literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ? - Page 5 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:09 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
OKay. So you do know better than the Pope. That's good to know.
Is there a yawning smiley here? It would apply in this instance.

ETA: I guess this one will have to do:



or this one

StacyL is offline  
#122 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:11 AM
 
l_olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Please, you have yet, nor has any scientist shown an example of one creature "evolving" into another creature.

And you can't use the "that would take millions of years" line because according to your theory there should be plenty of evidence of it just laying around the earth.
Again, why do you require proof of evolution when you require no proof of creationism? You accept the Bible as proof enough and have formulated your belief based on that. I accept accepted scientific research and have formulated my belief based on that.

But I didn't call your belief ridiculous and illogical.
l_olive is offline  
#123 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:12 AM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Ok, since I spent 4 years of college studying your side of the argument, I think you should perform due diligence and at least read the two books above regarding the other side's position. It wouldn't even take you a semester!
I haven't read those particular books, but I have read ad nauseum from the ID and YEC side. Just not those books. If you insist those particular books are that important, I guess I can give it a go. But I have read alot from more recent authors and so-called scientists. But, if those old books are better than the IDers of today, I'll have to take your word on it.

I spent 8 years studying your side of the argument (blind watchmaker and pascals wager and all)
orangebird is offline  
#124 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:13 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
I haven't read those particular books, but I have read ad nauseum from the ID and YEC side. Just not those books. If you insist those particular books are that important, I guess I can give it a go. But I have read alot from more recent authors and so-called scientists. But, if those old books are better than the IDers of today, I'll have to take your word on it.
Well, I haven't read any new ID books lately, but yes, I think those are quite good. Particularly, the 1941 book - very in depth, I thought.
StacyL is offline  
#125 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:15 AM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OK then. I'll get that one. I'm not sure what it is going to show me
orangebird is offline  
#126 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:17 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_olive View Post
Again, why do you require proof of evolution when you require no proof of creationism? You accept the Bible as proof enough and have formulated your belief based on that. I accept accepted scientific research and have formulated my belief based on that.

But I didn't call your belief ridiculous and illogical.
Ok, I am allowed to think that the idea of some random elemental molecules assembling themselves into a cell, and then some cells somehow self-organizing into a creature is ridiculous. And I can even state that as my official belief.

You don't need to be offended by my personal belief, nor try to inhibit me making my argument in a debate.

Second, I siad that the theory of evolution is itself plagued with problems that pertain to expected logical outcomes, etc. which make it at it's core, illogical. That again is not personally directed at you.
StacyL is offline  
#127 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:22 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_olive View Post
Again, why do you require proof of evolution when you require no proof of creationism? You accept the Bible as proof enough and have formulated your belief based on that.
I have given my intellectual assent to the Truth not only as it is revealed by God in the Bible, but also based on the common sense fact of the self-evident nature that surrounds us.

Let me ask you a simple question...put aside the argument of evolution for a moment.

Just at its most basic level, where do you suppose all the molecules of elements that make up all forms of life came from? WHO made them? Where did C and H and O, etc. come from? Surely, you do not suggest they made themselves.
StacyL is offline  
#128 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:24 AM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
For the record, I really have no vested interest in evolution being true. Right now it fits with all the evidence. I don't get any brownie points or angel wings for accepting it. To me it is like any other area of science. Really, no skin off my back. I would be just as argumentative if someone wanted to argue a math proof with me and instead of pointing out a flaw or a proof they told me about some mystical creature who wrote a book otherwise, "so it just is!!" Or they used some magical creature to "disprove" a medication's effectiveness. It's crazy!!

It is fine with me if people want to question evolution, or conduct research that might come up with different answers, but it is just silly to me, the major opponent right now, writes evolution off as being so crazy and impossible sounding, but their solution is a magical creature? being the so-called "more logical" explanation? when not making me laugh my butt off, it does get my panties in a wad. It is just so far out there.
orangebird is offline  
#129 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:27 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
a magical creature being the so-called "more logical" explanation, when not making me laugh my butt off, does get my panties in a wad. It is just so far out there.
You lost me ... are you referring to God?

As in, belief in God, (a "magical creature") is "so far out there?"

Just making sure I understand you.
StacyL is offline  
#130 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:27 AM
 
l_olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Ok, I am allowed to think that the idea of some random elemental molecules assembling themselves into a cell, and then some cells somehow self-organizing into a creature is ridiculous. And I can even state that as my official belief.
Well, of course you are allowed. I have been careful to state that in each of my posts. What I've asked is that you stop asserting that your belief is incontrovertible fact to all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post

You don't need to be offended by my personal belief, nor try to inhibit me making my argument in a debate.
I am not offended by your belief, I am offended by the adjectives you use to describe mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Second, I siad that the theory of evolution is itself plagued with problems that pertain to expected logical outcomes, etc. which make it at it's core, illogical. That again is not personally directed at you.
You also stated that evolutionists describe their theory as illogical, and I've asked for references to support this statement.
l_olive is offline  
#131 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:32 AM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
I have given my intellectual assent to the Truth not only as it is revealed by God in the Bible, but also based on the common sense fact of the self-evident nature that surrounds us.

