Is a Hippo a Pig or a Whale?

"Of course I can't speak for anyone else, but you are right about me -- I'm as dumb as they come. And you are obviously a genius, which I said in the beginning, but you keep trying to prove me wrong!"

Fortunately, if you really are 'as dumb as they come' then we can safely ignore any statements you make about me. Of course, my statement that you quoted was taken out of the context in which it was given and supports my conclusion that you really are what you confess to be.

That context was that you assume macro-evolution exists 'a priori' and then ask me to draw a line between macro and micro evolution. What you are so dense about is that you refuse to acknowledge that you assume macro-evolution 'a priori' and then ask me to define the difference between what is observed and what is assumed 'a priori'.

As I have explained twice already now, this is akin to me asking you to point to a biological system than cannot have been intelligently-designed in 6 days 6,000 years ago without appealing to the fallacy of appeal to perfection. You have not done so yet and cannot do so.

"Macro-evolution is nothing more than the sum of micro-evolutionary processes over long periods of time. That's it."

First, you assume that long periods of unobserved time actually exist. Then you assume that there us a 'product' of micro-evolutionary 'processes' that will accumulate in some 'direction' (i.e., that macro-evolution is teleological, something that all scientists deny) rather than simply varying around the original starting point or gradually declining. Neither of these assumptions can be shown to be true, but are implicit in your 'a priori' assumption.

"So which part of that, exactly, do you object to? In other words, where, in your mind, does micro-evolution stop and macro-evolution begin?"

So which biological-system, exactly, do you think cannot have been intelligently-designed in 6 days about 6,000 years ago (without appealing to the fallacy of appeal to perfection)? Where exactly, in your mind, was God limited in what he could do in 6 days 6,000 years ago and was forced to rely on 'accumulated micro-evolutionary changes'?

"Just so we're clear about this, like most Christians, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and "mainline" Protestants, I believe in something called "Theistic Evolution," meaning God created everything -- scientific and non-scientific, micro and macro, short-term and long-term, whatever."

Well, you have a problem then because you define evolution as being teleological and science says it is not. This is not something that you can gloss over with a simple 'whatever'. It is the crux of the issue. Which is it? Is science correct and evolution non-teleological or did God create life? And if God created life, why does he create a process that man says is non-teleological to achieve his purpose?

"Whether He did it all in six days or six billion years is more-or-less irrelevant, except that science tells us the evidence points towards older dates. And that's fine with me."

This just shows that you don't understand the issue. It is absolutely relevant whether or not God did it all in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. If he did, then you are wrong and all of your appeal to unobserved macro-evolution is what is irrelevant, whether it is fine w/ you or not. So again I ask you, which biological-system, exactly, cannot have been the result of intelligent-design by God in 6 days about 6,000 years ago (without invoking the fallacy of appeal to perfection).

"So my direct & clear answer to your question is: imho, ALL biological systems were "intelligently designed" by God through processes that science describes with the word "evolution.""

Here again, you must assume that macro-evolution is true 'a priori' and that God cannot have created biological-systems in basically their present form in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. That God used 'evolution' is still an assumption that is impossible to prove and not only relevant but the entire crux of the issue.

"What's your problem with that?"

What's your problem with naming a biological-system that cannot have been created by God in 6 days about 6,000 years ago (without invoking the fallacy of appeal to perfection). Since this is simply the opposite of what you would require of me, if you cannot do that, you have no standing to require anything of me.

"We need to note again that most Christian denominations accept the idea of theistic evolution. So people who post here in opposition to anti-evolutionists, are not necessarily anti-Christian."

We need to note again the appeal to the fallacy of popular opinion.

So people who post here in support of evolution, while claiming Christ, must necessarily adopt the same fallacious lines of thought and place a higher value on the opinions of unbelievers to support their position.

My understanding (which lacks personal experience) is that the answer is “yes.” Folks like Egyptians used to harpoon hippos for BBQing...

[[”Ignorant”? Do you want to find the post and quote where I said ID is “ignorant”? I wonder if you mistake me for someone else?]]

