Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
No, the tacit admission I took as your opinion so I dismissed it (as fact). I mean the underlined assertion.
Ok solve both with one fell, as they say, swoop; what philosophy-generated data is there?
For a young earth (or an old earth, or any age of any earth), none. Nor can there be. Nor would any young earth creationist claim that they get any data from "'philosophizing' about an uncaused causing-thing." (Nor would theistic evolutionists or day-age creationists, or framework theorists, or gappists, or anyone else.) It's sort of irrelevant to the question . . .
For the uncaused cause, however, Audie, there's a boat load of data otherwise known as truth. But you don't worry about that Audie, cause the P word just ain't your thang, I understand.
Truth =data. Does that include revealed truths?
I have heard there is data to disprove ToE or back up creationism
in its divers renditions. A boat load is a lot. Can you identify
an item?
Its ok if not, scientific data aint compatible with creationism.
Byblos wrote:
No, the tacit admission I took as your opinion so I dismissed it (as fact). I mean the underlined assertion.
Ok solve both with one fell, as they say, swoop; what philosophy-generated data is there?
For a young earth (or an old earth, or any age of any earth), none. Nor can there be. Nor would any young earth creationist claim that they get any data from "'philosophizing' about an uncaused causing-thing." (Nor would theistic evolutionists or day-age creationists, or framework theorists, or gappists, or anyone else.) It's sort of irrelevant to the question . . .
So, in other and shorter words, there is not a known datum point in the known universe
that supports creationism.
With as noted, God , bible, the angels, all of science, all of reality for creationism,
why cant at least one bit of data be found?
It is ok to go binary on this.
Its not ok to go "SEDI" ( same evidence, different intdrpretation )
Not that you would resort to such a shabby trick.
Audie,
Start at the beginning. The Big Bang supports creation.
Storyteller wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about Adam and Eve, evolution and so on but my thinking is that is it not possible that any preexisting humans had a soul but weren't made in His image.
The biggest mystery to me is why. Animals, I get, God gave them to us to love and learn from but preexisting humans. Why?
There has been life on earth for many hundreds of millions of years.
During that time, the fossil record clearly shows that some successful designs have remained more or less unchanged, others were not successful and disappeared.
Yet others show a succession of changes, then the line died out, or, a succession of changes that continued up to this day.
The primates are not an exception, there is a fossil record for them too.
WHY were there hominid ancestors? Because they could survive and reproduce.
IF they had not existed,you wouldnt either.
What is the mystery?
'that some successful designs' have remained more or less unchanged. Designs require a Designer.
The 'hundreds of millions of years' -- is trying to fit enough good mutations into mankinds' history to get us to where we look like we do Now. There would Never be 'enough time' to have enough good mutations to do that.
Maybe we simply need to accept that 'enough good mutations' Can't / Didn't 'evolve' us into what we are Now.
The word "design" is not ideal, but lets not play equivocation.
The "design requires a designer" is, sorry, but a tiresome old saw. Every snowflake is designed
too? What word would not imply, to you, a designer? I will use that one.
Hundreds of millions of years is not some dishonest bit of force fitting.
There has been life for that long.
Life of the past was very different from life of today. Just a fact.
That life on earth has undergone a series of changes is beyond anything
resembling reasonable dispute, hollow assertions to the contrary not
with, as they say, standing.
I don't think God designs every snowflake, but he did design snowflakes to form uniquely. Just as he designed the weather to work as it does, without directing every cloud and raindrop. He has occasionally intervened in the usual order of things, though.
Like that he made matter, energy and law, and, much including snow and evolution are results?
Audie wrote:
Ok solve both with one fell, as they say, swoop; what philosophy-generated data is there?
For a young earth (or an old earth, or any age of any earth), none. Nor can there be. Nor would any young earth creationist claim that they get any data from "'philosophizing' about an uncaused causing-thing." (Nor would theistic evolutionists or day-age creationists, or framework theorists, or gappists, or anyone else.) It's sort of irrelevant to the question . . .
So, in other and shorter words, there is not a known datum point in the known universe
that supports creationism.
With as noted, God , bible, the angels, all of science, all of reality for creationism,
why cant at least one bit of data be found?
It is ok to go binary on this.
Its not ok to go "SEDI" ( same evidence, different intdrpretation )
Not that you would resort to such a shabby trick.
Audie,
Start at the beginning. The Big Bang supports creation.
And ardy supports equivocation?
You asked for something that supports creationism. I told you something. Hand waving it away isn't going to magically make the evidence for the Big Bang disappear.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Jac3510 wrote:
For a young earth (or an old earth, or any age of any earth), none. Nor can there be. Nor would any young earth creationist claim that they get any data from "'philosophizing' about an uncaused causing-thing." (Nor would theistic evolutionists or day-age creationists, or framework theorists, or gappists, or anyone else.) It's sort of irrelevant to the question . . .
So, in other and shorter words, there is not a known datum point in the known universe
that supports creationism.
With as noted, God , bible, the angels, all of science, all of reality for creationism,
why cant at least one bit of data be found?
It is ok to go binary on this.
Its not ok to go "SEDI" ( same evidence, different intdrpretation )
Not that you would resort to such a shabby trick.
Audie,
Start at the beginning. The Big Bang supports creation.
And ardy supports equivocation?
