The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

J C wrote:

A foetus will freely change or ‘mutate’ into a newborn baby over a few months

You are acting like an idiot. If I need to stand over that comment I will simply use your last post. 250 pages of you discussing mutation and you haven't even bothered to find out what mutation actually is.

A human foetus does not mutate into a new born baby

That is possibly the stupidest thing anyone has every claimed on this thread. Actually this is quite possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever claimed on this forum, and there have been a few whoppers.

I don't even know where to start.... One can only assume you are drunk when you wrote this.

Is there any point in even discussing anything with you.

I knew you didn't understand what evolution is. But it is now clear you don't know what a mutation is. You think a human foetus mutates into a new born child. Do you think that a 5 year old mutates into a 6 year old.

I was going to give up on you when it was clear you didn't understand the Bible you claimed as your inspiration (according to the Bible God does exist in the future).

But now you think as a human child grows up he or she is mutating.

Thats it, I'm out.

This is ridiculous on such a level that it is not even worth continuing for those that might read your nonsense and believe it, because I think (hope) you have destroyed any credibility with anyone who actually listens to you with such a complete lack of understand of even simple biology.

Wolfsbane, seriously? Does your faith blind you so much that this is the nonsense you follow? A growing child up is mutating? Surely you must realise that this is not true.

J C wrote:

The reason for the ‘middle bit’ is because God’s perfect justice demands that we atone for our sins.

We didn't atone for our sins.

J C wrote:

…….. God’s holiness means that He can’t just ignore our sin nor can He, in justice, forgive our sin without proper reparation

We didn't give reparation.

J C wrote:

- but Humans are unable make proper reparation for sin.

So he ignored them without atonement and without reparation.

J C wrote:

………and so the only way that God could reconcile His perfect love with His perfect justice and holiness was to sacrifice HIMSELF to forgive our sin.

You cannot atone to yourself. You cannot give yourself reparation. Such an act would be nonsense.

Its like saying I paid to myself reparation and said I was sorry to myself for the idiot who crashed into my car and then sped away at high speed, aren't I great.

J C wrote:

What is amazing is that God loved you and me so much that He humbled Himself to atone for our sins and to save us – and all we have to do is to believe on Him.:cool:

You cannot atone to yourself. You cannot give yourself reparation. Such an act would be nonsense

God ignored our sins. He did it in a very elaborate way, by baking a cake and then eating it (or was it creating his son?). But either way we didn't atone for out sins and we didn't give reparation.

Saying God gave himself reparation for our sins, that God atoned for our sins to himself, is nearly as nonsensical as claiming a child mutates as he gets older.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

……as Evolution is incapable of increasing genetic information – I suppose Evolutionists have to ‘clutch at straws’ such as a belief in “a second mechanism that is equally important that we haven't found yet”!!!!

…….dream on!!!!!:D

Hmm, interesting. Had I not specifically mentioned that the group that posits a second mechanism was a group critical of evolutionary theory then perhaps this would make sense.

Let me try it this way, they are not evolutionists. They think something else is responsible for a lot of species shifts.

They are not Creationists or Evolutionists, they are another, let's say "third" group.

J C wrote:

They also produce decent evidence in favour of Direct Creation!!!:D

Eh, saying they produce evidence isn't worth anything. I'd like a biological paper with a single statistical graph please.

J C wrote:

A foetus will freely change or ‘mutate’ into a newborn baby over a few months – but again this ISN’T Evolution - it is the use of high quality PRE-EXISTING Complex Specified Genetic Information!!!!!:D

What? I mean seriously, what are you talking about?

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

A foetus will freely change or ‘mutate’ into a newborn baby over a few months – but again this ISN’T Evolution - it is the use of high quality PRE-EXISTING Complex Specified Genetic Information!!!!!

Definitely jumped the shark this time...pity - just a few posts short of the 5000 mark.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

And how many have actually done scientific research that is both repeatable and peer-reviewed on the theory of Biblical Creationism or Intelligent Design? I would imagine I could count them on my left hand. Compare that with the millions of scientists that do scientific research based on evolutionary theory every day.

You might want to take a glance at the Proofs of God by Thomas Aquinas, its written in a scientific viewpoint not from a religious one. There is something mentioned in it on intelligent design etc. (I put a link to it a few pages back).
But why have research when we have an all-knowing God to rely on?

robindch

> You might want to take a glance at the Proofs of God by Thomas Aquinas

These "proofs" have been refuted many times -- see here for one rebuttal of many.