‘Said’ ignorant? Nowhere- insinuated? I beleive it was you- if not- then my apologies. Not goign ot go back through the posts to find them- mighta been someone else-

[[I think I’ve been pretty consistent here, asking over and over the same question: where exactly, precisely do you draw the line between micro and macro evolution. So far, I’ve seen a lot of beat-around-the-bush type words, and more than a few insults, but no straight forward answers. ]]

There was no beating aroudn hte bush- your quesiton has been answered precisely, and in full several times- my last posts have also been free of insults- unless you concider my comment about a ‘blind spot’ an insult? I assure you it was not meant that way- It is apaprent there is a blind spot if you aren’t seeing hte difference between the two processes. Unless you’re just not willing to cede the difference- then I’d have to state thast it’s stubborness or a commitment to the a priori belief in macroevolution,

I can see why people htink microevo can lead to macro- however, this comes from a misunderstanding of the biological differnces between the two- micro can not ‘invent’ or ‘create’ macro- there are several reasons for htis- but perhaps hte most important is the issue of metainformaiton- I think I linked you to the FR thread on metainfo- which explains in full why species can not megaevolve- the isntrucitons simpyl are not there to do so, and simply modifying the species specific info that is already present can not result in the higher metainfo NEEDED in order to conduct the hwole orchestra

[[Your spelling mistakes make you look ignorant.]]

Too bad- I’m secure enough in my own intelligence to not care one whit-

[[So, if you are going to put ANY effort into these posts, why not take the time to do it right?]]

Because I simply don’t care- comprende? As I explained0- I’m busy, I write fast- and not goign to take hte time to be anal about spelling- My speklling mistakes are NOT from ignorance- they are from neurological problem and sloppy fingers- so insult away with your claims of ignorance- I really don’t care- as I mentioend- I know hwere I stand IQ-wise- and As I mentioend, I’ll compare IQ tests anyday you like

[[Indeed, here’s your basic problem: you spend way way too much time typing too many words. You should eliminate about 80% of those words, then focus focus focus your attention on getting the few words you write just right.]]

I left school many many years ago- I don;’t need a lecture on how to conduct my life now- IF you’re goign to obsess over my posts, lemme know now- so we can cut htis conversation short- I am who I am, I type how I type- IF that doesn’t sit well with you- then move on

[[Here, finally, you mention something about “new genes.” Is that it? Are “New genes” all that make the difference between micro and macro?]]

That is what has been stated right along- the fact that you have not been getting htis message just reaffirms my comment that you apparently have a blind spot- or were misunderstanding what was beign said- I tried to make it clear right fro mthe start that the two processes were compeltely different processes biologically, and made it clear that sijmple manipulation of info ALREADY PRESENT could not result in thge necessary NEW non species specific info NEEDED for macroevolution-

[[But, if ever a “new gene” appears, that would be “macro-evolution” and is forbidden by the laws of Intelligent Design Creation Science, right?]]

Forbideen by ID? Nope- Dop we see it happen in nature to the extent that it creates new structures not specific to a species? Nope- Bacteria apparently laterally transfere genetic material between their OWN KIND- and this would be an example of minor ‘New’ infromation being added- however- the problem here for macroevolution is that bacteria are precoded to accept this transfer and utilize the info, AND, they remain bacterai- always have- they are NOT receiving non species specific info-

This transfere however does not happen between dissimilar kinds- but apparently we’re to beleive it did, at ‘sometime in the past’ trillions of itmes (By the way- Macroevolution is dropping hte NS + Mutation + long periods of time, and have moved to lateral gene transference as the supposed process of macroevolution- just htought you shoudl know that- lateral gene transference is their only last hope- but is also wrouight with problems- mainly, once again, species specific info designed tokeep species fit, and to prevent pushing beyond the species specific ceilings- which as we’ve discovered, when breeched, degrade hte species- it does NOT advance hte species forward beyond it’s own kind as claimed by macroevolutionsits).

[[And just how, precisely, do you define the term “new gene”?]]

