Creation V Evolution Debate

solas

JC wrote:

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?

yea..I imagine the whole holy spirit thing just shut them all up tbh.

solas

robin wrote:

In the US, people are ordered to be creationists, whereas on this side of the atlantic, people are told not to be.

saw this earlier..
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/05/evolution.hearings.reut/index.html

TOPEKA, Kansas (Reuters) -- A six-day courtroom-style debate opened Thursday in Kansas over what children should be taught in schools about the origin of life -- was it natural evolution or did God create the world?

The hearings, complete with opposing attorneys and a long list of witnesses, were arranged amid efforts by some Christian groups in Kansas and nationally to reverse the domination of evolutionary theory in the nation's schools.
...
Changes to the curriculum proposed by the conservatives would not require inclusion of Biblical beliefs in science classes, also called "creationism" -- the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism could not be taught in public schools alongside evolution.

It just seems to go against your theory that in America they are ordered to be creationists....

robindch

> It just seems to go against your theory that in America they
> are ordered to be creationists...

You didn't read my post. Or, if you did, you didn't understand it.

I asked then, and I ask again now (please note the word in bold):

] 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?

Answers would be welcome.

solas

well, I did read your post

robin wrote:

..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).

robin wrote:

why does prayer in different countries tell people to do different things

I'm not sure how you would like me to answer that question because it doesn't really make sense. I mean, you could phrase it " why do some preachers/ministers/priests/ teach different interpretations of the bible"..that might make more sense.

robindch

> the Evolutionists have fallen strangely silent

You'll remember, no doubt, that we've already mentioned a few times that we've answered your gentle, innocent queries!

> I can confirm that being indwelt by the Holy Spirit
> DOES increase you reasoning faculties and knowledge.

...while nobbling spelling + grammar. Oh, well!

'Holy Spirit' is the usual translation of the κοινη Greek word 'πνευμα', which also means wind. Yiz can all draw yer own polite conclusions from JC's claim to being indwelt

robindch

> > why does prayer in different countries tell people to do different things
>
> I'm not sure how you would like me to answer that question
> because it doesn't really make sense.

Ok, I'll break it down as simply as I can:

Many people who use the label 'christian' for themselves do something called 'praying'. Most believe that 'praying' means 'speaking to the guy who created the universe, in order to learn something', while some understand it as 'understanding the world by reading the bible, then thinking about it'. Having spoken, or read+thought, as appropriate, most people then arrive at conclusions which cannot be reconciled (and which -- if you'll permit me to make an observation -- are usually identical to what they believed about the world before starting out on the process of 'praying' in the first place).

If either of the processes has any value, then I would expect that the conclusions which are reached would be the same. But they are not.

Why?

solas

yea..I reckon you should just a say prayer and figure it out what praying means for yourself.

If either of the processes has any value, then I would expect that the conclusions which are reached would be the same. But they are not.

Why?

because people are different?
(although many people do reach the same conclusion, which is probably why we have religions in the first place)
for example: many people have come to the conclusion that we are part of something greater than ourselves (God).

robindch

> because people are different?

Excellent answer!

Now, bearing this in mind, how can a believer reasonably assert knowledge of either absolute truth, or the mind of god/jesus (etc, etc), when the asserted belief is different from what other believers assert is true?

solas

thats probably the best question you have asked so far, and one every christian, not to mention people of every faith and creed "reflect" upon.

To help you in your answer I'm ging to provide the dictionary's definition of truth.

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

I've already offered in another post elsewhere that "the word of God" can be interpreted literally as the wisdom of life.
To Live in "gods truth" may be interpreted as to live with wisdom, with sincerity and integrity and this point would be almost integral to living with the conscious awareness that you are a part of something greater., "often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence."

The truth can meanmany things for many different people, maybe others will offer their opinions on what they believe to be true for them.

Excelsior

Whatever truth is, it can't be true for you and not for me.

Happily disagree with my interpretation of faith but don't render all discussion absurd by pretending that we can create truth through consensus.

J C

Quote Solas
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
There ARE actual Biblical instructions (from Jesus Christ Himself) on WHO Christians should pray to and on HOW they should pray – in Mt 6:5-13, and Lk11:2-4.


Quote Solas
yea..I imagine the whole holy spirit thing just shut them (Evolutionists) all up.
You could be right, Solas – the Holy Spirit of God does tend to have that effect on error!!!!


Quote Solas
"why do some preachers/ministers/priests/ teach different interpretations of the bible".
Obviously some or all of them are wrong – and that is why all Christians are mandated by God to study the Scriptures and to draw their OWN conclusions under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.


Quote Robin
how can a believer reasonably assert knowledge of either absolute truth, or the mind of god/jesus (etc, etc), when the asserted belief is different from what other believers assert is true?
The short answer is, very easily.

The long answer is as follows:-
If it is raining tomorrow – and somebody asserts their ‘different belief’ that it isn’t raining – that will have no effect on the truth that it is raining – or indeed on how wet they will get if they go out without an umbrella!!!
Similarly, if somebody asserts their ‘different belief’ that Creation didn’t occur – that will have no effect on the truth that God created the Universe and everything therein in 6 days and told us in Genesis 1 that He did so – or indeed on their eternal destiny if they choose to continue not to believe in Jesus Christ and His Word, The Bible.


Quote Solas
The truth can mean many things for many different people, maybe others will offer their opinions on what they believe to be true for them.

Adolf Hitler claimed that truth was whatever he said it was.
Josef Stalin claimed that truth was whatever people perceived it to be.
Pontius Pilate admitted that he didn’t even know if truth existed, when he asked in Jn 18:38 “What is truth?”

What “was true” for these particular ‘gents’ was unadulterated and dangerous rubbish – which caused untold suffering for millions of people and sentenced an innocent man to death on a cross!!!

In contrast, Jesus Christ says in Jn 18:37 “for this reason I was born and for this reason I came into the world, to testify to the truth. (and) EVERYONE on the side of truth listens to me” (NIV).

Jesus Christ confirmed the truth of the Genesis 1 account of the creation of mankind in Mk 10:6 “but AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION God made them male and female”(NIV).
He also said in Jn 8:31-32 that “if you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”(NIV).

solas

JC..would you be so kind as to ask the holy spirit if you could direct your answers toward Robin as he seems to be the one seeking answers.
Thanks.

J C

solas wrote:

JC..would you be so kind as to ask the holy spirit if you could direct your answers toward Robin as he seems to be the one seeking answers.
Thanks.

Could I answer both yourself and and an earlier posting by Robin with Jn 3:8 "the wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear it's sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit".

