Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Wicknight said:
Wanting and permitting are two different things.That isn't true. Adam could not have done what he did unless it was what God decided he would do, because at the moment of creation God knew Adam's present and future (there was no past). Adam's entire time line was decided at the moment God created Adam. If God did not want Adam to sin He would not have created the time line in which Adam did sin.
You are entering into the time-travel fantasy. Adam's 'time line' included his free choice to sin.But Adam could never not choose to disobey God, because his time line was fixed the moment he was created. That is assuming God can see the future.
Ends are accomplished by means. And it was the right thing to do. Would it be wrong or foolish of the State to forbid a criminal from re-offending, even if they knew he would?Why did God do this when He already knew Adam would not obey him?
Again, wanting and permitting are different, and the bigger picture is that God had a rescue plan in place for Adam's fall.In fact He knew Adam would not do this before He created Adam. If God wanted Adam to obey Him he would not have created him so that he would not obey him. That makes no sense.
We fell, we have Adam's nature - so therefore Adam's curse properly comes on us. As to the severity of the punishment, turning Adam into a donkey may be your idea of an appropriate penalty for sin; God tells us eternal punishment is the correct one. So your concept of the gravity of sin is the opposite of God's (I have found, however, that men who minimise sin often maximise it - if the sin is against them)."We" didn't fall Wolfsbane, we were pushed. God cursed us, all of us, as punishment for Adam. He decided how that curse would be. He could have turned Adam into a donkey, yet instead he decide that all humans would suffer and eventually die.
Sinning against the infinitely holy God.As I explained above, that makes no sense because God knew Adam would do this before He created Adam. So what was he being punished for?
Once you agree we are sinners, there can be no objection to our guilt and punishment. You then want to go on to spread the guilt to the Maker. But you are a bit of dust blowing around in the vastness of the universe, and God is the creator of everything. How would you be able to contradict Him or demand an explanation of His justice? You should take Him at His word, acknowledge your sinfulness and repent of it. You should turn to Him and serve Him only.That is a non-answer. Why is it who we are? We could have been anything, why are we the way we are. The answer of course is that we are the way we are because God made us the way we are. So in the end who's fault is it that we are the way we are?
Yes, that is an alternative scenario. But the infinitely wise and holy God chose otherwise. His way is always best.Lets say Adam took the apple and God decided to kill Adam and start again with a different human who God knew would not take the apple. Then we wouldn't be born sinful, or evil.
Existing as a sinner is.Existing isn't a moral fault either.
Adam was created with a free will. He was in perfect communion with God. Adam was without moral fault - perfect. Maybe you believe free will is a mark of imperfection?Clearly he wasn't since he sinned after only a few days of existing.
He is. If He were not, I wouldn't follow him.And if he is not?
They aren't. Your case was that the ability to choose good or evil was evil. It isn't.So how is someone evil if all they ever do is choose good. And how is someone good if they choose evil.
God decided Adam would be permitted to do this.And Adam could not have existed on his own, therefore God decided Adam would do this.
You know these men weren't bringing God's message to us? You know they just wrote what they imagined? Or is it just your unbelieving opinion?No offense Wolfsbane but he didn't tell you anything. A group of desert men who lived 3000 years ago decided to write down what they thought God was, what they thought God did, and what they thought God wanted. You read these books and you believe that they are true.
We expect a vacant look from the unenlightened:But because this was the ramblings of men this description has more holes and paradoxes that an episode of Cross-roads. The fundamental features of the religion contradict themselves.
1 Corinthians 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Ok, Fiver, I can understand you anxiety.Now being an atheists you might wonder why I give a damn. The ramblings of men who died a long time ago hold little attention for me beyond mild curiosity at how human culture developed.
What has sparked my attention is your theories on morality and what you believe is acceptable. We are all ultimately evil, according to you. We are ultimately wicked and will ultimately do wicked things. We are all ultimately deserving of punishment. We are ultimately deserving of any punishment that God wishes to do to us.
Now I would hope you have some kind of safety clause some where in your system of beliefs that says that in the end this is up to God and only God to decide.
The the worrying bit is that history has taught us that it is not a huge skip and a jump to go from
We are evil and deserving of any punishment that my God feels fit to inflict
to
We are evil and deserving of any punishment that my God commands me to inflict in his name
History teaches us that it is all to easy to get from one to the other. Which is why when someone like yourself starts rambling on about how we are all evil and all deserving of punishment, my ears pop up like a rabbit out on the heath.
Men, even Christian men, have brought the world's solutions to spiritual problems. That is not authentic Christianity however. never are Christians told to enforce the faith by violence or the threat of it. In fact, it is expressly forbidden:
Luke 9:51 Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, 52 and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. 53 But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”
55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.
2 Corinthians 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,
It is indeed God who will punish the wicked in the Judgement:
1 Peter 4:3 For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. 4 In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. 5 They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.
That doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to behave properly.As I explained to BC, that example doesn't work because we aren't Gods, we don't exist outside of time, and we didn't create the alcoholic in the first place.
Man is not a robot. He is a free agent. That God could have prevented him from sinning is no defense to the sin. That God did not do so is no proof of God's guilt, for God is infinitely holy. The dilemna in our thinking is resolved when we recognise our limitations in understanding and God's infinite wisdom.Say you are a God and you have a big machine for making a creature (I know God uses his mind but same thing). You punch in a load of setting for how you want this creature to be. You then look at the entire future of this creature and see what he will get up to. You notice that 45 years from now, this creature which you are going to call a human, crashes his car into a woman and her 5 kids because he has been drinking.
