The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Its the classic "get out of jail" card that religion (not just Christianity) has used for thousands of years.

It goes like this:- The religion is the message. If someone chooses to ignore the message or pretend to follow it, and then do bad things then that is their choice, the religion itself should not be blamed for this.

The point that most (if not all) religious people either don't accept or simply don't get in the first place, is that the message itself can lead to negative situations that allow for these things to happen.

I agree that this catch 22 argument has been used to defend the indefensible. But I am not using it. What I am saying is that real Christian churches will produce bad behaviour exceptionally, but not as the norm. You correct in saying that what one believes will lead to how one acts. An ungodly religion will produce ungodly behaviour as the norm. A church that is characterised by evil behaviour cannot excuse their beliefs of the blame.

An important distinction however must be noted: is the official dogma of the religion what is actually believed by the adherents? An example is the Pharisees. They formally held to the Old Testament as God's word, but they had made up their own rules and regulations in such a way as to negate many of its teachings, while still professing to hold them.

So too many 'Christian' churches today claim to hold the Old and New Testaments as their rule of faith, but all their interpretation of it negates much of it. They are Christian in name only, and their behaviour shows it.

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

1. What is the most conclusive evidence that the world is 4.5 billion years old? are there any assumptions that are made?

No single bit of evidence stands as conclusive on its own. For instance the dating of metal ratios in Asteriod belt objects gives a solar system age of over 5 billion years. This comes from derivations based on the stellar structure of the Milky Way. Basically if Stellar theories are correct, then asteriods with the metal ratios we've discovered should be over 5 billion years old.
What if Stellar theories aren't correct? Then how do you explain how they model stars perfectly?

However scientists still wouldn't consider this good enough. We then have radioactive dating from rocks found on Earth. However what if the rock could have gone through interactions which caused its radioactive content to decrease, giving a false age.
This could happen, however we date using ten different isotope ratio tests. There is no concievable process by which all ten could be thrown off.

Those are two of hundreds of different tests.

JimiTime wrote:

2. What is the most conclusive evidence that man evolved from 1 cell through ancient apemen to where we are now? are there any assumptions made?

Man didn't evolve from one cell. Evolution didn't really arise as a well defined process until possibly the point where life was multicellular and maybe even afterward. Again one could say there are possible errors in every single case, but since they all converge on the same timeline I find this method of refutation spurious.

For instance genetic and anatomical analysis gives Cynodonts a very strong chance of evolving into mammals given 22-27 million years.
Dating methods, independant of this conclusion, date the appearance of mammals to 24 million years after the appearance of Cynodonts.
Why the agreement in these two figures?

J C

pH
On a more serious note, how do you know that the bible is the inerrant word of God?

…………… How given any text that someone claims is divinely inspired do I distinguish that from a fake, something someone made up?

The Bible, as well as proclaiming the existence of God, also bears witness that God exists, because divine inspiration can only explain the existence of this most remarkable of books. The characteristics that point to divine authorship are:-

1. The Bible’s veracity. Not one word of the Bible has been proven to be untrue despite many attempts over hundreds of years.
2. The Bible’s unity. Despite being penned by more than 40 authors from 19 different walks of life over some 1,600 years, the Bible is a consistent revelation from beginning to end.
3. The Bible’s survival. The Bible has survived numerous attempts destroy it. The Roman Emperor Diocletian thought that he had destroyed every Bible in AD 303 and he erected a column over the ashes of a burned Bible to celebrate his ‘victory’. Just 25 years later Constantine commissioned the production of 50 Bibles at the expense of the state!!
The infamous French philosopher Voltaire, bragged that within a century there would be no need for Bibles. Ironically, 50 years after he died, the Geneva Bible Society used Voltaire’s own printing press and his house to print thousands of Bibles!!!
The Bible has miraculously survived to become the book with the greatest number of copies in circulation worldwide today.
4. The Bible’s historical accuracy. The archaeologist William F Albright, has said “The excessive scepticism shown towards the Bible has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details.” Further information is available here http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a005.html and here http://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-arch1.html
5. The Bible’s scientific accuracy. The Bible is fully supported by forensic science. Everything from the Creation Account which is supported by ID and Creation Science to Noah’s Flood which is supported by Geology and Palaeontology. Other examples of scientific accuracy includes the confirmation that the Earth is spherical (Isa 40:22), that the Earth is suspended in space without support (Job 26:7), the importance of blood (Lev 17:11) and the first and second laws of thermodynamics (Isa 51:6). The Bible has also inspired ALL of the ‘Fathers Of Modern Science’ including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal.
6. The Bible’s prophetic accuracy. The Bible states that accurate prophecy is the province of God (Isa 48:3-5). The Bible contains over 60 fulfilled prophecies in regard to Jesus Christ alone. Many of these such as His place, time and manner of birth, His betrayal, manner of death, burial, etc were beyond His control.
7. The Bible’s absolute honesty. Someone once said that “the Bible is not a book that a man could write if he would, or would write if he could !!!”
The Bible does not honour man, but honours God. The people in the Bible have ‘feet of clay’ and they are shown ‘warts and all’. Even the heroes of the faith have their failures recorded, including Noah (Gen 9:20-24), Moses (Num 20:7-12), David (2Sam 11) and Peter (Mt 26:74). Equally, the Bible proves that it isn’t written from a Human perspective by praising some men who were not of God’s people, for example, Artaxerxes (Neh 2), Darius the Mede (Dan 6) and Julius (Acts 27:1-3).
8. The Bible’s civilising influence. The Bible’s message has elevated it’s listeners beyond base living and nihilistic existence. It provided the foundation for English Common Law, the American Bill of Rights and the constitutions of practically all Western Democracies. The Bible has inspired the noblest of literature from Shakespeare, Milton, Pope, Scott, Coleridge and Kipling, to name but a few. It has inspired the art of Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael and Rembrandt. The Bible has also inspired the exquisite music of Bach, Handel, Hayden, Mendelssohn and Brahms.
Indeed the decline in the acceptance of the Biblical world-view in the West has been paralleled by a decline in the beauty of all art forms – which has reached it’s nadir in some quarters with ‘paintings’ produced by throwing buckets of paint at a canvass and then proudly displaying the resultant 'mess' as the avant garde of ‘artistic expression’.
9. The Bible’s transforming influence. The message of the Bible continues to transform the lives of it’s recipients. Evangelist Dr Harry Ironside once agreed to a debate with an Agnostic on one condition – that the Agnostic bring one man who has been ‘down and out’ (such as a drunkard, criminal, etc.) and one woman who had been trapped in a degraded lifestyle (such as drug addiction, prostitution, etc.) and show how both of these people were rescued from their lifestyles through embracing the philosophy of Agnosticism. Dr Ironside undertook to bring 100 men and women to the debate that had been gloriously rescued through believing in the Gospel, which the Agnostic was ridiculing. The Sceptic withdrew from the debate.
The message of salvation in the Bible, mends lives broken by sin and restores a sinful Humanity to their Creator God.
Oh, what Grace that saved a wretch like ME!!!


Wicknight
And most of them I would imagine are good Christians, raised in good Christian families who taught their daughters nothing about sex or sexual protection.

There is no such thing as a ‘good’ Christian. In comparison to God nobody is ‘good’.

Jesus Christ confirmed this fact when He corrected the young man who called Him ‘good master’.
In Mt 19 :17 Jesus said “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God”(KJV).

I supposed what you mean is ‘Conservative Christian’ people and their children.

As I have said before Conservative Christians certainly DO NOT encourage ignorance of any aspect of God’s Creation, including all aspects of Human Sexuality.

Comprehensive age appropriate sex education including BOTH it’s physical and moral aspects is fully supported by most Christian parents.
…..and so their daughters (and sons) are knowledgeable of BOTH the physical AND moral aspects of Human Sexuality.

