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
-
-
> I'm especially careful about orthoxodies that need muzzles for their opponents.
You're referring here to the divinely-inspired Christian churches who up to quite recently, used Heresy and Blasphemy laws to jail anybody they liked; confining scientists to house arrest, burning people at the stake, tossing witches into ponds, chopping people up into small bits (and all the rest of it) before they had to stop all of *that* because of an outbreak of secularism? I find your late conversion to concern for the dangers of orthodoxies unconvincing in the extreme.
Remember the words of the gospel in Matthew 7:3.0 -
To JC and wolfsbane - you are not Christians, you are book-worshippers.
Christ spoke, and men wrote it down. The Apostles do not agree with each other. They cannot all be right, and therefore the Gospels cannot all be literally true.
The New Testament supercedes the Old. Therefore some parts of the Old Testament are not literally true. Yet you cling to them.
The Bible has been translated, and there are many versions. If the Bible is literal truth, how can there be many versions? If only one version is correct, who vouches for it? How can literal truth pass through many languages?
Genesis itself contains two creation stories - each important as allegory. By insisting on the literal truth of the words in Genesis, you make the account of Creation itself an absurdity.
You require the Bible to be literally true, so that there is no room for misinterpretation. Where there is a book, there must be a reader, and the reader reads, and translates the words in the silence of their own thoughts. In your arrogance you say that you are reading it right, and others are reading it wrong. The Word of God, and are you its only interpreter?
If the Bible repesents the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, what does it mean to know God? How can God speak, when he has finished speaking? Can one know God only through the words in a book?
If we can only know God through the book, and the New supercedes the Old, what of later books? What of the Qu'ran? What of the Books of Gold? What is a book but a book - if the Bible is true, why not these? They too are books.
You, and those like you, wish to lock God into a book, to say that he no longer speaks, and that only you know how his Word should be read. The Word of your silent God, locked in a book for two thousand years!0 -
Quote Scofflaw -
Are there not two debates? There is one debate over whether creationism has enough evidentiary support, intellectual coherence, and testability to be considered scientifically - this is the one that most scientists think they are having with creationists.
Creationists, on the other hand, think they are debating whether evolution or creationism is the better scientific theory - in other words, they act as if the first debate is either irrelevant, or has been concluded in their favour.
There are two debates :-
The first debate is about whether Macro-Evolution or the evidence for Creation are capable of scientific enquiry. The second debate involves an assessment of the evidence for Creation.
Because Macro-Evolution does not have any observable evidence it is therefore scientifically invalid. Evidence for Micro-evolution is often introduced in support of Macro-evolution.
However, the two ARE completely separate phenomena and should not be interchangeably deployed. Macro-evolution is a decidedly ‘uphill’ postulate while Micro-evolution is a ‘downhill' or 'sideways' process.
Macro-evolution attempts (but fails) to explain how primordial chemicals evolved into advanced life forms such as Man. It has NO repeatably observable evidence for the sketchy mechanisms it advances to explain how this supposedly occurred – and so it is a stuck at the speculation stage in the scientific process – or ‘the leap of faith’ stage as others on this thread have described it.
The ‘big need’ of macro-Evolution is for mechanisms to provide INCREASED genetic information – and no plausible mechanism has ever been identified that meets this need.
Micro-evolution is propelled by Mutation, Natural Selection and Speciation acting upon pre-existing genetic information. Natural Selection can only begin to select when you have a population of reproducing viable living organisms with significant extant genetic diversity in their genome and the ability to express it. The Laws of Mathematical Probability and Big Numbers rule out ever getting to this stage in the first place, using undirected processes such as postulated by Macro-evolution.
Natural Selection doesn’t provide a mechanism to GENERATE semantic information – it merely SELECTS alternatives amongst pre-existing semantic information. Mutations are equally not observed to generate semantic information – they merely degrade it.
There is no disagreement from Creationists about the evidence for Micro-Evolution, or indeed it’s scientific validity.
The ‘Emperor without the clothes’ is NOT Darwin’s ingenious concept of Natural Selection. The ‘Naked One’ is its invalid first cousin, the theory of Macro evolution - which states that ‘muck evolved into man’ – but fails to provide any observable mechanisms for the process.
The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is that DNA had an external intelligent source. Science cannot identify this source – but it can validly conclude that such intelligence existed at the time when life originated.
The evidence for Creation is overwhelming and repeatably observable – and so there is no issue in relation to it’s scientific validity.
The second debate has revolved about comparing the overwhelming evidence for Creation with the complete absence of evidence for Macro-Evolution and clarifying when it is being confused with Micro-Evolution.
