Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[Rob Osborn]

Please give us your special definition of uniformitarianism.

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate on the earth now have always operated on the earth in the past and apply everywhere on the earth. This includes the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates now as it has in the past.

[Bikeemikey]

Sorry, it's a world for snorkellers only (or scuba, or if you have a lifetime membership to a local aquarium)

But can the really righteous breathe under water?

[Rob Osborn]

1. That isn't what evolution says.

2. Who are you tell God what he can or can't do?

Darwinian evolution uses natural selection that selects random copy errors, mutations, etc, that are most beneficial at the time.

There can be no God in the direction that Darwinian evolution takes. If there was we would be able to detect design and purpose and thus it would be "intelligent design" not "Darwinian evolution". One must remember that intelligent design doesn't refute evolution in general, it only refutes Darwinian evolution positing that the life-forms we see today did not evolve from random processes on their own without an intelligent design, cause, or purpose preceding it. The arguments in favor of Darwinian evolution are that it must explain all of life in purely naturalistic means and it must be explained void of any intelligent designer or cause.

[The Nehor]

Perhaps you know many who are theistic evolutionists- thats different than Darwinian evolutionists.

This is why no one can communicate with you; you have your own private definitions for words.

[Rob Osborn]

This is why no one can communicate with you; you have your own private definitions for words.

Show me just one scientist who believes God guided Darwinian evolution detailing the specifics of design and purpose and I will believe.

[The Nehor]

Show me just one scientist who believes God guided Darwinian evolution detailing the specifics of design and purpose and I will believe.

 

Of course you threw all kinds of subjective conditions in there about "detailing the specifics of design and purpose" so you can potentially throw out anyone I offer by claiming they don't fit within that fuzzy definition.

 

I would start with:

 

Kenneth R. Miller

Francisco J. Ayalar

 

The National Center for Science Education discovered in a report:

 

While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

 

http://ncse.com/rncse/17/6/many-scientists-see-gods-hand-evolution

 

Note, that it explicitly says Darwinian so your own private hair-splitting that Darwinian Evolution is somehow split from Christians who accept evolution is clearly shown to be your own private distinction unaccepted by everyone else.

[Brian 2.0]

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate on the earth now have always operated on the earth in the past and apply everywhere on the earth. This includes the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates now as it has in the past.

 

If you disagree with that then why are you championing the video posted a few pages back showing strata forming quickly in those experiments.  Why should we look at that video showing experiments happening today, in one place, when trying to figure out what happened 1000s of years ago all over the earth if we shouldn't trust Uniformitarianism? 

[Rob Osborn]

If you disagree with that then why are you championing the video posted a few pages back showing strata forming quickly in those experiments.  Why should we look at that video showing experiments happening today, in one place, when trying to figure out what happened 1000s of years ago all over the earth if we shouldn't trust Uniformitarianism?

The evidence shows catastrophism not uniformatarianisn.

[Rob Osborn]

Of course you threw all kinds of subjective conditions in there about "detailing the specifics of design and purpose" so you can potentially throw out anyone I offer by claiming they don't fit within that fuzzy definition.

 

I would start with:

 

Kenneth R. Miller

Francisco J. Ayalar

 

The National Center for Science Education discovered in a report:

 

While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

 

http://ncse.com/rncse/17/6/many-scientists-see-gods-hand-evolution

 

Note, that it explicitly says Darwinian so your own private hair-splitting that Darwinian Evolution is somehow split from Christians who accept evolution is clearly shown to be your own private distinction unaccepted by everyone else.

Like I said, show me just one scientist outlining a design mechanism by God in Darwinian evolution and I will believe. Its not possible.

[Bikeemikey]

Like I said, show me just one scientist outlining a design mechanism by God in Darwinian evolution and I will believe. Its not possible.

Well between your insistence on totally unique definitions of commonly understood terms and your constant goal post moving you have demonstrated this thread is a waste of space!

I'm very happy that we are not required to hold such beliefs to be mormon... You are only of the only Mormons I know who agrees with you.

Later!

[Brian 2.0]

Like I said, show me just one scientist outlining a design mechanism by God in Darwinian evolution and I will believe. Its not possible.

What ?!?!?!? You're completely unreasonable.

That post was a bullseye in refuting your point.

Now you're asking for detailed specifics on HOW God could have caused a specific gene mutation?!?! Are you kidding me?

Edited March 15, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Rob Osborn]

What ?!?!?!? You're completely unreasonable.

That post was a bullseye in refuting your point.

Now you're asking for detailed specifics on HOW God could have caused a specific gene mutation?!?! Are you kidding me?

I am not being unreasonable, just showing how darwinian evolution is atheistic.

[Rob Osborn]

Well between your insistence on totally unique definitions of commonly understood terms and your constant goal post moving you have demonstrated this thread is a waste of space!