In plain language the Holy Spirit is a free agent that I don't control - but He can act through me with messages for many people including both you and Robin.

ghostchant

I'm being really pedantic here i know, but on the previous page you gave a quote from the bible to show that it contained evidence of the earth not being flat. The thing is, a circle is a flat object and the quote could be taken as saying the earth is a big flat disk, whereas we know it is spherical (well almost spherical, but that's being really pedantic. )


EDIT: actually a circle is just a line - the bible doesn't even make reference to a disc (now that's REALLY being picky!)

robindch

> [...]quote from the bible to show that it contained evidence of
> the earth not being flat. The thing is, a circle is a flat object[...]

Quite right. The verse in question was used, amongst others, in Galileo's trial as 'proof' that he was a 'heretic' who needed silencing. BTW, the end of the 'circle of the earth' sentence indicates that the writers thought that the earth was flat, since they're referring to the sky the roof of a tent. Anyhow, see this page for details of the verses used during the trial, and the conclusions reached (by, amongst others, the then-Archbishop of Armagh )

Phil_321

J C wrote:

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’.

Yet again, you can't attribute the creation of the universe to an imaginary all powerful figure just because you don't know the answer.

The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, means that there is a ‘clockmaker’ out there somewhere – and He is God.

That is pure nonsense.

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.

Ah, for fúck sake, enough of the idiotic abstract arguments.

The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information, proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.

That proves absolutely nothing. How could that prove anything?

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.

No, it means that no-one knows how life originally started.

Your 'proof' is completely random abstart musings. I think you should go look up the meaning of proof because you seem to have great trouble understanding the concept.

J C wrote:

Phil 321 wrote:

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.

Science doesn't claim to know how the universe was created. It comes up with theories based on evidence and is willing to change it's opinions based on new evidence.
Unlike Creationism which doesn't have any evidence and yet claims it is totally correct.

J C wrote:

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.

Btw, how did God give pass this information on to the Christians? Who origanlly came forward with this 7 day creation thing?

J C

Quote Zod
Well thats that then (about ET life). 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"

To recap, the Bible is silent about ET life, probably because it doesn’t exist – but there is also a very remote possibility that it could exist and God didn’t tell us about it.
In any event the number of electrons in the known Universe are only 10^^82 and the number of seconds in 20 billion years are only 10^^18 and the product of multiplying all of the electrons in the Universe by all of the seconds for which the Universe supposedly existed is only 10^^100.

Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculated the odds of producing the biochemical sequences of an Amoeba using undirected processes at 10^^-40,000. This means that all life including any ET life that may be discovered must have been created.

I should point out that Sir Fred Hoyle was a former Astronomer Royal i.e. the top astronomer in Britain – and so his calculations carry considerable academic “weight”.

If you really want to produce the proverbial ‘smoking gun’ to demolish Creation – you need to scientifically prove Evolution – something that isn’t even remotely possible with the current state of knowledge on Evolution. In fact, all of the recent cutting edge discoveries of biological science point towards creation and none support Evolution.


Quote Ghostchant
I'm being really pedantic here i know, but on the previous page you gave a quote from the bible to show that it contained evidence of the earth not being flat. The thing is, a circle is a flat object and the quote could be taken as saying the earth is a big flat disk, whereas we know it is spherical (well almost spherical, but that's being really pedantic.

A “circle” could describe the outline of a two-dimensional disc OR a three-dimensional sphere.

I would point out that the only circular object that looks like a circle when viewed from every angle is a sphere – a disc only looks like a circle when viewed from directly above its centre – when viewed from any other perspective it is either elliptical (or a line if viewed edge on). As God has always been regarded as omnipresent by Biblical Peoples, the only way that he could be regarded as “enthroned above the circle of the Earth” (from all angles so to speak) is if the Earth were a sphere.
In fact, if it was believed that the Earth was a flat circular disc this passage of scripture would have read that God was enthroned above the disc of the Earth or above the plane of the Earth.

The only people who believed that astronomical objects were discs were certain gentile nations who, for example, worshipped the Sun as ‘The Solar Disc’ and the Moon as ‘The Lunar Disc’. Equally, as I have already stated, 'Flat Earth' ideas were held to be true by some Ancient Peoples but this was never believed-in by ‘The People of God.’

Sev

This kind of just occured to me, and is rather silly, but anyway.

The speed of light can be measured and proven to be universally constant. There are objects in our galaxy at distances of billions of light years. So, theoretically, with a large enough telescope, we can see back in time to witness events as they unfolded in different parts of the universe far earlier than 10,000 years ago. This clearly contradicts any assertion that the universe is less than 10,000 years old.. unless God created 13 billion years of history for the universe, 13 billion years of events in the universe entirely irrelevant and inconsequential for us on earth, but clearly there for us to see in the stars.. for the craic.

solas

y'know, for what its worth I think a lot of misunderstanding with regard to religious issues, despite the religion in question, comes down to who/what people perceive God to be.
For some the image conveys a supreme being, which we place human preconceptions upon, a distant God that oversees the human race with steely determination and its quite a difficult idea to grasp.

For others God is more personal and almost intagible in form or description. Like a presence that flows through every living thing, in this sense God is more of a verb than a noun.
When people discuss the universe and Gods hand in creating it, most people of faith believe that "God" is the spirit and nature of the universe. That all those things which brought our physical existance into being are a result of the actions of "the spirit/nature of the universe" / "God."

For the scientifically minded will refer to the nature of the universe as causality, then they have other names for the componants of the universe and even more names for qualities of these componants.
I think ascribing all those qualities to the word "God" is what seperates science from faith and you can't really argue with it.
For if I do ascribe all those qualities to "God" then it is easy for me to say that "God" is the source of all life and that God did indeed create man.

I don't believe that Adam and Eve were conveniently plonked here as the first two people to start the human race. I believe that is an analogy that works on many levels. Firstly, as a biblical tale it describes the beginnings of the tribes of Israel and the origins of the faith and secondly, as a philosophy which aims to describe how man came to differentiate between what was "Good" and what was "Evil", and how that wisdom was discovered through trial and error and enlightenment.

I'm out of beer tonight.

robindch

> certain gentile nations who, for example, worshipped the Sun

<sigh> JC -- I really wish you could find it within your (pneumatic?) self to check *anything* before you believed it.

For those few (any?) still interested, Constantine, the Roman emperor whom some people believe converted the Eastern Roman Empire to some of the earlier versions of 'christianity', was actually the lifelong highpriest of a pagan cult known as Sol Invictus, the 'Unconquered Sun'. From this cult, western european culture inherited not only the strange habit of placing halos behind holymen (a clear enough pictogram of the Sun, as required by Sol Invictus), but also the notion that the week's holyday is Sunday, the chief worshipday to the benign deity, the Sun. Previous to that, the holyday of the week was the Jewish one, the Sabbath, or Saturday (and still seen in Spanish 'sabado', Russian 'субботa' and so on).

