For Danmac - Abiogenesis

[Danmac]

Which part do you find insulting? The part where I point out you're wrong or the part where, after having gone through these point at least five times and explaining why they're wrong and you continuing to make the exact same false claims, I questioned your integrity?

You're doing it on purpose, Danmac. If you're not, then it's you who should be apologetic towards us for having made false claims, not us for calling you out on them.

Debate is always on purpose. Debate means my position is different than yours. That is what we are doing here. Questioning my integrity has nothing to do with debate. You are making the debate personal. That is insulting and does not promote constructive debate.

 

[Danmac]

ImmortalFlame gave a good response to this. If you are willing to accept humanity as not having literally been created out of dust, then why not accept what countless scientists have to say about evolution? Your religious views wouldn't be compromised.

When Moses wrote the book of Genesis, I don't suppose He had a sufficient word to describe it in scientific terms. As a Christian I cannot accept one common ancestor. The Bible specifically states that all things were created "after their kind"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When Moses wrote the book of Genesis, I don't suppose He had a sufficient word to describe it in scientific terms. As a Christian I cannot accept one common ancestor. The Bible specifically states that all things were created "after their kind"

And why can't this mean "all things evolve into separate branches (family, genus, species)"?

Basically, if you choose to believe that the Bible states things that contradict evolution, then the Bible is wrong and you should stop believing it. Evolution is a pure and simple fact, and if your interpretation of the Bible cannot accept it then your interpretation is wrong. That is all.

 

[Danmac]

You have not answered my question. If you accept that certain parts of the Bible, such as the creation myth, as being non-literal, how does your belief in the Bible prevent you from accepting evolution?

Why not just continue to believe that God created the universe and all the life in it, and evolution is just the mechanism he set forth to do this? Why not just accept that the creation story supposed in the Bible is a non-literal symbolic tale on the origin of sin? This is what millions of people who accept evolution believe, including many scientists.

I have no problem with any of this as long as it is a common ancestor for each "kind" That is what the Bible says. Besides. If you reduce humans to mere animals, then we are no longer accountable for our lives.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have no problem with any of this as long as it is a common ancestor for each "kind" That is what the Bible says.

No it doesn't. It just says that they were all "created after their kind". That could practically mean anything, including that they simply evolved naturally into separate species from a common ancestor.

Besides. If you reduce humans to mere animals, then we are no longer accountable for our lives.

We are animals. Yet, I am still accountable for my life.

There you go - I've just proven you wrong.

 

[Noaidi]

When Moses wrote the book of Genesis, I don't suppose He had a sufficient word to describe it in scientific terms. As a Christian I cannot accept one common ancestor. The Bible specifically states that all things were created "after their kind"

But what do YOU think? You can tell me what the bible says, but what does Danmac think? The first lesson of any science class should be "don't blindly accept what your teacher tells you. Find out for yourself".

Regarding the 'kinds' of organisms idea, I think that was discussed earlier and the biblical view of 'kinds' is so at odds with what we, today, think of as 'kinds' of organisms that it's not worth bothering about . Don't forget, the bible was written by Bronze Age tribesmen with no knowledge of genomes, taxonomy or cladistics. The biblical view is so vague as to be meaningless. To accept their view of the biological world in 2010 does no-one any favours.

 

[Danmac]

And why can't this mean "all things evolve into separate branches (family, genus, species)"?

Basically, if you choose to believe that the Bible states things that contradict evolution, then the Bible is wrong and you should stop believing it. Evolution is a pure and simple fact, and if your interpretation of the Bible cannot accept it then your interpretation is wrong. That is all.

The bible tells us that humans were created as the highest life form. It tells us that humans should have dominion over all other forms of life. We do. Humans were created as free moral agents. Therefore we are held to an accountability that animals are not. We are also as a result offered the promise of an eternal hope thru Jesus Christ, as I believe He paid for all human failure. I would think that would be appealing to anyone.

 

[Commoner]

Debate is always on purpose. Debate means my position is different than yours. That is what we are doing here. Questioning my integrity has nothing to do with debate. You are making the debate personal. That is insulting and does not promote constructive debate.

And what exactly do you think calling "evolutionists" closed minded is?

And do you perhaps not realize just how unconstructive it is for you to keep repeating factually incorrect claims, on which I and others have corrected you on multiple times? Don't you think that's insulting?

You are, unfortunatelly, not debating here, Danmac. You have hardly presented an argument for your position, all you keep doing is making claims, most of them blatantly false, and linking to articles which you have apparently not even read yourself, since they contradict your claims. How constructive is it for you to bombard us with random baseless assertions and expecting us to respond to them calmly? Who's being unconstructive here?

And then you have the balls to get insulted? Bah, it's shameful.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The bible tells us that humans were created as the highest life form. It tells us that humans should have dominion over all other forms of life. We do.

Try telling that to a shark while taking a dip in the Atlantic.

