Creation V Evolution Debate

zod

1. How old is the earth is your view, also how old is man?

2. How many people did God create directly ? (Adam and Eve had Cain and Able only I think?)

3. What are these not quite human fossils that we keep digging up?

4. If life is found on another planet(s) are we missing a chapter, or is there some reference to this in the Bible already?

5. What do you think of the differing creationist views of the rest of the religions (the incorrect majority I assume)?

Thanks

bounty

J C: You are missing the point; Your creation fairy tales are not a science, that’s why there is no schools of creation in any credible Universities :rolleyes: do you see?

Your uncorroborated babblings are merely the opinions of a corrupt old cult that relies on your unheeding ignorant zealotry, to maintain its degrading position of power in this primitive society

Excelsior

... on trying to phrase his response in such a way as to move the conversation forward instead of just inciting more backbiting.


Oh. Wait.


This thread seems constantly on the edge of explosion. Show some restraint guys.

l3rian

Your sarcastic comments don't show much restraint, or add much Excelsior.

I think bounty makes a valid point about creation not being studied in any science departments in Universities.

robindch

> would you please answer MY QUESTIONS on Evolution.

For those coming in late to this thread, all of JC's questions have been fully answered over in the skeptics forum in this thread and this one, politely at first, then less politely, as replies were successively ignored. I would suggest that nobody wastes any further time in replying in this thread to these facile, and tediously repetitive, trolls.

FWIW, as I've mentioned before, Talk.Origins Archive and its Index to Creationist Claims are worth reading in order to understand the absolutist, confused, closed-minded, and thoroughly dishonest, claptrap which makes up creationism. The more chatty Panda's Thumb is also well worth poking around.

Finally, I came across this one recently, which just about sums up creationism from the point of view of suitably-trained scientists:

] "Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology
] shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes
] through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among
] species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together.
] Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and
] wailing 'does not!'" [Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.zl.fidonet.org]

- robin.

ApeXaviour

As a soon to be physics graduate. I'd just like to point out that if god created earth 6000 years ago, he sure did leave a lot of evidence to try trick us into thinking it's ~ 4.5 billion years old. Take uranium-238.. Half life = 4.5 billion years.

If you happen to find any of this stuff around you'll note that it generally won't be pure.. approximately half of it will be made up of lead. What a coincidence that U238 (eventually) decays into lead.

There are many many other radioactive isotopes that conclude similarly. They're not even rare.. you can take a pack of low-salt outta your kitchen and do some geiger-counter tests on the potassium-40 in it.. You may not find the age of the earth but you'd at least know it's over a billion years old anyhow..

Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'does not!'

I'd certainly agree with that..

Phil_321

J C wrote:

Creation by an all-powerful and intelligent God, adequately explains how genetic diversity could arise - but Evolution doesn’t have any plausible mechanisms to account for the massive AMOUNT of information observed in all life, including elephants.
As I have already pointed out, the un-directed production of the sequence for a simple useful protein is a mathematical impossibility – so forget about the spontaneous generation of the complex bio-chemical pathways that produce Ivory and as for a living Elephant – dream on!!!!

"Massive amount of information"....... Hmm......the information that humans can process would seem unbelievably massive to creatures like ants or spiders, for example, if they were capable of even understanding such concepts in the first place.
But what's to say that the human mind is the determinant for what is a massive amount of information? Theoretically there could be consciousnesses capable of processing information on an even greater scale than humans to insects. And what's to say that there aren't other consciousness that are on an even greater scale again. And so on, and so on......
So I don't see how the 'massive' amounts of information in the universe prove anything.

Btw, can you tell me how you think your God came into being? How would you relate this to the creation of the universe from the Evolution theory point of view.

Myksyk

J C wrote:

This looks like the ultimate example of “the Emperor’s new clothes” – with 99.9% of "TRAINED" scientists apparently proudly displaying their belief in a theory that has long since passed it’s ‘sell by date’. The vast majority of the US population (who are ultimately paying the salaries of the scientists that produce this stuff) obviously don’t believe a word of it – and so it doesn’t sound like a long-term sustainable position to me.

The figures certainly do speak for themselves. There is something very “odd” about a situation where less than 1% of scientists view the world in the way that over 90% of “the population at large” view it. Is that out of touch or what??!!!!!

Or, just maybe everyone is wrong except ‘little Johnnie evolutionist’???

Or maybe the US education system somehow manages to train 'super brained' scientists while 'dumbing down' 90% of the general population - I think not!!!

One possibility is that the evolutionists are very poor communicators – but this is unlikely – nobody could be that bad a communicator – especially in view of the unquestioning sympathetic publicity given to evolutionists and their ideas by ALL of the main media outlets!!!

The alternative explanation is that the vast majority of people HAVE looked at evolution and HAVE correctly concluded that it is complete rubbish.

The lack of evidence for Evolution provided by contributors to this thread would indicate that Evolution could also become a ‘minority sport’ on this side of the Atlantic as well!!!

The validity of evolutionary theory is not based on how many of the public believe it to be true. Biologists opinions in this regard do matter more because they know what they are talking about. Furthermore their opinion is based on knowledge of the evidence available and their ability to weigh it up. Science is not a popularity contest much as you would like it to be. However, your belief that it is a popularity contest may explain why you think that if you shout loud enough you'll win. We know you desperately want young earth creationism to be true ... it shows in every word you type. But desperation is all you have. Your egregious assault on scientific truth is that of a desperate man who believes in a myth; a myth so outlandish and pathetic it almost engenders pity if it weren't for the aggressive, disrespectful and deliberately obfuscating manner with which you present it.

Capt'n Midnight

J C wrote:

The hypothesis that you suggest would appear to be a good example of natural / artificial selection acting on EXISTING genetic diversity

so you don't believe the (2^23)-1 gene pairings (yy ain't viable) not counting mutations / crossing over for humans produces any new combinations that have never been seen before , sounds like reincarnation.

However, none of the above disproves Creation or proves Evolution. These phenomena are merely examples of selection pressures operating on EXISTING diversity. The key question is how this diversity arose, in the first place. Creation by an all-powerful and intelligent God, adequately explains how genetic diversity could arise - but Evolution doesn’t have any plausible mechanisms to account for the massive AMOUNT of information observed in all life, including elephants.

Life had 4 Billion years to develop genes, most of the bio-diverstiy in the cambrian explosion didn't just happen in that 30 million years.

As I have already pointed out, the un-directed production of the sequence for a simple useful protein is a mathematical impossibility – so forget about the spontaneous generation of the complex bio-chemical pathways that produce Ivory and as for a living Elephant – dream on!!!!

proteins and RNA are self folding to a degree , the number of possible sequences is nowhere as great as a computer would suggest simply because the next amino acid / base would not fit or would have different ionic or hydrophobilic/hydrophilic interactions with the existing part of the molecule. and a lot of people seem to forget that in an oxygen poor environment bio-molecules don't "go off" as easily so there is ample time for selection.

If an entity designed us then there is still a lot of work to do , humans aren't even close to be perfect also the designer is very lazy if you compare the cytochrom-c sequences between different organisms there is relatively little difference ...

J C

Quote Zod
1. How old is the earth in your view, also how old is man?

2. How many people did God create directly ? (Adam and Eve had Cain and Able only I think?)

3. What are these not quite human fossils that we keep digging up?

4. If life is found on another planet(s) are we missing a chapter, or is there some reference to this in the Bible already?