> its written in a scientific viewpoint not from a religious one.

Science, as we understand and operate it now, is based largely upon the work of Karl Popper in the 1930's and Aquinas was obviously unaware of it. I suspect that a title like "Summa Theologica" would suggest that Aquinas was writing from a religious point of view anyway?

> But why have research when we have an all-knowing God to rely on?

No, please be accurate here, Jakkass. You have a belief that a god exists, and you have a second belief that this believed-god knows everything and a third belief that this believed-god can be relied upon to inform you accurately. All of which belief upon belief upon belief suggests that some research might be a pretty good idea after all!

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

You might want to take a glance at the Proofs of God by Thomas Aquinas, its written in a scientific viewpoint not from a religious one.

First of all it isn't written from a scientific point of view, it is written from a philosophical point of view. A pretty bad philosophical point of view at that.

Secondly, as Robin points out, they are terrible "proofs" of God and have been refuted many many times over.

Proof 1 to 3 are basically the same, there cannot be a move without a mover, a cause without a causer, and therefore there must be a "necessary being"

Aquinas has the excuse that he was unaware of the modern scientific understanding of time and the universe, so one can excuse him for these assumptions. But within the modern scientific understanding of time they are largely meaningless since time is a property of the universe, so talking about causality "before" the universe (before the big bang) is nonsense.

These proof also, strangely enough, ignore the question of how God exists without a "necessary being" to create God. If God exists then clearly something can exist without having a necessary being to create or move it, so Aquinas's proofs become meaningless anyway.

Proof 4 says that there must be a hierarchy of "greatness" and that what ever is at the top is God. I'm not sure how Aquinas defines greatness, the greatest thing in the universe could easily be a mathematical equation, depending on how you define greatness.

Proof 5 says that many things that lack intelligence act for an end, a purpose. I assume he was referring to life forms. Darwinism explains how life, which lacks intelligence, can organise itself around what appears to be a purpose.

Jakkass wrote:

But why have research when we have an all-knowing God to rely on?

Religious dogma doesn't product toasters, antibiotics, hospitals, telephones, aeroplanes, light bulbs, water treatment plants, computers etc etc.

In fact I'm unaware of any piece of religious comment of the natural world that has ever actually done anything useful (heck something correct), aside from the obvious giving someone eternal life which happens to be something no one can actually test if it is happening or not, strangely enough.

Put simply you might be, and probably are, wrong. Now you probably don't care, but it isn't exactly something the rest of us feel confident relying on.

J C

Wicknight
Long ago on this thread I asked yourself and JC for peer reviewed scientific papers outlining any of the theories you are talking about. I didn't even require that they were peer-reviewed in established scientific journals (since you claim there is a conspiricy against Creationists), peer reviewed in Creationists journals would be enough.

I got nothing back.

I am sorry that you got nothing back - you must have been so disappointed!!!!:D

.....but this is your lucky day - and your hunger for the truth as established by Creation Science is about to be satisfied!!!!:D

For the answer to your question look here:-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

…..and here….

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp

……and ALL of the scientists listed below have published peer-reviewed articles in BOTH Creation Science and Conventional Science Journals:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp


Here is an example of a peer reviewed Creation Science Papers – and there are hundreds more papers like them:-
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_2/cost_substitution.htm

Creation Science is a fully-fledged Science Discipline practiced by conventionally qualified scientists.:eek:


Originally Posted by Wicknight
If a small dish of algae cells can mutate into a multicellular lifeform with a few days……

Originally Posted by J C
A foetus will ‘mutate’ into a newborn baby over a few months – but again this ISN’T Evolution - it is the use of high quality PRE-EXISTING Complex Specified Genetic Information!!!!!

Wicknight
A human foetus does not mutate into a new born baby

That is possibly the stupidest thing anyone has every claimed on this thread. Actually this is quite possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever claimed on this forum, and there have been a few whoppers.

Please note that I placed the word ‘mutate’ in inverted commas to indicate that the word (as I was using it in the sentence) simply meant ‘change’.

Of course a Human foetus DOESN’T evolve in it’s development into a newborn baby over a few months – and NEITHER does single celled algae evolve in it’s development into filamentous algae over a few days – as you claimed.:D

BOTH processes use high quality PRE-EXISTING Complex Specified Genetic Information……
……..and that was actually my point!!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
God ignored our sins. He did it in a very elaborate way, by baking a cake and then eating it (or was it creating his son?). But either way we didn't atone for out sins and we didn't give reparation.

