Depends on how you define “sources”. Endosymbiosis and repeat instances of allopolyploidy or mutations which create a reproductive barrier relative to the parent population come close under some definitions.
Yep that is the part which I think is particularly significant. It shows that the sorrow God felt over how things turned out was profound and what happened was not expected and all a part of some plan.
But I think later passages show that God thought the destruction of nature was too high a price for doing such thing for the sake of mankind. Genesis 8 21 And the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
And again just because YOU read the global planet Earth into the text does not make this what the text is saying. Of the world and mankind we know God said that it was good, so the wrong all happened afterwards from the events with Adam and Eve. Thus it is only what came from Adam and Eve which was so horrible.
1 Like
Yes, because you don’t feel confined to being logical or rational. Until you do, you will never understand science or those who work in that field.
You make scientific claims but refuse to defend them.
Thank you!
To interpret “all” in Joshua the way that YEC demands it must be taken in Genesis requires that the Israelites hunted down every rodent and insect and bird and killed them. The demand on Genesis ignores the ordinary use of language.
Which is where Westermann goes astray – he fails to recognize that the repeated themes in the Pentateuch don’t match the universality of the original event. Recapitulation does not mean precise copies.
1 Like
That just proves how little you know
About me or anything else.
Saint Roymond has spoken (falsely)
Richard
Edot.
Try looking up the difference between understanding and agreeing.
(Or does everyone have to agree with Saint Roymond)
Yes – which means that all humans are equally evolved. The only way Africans could be deemed less evolved is if for some reason mutations decreased or ceased.
Yeah – there’s more of your same failure to present evidence or reason logically. You make scientific claims but won’t do the science.
You make scientific claims, you have to have scientific reasoning – otherwise you are doing nothing different from demanding that your auto mechanic perform repairs according to your favorite book about baking pastries.
Why should you expect anyone to pay any attention in the first place when you have asserted that you do not have to be logical?
Of course every English translation misses the wordplay happening: “I will not again curse the adamah on account of adam”, which can perhaps best be presented in English as “I will not again curse the dirt on account of the dirt-people”. The words are the same as used in Genesis 2, making it a mirror: God made man from dirt, God cursed the dirt because of man, God will henceforth recognize that man is but dirt (a theme which pops up in the Psalms).
Definitely. I have to force myself to misread the Hebrew in order to get a global flood in there.
1 Like
No, St. Roymond has reported what you have stated – you have said you don’t have to be logical, that you can’t be restricted to being rational.
And you do make scientific claims and refuse to defend them.
How can you claim to be a follower of Star Trek and fail to understand the fallacies of logic?
Richard
The “fallacies of logic” do not apply to science – something that is plain in Star Trek. Spock would never insist that Bones rely on his emotions in medical treatment.
But you do not restrict it to science.
You know that a spcific example or analogy that demonstrates what you are saying proves nothing
(obviously not)
I refuse to play your game in your playing field.
Richard
It applies anywhere rational thought is required.
Your insistence that science has to bow to your subjective feelings is no different than if you demanded that the crew putting a new roof on your house be sure to follow the recipes from your favorite pub.
1 Like
Yes, those various mutations happened in all populations. The African populations didn’t stop accumulating mutations once a part of their population migrated out of Africa.
That’s a lie. Nowhere have you discussed this.
You chose the battlefield. You claimed scientists are falsely interpreting the evidence. You claimed they are seeing just want they want to see. So back it up. How are they getting it wrong as you claim they are.
You’ve never said what your way is!!!
1 Like
Those aren’t my beliefs, and I doubt those are the beliefs of the majority here. Science provides no evidence of God. The argument from complexity isn’t persuading to me either, but some who frequent the BL Forum may find it useful. It’s more characteristic of intelligent design than evolutionary creationism.
How many ways are you wrong?
Let me count the ways:
Science doesn’t disallow this; it says nothing about God. The scientific method specifically rules out anything other than physical causes as a method of inquiry. Science fundamentally relies on measurements and observation. God cannot be measured, quantified or observed. Therefore, science is entirely silent about God’s existence or activity in the world.
Science doesn’t disallow the existence of spirit. Again, it has nothing to say about the matter. Find me a paper published in a scientific journal that denies God is spirit. Try Google Scholar. Please.
By the way, it’s a category error to equate consciousness with spirit/soul. Humans lose consciousness every night when they go to sleep. Consciousness is an entirely physical phenomenon.