5. What do you think of the differing creationist views of the rest of the religions (the incorrect majority I assume)?

Answers
1. The Earth and Mankind are both 6,500 +/- 500 years old.

2. God directly created TWO people – Adam and Eve. He told them in Gen 1:28 to “Be fruitful and increase in number”(NIV). Cain, Abel and Seth as well as many other unrecorded children were conceived by and born to Adam and Eve. Gen 5:4 confirms this fact “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters”(NIV). Such was the perfection of Humans and the newly created environment, that Adam lived for 930 years!! The number of children produced by such long-lived healthy people would be very large indeed.

3. They are usually fossilised monkeys / apes – and in some cases fossilised Humans. In the case of ‘Nebraska Man’ this so-called ‘Hominoid fossil’ was later identified as an extinct PIG’S TOOTH!!!. Piltdown Man was discovered to be a combination of an Orang-utan’s jaw and a Human skull after being displayed for over 40 years as a missing link between Humans and our supposed ‘Hominoid ancestors’!!!!!

4. The Bible is silent about ET life. It is unlikely that God created life on other planets without telling us about it. However, the angelic and indeed demonic hosts are also ‘forms of life’ currently residing in the spiritual dimension both here on Earth and elsewhere.

5. Other creationist views are all approximations of the truth in the Bible. The many “creation” and “flood” stories among different native peoples all over the world point to the veracity of Creation and Noah’s Flood. However, the stories have gotten somewhat changed as they were passed down through “word of mouth” among various isolated groups of people after the “Dispersal of Babel”. The Bible contains the most accurate account, and is the infallible written Word of God – who was actually present at both the Creation and Noah’s Flood events.


Quote bounty
Your creation fairy tales are not a science, that’s why there is no schools of creation in any credible Universities

There are no credible scientific ‘schools of evolution’ either, but I am happy to confirm that Creation Science is making rapid progress in observing and reporting on the real world and how it “works”.
As for fairy tales, evolutionists are the ones claiming that frogs eventually turned into princes (i.e. amphibians were ancestors to man).

Creation Scientists are people of both faith and science – and they know EXACTLY where the science stops and their faith begins – unlike some people that I could mention!!!!.


Quote bounty
Your uncorroborated babblings are merely the opinions of a corrupt old cult that relies on your unheeding ignorant zealotry, to maintain its degrading position of power in this primitive society.

The above quote is actually a perfect description of many Evolutionists from the ancient Greeks to Hitler and Stalin!!!

It certainly isn’t an objective description of Creation Scientists or for that matter most enlightened modern Evolutionists.


Quote 13rian
I think bounty makes a valid point about creation not being studied in any science departments in Universities.

Heliocentric astronomy wasn’t studied in Medieval Universities either – and they were also wrong.

The study of evolution has led to precious little objective evidence being produced in support of it’s scientific validity.

Quote Robin
For those coming in late to this thread, all of JC's questions have been fully answered over in the skeptics forum

Unfortunately NO answers were provided to any of my SPECIFIC questions about Evolution. There was a great deal of ‘huffing and puffing’ and references to internet sites – which also DIDN’T provide any valid answers to my questions. The sceptics then closed down the threads unilaterally and without warning while threatening anybody who re-opened the debate about evolution with being expelled from their forum!!!!!.
I then ‘sought refuge’ on the Christian Forum and the debate has progressed from there!!!!

So here once more are my questions, Robin. Please bear in mind the advice that you got from your Leaving Certificate teachers that you cannot get ANY credit unless you ATTEMPT the questions:-

1. Please explain to me in your own words how Evolution "Muck to Man" 'WORKS'.

2. What is the postulated mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life - or is there one postulated?

3. What is the postulated 'primitive' mechanism that provided the diversity upon which Natural Selection supposedly worked?

4. What is the postulated "conservation" mechanism that the supposed earliest life forms used to preserve any "accidental" positive changes from one generation to the next?

Patiently awaiting answers ………. but not holding my breath – due to the likelihood of acute anoxia!!!!

The ‘deafening silence’ that has greeted these questions every time that I have asked them speaks volumes about the current desperate situation in which Evolution finds itself !!!!


Quote ApeXaviour
As a soon to be physics graduate. I'd just like to point out that if god created earth 6000 years ago, he sure did leave a lot of evidence to try trick us into thinking it's ~ 4.5 billion years old. Take uranium-238.. Half life = 4.5 billion years.

If you happen to find any of this stuff around you'll note that it generally won't be pure.. approximately half of it will be made up of lead. What a coincidence that U238 (eventually) decays into lead.

God certainly doesn’t try to trick us into thinking up false ideas – we are usually quite capable of doing this on our own!!!!

The fact is that Uranium ore is generally mined as Pitchblende (Uranium Oxide) or Carnotite (Uranium mixed with Vanadium, Potassium and Oxygen) – and Lead is rarely if ever found in close proximity to Uranium ore.
Equally, Lead mines generally don’t produce Uranium - Sulphur, Copper, Gold and Silver are the most common impurities found in Lead ores.

About 8 MILLION tonnes of Lead are mined annually – and it is estimated that every year, only about 10 tonnes of Lead is produced through the radioactive decay of Uranium WORLDWIDE.

Obviously, God created BOTH Uranium and Lead separately – small amounts of Uranium and large amounts of Lead. The radioactive decay of Uranium to Lead is therefore a ‘side issue’ from which we cannot draw any valid conclusions in relation to the age of the Earth.


Quote ApeXaviour
There are many many other radioactive isotopes that conclude similarly. They're not even rare. You can take a pack of low-salt outta your kitchen and do some geiger-counter tests on the potassium-40 in it.. You may not find the age of the earth but you'd at least know it's over a billion years old anyhow

Potassium-40 is an IMPURITY in NaCl and therefore varies enormously depending on the salt source and it’s subsequent processing. All you can tell by measuring the radioactivity of a salt sample – is the radioactivity of that particular salt sample.

To measure it’s “age” you would need to know what it’s radioactivity was “at the beginning” as well as how much and what types of radioactive material was added to or subtracted from it during it’s ‘lifetime’. You would also need to know if the rate of radioactive decay remained constant over the time that the salt has existed.
None of these factors can be measured – so therefore you cannot scientifically conclude ANYTHING about the ‘age’ of a salt sample by measuring it’s present radioactivity.

J C

Quote Phil 321
Theoretically there could be consciousnesses capable of processing information on an even greater scale than humans to insects. And what's to say that there aren't other consciousness that are on an even greater scale again. And so on, and so on......

I can confirm that there IS a “consciousness on an even greater scale” to anything that we can comprehend – and He is called Jesus Christ, the creator of the Universe!!!!


Quote Phil 321
So I don't see how the 'massive' amounts of information in the universe prove anything.

Information is invariably observed to originate with an intelligent source. The ‘massive amounts of information’ in the Universe proves that the universe originated with a ‘massive intelligent source’ aka God.


Quote Phil 321
Btw, can you tell me how you think your God came into being? How would you relate this to the creation of the universe from the Evolution theory point of view.

The Creator of time and space must necessarily have existed before and outside of time and space. Therefore God ‘always was and always will be’ – and indeed ‘was and is omnipresent’.

There is no relationship between the Creation of the Universe by God and man’s Evolutionary speculations.


Quote Myksyk
The validity of evolutionary theory is not based on how many of the public believe it to be true. Biologists opinions in this regard do matter more because they know what they are talking about. Furthermore their opinion is based on knowledge of the evidence available and their ability to weigh it up. Science is not a popularity contest much as you would like it to be.

