.
The brain , the heart, the human body, is too complex // the structure of the cell// could not possibly have 'just happened to develop' -- doesn't That sort of Shout -- Design with a purpose. And not just the human body -- the body structure of animal life -- Any life. The many different kinds of animals with different structure and colors. The beauty in nature -- Not By Chance Or Accident.

The chimp thing -- well -- according to some chart -- there was a break-off some millions of years ago -- a tree of life -- that showed that 'we' Are. It was in a biology book I'd gotten a long time ago, too. It's probably on Evolution on Internet. Someone on another Forum showed it to me.

And, yes, obviously there's the speed of light and all that goes along with it.

I'm so glad that you said that evolution, and other theories...... You've established that evolution is but another theory. So it really depends on how much credence a person chooses to put into various theories. Is there not a difference between a theory and a fact?

And I don't discredit science. Where would this world be Without science / discoveries. Pretty primitive still. Someone spent a lot of time / experiments coming up with electricity / light bulb, etc. But scientists can Also go out on a limb trying to prove some things that just aren't so. Researchers are human, they have their agenda's. Most of it is legitimate, but once in a while, if a researcher comes up with conclusions that don't fit in with the mainstream beliefs -- then those results can get buried or Not published because 'no one' really wants to hear it.

I'm Not going to get into the radio waves comparison thing cause it's out of my 'range' -- I'll be staying with the more obvious things.

BTW -- my reasons are Not imaginary-- any more than yours are fool proof. So -- let's continue with our discussion -- we both might learn something.

[hughfarey]

The article referred to in the OP begins: “How could a good God create through a process that involves so much pain and death?” but I'm not sure that the author goes on to respond to that question, let alone answer it. The living world, whether created spontaneously or evolved, demonstrates at least thousands, if not millions, of years of suffering, pain and death, and although earthquakes (one of Bethany Sollereder's specific illustrations) are more part of an evolutionary than a spontaneously creative model of creation, the suffering and pain caused thereby is trivial compared to the continuous, ordinary everyday agonies endured by living things, whether they were created or evolved.

Part Two explores evolution as part of a 'developmental' creative plan rather than the more static, perfect, world often implied by the theory of spontaneous creation. I was not aware of Irenaeus's idea that the world was created 'immature', but it is quite appealing. However, Irenaeus seems to limit the 'immaturity' of God's creation exclusively to humanity; it would have been interesting to discuss with him his views regarding the rest of biology.

Scientifically, of course, evolution does not consider the world as being any more 'developed' at one time more than at any other. Life at the time of the dinosaurs was no less well adapted to its environment than it is now. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a biological trend towards ever greater complexity, coverage of the earth, and inter-organism interaction, which can be seen (philosophically at least) as some kind of 'advance'. In that sense it is not unreasonable to accept that evolution could be the unfolding of a universal plan, in a way that the spontaneous creation of organisms does not.

Finally Bethany Sollereder goes on to consider the meanings and significance of death, with virtually no relevance, or even reference, to evolution. Death is as much a part of a spontaneously created world as an evolutionary one, and although one can argue as to which was the origin of death, the fact of death does not point in either direction.

I have been a bit puzzled by some of the comments made by others, above. I'm afraid it is often true (not always, but often) that people who don't accept evolution have very little idea of what it is that they don't accept. On the other hand, it is equally true that they also have very little idea of what they do accept, as if the very words 'evolution' and 'creation' were sufficiently self-explanatory.

For example, bippy123 says that the odds of life spontaneously arising from blind chance, chemical interactions and physics alone might as well be zero. Indeed, most scientists agree that the circumstances under which self-replicating entities evolved were very unusual - but that in this case, at least once, the very unusual actually occurred. Now if, on the other hand, "God did it", what, in real terms, would be the difference? If you name a card, and then pick that card at random from a shuffled deck, you have no way of knowing if the deck was rigged, or if something unusual (odds of 52 to 1) had occurred.

Crochet1949 wrote that "for one thing - animals only mate with like kind. Like is only going to produce more 'like'." This definition of a species is fine as far as it goes, but in depth, of course, it isn't true. Every (sexually generated) organism is unique, and therefore to an extent 'unlike' either of its parents. The difference between those who believe in evolution and those who believe in 'spontaneous creation', in this respect, is only in the extent to which this 'unlikeness' can develop. Many creationists, like crotchet1949, think that "zebras and horses are part of the same kind of animal", presumably one of the "kinds" created spontaneously by God on the sixth day of creation. However, under normal circumstances zebras do not mate with horses, and when they do, the various hybrids produced are rarely fully fertile. So when God created horses/zebras "after their kind" what, in fact, did he create? Whatever it was, 'like' eventually did not produce more 'like', but something rather different. That's what evolution is.