Quote Morbert
Most of the material from limestone comes from microscopic organisms, which is why limestone does not simply consist of bone jigsaws. It's these microscopic orgnaisms that are responsible for the massive pure deposits you refer to. And the fact that larger fossils are found in limestone highlights the biological importance in its formation,
The vast bulk of Limestone is made up of precipitated Calcium Carbonate. The micro-fossil content of Limestone is generally relatively small as indeed is the macro-fossil content.
The fact that micro-fossils ARE perfectly preserved in Limestone is further proof that chemical degrading of calcium-rich micro-organisms and macro-fauna WASN’T the mechanism that formed Limestone as conventional Geology postulates.
Quote Morbert
the turbulent flood would have to also be responsible for the careful layering of sediments found around the world. A Global flood cannot be responsible for both huge erosion and massive finely layered deposition, even if it did last a year
The turbulent flood, as you have called it, was and is unprecedented.
However, the Mount St Helen’s Eruption created a localised event that parallels Noah’s Flood in many respects. The internal water movements in Spirit Lake generated sediment many meters thick with thousands of finely graded layers within hours of the eruption. The presence of such micro-layers in rock had always been interpreted by conventional Geologists as representing layers of annual deposition at the mouths of rivers – but the layers around Spirit Lake were formed in a matter of hours and without the presence of any riverine processes.
Quote Morbert
I shall provide an example of reputable evidence which describes Macroevolution. If you rigorously examine and study phylogenies which are independant of one another, you get incredibly high correlation between them. i.e. Biochemistry and Morphology. If such correlations did not permeate all of life, then we would have reason to believe we weren't all related.
That certainly isn’t evidence of the missing critical mechanism for INCREASING genetic information, which is so lacking in Macro-evolution.
In fact, the high correlation between independent phylogenies actually points to a common Creator and is therefore evidence that is supportive of Creation rather than evolution.0 -
Quote Morbert
Evolution is an objective principle, so it does not differentiate between meaningful information and noise, which are subjective concepts.
Of course meaningful information and noise CAN be objectively (i.e. scientifically) differentiated.
However, I fear that Macro-evolution contains a lot more “noise” than “information” – and that is another reason why it is scientifically invalid.
Quote Morbert
A careful study of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics renders any concept of "meaningful information" irrelevant and ridiculous. Consequently, this also addresses your claim that mutations are always deleterious. If we apply the definitions of information theory, mutations are infact not deleterious, and are perfectly capable of adding information
You can, I suppose argue that a two-headed Calf with a fifth leg growing were its ear should be is not deleterious – but you would have to burn all dictionaries first.
If the concept of “meaningful information” is irrelevant and ridiculous then science is a waste of everybody’s time because it’s primary output IS “meaningful information”.
Quote Morbert
Information theory says mutations do indeed increase information, as noise and meaningful information are the same thing
IF “noise and meaningful information ARE the same thing” then all I will say to that is this :-^%?>,!!!*&$#@&**??#@£;@<£\\.~ “?’!!!!
Quote Son Goku
Actually JC, what do you think prevents the "microevolutions" from adding up to a "macroevolution"?
And don't say "because they can't add information,", because that makes no sense. Genetic information isn't linear in the sense of how many "kilobytes" there are on the gene.
Natural Selection SELECTS – i.e. it discards certain genetic combinations and keeps others. This process is objectively SUBTRACTIVE, in that the discarded genetic combinations may contain other valuable genetic information that may be permanently lost. That is one of the reasons why genetic diversity disappears so fast when a population is subjected to high unrelenting selection pressure. Pedigree animals provide a perfect illustration – a Poodle is an example of extreme Micro-evolution – to the point where it has practically lost ALL genetic diversity. If you breed a pedigree Poodle with another pedigree Poodle – you invariably get a Poodle.
Macro-evolution is postulated as an information INCREASING mechanism. If Macro-evolution existed then by repeatedly breeding Poodles you would get a Wolf or maybe even a Sheep!!!
Quote Robin
Originally Quoted by Wolfsbane
When ID says various biological meachanisms cannot have evolved
> due to their irreducible complexity, sounds like science to me.
Well, you see, it's not science because science needs evidence. That means that if you're going to say that something is true, you need to back it up.
If a particular biological mechanism IS OBSERVED to be objectively irreducibly complex, then that is a scientifically valid observation.
It can of course be challenged by data from other observations or by the demonstration of obvious errors of fact or logic (if such exist) – but merely dismissing the existence of such mechanisms by hand-waving or denial is not scientifically valid or rigorous.