God DOESN’T ignore our sins – and anybody who dies without being saved will find this out ‘the hard way’!!!!!

God humbled Himself to become a Human Being – which was the only way that He could reconcile His perfect justice, which demanded that sin be properly atoned for, with His loving desire to save us.

The choice comes down to whether each person wants to live under God’s justice or grace.
God’s justice will surely condemn us as sinners – but His grace will save us through no merit on our part, because the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ has atoned for our sins.:cool:


Son Goku
Let me try it this way, they are not evolutionists. They think something else is responsible for a lot of species shifts.

They are not Creationists or Evolutionists, they are another, let's say "third" group.

……..and I say that, whatever they call themselves, they are still ‘clutching at straws’ in a vain belief that a second materialistic mechanism to Evolution exists, which they haven’t found yet!!!!:eek:

…….dream on!!!!!:D


Son Goku
Eh, saying they (Creation Scientists) produce evidence isn't worth anything. I'd like a biological paper with a single statistical graph please.

Always willing to oblige – here is a peer reviewed Creation Science paper with a number of statistical graphs:-:D

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_4/body_mass.htm


Robin
Science, as we understand and operate it now, is based largely upon the work of Karl Popper in the 1930's

Ah yes, this is the same Sir Karl Popper who confirmed that ‘denial of the obvious’ is the preserve of the MATERIALIST!!!!!:D

…and in the following quote, Sir Karl, confirms that this is actually the unhappy state of the Evolutionist:-:D

“What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA.

Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.

Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics."
(Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T., eds., Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270).

…and Prof. Richard Lewontin openly admits that Materialists defend Evolution IN SPITE OF all of the evidence to the contrary, because their commitment to materialism is ABSOLUTE:-:D

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdities of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Professor Richard Lewontin, “Billions and billions of demons”. The New York Review, January 9, 1997 pp 28.


Jackass
But why have research when we have an all-knowing God to rely on?

We do indeed have an all-knowing God to rely on........
and our scientific observations confirms both His existence and the veracity His Word.!!!

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Put simply you might be, and probably are, wrong. Now you probably don't care, but it isn't exactly something the rest of us feel confident relying on.

That is such a general statement that you could twist it around either way. I believe that you are wrong, but I wouldn't say it like that (which some would call an arrogant way).
Just face it you can't prove our beliefs wrong, so why try in the first place?

On another point has prophecy been discussed much in this thread?

Wicknight wrote:

Religious dogma doesn't product toasters, antibiotics, hospitals, telephones, aeroplanes, light bulbs, water treatment plants, computers etc etc.

God gave us these through His power and His people. Then again you will just brush this off as per usual. But that's the explanation.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

That is such a general statement that you could twist it around either way. I believe that you are wrong, but I wouldn't say it like that (which some would call an arrogant way).

Doesn't really matter what way you say it. My side (science) is the pro-active side.

If I'm wrong you still get your PlayStation, your antibiotics, your hospital scanners, your telephone system, your sewage treatment centres etc, even if you personally think the scientific theories behind these working systems are an a front to God and choose to ignore them. You are in a position to be able to do this and still reap the benefits because an awful lot of people don't think the way you do about religion and science. Lucky for you don't you think?

But if everyone thought your way was better, that we should abandon science for religious guidance, we would all be living in caves day to day hoping not to die from a simple cut or cold while dreaming of the glorious afterlife. And on top of that you might even be wrong, in which case that would be all pointless and we would have wasted our lives in endless and needless suffering.

Jakkass wrote:

Just face it you can't prove our beliefs wrong, so why try in the first place?

I'm not trying to. I'm happy that the majority of people ignore your beliefs, and have done for most of the last 2000 years, because if they didn't as I said we would all be living in caves right now.

Jakkass wrote:

God gave us these through His power and His people.

Everyone is "God's people" now are they? Including the ones that belong to a different religion or don't believe in God at all? Were they all inspired by God too?

Ok, lets say that is true. Surely then by that logic the inspiration that someone like Darwin or Einstein got over rules the literal Bible since it comes directly from God?

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I am sorry that you got nothing back - you must have been so disappointed!!!!