Bonkey
I'm wondering if JC would have the same certainty that covering a different, (but roughly equivalent in size) area of his/her body with latex would not result in his/her death through asphyxiation.

So what say you JC? We'll block your mouth and nose with a thin layer of latex, and you show us how it doesn't effectively remove your ability to breathe.

Yes indeed, somebody would asphyxiate, because there are only two airways to the lungs (via the nose and mouth).

However, the problem with STDs and indeed some other serious communicable diseases is that they have a VARIETY of transmission routes, and non-penetrative intimate sexual contact provides many opportunities for the transmission of THESE diseases.


Wicknight
I am correct, without FULL protection. Any reduction is better than no reduction, you fool.

There is NO reduction in STDs as a result of increased condom use – and indeed there is actually a dramatic INCREASE in STDs – because people are taking risks that they would never dream of taking without a condom and the naive belief that covering less than 1% of their anatomy in micro-thin latex rubber makes them somehow ‘invincible’ against all serious transmissible disease.

“Without FULL protection” effectively means “without ANY protection” from condoms coming off or bursting as well as the psychological and spiritual damage that casual sex may cause.

“Without FULL protection” also means “without ANY protection” from Syphilis lip cankers, Genital Warts in the groin, Herpes lip & groin blisters, or HIV infected blood exchange from bleeding mouth and gum ulcers as well as Crabs.

The only way to FULLY avoid STD’s is abstinence before marriage and faithfulness afterwards.

Properly used condoms DO act as an effective contraceptive and they DO stop the transmission of disease via penetrative sex – but that is ALL that they do.

…and if condom use increases the promiscuity rate, the infection rate will ALSO increase because of the other routes of STD transmission that condoms DON’T affect.

Wicknight
The innocent partner of the person who is unfaithful is also at risk, as are then the children - particularly with AIDS, where subsequent children can be born with AIDS.

Do you have a neat moral cop-out for this, or are you simply ignoring it?

I am acutely aware that ‘innocent’ parties can also become infected (even with condom use) – and the moral (and legal) responsibility lies squarely with the promiscuous/infected party for such infections.

The only way to avoid STD infection of ALL parties (including spouses and children) is abstinence before marriage and faithfulness afterwards – tough but true!!!!

J C

Wicknight
It wouldn't be an "urban myth" if it was true, now would it?

I agree………
…….and the other great ‘urban myths’ being bandied about are:-

1. That condom use guarantees ‘safe sex’ – when it certainly DOESN’T.

2. That young people can’t control themselves – when they certainly CAN!!!


Wicknight
Are you telling me your toilet movements are involuntary? You simply go when you have to where ever that may be.

JC I would have a doctor look into that ....

Yes, over a few hours everyone’s toilet movements ARE involuntary.

I have never heard of a ‘toilet virgin’ – have you????:D


Originally Posted by J C
Yes, 13 year olds can freely go to the bathroom – but they should NOT be engaging in risky and inappropriate sexual behaviour!!!

Wicknight
What about non-risky, appropriate sexual behaviour?

…..and WHAT would that be for a 13 year old???


Wicknight
Actually that is exactly what the problem is. Teenagers are ignorant of how to protect themselves when having sex,

……and HOW do they protect themselves from the transmission of STDs via routes other than those protected by a condom???

Apart from the obvious risk of condoms coming off or bursting as well as the psychological and spiritual damage that casual sex may cause, condoms will NOT act as a barrier to Syphilis lip cankers, Genital Warts in the groin, Herpes lip & groin blisters, or HIV infected blood exchange from bleeding mouth and gum ulcers – while Crabs will freely migrate groin-to-groin, while totally oblivious to the superfluous presence of a condom.


Wicknight
Its all very well to simply tell a teenager not to have sex. But if they then choose too have sex they have no clue about how to protect themselves or their partner. So they put themselves at great risk of pregnancy and STDs

But a teenager who erroneously believes (as many teenagers currently do) that Condoms are practically guaranteed to provide 100 % ‘safe sex’ puts themselves and their partner at enormous risk of STDs.
Many equally seem to believe that oral sex is ‘safe sex’.

I have said that every teenager should be fully aware of the moral, spiritual and health implications of risky sexual activity as well as the actual limitations of condom use as a prophylactic.

They will then in a position to decide what to do from a FULLY INFORMED position.


Wicknight
Your "critical moral framework" is ignored by most teenagers, which is why the problem exists in the first place.

They ignore it because they don’t actually know about it, and in some cases they have never actually heard of it.


Wicknight
they are ignoring it, because it is unnatural and goes against their biological instincts. Everything in their body wants them to have sex, because that is exactly what they were designed to do. Instead of trying to teach them to simply ignore this, schools and parents should be teaching children how to manage their sexual desires in safe and responsible manner.

They were designed by God to engage in sex in a monogamous faithful union.

They are NOT animals driven by ‘blind instinct’ to reproduce in a promiscuous manner.

They are Human Beings made in the image of God and with immortal souls and moral intellects that allows them to fully control their sexual desires.

Teenagers are quite capable of controlling their sexual desires and most teenagers actually do have enough self-respect to exercise sexual self-control over their sexuality.

Again I would point out that managing sexual desire in a safe and responsible manner requires abstinence before marriage and faithfulness afterwards.


Wicknight

Most people these days aren't getting married until their 30s.

Probably a little late – early to mid twenties would be much more optimum for many reasons, including fertility and child bearing/rearing issues.


Wicknight
Telling someone to simply ignore their sexual identity for 15 years is ridiculous JC. As I said, its like asking someone to simply not go to the toilet for 2 weeks.

The person will eventually burst, because they are biologically designed to go to the toilet. But unlike normal people who have been taught responsible adult aspects of this and who go to the toilet at regular but appropriate times, this person is likely to just crap their pants when and where they burst.

The more ‘highly sexed’ should perhaps marry younger.

Either way it is important that people don’t engage in risky sexual activity or ‘soiled pants’ will be the least of their worries!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
Likewise someone who is ignorant of how to control and release their sexual desires in an adult and responsible manner will be far more likely to have irresponsible risky sexual encounter when they eventually burst, resulting in an increase risk of STD or unwanted pregnancy. Or they are far more likely to rush into an inappropriate marriage just so they can have sex.
………….and that is precisely why comprehensive morally-based sex education is required!!!!

…………otherwise they will be far more likely to engage in high risk promiscuity just so they can have sex!!!

Wicknight
Which is why it would be a great shame to simply get married so you can have sex.

I have heard of worse reasons!!

Obviously both parties should also love each other – and with God’s Divine providence they should have a happy and healthy marriage!!!


Wicknight
You shouldn't get married because you are a pressurised biological sex time bomb desperate for a shag.

Fair enough.

……but you also shouldn’t engage in high risk sexual activities because you “are desperate for a shag” either!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
But "committed relationship" DOES NOT HAVE TO EQUAL "marriage"

Why not, if the relationship is TRULY 'committed'?


Wicknight
In fact I would be very worried if someone went straight into marriage with someone, without experiencing a series of relationships, because the only way you learn is through experience.

I would distinguish between relationships where people date different people without the commitment of sex - and a committed marriage relationship where sex is involved.

By all means meet plenty of different people – but don’t 'jump into bed' with all of them – or else you might get a lot more than ‘experience’ from such rash behaviour!!!!


Scofflaw
I never wore a condom as a young unbeliever, and no pregnancies resulted. It's not as easy to get pregnant as one believes when one is a teenager, despite probably being easier than at any other time.

In a sample size of 250, even if they were all young and all at it like knives, you could go a couple of years without a pregnancy - exceptional, but not impossible.