You are certainly correct that science is not a popularity contest – it should indeed be the objective pursuit of observable truth.
The concept of Evolution however, is a pretty basic idea and an average member of the public is well capable of understanding and evaluating it. Ordinary members of the public sit on juries and must evaluate the often highly complex evidence presented to them – so evaluating the evidence for Evolution should actually be quite easy for most people. The problem, of course is that there is no objective observable evidence for most of the claims of Evolution!!!
In any event, when a “Group” of scientists become so apparently isolated from their fellow Humans, that practically everyone EXCEPT those in the “Group” reject their ideas – I would suggest that such a “Group” needs to take a long hard look at itself and it’s ideas!!!
The Evolutionists’ Mutual Admiration Society needs to begin to ‘back up’ their evolutionary speculations with hard evidence if they want the rest of us to take them seriously.


Quote Myksyk
We know you desperately want young earth creationism to be true ... it shows in every word you type. But desperation is all you have. Your egregious assault on scientific truth is that of a desperate man who believes in a myth; a myth so outlandish and pathetic it almost engenders pity if it weren't for the aggressive, disrespectful and deliberately obfuscating manner with which you present it.

The above sentiments apply ‘in spades’ to Evolutionists and ‘old earth evolutionism’!!!

Creation Scientists have no need for desperation – all observable reality clearly supports CREATION – and they are personally assured of salvation by Jesus Christ in the next life.

Contrast this with Secular Evolutionists who BELIEVE that they have come from NOTHING and are going NOWHERE while leading a brief and ultimately POINTLESS existence.
All observable reality proves that they are DESPERATELY WRONG in these assumptions.

One can only pray for such people, who are rejecting God’s free gift of eternal salvation, for a life of pointless nihilism here on Earth and possibly a lot worse in the next life.


Quote Capt’n Midnight
so you don't believe the (2^23)-1 gene pairings (yy ain't viable) not counting mutations / crossing over for humans produces any new combinations that have never been seen before , sounds like reincarnation.

I certainly do believe that sexual reproduction produces an effective infinity of gene combinations that ‘have never been seen before’ – and that is why every Human Being (other than Maternal Twins) are genetically unique – but they are always Human Beings.

The point that I was making on my previous posting is that AN INCREASE in genetic information has never been observed. The case of the African Elephant population LOSING it’s ability to produce tusks under selection pressure from poaching is an example of “devolution” and NOT ‘upwards and onwards’ “evolution”. I would also point out that a tuskless Elephant is still an Elephant – and I also don’t think that it would be a good idea if it were to lose any more body parts!!!


Quote Capt’n Midnight
Life had 4 Billion years to develop genes, most of the bio-diverstiy in the cambrian explosion didn't just happen in that 30 million years.

Something that is dead today will still be dead in 4 billion years – so long periods of time in itself can achieve nothing.
The so-called “Cambrian Explosion” is actually based on observing the fossilised record of the catastrophic death and burial of billions of sea-floor creatures and flocculated plankton during Noah’s Flood. These dead creatures are to be found in huge numbers at the bottom of the resultant sedimentary rock strata under which they were BURIED worldwide. The “Cambrian Explosion” is a patently obvious record of (fossilised) dead creatures – and not an explosion of LIFE.


Quote Capt’n Midnight
proteins and RNA are self folding to a degree , the number of possible sequences is nowhere as great as a computer would suggest simply because the next amino acid / base would not fit or would have different ionic or hydrophobilic/hydrophilic interactions with the existing part of the molecule.

Unfortunately, the next amino acid / base could ‘fit’ alright – and it has been observed to cause absolute havoc to the three dimensional shape of the protein when it turns up in the ‘wrong place’ in a critical amino acid sequence.
An undirected process would spend an effective infinity of time making various useless combinations of amino acids – and we are only talking about amino acid SEQUENCES here. Making the amino acids themselves and assembling them into coherent chains to say nothing about producing a LIVING cell, are many multiple orders of magnitude more difficult than the already ‘impossible task’ of producing the correct amino acid sequence itself.


Quote Capt’n Midnight
If an entity designed us then there is still a lot of work to do , humans aren't even close to be perfect also the designer is very lazy if you compare the cytochrom-c sequences between different organisms there is relatively little difference ...

The similarity between Cytochrome-c sequences is evidence of a common designer – and may also be proof that it is difficult to improve on perfection!!!

There are some terrible diseases, etc – but this is due to our degeneration since the “Fall of Man” and the entry of death and disease into the World as a direct result of the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God.

All that the supposed ‘engine of Evolution’ (i.e. mutation) does is to make a bad situation even worse, in most cases. Indeed mutations are often the CAUSE of the terrible diseases that afflict living creatures – and therefore mutations are actually part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

It is quite clear that living organisms including humans have DECLINED to our current levels of imperfection (from an originally perfect state) – and not the other way around, as evolutionists would have us believe.

ApeXaviour

No explanation for the radiation proof physicists have provided then eh? (see my last post)

Thought so..

J C

ApeXaviour wrote:

No explanation for the radiation proof physicists have provided then eh? (see my last post)

Thought so..

Please read the last two items on my first posting today.

J C

Danno

Nice to see the thread buzzing again!!!

RE:
1. How old is the earth in your view, also how old is man? Earth is approx 6,000 -7,000 years old - man is a few days short of that.

2. How many people did God create directly ? (Adam and Eve had Cain and Able only I think?) Two, Adam and Eve, Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel, amongst others.

3. What are these not quite human fossils that we keep digging up? Not human at all! - Ape fossils.

4. If life is found on another planet(s) are we missing a chapter, or is there some reference to this in the Bible already? Just as much research by SETI as like their evolution counterparts have found zilch. There is no reference to it in the bible. If it were important I feel that it would have been mentioned.

5. What do you think of the differing creationist views of the rest of the religions (the incorrect majority I assume)? Many relegions have relayed much of God's message in truth, however abiding by it and practising it has been many of the religions downfalls also compounded by the desire for control over their members.

robindch

JC, Danno -

Just out of interest, are you both flat-earthers too?

- robin.

ps: I'm still waiting for an explanation of the contradiction in Genesis

Phil_321

I'm disgusted at the Creationist guys answers on this thread. You have no proof that 'God' exists. How can you argue against people who don't pay any regard to concepts such facts and proof.


The theory of Evolution describes how the universe has developed over time based on scientific study.
The 'theory' of Creationism describes how the universe was created, without any proof whatsoever. It's pure fantasy.

No logical person ultimately knows how the universe was created, but they subscribe to the theory of Evolution on how the universe developed.

How any logical, intelligent person could believe the story about creating the world in 6 days is beyond me. FFS, if there was some all powerful (and unproveable) 'God' why didn't create it all in one day? :rolleyes:

zod

J C wrote:

Answers
1. The Earth and Mankind are both 6,500 +/- 500 years old.

It would seem therefore that you are not just at odds with scientists regarding evolution but with also with all geologists and palaeontologists!

Do you think they are all fools?

What method of dating would you agree with?

I wonder why no-one ever painted a picture of a T-Rex (while they were running around) :cool: ?

We should tell Bord na Mona to stop cutting into the bogs for peat, we should just leave it for a few more years - then drill for oil.

