Re: Young Earth Creationist Arguments. Do they realize how they look?


"Frank J" <fcj3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d5cf64ea-5336-470e-b4e2-842658ccd1f2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 13, 9:42 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Frank J" <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:28189aec-47cc-4b90-9ff8-b92c3c45bc6a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 12, 2:46 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"Frank J" <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:0d17e78f-3557-46b4-8a5d-489ef9e0833a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 10, 9:18 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(snip)

My opinion is that life began when God created the
things that he lists that are alive, such as the plants,
the fowl of the air, the creeping things on the earth,
the animals, the fish in the sea, and man - Mr. and
Mrs. Adam, according to Gen. 5:1-2. But before
that, I personally believe that when God created light,
that it is referring to what the whole spectrum of
the electromagetic radiations of light/energy spectrum.
The elements were created as well, and then the rest.
But life in anything began with God's adding to it
the spark of life.

By now you should know that by *when* I mean *how many years ago*.
Try
again.

Don't blame someone else for your inadequate
wording. I'm not a mind-reader.

Mainstream science feels duty bound to report the
findings that they think they have made, and if they
feel they have been sufficient in studying something,
they probably should do just that. However, I have
found some that do jump to conclusions and then
present things as though they were absolute facts.

Since you conveniently omitted examples, I will also speak in
generalities and note that anti-evolutionists do the same thing, and
*much* more often. Yet anti-evolutionists almot *never* point out
how
they, or other anti-evolutionists do that. Why is that?

Ahhh. I see you not only expect me to be a mind reader
to what you are thinking but now you fancy yourself
as being a mind reader to what I think! I have not
"conveniently" omitted things. I have answered the
words with which you have used to communicate what
is in your head. You know, what you are revealing is
that you think people think what you think they are
thinking, and you reply expecting them to also think
what you must be thinking.

I'm on the conservative side.

So am I. And I believe in God to boot.

Someone else is on the
liberal side and some are ultraconservative, and some
downright radical. But each cannot control the other.
That's why freedom of speech is a great thing. We
are each of us trying to report the things we think are
right. But....is everyone right? Are only radicals right?

Are only liberals right?

Actually I think that conservatives are more right on more issues.
But
what I like about the USA is that we can freely debate our
differences. Not everywhere of course. The (arguably) conservative
value of respect for private property is yet another reason to keep
anti-evolution pseudoscience out of public schools, and allow only
what has *earned* the right to be taught. That's above and beyond
church-state issues.

I agree with the first part of this paragraph very much.
However, I don't think that evolutionists have earned
the right to say anything they think is correct when
what they think comes from their summation of what
they must think are all the facts. Evolution if taught,
should be taught as a theory. But even if it is taught
as a theory, the very least that they should do is
define species better. It does not cover all the
organisms as it currently is stated.

Sometimes each of those
categories can be right and sometimes each can be
wrong, according to the logic of the Aristotalian
Square (aka Square of the Opposition). Probably
all have had a chance at being right and all have
probably tasted of being wrong at some point. New
facts are found every day and theories get overturned.

Sometimes what some know is right, gets spun
around and ignored, and sometimes it works the
other way around. Science considers everything,
though. It doesn't kick out anything. It doesn't
discard anything. It just is put on a shelf if it came
up again. It's like being a detective, you just don't
discard any information that you have until you
are certain that you have all the truth.

As is contrasted to science, they are stating that things did
not slowly evolve, but came into existence fast. They
also are saying that man was created independently of
the animals,

we *are* animals

I do not believe that we are animals.

Do you believe that we are plants? Bacteria? Biological definitions.
Get used to them.

It is a theory that we are animals. We are humans,
not animals. Some animals have more sense.

whereas some in science say that man and
apes

we *are* apes

I don't believe that we are apes.

You can define words any way you want, but they still won't make
sense.


descended from a common ancestor. The Bible says
that man is created from the dust or dirt of the ground.
It also says though that leviathan, an animal is created
from it's dust. They are created from THEIR dust:
Psalm 104:29, 30:
29. "....they die, and return to THEIR dust.
30. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and
thou renewest the face of the earth."

You are reading the Bible as a science text. You do know that
Behe
called that "silly," right?

I have heard some of the finest theologians say this as
well, and I do not agree with them. For example, the
creation account lists that light was created before the
things that give off light (sun, moon, stars, etc., )were
created. I believe this kind of light created first is the
energy spectrum, since all that is within it travels at the
speed of light.

Then why the emphasis on your disagreements with evolution? Where's
the "equal time" that anti-evolutionists are so fond of?

Now I have to try to read your mind. I didn't say that I
thought evolution deserved equal time. I do think that
it deserves to be told as a theory. Some of what today's
evolutionist says is evolution is not what formerly was
taught as being evolution. Now, some are saying that
even microevolution is evolution because some of them
believe that the accumulation of allele changes will
amount to the creation of a new species. But the things
called microevolution were spoken of earlier as simply
being adaptation changes, not changes that will result in
the formation of a new species. In fact, macroevoution
is simply a change that is beyond the microevolutionary
stage. But macroevolution requires that a change had
to take place permanently in the DNA. Do you understand
what I am saying, though, I wonder. If you plant the seed
of a hybrid plant, it will revert back to the original wild
plant, rather than continue to reproduce the hybrid plant.

