Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Scientists Observe Evolution in Twenty Year Experiment

So you are saying that the creation view has clearly trumped even if it is assigned to emotional causes?

That is no definition. That just says that viruses are alive when they are viruses and dead when they are no longer viruses. Do you realize that they are not included in the classification system used for living things. Is a dead frog still a frog? According to your definition it would not be. You can do better than that.

The words in question are very clear, when read carefully. This is what I pointed out to you in explaining how you derived the wrong meaning due to your having missed some very definite clues as to how to correctly read and understand those words. I pointed out that "a" is singular. I pointed out that God wished to make for Adam a helpmate like unto himself, and that 1) beasts are not like unto him, and 2) they are many, while Eve was one, thus the singular "a." I pointed out that the Bible uses past tense in the Eden story when referring to the creation of the beasts and fowl. Put all that together (i.e., read it carefully), and you will have a correct understanding of the words.

In fact, the fact that in just the previous chapter it states that the beasts and fowl were created before Adam should have been enough for you not to make this mistake in interpretation. You should have used chapter one as a guide to interpreting chapter two, and you wouldn't have made the mistake.

The encyclopedia says:
The idea that all life evolved had been proposed before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of species. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

I am not saying that Darwin's focus was one defining how life started. I am saying that the acceptance or rejection of macroevolution will be based how you think evolution relates to our origins.

It seems like we may be pretty close in our thinking, for we both believe in creation and microevolution. Where we probably differ is that you allow for the Creator to have initiated the macroevolutionary process where I would say every family of species was initially created with maturity.

I am differing more sharply with Brent's position than yours.

Yes, I know.

Hawk, You must be reading a different Bible. The motivation and time sequence are quite clear in my version. If my brother's Old Testament Professor at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond reads it the same way I do, I feel I am in fairly good company in thinking it contradicts. But, to each his own interpretation of the scriptures. That in itself points out the futility of trying to use scriptures in a discussion of science.

Thunder, What in the world is a family of species? That makes no sense at all in scientific terms.

You ask the question about viruses then take that answer into the context of frogs after rewording my definition. The rationale for what constitutes life for one segment of creation is not necessarily the same for another. Life is defined within the classification characteristics assigned to that classification.

This is simple grade school science and a rather stupid question for an adult.

It is like me asking you how you know that your brain is alive and not dead?

Sure. There is no way to test the Bible creation theory that I know of. The Bible creation theory is a negative argument. Negative arguments can neither be refuted nor proven. Strictly emotion. Just like trying to prove or not prove there is a God.

Evolution, natural selection, theory can be tested and refuted or proven by scientific equipment, observation and generally accepted scientific procedures. Any evolutionary scientist can do a peer review of any other evolutionary scientist.

As a tax accountant, my work can stand peer review because of generally accepted accounting principles and tax law.

When I was cutting gem stones, gems could be identified by generally accepted identification procedures and scientific date.

If creation science is real science than show me real studies that can stand up to peer review especially by evolutionary scientists. All I've seen so far is emotion and faith. Emotion and faith cannot be reviewed.

The Scripture is not intended to and won't be clear to those who walk in darkness and are not seeking the light.

But if our gospel be hid , it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Thunderstick, no offense intended because I do like you, but it is obvious to those with even a little science education that you have had none.

Life begets life. Intelligent design precedes intelligent construction. Species reproduce after their kind. This is demonstrated every day and are the basic principles of creation. Those are facts!

Now demonstrate how matter evolves into life with evidence.

Notropis,



That's pretty much what It says.



With this explanation one exhalts himself above God; which is illogical. All that is necessary to understand God's Word is to read it naturally the way one reads these posts.

So, Thunder, life has no absolutes. "Life is defined within the classification characteristics assigned to that classification." So there is no clear boundary between life and nonlife, but you keep harping on how the importance of knowing how the first life started. Life has different characteristics in different assemblages of chemicals, but you still want us to define the cause of the origins of life? This is getting better all the time. Do you know how viruses are classified? They are not included in any classification system of living organisms. Do you know how viruses work?

The only person that says matter evolves into life is you and your creationist buddies.

Gentlemen,
Check out this new to me link. I received it in an email today. www.proofthatgodexists.org

It is a very fun site.

So, Ringman, if that is pretty much what it says, lets us look back at Genesis 1:24-27.

24-25: God created the animals.
26-27: God made man in his own image, male and female.

That sure does seem to say something different from
what I said above to which you agreed.

When all the clues are considered together, it is very difficult to come to any meaning other than the one I explained. You must want to read it in such as way as to make it seem contradictory.

derby_dude,



Somewhere on the 24 hour campfire someone posted Miller's experiment as evidence,I think, to suport molecules to life. If you check, I think you will discover Milled and company were not creationists.

It happens only if God wills it to, but evolution would not be the correct word for it, since evolution theory doesn't address this question.

Of course not. Are you suggesting that those who accept evolution are not free to study subjects other than evolution?