J C wrote:

2. God directly created TWO people – Adam and Eve. He told them in Gen 1:28 to “Be fruitful and increase in number”(NIV). Cain, Abel and Seth as well as many other unrecorded children were conceived by and born to Adam and Eve. Gen 5:4 confirms this fact “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters”(NIV). Such was the perfection of Humans and the newly created environment, that Adam lived for 930 years!! The number of children produced by such long-lived healthy people would be very large indeed.

I think there are minimum numbers that a species needs to survive ? The gene pool for this is shallow. Or do you disagree with genetisists also?

Are you saying that adam and eves sons and daughters all interbred ?

If adam lived for 930 years and his offspring lived similar long lives ( the longevity slowly decreasing as we mutated :rolleyes: ) how many generations ago was adam - heck my Grandad might know him!

J C wrote:

3. They are usually fossilised monkeys / apes – and in some cases fossilised Humans. In the case of ‘Nebraska Man’ this so-called ‘Hominoid fossil’ was later identified as an extinct PIG’S TOOTH!!!. Piltdown Man was discovered to be a combination of an Orang-utan’s jaw and a Human skull after being displayed for over 40 years as a missing link between Humans and our supposed ‘Hominoid ancestors’!!!!!

Apes that leave tools around, Apes that buried thier dead. Apes that walked upright! I'm suing discovery!

J C wrote:

The Bible is silent about ET life. It is unlikely that God created life on other planets without telling us about it. However, the angelic and indeed demonic hosts are also ‘forms of life’ currently residing in the spiritual dimension both here on Earth and elsewhere.

Yes it sure is strangely silent, makes you think that it was written by people whos terms of reference did not cover other planets. I wonder why seeing as they were inspired by deity at the time.
It does mention the four motorbikers of the apocalypse though..sorry I meant horses.

I do notice that Creationists are not pinning their arguments to this - in other words life on on other planets could actually be found soon - if it is they can just say "yeah so what - he just didn't mention it".

woops :eek:

J C wrote:

Other creationist views are all approximations of the truth in the Bible. The many “creation” and “flood” stories among different native peoples all over the world point to the veracity of Creation and Noah’s Flood. However, the stories have gotten somewhat changed as they were passed down through “word of mouth” among various isolated groups of people after the “Dispersal of Babel”. The Bible contains the most accurate account, and is the infallible written Word of God – who was actually present at both the Creation and Noah’s Flood events.

How do you tell which one is true? I know lets look for "supporting repeatably observable EVIDENCE" ahem oh we only do that to other theories.

TBH I now think your just winding us up

Gazza22

It's just one of many ridiculous things that is fed by the bible...

JustHalf

You should a good read of charter point 3 and probably point 6, gazza22

solas

1. How old is the earth in your view, also how old is man? Earth is approx 6,000 -7,000 years old - man is a few days short of that.

2. How many people did God create directly ? (Adam and Eve had Cain and Able only I think?) Two, Adam and Eve, Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel, amongst others.

I'm quite stunned tbh....I know I only bought my first bible recently and while I may not attend chruch regularly I do have some understanding of the faith and by no means do I interpret the bible so literally. Jesus..who is teaching these people?

solas

holy mother of God..that's just shocking...*goes off to read Genisis*.

solas

k..I know I've posted three posts in succesion but seriously after reading the last thread I thought..well...I know I could run down the road get my local priest and have him sit here and explain Genesis in a clear more defined way..but insted I'll share with you what is in my bible. ( bible has a commentary with it which gives approximate dates, translations and interpretations for better understanding)

Introduction to Genesis..
The more we move on in life the more interested we become in tracing our roots: where did our ancestors live? How did our parents come to know each other? Who influenced us in our first decisions?
All peoples likewise have tried to reconstruct their past. No doubt they want to save it from oblivion, but more especially they hope to find in the past confirmation of what they themselves believed.
Relating their history surrounding them, has a way of affirming their own identity among the many nations, both great and small.
this is what we find in Genesis - a book that was gradually formed through many centuries. It finally took a definitive form in the fifth century BC when the Jewish people, having returned from Babylonion captivity fixed forever the expression of their faith.
Genesis means beginning. We will look not so much at it as a document on the origins of the universe or of a sin comitted by our first ancestors. rather from the first pages, we shall find through images all that is important for us.
The book has three parts. Chapters 1-11 attempts to span vast periods of time from the beginning of creation up to the first "ancestors of the faith" whose names have been remembered, the first of whom is Abraham.
The second part recalls the life of the nomadic clans who believed in a God who was near and compassionate, the "god of their ancestors". This history (or these stories) take place in the land of Canaan at a time in which the Israelite people did not yet exist (between the 18th and 15th century BC). It shows how faith in God's promises is the soul of all our religious quests and is the subject of chapters 12-38.
A third part, the history of joseph, throws a first light on the meaning of our life and the tragedies that are the threads in the weaving of human existance.

(christian community bible, catholic pastoral edition 2004)

robindch

> interpretations for better understanding

Ahhh... we reach the crux of the matter!

In other words, the bible can't be read on its own, but must be 'interepreted' correctly according to the instructions provided by someone else. I'm *still* waiting for anybody to tell me how a believer should know that he can safely ignore one bit, and proudly declaim the next (or the other way around, depending upon proclivity). Any takers for this important question?

> Genesis means beginning

Not quite -- I always understood that it either derived from the greek for 'to be born', whence the greek word 'genos' ('birth' + 'type'). Ironically, Genesis is also cognate with the English 'gene', which I suppose must bug the hell out of one small, literalist, part of the population

- robin.

solas

dictionary.com
gen·e·sis Audio pronunciation of "genesis" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-ss)
n. pl. gen·e·ses (-sz)

1. The coming into being of something; the origin. See Synonyms at beginning.

in other words, the bible can't be read on its own, but must be 'interepreted' correctly according to the instructions provided by someone else. I'm *still* waiting for anybody to tell me how a believer should know that he can safely ignore one bit, and proudly declaim the next (or the other way around, depending upon proclivity). Any takers for this important question?

This is what is says in the bible.

"The bible is the word of God...but even if you had bought this book and read it with much attention, you cannot force God to hand over his message to you. God himself will introduce you to the truth if you can meet certain requirements. The first one is to search with perseverance, the door will be opened to those who knock. Do not give up if you cannot understand at the beginning, but ask in prayer and you will recieve enlightenment. Another requirement is that you search it together with your brothers and sisters as you participate in a christian community."

even in that small paragraph I'm sure there are certain phrases that are alien to you robin, the use of the word "God" could mean several things. In the mind of a closed unenlightened being it might suggest some old man who stands above the world casting judgement and dispersions amongst all who dwell there.
Many seek and find and believe this God is a personal god, a sense of higher consiousness, and that this "spirit of God" from where "The Word" comes is known as [literally interpreted as] The Breath of Wisdom.

"the spirit of God hovered over the waters" [genesis1.1]
We have to know that in hebrew the word "breath" or "wind" signifies spirit.
Here we have the spirit of God, as breath, named just before "The Word."
so in this instance, God is considered the Breath of Life.

zod

solas wrote:

This is what is says in the bible.

"The bible is the word of God...but even if you had bought this book and read it with much attention, you cannot force God to hand over his message to you. God himself will introduce you to the truth if you can meet certain requirements. The first one is to search with perseverance, the door will be opened to those who knock. Do not give up if you cannot understand at the beginning, but ask in prayer and you will recieve enlightenment. Another requirement is that you search it together with your brothers and sisters as you participate in a christian community."
.

