The Irony of Creationist belief

[Tomef]

I do not think so.
When we say that an Egyptian pharaoh made the pyramids, we mean that he commanded them to be made while the engineers and the workers built it following the command.
This is the same sense of God creating that is used here. God explicitly commands earth to bring forth vegetation and the waters to bring forth the creatures. Later this is called God creating these things...in the same we say pharaoh built the pyramids.

Perhaps, but the phrasing is jumbled up, the progression isn’t linear. Later in the text it also details god specifically creating humans from dirt. For sure in any case the writers weren’t thinking in evolutionary terms.

 

[Audie]

The Creationists are requested to
1) Please furnish a videographic evidence of a new species coming from thin air (or from rocks...whatever). Since, apparently, new species are not created through modification of existing populations over time, they must be arising from thin air. Please present videographic evidence of the same. Surely God can make at least one little new species from air upon request? No?
2) Explain the following set of verses from the Bible that clearly states that life emerged from nature/earth and diversified into many kinds in accordance with the will of God (no mention of God creating anything). Genesis 1
Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

Notice that God is doing nothing himself. The natural systems (earth, water and air) are creating the creatures in accordance with the will of God. And the creatures themselves are multiplying and diversifying within their kinds (clades) by their own potential in accordance to the will and blessing of God.
And this process is defined as "God creating“ the living things.

This in Genesis 2, when God is said to create the humans and animals ..this is the methodology that is being alluded to.

There is nothing described here that is fundamentally at odds with the abiogenesis and evolutionary processes that are described by scientists as the manner in with the natural elements of the earth brought forth life and how life then diversified by its own nature. Bible merely adds that these capabilities come to the natural world through the will and blessing of God.

So .....what is the problem again Creationists???

They wont tell you so I will.

It's ignorance and / or intellectual dishonesty

 

[Audie]

We do, huh? You should have told
Stephen Jay Gould.

He wrote: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

Excerpt from:
Evolution’s Erratic Pace - "Natural History," May, 1977

Stop with inaccurate statements.

" stop with inaccurate statements" from you
transcendent normal ideas of irony.

If you accept SJG at his word then you
accept that transitional species do exist.

Even though ypu deny it.

 

[Audie]

Nope, sorry. If anything, it’s gotten worse….

Stasis is the name of the game.

And no one can show with certainty any fossil had offspring.

Whenever the fossil record is argued for evolutionary support, the excuse always comes down to, “Well, the fossil record is imperfect.”
(It’s more complete than you think.)

Back in 1977, and now in 2024.

" ...any fossil had offspring"

I can say with certainty that none did.

But to continue with your droll concept,
there are many species known only from a single
framentary specimen.
This raises the entirely sane and credible
doubt that the species was ever a complete organism.
Further doubts are whether it had parents, or siblings.

 

[Audie]

The main problem with the current version of the theory of evolution, it this current version still uses the same math as gambling casinos, where the House always wins. The irony is gambling casino math is supposed to be random, so how can the house always win? Does anyone see the irony and the cheat? Like the weather man, who uses the same math, there is no science accountability. The house still wins and he is never fired for being wrong.

It is well established that some aspects of the DNA are very conservative and rarely change; foundational.There are also other aspects of the DNA that are more pliable and active and much more subject to change. The black box random approach is dealing from the bottom of the deck. How can you claim random assumptions when half the cards are not being dealt by nature? Is this cheat how house of evolution always wins? Nature and evolution does not use all 52 cards in the DNA deck, so why assume that random rules of a full deck of legitimate cards apply? Nature, loading the genetic dice, is a key part of the evolutionary dynamics.

How does nature play poker with its purposely marked cards? This would need a modified random model that can accommodate logic loads, that reduce the randomness, toward sure things. DNA evolved very close to that.

Since you cannot ethically use a purely random approach for evolution; no more cheating, what is the foundational logic behind the current science theory and can it, alone, make predictions without dealing from the bottom of the deck? The answer is no. Creationist have a valid concern, based on the saying that house always wins; by cheating. Use your theory, with the cheat, to predict an evolutionary event, in the future, dealing from the bottom of the deck. You cannot just alway win, like the Casino House, without having to try the test and have consequences if your theory is wrong. No more crooked nose free ride.