I can tell you that my own experience was that a pregnancy following EACH planned attempt. As we are now happy with our family size, we haven’t made any further planned or unplanned attempts, but our experience of a 100% pregnancy rate makes your experience completely irrelevant for many couples.
Fertile women CAN and DO become pregnant the very first time that they have sex – and if fertile couples are biologically knowledgeable they can achieve a pregnancy whenever they wish to.

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Why? Because he forgives? Or because he's not homophobic?

Jesus forgives all who repent and trust in Him. And it depends on what you mean by homophobic. Jesus hates homosexuality, as He does fornication and every other sin of thought and deed. But He came to save homosexuals and fornicators, sinners of every sort.

Your Jesus approves homosexuality and does not want homosexuals to repent of this perverted attitude. Maybe he feels the same about fornicators, paedophiles, drunkards, thieves, hypocrites? A loving fellow indeed, by some people's standards, but not by the standard of the real Jesus of the Bible.

And some of the things it commands....we've generally decided we shouldn't really take literally anyway.

Or do you think its a sin for women to wear men's clothing? (The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.)

Yes, it is a sin for a woman to dress as a man, as it is meant to convey a message of her perverted lifestlye. That was the original context also. So it is not sinful for a woman to be in unisex gear - hospital fatigues, etc. that convey no such message.

What you're saying is that while the bible itself doesn't change, interpretation of what the words contained therein actually mean has changed and will change and thus that there is never a guarantee that any given interpretation is right or wrong.

Fair enough. I would point out that at the same time you are offering interpretations of the bible to argue that your stance is correct, and also want me to provide my interpretations of same in order to support or refute a point about what is right and wrong!!! What use is that? I can simply say "your interpretation is wrong", and you can say it of mine. I can tell you that you're taking something too literally, or not literally enough, and you can do likewise. So what do these interpretations gain us?

If all communication were subject to such criteria, then we could not post here. But neither the Bible nor any other medium labour under the weight you imply. Just because some things are difficult to understand - and therefore open to dispute as to the proper interpretation - does not mean that the bulk of the message is. The main message of the Bible is perfectly clear. Some specifics are not. Detailed study helps us get to the meaning in some of these. Others are beyond scholarship and will only be accessed by spiritual understanding.

If the bible is open to interpretation, then your argument against homosexuality based on a biblical definition is inherently false. It is - at best - an argument based on biblical interpretation which may or may not be correct.

In light of the above, you will see that not to be the case. The Bible is unambiguous about homosexuality.

Instead, I'll quite happily accept your suggestion that such Christian scholars have misinterpreted the bible and that your interpretation is correct....if you in turn will accept that the implication of this is that any Christian group which believes differently to you on this issue have shown that they have misinterpreted the bible. I'm sure they'd argue, of course, that you are the one misinterpreting the bible.

The contraception issue is not directly addressed by the Bible, so it is a matter of drawing inferences. That is where good people often differ. To make such an unclear issue one of dogma is surely silly. Without the Bible's clear command, respect needs to be given to each one's conscience.

Nope...when the bible makes claims about the physical world, we have the ability to independantly verify them. We should not verify on the grounds that "disagreement with our interpretation means our tests are wrong", but rather "we have failed to support this interpretation of the bible, and must remain open to the possibility that said interpretation is wrong".

Would you not agree? That when it comes to creationism etc. there is the chance that the bible has been misinterpreted, and that we're not supposed to take it literally? And if this is the case, and our body of scientific evidence increasingly suggests that the creationist aspects of the bible are not meant to be taken literally, that we should seriously consider that it is the literal-creationist interpretation which is incorrect?

Depends on how clear the Bible has spoken, and to a lesser extent on how much we trust the infallibility of science. The Bible has clearly spoken on a recent Creation of life, e.g., giving us the genealogy back to the first man. All the references to this, including those of the New Testament writers and especially Christ Himself, give a literal historical understanding of it.

The great majority of modern scientists, but by no means all, deny such a recent Creation. The Christian then is left with the decision of who to believe: the plain testimony of Scripture, backed up by many respected modern scientists, or the majority of modern scientists. To go with the latter, they have to say that these plain words of Scripture are either mistaken or were not meant to be taken as narrative. If they do that, their whole case for the Bible being the light that leads us to God has disappeared. Truth then becomes unknowable. The Bible can mean anything, therefore it means nothing.

I'm just asking, because I've see no such openness in what I've read (from creationists) of this thread, but rather an insistence that if its in the bible, its true and not open to any discussion.

That's right. For the Christian, the Bible is not in question. It is there to be proclaimed.

JimiTime

Thanks Son Goku and Wicknight, for your respectful tone and education. thank you also for not tarring me with the 'not another creationist' brush. I appreciate your answers. I think the thread is starting to go mental again, so I'll pop out of it and do some reading up on the info you gave. Thanks again.

hairyheretic

J C wrote:

8. The Bible’s civilising influence. The Bible’s message has elevated it’s listeners beyond base living and nihilistic existence.

Just to check, this is the same bible that gave us the Inquisition, witch hunts, the destruction of the belief systems of indigenious peoples and civilisations the world over, the joyfull slaughter of other sects of its own believers, insitutionalised cover up of the misdeeds of its leaders, Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, and centuries of suppresson of scientific advancement.

That bible?

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Plus, we can marvel at the fact that not only has the world, unaided, produced the rose, and us, but that we find it beautiful. Personally, I would find it more disturbing the other way round: God makes man, God makes rose, God makes man like rose - you're just following your programming!

limited reasoning here in my opinion. Firstly, how are you following programming? I like apples, I hate cabbage. My wife loves cabbage. Part of the point is that there is such a huge variety of things that tantilise the senses, and that we have our tastes that are unique to us. Some things more people are agreeable on, like the rose, but certainly not in an automatonic way as you suggest. If I may correct your reasoning. God makes 'nature'. God makes man with the ability to sense it all and decide what he likes and doesn't like.

I can see that your thesis is evolving through a number of posts, here, but my limited reasoning deals with the limited claim you originally made.

If you were saying that God made roses for man to appreciate then you were essentially saying that by appreciating roses you were just following your God-given programming.

If, on the other hand, you mean that God has proved his love by giving you the capacity to appreciate beauty, then you are presumably in the dark as to why he gave the capacity to feel revulsion, or fear, or pain.

JimiTime wrote:

Thanks Son Goku and Wicknight, for your respectful tone and education. thank you also for not tarring me with the 'not another creationist' brush. I appreciate your answers. I think the thread is starting to go mental again, so I'll pop out of it and do some reading up on the info you gave. Thanks again.

As you say, the thread has gone mental again - I see that JC has just denied the existence of the IVF industry (or possibly claimed it's just a big con job). Perhaps you're not looney enough to be just "another creationist"...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Wicknight said:

I agree that this catch 22 argument has been used to defend the indefensible. But I am not using it. What I am saying is that real Christian churches will produce bad behaviour exceptionally, but not as the norm. You correct in saying that what one believes will lead to how one acts. An ungodly religion will produce ungodly behaviour as the norm. A church that is characterised by evil behaviour cannot excuse their beliefs of the blame.

An important distinction however must be noted: is the official dogma of the religion what is actually believed by the adherents? An example is the Pharisees. They formally held to the Old Testament as God's word, but they had made up their own rules and regulations in such a way as to negate many of its teachings, while still professing to hold them.

Would you claim, wolfsbane, that the Bible requires no interpretation whatsoever in order to be a guide to life in the 21st century?

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

judomick
I find it funny how christians demand a level of proof from science without being willing to furnish the same level of proof to science

Creation Scientists ARE willing (and able) to provide SCIENTIFIC PROOF for the existence of God – and they only demand the SAME level of scientific proof for Evolution as they have for Creation.

Creation Science – is actually where God and Modern Conventional Science meet!!:D


CiDeRmAn
I heard a comedian say this once, If I have two theories purporting to explain the origin of the universe and all it contains, I'll go for the one without the magic spell.