> Sir Fred Hoyle was a former Astronomer Royal [...]
> so his calculations carry considerable academic “weight”.

Ah, the old Creationists 'appeal to authority' to settle an argument! FWIW, amongst Creationists, the astronomer Holye is highly regarded because he says what they want him to say. Amongst trained biologists, however, Hoyle is regarded as an idiot, and rightly so.

robindch

> The speed of light can be measured and proven to be universally constant.

Not 'proved', but 'is understood'

> [...] 13 billion years of events in the universe [...]

Current creationist 'thought' dictates one of two 'explanations' for this obvious problem:

1. god created light in transit, to fool people into thinking that the Universe is older than it really is.

2. Light used to travel faster in the past than it does now. See our old, mutton-jawed friends in AIG for an hilariously cockeyed and silly explanation of this.

po0k

Theory of Evolution makes some kind of sense.
Creationism makes absolutely no sense.

People who are too afraid or too closed or weak-minded to even be curious and attempt to reach a logical and sensical answer to the question of our origin will fall back to religion, omnipotent beings and fluff-dragons to "explain" our existance.
It goes against human nature to ignore possibilities and shut your mind off from curious thoughts. There's a reason the Dark Ages were called the Dark Ages.

Religion is the "safe" bet.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained so raise the stakes.

End of debate.

Cabaal

Nicely put SyxPak,
On a related note I'm still waiting for when they discover life on Mars,
"...errr and on the evening of the 7th day God created life on Mars even though he was supposed to be resting"

Should be fun,

solas wrote:

I don't believe that Adam and Eve were conveniently plonked here as the first two people to start the human race. I believe that is an analogy that works on many levels. Firstly, as a biblical tale it describes the beginnings of the tribes of Israel.....

Hang on their, so your saying life began in Israel?
Their are far older civilisations and human remains elsewhere in the world so such a idea is very very flawed.

J C

Quote Phil 321
Science doesn't claim to know how the universe was created. It comes up with theories based on evidence and is willing to change it's opinions based on new evidence.
Unlike Creationism which doesn't have any evidence and yet claims it is totally correct.

You are correct, science cannot claim to know how the universe was CREATED because Creation Week was a once-off event that cannot be repeatably observed (which is a condition required by The Scientific Method).

You are also correct that Science should come up with theories based on evidence and should be willing to change it's opinions based on new evidence. However, the evolutionists on this thread have shown a distinct reluctance to change their opinions in the face of mounting evidence proving Evolution to be invalid – and Creation to be true.

Creation Science IS based on repeatably verifiable evidence – some of which I have already shared with you on this thread.


Quote Robin
The verse in question (that God was enthroned above the circle of the Earth) was used, amongst others, in Galileo's trial as 'proof' that he was a 'heretic' who needed silencing. BTW, the end of the 'circle of the earth' sentence indicates that the writers thought that the earth was flat,

From what you say Robin, Galileo was found to be a ‘heretic’ for believing in a Heliocentric Solar System and a Spherical Earth.

As a Creation Scientist, I can confirm that Galileo was correct on both of these issues!!!

solas

cabaal wrote:

Hang on their, so your saying life began in Israel?
Their are far older civilisations and human remains elsewhere in the world so such a idea is very very flawed.

*sigh* ...

solas wrote:

I don't believe that Adam and Eve were conveniently plonked here as the first two people to start the human race. I believe that is an analogy that works on many levels. Firstly, as a biblical tale it describes the beginnings of the tribes of Israel and the origins of the faith and secondly, as a philosophy which aims to describe how man came to differentiate between what was "Good" and what was "Evil", and how that wisdom was discovered through trial and error and enlightenment.

all cultures and traditions have their own version of the creation story and their own philosophies of life. The old testement is the story of the history of the people of Isreal.

Excelsior

Solas, one thing I wanted your opinion on:

although many civilisations have developed creation myths, do you acknowledge that regardless of what different stories people tell, there definitely was a creation and therefore there is a true account that can be discovered?

solas

excelsior wrote:

although many civilisations have developed creation myths, do you acknowledge that regardless of what different stories people tell, there definitely was a creation and therefore there is a true account that can be discovered?

yes, scientists believe that there definately was a creation, they are searching for the true account of how it all began. They call it the big bang don't they?

I think esoterically I fall into this category,

solas wrote:

For others God is more personal and almost intagible in form or description. Like a presence that flows through every living thing, in this sense God is more of a verb than a noun.
When people discuss the universe and Gods hand in creating it, most people of faith believe that "God" is the spirit and nature of the universe. That all those things which brought our physical existance into being are a result of the actions of "the spirit/nature of the universe" / "God."

Do you mean the creation of man, like that one day man just appeared?

Sev

robindch wrote:

Not 'proved', but 'is understood'

I was alluding to the michelson-morley experiment, which does prove the constant nature of light in the local inertial frame that is our part of the galaxy anyway. Of course you cannot prove anything to be absolutely true beyond all possible doubt, this luxury lies only in the realm of mathematics. For all we know light might have travelled at different speeds in the past, or in different parts of the universe.

But isnt that what this whole debate boils down to - the illusiveness of absolute proof. The creationists seem to disregard a mountain of evidence that although cannot disprove the creation story beyond all doubt, still shows that evolution theory is overwhelmingly probably. You'll never find absolute proof for either argument, just a balance of probability, a probability which in my opinion massively favours evolution.

robindch

> I was alluding to the michelson-morley experiment, which does
> prove the constant nature of light in the local inertial frame that
> is our part of the galaxy anyway.

The Michelson-Morley experiment, instead of 'proving' that the speed of light is constant, rather it demonstrated that, under the observed conditions, light appeared to propagate at constant veolcity irrespective of the direction of propagation, thereby nobbling the provisional 'luminiferous ether' theory which was popular at the time. (There's a brief explanation of the thoughts behind provisional-theorizing in the skeptics board here.)

> The creationists seem to disregard a mountain of evidence
> You'll never find absolute proof for either argument, just a
> balance of probability, a probability which in my opinion
> massively favours evolution.

Crestionists aren't in the business of assessing evidence -- rather, they're in the business of asserting the unarguable, final, truth of their own literalist interpretation of the certain segments of an old Sumerian creation legend, and based upon my own first-hand experience of creationists and what they say, they are prepared to tell any lie, inflame any fear and openly damn any opponent, in order to do so.

J C

Quote Phil 321
I think (J C) you should go look up the meaning of proof because you seem to have great trouble understanding the concept.