Don't get me wrong. I believe in the spirit of evolution; change and natural selection. Challenging the legitimacy of casino math does not make me anti-science. Casino math cheating, without accountability, makes you anti-science.

I believe there needs to be a rational explanation and not just casino loaded slot machines, treated as legitimate. The answer, to me, is connected to water. Evolution is a function of the cellular water, as the water continuum, within cells and life, advances to higher entropic states. The second law states that the entropy of universe has to increase. This is the foundation of evolution. Evolution also move forward with the entropy changes in the environment around it; entropic selective pressure.

Energy is conserved, so evolution is not about energy or else life would stop evolving; conserve energy. But since entropy has to increase; higher and higher complexity, life follows suit and evolves.

Unlike a rock, which is frozen within its fixed entropic state, and only changes slowly with time, often by water, life is in a constant dynamic state, where entropy is always increasing. This is mostly done through metabolism, which converts larger molecules into smaller gases and water.

Neurons are the cells of the body that take metabolism to the extreme. The extreme entropy increase, connected to neurons have a connection to consciousness. From the entropy increase of cellular metabolism, there is entropy increasing cascade all the way to the DNA and also throughout the brain, into consciousness, with water the integrating variable.

We don't get you wrong. It's you getting most everything wrong.

 

[Pogo]

The main problem with the current version of the theory of evolution, it this current version still uses the same math as gambling casinos, where the House always wins. The irony is gambling casino math is supposed to be random, so how can the house always win? Does anyone see the irony and the cheat? Like the weather man, who uses the same math, there is no science accountability. The house still wins and he is never fired for being wrong.

It is well established that some aspects of the DNA are very conservative and rarely change; foundational.There are also other aspects of the DNA that are more pliable and active and much more subject to change. The black box random approach is dealing from the bottom of the deck. How can you claim random assumptions when half the cards are not being dealt by nature? Is this cheat how house of evolution always wins? Nature and evolution does not use all 52 cards in the DNA deck, so why assume that random rules of a full deck of legitimate cards apply? Nature, loading the genetic dice, is a key part of the evolutionary dynamics.

How does nature play poker with its purposely marked cards? This would need a modified random model that can accommodate logic loads, that reduce the randomness, toward sure things. DNA evolved very close to that.

Since you cannot ethically use a purely random approach for evolution; no more cheating, what is the foundational logic behind the current science theory and can it, alone, make predictions without dealing from the bottom of the deck? The answer is no. Creationist have a valid concern, based on the saying that house always wins; by cheating. Use your theory, with the cheat, to predict an evolutionary event, in the future, dealing from the bottom of the deck. You cannot just alway win, like the Casino House, without having to try the test and have consequences if your theory is wrong. No more crooked nose free ride.



Don't get me wrong. I believe in the spirit of evolution; change and natural selection. Challenging the legitimacy of casino math does not make me anti-science. Casino math cheating, without accountability, makes you anti-science.

I believe there needs to be a rational explanation and not just casino loaded slot machines, treated as legitimate. The answer, to me, is connected to water. Evolution is a function of the cellular water, as the water continuum, within cells and life, advances to higher entropic states. The second law states that the entropy of universe has to increase. This is the foundation of evolution. Evolution also move forward with the entropy changes in the environment around it; entropic selective pressure.

Energy is conserved, so evolution is not about energy or else life would stop evolving; conserve energy. But since entropy has to increase; higher and higher complexity, life follows suit and evolves.

Unlike a rock, which is frozen within its fixed entropic state, and only changes slowly with time, often by water, life is in a constant dynamic state, where entropy is always increasing. This is mostly done through metabolism, which converts larger molecules into smaller gases and water.

Neurons are the cells of the body that take metabolism to the extreme. The extreme entropy increase, connected to neurons have a connection to consciousness. From the entropy increase of cellular metabolism, there is entropy increasing cascade all the way to the DNA and also throughout the brain, into consciousness, with water the integrating variable.