(snip for brevity)

Well that could still be true for souls. But not the matter that
comes
and goes in these things called cells.

The Bible indicates that God created Adam, and that he
was not alive until he breathed into him the breath of
life. The Bible calls this part of a living being that makes
it be alive by several words, one of which is a spirit. Not
a spook, but an energy of some kind, probably a portion
of the Lord, himself. It says that when something dies, it's
spirit "returns" to the Father, in the Bible.


Did you take that up with Behe?

Of course not. This is what is in the Bible.

I guess it's too much to ask her to comment on Michael Behe,
who
not
only explicitly accepts common descent, but also says that
reading
the
Bible as a science text is silly.

My comment about what you have written is that this
man doesn't know every thing but is honestly trying to
answer what he believes to be the truth, based on what
things he believes are true.

Micheal Behe and Kenneth Miller believe almost the exact same
thing
with respect to the age of life, common descent and that God is
the
ultimate cause.

Question 1: Do you think that they command the same respect for
their
*belief*? If not which commanda more, and why?

I can see that you are taking notice of them of a sort.
I don't know if they command the respect that you
speak of.


I haven't *said* what respect they command. I *asked you*, and you
haven't answered the question so far.

I just got through answering what you asked and I
said, still visible above, I don't know if they command
the respect that you speak of.

In terms of science, Behe misrepresents it and Miller approaches
it
honestly. The quote-mining alone puts Behe solidly in the
pseudoscience camp:

http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/coyne.html

Question 2: Which one commands more respect in terms of approach
to
science?

In terms of *theology* Miller portrays God as an almighty
Creator,
while Behe portrays Him as a cartoon gof who hides in gaps only
to
be
caught red-handed by His own creation. That may or may not be
Behe's
*intent* but it is what most of his followers infer, and he does
nothing to discouraga that. But just to cover all bases, he
admitted,
under oath no less, that the biological designer, who may or may
not
be God, might be deceased.

Question 3: Which one commands more respect in terms of
characterization of God?

Please forgive the oversimplified example in my answer,
but the way you describe these two, they sound like two
toasters sitting side-by-side. One is plugged into an outlet,
and the other one is not. Which of the two is the one most
likely to function properly if you put a piece of bread into
it? The one that is plugged in. From your description of
Miller, it sounds like he is plugged into an awareness of
God. It sounds like Behe has experienced a disappointment
in experiencing the presence of God.

Now we're getting somewhere!

(snip how to wiggle ones ears) : )

You do know that Behe is an *anti-evolution activist* and Miller is
a
"Darwinist" and long-time *critic* of ID/creationism, right?

I have read this, yes. In my opinion, Darwin jumped
into the middle of something and started interpreting
things based on what he saw in the middle of it. But
the evolutionists seem to think they can predict the
origins, based on just facts they know. Some of them
do not consider what there is that they don't know that
could change what their ideas are about what they do
know. Its like misbuttoning a shirt. You may not
know until you get to the end of the shirt that you
had been on the wrong button all along. When you
get to the end and have a buttonhole left over, then
you realize it was misbuttoned in the first place.

Suzanne

.

Relevant Pages

  • Love and Lies [orchids]
    ... By tricking animals, including us, into falling in love. ... So let us celebrate some other pinnacles of evolution, the kind that would get a lot more press if natural history were written by plants rather than animals. ... For while we were nailing down locomotion, consciousness, and language, the plants were hard at work developing a whole other bag of tricks, taking account of the key existential fact of plant life: ... Some orchids lure bees with the promise of food by mimicking the appearance of nectar-producing flowers, while others, as in the case of a Dracula orchid, attract gnats by producing an array of nasty scents, from fungus and rotten meat to cat urine and baby diaper. ...
    (soc.senior.issues)
  • Re: Fructose Metabolism, Blood Sugar Health and the Liver.
    ... different animals were MADE to fit. ... Evolution is THE LIE of modern times. ... For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: *** RED ALERT *** EVIDENCE IN DANGER *** RED ALERT ***
    ... belief in god. ... You look at the world today, and you see what animals are around. ... I am not saying that evolution didn't happen. ... Creationism is bandaids for the mind. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Well Well Well.... Lookie at what we have here.
    ... bring man "closer to God". ... be "effects" produced by evolution. ... Creationism (= Divine-supernatural causation). ... Did he give us a law that said two animals ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Well Well Well.... Lookie at what we have here.
    ... bring man "closer to God". ... be "effects" produced by evolution. ... Creationism (= Divine-supernatural causation). ... Did he give us a law that said two animals ...
    (talk.origins)