None of those papers have anything to do with establishing a theory or model of Intelligent Design :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Of course a Human foetus DOESN’T evolve in it’s development into a newborn baby over a few months – and NEITHER does single celled algae evolve in it’s development into filamentous algae over a few days – as you claimed.:D

A child does not mutate into an adult.

A single celled algae does mutate in to a multi-celled algae.

Mutation is not simply change or growth.

I appreciate you don't understand this because you actually don't understand what a mutation is. After 250 pages of arguing against evolution you don't even understand what a mutation is. :rolleyes:

Lets just say that again so it can sink in.

After 250 pages of arguing against evolution you don't even understand what a mutation is.

As Scofflaw says you have jumped the shark. I'm not going to argue points with you anymore you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Mutation is the fundamental process at the heart of evolution and you don't even understand what it is. I wouldn't even mind if you claimed it doesn't happen. But you don't even understand what it is to claim that it doesn't happen. Yet you spend a large amount of your time arguing against evolution based on mutation, something it is clear now you know nothing about.

You sir are nothing but a troll.

Your posts are a waste of hard disk space. You argue ignorance from a position of ignorance. I've no idea why the mods yet you continue to post this nonsense here, but I've no wish to continue trying to explain biology to you that a 12 year old understands after a week.

J C wrote:

which demanded that sin be properly atoned for

Which didn't happen, so he ignored our sins anyway, simply in a very elaborate way by having a small part of himself tortured and killed. But then maybe God is into a bit of the old S&M, I don't know.

J C wrote:

…and in the following quote, Sir Karl, confirms that this is actually the unhappy state of the Evolutionist:-:D

Pretty sure Popper knew what a mutation is JC, so off the bat he is doing better than you. :rolleyes:

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

But why have research when we have an all-knowing God to rely on?

What does that mean? No research equals no technology? I seriously don't understand your views of science.

First you think scientists make loads of money(which is outright incorrect, you simply made it up out of thin air) and shouldn't be trusted because of it.

Secondly you keep saying "Science can't prove my beliefs wrong" when it doesn't even want to.

Now, you're saying we don't even need research, because we all know advancements just turn up on our doorsteps.

Want a cure for malaria, but don't want to go to the trouble of genetically engineering a new breed of mosquito, which requires you to understand evolutionary theory and fund and perform research?
No problem!, all you have to is rely on an all-knowing God and in some unspecified way something will happen somewhere.

Like man, "Why have research?", think for five seconds.

Zombrex

Son Goku wrote:

No research equals no technology?

Nail on the head there Son Goku.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Religious dogma doesn't product toasters, antibiotics, hospitals, telephones, aeroplanes, light bulbs, water treatment plants, computers etc etc.

In fact I'm unaware of any piece of religious comment of the natural world that has ever actually done anything useful (heck something correct), aside from the obvious giving someone eternal life which happens to be something no one can actually test if it is happening or not, strangely enough.

Put simply you might be, and probably are, wrong. Now you probably don't care, but it isn't exactly something the rest of us feel confident relying on.

But God gave us the brains and ability to produce toasters, antibiotics, hospitals, telephones, aeroplanes, light bulbs, water treatment plants, computers etc etc.

Christianity has also produced hospitals, schools, street ministries that help and feed the poor, etc, etc.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not trying to. I'm happy that the majority of people ignore your beliefs, and have done for most of the last 2000 years, because if they didn't as I said we would all be living in caves right now.
?

And on what do you base this statement on?

You have had great fun in slamming others for what you consider to be insane statemnts........

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

But God gave us the brains and ability to produce toasters, antibiotics, hospitals, telephones, aeroplanes, light bulbs, water treatment plants, computers etc etc.

Yes but they don't do so using a literal reading of the Bible. In fact it is necessary to greatly move away from a literal reading of the Bible (abandon so to speak) to do these things at all. Even if great scientists such as Galileo were genuinely Christians they weren't Biblical literalists. Heck even Tomas Aquinas wasn't a Biblical literalists, recognizing that such a philosophy doesn't work when observing the natural world around us.

Science produces these things. Christians can do science, anyone can do science. But you cannot do science in the way Creationists want people to, ignoring or fudging any scientific theory or scientific model that produces a conclusion that doesn't fit with a literal reading of the Bible.

If you did science that way we would not have any modern science.

No modern medicine, no modern understanding of biology, no modern electronics, no modern chemistry, no modern understanding of the universe at all

Why you ask?

