Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, "disc-shaped", "round".

Yes, disc shaped. Flat. You are conflating "round" with spherical. Not only spheres are round. If you read and understood the Bible you would see that it only describes the Earth as flat.

 

[ecco]

Our ancestors "common sense" led them to believe the earth was flat.

If they had just read the Bible, they would have discovered it says 'the Earth is round', and it is 'suspended on nothing.' -- Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:7

Is a circle not round?
I didn't say sphere, did I?

You tried to give the impression that if our ancestors had read the bible, they would have known that the earth was not flat. Since circles are flat, Isaiah's words would not have dissuaded them.

Don't put words in my mouth, and keep your arguments ad hominem to yourself...I read quite well, and excelled in geometry.

I made those comments based entirely on what you wrote...

• You implied that a circle is something that is not flat.
• You misquoted Isaiah's writing.

 

[ecco]

When do you think the word/concept of a sphere came to exist in man's vernacular?

Spheres - When Eve described Adam's testicles.
Hemispheres - When Adam described Eve's breasts.

 

[ArtieE]

You do realize that in 150 years, they'll all be saying that "those bozo's back in the Noughties use to think that life poofed itself into existence one day, for no apparent reason, millions of years ago, and then it somehow magically transformed itself into every living thing on earth.....
How did they ever come to such a ridiculous conclusion?!"

In 150 years they'll all be saying that "those JW bozo's back in the 1800s who were waiting for Christ's Second Coming and God's Kingdom how did they manage to come up with so many failed predictions and are they still around waiting?"

 

[gnostic]

If they had just read the Bible, they would have discovered it says 'the Earth is round', and it is 'suspended on nothing.' -- Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:7

Actually Job 26:7 doesn't say anything about the Earth is round or shape of a sphere, circle is mentioned in verse 10, nothing about it being sphere.

He stretches out Zaphon over the void,
and hangs the earth upon nothing.

Zaphon is most likely Mount Zaphon, a mountain that was sacred to the Canaanite god, Ba'al. No sphere, no circle.

Here is where Job 26 does say the Earth is circle, but it is floating on waters:

10 He has described a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness.

Verse 7 the Earth (with definition of Earth's shape or form) suspended over "nothing", but verse 10 contradicts verse 7, when it say the "circle" is suspended on water.

So the ancient Israelites imagined the Earth to be a flat disk floating on water, not a sphere.

All you are doing is conflating “circle” and “round”, with sphere, which the bible never say such things.

A sphere has no edges, but in Isaiah 41:5 it say the Earth have “ends”:

5 The coastlands have seen and are afraid,
the ends of the earth tremble;
they have drawn near and come.

The “circle” clearly is a flat disk.

 

[gnostic]

You tried to give the impression that if our ancestors had read the bible, they would have known that the earth was not flat. Since circles are flat, Isaiah's words would not have dissuaded them.

The Babylonians have long thought the Earth was a flat disk. I am guessing that where Hebrew authors got their concept of flat Earth from.

What Hockeycowboy and few other Christians don’t get, is that the bible calling the Earth circle or round, don’t mean it is saying sphere.

Because some of the passages referred to the Earth have “ends” or “edges”, that’s a clear indication that the round earth isn’t a sphere. Sphere don’t have edges, disk do.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Life, death, infection, etc, etc, etc. ...

I don't see how that relates to what we were talking about.

 

[ecco]

And what harm did it do them to believe that until they had the knowledge and wherewithal's to explore beyond their flat earth? Discovery is one of the joys of science, is it not? What did science understand 2,000 years ago?

Let's try to keep things in context, shall we. Previously you made the following comment about "common sense"...

Well, actually my religious beliefs only confirm what my common sense tells me...."nothing comes from nothing", and "all life comes from pre-existing life".

To which I responded (post #1000) ...

Our ancestors "common sense" led them to believe the earth was flat.
Our ancestors "common sense" led them to believe the earth was the center of the universe.

Does your "common sense" lead you to an understanding of entangled particles?
Does your "common sense" lead you to an understanding of wave particle duality?
​

My point being that "common sense" does little to help us understand the realities of nature. That your religious beliefs and your "common sense" prevent you from understanding abiogenesis has no bearing on science whatsoever.

