Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?

[Breathe]

Could be the same thing, who knows. I attribute the term to someone who believes God created man and let him evolve as it were.

Created man and let him evolve...? How's that even work?

Then I guess they are not the same thing. My understanding of "theistic evolutionists" is that those are people who believe that God created the world so that evolution could happen as found by Biologists. Sort of Deism applied to Biology, if you will

Ah, so by theistic evolution, God didn't actually create man, just the world? See, I learn something new every day

No wonder I believe in atheistic evolution... that's all.. meh. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Thief]

Not your read rather your specific interpretation of the narrative. Various creationist "read" it but take it to mean something entirely different.

Can't speak for them.

Not if you start off with the hypothesis that 'man was created fully formed'...I don't..and not being able to back up the assertion with any empirical evidence....and matters of faith need proof?



Earmarks aren't the same as evidence. Your book makes the claim but there is no evidence available to suggest that such a procedure is possible.

Possible yes.....but it happened a long time ago.
Strange such a story...from a people who had no 'science'.

I understand exactly what the verse says and yet there is no evidence to suggest you can take man, clone him to produce a female.

You won't find 'evidence' in scripture.
It's not a science book.


What I like and don't like is not factored into this debate. I'm interested in any testable evidence for your claims otherwise it's just bold assertions....

My assertions are the 'obvious' details of Genesis.

But both sides of the fence don't like what I point out.

Creationists don't like it because it brings evolution into the picture.
Atheists don't like it .....because of God.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Created man and let him evolve...? How's that even work?

Good question. However, there are people on this forum that believe that's how it happened. To each his own I suppose

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You won't find 'evidence' in scripture.
It's not a science book.

Thanks. I figured as much.

My assertions are the 'obvious' details of Genesis.

The details are lacking and don't seem to align with what we know of the natural world. Clearly the precursor for your creation narrative is the Sumerian creation story where the gods create the earth. In addition this where the story of man being created from clay comes from. This is a striking similarity to your bible where Elohim (God, gods) create man in their image and after their likeness from the dust (clay) of the ground.

But both sides of the fence don't like what I point out.

Creationists don't like it because it brings evolution into the picture.
Atheists don't like it .....because of God.

I can't speak for creationist but as an Atheist I'm not bothered by your persistence to bring your god into science.

 

[McBell]

My assertions are the 'obvious' details of Genesis.

Ah, so you are merely parroting the unsubstantiated claims of others.

You do realize that merely paroting the unsubstantiated claims of others is still merely making unsubstantiated claims, right?

But both sides of the fence don't like what I point out.

Creationists don't like it because it brings evolution into the picture.
Atheists don't like it .....because of God.

I have to agree.
But then, since you have nothing but your faith to support your "god" part, I can fully understand why atheists dismiss your "point" as merely the delusions of a faithful faith.

 

[McBell]

'King James is of no use'......

Now there's a quote!

One wonders if you take the same liberties of of taking things out of context when you read your king James Version?

They didn't understand.....but you have the education to do so.....
and therefore.....no excuse.

No excuse for what?
Dismissing your delusional fairy tales as nothing more than faith based puffery?
*raises hand*
guilty as charged

You just don't like it.

What's to dislike?
I mean, it isn't like you came even close to showing how your unsubstantiated claims are anything more than unsubstantiated claims.

Until you can show there is actually something to what you claim other than wishful thinking, it should be dismissed as nothing more than wishful thinking.

So like and dislike have nothing to do with it.

 

[Thief]

I have been reporting Genesis as I have read it.

Yes...I read it differently than most people.

But that's the point.

 

[tumbleweed41]

My assertions are the 'obvious' details of Genesis.

But both sides of the fence don't like what I point out.

Creationists don't like it because it brings evolution into the picture.
Atheists don't like it .....because of God.

Wonder why I don't like it....

Oh, that's right, because it is a crude attempt to mix myth with science.

 

[Thief]

Wonder why I don't like it....

Oh, that's right, because it is a crude attempt to mix myth with science.

Your 'opinion' is noted.

How so is it 'crude'?

 

[camanintx]

How so is it 'crude'?