Does it say this or does someone preface the Bible with it? Either way Creationists believe in this stuff literally - the whole shootin match Cain/Able the talking snake.. :rolleyes:

I believe THAT is what this thread is about and not what you or I or anyone interpret it as.

Therefore you are off the point.

robindch

> This is what is says in the bible.

Not in any copy I've seen -- can you provide a reference for this, please?

> ask in prayer and you will recieve enlightenment.

Ok, we're down to the nub of the matter here -- you're telling me that reading the bible is insufficient and we must 'ask in prayer' in order to understand what the bible is saying, and which parts are important, and which parts can be safely ignored (which begs the question of why were they included, then).

Anyhow, if we understand prayer to be the activity of "communicating with (what a praying person believes to be) god", then how come prayer instructs people to do such radically different things? In the US, people are ordered to be creationists, whereas on this side of the atlantic, people are told not to be. Some christians, following prayer, are in favour of divorce, gay marriage, abortion, transsubstantiation (etc, etc), while others, believing that they receive their instructions from exactly the same place, have exactly the opposite view.

How are these contradictions be reconciled from a christian point-of-view?

- robin.

solas

Does it say this or does someone preface the Bible with it? Either way Creationists believe in this stuff literally - the whole shootin match Cain/Able the talking snake..

the forward and commentary are contributed by various members of the episcopal commision for the biblical apostolate.

I believe THAT is what this thread is about and not what you or I or anyone interpret it as.

oh reaaally. Take a look through some of the thread and see how many times Genesis has been mentioned. Are creationists some section of catholicism or christianity? If so as a member of the church I have every right to put forward how I (and how generally educated members of the church) perceive and interpret the creation story.

Therefore you are off the point.

no, see above..

Not in any copy I've seen -- can you provide a reference for this, please?

I've already provided a reference to the source material.

Ok, we're down to the nub of the matter here -- you're telling me that reading the bible is insufficient and we must 'ask in prayer' in order to understand what the bible is saying, and which parts are important, and which parts can be safely ignored (which begs the question of why were they included, then).

no..I stated what the preface of the bible I am quoting from suggests as to how to gain a better understanding of the text. (scriptures)

Anyhow, if we understand prayer to be the activity of "communicating with (what a praying person believes to be) god", then how come prayer instructs people to do such radically different things?

perhaps that is how you define prayer, what do you think you are being ordered to do?

In the US, people are ordered to be creationists,

really?...I think thats just what you would like to think.

whereas on this side of the atlantic, people are told not to be.

for someone who has no faith, has no understanding of the bible and is not a member of any church you seem to be feel you have a greater understanding than those who actually are about what the requirements of their faith is. Where do you get your information, can you back these two points up with references?

Some christians, following prayer, are in favour of divorce, gay marriage, abortion, transsubstantiation (etc, etc), while others, believing that they receive their instructions from exactly the same place, have exactly the opposite view.

Where is this wonderful and mysterious place?
some christians pray..who they pray to and what they pray for and in fact how they pray is a personal thing, there is not an instruction sheet with which they must comply when praying.
It's very true that some christians don't have a probem with gay marriage or divorce etc..
I think your confusing the churchs moral stance within society with praying and I can't figure out why.
This is the thing that irks me. People come into christianity without any knowledge of what christianity is about, have never read the bible let alone considered doing so and feel quite content to tell us all how it is.
That would be like me walking into a trigonometry class and telling the students why trigonometry is whack and that they are all wrong for practiscing it.

solas

How are these contradictions be reconciled from a christian point-of-view?

I don't have any issues with the above, are you asking me personally how I can reconcile those issues with my faith?

zod

solas wrote:

This is the thing that irks me. A bunch of christian bashers come into christianity without any knowledge of what christianity is about, have never read the bible let alone considered doing so and feel quite content to tell us all how it is.
That would be like me walking into a trigonometry class and telling the students why trigonometry is whack and that they are all wrong for practiscing it.

The thread is creation versus evolution, now all of sudden - people are christian bashers if they argue for evolution??

so what if other points where brought up - they were off the main point also! sheesh

solas

no, but I do think you are going to have to define clearer what you consider a creationist and the understanding of the creation story otherwise this thread is not suitable to the christianity forum.

zod

solas wrote:

no, but I do think you are going to have to define clearer what you consider a creationist and the understanding of the creation story otherwise this thread is not suitable to the christianity forum.

To argue for evolution I have to define what a creationist is ? .. I don't think so.

Why don't you start a new thread and call it "Interpretations of Genesis" if thats what you want to talk about.

solas

say what now?
you want to debate evolution verseus creationism but you have no idea what creationism is and when it is explained to you, you stick your fingers in your ears and go ner ner ner?
(because its not what you originally thought.)

On another topic, I am intrigued to know which form of christianity does J.C and Danno follow and who exactly taught them their understanding of the bible.

zod

solas wrote:

say what now?
you want to debate evolution verseus creationism but you have no idea what creationism is and when it is explained to you, you stick your fingers in your ears and go ner ner ner?
(because its not what you originally thought

To ascertain exactly what they thought I asked 5 questions - to which they posted their reply. We then started to disseminate their answers. Nobody was sticking their fingers in their ears except you when you posted out of topic..

solas wrote:

On another topic, I am intrigued to know which form of christianity does J.C and Danno follow and who exactly taught them their understanding of the bible.

Another topic? thats new! :rolleyes:

solas

who is they? from what Ive read of the thrad the accounts of J.C and Danno are both slightly prehistoric and I wonder where and how they have formed their opinions.
As the thread is in christianity and I am currently studying the subject, I have offered the Roman Catholic churchs opinion on Geneis, from which creationism is based.
why is that off topic? Are you only here to discuss with J.C. and Danno or is this discussion open to all?

zod

The churches stance is ambiguous at best .. it leaves people to make up thier own mind and says the believing in evolution and believing in an utimate creator are not contrary.

Creationists it seems are well represented by Danno and JC it seems ( see http://www.creationist.org/index.htm) - they believe evolution is NOT possible and did not happen and that the world was created 6000 years ago.

solas

I'm as intrigued as you are as to where J.C and Danno have derived their understandings.

Excelsior

Solas is well on topic. I fear Zod that the more nuanced view s/he provides is a bit more complex to dissassemble but s/he is sharing his/her view on the topic and engaging both sides of the argument.

zod

Excelsior wrote:

Solas is well on topic. I fear Zod that the more nuanced view s/he provides is a bit more complex to dissassemble but s/he is sharing his/her view on the topic and engaging both sides of the argument.

I disagree - to contribute on a debate on two mutully exclusive theories with an interpretation that supports both is fudging the issue. However you are right - thats my interpretation of a thread thats called "Creation versus Evolution" and not "Creation and Evolution - together at last".

robindch

solas -

Thanks for replying, but your reply at 1955h yesterday evening makes me think that you've misunderstood my own posting from 1919h, so I'll restate my case further on.

> for someone who has no faith, has no understanding of the bible and
> is not a member of any church you seem to be feel you have a
> greater understanding than those who actually are about what
> the requirements of their faith is.

FYI - in addition to growing up in the 70's in a small country town with a negligible non-catholic population, and the considerable efforts of my parents to make me a good little catholic, I also spent six years in an excellent monastery school, where I learnt latin and ancient greek (and read the new testament in the original) and was forced, not unwillingly at the time, to go to prayers/mass twice daily as well as receiving considerable 'religious education' of one kind or another. I would say that my knowledge of the christian belief system is at least as solid as anybody else's around here and I would politely suggest that your assertion that I've "no understanding of the bible" is false. WRT your allegation that I feel that i've a "greater understanding" than anybody else, well, I would say that I have a *different* understanding and (as said before) I'm trying to understand why the things which are believed, are believed.