Thermodynamic Fail, Entropy stays the same or decreases in living things until death at which point it begins to increase.
Whatever math you think you are talking about is wrong too though Monte Carlo simulations are used in biology as well as other sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We do, huh? You should have told
Stephen Jay Gould.

He wrote: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

Excerpt from:
Evolution’s Erratic Pace - "Natural History," May, 1977

Stop with inaccurate statements.

That was almost 50 years ago. Do you know what happened since?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thermodynamic Fail, Entropy stays the same or decreases in living things until death at which point it begins to increase.
Whatever math you think you are talking about is wrong too though Monte Carlo simulations are used in biology as well as other sciences.

You just reminded me of Sanford and his Genetic Entropy:

No, no, no. Not that Sanford. John C, Sanford. I forgot how many aeons ago he came up with his "genetic entropy" nonsense. It was largely dismissed by scientists as being pseudoscience, but creationists would still say "That has never been refuted." Well they cannot say that any longer. A pair of biologists got tired of hearing about it and took the pains to writ a peer reviewed refutation of Sanford's work. The link is to the abstract. I am trying to hunt down a free copy of the paper. I facebooked a request to one of the authors, but he probably got a bunch of creationist flack and may have ignored my request:

Back to the fundamentals: a reply to Basener and Sanford 2018 - Journal of Mathematical Biology

Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection has haunted theoretical population genetic literature since it was proposed in 1930, leading to numerous interpretations. Most of the confusion stemmed from Fisher’s own obscure presentation. By the 1970s, a clearer view of Fisher’s theorem had...

link.springer.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

We don't get you wrong. It's you getting most everything wrong.

There is so much wrong with almost all of his posts that I simply do not bother. I asked him politely to go over a point at a time, but he seems to know that his errors will be pointed out one at a time that way.

 

[Audie]

Thermodynamic Fail, Entropy stays the same or decreases in living things until death at which point it begins to increase.
Whatever math you think you are talking about is wrong too though Monte Carlo simulations are used in biology as well as other sciences.

I only read till the first whopper

 

[Audie]

There is so much wrong with almost all of his posts that I simply do not bother. I asked him politely to go over a point at a time, but he seems to know that his errors will be pointed out one at a time that way.

Gish

 

[AdamjEdgar]

have rebutted this exact point in my post. It is clearly written that God says "let the earth make this" or "let the waters make this" and that is done by the earth and the water. God says "let living things do X" and they do X. In each case the creation itself does the action while the action is willed by God. This is what is shorthanded as God creating.
Your attempt to omit those verses in the middle is very instructive and reveals more about you than Gen1.

Honestly, your statement is one of stupidity...the text overwhelming states over and over again. GOD MADE, GOD CREATED, GOD SET...

One significant problem with your claim is God setting the stars in the expanse...this has nothing to do with the earth doing anything.

You are wrong, the text makes it clear you are wrong...time to move on.

 

[Димитар]

It would be nice if people kept up with the times.

This is correct
What we don't know may be true

Science hasn't gone stagnant past the mid to late seventies. It was true then, but not now.

Yes , we knew something then , we know a little bit more now , and we will know more in the future.
Time is with science however.

Same as for those who will practice science in the future.They will say the same for those who practice science now.

That is why no theory is ever been proven.
What is there to note is progress.

A lot has been discovered since the mid to late 70s including as @sayak83 put it, transitional fossils in spades.

The only critic on the OP is this :

There is nothing described here that is fundamentally at odds with the abiogenesis and evolutionary processes that are described by scientists as the manner in with the natural elements of the earth brought forth life and how life then diversified by its own nature. Bible merely adds that these capabilities come to the natural world through the will and blessing of God.

God and abiogenesis are not compatible ..
At least not in the most fundemental sense as it is said in the OP.

We have from one side
'In the begining God created the heavens and the earth'

And from the other side
'life from non-life'

Fundementally they are oposites as many would agree.