Let me ask you a simple question...put aside the argument of evolution for a moment.

Just at its most basic level, where do you suppose all the molecules of elements that make up all forms of life came from? WHO made them? Where did C and H and O, etc. come from? Surely, you do not suggest they made themselves.
That is a good question stacy. It really is. But to be clear, lets distinguish origins of life and matter from evolution. They are two different things. Two TOTALLY different things. You understand that, right? I have come to learn that it is really common for creationists to throw questions of origins into the discussions of evolution. I don't know why, don't know if they all read the same book, but they always seem to do it.

OK, it is a fair and good question though, if we were talking about origins.

Let me ask you this, it doesn't seem as hard o believe that a magical being, who is so complex, sprang from nothing?
orangebird is offline  
#132 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:32 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_olive View Post
Well, of course you are allowed. I have been careful to state that in each of my posts. What I've asked is that you stop asserting that your belief is incontrovertible fact to all.

I am not offended by your belief, I am offended by the adjectives you use to describe mine.

You also stated that evolutionists describe their theory as illogical, and I've asked for references to support this statement.

And yet, you have no problem describing those who believe in creation as crazy or what have you.

I am not even talking about the people who adhere to the theory of evolution. I am stating clearly that the idea of evolution is nuts. I don't mind if you adhere to it, and I won't call you names if you do.

But it doesn't change the fact that, as a theory, evolution makes no sense!
StacyL is offline  
#133 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:33 AM
 
l_olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
I have given my intellectual assent to the Truth not only as it is revealed by God in the Bible, but also based on the common sense fact of the self-evident nature that surrounds us.

Let me ask you a simple question...put aside the argument of evolution for a moment.

Just at its most basic level, where do you suppose all the molecules of elements that make up all forms of life came from? WHO made them? Where did C and H and O, etc. come from? Surely, you do not suggest they made themselves.
Personally, I believe they came from God at the moment of the creation of the universe. But I completely respect that there are several different belief systems which have formulated different theories as to how those basic elements came to be.
l_olive is offline  
#134 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:35 AM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
You lost me ... are you referring to God?

As in, belief in God, (a "magical creature") is "so far out there?"

Just making sure I understand you.
It is "out there" to me when that is deemed the "more logical" explanation. That's what I mean.
orangebird is offline  
#135 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:37 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
But to be clear, lets distinguish origins of life and matter from evolution. They are two different things. Two TOTALLY different things. You understand that, right?
Yes, I agree and have no problem with distinguishing with the question of origin itself and evolution as a process. However, they are entwined together because they are both proposed as some kind of unexplained, accidental event process that has no causation, or Author, as it were. In other words, you can't have one without the other.
StacyL is offline  
#136 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:38 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
It is "out there" to me when that is deemed the "more logical" explanation. That's what I mean.
Oh. So you see the idea of a Creator, or God, as illogical?
StacyL is offline  
#137 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:39 AM
 
l_olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
And yet, you have no problem describing those who believe in creation as crazy or what have you.

I am not even talking about the people who adhere to the theory of evolution. I am stating clearly that the idea of evolution is nuts. I don't mind if you adhere to it, and I won't call you names if you do.

But it doesn't change the fact that, as a theory, evolution makes no sense!
OK, now I'm officially angry. Please show me one place where I have described someone who believes in creation as "crazy or what have you".

And once again, it's your OPINION -- not a FACT -- that evolution makes no sense.

Is that statement somehow threatening to you?
l_olive is offline  
#138 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:39 AM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Oh. So you see the idea of a Creator, or God, as illogical?
For the most part, yes.
orangebird is offline  
#139 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:40 AM
 
l_olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Oh. So you see the idea of a Creator, or God, as illogical?
Why do you ask? Do you find the idea that someone could call your belief "illogical" upsetting?
l_olive is offline  
#140 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:40 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_olive View Post
Personally, I believe they came from God at the moment of the creation of the universe. But I completely respect that there are several different belief systems which have formulated different theories as to how those basic elements came to be.
So, you believe there is a God and He made some things, but He just stopped at the atoms, and the rest just sort of happened accidentally?

So, then the atoms organized themselves into planets and suns and water and clouds and rivers, and toads, and cows, and birds, and people?
StacyL is offline  
#141 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:41 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_olive View Post
Why do you ask? Do you find the idea that someone could call your belief illogical upsetting?
No, not at all. Us Catholics are used to being called crazy - hey, that's practically my middle name. I just wanted to be sure I understood if she had no belief in God at all, or what.
StacyL is offline  
#142 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:44 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_olive View Post
And once again, it's your OPINION -- not a FACT -- that evolution makes no sense.

Is that statement somehow threatening to you?

Are you trying to provoke me? I am sincerely not trying to provoke you.