To the matter at hand. In your message of 1347h yesterday, you quote:

> if you had bought this book and read it with much attention, you
> cannot force God to hand over his message to you. [...] Do not
> give up if you cannot understand at the beginning, but ask in prayer
> and you will recieve enlightenment.

From this, I understand that you believethat simply reading the bible will not provide unambiguous answers and, to help with understanding the text, one must 'ask in prayer' (presumably for guidance upon which parts are important, which are inaccurate, and which parts can be safely ignored).

Anyhow, if we understand prayer to be the activity of "communicating with (what a praying person believes to be) god" ...

> perhaps that is how you define prayer

What do you define prayer as? I genuinely thought that it was what I said it was.

...then how come prayer instructs people to do such radically different things? In the US and here in Ireland, with JC and Danno (perhaps they'd like to confirm this?), it seems that prayer tells people to be creationists (see this link), whereas on this side of the atlantic, prayer seems to tell the Vatican that evolution is the way forward (see this link).

Why does prayer tell people in different countries to do contradictory things?

- robin.

J C

Quote Robin
JC, Danno -

Just out of interest, are you both flat-earthers too?

- robin.

ps: I'm still waiting for an explanation of the contradiction in Genesis

The (spherical) shape of the Earth is repeatably observable and it is therefore scientifically verifiable and beyond doubt.
In fact Is 40:22 confirms that the Earth is circular – “He sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the Earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.” (NIV).
'Flat Earth' ideas were held to be true by some Ancient Peoples but this was never believed-in by ‘The People of God.’


I thought that I had already ANSWERED you Genesis question satisfactorily. Does the fact that Genesis 1 is in ‘chronological order’ and Genesis 2 is in ‘subject order’ not explain your perceived contradiction?
If not, please tell me once again where the contradiction is in Genesis and I will try to resolve your problem for you.

PS I am still waiting for ANY ANSWERS to my questions on Evolution – and I have answered all of the questions asked of me.


Quote Phil 321
You have no proof that 'God' exists. How can you argue against people who don't pay any regard to concepts such facts and proof.

The creation of the Universe and God himself are not repeatably observable. However, strong circumstantial evidence does exist for both God and Creation – and strong circumstantial evidence IS acceptable in a Court of Law where it has a STATUS OF PROOF approaching scientific and eyewitness evidence.

In any event, here are some of the basic Circumstantial Proofs for the existence of God :-

The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have an equivalent ‘cause’ means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.
The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, means that there is a ‘clockmaker’ out there somewhere – and He is God.
The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God.
The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information, proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses and only God could do that.
The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God.

Quote Phil 321
No logical person ultimately knows how the universe was created, but they subscribe to the theory of Evolution on how the universe developed.

I am glad that you have confirmed the fact that SCIENCE DOESN’T KNOW HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED – please bear this in mind when you next read about the so-called “Big Bang” or is it now called the “Big Crunch” – or whatever!!!

Science also doesn’t know how life originated either.

Quote Phil 321
if there was some all powerful (and unproveable) 'God' why didn't create it all in one day?

The all powerful ever living God could have created everything in one nanosecond, never mind one day – if He chose to do so.
However, because God created the Universe especially for Man’s benefit, he chose a timescale of importance to man – namely the working week. God knew that man would work ‘24 / 7’ without a break – and that is why He chose to create the Universe and everything therein in 6 days – and rested on the seventh day.
It also confirmed in Ex 20:11 that the creation week is the basis of the Fourth Commandment “for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy”(NIV).


Quote Robin
Finally, I came across this one recently, which just about sums up creationism from the point of view of suitably-trained scientists:

] "Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology
] shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes
] through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among
] species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together.
] Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and
] wailing 'does not!'"

Creation Scientists have proved (using repeatably observable phenomena) that none of the above statements are valid!!!

Geology shows that all fossils are less than c. 7,000 years old with the vast majority of fossils dating from Noah’s Flood 5,000 +/- 500 years ago. The assumption that the millions of so-called “annual micro layers” observed in deep sedimentary rock layers such as the Grand Canyon represented millions of years of sedimentary deposition was disproven during the Mount St Helens eruption in 1980 when hundreds of thousands of “micro layers” were observed to be laid down in newly formed sedimentary rocks in a matter of hours.
Equally, polystrate tree fossils are observed ‘standing up through’ sedimentary rock layers that supposedly took millions of years to lay down – the logical conclusion is that that these layers were laid down rapidly and not over millions of years. It is ridiculous to postulate that a dead tree stood upright for millions of years while slow deposition of sediment gradually buried it. The fact that the ‘bottom’ of the fossilised tree is observed to be as well preserved as the ‘top’ is also a bit of a ‘giveaway’ that very rapid burial took place. Deep sedimentary rock layers therefore do not indicate ‘long ages’ – only a catastrophic worldwide disaster!!!!

Palaeontology shows the sequence in which creatures were killed and buried during Noah’s Flood – seafloor dwelling creatures and flocculated plankton first – all the way up to large land animals and birds, that obviously would be last to ‘succumb to the waves’. The extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (unfossilized) dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in supposedly multiple million year old amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed. If these bones / insects were, in fact, millions of years old, all biological material in them would have completely degenerated by now. The observed rates of biological degeneration under such conditions would give maximal ages of a few thousand years for these bones / insects.
The list of species in the so-called Geological Column represents the order of their catastrophic burial and it is NOT a record of their supposed evolution.

Taxonomy shows the CURRENT biological relationships among species that have arisen through speciation processes acting on the original created Kinds.
Evolution explains the scientifically valid phenomenon of Natural Selection, and this isn’t contested by Creation Scientists.

Creation Science observes the world with “open eyes and an open mind”.

The lack of plausible mechanisms postulated by Evolution and the mathematical impossibility of undirected processes producing life, means that Evolutionists have serious questions to answer on these issues - and so far no answers have been offered on this thread.


Quote Zod
I think there are minimum numbers that a species needs to survive ? The gene pool for this is shallow. Or do you disagree with genetisists also?

Are you saying that adam and eves sons and daughters all interbred ?


The gene pool becomes shallow when breeding proceeds in a narrow direction for a number of generations. To take an example, a pedigree animal e.g a Poodle has a very restricted gene pool due to significant selection pressure and inbreeding down the generations. A Poodle crossed with another Poodle will almost invariably produce nothing but Poodles. However, a mongrel dog will usually have a very deep gene pool – and crossing two mongrels will produce an enormous variety of dogs of all shapes and sizes (all of them with hybrid vigour as well, I might also add).
It is therefore entirely possible to have enormous genetic diversity within only two animals of the same species.
I think your point was derived from the fact that remnant populations of inbred animals on the verge of extinction often have very shallow gene pools and significant numbers of such animals are required to have a viable breeding programme to preserve such a threatened species.
However, this problem does not apply to outbred animals with significant inherent genetic diversity.