Yes indeed I too reject the theory with the magic spell that supposedly ‘blew up nothing to make everything’!!!

I also reject the theory with the magic spell that supposedly ‘turned a frog into a prince’ over many, many (millions) of years!!!!


CiDeRmAn
Those of a religious or spiritual mind however seem to be filled with emptiness when faced with the true breadth of the universe around us, and as science deepens our understanding they only feel more and more dissociated from what, to them, only seems a cold unfeeling godless picture of a world

The heavens declare the Glory of God – so there is nothing ‘Godless’ about the immensity of the Universe. It ACTUALLY reflects the immensity and awe-inspiring power of it’s Creator.

Creation Scientists work at the ‘cutting edge’ in ALL areas of modern CONVENTIONAL science – so they certainly AREN’T dissociated in any way from it’s amazing discoveries.

I can understand how an Atheist’s mind could be filled with emptiness, if he truly believes that he is an accident of an atomic freak, coming from nothing and going nowhere after leading a pointless short life in a cold unfeeling Universe, commanded by unyielding laws that determine everything against the measure of ‘the survival of the fittest’ on some kind of ruthless everlasting 'threadmill' that ultimately kills-off everyone and returns them to ‘nothingness’.
Kina makes everything seem very empty and pointless all right!!!:eek:

On the other hand an infinite Universe created by a loving God for our enjoyment, with a promise of everlasting bliss for those who believe in Him is something that certainly ‘warms ones heart' on a cold grey November evening!!!:D


CiDeRmAn
So you can see why creationists become increasingly desperate to refute such solid evidence as the fossil record, the presence of background radiation indicating a massive event in our distant past "creation" in the big bang sense, the use of carbon dating seems alien to them, evolutionary theory has stood up to so many tests, demonstrably one of the greatest acheivements of modern man, together with Newtons laws of motion, quantum and relatavistic theories.

The desperation is entirely amongst the Evolutionists whose theories are ‘leaking like sieves’ and ‘sinking like stones’.

The fossil record provides rock solid (pun intended) evidence of the existence of Created Kinds as well as Noah’s Flood.

The use of Carbon Dating is routinely used BY Creation Scientists to date ORGANIC substances up to about 5,000 years old.

BTW the maximum theoretical capacity of Carbon dating is only about 50.000 years (which is only a ‘drop in the ocean’ of the supposed millions of years of evolutionary time, in any event).

The Background Radiation of the Big Bang has ‘gone up in smoke’ (amongst Evolutionists, as well) and here is a quote from a recent edition of Science Daily on the matter:-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm
University of Alabama at Huntsville scientists are scratching their heads at a finding that may see the big bang “blown away” in the minds of scientists. Big bang advocates believe the cosmic explosion is responsible for the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation we observe. However, scientists have long predicted that galaxy clusters in the universe would deflect the CMB radiation, creating “shadows” in the observable radiation. But when the Alabama scientists measured this effect, they did not find any strong “shadows” as expected.
Equally last year, the same researchers published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have also been seen, but weren't, if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant.
This indicates that the CMB radiation may not be “behind” distant galaxies, but is much closer instead. Since the big bang interpretation REQUIRES the CMB radiation to be behind the farthest galaxies, this new discovery is a devastating blow to the Big Bang Model, and indicates that the CMB radiation cannot be leftover radiation from a Big Bang. Of course, this isn’t the only evidence against a big bang.”
…..and you can read up on the accumulating scientific evidence AGAINST the Big Bang here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang

Very soon there will be as much scientific evidence against the Big Bang as has currently been assembled against macro-Evolution!!!!:D


CiDeRmAn
Why do they deny the evidence around them?

A good question that all EVOLUTIONISTS should ponder and try to answer!!!:D


Son Goku
No single bit of evidence stands as conclusive on its own. For instance the dating of metal ratios in Asteriod belt objects gives a solar system age of over 5 billion years. This comes from derivations based on the stellar structure of the Milky Way. Basically if Stellar theories are correct, then asteriods with the metal ratios we've discovered should be over 5 billion years old.
What if Stellar theories aren't correct? Then how do you explain how they model stars perfectly?

However scientists still wouldn't consider this good enough. We then have radioactive dating from rocks found on Earth. However what if the rock could have gone through interactions which caused its radioactive content to decrease, giving a false age.
This could happen, however we date using ten different isotope ratio tests. There is no concievable process by which all ten could be thrown off.

Those are two of hundreds of different tests.

…..and they are ALL founded on equally shaky, unproven (and circular) assumptions!!!!:D


Son Goku
Man didn't evolve from one cell. Evolution didn't really arise as a well defined process until possibly the point where life was multicellular and maybe even afterward. Again one could say there are possible errors in every single case, but since they all converge on the same timeline I find this method of refutation spurious.

For instance genetic and anatomical analysis gives Cynodonts a very strong chance of evolving into mammals given 22-27 million years.
Dating methods, independant of this conclusion, date the appearance of mammals to 24 million years after the appearance of Cynodonts.

Why the agreement in these two figures?

Answer.....................
………….Somebody who has an over-riding need to believe that 3 + 2 = 8 ………….will ALSO believe that 2 + 3 = 8 as well!!!:D

I love you all - but Jesus Christ loves you all a lot more!!!!

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

The use of Carbon Dating is routinely used BY Creation Scientists to date ORGANIC substances up to about 5,000 years old.

BTW the maximum theoretical capacity of Carbon dating is only about 50.000 years (which is only a ‘drop in the ocean’ of the supposed millions of years of evolutionary time, in any event).

Actually, the accurate use of carbon dating is within 10,000 years. That's why "creation scientists" use it* - whatever you date with it will give an answer in that range, or else a hopelessly useless result.

*that is to say, they send lumps of stuff to scientific dating labs - generally contaminated stuff, and frequently of uncertain provenance.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

I never wore a condom as a young unbeliever, and no pregnancies resulted. It's not as easy to get pregnant as one believes when one is a teenager, despite probably being easier than at any other time.

In a sample size of 250, even if they were all young and all at it like knives, you could go a couple of years without a pregnancy - exceptional, but not impossible.

I can tell you that my own experience was a pregnancy following EACH planned attempt. As we are now happy with our family size, we haven’t made any further attempts, but our experience of a 100% pregnancy rate makes your experience completely irrelevant for many couples.
Fertile women CAN and DO become pregnant the very first time that they have sex – and if couples are biologically knowledgeable they can achieve a pregnancy whenever they wish to.

Well, given your really profound understanding of statistics, I may have to take your conclusion with a grain of salt. For one thing, it suggests that the entire IVF/IUI industry is either a hoax, or doesn't really exist.

Of course, it is undeniable that "fertile women CAN and DO become pregnant the very first time that they have sex" - in the sense that this is certainly possible (thus, CAN), and has been observed (thus, DO) - my point is they also, and more frequently, DON'T, even though they COULD.

In addition, the fertility of the woman is not the only determinant...

JC wrote:

Very soon there will be as much scientific evidence against the Big Bang as has currently been assembled against macro-Evolution!!!!

Oh, JC, you're just being modest. There's just as much already.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

J C wrote:

…..and they are ALL founded on equally shaky, unproven (and circular) assumptions!!!!:D

You have always said this and never said what the assumptions are, again offering no decent rebutle, just nudge-nudge-winkery to those who think the same as you.

J C wrote:

Answer.....................
…………..IF somebody who has an over-riding need to believe that 3 + 2 = 8 ………….they will ALSO believe that 2 + 3 = 8 as well!!!:D

Huh? What do you mean?
Usually I know what you mean even though it is vague, but I seriously have no idea what you mean this time.
What has 3 + 2 = 8 got to do with the Cynodonts prediction?