Proof is defined in a dictionary as “fact, evidence or reasoning that supports the truth of or the existence of something” – a perfect description of my six points in relation to God – each one of which provides fact, evidence and reasoning as PROOF for His existence and activities in the Universe.

Here are my (expanded) proofs again (so that you can examine them against the above definition of 'Proof') :-

1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude 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’.
2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.
3. 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 acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.
4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
5. 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. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.
6. 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 Sev
The speed of light can be measured and proven to be universally constant. There are objects in our galaxy at distances of billions of light years. So, theoretically, with a large enough telescope, we can see back in time to witness events as they unfolded in different parts of the universe far earlier than 10,000 years ago. This clearly contradicts any assertion that the universe is less than 10,000 years old.. unless God created 13 billion years of history for the universe, 13 billion years of events in the universe entirely irrelevant and inconsequential for us on earth, but clearly there for us to see in the stars.. for the craic.

Robin has correctly pointed out that the maximum speed of light is UNDERSTOOD to be universally constant – this means that the maximum speed of light MAY vary with time or other conditions.
In any event, the faith-explanation for your point above is as follows :-

The Bible states in Ps 19:1 that “the heavens declare the glory of God; the skys proclaim the work of his hands” (NIV).
God is present and active everywhere in the Universe. He obviously created the light beams linking the stars and galaxies to the Earth AT THE SAME TIME as He created the stars themselves so that He could display His glory to people on Earth through our observation of the light from ALL of the stars and galaxies in the Universe.
The alternative of allowing the light to travel over billions of years to get here, would ensure that we would never see God’s full glory – by the time the light arrived from the most distant galaxies, the nearer stars, including our Sun would have been extinguished and us with it.
In addition, God’s time-scale in His dealings with Human Beings is decidedly not ‘astronomical’ – we have only been here for less than 10,000 years, our lives last less than 120 years and we are told that the return of Jesus Christ is imminent. Under these circumstances, it would be imperative to create the light beams at the same time as the stars.

Genesis 1:16 neatly summarised what happened on the Fourth Day of Creation – it says that “God made two great lights – the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars”(NIV).
Quite obviously merely making the stars without allowing them to show their presence on Earth through creating the light beams down to the Earth from them would be a waste of time, when the objective of creating them, in the first place, was to proclaim God’s glory to Humans.
And don’t say that this is impossible – the God that created the Universe and all life therein, is obviously able to link every star to the Earth by light beams – it would be a mere ‘trifle’ to Him.

Please note that all of the above are faith-based speculations, not scientific observations – and so too is your assumption that it took millions of years for the light from distant stars to reach the Earth - as this is not repeatably observable either.

Quote Solas
For some the image conveys a supreme being, which we place human preconceptions upon, a distant God that oversees the human race with steely determination and its quite a difficult idea to grasp.

For others God is more personal and almost intagible in form or description. Like a presence that flows through every living thing, in this sense God is more of a verb than a noun.

Yes indeed, Human Beings are capable of the most amazing THOUGHTS.
However, ultimately it is not what we THINK that God is, that counts – it is what God SAYS that He is which is important. The Bible contains the definitive account of who God is and how He wishes to relate to mankind.


Quote Robin
Constantine, the Roman emperor whom some people believe converted the Eastern Roman Empire to some of the earlier versions of 'christianity', was actually the lifelong highpriest of a pagan cult known as Sol Invictus, the 'Unconquered Sun'. From this cult, western european culture inherited not only the strange habit of placing halos behind holymen (a clear enough pictogram of the Sun, as required by Sol Invictus), but also the notion that the week's holyday is Sunday, the chief worshipday to the benign deity, the Sun. Previous to that, the holyday of the week was the Jewish one, the Sabbath, or Saturday

If you are correct Robin, then Constantine certainly WASN’T a Christian.
The activity you describe (being a lifelong member of a pagan cult) is incompatible with the First Commandment, which Jesus Christ re-emphasised in Mat 4:10 when he said that the Judeo-Christian people must “worship the Lord your God, and serve him only” (NIV).

You are correct that Sunday was named after the Sun. In addition, Saturday was named after Saturn and Thursday after the Norse ‘god‘ Thor.
I would point out that these are SECULAR names for the days of the week.

The only biblically mandated names for the days of the week are the numbers first to seventh with the Seventh Day also called the Sabbath.

Most Christians now hold the Sabbath to be on the first day of the week in remembrance of Jesus Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week.

Quote Robin
Sir Fred Hoyle was a former Astronomer Royal [...]
> so his calculations carry considerable academic “weight”.

Ah, the old Creationists 'appeal to authority' to settle an argument! FWIW, amongst Creationists, the astronomer Holye is highly regarded because he says what they want him to say. Amongst trained biologists, however, Hoyle is regarded as an idiot, and rightly so.

I wasn’t appealing to Sir Fred Hoyle’s ‘authority’ – I was merely pointing out that his former position as Astronomer Royal would indicate that he possessed considerable mathematical and logical abilities.

The choice is basically between a statement of faith that “muck evolved into man” or Sir Fred Holye’s conclusion that the emergence of life through undirected processes is an impossibility – based on his detailed mathematical calculations and observations. I think that professional scientists are duty bound to recognise the scientific validity of the latter.

Sir Fred Hoyle’s observations and conclusions in relation to the odds of producing even a single-celled creature using undirected processes, strictly follow the Scientific Method and are repeatably observable. They also continue to remain scientifically valid – and therefore must be accepted by all professional scientists unless and until they are proven to the contrary.

Capt'n Midnight

J C wrote:

I wasn’t appealing to Sir Fred Hoyle’s ‘authority’ – I was merely pointing out his obvious mathematical and logical abilities.

The choice is basically between a statement of faith that “muck evolved into man” or Sir Fred Holye’s conclusion that the emergence of life through undirected processes is an impossibility – based on his detailed mathematical calculations and observations. I think that professional scientists are duty bound to recognise the scientific validity of the latter.
Sir Fred Hoyle’s observations and conclusions strictly follow the Scientific Method and are repeatably observable. They also continue to remain scientifically valid – and therefore must be accepted by all professional scientists unless and until they are proven to the contrary.

So then you agree with panspermia then, , interesting.

solas

capt'n midnight wrote:

So then you agree with panspermia then, , interesting.

is that not scientific fact? (just curious)
I like the idea that thats where we come from.

ghostchant

J C wrote:

A “circle” could describe the outline of a two-dimensional disc OR a three-dimensional sphere.