Non-Christian may disagree if question like 'What is God' may appear.
However i see the main point about Evolution to be valid.

We only know of certain type of language that dates the earth to certain time.

For example - the Pig painting in cave 50 000 years old demonstrates how the first human species tried to visualize consciousness.

One should take not of how accurate is the dating method.

Dating Rock Art, How Old Is It? » Ancient Art Archive

How do you date cave and rock art? Dating rock art is maddeningly hard. These are the three methods scientists use C14, UT, Luminescence

www.ancientartarchive.org

This makes Young-Earth creationist idea automatically false.It's more probable that human species did that then anything else(and if it is otherwise still Young-Earth idea is false)

It is still dated to 50 000 years.

Reagrsless of that , ignorance will never accept otherwise.

I speak only from Christian perspective , other belivers may say otheewise.

 

[sayak83]

Honestly, your statement is one of stupidity...the text overwhelming states over and over again. GOD MADE, GOD CREATED, GOD SET...

One significant problem with your claim is God setting the stars in the expanse...this has nothing to do with the earth doing anything.

You are wrong, the text makes it clear you are wrong...time to move on.

What has the verses of about stars have to do with origin and diversification of life on earth?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

A lot has been discovered since the mid to late 70s including as @sayak83 put it, transitional fossils in spades.

Then you post:

Four Famous Transitional Fossils That Support Evolution​

Lol!

First you say, “…in spades”,
then you post an article that discusses … 4?!


You see a problem with that?

Just in case you don’t follow….

4 does not equal “in spades”!

As for one of them - archaeopteryx - has been known since the 1800’s! And Gould still said what he did.

The problem “persists” today.

Why do you think he & Eldredge came up with Punctuated Equilibrium?

Punctuated Equilibrium and Lack of Transitions | Evolution News

Why would Eldredge and Gould propose such a model? Because they knew the data showed that potential transitional fossils are an extreme rarity.

evolutionnews.org

 

[McBell]

Then you post:

Four Famous Transitional Fossils That Support Evolution​

Lol!

First you say, “…in spades”,
then you post an article that discusses … 4?!


You see a problem with that?

Just in case you don’t follow….

4 does not equal “in spades”!

As for one of them - archaeopteryx - has been known since the 1800’s! And Gould still said what he did.

Try actually reading the article:

Now, in 2015, paleontologists have discovered a myriad of fossils that could be considered intermediates, despite the fact that some very publicly still state these fossils don’t exist.​

 

[McBell]

Why do you think he & Eldredge came up with Punctuated Equilibrium?

Punctuated Equilibrium and Lack of Transitions | Evolution News

Why would Eldredge and Gould propose such a model? Because they knew the data showed that potential transitional fossils are an extreme rarity.

evolutionnews.org

In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.​

​

Once again I have to ask:

You do know this is the year 2024, right?​

Got anything from this decade to present?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.​

​

Once again I have to ask:

You do know this is the year 2024, right?​

Got anything from this decade to present?

What? Are you trying to claim that they found more fossils in the last 50 years? I thought that they found them all.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I keep seeing this thread go to the "new posts" lists, and I get all excited about seeing videographic evidence for new species coming from thin air, and I click on the thread.

I'm then dejected to see it's just more of the same futile arguing that exists in practically every other EvC thread.

I can no longer live on this emotional roller coaster. Someone PM me when someone actually posts this evidence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Then you post:

Four Famous Transitional Fossils That Support Evolution​

Lol!

First you say, “…in spades”,
then you post an article that discusses … 4?!


You see a problem with that?

Just in case you don’t follow….

4 does not equal “in spades”!

As for one of them - archaeopteryx - has been known since the 1800’s! And Gould still said what he did.

The problem “persists” today.

Why do you think he & Eldredge came up with Punctuated Equilibrium?

Punctuated Equilibrium and Lack of Transitions | Evolution News

Why would Eldredge and Gould propose such a model? Because they knew the data showed that potential transitional fossils are an extreme rarity.

evolutionnews.org

As @McBell advised, it would be good to read the article.