First of all, it gets things entirely out of order. Genesis says seeding plants were created on the third 'day' and fish on the fifth 'day' when fish existed over 100 million years before the first seeding plants. Not to mention plants existing before the light they require to survive.

 

[Thief]

First of all, it gets things entirely out of order. Genesis says seeding plants were created on the third 'day' and fish on the fifth 'day' when fish existed over 100 million years before the first seeding plants. Not to mention plants existing before the light they require to survive.

I am aware of this....

And you are assuming that God....or anyone else involved with the Genesis story...had a clue to what they were writing?

Still...being able to write such things at a time before the telescope, the microscope, scientific methods,and all else experimental....
speaks of a Source.

That Source made an introduction of 'Itself'....declaring.... 'I Am'.
Genesis is not a detailed explanation of what we now consider...scientific.
But it is an explanation...with God as the Source.

That the details are out of order and too brief....doesn't surprise me.

It shouldn't surprise you either.

 

[camanintx]

That the details are out of order and too brief....doesn't surprise me.

It shouldn't surprise you either.

That myths have details out of order and are too brief never suprises me.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I am aware of this....

And you are assuming that God....or anyone else involved with the Genesis story...had a clue to what they were writing?

Still...being able to write such things at a time before the telescope, the microscope, scientific methods,and all else experimental....
speaks of a Source.

That Source made an introduction of 'Itself'....declaring.... 'I Am'.
Genesis is not a detailed explanation of what we now consider...scientific.
But it is an explanation...with God as the Source.

That the details are out of order and too brief....doesn't surprise me.

It shouldn't surprise you either.

That most of the mythic genesis accounts can be found in earlier writings from another civilization shouldn't surprise you....It's certainly no surprise to us.

 

[newhope101]

First of all, it gets things entirely out of order. Genesis says seeding plants were created on the third 'day' and fish on the fifth 'day' when fish existed over 100 million years before the first seeding plants. Not to mention plants existing before the light they require to survive.

You mean your researchers guess what they think happened and what may have happened and how it happened and this is your evidence.

First land plants paved way for humans › News in Science (ABC Science)

Flowering plants may be considerably older than previously thought

One article puts plants on earth 700mya. You can only guess as to whether or not they were seed bearing. Spores can be seen as seeds also for the purpose of spreading and multiplying.

"Probably an algal scum formed on land 1,200 million years ago. In the Ordovician period, around 450 million years ago, the first land plants appeared.[1] These began to diversify in the late Silurian Period, around 420 million years ago, and the fruits of their diversification are displayed in remarkable detail in an early Devonian fossil assemblage from the Rhynie chert. This chert preserved early plants in cellular detail, petrified in volcanic springs. By the middle of the Devonian Period most of the features recognised in plants today are present, including roots, leaves and secondary wood, and by late Devonian times seeds had evolved.[2] Late Devonian plants had thereby reached a degree of sophistication that allowed them to form forests of tall trees. Evolutionary innovation continued after the Devonian period."

http://www.plantsland.com/Evolutionary_history_of_plants/encyclopedia.htm

So although this is all guess work lets see what they have found.

Mmmmm so far plants that predate fish, the bible is correct.

Re Gen14...Let's not forget that your science shows the moon was created after the earth. The impact theory is your explanation as to how this can be explained.

"The planets were originally believed to have formed in or near their current orbits. However, this view underwent radical change during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Currently, it is believed that the Solar System looked very different after its initial formation: several objects at least as massive as Mercury were present in the inner Solar System, the outer Solar System was much more compact than it is now, and the Kuiper belt was much closer to the Sun.[36]"

Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Really all you have is speculation and changing theories to defend your stance.

Your big bang theory supposes all galaxies are moving away from each other yet Andromeda is heading straight for us.

I know the best either side can do is put theory against theory. Suffice to say that no theoretical research is robust enough to overturn anything the bible has to say.