I would point out that the only circular object that looks like a circle when viewed from every angle is a sphere – a disc only looks like a circle when viewed from directly above its centre – when viewed from any other perspective it is either elliptical (or a line if viewed edge on). As God has always been regarded as omnipresent by Biblical Peoples, the only way that he could be regarded as “enthroned above the circle of the Earth” (from all angles so to speak) is if the Earth were a sphere.
In fact, if it was believed that the Earth was a flat circular disc this passage of scripture would have read that God was enthroned above the disc of the Earth or above the plane of the Earth.

The only people who believed that astronomical objects were discs were certain gentile nations who, for example, worshipped the Sun as ‘The Solar Disc’ and the Moon as ‘The Lunar Disc’. Equally, as I have already stated, 'Flat Earth' ideas were held to be true by some Ancient Peoples but this was never believed-in by ‘The People of God.’

But the earth isn't a perfect sphere. Don't you think that if god created the earth he would have made it a perfect sphere?
And a circle is a one-dimensional theoretical object that doesn't occour in nature.

Sev

This is a bit of a non-sequitur, but I believe it relevant.

I could claim that the universe was created 5 minutes ago, and all history of our lives that we believe we have experienced, is just implanted memories, and everything around us, just planted evidence for a history that never was. Either way, you cannot disprove me. In other words, I think this debate lies deeply in the philosophical realm, where arguing gets you nowhere.

robindch

> I could claim that the universe was created 5 minutes ago,
> and all history of our lives that we believe we have
> experienced, is just implanted memories, and everything
> around us, just planted evidence for a history that never
> was. Either way, you cannot disprove me.

Quite right. Or, more pointedly, you could declare that some entity existed, mention that he could do anything he wanted to (and lived "outside time" -- can somebody please explain what they think they understand by this?) and then go on to say that this entity was the thing that did the creating, with all memories, physical evidence, etc, etc in place. This ludicrously naive fantasy is what the creationists are up to and, as you've said, there's no argument against it, other than the fact that it explains nothing at all and is logically equivalent to any other created-out-of-thin air story.

BTW, in case anybody's not reading the Skeptics board, the Kansas State Board of Education are currently debating whether their science teachers should be required to start teaching virulent fundamentalist religion. Some of the recent world-wide coverage that this Taleban-style indoctrination of children can be found here, here, here and here,

J C

Quote SyxPak
It goes against human nature to ignore possibilities and shut your mind off from curious thoughts. There's a reason the Dark Ages were called the Dark Ages.
So why has almost every Evolutionist deliberately shut their minds off from the POSSIBILITY that life was created by God?
Creation scientists don’t ignore the possibility that Evolution occurred – they HAVE looked for evidence of Evolution and didn’t find any!!!! The contributions from Evolutionists to this thread also hasn’t provided any evidence for Evolution either.


Quote Cabaal
I'm still waiting for when they discover life on Mars,
"...errr and on the evening of the 7th day God created life on Mars even though he was supposed to be resting"
Cabaal, I think that you WILL be waiting a long time for the discovery of life on Mars !!!!

However, in the unlikely event that life is discovered on Mars, and it actually turns out to be a ‘Martian Native’, then the 3rd to the 6th Days of Creation would be the most likely time of it’s creation – and not the 7th day.
Gen 2:2 says that “by the seventh day God had FINISHED the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from ALL his work” (NIV).


Quote Cabaal
Hang on there, so your saying life began in Israel?
There are far older civilisations and human remains elsewhere in the world so such an idea is very very flawed.
Technically speaking, the Garden of Eden WASN’T located in Israel.
However, there AREN’T “far older civilisations or human remains elsewhere in the world” – practically all evidence of ante-diluvian activity was destroyed 5,000 + / - 500 years ago by Noah’s Flood!!!!

That is one of the reasons why all History Books refer to the time before c. 5,000 years ago as “pre-historic”.
“Ante-diluvian” would be technically better – but I’m not quibbling!!!!


Quote Solas
yes, scientists believe that there definately was a creation, they are searching for the true account of how it all began. They call it the big bang don't they?
I think that the latest belief is that a ‘Big Crunch’ preceded the ‘Big Bang’. However, no repeatably observable evidence exists for either idea.
Science also hasn’t even begun to explain where the energy and matter supposedly released in the so-called ‘Big Bang’ originated.

Gen 1 and Gen 2 coherently explains how God created time and space as well as all life.

What is even more amazing is that the God who did these awesome things loved you and me PERSONALLY so much that He died on a cross to pay the just price for our sins and He now offers us an eternity of bliss with Him in Heaven – and all we have to do is BELIEVE in Him.

I think that the choice between believing in the Creator of the Universe or the “imaginings of men” really is a ‘no-brainer’.

Quote Robin
based upon my own first-hand experience of creationists and what they say, they are prepared to tell any lie, inflame any fear and openly damn any opponent, in order to do so.
‘Steady on’ there Robin!!!

All Creation Scientist that I know are honourable descent people whose only motivation is that the truth should be upheld.
Indeed all of the Evolutionists that I know personally are also honourable people – it’s only their unfounded ideas that are wrong!!!

I don’t think that you could apply the above statement to any of my contributions to this thread. If I have said something wrong, please point it out to me – otherwise please don’t make such statements about me and my fellow Creation Scientists.

Rather than engaging in such ‘mud slinging’ – could I suggest that your argument would be better served by addressing the central issue of this thread which is the validity of Evolution as a scientific theory – and present some verifiable evidence for the claim that undirected processes resulted in muck eventually evolving into Man.


Quote Sev
The creationists seem to disregard a mountain of evidence that although cannot disprove the creation story beyond all doubt, still shows that evolution theory is overwhelmingly probably.
The only ‘mountain of evidence’ to emerge on this thread is either in favour of Creation and/or against Evolution.
All evolutionary contributors have been remarkably shy about proffering ANY evidence in support of their beliefs.
I don’t’ think that I have been in any way shy about proffering my views on Creation AND backing up my assertions with repeatable observable proofs!!!!
Although some of my statements were vigorously challenged, I think that it would be correct to say that NOT EVEN ONE OF MY STATEMENTS in relation to Creation or Evolution have been ultimately disproved.


Quote Robin
> certain gentile nations who, for example, worshipped the Sun

<sigh> JC -- I really wish you could find it within your (pneumatic?) self to check *anything* before you believed it.