You go, eww that is horrible. I don't want that to happen. So you alter the dials on your machine just a tiny bit. You now look at the entire future of your creature and see that he lives a peaceful life, has six kids and a loving wife, and lives to a rip old age.
Now, do you press the button on the first setting, or on the second setting? And if you press the button on the first setting, and your creature ends up 45 years from now killing a load of children (which you know will and must happen), who's fault is that? You pressed the button, it was your decision to create your creature the way you did. You decided how your creature would be, and you decided the future he would have. Could you claim that it wasn't your fault, or could you get mad and angry with your creature because he did this?
I don't know who you are relying on for your information, but a cursory search on the net will inform you otherwise. Evangelical Christianity was the faith held by the Reformers, Puritans, the Protestant missionary movement, The Wilberforce's, Cadbury's, Howard's, etc. of past centuries - and by the underground church before the Reformation. An example, the Baptists have been in Ireland from the mid-1600s. They always were, and still are, Evangelical.As I said, it is an interpretation of the Bible that is rather modern (around the 1960s), owing probably a bit to recreational drug use, and which for most of the history of Christianity was interpreted very differently.
It is the religion of the Bible. You will note that many of those opposed to this religion also oppose the Bible as being the sole final authority on the Christian.0 -
-
-
-
wolfsbane wrote:Wanting and permitting are two different things.
Not when you ultimately create everything (ie are God). That would be like saying I didn't want a turkey and letice roll but I permitted my roll to turn out as a turkey letice roll.
Its your Bible which says that God sees all, including the future. I think it is all fantasy, but you are supposed to believe it...wolfsbane wrote:You are entering into the time-travel fantasy.
If at the moment of Adam's creation God can see Adam's choice in the future can Adam ever not make the choice God has already seen him make? Clearly not, because what ever choice Adam makes from Gods point of view there is only one choice and that choice never changes.wolfsbane wrote:Adam's 'time line' included his free choice to sin.
More importantly this is true before God made Adam. God made Adam knowing that he would never do anything but sin, that is time line was fixed.
Ultimately the only person that effects this choice that Adam makes is God based on how he decides to make Adam, and in fact make the universe and time, at the very start. Only God can alter the time line, and as such only God can decide if Adam does or does not sin.
Of course this opens another paradox, that being can God change his mind when he has already observed his future decisions. But I think we will leave that for another day.
Why was it the right thing to do to create Adam the way God did, knowing that the way he created him would mean he would sin and damn the entire human race? Since God ultimately decides Adam's time line, why not create him with a time line where he doesn't sin?wolfsbane wrote:Ends are accomplished by means. And it was the right thing to do.wolfsbane wrote:Again, wanting and permitting are different, and the bigger picture is that God had a rescue plan in place for Adam's fall.
Why? Surely the best "rescue plan" was not to create Adam knowing he would sin? Create someone else instead who you know isn't going to sin, call him Bob.
There is no logical reason why God had to create Adam if he knew he was going to sin and damn the world. He had infiniate possibilities, he could have created anyone. He could have created Bob, who wouldn't sin.wolfsbane wrote:We fell, we have Adam's nature - so therefore Adam's curse properly comes on us.
"We" didn't fall Wolfsbane, "we" didn't exist yet. Adam "fell" by eat an apple that he was told not to and God punished him. But while punishing Adam God decided to punish all us at the same time. Did he have to do this? No, of course not. We didn't even exist yet. He could have given Adam 100 lashes and made him eat dirt the rest of his life. He could have made the rest of Adam's life horrifically painful. He didn't, he decide to punish Adam and also punish the rest of us too.
But, and here is the kicker, God knew this would happen before he created humans. God knew that Adam would fall and he knew that he would curse all of humanity because of Adam's "fall"
It was never not going to happen.wolfsbane wrote:As to the severity of the punishment, turning Adam into a donkey may be your idea of an appropriate penalty for sin; God tells us eternal punishment is the correct one.
Adam seemed to get off pretty lightly then didn't he? I mean he lived for 900 years and had a pretty happy life, with lots of children. That is a lot better than what most of us get. Why are we punished worse than even Adam when Adam was the one who committed the sin in the first place?
God knew he would do this, and created him that he would. If God decides that one of his creations will sin against him it doesn't make a lot of sense to then punish that creation for doing what he was always going to do based on how God decided to make him.wolfsbane wrote:Sinning against the infinitely holy God.wolfsbane wrote:Once you agree we are sinners, there can be no objection to our guilt and punishment.
Once you realise that God made us that way there can be no logic behind the idea that God would want to punish us for being like this, the way his actions decided we would be.wolfsbane wrote:Yes, that is an alternative scenario. But the infinitely wise and holy God chose otherwise. His way is always best.
Well there you go. So it is "his way", his decision that we be like this ... so why are we punished for his decision?
Is it possible to exist any other way?wolfsbane wrote:Existing as a sinner is.
Clearly it isn't since we are supposed to be born in a state of wickedness. And who decide that we would be born this way?
Adam could never not do what God had already seen him doing. God saw him sin before he was created. God saw him sin before the universe was created.wolfsbane wrote:Adam was created with a free will.