Harvard Gazette: Earth's birth date turned back

In Genesis 1:6-8 God further explains:

"God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." [Genesis 1:6-8]
So God recreated the atmosphere by a water filtration system, lifting a sheath of water through the void of gases into the heaven above the waters on the planet, or, a planet surrounded by a canopy of water. Incidentally, Venus is a canopied planet. It is this canopy which collapsed when the flood of Noah began. Genesis 7:11 states:
"The six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." [Genesis 7:11]
Prior to this event, there is no mention of rain falling on Earth, but "a mist" watered the Earth. The full strength of the sun could not shine through to evaporate enough water to make Cumulus clouds:
"there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." [Genesis 2:6]
This is exactly what would take place on a canopied planet. The temperature change from day to night would create a dewy mist.
Rahab: 5th Planet from the Sun

This guy above has some ideas/theory.

So basically what I am saying is that current theoretical asumptions that constantly change with new data and are based on complicated modelling that cannot take all the confounding data into account are hardly a sufficient basis to say the biblical account is any less valid than any of your theoretical assumptions.

Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found--Pushes Back Evolution

The Phylogenetic Relationship of Tetrapod, Coelacanth, and Lungfish Revealed by the Sequences of Forty-Four Nuclear Genes

Flying fish glide as well as birds, researchers find

What flying fish tell us about evolution

 

[newhope101]

Q: What is a creationists understanding of TOE?


Answer: Evolutionists are able to provide a plethora of debated and changing theories to support their stance and speak to same as evidence. Hence, evolutionists believe they have evidence for TOE making the theory a fact. The changing nature of your theoretical assumptions that change rather than support any notion is not seen in the same light as other sciences, whereby more data is meant to support the status quo rather than altering it, sometimes dramatically.

Creationists also have a plethora of theoretical evidence to support their stance, including YEC's. Just because you can refute with other theoretical evidence really does not mean much at all.

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences. Sun:

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Just because you can refute with other theoretical evidence really does not mean much at all.

What should hold more weight, explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations which are contradicted by evidence?




Lurker

 

[newhope101]

Itinerant Lurker Quote"What should hold more weight, explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations which are contradicted by evidence?"

Darls..if the evidence was clearer than mud you would not have much debate at all.

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

So I suppose this researcher that has access to all the same research as any other researcher appears to refute "common thinking" and disagrees that birds evolved from dinosaurs. must ne an idiot. So too is daily science for even speaking to his work. Go figure!!!!! I thought it was soooooooo very clear. How dare this idiot try to fly in the face of irrefuteable evidence..

Are you sufficiently cognitively advanced to understand what I mean when I alledge that your so called "weight of evidence" is nothing more than fluff.
What you hold so dear as irrefuteable evidence today may be in the garbage bin of delusions past tomorrow, or next year. Your guess is as good as mine.

LUCA was also the bees knees in irrefuteable evidence that no one should dare to challenge. Alas challenged it was and has died a quite death.
Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Horizontal gene transfer in evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Further to that 'common thinking' suggests birds and tetrapods have a common aquatic ancestor that was more fish like than tetrapod like and your phylogenies are a mess around birds, reptiles and mammals.

This link suggests an aquatic start to birds
Early Birds get Fish, not Worms


This link shows some of your mess re clades
Early Birds get Fish, not Worms


This link shows your researchers do not know what a fish is and have dropped the term in taxonomy.
Fish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Salamanders are more closely related to humans than Lizards. So which is the more important your crap about vestigial organs and shared morphology or phylogeny and genetics. This link shows me your researchers are grabbing at straws
Trait Evolution on a Phylogenetic Tree | Learn Science at Scitable
Taxonomy Phylogeny
Phylogenetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://ijs.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/55/3/1021.pdf

So evolutionists continue to scratch around and this you call "explanations that are consistent with evidence". Rubbish!!!!!!!!

The YEC link provides as good a theories based on fact as what you are able to provide as the basis for your theories.

My point stands

Basically what I am saying is that current theoretical asumptions that constantly change with new data and are based on complicated modelling that cannot take all the confounding data into account are hardly a sufficient basis to say the biblical account is any less valid than any of your theoretical assumptions.

 

[newhope101]

Itinerant Lurker Quote"What should hold more weight, explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations which are contradicted by evidence?"

Darls..if the evidence was clearer than mud you would not have much debate at all.

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

So I suppose this researcher that has access to all the same research as any other researcher appears to refute "common thinking" and disagrees that birds evolved from dinosaurs. must be an idiot. So too is daily science for even speaking to his work. Go figure!!!!! I thought it was soooooooo very clear. How dare this idiot try to fly in the face of irrefuteable evidence..