For those few (any?) still interested, Constantine, the Roman emperor whom some people believe converted the Eastern Roman Empire to some of the earlier versions of 'christianity', was actually the lifelong highpriest of a pagan cult known as Sol Invictus, the 'Unconquered Sun'. From this cult, western european culture inherited not only the strange habit of placing halos behind holymen (a clear enough pictogram of the Sun, as required by Sol Invictus),
The Roman Empire WAS one of the gentile nations that I was referring to, as worshippers of the ‘Solar Disc’. The Egyptians and the Aztecs were also notable sun worshippers as well. Christians have never engaged in such worship as it infringes both the First and Second Commandments of God.
As for your point about “halos behind holymen” – statues and icons (with or without halos) was one of the issues addressed during the Reformation of Christianity in the 14th Century.

robindch

> All Creation Scientist that I know are honourable descent people
> whose only motivation is that the truth should be upheld.

Referring to a creationist as a 'scientist' (as I've mentioned before) is a disturbing contradiction in terms from somebody who claims to have had a scientific education -- scientists operate with provisional facts and provisional conclusions, helped along by reason and supported by careful observation. Creationists, on the other hand, are dogmatic fundamentalists interested in returning their adherents to a state of common ignorance not seen since the Middle Ages. Referring to creationists as 'scientists' is considered an insult to good name of science.

I might add that none of the creationists I've heard, including you, have demonstrated the slightest ability in physics, chemistry or biology, beyond an ability to parrot some of its terminology.

WRT to my other comments, I've already quoted from the talks which Ken Ham gave in UCD a couple of months ago (at the behest, I believe, of the students union there), in which he and his publications stated for the world to hear, that the theory of evolution was responsible for abortion and science in general, and evolution in particular, were satanically inspired. And this, by the way, from one of the moderates in the creationist movement! People like the convicted tax-fraud Ken Hovind (http://www.drdino.com) are indescribably more offensive.

I see nothing honourable, 'descent' (sic), or truth-upholding in any of this, but then again, I'm not a fundamentalist.

> I don’t think that you could apply the above statement to any
> of my contributions to this thread.

In your contributions, you have continually misrepresented scientists, you have continually misrepresented their work and you have continually misrepresented their conclusions.

> If I have said something wrong, please point it out to me

I have pointed out numerous mistakes in your postings, from small errors of logic, to hilarious, howling clangers and you have yet, seriously, to answer anything that I, and indeed most other people, have written.

- robin.

Playboy

Jc I hope that you are aware that a large majority of the Christian community including clergy and theologians would think it is ridiculous that you believe in the creation story literally. I have no problem with someone challenging the validity of the evolution theory; after all it is far from a perfect theory. Evolution is a scientific theory with a large amount of evidence to support its claims. It is constantly been revised and modified in conjunction with new evidence to support or undermine its claims. Creationism is a story with no evidence to support it. For God’s sake if you truly believe in God do you really think that he would give you a rational and inquisitive mind but then ask you not to bother using it, that it is much better to have blind faith in something without every questioning the validity of it? Do you think God is some kind of Prankster who gives us doubting and questioning minds so that on the day of judgement he can condemn us all to hell because we used them to come up with our own theory of where we came from instead to believing literally in a book that was written thousands of years ago? Do you think that the forgiving and loving God that Jesus talks about is going to condemn us for believing in evolution? Do you see any contrast or contradictions in the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament? Sorry Folks but God changed his mind! While it was ok to take an eye for an eye back in the day of Jacob and Moses we condemn that sort of behaviour now … now we have to turn the other cheek … which is it? Could it be that religious and spiritual beliefs are a product of the time, place, and social conditions in which they arose?

Playboy

J C wrote:

Quote Phil 321
I think (J C) you should go look up the meaning of proof because you seem to have great trouble understanding the concept.

Proof is defined in a dictionary as “fact, evidence or reasoning that supports the truth of or the existence of something” – a perfect description of my six points in relation to God – each one of which provides fact, evidence and reasoning as PROOF for His existence and activities in the Universe.

Here are my (expanded) proofs again (so that you can examine them against the above definition of 'Proof') :-

1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude 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’.
2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.
3. 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 acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.
4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
5. 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. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.
6. 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.

Cmon Jc if you are going to use Descartes to try and prove that God exists then at least give him the credit for coming up with one of those points. Also if you are going to use Descartes in an arguement then at least be aware of the flaws in his arguement and the reasons that philosophers discarded it .. there is a ton of literature out there on the topic .. shouldnt be too hard to find .. google is ur friend

As for the rest of your agruements including your profound Newtonian view of the world as a big machine that works like clockwork ... they are quite simply ridiculous leaps to make with no founding in fact so please stop calling them facts

robindch

...just came across this relevant quotation from Augustine of Hippo's De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis in Twelve Books"), written in around 415 CE, over one and a half millennia ago:

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances [...] and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

Excelsior

I have made reference to Augustine as a perfect example of the clear trail of allegorical Genesis interpretation in the earliest church. It is a great quote Robin and it just shows that Creation Science is not the historical view of Christianity but a small modern off-shoot that has a lot more to do with the sociological concept of modernity than it has with Jesus.

Maybe my phrasing will hurt JC and some of the other Creation Scientists but I speak for the clear majority both today and through the last 2000 years (in clear apostolic tradition) and for all of the substantial denominations when I say that Genesis' creation account was conceived of as allegorical and a disservice is done to the text when it is reorganised to fit into an empirical reading, especially since at least 4500 years part Newton, broadly speaking the marker for the start of science as we now know it and the original tellings of the Genesis tale.

This is in no way disparaging to the truth claims of Genesis. It does not intend to explain the chromosome. God instead wants us to know the more pressing fact that we were created with purpose and as image-bearers of Him and that something very bad has gone wrong with our initial state.

Poisonwood

J C wrote:

I think that the choice between believing in the Creator of the Universe or the “imaginings of men” really is a ‘no-brainer’.

Ooh the comic possibilities of that statement ...

But i'll resist!!

J C

Quote:Solas
Originally Posted by capt'n midnightSo then you agree with panspermia then, , interesting.
is that not scientific fact? (just curious)
I like the idea that thats where we come from.
Panspermia is a refinement by Sir Fred Hoyle that hasn’t been scientifically verified – and unless and until it is proven to occur I don’t accept Panspermia as scientifically valid.
Viruses are very unusual life forms and they certainly merit further scientific research.
In any event, the numbers that Sir Fred Hoyle came up with (for the undirected production of the biomolecules for an Amoeba) are so astronomical that Panspermia (even if it were to be verified as a life DISPERSING mechanism) still wouldn’t be capable of explaining how life was produced in the first place ANYWHERE in the Universe.


Quote Ghostchant
But the earth isn’t a perfect sphere. Don’t you think that if god created the earth he would have made it a perfect sphere?
I never second-guess God – maybe it’s current shape is optimal.

Alternatively, the Earth may well have started off as a perfect sphere – but like the rest of ‘fallen creation’ it has become imperfect with the passage of time. The upheavals and massive land movements experienced during Noah’s Flood would certainly have taken their toll on the overall shape of the Earth.