Adam could never not sin once God had decided to create him. The only person that had any control over what Adam would do, whether he would sin or not sin, was God himself. God created a version of Adam that would sin. As you say this was "His way.." God could have created a different version of Adam that God knew wouldn't sin. But he didn't. He choose to create the Adam he created, and that Adam sinned against God.
In the end it was all God's decision that this would happen. "His way.." as you call it.
If God was morally perfect why did he disobey God over something as simple as not eating an apple?wolfsbane wrote:He was in perfect communion with God. Adam was without moral fault - perfect. Maybe you believe free will is a mark of imperfection?
It seems that as soon as Adam had the chance to sin he did without much second thought. That doesn't seem particularly "without moral fault" ...
That is a bit of bizarre logic. You use the fact that you follow him a reason that you should follow him?wolfsbane wrote:He is. If He were not, I wouldn't follow him.
Being permitted means Adam's choice was unknown to God at the time. God let Adam choose.wolfsbane wrote:God decided Adam would be permitted to do this.
But you are ignoring the fact that your own religion teaches that God sees the future and created Adam in the first place.
God knew what choice Adam would pick before He created him.
The decisions God made during the creation of Adam meant that Adam would be stuck on a path that would only ever lead to him sinning against God.
Adam could never not do that, because God had already seen him do it.wolfsbane wrote:You know these men weren't bringing God's message to us? You know they just wrote what they imagined? Or is it just your unbelieving opinion?
It is my unbelieving opinion. But since I only have their word that they talked to God to go on, and since the writers of every holy book in existence claim they talked to God, I tend to talk such claims with a pinch of salt.
Just because someone thinks they communicate with God doesn't mean they actually do.wolfsbane wrote:Ok, Fiver, I can understand you anxiety. Men, even Christian men, have brought the world's solutions to spiritual problems. That is not authentic Christianity however.
The problem is that there are a million and one ways to get around that.
Pepole will (and do) argue Jesus only condemns immoral actions carried out by Christians. All you have to do is tell yourself that your actions are not immoral, and no problem.
For example the religious Christian Right in American often said that "Jesus would not condemn a just war" when talking about Iraq. The New Testament did not say don't bomb Iraq in their mind because doing so was just.
In the end one has to interperate the Bible, and as such than are given the flexibility to make it say what they want it to say.wolfsbane wrote:The dilemna in our thinking is resolved when we recognise our limitations in understanding and God's infinite wisdom.
That isn't a resolution Wolfsbane, it is what is known as blind faith. "This doesn't make any sense but I have faith that we humans are idiots and God knows what he is doing"
The problem with that is that if God doesn't know what he is doing you will be none the wiser.
I would see it the other way around.
Gods logic, because it is supposed to be prefect, should be clear and simple because he should not need complex convoluted logic. It should be understood by a child. If it isn't then it isn't God's logic, but it is instead the logic of men, which is often overly complex and convoluted.wolfsbane wrote:I don't know who you are relying on for your information, but a cursory search on the net will inform you otherwise. Evangelical Christianity was the faith held by the Reformers, Puritans, the Protestant missionary movement
I was referring to the "born-again" movement that is associated with the Evangelical renewals in the 1960s that put specific emphasis on a powerful conversion experience during a persons life, rather than the traditionally held view that being "born-again" happened at baptism.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Wicknight said:
If many scientists reject Creationism as unscientific because Creationists assert that they know for certain that the Bible is correct, then they are being very unscientific. They should stick to criticising Creationist scientific arguments, not their belief about the Bible. Creationists do not claim their knowledge about the Bible is accessible to science - they in fact claim it must be spiritually revealed. It is the Creationist scientific assertions that are up to scientific scrutiny. Your position would disqualify from science everyone who believed an any god. That's why I doubt you are correct in claiming scientists do so. Maybe Scofflaw can enlighten me?Yes, that is exactly what it means, at least to the highest degree of certainty.
That is a fundamental principle of science, and one of the reasons that science rejects Creationism as unscientific, because Creationists assert that they know for certain that the Bible is correct. Since they cannot possibly know that they are being unscientific. As such any results they produce are also unscientific, and most likely biased.
You either follow science or you don't.
If one's beliefs are not supported by the evidence, then one must examine them again. If I saw that science had disproved Genesis, I would have to accept the Bible is not the word of God; and the necessary corollary, that the God of the Bible is unreal.Well that is fine for day to day life, but if you used that as a principle of scientific discovery you open yourself up to the possibility of huge mistakes.
I have seen evidence of the reality of God. I have experienced various answers to prayer. I have seen His power at work in others' lives. So it is not just a matter of imagination.That is a reason to believe something. But it is not a reason to say you know something, or to assert that it is true, that it is an axiom on which to build further assertions.
Put it this way, if this "revelation" you had from God could feel to you exactly the same as a stroke, would you be able to tell the difference, would you be able to assert that this was either a stroke or that it was a revelation from God?
You can certainly believe that what you experienced was a revelation from God. There is no problem in that, more power to you.
It is only when you assert that you know it was, and then use this assertion as a axiom on which to build further assertions.
As I said above, I have experience to the contrary. The witness of the Spirit of God is supported by seeing Him in action in my life. This is the testimony of every Christian:You can claim that you believe God doesn't lie and that anything God does is moral, but you need to realise that that is a person choice based on your personal beliefs and assessments. You don't know it is true, you only think it is.