Yes, Adam and Eve’s children married each other.
This was OK because:-
1. They didn’t have any choice in the matter as they had nobody else to marry, and indeed it was sanctioned by God who told Adam and Eve (and by extension their children) in Gen 1:28 to “Be fruitful and increase in number”(NIV).
2. There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is one of the reasons for banning marriage among close adult relatives).
Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood when the mutation rates appear to have significantly increased – and a Law was then given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.
Of course, first cousins have always been able to marry – so there was no great difficulty for children in the immediate subsequent generations from Adam and Eve finding suitable marriage partners.

J C

Quote Zod
I do notice that Creationists are not pinning their arguments to this (ET life) - in other words life on other planets could actually be found soon - if it is they can just say "yeah so what - he just didn't mention it".

The Bible is silent on ET life – Fact. My personal opinion is that it is silent because there is no ET life, other than demons and angels.
However, isn’t it amazing that if the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, Evolutionists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do Evolutionists not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is ALSO proof of intelligent design?


Quote Zod
How do you tell which one (Creation account) is true? I know lets look for "supporting repeatably observable EVIDENCE" ahem oh we only do that to other theories.

The Bible is a FAITH-Based book – there is plenty of supporting repeatable evidence for many aspects of the Bible – but the act of Creation cannot be repeatably observed.
Creation Science doesn’t claim to have a scientifically valid ‘Theory of Creation’. Because Creation cannot be repeatably observed, it therefore doesn’t fall within the realm of science.
However, many other phenomena, which have directly resulted from creation, can be repeatably observed and these are the objects of Creation Science research.
The requirement for repeatably observable evidence is only necessary when a theory is claiming scientific validity – as evolutionists claim Evolution to be.


Quote Solas
I know I only bought my first bible recently and while I may not attend chruch regularly I do have some understanding of the faith and by no means do I interpret the bible so literally.

Jesus..who is teaching these people?

The Word of God in the Bible is TEACHING me in accordance with II Tim 3:16 which states that “ALL scripture is God breathed and useful for TEACHING, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. (NIV).
Please note that all scripture includes Genesis 1.


Quote Solas
I know I could run down the road get my local priest and have him sit here and explain Genesis in a clear more defined way..but instead I'll share with you what is in my bible. ( bible has a commentary with it which gives approximate dates, translations and interpretations for better understanding)

Please note that the words “all scripture” in II Tim 3:16 does not include opinions, bible commentaries or interpretations.


Quote Robin
In other words, the bible can't be read on its own, but must be 'interepreted' correctly according to the instructions provided by someone else. I'm *still* waiting for anybody to tell me how a believer should know that he can safely ignore one bit, and proudly declaim the next (or the other way around, depending upon proclivity). Any takers for this important question?

The Bible can, and indeed should, be read on it’s own. The Bible is the infallible pure Word of God – and Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God are fully capable of interpreting it without any need to resort to other sources of ‘wisdom’.

A Christian cannot ‘safely ignore one bit of the Bible and proudly proclaim the next’. However, the legal strictures in the Old Testament do not apply to Christians because of the New Covenant between God and Christians established by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.


Quote Robin
Ironically, Genesis is also cognate with the English 'gene', which I suppose must bug the hell out of one small, literalist, part of the population.
Quote Solas
Audio pronunciation of "genesis" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-ss)
n. pl. gen·e·ses (-sz)

1. The coming into being of something; the origin.

Genesis gives the definitive account of the ORIGINS of all life by the almighty God who created it.
Please note Robin, that all basic genomes were created in the first week of creation as recorded in GENEsis 1 – so the only people who are likely to be ‘bugged’ by all of this are the secular Evolutionists who are using a term straight out of the Bible to describe the main mechanism of heredity.

zod

J C wrote:

The Bible is silent on ET life – Fact. My personal opinion is that it is silent because there is no ET life, other than demons and angels.
However, isn’t it amazing that if the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, Evolutionists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do Evolutionists not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is ALSO proof of intelligent design?

I'll tell you what's amazing - a sentence with demons and angels in it that cast doubt on ET life.

OK leaving aside your personal opinion, if ET life is undeniably found ( not just some sensor readout - but actual samples ) then surely this would ridicule all this literal Bible creationist interpretation. I am saying its the smoking gun and your answer on behalf of Creationism cannot be ambiguous - it's either

1. ET life will not be found because its not mentioned - period

or something else which I can't wait to hear - why the Bible would have ommited such a profoundly important fact.

it could be closer than you think .. http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,67315,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_5

solas

J.C wrote:

I know I could run down the road get my local priest and have him sit here and explain Genesis in a clear more defined way..but instead I'll share with you what is in my bible. ( bible has a commentary with it which gives approximate dates, translations and interpretations for better understanding)

Please note that the words “all scripture” in II Tim 3:16 does not include opinions, bible commentaries or interpretations.

Hi..is it possible that you could tell us what denomination you are a member of and is this the general teachings of that denomination.

solas

robin wrote:

To the matter at hand. In your message of 1347h yesterday, you quote:

> "The bible is the word of God...but even if you had bought this book and read it with much attention, you cannot force God to hand over his message to you. God himself will introduce you to the truth if you can meet certain requirements. The first one is to search with perseverance, the door will be opened to those who knock. Do not give up if you cannot understand at the beginning, but ask in prayer and you will recieve enlightenment. Another requirement is that you search it together with your brothers and sisters as you participate in a christian community."~ Christian community bible, The catholic pastoral edition 2004 forward by the episcopal commision for the biblical apostolate.

From this, I understand that you believethat simply reading the bible will not provide unambiguous answers and, to help with understanding the text, one must 'ask in prayer' (presumably for guidance upon which parts are important, which are inaccurate, and which parts can be safely ignored).

IMHO, the bible is about as ambiguous as a book on calculus, while some people have a natural affinity towards calculus, interpreting and understanding a book by oneself might prove difficult, and having a teacher who is well trained in the subject would prove useful in correcting any errors which one may not otherwise see.
The prefix I quoted explains the catholic churchs opinion on the matter, and offers a guide to help understand the text, the reference to prayer is in my mind similar to a student meditating (To reflect on; contemplate) on a mathematical problem, the same reflection is suggested when reading the scripture.

robin wrote:

What do you define prayer as?

see above, meditating on an issue, or reflection. I can apply the same principle to many other areas of life.

in response to J.C's biblical reference to Timothy 11 - 3:14
contd..tim 11-3:16
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, refuting error, for correcting and training."
I would just have my doubts sometimes as to the qualifications of the teachers, I would personally like to think my teachers have studied the subject in depth, are qualified and sufficiently experienced in its understanding before they start teaching others, less room for err that way.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The Bible is silent on ET life – Fact. My personal opinion is that it is silent because there is no ET life, other than demons and angels.
However, isn’t it amazing that if the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, Evolutionists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do Evolutionists not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is ALSO proof of intelligent design?

Because it isn't proof of intelligent design.

If there was a message saying "I am God, and I am very clever" encoded in the amoeba's DNA code then that would be evidence of intelligent design. But there is nothing (as we have already established JC if I recall) in DNA that cannot evolved naturally. It is simply because you do not understand it that you claim the easy answer, God must have done it. Rest assured people a lot smarter than you do understand it.

J C

Quote Solas
This is what it says in the bible.

"The bible is the word of God...but even if you had bought this book and read it with much attention, you cannot force God to hand over his message to you. God himself will introduce you to the truth if you can meet certain requirements. The first one is to search with perseverance, the door will be opened to those who knock. Do not give up if you cannot understand at the beginning, but ask in prayer and you will recieve enlightenment. Another requirement is that you search it together with your brothers and sisters as you participate in a christian community."

even in that small paragraph I'm sure there are certain phrases that are alien to you robin,

I can’t speak for Robin, but speaking as a Christian, the whole paragraph above is ALIEN to me!!!
The above paragraph appears nowhere in the 66 books of the Bible.