​

You crack me up... Does an understanding of entangled particles or wave particle duality add something to your day.....?....or are you just trying to sound all scientific...?

See above.

Oh, Abiogenesis......you mean that branch of science that can't find out what caused life?
Yes, I have heard of it.

They can't even make a blade of grass.

With comments like that you show, once again, your ignorance of science.

You do realize that in 150 years, they'll all be saying that "those bozo's back in the Noughties use to think that life poofed itself into existence one day, for no apparent reason, millions of years ago, and then it somehow magically transformed itself into every living thing on earth.....

With comments like that you show, once again, your ignorance of science. No scientist or informed lay person believes that "life poofed itself into existence". Why do you find it necessary to continuously demonstrate your ignorance?

In my own words, "life" on this planet.... is something biological that can reproduce copies of itself, yet not just clones, but totally separate and independent entities with the same characteristics, function and basic appearance of its parents....but only after its own "kind".....inorganic matter is not "living" but usually supplies what living things need to function and to continue the reproductive process indefinitely......like food production and water supply...also vital to sustaining life....

That's actually pretty good. However, as with all definitions of life, it has flaws.

By your definition, mules are not a form of life. By your definition, infertile humans are not a form of life.

Furthermore, "kind" has no meaning in science. It is a word used by fundies.

...this I believe, could never have happened by accident.

"by accident" is another fundie phrase not used by science in reference to abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

My point being that "common sense" does little to help us understand the realities of nature. That your religious beliefs and your "common sense" prevent you from understanding abiogenesis has no bearing on science whatsoever.

"But as Einstein has pointed out, common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind prior to the age of eighteen."--Lincoln Barnett

​

 

[cladking]

That your religious beliefs and your "common sense" prevent you from understanding abiogenesis has no bearing on science whatsoever.

And you have no problem ignoring the role of consciousness in life or the role of behavior in change in species. It's like playing cards without any deuces, jacks, kings, 8 of spades, or any diamonds at all. From the way the cards lay out Darwin came up with "survival of the fittest" and you're still playing with the exact same cards.

 

[Deeje]

My point being that "common sense" does little to help us understand the realities of nature.

Common sense is no longer common, (in case you hadn't noticed) ...and I believe that going against common sense has to led people to mistrust it, which is a pity. This has apparently caused a lot of harm to the human psyche. People don't question what their common sense tells them anymore.....but we should question everything that goes against what we call "gut" instinct. It's there for a reason....like spirituality. Both can be killed off by a good story.

That your religious beliefs and your "common sense" prevent you from understanding abiogenesis has no bearing on science whatsoever.

Again, you crack me up....abiogenesis is science trying to fit "life appearing by chance" (undirected, or naturally occurring) into the specially prepared "box" that they are trying to squeeze it into.
They don't know how a blade of grass "lives".....let alone all the "living" things that inhabit this planet.

With comments like that you show, once again, your ignorance of science.

And that accusation is so old.

It's got nothing to do with ignorance....it's got more to do with rejecting what sounds ludicrous to any logical, thinking person. We all know about how advertising agencies "market" their products. First you have to convince people that they need this product.....it has to appear to be beneficial, even if it's not. If it's a rival product, you must demonize the opposition and promote yours as superior. And when you involve "celebrities" or "experts" to promote it, people will assume that they can buy it with confidence. I believe that this is why the world is in such a mess.....misplaced trust.

Most people never realize how easily their perceptions can be manipulated by people with no scruples.

With comments like that you show, once again, your ignorance of science. No scientist or informed lay person believes that "life poofed itself into existence". Why do you find it necessary to continuously demonstrate your ignorance?

If you can't identify the 'process' by which "life" originated, then you do actually believe that it "poofed" itself into existence "somehow". Isn't this why most people in the scientific world avoid even talking about abiogenesis and evolution in the same conversation. Science is quick to distance one from the other lest people start asking the hard questions...like "if you don't know how life began, what does it matter how it supposedly changed?"