Quote St Crispin
ID isn't science. It's philosophy. It is a perfectly valid philosophical argument, but it's not science. Science cannot prove if god exists or not. And it shouldn't attempt to.
I’m not at all as sure as you seem to be that science won’t prove that the God of the Bible exists.
However, be that as it may, ID certainly isn’t about the business of proving the existence of the God of the Bible. It is capable of, and I believe it to have in fact, scientifically proven that life originated through the direct action of an Intelligent Agent of unknown origin.
Quote Son Goku
There is no mathematical basis on which to object to evolution. The standard objections involve standard Bernoulli probability, which cannot be applied to molecules, they need distributive probability.
Bernouilli probability is valid – DNA behaves as a constrained, tightly specified information storage and retrieval system and not as a molecular free-for-all such as is encountered with liquid state chemicals – and to which distributive probability applies.0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:<various claims that microevolution does not add genetic information>
The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is that DNA had an external intelligent source. Science cannot identify this source – but it can validly conclude that such intelligence existed at the time when life originated.
The evidence for Creation is overwhelming and repeatably observable – and so there is no issue in relation to it’s scientific validity.
The increase in genetic information has been thoroughly and rigorously documented by countless scientists, this fact renders your entire analysis of the 'debate' somewhat 'inaccurate'.
Many of your above statements are typical of people unaware of the tenets of biological information theory and molecular mechanics. And your assertions don't follow from any formulation of classical information theory. Youshould realise that it is the "noise" from mutations you keep referring to that natural selection acts upon, a principle which has been defined using mathematically rigorous Shannon information theory. This "noise" is under no obligation to be harmful to the organism, and any "noise" which increases an organisms chances of survival will become integrated into the gene pool via natural selection. That is the mechanism. It's what evolution is all about.
To use an analogy:JC wrote:
Let's say the sentence ':-^%?>,!!!*&$#@&**??#@£;@<£\\.~ “?’!'
represents "noise" from random mutations. If natural selection were to act upon this string of information, only "noise" that was beneficial to the survival of organisms would remain. Noise such as :-\. It's still from the collection of random 'non-semantic' mutations that have occurred over the years, so you can still define it as "noise/deleterious/degradation of information" or you can turn around and call it "meaningful, semantic, intelligent information", but the fact remains that a) information has been added to the gene pool via random mutation, and b) natural selection has removed information which doesn't contribute to survival, but has left that which does. So you get 'semantic' information
So now it's up to you: If you wish to *still* claim that mutation cannot increase "useful" genetic information, then you must provide rigorous definitions between "meaningful/semantic" and "useless" information in the context of molecular biology (analogies will only get us so far, even my above analogy is nowhere near as ideal as I'd like), and hence explain how they can be applied to biological systems. After doing so, you must then demonstrate why random mutations are obliged to only affect organisms in a harmful manner, despite the fact that several incidents of gene duplication and beneficial mutation of such genes have been witnessed. And finally, I would like to see a molecular information theory which refutes the observed predictions of increased genetic information, by demonstrating that random information from microevolution cannot be useful to an organism.
In short, you have made a lot of assertions in your post, but none of your assertions have been backed up. So I'm "turning the heat up" so to speak and asking you to back up your assertions with biological and theoretical evidence.JC wrote:Natural Selection SELECTS – i.e. it discards certain genetic combinations and keeps others. This process is objectively SUBTRACTIVE, in that the discarded genetic combinations may contain other valuable genetic information that may be permanently lost. That is one of the reasons why genetic diversity disappears so fast when a population is subjected to high unrelenting selection pressure. Pedigree animals provide a perfect illustration – a Poodle is an example of extreme Micro-evolution – to the point where it has practically lost ALL genetic diversity. If you breed a pedigree Poodle with another pedigree Poodle – you invariably get a Poodle.
The 'valuable genetic information would be preserved in the "brothers and sisters" of the organism, so it would not be subtractive in that manner. And the reason we hit selective walls is simply due to the rate of mutation.J C wrote:The vast bulk of Limestone is made up of precipitated Calcium Carbonate. The micro-fossil content of Limestone is generally relatively small as indeed is the macro-fossil content.
The fact that micro-fossils ARE perfectly preserved in Limestone is further proof that chemical degrading of calcium-rich micro-organisms and macro-fauna WASN’T the mechanism that formed Limestone as conventional Geology postulates.