Non species specific- can’t be more specific than that- MICROEvolution deals with species specific info within species specific parameters- The hypothesised process of macro involves non species specific info that violate species specific parameters/cielings. Macroevos attempt to conflate symbiotic parasitic invasions to ‘new genetic info’ however, this is intellectually dishonest, and IF examiend objectively, one quickly learns it is NOT ‘new’ but nothign more than a parasitic symbiotic relationship to which the species must adapt-

Macroevos have also dissingeniously tried to show that bacteria adapting to nylonase as being ‘new’ info but after close examination, the lie is once again exposed, and it is shown that these bacteria had always had the ability to digest the strucure in nylon- Macroevos tried to make it appear that the bacteria had ‘evolved a unique ability’ to digest nylon- infering that all of hte mylon was being digested- however, the FACT is that only about 13% of the nylon was being digested, and hte structure of nylon that was being digested had hte exact same structure as the bacteria’s previous food sources.

On and on it goes- macroevos tryign to extrapolate simple microevo changes to mean macroevo- but hte fact reamins, macroevo involves generation of new non species specific info.

You keep askign for hte ‘precise line at which micro and macro are seperated- however, as mentioend several times, there is no ‘precise breaking point between the two because hte two are two wholly different biological processes.

I see also that you are askign for a ‘precise’ definition for new info- While Creationism gives far more precise definitions that macroevo EVER does, I find it odd that folkks like yourself dismiss the broad generalizations for macroevo, while demanding ‘precise’ definitions from creationism as though what? If not ‘precisely’ defined enough, then it’s not ‘real science’? But to answer your question- the precision comes in intellectual honesty, investigating the claims, and udnerstadning that simple manipulation of info already present does NOT extrapolate to new non species specific info that lie outside species specific paramters and result in major new non species specific structures. In every claim of ‘new genes’ that macroevos make- when examined, it is foudn that they are ifnact not new, but altered, and fall into species specific parameter allowances, once again, all controlled by preexisting metainfo already present.

IF macroevo were a reality, we shouldn’t be quibbling about moot insignificant examples of simple change, there should be myriad examples of new non species specific info observable- dont’hca-think?

[[Indeed, here’s your basic problem: you spend way way too much time typing too many words.]]

Well too bad- when I run into posters liek yourself, who demand demand demand precision- (While ignoring hte glaring gaps and generalizations of macroevolution), then I find that time and time again, unless everythign is spe4lled out to the enth degree, then it’s all hand-waved away as though it’s all meaningless- For hte sake of htose interested, those who are objective, and hwo value precision, and who can recognize the differences when the precise differences are shown, I will continue posting and explaining the diffeences as completely as possible- because it quickly becoems apparent just who takes the tiem to be precise and who simply waves away info with brief sidetrack posts.

Yes, you’ve been consistent in asking your one question- however, I’ve been consistent and thorough in answering it several times- Now however, I see we’re goign down the rabbit-trail of ‘precision’ for the term ‘new info’, when at hte end of hte day, it shoudl be VERY apparent to anyone even remotely objective, that IF Macroevo were a iological reality, that macroevo suffers from a compelte lack of evidence showing new non species specific info, and hterefore MUST quibble about moot irrelevent arguments about microevolutionary change, trying to extrapolate that to mean macroevolution when hte fact is there should be an overabundance of actual indisputable macroevolutionary exambples of new non species specific info creation all through the millions of species- but nope- instead we must quibble about a few scant ‘examples’ that in the end of hte day, are nothign but exampels of microevolution OR symbiotic relationships which species adapt to in order to maintain species fitness- all which is precoded in the species own specific metainfo which science can’t expalin where this metainfo came from, as simpel chemical configurations could not possibly have created this absolutely necessary metainfo BEFORE (or even after for that matter) the chemicals self assembled themselves intelligently

"At precisely what moment did a hippo become a hippo? Exactly how different from a pig does a hippo have to be to be a hippo without turning into a whale? "

Ha! Well, for sake of discussion, I'll take it as a more-or-less serious question. ;-)

A hippo first became a hippo when the Greeks gave them that name: water horse. Before that, hippos didn't know what they were, and didn't know who they were related to. They like fresh water, but never see ocean going whales, so they never give that subject much thought.

Like I said: if you ask a hippo, all you get is a big yawn. ;-)

Point is: these categories are man-made and somewhat arbitrary.