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
None that stand up.You don't think there is any contrary evidence for the existence of God?
The wilful gagging of dissent by the scientific establishment is admitted by you all. You justify it on the grounds that Creationism isn't real science, no matter the credentials of those holding it. But such gagging is a conspiracy in my book, even if you are blind to it. It is the equivalent of a religion gagging dissent and claiming to be open to discuss all theology. The dissenters obviously don't do 'real theology'.Fair enough, but I would also point out that most Creationists will go to ridiculous extremes to show that something isn't contrary to God. You are already claiming massive atheist conspiracies and disception on the part of the "atheist" scientific community.
The religionists could validly gag dissent, insisting on only their theology being accepted. That is what revealed religion is about. But they should not pretend to be open on theology. Science is not about revealed truths, so it is very improper for scientists to behave as if their were purveyors of a religion. I just love that WSJ quote:
Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches--like the National Museum of Natural History.
You make big assumptions about what others might do.It is all very well to state that you would look at evidence against your beliefs, but you actually have to be willing to do that Wolfsbane. You clearly aren't because I would imagine that you like most religious people have a lot personally invested in your religion being right.
Walking the Christian path is difficult. If I thought I was deluding myself with pie-in-the-sky, I would take the easy road.You believe you will have eternal life and happiness in heaven, that isn't something some would just go "oh, looks like I was wrong, oh well" I don't blame you for not wanting to consider arguments or evidence that would in any way raise the possibility that that might not actually happen.
Creationism isn't really about supporting Christians in their belief about God. It is primarily about removing obstacles from the path of unbelievers. It is also about showing Christians they have no reason to abandon the normal reading of Genesis. If it were only me, I could be content with understanding evolutionists were blinded unbelievers, grasping at any way to avoid the reality of God. I could get on with living the Christian life and never refer to science. But science is being abused by Satan in this past century or so to rubbish the gospel, therefore we engage in this battle.As I mentioned above one of the biggest problems with Creationism is that it has already made its mind up, and each one of you have already invested personally in your beliefs being right. This is why Creationism exists in the first place, it is an attempt to bring just a bit more assurance that yes what we believe is true, yes we are all saved, yes we are all going to have eternal life, yes God does love us all. Creationism ironically enough is born out of uncertainty of faith, it is a movement that seeks to try and find evidence to back up a religious belief system.
Being Christians, that is the only correct view to have.Put it this way, I know of no Creationists who thinks they are going to hell in the after life.
As I pointed out above, if they suspected it was all false, they have very practical grounds for abandoning the faith.So Creationists cannot come to the table of science in this frame of mind because they are already biased to see what they want to see, and ignore what you don't want to see.
The real response is more likely to be, Oh look evolution is wrong, that means I will go to hell when I die! Oh no!! What will we do! That is a good reason to suppress the truth of God in their minds.A principle of science is that every theory must be falsafiable, in that it must be possible to show that it is wrong. That is true of gravity, it is true of evolution.
Evolution might be wrong. Most scientists don't think it is wrong, it works quite well and fits the evidence quite well, but it might be completely wrong. If it is science will eventually figure out that it is. This ultimately isn't that important. If evolution was shown to be wrong tomorrow it might trouble a lot of biologists but then they would have a new theory to work on anyway so I doubt they would be too upset. They don't have anything personally invested in evolution being right, particularly the atheists. Oh look evolution is wrong, that means I might not get to cease to exist when I die! Oh no!! What will we do!
Creationists hold to absolute truths concerning what God says about Creation. They do not regard their particular theories - about how it has all worked out since - as absolutes. They differ with other Creationists, they change their minds, they remain unsure, etc.What is far more important that the question of if a theory is correct or not is that you follow science when dealing with it. Theories come and go, theories are shown incorrect all the time. It is the principles on which you do this, the principles that Creationists don't follow, that are important.
Indeed.If Genesis is literal truth. If it isn't then we have a problem...
I know it is true. I don't know everything about it, however. You may continue the mantra that no one can know anything for sure, but I have a surer Witness and experience than you do.You don't know Genesis is literal truth. You certainly believe it is, which is your right to do so. But you don't know it is. You don't know that that revelation you had was actually God and not some trick of the mind. You don't know that if it was God He wasn't actually lying to you. You believe all these things, which is perfectly in your right to do, but you don't know them.
Well, evolutionists work of the axiom that the universe is billions of years old. Sure, you accept they may be mistaken about that, but such doubt never enters their minds in any of the science they do - so it is for all purposes just as absolute as Genesis is for me.As such it is incorrect from a scientific point of view to work off the axiom of Genesis as the basis for future scientific exploration. That isn't science. That isn't how it works.
If you do decide to do that there is very little point in calling it science, or expected the scientific community to take you seriously.
The theory behind these designs doesn't tell us the universe is very old."Operational science" as you call it is the application of theory to practical design.
If the theory behind these designs didn't work then you could not make the design itself work.
The theory of physics does not tell me the universe is very old (the size of the universe is irrevelant to that question).But that doesn't trouble you when you go to buy a TV. You don't say "Hold on a minute, the theory that was applied to makes this TV work can also be applied to tell me the universe is billions of light years across! Take this TV back it is an affront to God"
Quite right too.Your TV works in a predictable fashion because there is a theory behind the design that allows those to predict what will happen and design around this. That is the same with all areas of science, from astronomy to geology. The more a theory appears to predict correctly the more strength that theory gains in the scientific community.