JimiTime wrote:

Thanks Son Goku and Wicknight, for your respectful tone and education. thank you also for not tarring me with the 'not another creationist' brush. I appreciate your answers. I think the thread is starting to go mental again, so I'll pop out of it and do some reading up on the info you gave. Thanks again.

No problem. Again the only people who get "the brush" are those who ridicule and create random scenarios on the spot in order to discredit evolution.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Why is the moon asserting a gravitational pull on the earth is a valid question if you are looking for purpose. The example of the boat is more bad grammar. A valid question could be, why is there weather? why is there water? why does it act in this wavy manner?

They are valid questions if the "why" referrs to the process behind it. Eg "Why did the ball fall to the ground?" "Because gravity pulled it down"

The problem comes if the why referrs to the rational behind an intelligent choice, eg "Why did God make the sky blue?" "Because blue is his favourate colour"

JimiTime wrote:

I look for purpose, I want purpose. i want to know why I'm here, whats my pupose?

But as I said that implies that there is an answer in the framework of the question, that there is an purpose created by an intelligence and you just want to know what it is. If there isn't then any answer to the question will be unsatificatory.

Take for example if I asked "Why was I born in Ireland?" A question like this implies that someone or something choose to make me be born in Ireland, and therefore the question is looking for the rational reason that something used to justify this choice

But what if there was no someone or something that choose to make me be born in Ireland. Then it is not possible to provide an answer to the question that is within the same assumptive framework of the question.

With questions like "What is the meaning of life?" people often claim that science cannot answer these questions, as if that is a failing of science. But science actually does answer these questions, but the answer is not what the person asking the question expects or possibily wants. They want a meaning, they don't mind what it is but they expect that the answer to be framed to provide some type of meaning. But what if the answer is actually "There is no meaning to life beyond what we make ourselfs?" The person asking the question would probably throw there hands up and go "That is an unacceptable answer, there must be a meaning to life, I want to know what it is, if you can't give me that answer then that is your fault Mr. Scientists"

It is important when dealing with scientific answers to questions like this to not confuse things by what you want the answer to be.

JimiTime wrote:

Why do we die?

Explaining death in an evolutionary context is a bit complicated, and scientists are still in disagreement over why exactly life, all life, ages and dies. But the current understanding is that natural death provides an advantage to the species.

The easiest way to understand is to think what would happen if a species didn't die naturally. Their numbers would increase constantly year by year, depleating resources such as food and water which will eventually lead to unnatural deaths due to starvation.

"Death" was probably developed by the simplests self replicating molecules billions of years ago simply because life wouldn't work very well if there was not a cycle to control population

JimiTime wrote:

What happens after we die?(I know I cheated and added a 'what':) )

Well science would say that our bodies decompose and our organic molecules are most likely consumed by other creatures as food. But since science doesn't factor in the spiritual side of life (the soul for example if you are Christian) since it doesn't know how to observe or measure it, that question will probably not provide an adequate answer for those who believe in a soul.

JimiTime wrote:

I want pupose, so science cannot give me what I want.

But have you considered that there isn't an answer to the question that you would want, that there might not be a purpose?

JimiTime wrote:

1. What is the most conclusive evidence that the world is 4.5 billion years old? are there any assumptions that are made?

The oldest rock on Earth has been dated to 3.9 billion years old. This has been done using a number of radiometeric dating methods.

Despite what Creationists will tell you radiometeric dating is quite good. Yes it can fail, as any test can fail, and tell you that the snail in front of you is a million years old. The point that Creationists leave out is that the scientists who run these test know this and as such don't rely on just one dating or assume one method of dating will always give the correct result.

But if you date something with 10 different radiometeric dating systems (which are all quite different btw) and they all give you the same answer you can be pretty sure that is how old something is, since if they were all failing they would all give you 10 different way off dates.

While the 4.55 billion years old estimate is based on current scientific understanding of how the early Earth and solar system formed, and as such could turn out to be incorrect as science is constantly updating its model of the universe, we know for certain beyond any doubt that the Earth is at least older than the Biblical time line placing the Earth at 10,000 years old. So from a point of view of tackling the young Earth creationists it doesn't really matter if the Earth is 4.55 billion years old or 10,001 years old, the creationist model of the young Earth is wrong.

For a summary of the errors in radiometeric dating this article is interesting
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm

One interesting point is that when radiometeric dating fails it far more often than not gets the date as being younger than the thing actually is. So if you date something to being 100 million years old and this date is wrong it is probably wrong because the thing is actually 120 million years old. Creationists don't like to tell you think when they drone on and on about the errors in radiometeric dating, because it actually hurts there young earth arguments more than it helps.

The "assumptions" that Creationists talk about are things like assuming that radioactivity l works the same way back then as it does now. They claim that God could have changed things like radioactive decay, and as such things would appear to be old than they actually are.

There is no real scientific response to that, because how can you prove God is or is not tampering with the laws of chemistry and physics as we go through life. If He was we would not notice, though the question would be "why would He do this"

If you want an over view of modern Earth dating methods, and a rebutt to Creation Science dating methods, this is a good article

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

JimiTime wrote:

2. What is the most conclusive evidence that man evolved from 1 cell through ancient apemen to where we are now? are there any assumptions made?

Evidence for evolution? Tons and tons. Far to much to go into here. (though as Son points out it didn't actually happen anything like "man evolved from 1 cell")

For a start we know evolution happens. It is happening right now all around us, you can watch it. Even Creationists will accept that evolution on a micro scale happens. But they claim that it some how stops before it makes changes that are too dramatic. They claim that So a wolf can evolve slightly within its own species, but the species can never evolve into another species all together, even after millions of years of micro evolutionary changes (of course for most Creationists there were no millions of years to start with). Creationists will claim that evolution can only re-arrange the already God given genetic code, that mutation cannot cause the genetic code to change too much so say a 1 chromosone creature cannot ever develop through mutation into a 2 chromosone creature

While this sounds some what convincing it has a little problem. Scientists have observed these types of changes actually happening. Mutation that has caused an increase in genetic material (ie brand new genes) have been observed in a labratories.

JimiTime wrote:

3. what is the most conclusive evidence that life came from inanimate matter? are there any assumptions made?

The current most widely accepted theory is that under the heat and radiation energy from the sun certain molecules formed on Earth 4 billion years ago that managed to self-replicate, that being the molecules themselves assembled and outputed copies of themselves from raw material. While these would not fall quite into the modern definition of "life", they are pretty much the starting point. Once you have a self-replicating molecule you have the starting point for evolution. Errors in the replicating process will create slightly different children molecules and because these molecules need to consume raw material (food, for want of a better word) to continue replicating, natural selection comes into play in that only the strongest will consume the most food. Therefore errors in replication that produce fitter molecules will be selected by natural selection by that fact that they consume and replicate better than the other molecules.

This might all sound a bit far fetch, and it is true that because all this happened 4 billion years ago we will probably never know how it exactly happened. But the important point is that we know it can happen, because we have already done it. Researchers in universities such as MIT have managed to form simple self replicating molecules by simulating the conditions of what we think early Earth was like. Now again, because the process took millions of years it is again hard to know how exactly they will develop (who has a million years to wait around for the MIT molecules to form the first cell walls, or simple genetic material), but computer simulations based on the well understood laws of chemical interaction, have given a hint at how these simple molecules would begin to replicate and evolve.

It is a fascinating time to be interested in evolution, as after 150 years of research the pieces of the puzzle are all starting to fall into place.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

……and HOW do they protect themselves from the transmission of STDs via routes other than those protected by a condom???

If someone is rubbing their vigina against your left leg neither abstinence or a condom is going to protect you from catching something, because you aren't having sex.