Fossil records show the first hippos around 18 million years ago. Comparisons of fossils and DNA suggest common hippo-whale ancestors around 50 million years ago. The link to pigs seems to go back about 20 million years before that.

Remember, in the past, man-made classification systems typically assigned a new species whenever it was figured that populations could not interbrede. But more recent information shows that some of these separate "species" can and do interbrede.

Indeed, there is even an example (corn) where plants were assigned to not only separate species, but different genuses. Come to find out, one was simply the wild ancestor of modern corn.

"That context was that you assume macro-evolution exists 'a priori' and then ask me to draw a line between macro and micro evolution. What you are so dense about is that you refuse to acknowledge that you assume macro-evolution 'a priori' and then ask me to define the difference between what is observed and what is assumed 'a priori'. "

Look pal, stop with the insults and stop with the dishonesty. It's not me that's assuming "a priori" anything.

It's you anti-evolutions who concede the point of "micro-evolution" while still denying "macro-evolution." I have simply asked you to define precisely what it is that you deny. Where, IN YOU MIND, does acceptable micro- become the forbidden macro-evolution?

And I've told you what science says about this: the ONLY difference between micro- and macro- is the difference between short-term and long-term, or you might say, between one step and a walk. It's the same thing, just over a longer time period.

And I've already told you my religions view: like all "theistic evolutionists" I think God created everything -- micro, macro, scientific, non-scientific, everything. Whether He did it in six days or six billion years I don't personally know, but science says the evidence points to an older age. I think science is correct, until proved otherwise.

So I ask again, what is it, precisely scientifically, that you deny when you deny "macro-evolution"?

"So people who post here in support of evolution, while claiming Christ, must necessarily adopt the same fallacious lines of thought and place a higher value on the opinions of unbelievers to support their position. "

Of the world's six billion people, around three billion say they are Christians. Of those three billion, a tiny minority reject the science of evolution. The rest accept evolution for the same reason they accept any other science: because it seems to work. Most belong to churches which teach "theistic evolutionism," meaning: evolution is the handiwork of God.

So, people who accept evolution are not necessarily anti-Christian. That's a fact, pal.

Why does this thread keep showing up every day or so. Enough is enough. I frankly don’t care what it is. God created it and Adam named it, suits me fine, and since I don’t plan on eating a HIPPO call it what you want. It’s still a hippo.

"I tried to make it clear right fro mthe start that the two processes were compeltely different processes biologically, and made it clear that sijmple manipulation of info ALREADY PRESENT could not result in thge necessary NEW non species specific info NEEDED for macroevolution-"

I'm out of time, got to run, but think you're making an important argument here, which deserves a thoughtful response. Don't have time right now, will come back later.

In the mean time, can I ask you to study what our GroumetDan is arguing, and tell me if you think you and he are saying exactly the same thing, or almost the same thing, or not the same thing? If it's not the same thing, where is the difference?

"Look pal, stop with the insults and stop with the dishonesty. It's not me that's assuming "a priori" anything."

Look pal, you tell me what term you would like me to use to describe your refusal to admit your 'a priori' assumptions even after they have been pointed out to you. Lack of critical-thinking skills? Ideology Commitment? What is it? The only dishonesty here is your refusal to admit that your position is based on your 'a priori' assumptions.

"And I've told you what science says about this: the ONLY difference between micro- and macro- is the difference between short-term and long-term, or you might say, between one step and a walk. It's the same thing, just over a longer time period."

And I've told you that 'science' *assumes* that macro-evolution is observed change summed over unobserved time frames. That is an 'a priori' assumption because it cannot be observed and it cannot be proved. It is a belief. It is not the same thing as comparing one-step and a walk because both can be observed. Macro-evolution cannot be observed. As I have previously pointed out, the assumption is more akin to assuming that because you can increase your vertical leap that means you can continue to increase your vertical leap until you can jump to the moon. It won't happen.

"And I've already told you my religions view: like all "theistic evolutionists" I think God created everything -- micro, macro, scientific, non-scientific, everything. Whether He did it in six days or six billion years I don't personally know, but science says the evidence points to an older age. I think science is correct, until proved otherwise."