We wouldn't have any of these things because the theories that under pin all these things would have been abandoned in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as they were being developed, due to their conclusions that are incompatible with a literal Bible.

What scientific model based on a literal reading of the Bible has ever predicted anything correctly, let alone produced a technology that actually does something?

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

But God gave us the brains and ability to produce toasters, antibiotics, hospitals, telephones, aeroplanes, light bulbs, water treatment plants, computers etc etc.

And the brains and ability to come up with theories of evolution, universal origins, and so forth. Amazingly, when it comes to such things, it is not God who is given credit.

It amazes me how Christian-approved things are "given" to us by God, but non-Christian-approved things are not, but are rather a side-effect of our having free will.

So if you come up with an idea, its only yours if its wrong. If its right, it was God who gifted you with it.

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

Christianity has also produced hospitals, schools, street ministries that help and feed the poor, etc, etc.

It produced them? But non-Christian groups have also produced such things....how does that work?

Scofflaw

OK, now I just can't resist doing...

Scofflaw

..this!

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

BrianCalgary wrote:

But God gave us the brains and ability to produce toasters, antibiotics, hospitals, telephones, aeroplanes, light bulbs, water treatment plants, computers etc etc.

Yes but thankfully not in that order, although taost is important.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Doesn't really matter what way you say it. My side (science) is the pro-active side.

And yet Christianity influences so many peoples lives on a daily basis. New people are getting involved in it everyday. So religion is passive? Yet so many people continue to be part of it? So unless you think that religion doesn't exist, then it would be illogical to say it isn't pro-active, something cannot be in-active when it is still in existence?

Wicknight wrote:

If I'm wrong you still get your PlayStation, your antibiotics, your hospital scanners, your telephone system, your sewage treatment centres etc, even if you personally think the scientific theories behind these working systems are an a front to God and choose to ignore them.

To be honest with you. The only theories I disagree with are the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory. Yet you claim that I disagree with every scrap of Science there is?

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not trying to. I'm happy that the majority of people ignore your beliefs, and have done for most of the last 2000 years, because if they didn't as I said we would all be living in caves right now.

Yet, the Israelites had homes and cities? Yet the Israelites lived in houses with flat rooves? Yet you claim that we would be living in caves?? At least learn your subject matter before you post?

Wicknight wrote:

Everyone is "God's people" now are they? Including the ones that belong to a different religion or don't believe in God at all? Were they all inspired by God too?

Regardless of what you see. Yes everyone was made by God, therefore they are his people. If I may?

Genesis 1:27 - 28 wrote:

So God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female, blessed them and said, "Have many children, so that your descendants will live all over the earth and bring it under their control. I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and the wild animals" (Good News Bible)

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

To be honest with you. The only theories I disagree with are the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory. Yet you claim that I disagree with every scrap of Science there is?

Essentially, yes. There is no difference between the scientific method as used in these theories and the scientific method used in others. You decry one, but not the other, which suggests that you disagree with the basic rationale of science, which might be summed up as objectivity. If you don't accept that science produces true results where it is being used in evolution, then you don't actually accept that the scientific method is valid in any meaningful way - you are simply not disagreeing with its results in other areas.


cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

Scofflaw wrote:

Essentially, yes. There is no difference between the scientific method as used in these theories and the scientific method used in others. You decry one, but not the other, which suggests that you disagree with the basic rationale of science, which might be summed up as objectivity. If you don't accept that science produces true results where it is being used in evolution, then you don't actually accept that the scientific method is valid in any meaningful way - you are simply not disagreeing with its results in other areas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Big Bang and Evolution are clearly theories. We can witness the results of gravity etc, but we can not witness these theories of how we evolved, and of how the world exploded into being. Call me skeptical, but that's what I'm taking from it. It's a belief in itself as we can't witness these theories, as one could say that one can't witness God creating the world and us as human beings.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

The Big Bang and Evolution are clearly theories. We can witness the results of gravity etc, but we can not witness these theories of how we evolved, and of how the world exploded into being. Call me skeptical, but that's what I'm taking from it. It's a belief in itself as we can't witness these theories, as one could say that one can't witness God creating the world and us as human beings.

You may be under a misapprehension. The Theory of Gravity is an explanation of an observation (or series of observations, such as that different masses fall at the same rate etc). The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of another observation (or series of observations, such as the similarities between living organisms).

