Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Waratah]

No. Not my job. That task is something God the Holy Spirit owns. My job begins and ends with showing you how to obtain a measure of the Holy Spirit.

You don't do a very good job considering that your ministry and belief relies on a/s/k, which I have blasted many times. Now I think I understand your reluctance to reply to my posts. Just to let you know that it is okay and you will survive this mistaken belief and mental health problems are nothing to be ashamed of. Been there done that.

if God is the creator of the natural universe, then everything in creation points to God. Why would God create all of the laws and processes that govern the natural world, just so He can circumvent them each and every time He wants something Done? Does it not stand to reason that if God created X then wouldn't he use X to accomplish what He sets out to do? Why create X if you are going to use process Y? Why not simply create Y to accomplish your goals?

Just WOW. wtf

i don't want any of you to do anything that your not already doing, unless your truly want proof of God. If you want Proof of God you must first Humble yourselves before Him, and Ask, Seek, and knock as outlined in Luke 11.

Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must seek.
Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must knock.
I have already followed the instructions on asking and no holy spirit.

[Foxaèr]

if God is the creator of the natural universe, then everything in creation points to God. Why would God create all of the laws and processes that govern the natural world, just so He can circumvent them each and every time He wants something Done? Does it not stand to reason that if God created X then wouldn't he use X to accomplish what He sets out to do? Why create X if you are going to use process Y? Why not simply create Y to accomplish your goals?

You are relying upon an if and a bias toward god already being the creator to assert that he must be the creator because creation points toward him as the creator. That is not only absurd, but it is illogical.

[Bad Writer]

A/S/K only works if you expect an answer. So when someone proceeds with this expectation but still receives zilch for an answer, did they do it wrong (which is silly to assume since they followed all the steps to the letter)? Also, for those that receive an answer, how can one be certain that person isn't just fooling themselves?

[Ryantology]

A/S/K is one of the dumbest fucking examples of 'evidence' a Christian can provide, so it says a lot that it's all Drich has to offer. A method intended to dispel disbelief that requires you to suspend it yourself is obviously bogus. Seriously, anybody with a pair of brain cells should see this as the enormously stupid fraud it is.

[Zazzy]

You've moved the goal posts. We are. NOT speaking of bench science. You claimed your trade was as an evolutionary biologist. Then you said you were a high school science teacher, now you have claimed and awarded yourself the generic term scientist, in hopes that a mechanic would not be able to discern the difference between a general descriptive term, and a very specific job title held in the field of science.

I'm sorry (yes that was a taunt) but I am not going to be able to give you your apology. If anyone deserves an apology it is me. But again I am not concerned for formalities, or the labels you seem to be obsessed with. Which means I am more than willing to forego the facade of civility, for the sake of putting this conversation back on track.

Besides you being as smart as you are should understand the exchange of pleasantries, and platitudes at this point in this conversation upon demand, is just to establish who the alpha in the conversation really is. Why would I do this after just leveling the playing field?

Especially the part about you deserving an apology.
You win, Drich- I am well and truly done with you. May it bring you much satisfaction- maybe even as much as trashing people's dying fathers.

[Drich]

Are these not your words?


According to the last post on page 3 these are indeed your words. Then you tell me your a high school science teacher on post 4 page 11.

The term by trade means as a profession. To say you are 'x' by trade means your primary responsiablity is 'x' and not grading papers, and cleaning lab stations for the next class. Even if evolutionary biology was all you taught it still does not make you an evolutionary biologist 'by trade.' It makes you a teacher by trade.

Again absolutly nothing wrong with being a teacher as far as this discussion goes. For that matter there is nothing wrong with being caught in a lie, as far as this discussion goes. I am perfectly willing to forget the whole thing so long as you are and do not insist that I must adopt your page 3 persona.

Please read that post again to discover what I do now.
I can't figure out if you aren't good at reading, or if you are simply dishonest.

I'll repost the same thing, only with bold text to help you out. Read it this time and then you can apologize to me.

Drich, after reading your latest barrage of incivility, I wonder if it is possible to have an honest discussion with you. Since you are worried about my bona fides: yes, I was a high school teacher for many years, before I did 6 years of university teaching and graduate school coursework and bench research in evolutionary molecular genetics, but I have continued to work with teens throughout that time to improve science education. You really, really don't want to believe that I am knowledgeable on the subject, and that's OK with me. But please don't insult high school teachers- many of whom are highly educated trained scientists who choose to work with a younger age group.

Do you teach high school age teens science?
Do you get paid for doing so?

[Rahul]

Evolutionary Biologists frequently hold teaching positions.

Just look at some of these Evolutionary Biology jobs: http://jobs.sciencecareers.org/jobs/evol...y-biology/

To be eligible for these tenure-track appointments at the Assistant/Associate Professor level, successful candidates must hold a PhD, have postdoctoral experience, are expected to develop vigorous, externally funded research programs and to teach at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

I frequently notice professors lists from the local universities here at the University of Texas and Texas A&M on all kinds of groundbreaking discoveries and research in scientific fields.

I'm in the IT field. There were a lot of IT professionals that taught me in school. Does that eradicate them being an IT professional and magically transform them into ONLY a teacher? You actually learn your field much more solidly by teaching it for a while.

[Tonus]

A/S/K only works if you expect an answer. So when someone proceeds with this expectation but still receives zilch for an answer, did they do it wrong (which is silly to assume since they followed all the steps to the letter)? Also, for those that receive an answer, how can one be certain that person isn't just fooling themselves?

It's used as a way to obfuscate and distract from having to answer difficult questions. Much in the same way as spending several pages pretending to figure out a workable definition of "proof" and whether or not a person is a teacher or a scientist in the hopes that she gives up before there is any actual discussion. You'd think "the truth" would easily hold up under any method of investigation. Guess not.

[Esquilax]

More than that, what was the point of having Adam and Eve in the garden, created from nothing, if evolution was already spitting out people on the other side of the fence?

Oh right, apologetics only have to make sense regarding one problem at a time...

Adam and Eve were created with In The seven days of creation. Who knows how much time elapsed between their creation by God, and when evolution finally caught up.

Well, okay, I get what you're saying, my question is why, if god already knew evolution was going to produce homo sapiens in the end, did he bother creating a pair of people from whole cloth in the garden at all? That seems really redundant.

My second question is, what is your basis for claiming this? Aside from the fact that there's no concrete numerical timeline in the bible, what actually points toward this being true, not just not definitely false?

Oh, better yet, what real world evidence are you using to come to this conclusion, or is it really the kind of ad hoc apologetics it smells like?

[Rahul]

Well, okay, I get what you're saying, my question is why, if god already knew evolution was going to produce homo sapiens in the end, did he bother creating a pair of people from whole cloth in the garden at all? That seems really redundant.

My second question is, what is your basis for claiming this? Aside from the fact that there's no concrete numerical timeline in the bible, what actually points toward this being true, not just not definitely false?

Oh, better yet, what real world evidence are you using to come to this conclusion, or is it really the kind of ad hoc apologetics it smells like?

I actually came up with the same idea back when I was a teenager and trying to reconcile science with the bible. It was a pathetic attempt by me to try and make it all seem sensible.

It's funny what straws someone will grasp at to hold onto illogical ideas.