Are you sufficiently cognitively advanced to understand what I mean when I alledge that your so called "weight of evidence" is nothing more than fluff.
What you hold so dear as irrefuteable evidence today may be in the garbage bin of delusions past tomorrow, or next year. Your guess is as good as mine.

LUCA was also the bees knees in irrefuteable evidence that no one should dare to challenge. Alas challenged it was and has died a quite death.
Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Horizontal gene transfer in evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Further to that 'common thinking' suggests birds and tetrapods have a common aquatic ancestor that was more fish like than tetrapod like and your phylogenies are a mess around birds, reptiles and mammals.

This link suggests an aquatic start to birds.
Early Birds get Fish, not Worms


This link shows some of your mess re clades
Early Birds get Fish, not Worms


This link shows your researchers do not know what a fish is and have dropped the term in taxonomy.
Fish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Salamanders are more closely related to humans than Lizards. So which is the more important your crap about vestigial organs and shared morphology or phylogeny and genetics. This link shows me your researchers are grabbing at straws
Trait Evolution on a Phylogenetic Tree | Learn Science at Scitable
Taxonomy Phylogeny
Phylogenetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://ijs.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/55/3/1021.pdf

So evolutionists continue to scratch around and this you call "explanations that are consistent with evidence". Rubbish!!!!!!!!

The YEC link provides as good a theories based on fact as what you are able to provide as the basis for your theories. Creationists can also use models to get the result they want.

My point stands

Basically what I am saying is that current theoretical asumptions that constantly change with new data and are based on complicated modelling that cannot take all the confounding data into account are hardly a sufficient basis to say the biblical account is any less valid than any of your theoretical assumptions.

http://www.creationevidence.net/offers.shtml

 

[LuisDantas]

Itinerant Lurker Quote"What should hold more weight, explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations which are contradicted by evidence?"

Darls..if the evidence was clearer than mud you would not have much debate at all.

And it turns out that it is exactly the case. Only the people who make a point of failing to recognize the existing evidence see any fit for debate on the general ideas of the ToE.

As even you illustrate time and again, by posting sources that ratify the ToE even while saying that those same sources somehow are challenging it.

 

[newhope101]

Louis Dantas Quote "And it turns out that it is exactly the case. Only the people who make a point of failing to recognize the existing evidence see any fit for debate on the general ideas of the ToE.

As even you illustrate time and again, by posting sources that ratify the ToE even while saying that those same sources somehow are challenging it.

No Louis. I reckon that if you knew the ancestry of birds for sure there would be no debate about it. The same goes for LUCA, that I spoke to. Evos jumped up and down with irrefuteable evidence that all life was connected to single organism, LUCA. With HGT that is now known to be nonsense. You say this and the like is evidence that only the stupid or ignorant cannot accept. Then you throw that same evidence away.

It is not just one or two things. It is many many things and even more maybe's and debates than I can speak to in 10,000 words.

The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution. The outcome has been predetermined, life evloved. This is not debated by evo researchers. The rest is free to roam and change.

An evo researcher will hit on the status quo and offer another evolutionary solution and this makes him all scientific and the TOE never in doubt.

However creationist researchers, eg John Sanford, who also hit on the status quo, but did not offer evolutionary alternatives are frowned on. Rather his work eg entrophy supports creation.

I can see the bias even if you pretend not to. Indeed I do not think you are that stupid, just stubborn and proud.

You have trouble classifying what you see today let alone attempting to provide solid evidence of how some sea creature became a hippo and a whale. I have provided sufficient links here and elsewhere that speak to phylogeny vs taxonomy including homoplasy. You should be informed by now.

Either your postulations for irrefuteable evidence are such or they are not. They are turned aside because the reasonings behind them, the basis for them, was erranous. Pretending to not understand this comparison will never make it go away.

Appendix 1: Common arguments for evolution that have been rejected

Hall of Shame for Evolution Fraud and Deceit

Creationists can make it all fit too!

It really is pick and choose what you want to believe and what you want to understand of the world.

No scientist has had the last word on "HOW". What hope have any of you.