If life was created by a higher power, then your theory goes down the toilet. Science cannot dismiss the existence of an Intelligent Creator...all it can do is ridicule the "fundies"...which isn't hard because their 7 literal day scenario is equally ridiculous. There is somewhere in the middle that is very coherent to those who see the extreme ends of this argument to be equally flawed.

That's actually pretty good. However, as with all definitions of life, it has flaws.

Who says? You have your definition and I have mine. You have your source of information and I have mine...it's a choice, but it isn't entirely based on evidence because it all depends on how that evidence is interpreted. I don't buy science's interpretation.

By your definition, mules are not a form of life. By your definition, infertile humans are not a form of life.

Oh please

.....mules are the product of humans interfering with natural selection. Horses and donkeys would never mate in the wild. Hybrids are notoriously sterile because there are genetic barriers to crossing species.

Infertile humans are not going to somehow take over the world because the entire race would die out....as they would if gays were the only humans. Fertility and reproduction is why sex was invented...you do understand this? It wasn't just a toy to play with.
Flaws in fertility due to physical abnormalities are not usually passed on....for obvious reasons.

Furthermore, "kind" has no meaning in science. It is a word used by fundies.

"Kinds" are those who can interbreed or who belong to a certain taxonomy even if they can no longer interbreed because the triggers by which any species recognizes a potential mate, are missing. Instinct is strong and it's programming is not usually overridden in nature.

Darwin's finches didn't ever become anything other than various species of finches, even if they ceased to interbreed. Marine iguanas are still iguanas, clearly recognizable by their unique appearance. They will never become something else.

"by accident" is another fundie phrase not used by science in reference to abiogenesis and evolution.

If something is undirected and subject to random chance...then it is unplanned and can be deemed "accidental".
Are you uncomfortable about that word?

 

[ecco]

And you have no problem ignoring the role of consciousness in life or the role of behavior in change in species. It's like playing cards without any deuces, jacks, kings, 8 of spades, or any diamonds at all. From the way the cards lay out Darwin came up with "survival of the fittest" and you're still playing with the exact same cards.

I said nothing about the role of behavior in the changing of species. Not because I was "ignoring it", but it wasn't relative to the discussion. Certainly human's conscious behavior has had a big role in the extinction of many species.

What does that have to do with creationism and evolution being compatible? And what does that have to do with your religious beliefs and your "common sense" preventing you from understanding abiogenesis.

 

[cladking]

Really?

So behavior never entered into the question of whether an animal lived or died and consciousness has no effect on behavior.

What a world believers live in.

 

[ecco]

Common sense is no longer common ...and I believe that going against common sense has to led people to mistrust it, which is a pity. This has apparently caused a lot of harm to the human psyche.

Huh?

Again, you crack me up....abiogenesis is science trying to fit "life appearing by chance" (undirected, or naturally occurring)

Abiogenesis is science trying to understand the process that took us from atoms to molecules to proteins to what we refer to as life.

It's got nothing to do with ignorance....it's got more to do with rejecting what sounds ludicrous to any logical, thinking person.

Science: The earth is a globe!
Logical, thinking people: That's ludicrous - people would fall off the bottom.

Science:The earth is spinning at a speed of 1000 miles per hour at the equator!
Logical, thinking people: That's ludicrous - all people and animals would be thrown off the planet.

Want more?

Most people never realize how easily their perceptions can be manipulated by people with no scruples.

People like religious leaders who try very hard to have their followers indoctrinate their offspring into their religion.

If you can't identify the 'process' by which "life" originated, ...

Need I remind you that, until relatively recently...

• Science could not identify the process that kept people from falling off the bottom of the earth.
• Science could not identify the process that caused infections.
• Science could not identify the process that explained the apparent retrograde of Mercury's orbit.

...then you do actually believe that it "poofed" itself into existence "somehow".

No, I don't. How many times do I have to tell you that? There was no poofing involved. It was a very long, slow process.

Isn't this why most people in the scientific world avoid even talking about abiogenesis and evolution in the same conversation.