Excuse me for pointing this out, but *science* doesn't point to an 'older age'. *People* point to an older age and that is based on their 'a priori' assumptions, not on *science*. The support for long-ages is unobservable assumption, making it no longer *science*, but belief. It's foolish to believe that science is correct about anything that is unobservable. You merely believe in the words of men who make 'a priori' assumptions and give you an opinion based on those. That's foolishness.

"So I ask again, what is it, precisely scientifically, that you deny when you deny "macro-evolution"?"

So I ask again, exactly what biological-system could not have been created by God in 6 days about 6,000 years ago (without invoking the fallacy of appeal to perfection). Since this is simply the opposite of what you would require of me, if you cannot do that, you have no standing to require anything of me.

"Of the world's six billion people, around three billion say they are Christians. Of those three billion, a tiny minority reject the science of evolution. The rest accept evolution for the same reason they accept any other science: because it seems to work. Most belong to churches which teach "theistic evolutionism," meaning: evolution is the handiwork of God."

I note that you continue to use the fallacy of appeal to popularity as argument. Please note that fallacy is not argument. Are you able to understand that?

"So, people who accept evolution are not necessarily anti-Christian. That's a fact, pal."

Still using the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, huh pal? Well, it's still a logical fallacy and therefore demonstrates weak reasoning. I said that people who support evolution, while claiming Christ, must necessarily adopt the same fallacious lines of thought and place a higher value on the opinions of unbelievers to support their position. Now there's a fact for you.

"So I ask again, exactly what biological-system could not have been created by God in 6 days about 6,000 years ago (without invoking the fallacy of appeal to perfection). Since this is simply the opposite of what you would require of me, if you cannot do that, you have no standing to require anything of me. "

I find not a word of honest debate in what you've said here, because:

A. You ignored the question, as if it were some kind of negotiating position you could bargain for, instead of the FUNDAMENTAL question that anti-evolutionists MUST answer to be taken as serious science. So, your refusing to answer the question doesn't show us how clever you are, rather it shows a flaw in anti-evolutionist thinking.

B. You throw back at me, as if it were some kind of ploy, a ridiculous question that I've already answered, but you pretend I didn't. Now you claim a great bargaining chip: YOU will deny me "standing" if I don't answer your question -- and that gives YOU the right of refusal to answer basic questions about anti-evolution!

So let's deal again with your question: "exactly what biological-system could not have been created by God in 6 days about 6,000 years ago (without invoking the fallacy of appeal to perfection."

Answer: theologically speaking, no system.

But the issue here is: what does SCIENCE say actually happened?

Answer: a Universe around 15 billion years, Earth around 4 billion, multi-celled life around 500 million, ape-like pre-humans beginning around 5 million years ago, etc.

Up til now, you've refused to answer the basic question about anti-evolution: at what point does the micro-evolution which you accept become the macro-evolution which you deny? You have only suggested you believe the earth is just 6,000 years old, so we might suppose that has something to do with your answer.

But the age of the earth is NOT just a question for evolutionists. Instead, it involves the work of geologists, mineralogist, physicists, chemists, astronomers, biologists, and many others. So, if you dispute the age of the Earth, you are now disputing virtually everything in science.

And if you deny virtually everything in science, you cannot yourself claim the be scientific. And that has been my basic point from the very first post on this subject.

CottShop: "That is what has been stated right along- the fact that you have not been getting htis message just reaffirms my comment that you apparently have a blind spot- or were misunderstanding what was beign said- I tried to make it clear right fro mthe start that the two processes were compeltely different processes biologically, and made it clear that sijmple manipulation of info ALREADY PRESENT could not result in thge necessary NEW non species specific info NEEDED for macroevolution-"

BroJoeK: Please note where I highlighted your words above. You accuse me of "a blind spot" and "misunderstanding," but all I've done this whole exercise is ask for a precise DEFINITION of what you mean by "macro-evolution" and how you claim that is unacceptable scientifically. For example: what exactly would constitute "NEW non species specific info NEEDED for macro-evolution"?