The problem is often not so much the theory as what the theorist or his peers extrapolate from it. What theories had you in mind?But Creationists reject these theories, even the very strong ones, if they predict something that appears to go against their religious teaching. As I keep saying, it doesn't work like that.
What problem do you think I have with there being a vast distance between galaxies? What would that tell us about the age of the universe?You can't go "well I don't mind saying that the theory of light is strong and predictable when applied to getting my TV to work, but I totally reject it when applied to the distance between galaxies". The only reason you are doing that is because of religious grounds.
The observed relative stability of man in recorded history.What are you basing that on?
I was referring to the survival of the Church, its spread to every part of the world, despite countless attempts to exterminate it. It is as the Lord Jesus said, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." The gospel has lost none of its power to change even the worst of sinners.It doesn't work fine. Every 4 years the vast majority of countries feel angry and annoyed that they didn't win the world cup when this year they thought they really were going to do it. Sure just look at England.
No one can know God is real, no one can know the future? Keep your head in the sand if you will, we know different.The other point is that it is meaningless. You cannot say "I know we are going to win the world cup, lets bet the house on it" because you don't know you are going to win the world cup.
The same applies to religion.
Hmm. You know that, do you? I would have thought such an oxymoronic statement would have been obvious, even to you in your blind state.I happily concede that. The point is I won't know either way, and neither will you.
Just to confirm this new insight of yours - no one who believes in a god has any place in doing science?If you aren't open to the possibility that you could be wrong then you have no place doing science.
If you say so. Most evolutionists I have read say the belief in God is not grounds for rejecting Creationism.Which is why Creationism is not welcome as part of science.
Evolutionists took over the control of the debate and barred continuing discussion.I don't know what you mean by this. Evolution has been questioned for the last 150 years. At the start no one accepted it.
Evolution had to earn its place among modern scientific theories, which it eventually did.
Personal credibility of the scientists; my belief in the Bible; my observation of time's arrow.And millions don't. So you know, the question is why do you believe the hundreds instead of the millions?
You are wrong in your certainly, as I explained above. And I don't turn away from the principles of science. I just object to you abusing them.Actually I know why, you do this because you want/need some form of confirmation from science that your religious beliefs are valid. But at the end of the day that is your problem. It is not sciences responsibility to make you feel better about your religion. That is not a valid reason to turn away from the principles of science.
I certainly hope so!Well there you go. I'm sure a Scientologist thinks what you believe is complete bonkers
I would even be happier if you were happy for the same reason as me.I'm sure you are, and if you are happy like this I am happy for you.
I don't expect them to just assume this. I expect them to investigate it for themselves. To seek after God until they find Him.But you cannot expect that people will just assume that you actually know what you are talking about, that people will just assume that what you claim is true actually is true.
I come at it from the opposite direction - the possession of eternal life makes me want to glorify God in spreading His word.Well there you go. As I said you want very strongly for what you believe to be true because you want what is part of that, namely eternal life and happiness in heaven (I assume you want this).
What I want you to take from this discussion is that you cannot know that I cannot know. You may suspect this is so, but you - by your own premise -cannot know it. I am fully persuaded that I know the Truth.What I would hope that you take from this discussion is that while it is perfectly find to want this, that it is perfectly fine to believe you will get this, you should realise that you don't know this.
The disadvantage of atheism is that you must at all costs avoid thinking that God is real and you are damned if you do not repent and trust in Him. That colours your defence of evolution.One of the advantages of atheism is that we aren't promised anything, by anyone, and as such have no need to believe something or disbelieve something else in order to get something.0 -
-
wolfsbane wrote:If many scientists reject Creationism as unscientific because Creationists assert that they know for certain that the Bible is correct, then they are being very unscientific. They should stick to criticising Creationist scientific arguments, not their belief about the Bible. Creationists do not claim their knowledge about the Bible is accessible to science - they in fact claim it must be spiritually revealed. It is the Creationist scientific assertions that are up to scientific scrutiny. Your position would disqualify from science everyone who believed an any god. That's why I doubt you are correct in claiming scientists do so. Maybe Scofflaw can enlighten me?
Hmm. Yes and no. Wicknight is eliding the argument a bit, but there's an essence of truth there. The short answer is 'no', that's not why Creationism is rejected by science - it is rejected because it cannot be proved or disproved by science, and therefore falls outside its scope, because it involves potential miracles and divine intervention. That is to say, it is not rejected by scientific process, but because it cannot be subjected to scientific process. In legal terms, there is 'no case to answer', because the matter is 'outside the law'.
However, if you hold the Bible to be the real truth - the truth above all other truths, if you like - there is a conflict between that belief and scientific investigation.
Imagine, for a moment, that I am a police officer. I know that X is guilty of a murder - and I am in fact right. Will I stick to the rules of investigation as per the police manual, if they are not producing the evidence necessary to convict X? Or will I be tempted to take shortcuts to get to the truth?
Now, I accept that you would say that there is not conflict between what science reveals, and what the Bible says is true - but I'd like you to think for a minute about human fallibility, and the limitations of current technology. Only if you believe that current technology is perfectly sufficient to reveal the full truth about God's Creation can you claim there will never be a conflict between science and the Bible. And only if you believe humans are infallible can you then claim that when faced with a conflict between what science shows and what the Bible teaches, the Bible-believer is not at risk of distorting the science, even unknowingly.