Science doesn’t disallow this. It’s something impossible to investigate.
Consciousness is not spirit. God transforming a physical body into a spiritual body (Paul’s term) is a miracle. Science can’t investigate miracles. Philosophy can critique them, but philosophy isn’t science, as most folks know.
A spirit isn’t subject to physical laws such as gravity, and God himself seems to exist just fine in space where there’s no atmosphere. Any claim of eternal life must make one physically immune from things that would cause death.
Good gosh. This is probably the biggest overreach I’ve ever seen by a YEC.
We believe by faith (not scientific evidence or philosophical proof) that the universe was created by the word of God (Heb. 11:3). Science can investigate the Big Bang all it wants, but it has nothing to say about the faith commitment that it happened because God spoke, and it was. If God can speak the universe into existence, he surely can will into existence a certain frequency of soundwaves that strike the human ear as an audible voice. It’s a minor miracle compared to the incarnation or resurrection of Christ. There’s an example in the John 12:27-30:
“Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine…
Notice that some in the crowd attribute the sound they heard to a natural cause (thunder), and others to an angel (spirit).
- Science doesn’t say anything about what a spirit is or isn’t capable of doing. It’s not something that’s possible to measure or quantify in any way.
- Science can only measure consciousness in a physical body. Whether it can exist absent a physical body is a philosophical question, and philosophically speaking, it’s a category error to equate consciousness with spirit.
- A “spiritual body” (Paul’s phrase) isn’t subject to physical constraints. Spirit is by definition non-physical.
- If the spirit is eternal, then it’s not subject to death.
- Science has zero to say about sin. That’s theology.
- We believe in the resurrection by faith. Science has zero to say about what is or isn’t possible when God intervenes with a miracle.
1 Like
I often quote Romanes’ 1882 essay on evolution because it he speaks directly about the subjects that keep coming up 140 years later. In the following quote, I wouldn’t have used the word “superstition”, but the essence of the argument should be pretty clear.
It boils down to parsimony. If we discover a natural process that explains what we see in nature we don’t reject the natural process and insert a miraculous one. Romanes used the example of Newton’s natural explanation of gravity, but it applies to all of science.
2 Likes
But judgements as to which is the greater parsimony (simpler or more economical), seems very subjective to me. Thus I would suggest a better alternative which goes right to the scientific method – i.e. which is more responsive to tests and predictions. Does the angel respond to requests to alter his habits? And how can you say what some guiding angel will do in the case of some other body? And thus a mathematical formula is superior in every way – giving not only a way to calculate what will happen with another body but also a way to test it with observations of that body and see if the calculation is correct.
Evolution may not give you as many mathematical formulas but it does give you principles to apply to other situations and thus a way to test those principles.
1 Like
Now who is liyng?
I have never changed my viewpoint. If St Roymond can see it, so can you.
another lie
anything else?
Richard
The map of the earth in Babylon was no where near that big. And the map the ancient Egyptians had was not much bigger. Both focused on the river(s) central to their civilizations and the cities surrounding them.
Where have you ever discussed mitochondrial DNA and human migration or the mutations that are responsible for different skin colors?
“You have made your mind up what it means and will ■■■■ any view that is different. That is the safe haven of all science.
What you will never admit is that you are just imposing your basic theory onto whatever data you have available and are not even looking for anything else.”–RicahrdG
We aren’t lying. You are accusing scientists of falsely interpreting the data by imposing theory onto the data and refusing to look at data that would show them to be wrong.
1 Like
If I can speak for @RichardG his basic position is scientists always use the TOE to interpret data and refuse to look for or consider any other possible explanation (such as ID). It isn’t a case of ignoring data, it is a case of ignoring alternate explanations.
What Richard doesn’t accept is given the vast amount of data that is supported by evolution there is no reason to look for an alternative explanation. And he believes there may be data that isn’t supported by the TOE and is ignored. Which data he isn’t capable of providing.
1 Like
You can, and are correct.
Sorry, you were doing so well.
I am not denying, and never have, that To is the best bet with the data tou have.
Not exactly.
I think that despite the mountains of data that you have there are specifics that you can never get, or data that is just lost in time. Let alone any Godly influence outside your vision.
Irreducibility can never be proven because the systems exist, and must have come from some where. It is an impossible circular reasoning that can never be broken. If you do not think it possible, no specifics will change that (You will always claim time can do anything, even if that principle does not weigh up outside ToE)
But thank you for at least understanding me better than most.
Richard