J C wrote:

condoms will NOT act as a barrier to Syphilis lip cankers, Genital Warts in the groin, Herpes lip & groin blisters, or HIV infected blood exchange from bleeding mouth and gum ulcers

Neither will abstince. As I said how does "say no till marriage" stop you catching HIV if someone bleeds into your mouth?

J C wrote:

They were designed by God to engage in sex in a monogamous faithful union.

A monogamous faithful union does not mean marriage. I have had a few monogamous faithful unions, but I've never been married. And it is quite common that people who are married are not in monogamous faithful unions.

Marriage is irrelivent to the equation.

J C wrote:

Probably a little late

Surely you get married when you find your soul mate, not because you are in a hurry?

J C wrote:

The more ‘highly sexed’ should perhaps marry younger.
...
Wicknight
Which is why it would be a great shame to simply get married so you can have sex.
I have heard of worse reasons!!

You have a quite sad view of why people should marriage JC .... suppose not much continuing since we clearly disagree on why two people should enter the union of marriage.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

They are valid questions if the "why" referrs to the process behind it. Eg "Why did the ball fall to the ground?" "Because gravity pulled it down"

The problem comes if the why referrs to the rational behind an intelligent choice, eg "Why did God make the sky blue?" "Because blue is his favourate colour"


But as I said that implies that there is an answer in the framework of the question, that there is an purpose created by an intelligence and you just want to know what it is. If there isn't then any answer to the question will be unsatificatory.

Take for example if I asked "Why was I born in Ireland?" A question like this implies that someone or something choose to make me be born in Ireland, and therefore the question is looking for the rational reason that something used to justify this choice

But what if there was no someone or something that choose to make me be born in Ireland. Then it is not possible to provide an answer to the question that is within the same assumptive framework of the question.

With questions like "What is the meaning of life?" people often claim that science cannot answer these questions, as if that is a failing of science. But science actually does answer these questions, but the answer is not what the person asking the question expects or possibily wants. They want a meaning, they don't mind what it is but they expect that the answer to be framed to provide some type of meaning. But what if the answer is actually "There is no meaning to life beyond what we make ourselfs?" The person asking the question would probably throw there hands up and go "That is an unacceptable answer, there must be a meaning to life, I want to know what it is, if you can't give me that answer then that is your fault Mr. Scientists"

It is important when dealing with scientific answers to questions like this to not confuse things by what you want the answer to be.

I think simply put, I don't see it as a fault with science not to answer these questions. I am more saying that it is not in their remit to answer them. I need more. When I see a friend lose his daughter of 5 years old, I just think there has to be more. I ask a scientist, will I ever see her again, I'll hardly get an answer I want to hear. I do understand your line on this logic, whereby you suggest you just look for the answer you want, rather than the facts. I started my quest with the following assumptions.
1. There has to be intelligent design I.E. a creator.
2. There must be more than this life.
I then set out to find out who or what it was. After a while chasing I found what I was looking for. It wasn't, magic, bright lights, testify type of stuff. Rather, it started as logic (this may not be what it is to you:) ). I never had a desire to know how things worked in general. As I said, I always looked for the purpose, and in doing so had to make the assumptions above. I cannot be another way, or my heart would die. I would see life as fairly futile without God. I know you say you can live knowing that when you die you die. I can't. In saying that, my motivation is more than that, but again thats a page in itself. Hopefully thats gives you an insight into my journey.

Well science would say that our bodies decompose and our organic molecules are most likely consumed by other creatures as food. But since science doesn't factor in the spiritual side of life (the soul for example if you are Christian) since it doesn't know how to observe or measure it, that question will probably not provide an adequate answer for those who believe in a soul.

I don't believe in the immortal soul. Along with hellfire, the trinity, and the bible being 'The word of God'. These are corruptions of Christian teaching, but I wont get into that now. This is not knit picking neither, as some have suggested on other threads. It is looking at biblical teachings without being told 'this means this, and that means that'.

But have you considered that there isn't an answer to the question that you would want, that there might not be a purpose?

TBH, because I have found God, this question really doesn't occur. It did at one time, but not any more. And yes my desire for purpose did bias me towards the spiritual rather than the scientific, but it didn't delude me. Even before I found God, I found it very difficult to accept what evolution was telling me. I always remember quizzing my biology and science teachers. They'd usually end up getting p##sed off with me and accuse me of trying to hijack the lesson:) The same happened in religion class. I used to ask what I saw as logical questions, but it always descended into the teachers getting frustrated with me. I decided then, that I was on my own (with the exception of a few people who asked the same questions).

robindch

> I found it very difficult to accept what evolution was telling me

Since you're pre-determining the solution:

> 1. There has to be intelligent design I.E. a creator.
> 2. There must be more than this life.

...then it's not surprising that you are finding knowledge-based information systems unsatisfactory, since they don't include these pre-judgements.

Instead of doing that, why not start off with a blank sheet and see where that takes you?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Explaining death in an evolutionary context is a bit complicated, and scientists are still in disagreement over why exactly life, all life, ages and dies. But the current understanding is that natural death provides an advantage to the species.

The easiest way to understand is to think what would happen if a species didn't die naturally. Their numbers would increase constantly year by year, depleating resources such as food and water which will eventually lead to unnatural deaths due to starvation.

"Death" was probably developed by the simplests self replicating molecules billions of years ago simply because life wouldn't work very well if there was not a cycle to control population

It provides an evolutionary advantage to the population because it means that the previous generation is not competing for the same resources.

It's not really so advantageous for the individual, obviously, but any genetic lineage whose individual members don't die suffers competition not only from other lineages, but also from older members of its own lineage.

Presuming, in particular, that immortal individuals remain fertile, then you can see that intergenerational breeding with earlier generations will slow down evolution drastically, by reintroducing earlier versions of genes back into the gene pool.

Death allows for faster evolution, because the older "versions" are cleared away. Faster evolution, in turn, means more rapid adaptation, which means a faster fit of population to environment. The fitness of rapidly evolving populations increases much more rapidly than that of slow-evolving populations.

Low-competition niches, without natural predators, should therefore produce long-lived species like giant tortoises.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

I started my quest with the following assumptions.
1. There has to be intelligent design I.E. a creator.
2. There must be more than this life.

Thats fine, but in doing so you must understand that if you run into a brick wall with regard to what science provides it is not necessarily because of a fault in science, it is because you have started off with assumptions.

If your assumptions are not in fact true then you will never get answers to your questions, or at least no satisfactory answers.

JimiTime wrote:

Even before I found God, I found it very difficult to accept what evolution was telling me.

Well at this point I would point out that plenty of Christians believe in evolution.

They believe evolution is how God made life, including humans.

Its like the story of the man in the flood. Before the flood he gets a warning on the radio of a flood and everyone should evacuate. But the man climbs onto his roof and says no he will stay because his lord will shield him from the water. A boat comes by and says "jump in we will take you to safety", but the man says no he will stay because his lord will protect him. Next a helicopter comes along and lowers a ladder, but the man refuses it and says no he will stay because his lord will not let him die. Finally the water washes away his house, and the man drowns. In heaven he asks God why did God do nothing to save him from the water. God looks puzzled and replies "What are you talking about, I sent a radio report, a boat and a blooming helicopter!!"

The evolutionary version of this story has all the Creationists turning up at the gates of heaven and asking God why did he never reveal the details of his creation to humans. God looks puzzled and says "What are you talking about, I sent you Galileo, Darwin, Einstien and Hawkings!!"

JimiTime wrote:

I always remember quizzing my biology and science teachers. They'd usually end up getting p##sed off with me and accuse me of trying to hijack the lesson:)

Well no offence, but I do find it a bit funny that this seems to be where most anti-evolutionary are directed to question evolution. You biology teacher isn't a noble prize winning biologist, they probably didn't have answers to your questions, but that is not really a reflection on the validity of evolution as a theory either way.