So, the long answer is yes - it is very difficult to do science in the face of one's deepest beliefs and accept the 'wrong' result. You yourself acknowledge this, by claiming it about us.wolfsbane wrote:If one's beliefs are not supported by the evidence, then one must examine them again. If I saw that science had disproved Genesis, I would have to accept the Bible is not the word of God; and the necessary corollary, that the God of the Bible is unreal.
I would say that because you will not accept that the God of the Bible is unreal, you have to take the Bible as being the Word of God, and in turn, you literally cannot see science disproving Genesis - just as Paul could not see Jesus as the Son of God.wolfsbane wrote:I have seen evidence of the reality of God. I have experienced various answers to prayer. I have seen His power at work in others' lives. So it is not just a matter of imagination.
There you go, then. Science cannot disprove Genesis, because God is already proved.wolfsbane wrote:The wilful gagging of dissent by the scientific establishment is admitted by you all. You justify it on the grounds that Creationism isn't real science, no matter the credentials of those holding it. But such gagging is a conspiracy in my book, even if you are blind to it. It is the equivalent of a religion gagging dissent and claiming to be open to discuss all theology. The dissenters obviously don't do 'real theology'.
Except that Creationism is discussed in scientific circles. Indeed, it akes regular appearances in virtually any discussion in scientific and academic circles. It's just not considered to be science, and so doesn't get to appear in most peer-reviewed journals.
Is this 'gagging dissent'? As I've said before, it can be - and some enthusiastic people have certainly stepped outside the limits. However, rather than being cheered to the echo, they have been fired.
Frankly, I would take your claims of conspiracy and 'gagging dissent' more seriously if:
a) we were not just talking about getting articles published in peer-reviewed journals;
b) there were any evidence that Creationists are really trying to get published in peer-reviewed journals, and being rejected wholesale
c) there wasn't clear evidence of distortion and fabrication by Creationists of scientific evidence - which there undoubtedly is
The whole thing is based on the idea that one can do science while simultaneously accepting that God could have intervened at any point to do something by fiat. One can't.wolfsbane wrote:The religionists could validly gag dissent, insisting on only their theology being accepted. That is what revealed religion is about. But they should not pretend to be open on theology. Science is not about revealed truths, so it is very improper for scientists to behave as if their were purveyors of a religion. I just love that WSJ quote:
Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches--like the National Museum of Natural History.
Nice quote - but so wide of the mark as to make it ridiculous. Those who see the world in religious terms assume scientific dissent works like religious dissent, because they cannot see it otherwise. Similarly, those who see the world only in terms of ideologies see scientific dissent as being the same as ideological dissent. Both are wrong, and you are following.wolfsbane wrote:You make big assumptions about what others might do.
And so do you, as pointed out above.wolfsbane wrote:Walking the Christian path is difficult. If I thought I was deluding myself with pie-in-the-sky, I would take the easy road.
I'm not sure what that would be. You think being an atheist is easy? How would you know?wolfsbane wrote:Creationism isn't really about supporting Christians in their belief about God. It is primarily about removing obstacles from the path of unbelievers. It is also about showing Christians they have no reason to abandon the normal reading of Genesis.
Let me stop you there, and point out the narrowness of your definition of Christian. The majority of Christians do not take Genesis literally, and it seems to be no impediment to their faith.wolfsbane wrote:If it were only me, I could be content with understanding evolutionists were blinded unbelievers, grasping at any way to avoid the reality of God. I could get on with living the Christian life and never refer to science. But science is being abused by Satan in this past century or so to rubbish the gospel, therefore we engage in this battle.
It's true that people do use science to rubbish the gospel, and that is improper, since science has nothing to say about faith and belief. However, your take is that evolution 'rubbishes' Genesis, which is only true if Genesis should be taken literally.
Your claim is over-broad - it applies to your specific narrow doctrinal interpretation, not the main body of Christianity.wolfsbane wrote:As I pointed out above, if they suspected it was all false, they have very practical grounds for abandoning the faith.
Oh, come on. You claim that we will not shift our position, despite our 'deep knowledge' that it is false, yet claim that Creationists would abandon theirs 'if they suspected it was false'?
Why not just come straight out and say that we are fortified in our unbelief by Satan?wolfsbane wrote:The real response is more likely to be, Oh look evolution is wrong, that means I will go to hell when I die! Oh no!! What will we do! That is a good reason to suppress the truth of God in their minds.
Again, rubbish. First, it ignores, again, the fact that most scientists are believers, not unbelievers. Second, all we have to do is 'believe on JC' and we're out of the woods. It's not necessary for us to be frightened - the path to salvation is clearly offered by you and your ilk.wolfsbane wrote:Creationists hold to absolute truths concerning what God says about Creation. They do not regard their particular theories - about how it has all worked out since - as absolutes. They differ with other Creationists, they change their minds, they remain unsure, etc.
All part of the glorious untestability of Creationism. Creationists don't actually offer an explanation of what happened, except what it says in Genesis, which is very little. After that, it seems each Creationist has their own pet theory of how the Flood happened - and not one is scientifically testable!wolfsbane wrote:I know it is true. I don't know everything about it, however. You may continue the mantra that no one can know anything for sure, but I have a surer Witness and experience than you do.