CottShop: "Bacteria apparently laterally transfere genetic material between their OWN KIND- and this would be an example of minor ‘New’ infromation being added- however- the problem here for macroevolution is that bacteria are precoded to accept this transfer and utilize the info, AND, they remain bacterai- always have- they are NOT receiving non species specific info-"

BroJoeK: You may remember from your biology class the categories science uses to describe life on earth:

Kingdom,
Phylum,
Class,
Order,
Family,
Genus,
Species.

For example: the Family of Great Apes has four living Genera, including hominids -- humans, Neanderthals, etc. So human beings are one species in the Genus homo, of the Family of hominids, in the Order of primates, of the class mamals, and phylum chordates (backbones) in the Kingdom of animals.

Do you happen to know, what is the level of classification of bacteria? I'll give you a hint: there are many different species of bacteria, species which can and do share genetic information.

It's an important question, because it goes to the heart of just what exactly you mean by "their OWN KIND."

This is surely enough for one post. ;-)

"I find not a word of honest debate in what you've said here, because:"

And I find not a word of honest debate in what you've said here, because:

You refuse to recognize that I did not ignore the question.

You didn't answer the question because it is just as unanswerable as the one you ask.

" Answer: theologically speaking, no system. But the issue here is: what does SCIENCE say actually happened?

OK, you've admitted to half of the truth. Now tell me scientifically which biological system could not have been created by God in 6 days about 6,000 years ago (without invoking the fallacy of appeal to perfection).

"Answer: a Universe around 15 billion years, Earth around 4 billion, multi-celled life around 500 million, ape-like pre-humans beginning around 5 million years ago, etc."

That's not a scientific answer. That's the fallacy of affirming the consequent based on the non sequitur of assuming philosophical naturalism. Science is observable, testable and repeatable. What part of your just-so story above is any of those things?

"Up til now, you've refused to answer the basic question about anti-evolution: at what point does the micro-evolution which you accept become the macro-evolution which you deny?"

The answer to a question based in fallacy is no answer at all. You cannot assume that fallacy is reality and honestly ask anyone to answer a question based on that assumption. That's what you do and it isn't honest.

"And if you deny virtually everything in science, you cannot yourself claim the be scientific. And that has been my basic point from the very first post on this subject."

No one has denied virtually everything in science. Pointing out fallacies in thinking around evolution is not 'denying virtually everything in science'. If that's been your basic point, you have missed the whole point of the discussion.

GourmetDan: "And I find not a word of honest debate in what you've said here, because: You refuse to recognize that I did not ignore the question."

You just ignored it again, while claiming not to!

GourmetDan:"You didn't answer the question because it is just as unanswerable as the one you ask."

Of course I answered your question. You just don't like the answer. You asked, what biological systems could NOT have been created by God? I answered: none. But let's get rid of the double negatives and say this directly:

God not only could have, but DID create all biological systems, and every other system you might want to mention. Whether He did it in six seconds, or six days, or six billion years is a matter for study and analysis.

And, we have two basic sources for information on the ages of things: the Bible, which says God did everything in six days, and science, which says it took billions of years.

So, which are we to believe? Well, to me it's pretty simple: if God did it in six days, He obviously wanted to make things look like it took billions of years. Why? I have no real idea, could only speculate. Perhaps God wishes to stretch our minds beyond the confines of the immediate here and now?

But I want to switch to an even more important point, which needs to be stressed and stressed again in all these debates:

In no way, shape or form is SCIENCE to be considered "ULTIMATE TRUTH." It's not, never was, never will be. "Science" is simply one way -- the scientific method -- not the only way, of looking at reality.

Instead, by definition, science is a highly disciplined way of looking for NATURAL explanations of PHYSICAL-MATERIAL occurrences. So, when you introduce the Supernatural, then by definition, it's no longer science, but now theology.

BroJoeK:"Answer: a Universe around 15 billion years, Earth around 4 billion, multi-celled life around 500 million, ape-like pre-humans beginning around 5 million years ago, etc."

GourmetDan:"That's not a scientific answer. That's the fallacy of affirming the consequent based on the non sequitur of assuming philosophical naturalism. Science is observable, testable and repeatable. What part of your just-so story above is any of those things?"

