Finches named for Darwin are evolving

Associated Press ^ | 07/13/06

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I agree with you."

I am glad you agree you are evading your original point.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It is a p*ssing match when you refuse to move from point A to point B, and instead, continue in repeating something that's already been dealt with."

But it hadn't been dealt with. He says that point A is the same as point B.

"How so?"

Because saying the Bible is not literally true on all counts is not the same as saying a God doesn't exist.

"The God of the Bible says He wrote the Bible and that it is absolutely true."

Where does God say that?

"No, it would be saying whatever gods the majority of the world's population believes in are not the God of the Bible."

And not believing in the God of the Bible is not the same, at all, with not believing in a God. That being said, most people who accept evolution are also Christians.

"... would have similarly looked at Adam a minute after he was created, "discovered" him to have been a fully-grown adult, and overestimated his age."

Look, if you want to accept a literal Genesis, go ahead. But science, ALL of it, has moved passed that. Evolution was not the first science to do so.

[newgeezer]

Evolution is a conclusion drawn from observations of reality

... a "reality" as you think you understand it, shaped by certain underlying assumptions, which may explain why you totally ignored my example of Adam.

If something appears to be old, your version of "reality" says it is old. My version says it may very well be old, but only as long as it doesn't contradict the God of the Bible.

Regardless of whether you can bring yourself to admit it, we're both operating under certain sets of assumptions and, like it or not, yours are no more valid than mine.

[Dimensio]

... a "reality" as you think you understand it, shaped by certain underlying assumptions, which may explain why you totally ignored my example of Adam.

To what "assumptions" do you refer?

If something appears to be old, your version of "reality" says it is old.

For what logical reason should an object be assumed young when all indications suggest great age?

My version says it may very well be old, but only as long as it doesn't contradict the God of the Bible.

What is the basis for your conclusion?

[newgeezer]

He says that point A is the same as point B.

No, as I've pointed out too many times now, he qualified his earlier statement. Saying there is "no God" (his earlier statement) is not the same as denying the God of the Bible (his later one). Evolutionists may believe in some god of their own or someone else's making, but that god would not be the God of the Bible. I hope that is now finally clear.

Where does [the God of the Bible] say [He wrote the Bible and that it is absolutely true]?

In the Bible. Therefore, by definition, anyone who does not believe every word of the Bible, although he may believe in some god, does not believe in the God of the Bible. It's really very simple.

most people who accept evolution are also Christians.

They may claim to be Christians—and some of them may very well be Christians—but, merely claiming His name doesn't make them Christians. Lots of people who claim to be Christians are not. Jesus said so Himself... in the Bible.

if you want to accept a literal Genesis, go ahead. But science, ALL of it, has moved passed that.

Anyone who dismisses a literal Genesis denies the God of the Bible, based on a set of assumptions no more valid than mine.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No, as I've pointed out too many times now, he qualified his earlier statement."

By saying that it was the same thing. He said that denying the God of the Bible IS denying God. He made a distinction without a difference.

"In the Bible."

Where in the Bible?

"Therefore, by definition, anyone who does not believe every word of the Bible, although he may believe in some god, does not believe in the God of the Bible. It's really very simple."

Very simple, and very simplistic.

"They may claim to be Christians—and some of them may very well be Christians—but, merely claiming His name doesn't make them Christians. "

No true Christian.... blah blah blah. YOU don't get to decide who is a *real* Christian.

"Anyone who dismisses a literal Genesis denies the God of the Bible, based on a set of assumptions no more valid than mine."

You mean people like Augustine? :

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)

[newgeezer]

To what "assumptions" do you refer?

For starters, I'd guess one of your assumptions is that you are capable, based on nothing but your own observations, of determining absolute truth.

Thus, if something looks old to you (and to any number of like-minded individuals, some of them even more knowledgeable than yourself), it IS old. Your (and their) set of assumptions does not allow for the existence of a higher power who is capable of creating something that, at the moment of its creation, looks old. You might say you don't allow for that simply because you have no "evidence" of it.