And you're 100% sure that science supports that view, and 100% sure that if it didnt, you wouldn't hold it. Wolfsbane, what can I say - you are like a shining light to us lesser mortals, who dither and worry in the mire of doubt! I salute you.wolfsbane wrote:Well, evolutionists work of the axiom that the universe is billions of years old. Sure, you accept they may be mistaken about that, but such doubt never enters their minds in any of the science they do - so it is for all purposes just as absolute as Genesis is for me.
It wasn't accepted untl recently, and there are still people who claim different ages. Scientific consensus is just that - consensus. Do not try to misrepresent it as the absolutism of faith for your own purposes.wolfsbane wrote:The observed relative stability of man in recorded history.
Eh? We're still evolving. Here.wolfsbane wrote:Just to confirm this new insight of yours - no one who believes in a god has any place in doing science?
Just to clarify that again - no. However, it is likely that someone whose beliefs require science to say certain things will not do good science unless it is science that cannot challenge their beliefs. Perhaps this is why most Creationists are not in the life sciences....wolfsbane wrote:If you say so. Most evolutionists I have read say the belief in God is not grounds for rejecting Creationism.
But belief that God intervened in those things that make Creationism scientifically testable, makes those things scientifically untestable, and Creationism untestable.
Unless you are prepared to rule all miracles, and all divine intervention, out of your 'scientific interpretation of Genesis', then it isn't a scientific interpretation, because science cannot test it...wolfsbane wrote:Evolutionists took over the control of the debate and barred continuing discussion.
The eternal complaint of those in the wrong - "it's a conspiracy, it isn't fair, the rules are aginst me, I could've been a contender". Stop whining and do some science.wolfsbane wrote:The disadvantage of atheism is that you must at all costs avoid thinking that God is real and you are damned if you do not repent and trust in Him. That colours your defence of evolution.
What rubbish. We can all abandon evolution at any time for the Creationist version of 'salvation', or any other. It's easy to do, if harder to stick to.
As for me, I don't even deny the possibility of God - I just reject him. I'd still, on balance, prefer him to exist than not, because it would mean that a lot of good people will have not have lived and died futile existences.
While I usually have quite a lot of respect for you, your post showed a great deal of wrong-headed arrogance. Stop preaching at us, wolfsbane. You aren't an atheist, so you think it's easy. You're flat wrong. Science doesn't agree with you, so rather than doing some yourself, you call it all a conspiracy. Flat wrong another time. Finally, you have the arrogance to think you define what a Christian is, and you're flat wrong a final time.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw said:
Yes, I had the West mostly in mind. I can see a similiar mindset being likely in most of the rest of the world, however, as atheism and religious nominalism prevail. Even those who are devout would see the advantage of not rocking the boat in face of the consensus of the Western and Communist heritage. Exceptions exist, especially in those religions that don't fear to question this heritage, e.g. Islam.I doubt you can prove that claim, although I suspect that doesn't trouble you? Also, this requires 'the establishment' to be the same, and atheist, in every country - are you saying that the 'establishment' in Iran is atheist? Israel? Ireland? The US? The Vatican?
Are you in fact generalising widely from your personal experience of specific parts of the Anglo-Saxon world?
I would like to hear what the scientific community in Iran has to say on evolution. Israel is mostly atheist. The scientific community in Ireland, the US, and the Vatican mostly either share either atheism or a fear of facing down atheism in its scientific manifestation (the Theory of Evolution).
It explains why non-conspirators stay silent.That doesn't negate the point. Your conspiracy requires an establishment that is supra-national.
There is geology. Then there are the Creationist and Evolutionist interpretations of it.It is not necessary for you to know anything about geology. If, as Creationists claim, geology 'supports' the Creationist position, then there must be a difference between 'Creationist geology' and 'evolutionist geology'. If there were no difference, then the geological record could not support either position.
I'm wondering just what specifically would a Creationist find that an Evolutionist wouldn't, and vv.Since this is the case, the findings of those companies most intimately affected by geology, mining and oil companies, would be different if they followed Creationist geology.
If Creationist geology were correct, and evolutionist geology incorrect, the oil or mining company that followed Creationist geology would have a huge advantage over others. None does - do you acclaim them part of the conspiracy?
In real science that would be true, I'm sure. But in ideologically controlled science, doing bad ideology is a crime.To be crucified* as a heretic** in science, what you need to do is bad science.
Yes, I didn't mean physically - at least not yet. A cold-shoulder example I just read of:* where 'crucified' means 'give the cold shoulder at conferences'
** where 'heretic' means 'someone you'd cold-shoulder at conferences'
Correspondence w/ Science Journals http://trueorigin.org/behe07.asp
No, just pointing out the real possibility of the exceptions.Again, you are applying the principle of "everyone says they're wrong, so they must be right", or "the minority opinion is the best" - possibly even "I'm mad, so I must be speaking the truth".
My intention is not to offend, but I realise pointing out one's folly in order save them from it will always be offensive. Being woken by someone screaming 'Fire! Fire!' is disturbing to one's peace, but to a good end.To be honest, that would be equally offensive. The offense is mitigated, of course, by my conviction that you, in turn, are many sandwiches short of a picnic!