We cannot "witness" any theories - they are simply explanations of phenomena. I thik what you're saying is that we can directly observe gravity in action, but that we cannot observe evolution, and that therefore the theory of evolution rests on shakier pillars.

Unfortunately, this is not true either. We do not observe gravity directly - we attribute certain phenomena to the force we have decided to call gravity.

Nor do we observe atoms actually bonding when we practice chemistry, or observe photons changing their courses through lenses. In every case we measure the effect, and derive the theory.

The pillars of every scientific theory, then, are flimsy in exactly the same way you like to think of evolution's pillars as flimsy. And, of course, they are also strong in exactly the same way - they explain the phenomena.

Geology is not a directly observational science either - we hypothesise about eruptions no man ever saw, and their effects on seas that rolled before mammals had evolved. We postulate conditions that have no modern equivalent, at a time when the continents consisted of no more than a few scraps of granitic scum on a sea of basalt - but we successfully explain the phenomena we see, and we successfully dig up minerals and drill for oil.

Science - good science - allows us to explain the phenomena we see, and predict what we could not otherwise know, repeatably, and objectively. Evolution has these properties, as does the Big Bang - we therefore have no reason to think they are bad science.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

And yet Christianity influences so many peoples lives on a daily basis.

So does Star Wars. It doesn't mean you throw out General Relativity because Star Wars says you can travel faster than light, or Darwinian evolution because Star Wars says we are all develop because of The Force.

There is a difference between being inspired by something and being confined by something. Christianity may well inspire. Creationism confines.

Jakkass wrote:

So unless you think that religion doesn't exist, then it would be illogical to say it isn't pro-active

Religion isn't pro-active when it comes to technology or discovery.

It certain can be proactive in terms of something like art, but that isn't what we are discussing and art won't save you from TB or produce a more efficant solar panel.

Religious dogma has never lead anyone to create any model of the universe that can actually be used for anything useful, and it has set back or even destroyed scientific models that can are are used for something useful.

Jakkass wrote:

To be honest with you. The only theories I disagree with are the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory.

As has been pointed out to you it doesn't work like that. You don't just not agree with the theory of evolution. You don't just not agree with the the big bang theory. "Evolution" and "Big Bang" are actually made up of a lot of interconnected theories, which in turn are interconnected with lots of other theories.

As Son points out Big Bang theory is connected to General Relativity, and to theories about light and chemistry. The Big Bang theory is the conclusion of all these theories and observations. If the Big Bang is unreasonable then so to are all these theories and your computer monitor shouldn't work, neither should you GPS system in your car. The planets shouldn't behave the way they are observed to behave and your mobile phone shouldn't work.

Jakkass wrote:

Yet you claim that I disagree with every scrap of Science there is?

You do but you don't realise you do. This is because, to be brutally honest, I don't think you appreciate what you are actually claiming.

As Scofflaw points out to simply throw out theories you personally don't like based on religious belief is anti-science. If you think that the methods used to come to these conclusions are wrong for these particular theories then logically you think all scientific methods are wrong because they are the same scientific methods.

Its like someone saying "I don't mind M&Ms, but I don't like this one, this one and that one." M&Ms are M&Ms. It doesn't matter which one you pick, they taste the same. Science is science.

Jakkass wrote:

Yet, the Israelites had homes and cities?

The Israelites didn't take Genesis seriously. To the Jews Genesis is a metaphorical poem.

It is one of the bizarre features of modern Christian Creationism that they take the Bible more literally than any time in the past.

Jakkass wrote:

Regardless of what you see. Yes everyone was made by God, therefore they are his people. If I may?

Then was God not inspiring Darwin (an atheists) and Einstein (officially a Jew but most like an atheist)?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

The Israelites didn't take Genesis seriously. To the Jews Genesis is a metaphorical poem.

It is one of the bizarre features of modern Christian Creationism that they take the Bible more literally than any time in the past.

So the Jews don't take the patriarchs of their faith seriously? Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph? Neither did the 12 tribes of Israel? Since Jacob's sons aren't to be taken seriously?

Personally I think its rediculous that you can say that I hate Science because I don't believe in Evolution or the Big Bang? The Big Bang was a theory made up with speculation of how the world would be made taking into account physics. There is no ultimate proof for it. However we can witness pretty much the majority of science for ourselves.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but they don't do so using a literal reading of the Bible. In fact it is necessary to greatly move away from a literal reading of the Bible (abandon so to speak) to do these things at all. Even if great scientists such as Galileo were genuinely Christians they weren't Biblical literalists. Heck even Tomas Aquinas wasn't a Biblical literalists, recognizing that such a philosophy doesn't work when observing the natural world around us. ?

