I guess this is the current state of creationism

[Kenny]

So, are you saying you admit that there is no evidence for creationism apart from these things?

No, I am saying your post shows no real desire to discuss something. My time is limited so I general address those that have greater import.

 

[Kenny]

Then you haven't looked over the evidence. Germs becoming treatment resistant is a pretty big thing it has.

I don't think that is the issue. A germ becoming resistant is micro evolution and I don't know any creationist that has a problem with that. A germ becoming a virus is macro and I think that is where most creationists have a problem.

 

[Jose Fly]

By your answers, I guess you just left me out in left field as to exactly what you were trying to say in the first place..

That in my lifetime, creationists have gone from teaching the Bible outright in schools, to teaching creationism as a science, to trying to sneak it in under "ID", to now merely arguing from an assumption of contrived dualism.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't think that is the issue. A germ becoming resistant is micro evolution and I don't know any creationist that has a problem with that. A germ becoming a virus is macro and I think that is where most creationists have a problem.

No one has ever suggested that a "germ" became a virus. Please learn a little basic biology.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution has nothing. All it has its its interpretation of the fossil record (which is far from conclusive) And biology can be made to fit the theory too if you are creative enough.



You mean that humans had no ability to theorize before science commandeered the word and gave it a completely different meaning?

According to an online thesaurus.....THEORY means......noun hypothesis, belief.

Here are some of the synonyms....

• argument
• assumption
• concept
• doctrine
• idea
• ideology
• philosophy
• plan
• position
• premise
• proposal
• speculation
• suspicion
• thesis
• understanding
• conjecture
• dogma
• feeling
• guess
• guesswork
• hunch
• impression
• presumption
• supposition
• surmise

I found great synonyms for "theory" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I think we get the meaning of a "theory". It doesn't come anywhere near a fact.



To understand the procedure for having leprosy declared by a priest as "cured", would involve knowledge of what the blood offered in the sacrifice actually symbolized. Most of what the Israelites did in performing their sacrifices had a very deep meaning.

 

[Looncall]

I don't think that is the issue. A germ becoming resistant is micro evolution and I don't know any creationist that has a problem with that. A germ becoming a virus is macro and I think that is where most creationists have a problem.

I don't understand the creationist bugaboo about macro evolution. No-one claims organisms hop between lineages. The species hierarchy is nested, after all.

Humans are obviously a variation on apes which are a variation on earlier forms, and so on back. Sometimes lineages branch for various reasons and the branches then remain separate. Where's the problem?

I recommend Neil Shubin's fun book "Your Inner Fish". It might help you escape the confusion you have been conned into accepting.

 

[Kenny]

No one has ever suggested that a "germ" became a virus. Please learn a little basic biology.

This isn't an answer and certainly didn't address my point. Please learn a little on basic reading comprehension.

 

[Kenny]

It might help you escape the confusion you have been conned into accepting.

This is what I mean that there isn't a real discussion.

I could equally say you have been brainwashed and should read some books too. You almost have me convinced that you are a monkey's uncle after all.

 

[Sapiens]

This isn't an answer and certainly didn't address my point. Please learn a little on basic reading comprehension.

I guess confusion, mindless offense and no defense is the current state of creationism.

I answered your malformed question as best it may be answered considering its inhearent defects.

I addressed as much of a point as you made, even going above and beyond to give you the benefit of the doubt.

My reading comprehension is demonstrably fine, yours, however (e.g., "Please learn a little on basic reading comprehension.") features multiple malformations, so let's add Bonehead English to that Biology for Non-science Majors class.

Your biological knowledge is demonstrably lacking.

 

[Deeje]

Then you haven't looked over the evidence. Germs becoming treatment resistant is a pretty big thing it has.

The last time I looked, the germs were all still germs. What those germs did is called "adaptation" for a very good reason, it was a simple change in the cell structure to adapt to a changed environment......that is not the kind evolution that leads to amoebas to become dinosaurs.
Adaptation does not necessarily lead to macro-evolution except in the fertile imaginations of science.

No, scientifically a theory is a process, a system, something with evidence to back it up. Non-scientists, taking a more liberal use of the word, have taken it and made it mean something else. But that is the nature of language.

