XPost: alt.bible   
   From: sam@spade.invalid   
      
   James wrote:   
   > On Thu, 05 Feb 2026 23:45:40 -0800, Samuel Spade  wrote:   
   >   
   > >James wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> Evolution: Please explain.   
   > >   
   > >Can you explain the details of your version of creationism, in even 1%   
   > >of the detail that evolution has been expounded?   
   > >   
   > >Can you do that without refererencing evolution?   
      
   James, we have different opinions on many things here, but many of your   
   points are objectively incorrect.  I don't have time or reason to point   
   them all out, and you would continue saying what you say anyway, even if   
   I did.  But just because, let me say:   
      
   > Well, first of all we don't believe in creationism. They say the earth   
      
   Creationism is the belief that the universe, or earth, or life, were   
   created.  You don't believe that?   
      
      
   > and all life was created in 6 24 hour days. We say things took   
   > thousands or millions of years, which agrees with science.   
   >   
   > We go by the Bible's view of creation, and its order. I don't recall   
   > if I already sent you this, but this is what we believe:   
   >   
   > Gen 1:1,2 shows that all things were a result of creation, not random   
   > chance. At the end of verse 2, the sun is shinning brightly and the   
   > earth has just been created, but is in a raw form at this time. Things   
   > were about to change for the earth.   
      
   At the end of Gen 1:2, the sun hasn't even been created yet.  That comes   
   3 "days" later.   
      
      
   > If the sun is shinning from verse 1, why is there darkness on the   
   > earth's surface at verse 2? Because something is blocking the sun's   
   > light from reaching the earth's surface.   
   >   
   > Gen 1:3-31 God gets the earth ready for habitation. He will divide   
   > those periods of creative activities into 6 undefined lengths called a   
   > "day". (In the first two chapters of Genesis, the word "day" has 4   
   > different lengths of time attributed to them.) So a day here is not   
   > always 24 hours.   
   >   
   > Notice Ge 1:6-8 talks about a division between waters and waters. Many   
   > scientists now are saying the beginning earth was a water planet, with   
   > water on the whole surface and the earth emmerced in a thick vapor.   
   >   
   > So God caused a division between the waters on the earth's surface,   
   > and the thick water vapor way up. (looked something like Venus, the   
   > planet surrounded with clouds)   
      
   The "firmament" is clearly a solid partition holding water above the   
   earth.  You seem to agree that doesn't exist, right?   
      
      
   > When God caused a space to now be between those two water sources, He   
   > created an atmosphere. But there is still darkness on the earth's   
   > surface. Why?   
   >   
   > Because those water vapor clouds totaly blocked out the sun.   
      
   Clouds are made of water droplets.  Water vapor is no more opaque than   
   air.   
      
   This is all impossible for reasons that are too long to go into here.   
      
   (snip for focus)   
      
   > The rest of the creation account shows the emergence of the various   
   > life forms, which are basically in agreement with science. So to   
   > summarize, notice this brief excerpt:   
   >   
   > "The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that   
   > the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with   
   > knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this   
   > order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and   
   > enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light [reaching the surface];   
   > (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land   
   > plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and   
   > seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and   
   > tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages   
   > occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer   
   > of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at   
   > random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive   
   > order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in   
   > 3,628,800!" (Life- How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?,   
   > 1985, p. 36) [brackets mine]   
      
   Most people could figure out the general order without even grade school   
   biology.  It's not amazing.  I mean, (1) a beginning, came first? What a   
   revelation!  And yet Genesis still has it wrong.  You have light   
   reaching the surface before the sun was created, land plants before sea   
   monsters (and all sea life), and earth created before stars & sun.  Not   
   to mention morning and evening passing 3 times before the sun was ever   
   created.   
      
   > The Babylonian creation account says the god Apsu along with the   
      
   (snip babylonian account)   
      
      
   > >> Concerning evolution, I would like your opinion on how this could have   
   > >> happened.   
      
   [snip wasp example]   
      
   > >You might be able to answer your own question if you would not try to   
   > >define evolution in a way that nobody else does.   
   > >   
   > >You are stuck on the idea that the plant or wasp, once it first appears,   
   > >can never adapt on its own to new circumstances.  I realize this is what   
   > >you believe as a creationist, but it's not at all how any biologist's   
   > >version of evolution works.  If you want to debunk evolution, you have   
   > >to understand what evolution is.   
   > >   
   > >Seriously, I would love to see creation abiogenesis explained step by   
   > >step at the machinery level.   
   >   
   > Well, think about it a minute. The following should be true facts:   
   >   
   > Evolution has no eyes. Yet it somehow detected elecromagnetic waves   
      
   See what I mean?  I tried to tell you your concept of evolution is not   
   what evolution actually is.  You ignored that and continued skipping   
   merrily down the lane, still arguing against your own invented   
   definition of "evolution".  This is called a "straw man arguement". It's   
   not a valid argument.  It's like if someone condemned JWs as a cult of   
   baby-eating demon worshippers.  Misrepresenting the other side doesn't   
   prove anything.   
      
   (snip extraneous references to a theory of evolution that no one   
   believes)   
      
   I was hoping you would explain how you think creation happened, in   
   textbook detail, like evolution is described.  That would not require   
   any extraneous reference to evolution, just explanation of how creation   
   was done.  If you won't do it, it's ok.   
      
   Sorry for all the snippage, but I hate 500 line posts.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)