You are wrong. People in the sciences, and informed laymen, do talk about abiogenesis and eveolution. Just like they talk about weather and climate.

If life was created by a higher power, then your theory goes down the toilet.

IF! If the world was a flat circle, we wouldn't need to know why people don't fall off the bottom.

Science cannot dismiss the existence of an Intelligent Creator.

But science does dismiss ID just as it dismisses clairvoyance, mentally bending spoons, dowsing, etc. All for the same reasons.

...all it can do is ridicule the "fundies"...which isn't hard because their 7 literal day scenario is equally ridiculous.

That's the beauty of religion. Everyone gets to pick and choose which parts of Holy Scripture they want to believe and which parts they want to dismiss as ridiculous. I have more respect for people who accept all of it.

I don't buy science's interpretation.

You believe all of science's interpretations up to the point it conflicts with your ingrained religious beliefs.

Oh please

.....mules are the product of humans interfering with natural selection. Horses and donkeys would never mate in the wild. Hybrids are notoriously sterile because there are genetic barriers to crossing species.

Infertile humans are not going to somehow take over the world because the entire race would die out....as they would if gays were the only humans. Fertility and reproduction is why sex was invented...you do understand this? It wasn't just a toy to play with.
Flaws in fertility due to physical abnormalities are not usually passed on....for obvious reasons.

I was showing that your definition of "LIFE" is flawed.

"Kinds" are those ...

"Kinds" is a term used by people who had no concept of "species".

If something is undirected and subject to random chance...then it is unplanned and can be deemed "accidental".
Are you uncomfortable about that word?

What makes me uncomfortable is people dismissing science. If people hadn't dismissed science for a thousand years, we would not be concerned with cancers or heart attacks or strokes or diabetes today.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

......flat........

There's that word again! I must've counted 'flat' in this thread alone, at least 10 times in referencing Isaiah 40:22. It's always added, lol. (Of course, I goaded some.)

But for the life of me, I can't find it anywhere in the Bible relating to the Earth, except added by those wanting to deny Biblical inerrancy!

A sphere, viewed from any side, always appears as a circle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's that word again! I must've counted 'flat' in this thread alone, at least 10 times in referencing Isaiah 40:22. It's always added, lol. (Of course, I goaded some.)

But for the life of me, I can't find it anywhere in the Bible relating to the Earth, except added by those wanting to deny Biblical inerrancy!

A sphere, viewed from any side, always appears as a circle.

Yes, a sphere looks like a circle. But that is not what Isaiah 40:22 claims. It uses the Hebrew word for an inscribed circle, as with a compass. That will always be a flat circle, not a sphere.

You are trying to reinterpret the Bible in light of the knowledge that we have today. To do that you have to ignore the original Hebrew. Any Bible scholar will tell you that is a bad strategy to take.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Kinds" are those who can interbreed or who belong to a certain taxonomy even if they can no longer interbreed because the triggers by which any species recognizes a potential mate, are missing.

Wait, so, "kind" means "organisms which can interbreed... Or not interbreed"?

You do realize that this definition is so broad that you could easily use it to conclude that all living things belong in the same "kind", right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait, so, "kind" means "organisms which can interbreed... Or not interbreed"?

You don't expect consistence with the term "kind" when talking to a creationist I hope. That would lead me to believing a flat Earth if that ever happened.

 

[Deeje]

Abiogenesis is science trying to understand the process that took us from atoms to molecules to proteins to what we refer to as life.

LOL...its called creation.

Science: The earth is a globe!
Logical, thinking people: That's ludicrous - people would fall off the bottom.

Science:The earth is spinning at a speed of 1000 miles per hour at the equator!
Logical, thinking people: That's ludicrous - all people and animals would be thrown off the planet.

Want more?

Thank you, you just demonstrated what motivated people to learn the "whys" about those kinds of questions. God gave humans inquiring minds and intellectual capacity to explore and study what he created. How long did it take them to begin to understand those things?

People falling off the world....the Earth spinning at 1000 miles per hour....and man discovered GRAVITY!
"Newton's apple"....."what goes up must come down."