And therein lies the problem. What "evidence" are we really talking about here? Scientists bent on propping up their theory will interpret evidence as they want to support their pet theory. If you have to say "might have" or "could have" or "this leads us to the conclusion that..." then that is not the language of fact...that is the language of supposition. This is all I have ever seen when scientists present their "evidence". Teach it as a theory by all means, but lets not pretend that it is backed up by facts.

It is absolutely extremely stupid and ungodly unsanitary to have bird's blood (or any blood) slung around. All such a ritual proves is those who wrote the book had no idea about blood born pathogens, and apparently neither did god or he would have included such an important thing to be aware of.

I didn't know that God had to consult you before making his requirements known to his worshippers. But, in case you haven't noticed, we don't have to sacrifice birds or splatter blood anywhere anymore. That was in the ancient past and served a rather primitive people in a symbolic way. Pathogens certainly can be transmitted through blood, which is a good reason to avoid blood transfusions. Getting a bit of blood on your hands or your clothing is easily washed off, but getting it inside your body is whole different ball game, which is why there was a prohibition in Israelite Law on consuming it. It was repeated for Christians.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Teach it as a theory by all means, but lets not pretend that it is backed up by facts.

A scientific theory is backed up by facts.

That was in the ancient past and served a rather primitive people in a symbolic way.

As dangerous and unclean (and Jewish law is very concerned about that which is clean and unclean) as such a thing is, god should have said "what a minute now, you really don't want to be doing that." But, instead, nothing.

 

[Deeje]

A scientific theory is backed up by facts.

No no no.....what science has is "evidence" that is interpreted to support their theory. There are no facts because the evolutionists here have told me that.

As dangerous and unclean (and Jewish law is very concerned about that which is clean and unclean) as such a thing is, god should have said "what a minute now, you really don't want to be doing that." But, instead, nothing.

You do understand that it was God who required the sacrifice in the first place, so I don't believe that he would put their lives in danger just to comply with his request. As I mentioned, the sacrifices had a very deep spiritual meaning and were meant to keep them mindful of their shortcomings and the need to keep on their toes.

 

[Looncall]

This is what I mean that there isn't a real discussion.

I could equally say you have been brainwashed and should read some books too. You almost have me convinced that you are a monkey's uncle after all.

Dodge noted. Typical of a hapless victim of a vicious scam.

 

[leibowde84]

No, I am saying your post shows no real desire to discuss something. My time is limited so I general address those that have greater import.

If you have evidence apart from what I noted, can you share it?

 

[Kenny]

But there really isn't a shred of evidence that suggests there's some sort of magical wall that stops the process.

Most of those that have a problem with this do so out of a literalistic interpretation of the creation accounts that really don't fit into what the scientific evidence shows in multiple areas. And these accounts appear to be "borrowed" from a rather lengthy Babylonian epic that predates the writing of Genesis by around a thousand years, but we took it and significantly edited it to reflect Jewish folkways and mores. A tablet of this Babylonian epic has been discovered in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis, so we know the early Jews were familiar with these narratives.

As you well know, the importance of these accounts (and most others, imo) are not so much whether they're historically accurate but more along the line of what morals and values do they teach that could be usable today. At least that's my take.

Anyhow, gonna be gone for a few days because we're moving from out place in da U.P. to da one near Detroit. See ya then, so take care.

I'm fine with not having a literal 6 day interpretation. Even scientifically, if God is light, time is irrelevant as we judge time today. So a God day is not necessarily a human day. I wasn't there, of course, although I know you have the best possibility of speaking on the basis of your age.

Whether the Jews "borrowed" or not is too unsupportable IMO. Was it borrowed or did they have an original story that morphed as times past? Did one have the original and the other had a changed one? Too complicated. IMV.

I find it difficult to really have an intelligent conversation on creation where one's thoughts can be expressed on a blog like this. Too many people are more interested in trying to make the best of put downs without really discussing or giving grace for the different viewpoints. Will miss the possibility of dialogue with you on this subject

 

[Sapiens]

I'm fine with not having a literal 6 day interpretation. Even scientifically, if God is light, time is irrelevant as we judge time today.

... and if my grandmother only had two wheels she'd be a bicycle, but she doesn't, so she isn't ... same for your "god."

So a God day is not necessarily a human day. I wasn't there, of course, although I know you have the best possibility of speaking on the basis of your age.

