 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| FFT wrote: |
| RevJP wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | Why are we mammals? When, as you claim, God created us by fiat, how come he chose for us to be mammals? |
I fail to see any relevance to any argument, at all. |
Yeah to be honest I don't get this one either. Unless he means to point to the fact that biologically we're not really different from other mammals. |
I believe it's an argument against 'special creation'. If God let the animals evolve but created humans specially, why would he use a template from an animal (an evolved animal, no less)? In fact, leave the evolution out - if God created humans specially, why did he use an animal template?
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 890
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | If God let the animals evolve but created humans specially, why would he use a template from an animal (an evolved animal, no less)? |
Animals do not evolve from one kind to another...canines produce canines, fruit flies produce fruit flies. God created animals.....the facts clearly back this up. Not ToE assumptions, but the facts I've simply and plainly pointed out. Keep your assumptions in the assumption file.
We can talk about assumptions, readjust them a bit if we need to, but facts are facts.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | If God let the animals evolve but created humans specially, why would he use a template from an animal (an evolved animal, no less)? |
Animals do not evolve from one kind to another...canines produce canines, fruit flies produce fruit flies. God created animals.....the facts clearly back this up. Not ToE assumptions, but the facts I've simply and plainly pointed out. Keep your assumptions in the assumption file.
We can talk about assumptions, readjust them a bit if we need to, but facts are facts. |
This is about the idea of "special creation." You see, my point (actually, it's my wording of P's point) is about disagreement of the idea of special creation: if God created humans specially, why did he use an animal template to do so? Note that I'm not talking about evolution in this question. It doesn't actually matter whether the animals evolved or not for this, though if they did evolve, then it makes the point even stronger.
Anyways, to address your thoughts here, your idea of "kinds" sounds a little like how we name stuff. Here, let me try a picture of an evolution tree:
.............o
............/.\
..........o....\
........./|\....o <--- When we named them "Fruit Flies"
......../.o.o../\
......o........o o<---two distinct species that go under the moniker "Fruit Flies"
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 890
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ana, you say two distinct species; I say two fruit flies that can't mate.<----that's a period.
What your witnessing with the fruit fly experimentation is.....sympatric speciation which is associated with....assortative mating. This has nothing to do with fruit-fly-kind evolving into some-other-kind. Please don't try to con me. I'm impressionable.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | Ana, you say two distinct species; I say two fruit flies that can't mate.<----that's a period.
What your witnessing with the fruit fly experimentation is.....sympatric speciation which is associated with....assortative mating. This has nothing to do with fruit-fly-kind evolving into some-other-kind. Please don't try to con me. I'm impressionable. |
I'm not saying they have to turn into some other kind. I'm not even sure how to work with the concept of 'kind' other than that it seems to be based on layman naming habits. You seem to think I have to re-classify these subgroups of "fruit flies" into "horse" or "duck" categories in order for it to be an example of evolution, which is not what evolution postulates. Evolution postulates a picture like the one I drew, that, over time, will continue to grow new branches.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 890
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A perfect empirical example of the picture you drew is the breeding of canines. The result, obtained over thousands of years, is that canines produce canines.
The experimentation result of thousands upon thousands of generations of fruit flies.....is that fruit flies, even under extreme pressures, produce fruit flies, apparently in variation, but still catagorically, and empirically, fruit flies.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Where would you like to put the branch for emerging fruit flies and the branch for dingoes? Again, I think you think that evolution postulates they should be grafted onto the "hippo" part of the tree or something. Or rather, I think you think that a branch on the fruit fly part of the tree should look like a hippo branch (or maybe even be one).
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If God let the animals evolve but created humans specially, why would he use a template from an animal (an evolved animal, no less)? In fact, leave the evolution out - if God created humans specially, why did he use an animal template? |
Why not?
If God created the master blueprint for all life: DNA, then why not use the organization of that blueprint to create a lifeform best suited for His purposes?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If felt like dusting off this thread because I've been seeing a lot of anti-science sentiments around here lately.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Carico
German Shepherd
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 327
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"For the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight." And nothing is more foolish than the desire of scientists to play God by claiming:
1) They know the origin of life
2) They know how the word was formed
3) They know the origin of man
The above is called delusions of grandeur since no one was present at the above events. And considering that scientists disagree with each other and change their minds all the time, replacing old theories with new ones, then they have shown they can't be trusted and look foolish in the process. 
_________________
Blessings in Christ,
Heidi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Carico wrote: |
The above is called delusions of grandeur since no one was present at the above events.
|
Nobody alive today was present during the past ice age, but for some reason we know it happened. How is that?
Nobody alive today was present when dinosaurs walked the Earth, but for some reason we know that they did. How is that?
There are plenty of murderers who have been sent to jail even though nobody witnessed the murder. How can that be?