Such nonsense! In fact, those dates ARE what science says about ages of the Universe, etc. Of course, you are not theologically required to believe those dates, but you cannot claim your disbelief is SCIENTIFICALLY based, because that's a pure premeditated lie.

Here's the truth: science is what it is, and you are not it. You represent theology trying to impose yourself on science, an attempt which, if successful, then by definition, must destroy science.

Bottom line: you can believe whatever you want to believe, but you can't call it science when it's not.

GroumetDan:"No one has denied virtually everything in science. Pointing out fallacies in thinking around evolution is not 'denying virtually everything in science'. If that's been your basic point, you have missed the whole point of the discussion."

Here's the truth: when you deny the ages that science reports, then you also deny the sciences which produced those ages. Those sciences include everything from biology to geology, physics, astronomy, to chemistry and many more. So, you cannot deny evolution without also denying virtually ALL of science. And that's a fact.

"You just ignored it again, while claiming not to!"

Nope, I just didn't respond in the manner you so desperately require.

"Of course I answered your question. You just don't like the answer. You asked, what biological systems could NOT have been created by God? I answered: none. But let's get rid of the double negatives and say this directly:"

And of course I answered your question. You just don't like the answer.

"God not only could have, but DID create all biological systems, and every other system you might want to mention. Whether He did it in six seconds, or six days, or six billion years is a matter for study and analysis."

No it isn't. We already know the answer. 6 days about 6,000 years ago. There is no observation that invalidates this proposal, only philosophically naturalistic interpretations that claim to do so. Only someone who puts the word of man above the Word of God thinks it's 'a matter for study and analysis'.

"And, we have two basic sources for information on the ages of things: the Bible, which says God did everything in six days, and science, which says it took billions of years."

Stop personifying a method. Methods say absolutely nothing. Only men speak and they do so based on their philosophical beliefs.

"So, which are we to believe? Well, to me it's pretty simple: if God did it in six days, He obviously wanted to make things look like it took billions of years. Why? I have no real idea, could only speculate. Perhaps God wishes to stretch our minds beyond the confines of the immediate here and now?"

No, he obviously didn't want to make things look like it took billions of years. That's an old pagan idea that has become the dogma of philosophical naturalism. Nothing can deviate from that dogma or the 'men' will say it isn't 'science'. The method still works just fine.

"But I want to switch to an even more important point, which needs to be stressed and stressed again in all these debates:"

Nope. You already missed the most important point. That's why you can't see your error.

"In no way, shape or form is SCIENCE to be considered "ULTIMATE TRUTH." It's not, never was, never will be. "Science" is simply one way -- the scientific method -- not the only way, of looking at reality."

That's correct. The men practicing science have absolutely no interest in truth. Their interest is in creating just-so stories based on their 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism.

"Instead, by definition, science is a highly disciplined way of looking for NATURAL explanations of PHYSICAL-MATERIAL occurrences. So, when you introduce the Supernatural, then by definition, it's no longer science, but now theology."

Except in the case of certain 'origins' theories like evolution, in which science commits the fallacy of assuming philosophical naturalism as the basis for the theory. When you introduce philosophy (either supernatural or natural), then by definition, it's no longer science, but philosophy.

"Such nonsense! In fact, those dates ARE what science says about ages of the Universe, etc. Of course, you are not theologically required to believe those dates, but you cannot claim your disbelief is SCIENTIFICALLY based, because that's a pure premeditated lie."

Such nonsense! You simply commit the same error as before, personifying a method and ignoring the 'a priori' philosophical beliefs of practitioners. 'Science' *says* NOTHING because it is a method and it's practitioners must enter into fallacy before making philosophical statements. You are not philosophically required to believe that, but you cannot claim your disbelief is SCIENTIFICALLY based, because that a pure premeditated lie.

"Here's the truth: science is what it is, and you are not it. You represent theology trying to impose yourself on science, an attempt which, if successful, then by definition, must destroy science."

Here's the truth: science is what is it, and you are not it. You represent philosophical naturalism trying to hide behind a method and pretend that the method 'speaks'. Methods cannot be personified, people do that based on their 'a priori' beliefs. Science cannot be 'destroyed', only the philosophical foundation exposed for what it is.