Quote Ghostchant
And a circle is a one-dimensional theoretical object that doesn't occur in nature
There ARE many circular objects in nature.
However, be that as it may, the use of the word ‘circle’ in the context of the Earth in Is 40:22 proves that ‘God’s People’ were always aware that the Earth was circular – and not flat – and that was my original point.


Quote Sev
I could claim that the universe was created 5 minutes ago, and all history of our lives that we believe we have experienced, is just implanted memories, and everything around us, just planted evidence for a history that never was. Either way, you cannot disprove me.
Of course I could prove you wrong, if for no other reason than the fact that myself and other people have been alive for more than 5 minutes and we also have objectively verified records of directly observing the Universe for more than 5 minutes.

You could refute my proofs for the existence of God if you provided evidence that what I said is factually incorrect – or possibly by providing an alternative explanation supported by equally strong circumstantial evidence from the real world.
Of course, the reason that I am able to circumstantially PROVE that God exists is BECAUSE He DOES exist.
Our criminal justice system relies on the fact that it is impossible to disprove the truth using objective means – and that is why you cannot disprove the truth that God exists – because He does exist!!!!.

Isn’t it amazing that Evolution which is supposed to be scientifically-based doesn’t have any objective evidence to support it – while the existence of God, which is actually a faith-based belief – can be objectively proven using evidence from direct observations!!!!
God has also told us that this is the case in Rom 1:19-20 ”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).


Quote Robin
Referring to a creationist as a 'scientist' (as I've mentioned before) is a disturbing contradiction in terms from somebody who claims to have had a scientific education -- scientists operate with provisional facts and provisional conclusions, which is precisely the opposite of creationists, who are dogmatic fundamentalists interested, largely, in disseminating a pre-ordained, atavistic conclusion at the expense of knowledge and reason.
It is certainly no more “disturbing” than referring to an Evolutionist as a scientist. I am not 'disturbed' by the fact that scientists believe in Creation or Evolution - and I don't see why you should be either!!!
Creation scientists are fully qualified scientists (and very often former evolutionists). Their peer-reviewed scientific papers are provisional and open to and capable of being disproven.
BTW Robin, if you have such an aversion to "dogmatic fundamentalism based upon NO objective evidence" – why do you still believe in Evolution – an idea that I have challenged with four basic questions in my posting on page 3 of this thread on 31/03/05 @ 21.20 – questions which you have not even attempted to answer.
If your criticisms of Creation Science are true then why have you been unable to disprove ANY of my contentions on this thread.


Quote Robin
I might add that none of the creationists I've heard, including you, have demonstrated the slightest ability in physics, chemistry or biology, beyond an ability to parrot some of its terminology

I reject your judgement of my demonstrated academic ability.

IF I HAVE SAID ANYTHING THAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT OR WRONG THEN POINT IT OUT – otherwise stop the off-point personal remarks – and attack the subject at issue – or do you believe that the case for Evolution is so hopeless that you reckon that the only way that you are going to win this debate is by an Ad Hominem attack on my obvious scientific credentials and those of my eminently qualified Creation Science colleagues – rather than presenting the case for Evolution?
I accept you as a bona fide scientist who believes in Evolution and I think that you should also recognise my bona fide science qualifications irrespective of my personal faith-beliefs.

Quote Robin
>(Quote JC) If I have said something wrong, please point it out to me

I have pointed out numerous mistakes in your postings, from the occasional small error of logic, to hilarious, howling clangers and you have yet, seriously, to answer anything that I, and indeed most other people, have written.

Please be specific Robin – you have certainly vigorously challenged many of my statements – but your arguments fizzled out as I brought the full weight of logic and objective evidence to bear upon them. It would be correct to say that NOT EVEN ONE OF MY STATEMENTS in relation to Creation or Evolution has ultimately been disproved by you or by any other contributor to this thread.

As for answering YOUR questions, I have done so comprehensively (and repeatedly in some cases) – which is more than can be said about you – with your continued refusal to answer ANY of my questions about Evolution.


Quote Playboy
I hope that you are aware that a large majority of the Christian community including clergy and theologians would think it is ridiculous that you believe in the creation story literally.
The statistics from America don’t support your contention – but you may be correct, that the majority of theologians in Ireland no longer believe that Gen 1 and 2 are written in a literal style.
However, if Gen 1 and 2 are claimed to be allegorical, considerable additional assumptions and conjecture will have to be engaged in to make a plain reading of the text even remotely match any evolutionary interpretation - and the following passage of scripture should be borne in mind by anybody so inclined.
Prov 30:5-6 states that “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar”


Quote Playboy
Evolution is a scientific theory with a large amount of evidence to support its claims.

This is your BIG opportunity to present this evidence – over to you Playboy – but I’m not holding my breath as nobody else has presented ANY evidence for Evolution on this thread !!!


Quote Playboy
For God’s sake if you truly believe in God do you really think that he would give you a rational and inquisitive mind but then ask you not to bother using it, that it is much better to have blind faith in something without every questioning the validity of it?
Creation Scientists use their God-given rational and inquisitive minds to study His creation every day. Of course, God wants us to use our free will and our minds for our own benefit and for the good of the rest of Humanity.

Christianity is NOT a ‘blind faith’ – it is a rational faith founded upon the teachings of a sovereign all powerful God who loves us and who proves His existence through the things that He has created.

J C

Quote Playboy
Do you think that the forgiving and loving God that Jesus talks about is going to condemn us for believing in evolution?
Firstly, Jesus Christ IS the forgiving and loving God that "He talked about".
Secondly, God is a God of Justice as well as Love.

To answer your question, believing in Evolution will NOT condemn you to Hell – otherwise as a former Evolutionist myself, my fate would have been sealed long ago!!!!
It is made clear in the Bible that everybody who DOESN’T BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST will be condemned to Hell for eternity. For example, in Jn 3:36 it states “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (NIV).

Evolution, like many other Human ideas, is actually a side-issue when it come to your eternal salvation. However, because it is a challenge to the Word of God, it deserves a reasoned response from informed Christians.

Quote Playboy
Do you see any contrast or contradictions in the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament? Sorry Folks but God changed his mind! While it was ok to take an eye for an eye back in the day of Jacob and Moses we condemn that sort of behaviour now … now we have to turn the other cheek … which is it?

The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament is one and the same God, Jesus Christ - and He hasn't changed His mind.