You have to understand that to anyone who believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God Himself, that is a FACT. So, you may call it my opinion, but yes, I would always maintain Creation to be a fact.
StacyL is offline  
#143 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:45 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
For the most part, yes.
Ok, yeah, that would make sense I guess. When I was in college and was a bio major, I was agnostic.
StacyL is offline  
#144 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:46 AM
 
l_olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
So, you believe there is a God and He made some things, but He just stopped at the atoms, and the rest just sort of happened accidentally?
No. My personal belief is that He made the building blocks knowing exactly what would happen in the span of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
So, then the atoms organized themselves into planets and suns and water and clouds and rivers, and toads, and cows, and birds, and people?
Yup, just like He meant them to.

But that's as far as you'll get me to talk about my belief. That wasn't the reason I joined this thread.

I was simply pointing out the offense I took at the statement of your personal faith as fact, and your position that other views are ridiculous and illogical.

I'm angry and I don't like being angry. So I'm out.
l_olive is offline  
#145 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:49 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I gotta go to bed too - but I'm not angry!

'Night, all.
StacyL is offline  
#146 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 12:53 AM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm going to bed too, but I just wanna say really quick that i think such a belief is illogical. But I am sure there are people who acknowlege it is illogical and yet still believe. I never heard that logic was fundamental for faith in the supernatural. As some of my friends would say, "that's why it is faith".

Good night.

I'll be checking back in when I get to work in the am.
orangebird is offline  
#147 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 01:03 AM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just read through this entire thread, and Stacy I have to say that while you have showed stamina in single-handedly arguing your point, you haven't once addressed the answers that have been given to your questions. You ask again and again, show me one example of one species turning into another species. Orangebird (I think!) did exactly that way back in the thread, with pictures and all, and you have ignored it. Here's the link again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...ermediates_ex2
It shows - with pictures - how the jawbones of a reptile evolved into the earbones of a mammal. Those bones changed species and changed functions, and there is apparently a fossil record to prove it.

I'm really curious to know your response to that. After you have read the link, naturally. I know you said you studied evolution in college, but that may have been a while ago and there have been new discoveries in the meantime.
Thao is offline  
#148 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 01:11 AM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
When my DH was studying physical anthropology in university some years ago, he noticed some logical flaws in what was being taught about evolutionary theory. He asked one of his professors about it, expecting to have it explained away. The professor agreed that evolutionary theory was full of not only gaps in information, but physical impossibilities. Many, if not most, scientists are aware of this, but assume that the question will be resolved once we have more information.

My point is that we don't have to turn to creationists to find difficulties in evolutionary theory; science itself is aware of the difficulties, however much the popular media present the theory as essentially proven. Because of the ongoing dispute between "evolutionists" and "creationists" science tends to gloss over any problems with the theory, rather than dealing with them in a logical and objective manner, which I find very unscientific.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
mamabadger is offline  
#149 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 01:59 AM - Thread Starter
 
jennica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
I believe you have the term 'evloution' confused with the ideas of adaptation and/or selective breeding.

Evolution means the ability of one animal to CHANGE into another, different animal.

In other words, those felines are just different KINDS of felines, but they are all still felines. The fact that they may or may not have sterile breeding capabilites across certain breeds of felines does not change the fact that they are still feline, and a feline will NEVER CHANGE into any other KIND of animal, such as a horse or a rooster.

Also, the notion of "adaptation" is simply that of a certain KIND of animal developing an adaptation that is beneficial to it's area, say a darker coat or larger size. Hence, the variety in breeds of birds, but they are all still BIRDS. You will never see a bird change into an alligator.

There has never been any evidence of any creature 'changing' into another creature in the fossil record.

There are good books on this topic.
Currently it is estimated that there are 14,600 "kinds" of mammals and birds. And by kinds let me be very clear what I mean. I mean seperate species of mammals and birds which cannot interbreed with each other. Since they cannot interbreed, they are are not breeds of the same species, but separate species alltogether. Obviously Noah only needed one pair of dogs, he did not need one pair of every breed of dogs because after the flood they would adapt and change. But not to the point of evolving into a different species, that would be contrary to what the bible says about everything staying within it's own kind. However, if after the flood dogs rapidly morphed into animals that could no longer breed with the original dog species, then I don't see how that is not following the theory of evolution which the fossil records support. Furthermore, there are 14,600 species of mammals and birds, and this isn't even couting all the insects, reptiles and freshwater fish that would further fill the ark beyond capacity. But with 14,600 species of birds and mammals, that is at least 29,200 animals that were aboard the ark. However, there were a great deal more than that because 7 of some animals were taken, and also there are the insects, reptiles and freshwater fish that were taken along. There were only 8 people on board to care for them all. How many animals are at a typical zoo, and how many employees and volunteers does a typical zoo have? Do you see where I'm going with this? It doesn't make sense. There were either less animals aboard the ark, which means the flood was either not global or the animals on the ark rapidly evolved into different kinds of animals which means you believe in evolution if you believe that the noachian flood was literal and global.
jennica is offline  
#150 of 294 Old 08-18-2007, 02:05 AM
 
runes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
evolution can't be right because it can't be completely explained at this point in history? there are too many gaps and holes in the argument?



that's rich. last time i checked the bible is filled with gaps, holes and certainly many inconsistencies.



thank goodness for faith, right?

runes is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off