[Audie]

[quote="crochet1949"



The chimp thing -- well -- according to some chart --

I'm so glad that you said that evolution, and other theories...... You've established that evolution is but another theory. So it really depends on how much credence a person chooses to put into various theories. Is there not a difference between a theory and a fact?





BTW -- my reasons are Not imaginary-- any more than yours are fool proof. So -- let's continue with our discussion -- we both might learn something.[/quote]


.............



AUDIE SEZ...


So do you now accept that you were simply wrong saying chimps are presented as ancestral to people?



That mistake, and your source, "some chart somewhere" establish for us that
you actually have not done any research, dont you think so?

"Just a theory". You might like to google that phrase. Also, look up what a scientific theory actually is.
Seriously. Beats me trying to write a lot here with my thumbs. You might get back to me with what you learn.

A reseracer seldom speaks of "facts" in the sense people usually do.
"It is a fact that this is my data" is about all one could get from any of them.

A great quantity of data may sometimes provide enough information to bring forth
a theory that explains it all in a coherent way, and allows for predictions based on
the data so presented. Theories are terrifically useful.

Of course, if an exception is found, the theory may be expanded and improved, or it may have to
be discarded altogether. Disproved. Like in court; they can show all the "facts" they
like, but if you can prove you were having tea with the Queen in England while
the murder was taking place in Capetown, well, the prosecution theory is disproved.

Earlier I pointed out that nobody has ever discovered any exception to ToE.
Nothing anywhere to show it false.

Let that sink in a bit. Do you see any significance to it?

[Audie]

The article referred to in the OP begins: “How could a good God create through a process that involves so much pain and death?” but I'm not sure that the author goes on to respond to that question, let alone answer it. The living world, whether created spontaneously or evolved, demonstrates at least thousands, if not millions, of years of suffering, pain and death, and although earthquakes (one of Bethany Sollereder's specific illustrations) are more part of an evolutionary than a spontaneously creative model of creation, the suffering and pain caused thereby is trivial compared to the continuous, ordinary everyday agonies endured by living things, whether they were created or evolved.

Part Two explores evolution as part of a 'developmental' creative plan rather than the more static, perfect, world often implied by the theory of spontaneous creation. I was not aware of Irenaeus's idea that the world was created 'immature', but it is quite appealing. However, Irenaeus seems to limit the 'immaturity' of God's creation exclusively to humanity; it would have been interesting to discuss with him his views regarding the rest of biology.

Scientifically, of course, evolution does not consider the world as being any more 'developed' at one time more than at any other. Life at the time of the dinosaurs was no less well adapted to its environment than it is now. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a biological trend towards ever greater complexity, coverage of the earth, and inter-organism interaction, which can be seen (philosophically at least) as some kind of 'advance'. In that sense it is not unreasonable to accept that evolution could be the unfolding of a universal plan, in a way that the spontaneous creation of organisms does not.

Finally Bethany Sollereder goes on to consider the meanings and significance of death, with virtually no relevance, or even reference, to evolution. Death is as much a part of a spontaneously created world as an evolutionary one, and although one can argue as to which was the origin of death, the fact of death does not point in either direction.

I have been a bit puzzled by some of the comments made by others, above. I'm afraid it is often true (not always, but often) that people who don't accept evolution have very little idea of what it is that they don't accept. On the other hand, it is equally true that they also have very little idea of what they do accept, as if the very words 'evolution' and 'creation' were sufficiently self-explanatory.

For example, bippy123 says that the odds of life spontaneously arising from blind chance, chemical interactions and physics alone might as well be zero. Indeed, most scientists agree that the circumstances under which self-replicating entities evolved were very unusual - but that in this case, at least once, the very unusual actually occurred. Now if, on the other hand, "God did it", what, in real terms, would be the difference? If you name a card, and then pick that card at random from a shuffled deck, you have no way of knowing if the deck was rigged, or if something unusual (odds of 52 to 1) had occurred.

Crochet1949 wrote that "for one thing - animals only mate with like kind. Like is only going to produce more 'like'." This definition of a species is fine as far as it goes, but in depth, of course, it isn't true. Every (sexually generated) organism is unique, and therefore to an extent 'unlike' either of its parents. The difference between those who believe in evolution and those who believe in 'spontaneous creation', in this respect, is only in the extent to which this 'unlikeness' can develop. Many creationists, like crotchet1949, think that "zebras and horses are part of the same kind of animal", presumably one of the "kinds" created spontaneously by God on the sixth day of creation. However, under normal circumstances zebras do not mate with horses, and when they do, the various hybrids produced are rarely fully fertile. So when God created horses/zebras "after their kind" what, in fact, did he create? Whatever it was, 'like' eventually did not produce more 'like', but something rather different. That's what evolution is.

No offspring is exactly like its parents. Kind..kindred..not identical

Accumulate enough little changes and a mountain becomes
layered sediment in an ocean basin.

There is no known firewall that says that generation by generation
an organism can change just so much, but, suddenly, no more.