The only requirement that God specifies for Christians is outlined in the SIMPLE prescription in Acts 16:31 “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved – you and your household” (NIV). There is no Biblical requirement to ‘ask in prayer’ in order to understand what the infallible Word of God in the Bible is saying – it is always very clear – to Christians indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God at any rate.


Quotes Solas
On another topic, I am intrigued to know which form of christianity does J.C and Danno follow and who exactly taught them their understanding of the bible.

I'm as intrigued as you are as to where J.C and Danno have derived their understandings.

Be intrigued no longer!!!
My faith-based opinions are derived from the infallible Word of God in the Bible.
My science-based opinions are grounded on repeatably observable reality.

I BELIEVE that:-

1. There is only ONE saving FAITH in Jesus Christ.
2. There is only ONE mediator between God and man – Jesus Christ.
3. EVERY word of the Bible is God breathed and true.
4. We shall all give an account of OURSELVES to God – and if we plead at The Judgement that “somebody else told us what to do” this will have as much validity as Adam’s famous attempt at 'blame transfer' to Eve in Gen 3:12 – which is no validity.


Quote Zod
if ET life is undeniably found ( not just some sensor readout - but actual samples ) then surely this would ridicule all this literal Bible creationist interpretation. I am saying its the smoking gun and your answer on behalf of Creationism cannot be ambiguous

My position as a scientist is that anything is POSSIBLE – I have told you that Creation Scientists have open minds – but they require repeatably observable evidence.
My position as a Christian is that the Bible is silent on ET life – and I personally don’t BELIEVE that ET life exists.
To answer your hypothetical question – in the unlikely event that ET life is scientifically proven to exist – then Creation Scientists would obviously accept it’s existence.

However, I don’t think that it would be a ‘smoking gun’ in the sense of having any significant impact on the validity of Creation.
It would certainly not be equivalent to the fatal blow delivered to Evolution by Sir Fred Hoyle’s discovery of the mathematical impossibility of producing life via un-directed processes.
Indeed, the size of Sir Fred Hoyle’s figures prove that it is also impossible to produce ET life by un-directed processes, using all of the matter in the Universe and an effective infinity of time.


Quote Zod
why would the Bible have ommited such a profoundly important fact (the possible existence of ET life).

It probably is because ET life doesn’t exist.
However, I don’t believe that ET life would be a profoundly important fact (if it did exist). I would feel no differently if knew that God created ET life than I do about his creation of other species here on Earth.

Quote Solas
in response to J.C’s biblical reference to Timothy 11 – 3:14
contd..tim 11-3:16
”All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, refuting error, for correcting and training.”
I would just have my doubts sometimes as to the qualifications of the teachers, I would personally like to think my teachers have studied the subject in depth, are qualified and sufficiently experienced in its understanding before they start teaching others, less room for err that way.

My teacher is Jesus Christ and His Word – and I have no doubts about His qualifications.

Please note that St. Paul himself didn’t have ANY formal theological qualifications – and it is quite clear from this passage of Holy Scripture that ANY Christian can use the word of God for teaching, refuting error, correcting, etc.

Quote Wicknight
If there was a message saying "I am God, and I am very clever" encoded in the amoeba's DNA code then that would be evidence of intelligent design.
The odds of un-directed processes producing the amino acid sequences for the proteins in an Amoeba is 10 ^ - 40,000 which is a number greater that the number of seconds required for a snail to transport all of the matter in the Universe from one side of the Universe to the other taking one electron at a time!!!!

I think that THIS IS certainly a message saying “I am God and I am very clever” - although I don't think that God would have said it that way.

Rom 1:19-20 confirms what he actually said on this issue ”Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God made it plain to them. For since the CREATION of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, BEING UNDERSTOOD FROM WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, so that men are without excuse.” (NIV).

zod

However, I don’t think that it would be a ‘smoking gun’ in the sense of having any significant impact on the validity of Creation...I don’t believe that ET life would be a profoundly important fact (if it did exist). I would feel no differently if knew that God created ET life than I do about his creation of other species here on Earth.

Lets get this straight - God gives you a blow by blow account of what he created each day for 6 days.. for example

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth GRASS, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

But decided not to mention all life on other planets. Potentially millions of other worlds just like Earth AND IT DOESN'T EVEN RATE A MENTION.

There's no little note at the end :
PS Ditto for a few hundred thousand other planets

And if this is proven - you wouldn't bat an eyelid - you believe word for word everything in the bible literally and decide it wasn't mentioned because it's just not that important...I mean are you even subjective now?

solas

JC wrote:

I can’t speak for Robin, but speaking as a Christian, the whole paragraph above is ALIEN to me!!!
Which opinion of the Roman Catholic Church are you offering?

three times man, three times I have put forward the origins of that prefix.
The christian community bible, catholic pastoral edition, forward by the episcopal commision for the biblical apostolate.
now, while I respect your faith and generally don't have great ears for the RC churchs stance on things, from what I can see the information that I have read in the book on which a commentary is provided sounds a tad more educated and makes a whole lot more sense, in fact its almost enlightening.
I appreciate that you feel inspired by the holy spirit J.C. but I do believe that we must use our reasoning facilities when discussing such subjects.

JC wrote:

Or are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church HAS changed its views dramatically on the origins of humanity in contravention of scripture, science and it’s previously stated position?

looks very much like the RC church has opened the door for greater understanding among its people.

J C

Quote Zod
Lets get this straight - God gives you a blow by blow account of what he created each day for 6 days.. for example

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth GRASS, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

But decided not to mention all life on other planets. Potentially millions of other worlds just like Earth AND IT DOESN'T EVEN RATE A MENTION.

There's no little note at the end :
PS Ditto for a few hundred thousand other planets

And if this is proven - you wouldn't bat an eyelid

Genesis 1 describes (in outline) the creation of LIFE on EARTH during Creation Week – and it is SILENT about the creation of life in any other part of the Universe. There are a number of possible reasons for this silence – the most obvious reason being that life wasn’t created anywhere else in the Universe.
Another possibility is that God did create life in other parts of the Universe and didn’t tell us about it for His own very good reasons.


Quote Solas
from what I can see the information that I have read in the book on which a commentary is provided sounds a tad more educated and makes a whole lot more sense, in fact its almost enlightening.

I am unaware of a scripture reference, which states that a commentary is necessary for the Bible.

Commentaries may help provide useful background material that Christians are free to accept or ignore – but they never can have Biblical Authority.

Quote Solas
I appreciate that you feel inspired by the holy spirit J.C. but I do believe that we must use our reasoning facilities when discussing such subjects.

I can confirm that being indwelt by the Holy Spirit DOES increase your reasoning faculties and knowledge.
Jesus Christ also confirms this in Jn 14:26 “but the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will TEACH YOU ALL THINGS and will remind you of everything I have said to you”.


P.S. I have noted that the Evolutionists have fallen strangely silent in their defence of Evolution on this thread - or have you all decided to become Creation Scientists?

zod

"Another possibility is that God did create life in other parts of the Universe and didn’t tell us about it for His own very good reasons."

Well thats that then. Touche.

Please feel free to end other points with any of the following :
- "He works in mysterious ways"
- "He helps those who helps themselves"
- "It's Gods will"