As I've said, I think most here would be more than happy to answer any questions you have about evolution as best as we can. You have to be open to the answers of course ...

JimiTime

robindch wrote:

> I found it very difficult to accept what evolution was telling me

Since you're pre-determining the solution:

> 1. There has to be intelligent design I.E. a creator.
> 2. There must be more than this life.

...then it's not surprising that you are finding knowledge-based information systems unsatisfactory, since they don't include these pre-judgements.

Instead of doing that, why not start off with a blank sheet and see where that takes you?

Because quite simply, Its not logical for me to say that we weren't created. I'm not looking to argue that point, as I stated previously, even before I found God, I cannot comprehend this world and its contents not being created. It makes absolutely no sense to me. To put it another way, the very principle of not having an intelligent designer makes no sense to me.

JimiTime

J C wrote:

Those are two of hundreds of different tests.[/B]

…..and they are ALL founded on equally shaky, unproven (and circular) assumptions!!!!:D

Hi JC, Can this point be ellaborated on a point by point basis? If I may suggest a format.
1.The test used eg. Carbon dating : what is its shaky unproven assumptions?

2. test used. what is its shaky unproven assumptions.

Etc etc.
I am curious.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Because quite simply, Its not logical for me to say that we weren't created. I'm not looking to argue that point, as I stated previously, even before I found God, I cannot comprehend this world and its contents not being created. It makes absolutely no sense to me. To put it another way, the very principle of not having an intelligent designer makes no sense to me.

That's a very honest statement. It is, I suspect, the case for the majority of theists, although very few admit to it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Creation Scientists ARE willing (and able) to provide SCIENTIFIC PROOF for the existence of God

Please JC, tell us all what the SCIENTIFIC PROOF is for God?

And before you start "we don't understand this so we are going to assume it was all done by our sky god" is not proof

Tar.Aldarion

I would love to meet JC, he sounds positively captivating.


Also, I await the creationist proof of god, thanks.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Would you claim, wolfsbane, that the Bible requires no interpretation whatsoever in order to be a guide to life in the 21st century?

No, it requires interpretation just like the posts on this thread or any other communication.

Certainly, the Bible is more complex than day-to-day communications, as it deals with spiritual as well as natural things. It uses metaphor and natural historical occurrances to pre-figure spiritual realities. But much of the Bible is narrative, much of its instruction is meant to be understood plainly, not metaphorically.

We cannot without good reason interpret narrative as metaphor, neither in this thread nor in the Bible. If we think we have good reason to so understand it, we need to see if that understanding makes nonsense of the rest of the Bible. If it does, then we need to be honest and either reject our interpretation as flawed, or reject the Bible as flawed. We cannot continue with an errant Bible and the Bible as God's truth.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

No, it requires interpretation just like the posts on this thread or any other communication.

Certainly, the Bible is more complex than day-to-day communications, as it deals with spiritual as well as natural things. It uses metaphor and natural historical occurrances to pre-figure spiritual realities. But much of the Bible is narrative, much of its instruction is meant to be understood plainly, not metaphorically.

We cannot without good reason interpret narrative as metaphor, neither in this thread nor in the Bible. If we think we have good reason to so understand it, we need to see if that understanding makes nonsense of the rest of the Bible. If it does, then we need to be honest and either reject our interpretation as flawed, or reject the Bible as flawed. We cannot continue with an errant Bible and the Bible as God's truth.

So, in no particular order - given that the text does require interpretation:

1. it is presumably possible to err in interpretation

2. the claim that one adheres to the literal truth of the Bible is never strictly valid

3. narrative does not always adhere to strictly literal truths, particularly where the object is to give moral lessons - certain things will be highlighted, others diminished or left out

4. if the narrative was not written with the object of providing moral lessons, interpretation may miss the mark entirely in drawing a moral lesson from a historical narrative - events may not provide a clear guide to moral behaviour

5. virtually every narrative written/told by pre-modern cultures starts with some sort of general setting. Often these initial histories are completely fabulous - they are there because the author could not simply start, as modern novels often do, with a dramatic moment. In fact, it is very rare for the initial scene-setting to be anything other than metaphor, where it is not entirely fictitious

6. it is possible for interpretation to change through time, and to reflect the mores and expectations of the interpreters

7. the test of consistency in interpretation is problematic, because one's interpretations may all be consistent, but all together may be wrong

To take an example of narrative being used in a fashion that requires heavy interpretation, and one that is relevant to earlier discussions on this thread - the vignette of Onan. It is clearly, as you say, a piece of narrative. Onan disobeyed the requirement of tradition that he take his brother's wife and impregnate her, by "spilling his seed upon the ground". For this disobedience, God killed him.

Now, if it contains any moral instruction it is extremely difficult to be certain what that instruction might be. That has not stopped people using this narrative to condemn masturbation, contraception, defiance of tradition, shirking your obligations, sexual intercourse for pleasure - and also to establish the sanctity of the male seed. That's a long list for a short piece of narrative, would you not say?

cordially,
Scofflaw

CiDeRmAn

J C wrote:

.

Creation Science – is actually where God and Modern Conventional Science meet!!:D

Creation Scientists work at the ‘cutting edge’ in ALL areas of modern CONVENTIONAL science – so they certainly AREN’T dissociated in any way from it’s amazing discoveries.

So, what, in your estimation qualifies as "Conventional Science"?
I mean where do you draw the line between what is conventional and what is not, and what is your objection to non "Conventional Science"?
Seeing as science is a continuum of logic from Newtonian laws of motion to M-theory, combining the insights of both quantum, string and relativitistic physics, how do you split that up into what christians find digestable and what they don't?

How do you as christians come to term with the fact that the very device you are posting to threads on is working according to well nderstood atomic and quantum behaviour, predictable due to our understanding of the deep structure of the universe?

If a particular part of modern science is not in keeping with your beliefs, have you examined your belief system to see if it is consistent with observable data? After all that is the essence of the scientific method.

J C wrote:

.
CiDeRmAn
I heard a comedian say this once, If I have two theories purporting to explain the origin of the universe and all it contains, I'll go for the one without the magic spell.

Yes indeed I too reject the theory with the magic spell that supposedly ‘blew up nothing to make everything’!!!

I also reject the theory with the magic spell that supposedly ‘turned a frog into a prince’ over many, many (millions) of years!!!!

Right so you would rather the fantasy of some "creator" turning up in the emptyness and simply producing the universe as a magican would a rabbit from a hat?
I can see that operating from the premise that the earth and humanity are somehow special could make one wish to believe that we are the purpose of the universe, but how foolish a notion is that, I am sure you would have called for folk like me to have been burned at the stake in years of old for suggesting that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe, as we know now, and even christians can't deny this one, we are merely one of many planets orbiting an average star.
The sun is simply one of millions of stars in one of a multitude of galaxies themselves spread out across space and time, or space-time if you prefer.
So how arrogant is it to presume we are the purpose of it all, not only are we a speck in this unverse but we may well be just one of a multitude of universes, so, where does that leave us?
Well, statistically we are likely to be just one of many forms of life, and one of many forms of intelligent life, one again, where would that leave the notion of a god creating us in his/her image?
Over the immense time that the universe has been in its current stable, inhabitable state, after cooling, how many sentient life forms have developed, prospered and died out in that time?
Who knows, but it is a statistical inevitability, given the ordinariness of our local stellar situation.

J C wrote:

.