Now tell me what use it would have been to understand about gravity and the speed of Earth's rotation if they did not have the capacity to understand what gravity was, even though they could demonstrate it by dropping an apple....? Even today scientists do not fully understand what makes gravity work.

People like religious leaders who try very hard to have their followers indoctrinate their offspring into their religion.

You think atheists don't do the same...only in reverse?

Need I remind you that, until relatively recently...

• Science could not identify the process that kept people from falling off the bottom of the earth.
• Science could not identify the process that caused infections.
• Science could not identify the process that explained the apparent retrograde of Mercury's orbit.

Thank you again....all the major discoveries were relatively recent. As man has progressed in knowledge, so he has become aware of how things work. Science is about discovery, not about arguments over who caused what.
It appears to me that many atheists are afraid to admit there might be some Intelligent Design to it all. It is somehow insulting to acknowledge the existence of a power smarter than they are.

There was no poofing involved. It was a very long, slow process.

So was creation. According to Genesis, the creative "days" may well have been eons of time in length.

You are wrong. People in the sciences, and informed laymen, do talk about abiogenesis and eveolution. Just like they talk about weather and climate.

You only need to check the responses to my posts over the years to see how many people protest that evolutionists do not deal with abiogenesis.....almost like you can't mention them in the same sentence.

But science does dismiss ID just as it dismisses clairvoyance, mentally bending spoons, dowsing, etc. All for the same reasons.

I have past relatives who were clairvoyants and believe me, you would have had a hard time dismissing what my great grandmother was able to tell people. She wasn't one of those shonky TV show people. And you have obviously never seen a water diviner at work. There is so much more to this world than science can explain. You can dismiss whatever you like...it doesn't make it go away.

That's the beauty of religion. Everyone gets to pick and choose which parts of Holy Scripture they want to believe and which parts they want to dismiss as ridiculous. I have more respect for people who accept all of it.

I accept all of it. I don't pick and choose.....which is why I became a JW in the first place. They were the only ones who didn't expect me to follow only some of Jesus teachings whilst weaseling their way out of the more inconvenient ones. We accept the very same scripture that Jesus did.
If he spoke of the first humans as being created, then that is good enough for me. (Matthew 19:4-6)

You believe all of science's interpretations up to the point it conflicts with your ingrained religious beliefs.

No, actually, I believe what science KNOWS and can prove....not necessarily what science "assumes" and "believes" about how life became so diverse. There is a difference you know.

I was showing that your definition of "LIFE" is flawed.

LOL...but yours can't possibly be flawed because it is backed up by scientific facts!....no wait...it isn't.

It is backed up by "beliefs"...just like mine.

"Kinds" is a term used by people who had no concept of "species".

"Kinds" was a perfect description for the people of Bible times before science understood what a species is.
They saw with their own eyes that animals only mated with their own kind which produced offspring according to their kind. Tell me when that would not have been true...?

What makes me uncomfortable is people dismissing science.

No one is dismissing true science....but theoretical science is a different story. A theory is not a fact. Only facts are truth. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

If people hadn't dismissed science for a thousand years, we would not be concerned with cancers or heart attacks or strokes or diabetes today.

Now you are going to have to explain that one.

It is people's lifestyle and choice of diet that creates heart disease, cancer and strokes....so if science was so clever then it would have created a better way to grow food that didn't involve ruining what nature provided.
GMO's, pesticides, artificial fertilizers, polluted air, water and soil, highly processed foods....these are the things that science has helped to produce. We are all paying for these with ill health.

 

[Deeje]

Wait, so, "kind" means "organisms which can interbreed... Or not interbreed"?

You do realize that this definition is so broad that you could easily use it to conclude that all living things belong in the same "kind", right?

It is fairly simple really.....e.g. using Darwin's finches, you can see that speciation meant that all these finches were of the same taxonomy even though they chose not to interbreed. They are programmed to recognize their own species and to mate with them. All organisms are programmed to do this.....isn't that obvious?
A finch who does not recognize an adapted 'cousin,' is still a finch, regardless of ability to mate or not. Is this rocket science?