That is the result of a fractured and corrupt syllogism.

Whether the Jews "borrowed" or not is too unsupportable IMO. Was it borrowed or did they have an original story that morphed as times past? Did one have the original and the other had a changed one? Too complicated. IMV.

Greatly simplified and uncomplicated when you see it in the proper light, analogy and fable.

I find it difficult to really have an intelligent conversation on creation where one's thoughts can be expressed on a blog like this. Too many people are more interested in trying to make the best of put downs without really discussing or giving grace for the different viewpoints.

You are confusing tolerance of muddle headed thinking with "giving grace for different viewpoints." When you have something more sophisticated and more fully thought through please present it, but is should be of high enough quality that it need not be supported by whines when rigorously criticised.

 

[Kenny]

... and if my grandmother only had two wheels she'd be a bicycle, but she doesn't, so she isn't ... same for your "god."
That is the result of a fractured and corrupt syllogism.
Greatly simplified and uncomplicated when you see it in the proper light, analogy and fable.
You are confusing tolerance of muddle headed thinking with "giving grace for different viewpoints." When you have something more sophisticated and more fully thought through please present it, but is should be of high enough quality that it need not be supported by whines when rigorously criticised.

Thank you for a BEAUTIFUL example of what I meant.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The only people who deny overarching scientific conclusions are people who have a vested interest in doing so. They make no sound arguments and can offer no worthwhile evidence for their miraculous position.

Why we even have these conversations is really beyond me... although I do admit that I thoroughly enjoy listening to all the mental hoola-hooping that occurs.

 

[Sapiens]

Thank you for a BEAUTIFUL example of what I meant.

Like this?

Dodge noted. Typical of a hapless victim of a vicious scam.

... and this?

If you have evidence apart from what I noted, can you share it?

... and this?

... and if my grandmother only had two wheels she'd be a bicycle, but she doesn't, so she isn't ... same for your "god."
That is the result of a fractured and corrupt syllogism.
Greatly simplified and uncomplicated when you see it in the proper light, analogy and fable.
You are confusing tolerance of muddle headed thinking with "giving grace for different viewpoints." When you have something more sophisticated and more fully thought through please present it, but is should be of high enough quality that it need not be supported by whines when rigorously criticised.

... and this?

The only people who deny overarching scientific conclusions are people who have a vested interest in doing so. They make no sound arguments and can offer no worthwhile evidence for their miraculous position.

Why we even have these conversations is really beyond me... although, I do admit that I thoroughly enjoy listening to all the mental hoola-hooping that occurs.

Thank you for a BEAUTIFUL example of what I meant.

These are all beautiful examples of you meant? No, they are effective and honest critiques of your massive faceplants. That's all you've got? If so, you're not even playing in the minors yet. This is the current state of creationism, eh?

You are advancing discredited hogwash and complaining that you don't get the respect you think you deserve based on the misapprehension that we are standing in equal positions on a level playing field, but that is demonstrably false. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not to your own facts and the accepted facts trump your beliefs.

 

[metis]

I wasn't there, of course, although I know you have the best possibility of speaking on the basis of your age.

Not "age"-- "maturity"!

Whether the Jews "borrowed" or not is too unsupportable IMO. Was it borrowed or did they have an original story that morphed as times past? Did one have the original and the other had a changed one? Too complicated. IMV.

I listened to a seminar whereas the main speaker was a Jewish theologian who is heavily involved with the archaeology on this, and he spent about an hour going through the comparison between the two. It clearly shows the parallels but also the differences, and it's likely that we did what all cultures do, namely take the narratives of others and rework them to fit our own teachings. If you want to see a more recent example, look up "Santa Claus" at Wikipedia and see how he's changed over the last several centuries.

We also see a parallel with the Flood accounts and the Gilgamesh narrative. But, ether way, the importance of both the Creation and Flood accounts really isn't "Did these really happen?" but "What are the lessons in regards to moral and values to be learned?". Even if these events did happen as written, that's really no where near as important as the morals and values taught.

Too many people are more interested in trying to make the best of put downs without really discussing or giving grace for the different viewpoints.

I hear ya.

Will miss the possibility of dialogue with you on this subject

Well, since my posts are golden, no "dialogue" is really necessary, right?