By using reason (a.k.a. science), we can often figure out things, even though we weren't there and didn't witness it directly. This is the power of science.
| Carico wrote: |
And considering that scientists disagree with each other and change their minds all the time, replacing old theories with new ones, then they have shown they can't be trusted and look foolish in the process. |
Really? Can you give me a single example of a scientific theory which was
1. Established during the past 50 years or so,
2. Was widely-studied by many scientists,
3. Was accepted by virtually the entire scientific community, but
4. Ended up being *totally* wrong?
I bet you can't.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Carico
German Shepherd
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 327
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Carico wrote: |
The above is called delusions of grandeur since no one was present at the above events.
|
Nobody alive today was present during the past ice age, but for some reason we know it happened. How is that?
Nobody alive today was present when dinosaurs walked the Earth, but for some reason we know that they did. How is that?
There are plenty of murderers who have been sent to jail even though nobody witnessed the murder. How can that be?
By using reason (a.k.a. science), we can often figure out things, even though we weren't there and didn't witness it directly. This is the power of science.
| Carico wrote: |
And considering that scientists disagree with each other and change their minds all the time, replacing old theories with new ones, then they have shown they can't be trusted and look foolish in the process. |
Really? Can you give me a single example of a scientific theory which was
1. Established during the past 50 years or so,
2. Was widely-studied by many scientists,
3. Was accepted by virtually the entire scientific community, but
4. Ended up being *totally* wrong?
I bet you can't. |
 No we don't know that the "ice age" happened! Again, modern day people are in the habit of making up their own history. So why do they do that? Again, the answer is very simple; to try to prove the bible wrong so they can say there is no God.
In order to do that people have to:
1) Disagree with the accounts of people who lived in the past. That not only includes those who witnessed the life of Christ, it also includes the accounts of over 200 ancient peoples of a global flood (even native Americans have an account of it before any of them even heard of the bible!)
2) Make up their own history
3) Make illogical statements like claiming that one creature can just well..."evolve" into another.
4) Overlook the fact that ice comes from water. That means that if there was a global ice age, there also HAD to be a global flood.
But since the whole goal of secular scientists is to deny the bible, they can't sat that. So instead, they have to make up a new story that a global ice age THAT NO ONE IN HISTORY CAN VERIFY...well...just appeared. 
And since the secular world worships scientists as gods, they blindly believe everything scientists says no matter how imaginative or illogical. Yes indeed the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight. 
_________________
Blessings in Christ,
Heidi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Carico wrote: |
No we don't know that the "ice age" happened!
|
Yes, we really do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
| Carico wrote: |
1) Disagree with the accounts of people who lived in the past. That not only includes those who witnessed the life of Christ, it also includes the accounts of over 200 ancient peoples of a global flood (even native Americans have an account of it before any of them even heard of the bible!) |
There was no global flood as described in the Bible. Even if we melt all of the ice on the planet, there literally isn't enough water on the planet to cover the face of the Earth up to the height of the highest mountain. Not even close. Where did all of that extra water go?
| Carico wrote: |
3) Make illogical statements like claiming that one creature can just well..."evolve" into another.
|
Nobody says this. Please refer to this thread: http://www.bible-discussion.com/message-board-forum/viewtopic.php?t=7771
| Carico wrote: |
4) Overlook the fact that ice comes from water. That means that if there was a global ice age, there also HAD to be a global flood. |
No, because there literally isn't enough water in all of the ice to cause the flood which is described in the Bible.
| Carico wrote: |
But since the whole goal of secular scientists is to deny the bible, they can't sat that.
|
This statement just goes to show how far gone you really are. The goal of scientists is to better understand how the world works. That's their *only* goal.
| Carico wrote: |
So instead, they have to make up a new story that a global ice age THAT NO ONE IN HISTORY CAN VERIFY...well...just appeared. |
You seem to think that historical writing is the only evidence which counts for anything. Do you believe that people only wrote down the truth back then? Do you believe that they never embellished? Do you believe that they never made things up?
| Carico wrote: |
And since the secular world worships scientists as gods, they blindly believe everything scientists says no matter how imaginative or illogical. Yes indeed the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight. |
Illogical, huh? Have you ever studied logic? Do you even know what it is?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Incidentally, you neglected to answer my question:
Can you give me a single example of a scientific theory which was
1. Established during the past 50 years or so,
2. Was widely-studied by many scientists,
3. Was accepted by virtually the entire scientific community, but
4. Ended up being *totally* wrong?
I bet you can't.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Carico
German Shepherd
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 327
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | Incidentally, you neglected to answer my question:
Can you give me a single example of a scientific theory which was
1. Established during the past 50 years or so,
2. Was widely-studied by many scientists,
3. Was accepted by virtually the entire scientific community, but
4. Ended up being *totally* wrong?
I bet you can't. |
Actually there haven't been any new theories in the last 50 years that I know of that are major. Scientists are still stuck on the myths of; evolution, an old earth and a global ice age. But I have heard scientists dispel those very theories by claiming that;
1) Human life came from bacteria
2) Human life came from Martians
Scientist also come out everyday and change their theories about weather related phenomena, medicine, what causes cancer, etc. And they will always change their minds about those things because they don't know just how big and awesome God is.
And you have neglected to address my previous points.
_________________
Blessings in Christ,
Heidi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