I'm very happy that we are not required to hold such beliefs to be mormon... You are only of the only Mormons I know who agrees with you.

Later!

Its interesting that wherethe rubber actually meets the road that there actually is no room for God in explaining our origins from the darwinian evolutionary paradigm. Its from studying Darwinian evolution that led Dawkins to atheism. Its no wonder too, the theory kicks our Creator right out of his place and designs.

[Brian 2.0]

I am not being unreasonable, just showing how darwinian evolution is atheistic.

 

It's not atheistic.  It's just that God can't be proved to be in the process... but that doesn't mean with 100% certainty He wasn't in the process.

 

Someone can put God into the process if they want... 40% of scientists do it seems.  They can't prove God is in the process, but they believe He is.  

[Bikeemikey]

Its interesting that wherethe rubber actually meets the road that there actually is no room for God in explaining our origins from the darwinian evolutionary paradigm. Its from studying Darwinian evolution that led Dawkins to atheism. Its no wonder too, the theory kicks our Creator right out of his place and designs.

I have read almost everything Dawkins has written; I can honestly say your writings are a bigger threat to my membership in the church than anything Dawkins has ever written.

[Brian 2.0]

Its interesting that where the rubber actually meets the road that there actually is no room for God in explaining our origins from the darwinian evolutionary paradigm.

 

Tell me specifically where this rubber meets the road where this is no room for God.  I guarantee you I can put God into it somehow.  

[Bikeemikey]

Tell me specifically where this rubber meets the road where this is no room for God.  I guarantee you I can put God into it somehow.  

 

God is in the rubber and the road... God is in all things. 

 

Rob, stop trying to take God out of stuff.

[The Nehor]

Like I said, show me just one scientist outlining a design mechanism by God in Darwinian evolution and I will believe. Its not possible.

 

You jackassey little weasel.........as I thought you gave yourself wiggle room to demand the impossible and have your goal posts grow legs and run down the field. You stated that there were no theistic scientists who believe in Darwinian evolution and now before you can accept they actually believe it they have to use nonexistent data to explain how God did it.

 

I would challenge your final statement. All things are possible with God. You categorically state that God could not use evolution to create life or intelligent life but you offer nothing as to why not. You're drawn a line in the sand and when people stand with one foot on each side you throw a tantrum and insist that it is impossible. Grow up.

[thesometimesaint]

I am not being unreasonable, just showing how darwinian evolution is atheistic.

 

You have been repeatedly shown by scientists that science is neither Atheistic or Theistic it is Agnostic. You sir are a liar.

[Rob Osborn]

I have read almost everything Dawkins has written; I can honestly say your writings are a bigger threat to my membership in the church than anything Dawkins has ever written.

Dawkins also said Joseph Smith was a charlatan, the BoM s a fraud and that Christianity in general is the cause of evil in society.

[Rob Osborn]

Tell me specifically where this rubber meets the road where this is no room for God.  I guarantee you I can put God into it somehow.

Okay, the rubber meets the road at the point of how life arose on this planet. Fit God into it in the darwinian evolution model.

[Rob Osborn]

You jackassey little weasel.........as I thought you gave yourself wiggle room to demand the impossible and have your goal posts grow legs and run down the field. You stated that there were no theistic scientists who believe in Darwinian evolution and now before you can accept they actually believe it they have to use nonexistent data to explain how God did it.

 

I would challenge your final statement. All things are possible with God. You categorically state that God could not use evolution to create life or intelligent life but you offer nothing as to why not. You're drawn a line in the sand and when people stand with one foot on each side you throw a tantrum and insist that it is impossible. Grow up.

Maybe you misunderstood. All I am asking for is an explanation of placing God into the equation of darwinian evolution. IT DOESN'T FIT! If God did fit, it wouldn't be Darwinian evolution it would fall under some other theory. Darwinian evolution demands that the theory is explained void of intelligence and a design by a Creator.

[Rob Osborn]

You have been repeatedly shown by scientists that science is neither Atheistic or Theistic it is Agnostic. You sir are a liar.

Darwinian evolutionary theory is atheistic.

[thesometimesaint]

Dawkins also said Joseph Smith was a charlatan, the BoM s a fraud and that Christianity in general is the cause of evil in society.

 

So? He is entitled to his opinion on whether JS name would be had for good and evil. Taking a close look at Christianity. The good name of Christ has been used for evil for millennia.

[thesometimesaint]

Okay, the rubber meets the road at the point of how life arose on this planet. Fit God into it in the darwinian evolution model.

 

Evolution doesn't concern itself with how life arose on this planet. That is Abiogenesis. Evolution is how life has changed since its first arose on this planet.  What you are doing is changing the subject. IE: Injecting mushroom cultivation into a discussion of rail road construction.