You asked for something that supports creationism. I told you something. Hand waving it away isn't going to magically make the evidence for the Big Bang disappear.
Is a proclamation of some facile bit of vague general claim a sort of proactive handwave?
Audie wrote:
So, in other and shorter words, there is not a known datum point in the known universe
that supports creationism.
With as noted, God , bible, the angels, all of science, all of reality for creationism,
why cant at least one bit of data be found?
It is ok to go binary on this.
Its not ok to go "SEDI" ( same evidence, different intdrpretation )
Not that you would resort to such a shabby trick.
Audie,
Start at the beginning. The Big Bang supports creation.
And ardy supports equivocation?
You asked for something that supports creationism. I told you something. Hand waving it away isn't going to magically make the evidence for the Big Bang disappear.
Is a proclamation of some facile bit of vague general claim a sort of proactive handwave?
Could you translate that into simple to read English please?
You asked for a "datum point" in the known universe, that supports creationism. I gave you something better. The way the universe came into existence, supports creationism.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Start at the beginning. The Big Bang supports creation.
And ardy supports equivocation?
You asked for something that supports creationism. I told you something. Hand waving it away isn't going to magically make the evidence for the Big Bang disappear.
Is a proclamation of some facile bit of vague general claim a sort of proactive handwave?
Could you translate that into simple to read English please?
You asked for a "datum point" in the known universe, that supports creationism. I gave you something better. The way the universe came into existence, supports creationism.
Tell you what. Lets drop it, I dont feel like doing this conversation.
Catch ya on the flip side. ( is that how Americans talk?)
Audie wrote:
The word "design" is not ideal, but lets not play equivocation.
The "design requires a designer" is, sorry, but a tiresome old saw. Every snowflake is designed
too? What word would not imply, to you, a designer? I will use that one.
I don't think God designs every snowflake, but he did design snowflakes to form uniquely. Just as he designed the weather to work as it does, without directing every cloud and raindrop. He has occasionally intervened in the usual order of things, though.
Like that he made matter, energy and law, and, much including snow and evolution are results?
You asked for something that supports creationism. I told you something. Hand waving it away isn't going to magically make the evidence for the Big Bang disappear.
Is a proclamation of some facile bit of vague general claim a sort of proactive handwave?
Could you translate that into simple to read English please?
You asked for a "datum point" in the known universe, that supports creationism. I gave you something better. The way the universe came into existence, supports creationism.
Tell you what. Lets drop it, I dont feel like doing this conversation.
Catch ya on the flip side. ( is that how Americans talk?)
RickD wrote:
You asked for something that supports creationism. I told you something. Hand waving it away isn't going to magically make the evidence for the Big Bang disappear.
Is a proclamation of some facile bit of vague general claim a sort of proactive handwave?
Could you translate that into simple to read English please?
You asked for a "datum point" in the known universe, that supports creationism. I gave you something better. The way the universe came into existence, supports creationism.
Tell you what. Lets drop it, I dont feel like doing this conversation.
Catch ya on the flip side. ( is that how Americans talk?)
Sounds like hand-waving...
Is there some reason for you to interject yourself here and offer this
dismissive, perhaps invidious comment rather than just taking me at my
word, that it is not a topic I wish to pursue?
I am insufficiently combative? W, as they say, tf?
Audie wrote:
The word "design" is not ideal, but lets not play equivocation.
The "design requires a designer" is, sorry, but a tiresome old saw. Every snowflake is designed
too? What word would not imply, to you, a designer? I will use that one.
I don't think God designs every snowflake, but he did design snowflakes to form uniquely. Just as he designed the weather to work as it does, without directing every cloud and raindrop. He has occasionally intervened in the usual order of things, though.
Like that he made matter, energy and law, and, much including snow and evolution are results?
Audie wrote:
Is a proclamation of some facile bit of vague general claim a sort of proactive handwave?
Could you translate that into simple to read English please?
You asked for a "datum point" in the known universe, that supports creationism. I gave you something better. The way the universe came into existence, supports creationism.
Tell you what. Lets drop it, I dont feel like doing this conversation.
Catch ya on the flip side. ( is that how Americans talk?)
Sounds like hand-waving...
Is there some reason for you to interject yourself here and offer this
dismissive, perhaps invidious comment rather than just taking me at my
word, that it is not a topic I wish to pursue?
I am insufficiently combative? W, as they say, tf?
It just seemed you were backing out in a hurry - never mind, I'm not combative myself.
Audie wrote:
The word "design" is not ideal, but lets not play equivocation.
The "design requires a designer" is, sorry, but a tiresome old saw. Every snowflake is designed
too? What word would not imply, to you, a designer? I will use that one.
I don't think God designs every snowflake, but he did design snowflakes to form uniquely. Just as he designed the weather to work as it does, without directing every cloud and raindrop. He has occasionally intervened in the usual order of things, though.
Like that he made matter, energy and law, and, much including snow and evolution are results?
Nicki wrote:
I don't think God designs every snowflake, but he did design snowflakes to form uniquely. Just as he designed the weather to work as it does, without directing every cloud and raindrop. He has occasionally intervened in the usual order of things, though.
Like that he made matter, energy and law, and, much including snow and evolution are results?
To address the OP, yes I think non Homo Sapiens people in the genus Homo would need to be saved. Neanderthals are clearly humans, most of the others seem to be too, in the way they behave and anatomy too.