Humans were created as free moral agents. Therefore we are held to an accountability that animals are not. We are also as a result offered the promise of an eternal hope thru Jesus Christ, as I believe He paid for all human failure. I would think that would be appealing to anyone.

Are you even going to attempt to address my points or answer my questions?

 

[Danmac]

But what do YOU think? You can tell me what the bible says, but what does Danmac think? The first lesson of any science class should be "don't blindly accept what your teacher tells you. Find out for yourself".

Regarding the 'kinds' of organisms idea, I think that was discussed earlier and the biblical view of 'kinds' is so at odds with what we, today, think of as 'kinds' of organisms that it's not worth bothering about . Don't forget, the bible was written by Bronze Age tribesmen with no knowledge of genomes, taxonomy or cladistics. The biblical view is so vague as to be meaningless. To accept their view of the biological world in 2010 does no-one any favours.

My belief in God has little to do with creation versus evolution. There are other things that point to a higher being. Things like an objective moral law is the strongest argument. That would be for another thread though.

 

[Danmac]

And what exactly do you think calling "evolutionists" closed minded is?

And do you perhaps not realize just how unconstructive it is for you to keep repeating factually incorrect claims, on which I and others have corrected you on multiple times? Don't you think that's insulting?

You are, unfortunatelly, not debating here, Danmac. You have hardly presented an argument for your position, all you keep doing is making claims, most of them blatantly false, and linking to articles which you have apparently not even read yourself, since they contradict your claims. How constructive is it for you to bombard us with random baseless assertions and expecting us to respond to them calmly? Who's being unconstructive here?

And then you have the balls to get insulted? Bah, it's shameful.

My position doesn't rely on science. As a matter of fact it warns against dishonest interpretations of scientific data. It's like lucy for example. Science made claims about lucy that were later found to be false. How many more evolutionary claims are false, but held as true in the present?

 

[Noaidi]

My belief in God has little to do with creation versus evolution. There are other things that point to a higher being. Things like an objective moral law is the strongest argument. That would be for another thread though.

You didn't address the fact that the view proposed by an ancient race, is at odds with what we currently know.

 

[Danmac]

And why can't this mean "all things evolve into separate branches (family, genus, species)"?

Because the Bible says man was created in God's image. Evidently God is not a mere animal.

 

[Noaidi]

The bible tells us that humans were created as the highest life form. It tells us that humans should have dominion over all other forms of life. We do. quote]

Yes, this is a topic for another thread, but it shows an astounding human arrogance. Step back and look at what we, the 'pinnacle of creation', have done in our endeavour to dominate other life-forms. That alone should tell you that we are 'special', but for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Danmac]

But what do YOU think? You can tell me what the bible says, but what does Danmac think? The first lesson of any science class should be "don't blindly accept what your teacher tells you. Find out for yourself".

The Bible is the foundation of my beliefs. I have adopted the bible as truth. The Bible is absolute truth. I am a man and subject to error. All knowlege is always borrowed from another source. I prefer to go to the source.

Regarding the 'kinds' of organisms idea, I think that was discussed earlier and the biblical view of 'kinds' is so at odds with what we, today, think of as 'kinds' of organisms that it's not worth bothering about . Don't forget, the bible was written by Bronze Age tribesmen with no knowledge of genomes, taxonomy or cladistics. The biblical view is so vague as to be meaningless. To accept their view of the biological world in 2010 does no-one any favours.

The Bible was Spiritually inspired as this verse declares.
2nd Peter1:21 For no prophecy was ever brought by the will of man; but moved by the Holy Spirit, men spoke for God.

 

[Danmac]

You didn't address the fact that the view proposed by an ancient race, is at odds with what we currently know.

Is it possible that an intelligent being used theistic evolution as a vehicle to bring about all creatures in individual kinds?

 

[Noaidi]

The Bible is the foundation of my beliefs. I have adopted the bible as truth. The Bible is absolute truth. I am a man and subject to error. All knowlege is always borrowed from another source. I prefer to go to the source.

The Bible was Spiritually inspired as this verse declares.
2nd Peter1:21 For no prophecy was ever brought by the will of man; but moved by the Holy Spirit, men spoke for God.

Danmac
I wish you well. I'm bowing out of this now.If the final word for any argument is "Goddidit", then I'm out of here.

 

[Danmac]

The bible tells us that humans were created as the highest life form. It tells us that humans should have dominion over all other forms of life. We do. quote]

Yes, this is a topic for another thread, but it shows an astounding human arrogance. Step back and look at what we, the 'pinnacle of creation', have done in our endeavour to dominate other life-forms. That alone should tell you that we are 'special', but for all the wrong reasons.

Not to get off topic, but humans have an evil bent from birth. That is why we need to be infused with the positive energy of our creator. So that we can overcome our self driven nature. After all, natural selection is a selfish process. Survival of the fit enough.

 

[Noaidi]

As I said, Danmac, I'll leave it there. Thanks for your responses to my questions.

 

[Danmac]

As I said, Danmac, I'll leave it there. Thanks for your responses to my questions.

Thanks for the civil exchange.