For what logical reason should an object be assumed young when all indications suggest great age?

Simply because I do not accept the preposterous notion that human reasoning is infallible. That's because when I look around, I see clear evidence of a Creator. I am merely a creature in His creation and, given His ability to create it, I have no doubt He (not me) is the one with infallible logic and absolute truth.

[atlaw]

I don't believe it for a second and it can't be proven.

What "can't be proven?" That the book of Genesis says what it says and does not say what it does not say?

Nothing in Genesis describes the "how" of creation. Nothing in Genesis describes how "the earth" brought forth vegetation and "living creatures," or how "the waters" brought forth "the moving creature that hath life." Did God pat together a little dust figurine of man and kick start him with some static electricity? Where does Genesis deal with viruses and bacteria (do viruses and bacteria "creep"?), and nuclear fusion, and plate tectonics, and stem cells, and -- well, you get the point.

We know that God said "let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night." But the "lights in the firmament" aren't fixed in number or duration. How does the literalist square this passage with the ongoing processes of star formation and destruction?

You asked earlier why God needed millions and billions of years "to do a six day job?" You might as well ask why God needed six days to do the job (and, I suppose, whether He wore a hard hat and took lunch breaks).

How is it possible that God didn't know where Adam and Eve were in the Garden? What happened to the flaming sword and the tree of life? How does the knowledge of good and evil make man like one of "us", as God puts it?

And poor Noah. The "literalists" hang so many non-Biblical baubles on his story (vapor canopies, baby critters on the ark, etc.) that you're hard pressed to even recognize it when they're through.

You'd think with all the shenanigans the literalists engage in building their rickety, "literal" creation story, that maybe, just maybe, it would occur to them that Genesis is something other than a Reader's Digest "Build the Universe in Six Easy Steps" book.

And you'd think they'd take a moment as well to look up and study the world around them -- where God is telling us all about His creation in enormous detail.

[Dimensio]

For starters, I'd guess one of your assumptions is that you are capable, based on nothing but your own observations, of determining absolute truth.

Your guess is incorrect. I always acknowledge the possibility that my conclusions may be mistaken.

Thus, if something looks old to you (and to any number of like-minded individuals, some of them even more knowledgeable than yourself), it IS old.

This is not an accurate assessment. It is more correct to say that when multiple independent lines of evidence suggest great age, it is reasonable to conclude great age.

Your (and their) set of assumptions does not allow for the existence of a higher power who is capable of creating something that, at the moment of its creation, looks old.

Incorrect. There is no means to rule out such an entity. However, when no evidence exists for such an entity or for objects created with such age, it is more reasonable to conclude great age than to invent an entity who merely created the appearance of age.

Simply because I do not accept the preposterous notion that human reasoning is infallible.

Non-sequitur. I do not claim that human reasoning is infallable, but my conclusions are clearly different than yours.

That's because when I look around, I see clear evidence of a Creator

Please explain this evidence, and explain how it leads to the conclusion that objects with the appearance of great age were merely created with that appearance.

[newgeezer]

He made a distinction without a difference.

Yes, just as I said at the time, it's completely understandable if you and yours don't acknowledge the difference.

Where in the Bible?

It's in there. Would it really matter if I quoted chapter and verse? If you're truly interested, I'm sure you could find it faster than I could.

No true Christian.... blah blah blah. YOU don't get to decide who is a *real* Christian.

I don't, and never so much as implied I do. But, I know a lot of people love to get all "Judge not!" whenever the subject comes up. Rest assured, I know the Lord Jesus Christ will decide who is and who isn't, just like it says... in the Bible.

And, with all due respect, I couldn't care less what Augustine might have had to say about a literal interpretation of Genesis.

[newgeezer]

As always happens when I endeavor to discuss creation with "intellectuals" such as yourselves, I have reached that point where I have no interest in carrying the discussion any further.

If you feel the urge to declare victory, be my guest. I've no doubt my amateurish ramblings offered nothing to challenge your well-established views and your always-certain triumph.