How do you know that Galileo adn Aquinas were not Bible literalists?

Wicknight wrote:

Science produces these things. Christians can do science, anyone can do science. But you cannot do science in the way Creationists want people to, ignoring or fudging any scientific theory or scientific model that produces a conclusion that doesn't fit with a literal reading of the Bible.

If you did science that way we would not have any modern science. ?

And there aren't any scientists out there who fudge models and theories to suit their desired outcome?

Wicknight wrote:

No modern medicine, no modern understanding of biology, no modern electronics, no modern chemistry, no modern understanding of the universe at all

Why you ask?

We wouldn't have any of these things because the theories that under pin all these things would have been abandoned in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as they were being developed, due to their conclusions that are incompatible with a literal Bible.?

And which conclusions are not compatible with the Bible?

Many scientists of the 17th century were Christians.

Wicknight wrote:

What scientific model based on a literal reading of the Bible has ever predicted anything correctly, let alone produced a technology that actually does something?

As you have stated the Bible is not interested in Science. It tells the history of God's people and is concerned with the ongoing plan of salvation.

But God has created us with the ability to explore and discover and the desire to do so.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

So does Star Wars. It doesn't mean you throw out General Relativity because Star Wars says you can travel faster than light, or Darwinian evolution because Star Wars says we are all develop because of The Force.

There is a difference between being inspired by something and being confined by something. Christianity may well inspire. Creationism confines.


Religion isn't pro-active when it comes to technology or discovery.

It certain can be proactive in terms of something like art, but that isn't what we are discussing and art won't save you from TB or produce a more efficant solar panel.

Religious dogma has never lead anyone to create any model of the universe that can actually be used for anything useful, and it has set back or even destroyed scientific models that can are are used for something useful.


As has been pointed out to you it doesn't work like that. You don't just not agree with the theory of evolution. You don't just not agree with the the big bang theory. "Evolution" and "Big Bang" are actually made up of a lot of interconnected theories, which in turn are interconnected with lots of other theories.

As Son points out Big Bang theory is connected to General Relativity, and to theories about light and chemistry. The Big Bang theory is the conclusion of all these theories and observations. If the Big Bang is unreasonable then so to are all these theories and your computer monitor shouldn't work, neither should you GPS system in your car. The planets shouldn't behave the way they are observed to behave and your mobile phone shouldn't work.


You do but you don't realise you do. This is because, to be brutally honest, I don't think you appreciate what you are actually claiming.

As Scofflaw points out to simply throw out theories you personally don't like based on religious belief is anti-science. If you think that the methods used to come to these conclusions are wrong for these particular theories then logically you think all scientific methods are wrong because they are the same scientific methods.

Its like someone saying "I don't mind M&Ms, but I don't like this one, this one and that one." M&Ms are M&Ms. It doesn't matter which one you pick, they taste the same. Science is science.


The Israelites didn't take Genesis seriously. To the Jews Genesis is a metaphorical poem.

It is one of the bizarre features of modern Christian Creationism that they take the Bible more literally than any time in the past.


Then was God not inspiring Darwin (an atheists) and Einstein (officially a Jew but most like an atheist)?

What a load of garbage wicknight. You are implying that all christianity has ever produced is art wrok and has never inspired any scientific discovery?

Frederick Banting went to divinity school before transferring to medicine. He went on to discover insulin in it's cure for diabetes and won a nobel prize for his work.

Could he have been inspired by God to enter the medical field and make his discoveries to benefit mankind?

Giblet

BrianCalgary wrote:

What a load of garbage wicknight. You are implying that all christianity has ever produced is art wrok and has never inspired any scientific discovery?

Frederick Banting went to divinity school before transferring to medicine. He went on to discover insulin in it's cure for diabetes and won a nobel prize for his work.

Could he have been inspired by God to enter the medical field and make his discoveries to benefit mankind?

I'm sure there are 1000's who have been inspired by Star Trek just the same.

philologos

Giblet wrote:

I'm sure there are 1000's who have been inspired by Star Trek just the same.

People don't believe in Star Trek, in the same way people believe in God. Star Trek doesn't give any valid answer to how the world and the people who live on it were created.