"Here's the truth: when you deny the ages that science reports, then you also deny the sciences which produced those ages. Those sciences include everything from biology to geology, physics, astronomy, to chemistry and many more. So, you cannot deny evolution without also denying virtually ALL of science. And that's a fact."

Here's the truth: when you claim that 'science' reports ages, you personify a method and ignore the 'a priori' assumptions of the adherents. And to claim that one must deny all of the method for failing to accept the philosophy is a fallacy, not a fact.

"Nope, I just didn't respond in the manner you so desperately require."

I don't "desperately require" anything, but always hope to see honest discussion. So far, you disappoint me.

"No, he obviously didn't want to make things look like it took billions of years. That's an old pagan idea that has become the dogma of philosophical naturalism. Nothing can deviate from that dogma or the 'men' will say it isn't 'science'. The method still works just fine. "

The fact is, there are dozens of scientific methods for establishing the ages of ancient materials, including radiometric dating. Every one of these methods points to older ages than your 6,000 years.

There is not even one scientific method which says the earth is only 6,000 years old.

In fact, there's only one source for a young earth creation: the Bible.

And whatever else it is, the Bible has never been proved in any way scientific. Indeed, by definition of the words, it cannot be, since "science" at core MEANS natural explanations for physical occurrences. The Bible is all about the Supernatural.

That's one reason science just can't explain EVERYthing. As soon as some occurrence is beyond the realm of the natural world (i.e., a miracle), it has no scientific explanation, because science doesn't deal with miracles.

Bottom line: your theological arguments are not scientific, no matter how often you claim they are. If you WISH to be scientific, then you will have to speak the language and ideas of science, and of SCIENTISTS.

For example, you could answer a simple scientific question: what exactly is "micro-evolution" and how does it differ from "macro-evolution."

"I don't "desperately require" anything, but always hope to see honest discussion. So far, you disappoint me."

Sure you do and honest discussion is something you have not displayed to date. So far, you disappoint me.

"The fact is, there are dozens of scientific methods for establishing the ages of ancient materials, including radiometric dating. Every one of these methods points to older ages than your 6,000 years."

Clearly you don't know the difference between the science and the philosophy behind these 'methods'. Knowing where the method stops and the philosophy begins is critical. You seem unable to make that distinction.

"And whatever else it is, the Bible has never been proved in any way scientific. Indeed, by definition of the words, it cannot be, since "science" at core MEANS natural explanations for physical occurrences. The Bible is all about the Supernatural."

I suppose you must not think archeology a 'science' because there were great archeological discoveries in the 1800's verifying what were previously believed to be 'mythical' Biblical place references.

Then we can read:

Job 26:7, "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth on nothing".

Genesis 7:1, telling about the flood says, "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life...were all the fountains [springs] of the great deep broken up . . . "

Ecclesiastes 1:6 - "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again to its circuits."

Isaiah 40:22 - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..."

"That's one reason science just can't explain EVERYthing. As soon as some occurrence is beyond the realm of the natural world (i.e., a miracle), it has no scientific explanation, because science doesn't deal with miracles."

Oh sure it does. Dark matter, dark energy, big bang, abiogenesis, macroevolution. There are LOTS of miracles in 'science'.

"Bottom line: your theological arguments are not scientific, no matter how often you claim they are. If you WISH to be scientific, then you will have to speak the language and ideas of science, and of SCIENTISTS."

Bottom line: your philosophical arguments are not scientific, no matter how often you claim they are. If you WISH to be scientific, then you will have to stop confusing PHILOSOPHY and METHOD and begin to THINK for yourself. You have shown no propensity for this, however.

"For example, you could answer a simple scientific question: what exactly is "micro-evolution" and how does it differ from "macro-evolution."

For example, you could stop making the 'a priori' fallacious assumption that philosophical naturalism is true and that your belief in the fallacy of affirming the consequent means that macro-evolution actually exists. That would lead you to understand that answer to a question based in fallacy is no answer at all. You would then, presumably, realize that you cannot assume that fallacy is reality and honestly ask anyone to answer a question based on that assumption. That's what you do and it hasn't been honest since you started it.