The Old Testament continues to apply to a world labouring under God’s condemnation – while The New Testament contains the good news of salvation for CHRISTIANS, who have been saved from God’s wrath through their belief in Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice for their sins.
The Old Testament concept of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ STILL applies in many areas of life. Indeed civil law still operates on the premise that ‘the punishment should fit the crime’ and that ‘the compensation should match the loss.’ It is therefore not true to say that society condemns “that sort of behaviour now” (i.e punishment for crime or compensation for loss).
Of course, the good news of the New Testament is that Christians are no longer under the operation of God’s Law, which would otherwise also condemn them for the sinners that they too are.
Christians are obliged to forgive their enemies and do good to those who hate them i.e. turn the other cheek.
However, they are also mandated to defend the weak and vunerable - but they must never use unreasonable or unnecessary force and they must never seek to exact vengeance. They must also immediately forgive anybody who asks for forgiveness, irrespective of what they have done to them.
It is a great way of life - and I highly recommend it.
In fairness, many non-Christian people also use various aspects of the 'Christian Approach' to life and their behaviour in this regard is also to be commended.

Quote Robin
...just came across this relevant quotation from Augustine of Hippo's De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis in Twelve Books"), written in around 415 CE, over one and a half millennia ago:

This doesn’t surprise me – evolution and it’s analogues have been around since before the Ancient Greeks. This debate (Divine Special Creation versus various alternative explanations for the origins of life) has been ongoing for a very long time. The 'Divine Special Creation' explanation has remained UNCHANGED and undefeated by observed reality down the years – while many radically different alternative explanations have come and gone as each of their succeeding claims were disproved by observation and scientific advances.

Playboy

Jc if you cant understand that the evolution theory has practical applications to modern science (esp. genetics) then I am not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. You are obviously too narrow minded to accept that there is a distinct possibility that the evolution theory is correct. I am not saying evolution theory is flawless but neither is any evolutionary scientist. Evolutionists generally accept that like most theories evolution is under constant revision in order to try and improve and perfect it. Creationism has no evidence to support it apart from the fact that it was written in a book (which is not evidence btw). Your 'proofs' for the existence of God are completely laughable, unfounded and immature. If you honestly use them to convince yourself of the existence of God then you really don’t show much interest in trying to understand it properly or else you would have realised that practically every point you gave, as a proof is completely unfounded. What proof do you offer that the creation story is true? You gave us your proofs of the existence of God but what makes this God the God of the bible? I am not an atheist and I do believe in a God .. I also believe that the essential message of loving and forgiveness given to us by the New Testament is amazing. What I don’t believe is that the bible is a perfect account of the word of God .. why don’t I? .. simply because there is no proof. I can accept that you believe in something but don’t try and tell me that it is fact or that will you will ever be able to prove it a fact.

zod

Quote Sev
I could claim that the universe was created 5 minutes ago, and all history of our lives that we believe we have experienced, is just implanted memories, and everything around us, just planted evidence for a history that never was. Either way, you cannot disprove me.
Of course I could prove you wrong, if for no other reason than the fact that myself and other people have been alive for more than 5 minutes and we also have objectively verified records of directly observing the Universe for more than 5 minutes.

Whats wrong here? Your reasoning is flawed. If your memories of of being alive more than 5 minutes ago were implanted and the "verified records" were all created to LOOK like they were directly observed .. you cannot tell the difference.

Therefore his argument IS correct. You cannot disprove ANY theory which claims that all evidence of time passage was simply created if you can assume that any such evidence can be simply planted.

To recap :

The theory of light being created between the stars ( as apposed to travelling - because there is not enough time in 6000 years ) is AS equivalent to saying the universe was created 5 minutes ago by an omnipotent God that covered his tracks perfectly.

Both are equally fancifull.

robindch

> IF I HAVE SAID ANYTHING THAT IS FACTUALLY
> INCORRECT OR WRONG THEN POINT IT OUT

I've done so on many occasions -- press page up, for example, to see one. Actually, I'll repeat the link again: you posted this which I rebutted here. No further comment needed!

> the only way that you are going to win this debate is
> by an Ad Hominem attack on my obvious scientific
> credentials and those of my eminently qualified
> Creation Science colleagues

Firstly, I'm not engaging in an "Ad Hominem attack" -- I'm simply questioning your claims (and, I might add, not receiving any answers).

Secondly, In the skeptics thread, I've already pointed out the lack of relevant qualifications of almost all of Ken Ham's lot, as well as pointed out that Ham's own 'doctorate' (in religion, not biology, I need hardly add!) came from a diploma mill. In the real acadamic world, such fraudulent and cheap qualifications as these are treated with contempt by those who've actually had to do some work to receive their qualification.

Finally, your own posting above shows that your knowledge of the physical sciences and physical laws seems to equate roughly to pre-leaving cert science level, say that of a 14-year old and consequently, I'm afraid that I do not believe that you posess any scientific credentials, obvious or otherwise.

In fact, I would go further and suggest that if one wishes to fritter one's life away propagating rather poorly-written and unimaginative Sumerian legends, then going to all the hassle of receiving a proper education in science, or anything else, is certainly a complete waste of time!

Sev

zod wrote:

Whats wrong here? Your reasoning is flawed. If your memories of of being alive more than 5 minutes ago were implanted and the "verified records" were all created to LOOK like they were directly observed .. you cannot tell the difference.

Therefore his argument IS correct. You cannot disprove ANY theory which claims that all evidence of time passage was simply created if you can assume that any such evidence can be simply planted.

To recap :

The theory of light being created between the stars ( as apposed to travelling - because there is not enough time in 6000 years ) is AS equivalent to saying the universe was created 5 minutes ago by an omnipotent God that covered his tracks perfectly.

Both are equally fancifull.

Yes.. thats exactly what I was saying.

I mean there are claims you can make that can never be disproven.. so claiming you're correct until somebody can disprove you is ludicrous.

(I'm on your side)

ghostchant

Quote J C
There ARE many circular objects in nature.
An example of one of these objects that isn't a disc or that is truly one-dimensional would be greatly appreciated.

Proof by induction: if you can be wrong about one thing (i.e. this), you can be wrong about everyting!

Sev

J C wrote:

Of course I could prove you wrong, if for no other reason than the fact that myself and other people have been alive for more than 5 minutes and we also have objectively verified records of directly observing the Universe for more than 5 minutes.

How do you know you were alive 5 minutes ago? all you have is a memory of what happened 5 minutes ago, nothing more. That is my point.

It's a very philosophical point to raise, and I do so because it shows that claiming the universe was created 5000 years ago with a history of the cosmos fabricated in the stars, is tantamount to claiming that the universe was created 5 minutes ago, with all the memories we have had thusfar also purely fabricated, as zod reitterated for me.

In otherwords im highlighting the ultimate reliance you have on faith, because theres nothing you, or we can do to absolutely disprove you.