I can understand how an Atheist’s mind could be filled with emptiness, if he truly believes that he is an accident of an atomic freak, coming from nothing and going nowhere after leading a pointless short life in a cold unfeeling Universe, commanded by unyielding laws that determine everything against the measure of ‘the survival of the fittest’ on some kind of ruthless everlasting 'threadmill' that ultimately kills-off everyone and returns them to ‘nothingness’.
Kina makes everything seem very empty and pointless all right!!!:eek:

On the other hand an infinite Universe created by a loving God for our enjoyment, with a promise of everlasting bliss for those who believe in Him is something that certainly ‘warms ones heart' on a cold grey November evening!!!:D

I'm not filled with emptiness when I gaze up at the night sky, when i appreciate a flower or a painting, I don't need to be conscious the mental processes that cause the feelings of pleasure when I take these things in, I know what they are but they don't stop my asthetic nature.
I have a 3 year old son and love him dearly, he is a better reason to live and be happy and content than any god could be.
As regards an infinite universe created by a loving god, most of your evidence comes from the bible, not really open to critique by its followers, is it, I seem to remember churches splitting over this type of thing.

And what is this bliss you speak of, what evidence is there of that, and when exactly will you see it, because talk of people going to the other side after death, and then those seeing tunnels of light with their nearest and dearest on the otherside awaiting them kind of runs against the whole staying earthbound until the end of days and judgement doesn't it?

J C wrote:

.
The fossil record provides rock solid (pun intended) evidence of the existence of Created Kinds as well as Noah’s Flood.

Yup, the fossil record does, in places support the notion of a flood, which flood would that be then?
Seeing as most early people would have lived close to rivers as sources of fresh water, close to shallow parts of said rivers so they could cross them and close to flat land so they could easily move their livestock about, floods would have been a constant threat to survival, no wonder it was woven into myth, and be well aware, many myths, Babylonian, Assyrian, Hindu, Judism, all have flood myths, and thats why.
Also, race memory of geological events like mediterranian volcanic events and earthquakes would have also provided far more earthly reasons for large wave hitting the inhabited shores of the great sea, inundating ports and villages both on the coasts and further upstream as the resulting swells raced along, just as in '04.

I don't know, you christian guys just clutch at anything at all to back up the nonsense you are pedalling.
Now I know you may say the same thing about the more rational and scientific minded of us out there but at least we are willing to put everything we hold to be true up for examination, not afraid to put a theory out to pasture as soon as it is shown to be a poor model of the world around us, refining it until it presents a predictable description of the observable facts of that that it purports to understand.

Science is in a state of constant improvement and refinement, how can religious faith possibly be anything other than a loose framework of beliefs stitched together from years of ignorance and the desire to put a comfortable face on the unknown, while combining it with a social commentary, a way to operate as a group, ufortunately usually tuned to the type of group that existed at the time of the beliefs genesis, no pun intended.
So what we are left with is in Christianity a faith borne of shepherds and fishermen, hence the constant use of such imagery, and in Islam a social structure borne of the need to survive as nomadic peoples in the desert, hence the importance of not eating pork and shellfish, rather necessary given the lack of freezers.
Using this rather blunt tool then to try to keep up and explain in your own terms the essences of modern scientific thought is impossible, they just don't fit, therefore one has to be wrong and only one has testable observable data while the other one has a 2 thousand year old book, although, it only reports on events that occured then, it was written a while later wasn't it?


Yup, I'll stick to science when I need answers to where we all come from, and when I need to feel happy and content I'll look to my son, my wife or perhaps I'll paint something.

robindch

> So, what, in your estimation qualifies as "Conventional Science"?

Creationists use the phrase "conventional science" in the same sense as quack and alternative "medics" use the phrase "conventional medicine" -- ie, knowledge that fails to back up any of the creationist's/quack's claims.

It's a common rhetorical trick used to make it look like the non-conventional side is wise, all-knowiing and posessed of superior knowledge, while the conventional side is closed-minded.

BTW, try using the word "knowledge" in place of the word "science". The issue becomes clearer then.

JimiTime

Obvious to all (if I may make this assumption) is that this thread really decends into mudslinging from both sides rather regularly. I am a Christian, I'm not a creationist, i.e. I am ignorant to creationist science. I would like to however, see clearly both sides of the debate without it going like it has in the past. I.E. That whole big number saga among others. Here is what I propose.

1. Avoid 'evolutionists are stupid because', 'creationists are stupid because' type scenarios.
2. Anything other than evidence and things of the like(your discretion required) that may wind someone up, don't say it. (e.g. i find it funny how..., etc etc)
3. If anyone does fire some mud, break the circle and don't fire back.

I would love to see this debate played out rationally. The only creation scientist I have observed is JC. JC does not seem to be deemed a scientist by his science peers (Son Goku etc). So maybe we should establish something first. The following questions are not accusations:)

JC, are you a scientist? Or are you a christian who has looked at ways of disproving evolution through science?

Son Goku, Wicknight, Scofflaw, Robindch. Are you all scientists?

Next if we could maybe tackle a question that JC has raised. He says that the dating methods used for proving an old earth etc, are spurious. Maybe this could be backed up with some of your findings?

After this if we could stick to the facts without getting frustrated (I know thats a big ask), in an effort to bring this thread to a level where someone joining it can see an, evidence for, evidence against, type scenario. Hopefully then, this thread will be a good education.

So to conclude, If we could start with a heading. Have a creationists , evidence for, evidence against. Then, not answering the creationist, evolutionists, give evidence for, evidence against. Imagine it like a debate in school. You don't get to discredit your opponent, you just have to give your evidence and trust that people will see the wood from the trees.

What do you reckon??

Diogenes

JimiTime wrote:

I would love to see this debate played out rationally. The only creation scientist I have observed is JC. JC does not seem to be deemed a scientist by his science peers (Son Goku etc). So maybe we should establish something first. The following questions are not accusations:)

JC, are you a scientist? Or are you a christian who has looked at ways of disproving evolution through science?

JC has claimed to be a scientist on several occasions on this thread, however when asked to elaborate what fields of science he specialising in, he's remained rather tight lipped, feeding speculation that he is lying.

Next if we could maybe tackle a question that JC has raised. He says that the dating methods used for proving an old earth etc, are spurious. Maybe this could be backed up with some of your findings?

With respect, would you not consider re reading the whole thread? The discussion re dating methods has gone on for pages. You'll find that many posters have given plenty of evidence for the veracity of dating methods already, and JC's criticism and lack of facts to support his claims. JC also offers no evidence that the world is 6,000 years old, aside from "teh bible sez so"

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

Son Goku, Wicknight, Scofflaw, Robindch. Are you all scientists?

Although I could technically be called one, I would say I am not one at the moment. In a few months I'll be starting to do genuine research, then I'll consider myself one.

However it is still clear to me that JC does not know what he is talking about. He might have training in one area, but it would be impossible to be trained in all the sciences.

Next if we could maybe tackle a question that JC has raised. He says that the dating methods used for proving an old earth etc, are spurious. Maybe this could be backed up with some of your findings?

After this if we could stick to the facts without getting frustrated (I know thats a big ask), in an effort to bring this thread to a level where someone joining it can see an, evidence for, evidence against, type scenario. Hopefully then, this thread will be a good education.

So to conclude, If we could start with a heading. Have a creationists , evidence for, evidence against. Then, not answering the creationist, evolutionists, give evidence for, evidence against. Imagine it like a debate in school. You don't get to discredit your opponent, you just have to give your evidence and trust that people will see the wood from the trees.

You see the thread began like this, however it is very difficult to maintain this when JC doesn't explain himself and only states that evolution is flawed while never backing it up.

If JC or anyone on the other side could offer evidence without loaded words and imagery, that would be fine. All we want is a bland cold statement of the facts and decent arguements against them, not ridiculous things like saying evolution is a conspiricay.

He says that the dating methods used for proving an old earth etc, are spurious. Maybe this could be backed up with some of your findings?

Again, this would be fine, if JC will tell us what the assumptions are and why they lead to the method being spurious, in a manner that doesn't quote one specific example.
This is all we require, a general arguement against the dating methods.

Which ever side wants to start first.