I also appreciate your view on my sanity, knowing that you seem to be the sort of person who will not forcibly try to rid me of it. You may be inthe minority in the future, however. Non-conformist Christianity often ends up being forcibly 're-educated'. 0 -
-
-
wolfsbane wrote:Yes, I had the West mostly in mind. I can see a similiar mindset being likely in most of the rest of the world, however, as atheism and religious nominalism prevail. Even those who are devout would see the advantage of not rocking the boat in face of the consensus of the Western and Communist heritage. Exceptions exist, especially in those religions that don't fear to question this heritage, e.g. Islam.
I would like to hear what the scientific community in Iran has to say on evolution. Israel is mostly atheist. The scientific community in Ireland, the US, and the Vatican mostly either share either atheism or a fear of facing down atheism in its scientific manifestation (the Theory of Evolution).
It explains why non-conspirators stay silent.
The fact that this belief of yours is structurally identical to every other conspiracy theory I've ever heard, from Elvis to climate change denial, may not bother you, but for me it puts the matter firmly into the tinfoil-hat zone.
Aside from anything else, I actually know, I think, a lot more about (and of) the scientific community in Ireland than you, and your picture won't hang on it.wolfsbane wrote:There is geology. Then there are the Creationist and Evolutionist interpretations of it.
I'm wondering just what specifically would a Creationist find that an Evolutionist wouldn't, and vv.
Hmm. No, you are slightly in error. There are the rocks, and there is geology, and there is Creationist geology. "Geo logos" - the language, or understanding of, the Earth - it's all interpretation. Indeed, it must be, since we don't actually see the rocks being formed.
Oil companies, and mining companies, aren't drilling into rocks on the basis that they like the colour, or have a hunch. They are drilling on the basis of the interpretation of the rocks.
Take a sequence of sandstones and siltstones, several hundred metres thick. That's the rocks.
Looking at them in detail, a geologist might say "this is a delta sequence of the right age, and with the right thermal history (so many degrees heat for so many millions of years) to be oil-bearing. The delta was covered over by a marine transgression, which should mean that throughout its history the delta sediments have been covered by a layer of mudstones and shales." That's an interpretation.
Or the geologist might say "this is a river floodplain sequence of the right age, and in the right setting, to be carrying sediment from the gold-bearing strata of the hills that were to the south at that time. It has the right degree of meander to have deposited placer gold, so we can look here and here for gold." That's an interpretation, too.
Neither of those interpretations are open to the Creationist - and it is the interpretation that leads to drilling or digging in the right place, not straight observation of the rocks.
So, the sole fact that mining and drilling companies do not use Flood geology, but 'evolutionist' geology, and are successful in digging and drilling, is very telling. It's a practical test of the different interpretations.wolfsbane wrote:In real science that would be true, I'm sure. But in ideologically controlled science, doing bad ideology is a crime.
Exactly. Now, you have to claim a near-perfect and worldwide conspiracy in order to make mainstream science ideological, but I don't. Creation Science is openly ideological.wolfsbane wrote:Yes, I didn't mean physically - at least not yet. A cold-shoulder example I just read of:
Correspondence w/ Science Journals http://trueorigin.org/behe07.asp
Hmm. As I said, having articles rejected for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, when your stance is unscientific, is not evidence of a conspiracy.
Would you claim a conspiracy of Polish-speakers if your French article was rejected for publication in a Polish language journal?wolfsbane wrote:No, just pointing out the real possibility of the exceptions.
No, you're not. You have repeatedly referred to the 'lone voice' principle, and otherwise implied that you are in the minority because you are right.wolfsbane wrote:My intention is not to offend, but I realise pointing out one's folly in order save them from it will always be offensive. Being woken by someone screaming 'Fire! Fire!' is disturbing to one's peace, but to a good end.
So too are constant accusations of being a liar or a dupe!wolfsbane wrote:I also appreciate your view on my sanity, knowing that you seem to be the sort of person who will not forcibly try to rid me of it. You may be inthe minority in the future, however.
I would have been in the minority in the quite recent past, as well! Still would be, in many parts of the world...wolfsbane wrote:Non-conformist Christianity often ends up being forcibly 're-educated'.
Usually by other Christians, though, or with their complicity! I know what you mean, but I don't think 'militant atheism' is the danger it gets painted as, nor can I think of a secular regime that has shipped its non-conformist Christians off to be re-educated. Of course, I am trying to re-educate you myself, but the effort is informal, and reciprocal!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
> At the end of the day Creationism isn't science.
Nothing unfalsifiable can ever be called scientific, as has been pointed out before times without number. And "god did it" is the most hand-wavey, most unfalsifiable thing I can think of.
But I do find it interesting that creationists are claiming scientific credentials -- it indicates very clearly that they subconsciously agree that science is something that can be trusted, which is why they are making strenuous efforts to piggy-back a bizarre religious dogma upon its credibility. Look also, at the number of times that JC has claimed scientific credentials, in defiance of his spirited cluelessness!
ps - congrats on a fine long post too, Wicknight. Comes to nine screens on my monitor which must be a non-JC record. Other than this, what on earth has you up doing this at quarter to three in the morning? 0 -
-
robindch wrote:And "god did it" is the most hand-wavey, most unfalsifiable thing I can think of.
Along with "God told me He did it"robindch wrote:ps - congrats on a fine long post too, Wicknight. Comes to nine screens on my monitor which must be a non-JC record. Other than this, what on earth has you up doing this at quarter to three in the morning?
God inspired me
0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement