I notice that you failed to adress the first part of my post.
Care to explain why?

Wortfish wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
1. Kind isn't a rigourous term and as such has no relation to biological evolution.
2. God creating kinds constitutes neither speciation nor a flexibility of species. Rather the opposite.

On the contrary,

Yes, I know you like to make counterfactual assertions.
We're under no obligation to treat them as anything more than the rectally extracted nonsense that it is.

Wortfish wrote: the existence of the "kinds" necessitates speciation in the creationist worldview.

I just pointed out that kind isn't a rigourously defined term and that the way it is described in the bible isn't speciation.
What do you do?
Mindlessly regurgitate the very claim I just refuted.

Wortfish wrote: This is because there are clearly reproductively separate populations (i.e. species) of the same "kind" of animal. So, there are many species of cats, whales, mice, worms etc.

Wortfish wrote:

Except that's exactly what is being described. On god's command the earth produces vegetation ex-nihilo.
So at best, you could argue that it isn't god directly who creates things out of nothing.
Which would be a silly technical minutiae.

On the contrary,

Yes, yes, you like making shit up. We know.

Wortfish wrote:the verse implies that the land produces the vegetation.

No, it literally says that. It does NOT however say how or from what, meaning it's very much ex-nihilo.

Wortfish wrote: In other words, the plants arise from the earth/soil rather than appearing from nowhere.

Plants are not made up of earth/soil Wortfish.

Wortfish wrote:

Could it be that you left that bit out because it refutes your position?

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Not so.

Wortfish wrote: The verse shows that the Lord God made the man from the dust of the ground, a pre-existing material, rather than from nothing.

And if you did not need to resort to dishonest quote-mining that would be a valid rebuttal.
You left out the bit where I pointed out that humans aren't made of dust of the ground.

Wortfish wrote: He had to "form/fashion" the man, rather than simply make him appear by fiat.

He made a golem, which isn't a human being.

Wortfish wrote:

Utter horseshit. This is not at all analogous to evolution. Evolution works with living organisms, not inamite matter like dust or ribs.

The principle is the same.

If it weren't so depressing, it would be amazing how you manage to competely ignore the facts and just mindlessly regurgitate your counterfactual assertions.
If something is in no way analogous to something else, it is not the same in principle either.

Wortfish wrote: Evolution works with pre-existing parts to make new ones. Same in this biblical verse.

Pathetic.
Birds and planes both fly. That doesn't mean planes are birds.

Wortfish wrote:

He needed to create the pre-existing parts Wortfish. How did he do that exactly?

The man was formed from dust (star dust to be precise: http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=52).

Except the bible claims it was from earth dust, not star dust and we were not formed directly from star dust either.
Your disengenuous conflations and counterfactual assertions demonstrate that you either don't know what you're talking about, or as I've guessed for some time now, simply trolling.

.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
So at best, you could argue that it isn't god directly who creates things out of nothing.

No. God commands the earth/land to produce forth vegetation from itself. I don't know about you, but plants require water and nutrients from the soil/earth to grow.

No, it literally says that. It does NOT however say how or from what, meaning it's very much ex-nihilo.

Ex novo (from scratch), not ex nihilo (from nothing).

Plants are not made up of earth/soil Wortfish.

Actually, they are. The material used to make plants come the water and soil in the ground. The sugars that power them, and the oxygen they breathe, comes from the air.

And if you did not need to resort to dishonest quote-mining that would be a valid rebuttal.
You left out the bit where I pointed out that humans aren't made of dust of the ground.

Actually, we are made of the dust of the ground. You are about 50% protein, and the amino acids in your proteins come from the earth. via the food you have eaten.

If it weren't so depressing, it would be amazing how you manage to competely ignore the facts and just mindlessly regurgitate your counterfactual assertions. If something is in no way analogous to something else, it is not the same in principle either.

CREATIONISM: God creates ADAM from dust, then takes a part of ADAM to make EVE.

EVOLUTIONISM: Evolution creates a PROTOCELL, then uses its genes to make all living organisms.

Same principle.

Pathetic.Birds and planes both fly. That doesn't mean planes are birds.

Bird flight inspired man-made flight.

Occam's razor ...skip the skydaddy nonsense.

Wortfish wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
So at best, you could argue that it isn't god directly who creates things out of nothing.

No. God commands the earth/land to produce forth vegetation from itself. I don't know about you, but plants require water and nutrients from the soil/earth to grow.

Plants are not composed of soil/earth Wortfish.
So either the bible is wrong about the origin of plantlife, or the earth created plants out of nothing.
All you're doing here is desperately trying to twist things to fit with both your religion and the actual scientific theories.
It's intellectually dishonest, fallacious and won't convince anyone.

Wortfish wrote:

No, it literally says that. It does NOT however say how or from what, meaning it's very much ex-nihilo.

Ex novo (from scratch), not ex nihilo (from nothing).

Nope, ex-nihilo.

Wortfish wrote:

Plants are not made up of earth/soil Wortfish.

Actually, they are.

Once again displaying profound ignorance or incredibly subpar trolling.

Wortfish wrote: The material used to make plants come the water and soil in the ground.

False, the materials to make the plants come from seeds or other reproductive matter from previous plants.
Plants don't spontaneously form out of the dirt.

Wortfish wrote: The sugars that power them, and the oxygen they breathe, comes from the air.

You're describing what fuels the growth of a plant, not how the plant came to be there in the first place.

Wortfish wrote:

And if you did not need to resort to dishonest quote-mining that would be a valid rebuttal.
You left out the bit where I pointed out that humans aren't made of dust of the ground.

Actually, we are made of the dust of the ground.

Nope, mindlessly regurgitating the same refuted nonsense for the umpteenth time won't magically make it rational or true.

Wortfish wrote: You are about 50% protein,

Nope. I'm about 65% water.
Also I did not coalesce from dust, I am the product of my parents reproductive activities.

Wortfish wrote: and the amino acids in your proteins come from the earth. via the food you have eaten.

Again conflating fuel with origin.

Wortfish wrote:

If it weren't so depressing, it would be amazing how you manage to competely ignore the facts and just mindlessly regurgitate your counterfactual assertions. If something is in no way analogous to something else, it is not the same in principle either.

CREATIONISM: God creates ADAM from dust, then takes a part of ADAM to make EVE.

QED more nonsense that even disagrees with your earlier admissions.
1. You already admitted that creationism isn't limited to the Abrahamic story.
2. People aren't golems, no matter how many times you blindly assert them to be.

Wortfish wrote:EVOLUTIONISM:

Is a silly, dishonest attempt by creationists to equate religious dogma with a soundly supported scientific theory.
Evolution is not evolutionim. So even if your comparison between creationism and evolutionism was accurate, it still would not change the fact that creationism isn't similar to the scientific theory or the observed fact of evolution.

Evolution creates a PROTOCELL, then uses its genes to make all living organisms.

1. Evolution did not create anything. Evolution is a process, a combination of natural factors and phenomena.
2. The protocell isn't the result of intended, magical action. It's the result of unguided natural processes.

Therefore creationism is nowhere near the same principle.

Wortfish wrote:

Pathetic.Birds and planes both fly. That doesn't mean planes are birds.

Bird flight inspired man-made flight.

Irrelevant tidbit that fails to hide the fact that you do not adress the actual point being made.

Wortfish wrote:...
The sugars that power them, and the oxygen they breathe, comes from the air.
...

Which airborne sugars are we talking about here - candy floss clouds, sucrose snow, glucose graupel, fructose fog, lactose lockets or what?

newolder wrote:

Wortfish wrote:...
The sugars that power them, and the oxygen they breathe, comes from the air.
...

Which airborne sugars are we talking about here - candy floss clouds, sucrose snow, glucose graupel, fructose fog, lactose lockets or what?

Nice one, missed that.

@wortfish: Whether those are 7 myths or not, the deadly truth about creationism is that it's an attempt to crowbar what we know about the universe into a myth some blokes made up a few thousand years ago. As such it prevents its adherents from seeing the universe as it really is.

Wortfish wrote:
Ex novo (from scratch), not ex nihilo (from nothing).

Oh, Ex Novo eh? So he didn't poof them into existence then eh? He knocked them up from bits and bobs he had lying around then did he?

Why dont you bring us up to speed on where he came by these bits and bobs?

Wortfish wrote:

Fallible wrote:Why do you think you can talk for all creationists?

Creationists are a broad church.

Yes, that's my point. So don't start sentences with 'All creationists believe...'

Wortfish wrote:
On the contrary, the verse implies that the land produces the vegetation. In other words, the plants arise from the earth/soil rather than appearing from nowhere.

Soil is in large part decomposing plant and animal matter, together with all sorts of microorganisms. Where did that come from? The creationist explanation doesn't make sense.

So God created decomposing plant and animal matter (out of nothing?), then made it magically transform into seeds that could grow into plants?

If God didn't create decomposing plant and animal matter out of nothing, but from some other pre-existing material, where did that pre-existing material come from?

Of course, the whole thing is really just some ad-hoc rationalization of the fact that plants grow from seeds that are embedded in the ground. The people who wrote the biblical nonsense didn't know that plants evolved, nor apparently that plants grow from seeds that come from plants. Or what the constituents of soil actually are. So they just rationalized that somehow God must have caused plants to appear from soil. That's funny.

Wortfish wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
So at best, you could argue that it isn't god directly who creates things out of nothing.

No. God commands the earth/land to produce forth vegetation from itself. I don't know about you, but plants require water and nutrients from the soil/earth to grow.

I don't know about you, but here where I live Earth/land can't be "commanded" to produce forth vegetation from itself.

Also, where I live, you have to have a physical body that takes up space and requires energy, to manipulate other physical objects to do certain things.

No amount of wishing, thinking really hard, "willing", or commanding things into thin air, is going to make the soil/air/water/whatever suddenly mysteriously transmutate into living plants.

Please don't be ridiculous.

Rumraket wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
So at best, you could argue that it isn't god directly who creates things out of nothing.

No. God commands the earth/land to produce forth vegetation from itself. I don't know about you, but plants require water and nutrients from the soil/earth to grow.

I don't know about you, but here where I live Earth/land can't be "commanded" to produce forth vegetation from itself.

Also, where I live, you have to have a physical body that takes up space and requires energy, to manipulate other physical objects to do certain things.

No amount of wishing, thinking really hard, "willing", or commanding things into thin air, is going to make the soil/air/water/whatever suddenly mysteriously transmutate into living plants.

Please don't be ridiculous.

Well it wouldn't be a proper god if it didn't involve magic.

aban57 wrote:Well it wouldn't be a proper god if it didn't involve magic.

With non-explanations, all things are possible.

Rumraket wrote:

aban57 wrote:Well it wouldn't be a proper god if it didn't involve magic.

With non-explanations, all things are possible.

That's what magic is : a postulate that things can happen just because you decided so.

newolder wrote:

Wortfish wrote:...
The sugars that power them, and the oxygen they breathe, comes from the air.
...

Which airborne sugars are we talking about here - candy floss clouds, sucrose snow, glucose graupel, fructose fog, lactose lockets or what?

Carbon dioxide, actually. Sugars are carbohydrates: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesi ... nts1.shtml

Green plants absorb light energy using chlorophyll in their leaves. They use it to react carbon dioxide with water to make a sugar called glucose.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
False, the materials to make the plants come from seeds or other reproductive matter from previous plants.
Plants don't spontaneously form out of the dirt.

The genetic instructions are found in the seeds, but the actual raw materials come from the soil, water and air.

Therefore creationism is nowhere near the same principle.

I am arguing that God didn't create Eve from scratch. He created Adam from dust, then Eve from one of his ribs. He gave them both reproductive parts that allow the human race to profilerate and continue without having to create each and every one of us from scratch again and again: "Go forth and multiply!" That sounds a lot like evolution!

Wortfish wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
False, the materials to make the plants come from seeds or other reproductive matter from previous plants.
Plants don't spontaneously form out of the dirt.

The genetic instructions are found in the seeds, but the actual raw materials come from the soil, water and air.

Therefore creationism is nowhere near the same principle.

I am arguing that God didn't create Eve from scratch. He created Adam from dust, then Eve from one of his ribs. He gave them both reproductive parts that allow the human race to profilerate and continue without having to create each and every one of us from scratch again and again: "Go forth and multiply!" That sounds a lot like evolution!

No it sounds like bullshit. And who even cares? We know it's wrong, so whatever interpretation of creationism you happen to like is irrelevant. It's wrong. Grow up, move on.

Rumraket wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
False, the materials to make the plants come from seeds or other reproductive matter from previous plants.
Plants don't spontaneously form out of the dirt.

The genetic instructions are found in the seeds, but the actual raw materials come from the soil, water and air.

Therefore creationism is nowhere near the same principle.

I am arguing that God didn't create Eve from scratch. He created Adam from dust, then Eve from one of his ribs. He gave them both reproductive parts that allow the human race to profilerate and continue without having to create each and every one of us from scratch again and again: "Go forth and multiply!" That sounds a lot like evolution!

No it sounds like bullshit. And who even cares? We know it's wrong, so whatever interpretation of creationism you happen to like is irrelevant. It's wrong. Grow up, move on.

Also, believing that 7 billions can come from a single couple is perfectly ludicrous.

Rumraket wrote:
Soil is in large part decomposing plant and animal matter, together with all sorts of microorganisms. Where did that come from? The creationist explanation doesn't make sense.

Presumably, the first land plants in the evolutionary narrative, around 700 million years ago, must have grown on soil that was not made of decomposed plant and animal matter, maybe bacteria and protists (these are not mentioned in the Genesis account).