[presently no screen name]

Merely asserting their existence does not actually demonstrate their existence.

You cannot see what you refuse to acknowledge even when it's staring you in the face.

I am curious as to why you make such an effort to ignore my questions.

Your curiosity will benefit your more if you search within and question why you make such an effort to ignore my answers. It must be a bummer being on the blinding road of denial when you can't see or grasp what others do.

[Dimensio]

You cannot see what you refuse to acknowledge even when it's staring you in the face.

You again have not answered my questions. You merely assume your conclusion, which is a logical fallacy. You also have repeatedly ignored my question regarding your assertion that there exist individuals who are attempting to "outdo" a God. Is this because your statement is false, and thus you have no means of supporting it with evidence?

[Dimensio]

As always happens when I endeavor to discuss creation with "intellectuals" such as yourselves, I have reached that point where I have no interest in carrying the discussion any further.

I am sorry that the exposure of your claims as falsehoods has led to you wishing to abandon the discussion. Perhaps your discussions would be more fruitful if you did not insist upon using strawman attacks on those who disagree with you.

[newgeezer]

I am sorry that the exposure of your claims as falsehoods

LOL (and feel free to read that literally)!

Likewise, I'm sure.

[Dimensio]

LOL (and feel free to read that literally)!

Why do you find it amusing that I pointed out that your "guesses" about my certainty of my claims was incorrect? You made several factually incorrect statements about me. I do not understand why you wish to cease discussions merely because I explained that your assumptions regarding how I interpret reality were incorrect.

Likewise, I'm sure.

What claims of mine did you expose as false?

[presently no screen name]

Is this because your statement is false, and thus you have no means of supporting it with evidence.

Not hardly - it is because YOU refuse to see it. Your denial is getting in your own way and you are unable to recognize truth.

It's a nice try, though unfruitful, blaming me that I'm NOT doing something. That's the typical reaction from those in denial. How could you even expect to see it? If your head is turned in the opposite direction, you can't see what's in front of you.

I have said it enough and you keep proving my point. You can't see what you will not acknowledge.

I'll let you be - as you continue your roller coaster ride. It's not the direction I'm going. I know the road of my destiny and it has all the answers.

[Dimensio]

Not hardly - it is because YOU refuse to see it. Your denial is getting in your own way and you are unable to recognize truth.

You have yet to explain who is attempting to "outdo" a God, nor have you explained how this is being done. It is you who are refusing to support your claim.

It's a nice try, though unfruitful, blaming me that I'm NOT doing something.

I am merely pointing out that you have made a number of assertions that, thus far, you have refused to support with evidence. In fact, you continually remove any mention of my question from your replies, suggesting that you are deliberately ignoring it. You stated that there exist people who are attempting to "outdo" God. Despite repeated requests, you have adamantly refused to support this claim by stating who these people are or how they are making this attempt. Repeatedly ignoring the fact that you have made an unsubstantiated assertion will not make your claims correct.

I have said it enough and you keep proving my point. You can't see what you will not acknowledge.

You are again engaging in the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion. Repeatedly asserting that you are correct does not actually demonstrate that you are correct and it is not honest for you to act as such.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yes, just as I said at the time, it's completely understandable if you and yours don't acknowledge the difference."

He said it was the same thing. Either contention was false anyway.

"It's in there"

I never heard of that Book.

"I don't, and never so much as implied I do."

Sure you did.

"But, I know a lot of people love to get all "Judge not!" whenever the subject comes up."

Good for them.

"And, with all due respect, I couldn't care less what Augustine might have had to say about a literal interpretation of Genesis."

No doubt.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"As always happens when I endeavor to discuss creation with "intellectuals" such as yourselves, I have reached that point where I have no interest in carrying the discussion any further."

I hope you aren't expecting anybody to be upset.

"If you feel the urge to declare victory, be my guest."

That goes without saying.

"I've no doubt my amateurish ramblings offered nothing to challenge your well-established views and your always-certain triumph."

True.