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. There's a broad spectrum of fossil quality found in limestone. Such a spectrum would be less pronounced regarding micro-fossils (i.e. Either they were preserved or they weren't). And the fact that fossil content is low simply means few fossils are preserved at all. Fossil preservation is a rare event.J C wrote:The turbulent flood, as you have called it, was and is unprecedented.
However, the Mount St Helen’s Eruption created a localised event that parallels Noah’s Flood in many respects. The internal water movements in Spirit Lake generated sediment many meters thick with thousands of finely graded layers within hours of the eruption. The presence of such micro-layers in rock had always been interpreted by conventional Geologists as representing layers of annual deposition at the mouths of rivers – but the layers around Spirit Lake were formed in a matter of hours and without the presence of any riverine processes.
There is only an incredibly superficial similarity between the slowly deposited sediments found around the world, and the beds of sediments found in Spirit lake. Geologists are well able to ascertain the nature of sediments, so if the Mt. St. Helen’s eruption was expanded and used to justify a global scale, but similar, mechanism, then the evidence would have been blindingly evident in the surrounding strata and components in the rock. But the fact remains that nothing relevant to geology (or any field) suggests a global flood.
So you've got a)No evidence supporting a global flood. and b)Circumstances such as Exothermic reactions which contradict a global flood.That certainly isn’t evidence of the missing critical mechanism for INCREASING genetic information, which is so lacking in Macro-evolution.
In fact, the high correlation between independent phylogenies actually points to a common Creator and is therefore evidence that is supportive of Creation rather than evolution.
Such a subtlety with words is not lost on me. Newton's F = GMm/(r)^2 formula for gravitation says nothing about the mechanism gravity uses to operate (curved spacetime), yet it's still an empirical testament to gravity. Likewise, the correlation between independent phylogenies is a testament to macroevolution. Even if we had no mechanism, it would still be considered evidence for macroevolution (in fact, such evidence is what prompted the theory of evolution before Darwin).
And you've highlighted the fact that Creation cares not what the evidence has to say. If such phylogenies did not overlap, it could be seen as evidence for a creator, as a creator has no obligation to correlate phylogenies, especially if we're referring to God. So no matter how the phylogenies overlap, it would never refute the concept of a creator and therefore it would never support the concept either. Choices made by the creator are completely arbitrary.
And keep in mind that we're not talking about a nebulous idea of similar DNA language. We're talking about varying sequences which exactly mirror morphology. Nuances of genetic code permeate species in a manner which is identical to the morphological nested hierarchies (and many many more, remember that this is only one example of one area of evidence for macroevolution). Again, I am perfectly willing to expand on this further.
I'm going to let the other posters fend for themselves for the time being, as it will allow our discussion to remain focused. And as a heads up, I won't have access to a pc till Tuesday or Wednesday.0 -
Scofflaw said:By the way, wolfsbane, I wondered if you had read this article on Falsifiability? it seems accurate enough, and might give you some insight into why people keep saying Creationism is unscientific.
Thanks. That was helpful. I note however that it shows there is some disagreement amongst scientists about Falsifiability as a criteria for scientific theory.
Anyway, it struck me as a layman - perhaps you can set me right - that this would mean the Theory of Evolution is therefore not scientific. Can you tell me how it could be falsified? I mean, when ID suggests irreducible complexity falsifies evolution, you rule it out. Are you not appealing to the unknown factor that will be discovered to allow such complexity? No matter what objection could be raised, appeal can be made to an as yet undiscovered factor that will permit the theory. How can one falsifiy any such theory?0 -
Quote Morbert
Poor Stephen...(Professor Stephen Jay Gould) Here's another one of his (quotes):
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"
I have never claimed that Professor Gould was anything but a committed Evolutionist. However, he did declare gradual evolution (as proposed by Darwin and still held by neo-Darwinian evolution) to not be supported by the fossil evidence.
As the above quote confirms, Prof. Gould went on to propose the hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium to explain the myriad of ‘missing links’ that are found throughout the fossil record.
Punctuated Equilibrium was popularised as the ‘Hopeful Monster’ theory – but it fizzled out when it was pointed out that at least two identical ‘Hopeful Monsters’ with the inclination and the ability to mate with each other would have to be produced millions of times, to explain all of the ‘missing links’ out there.
‘Mainstream’ evolutionists have never accepted Punctuated Evolution – and it was largely abandoned several years ago.
Quote Robin
What's the difference between saying that 'god' created the universe and the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' created the universe? Philosophically, there's absolutely none, and that's what renders creationism worthless as a description, because it describes nothing.
The statement that ‘An External Intelligent Agent’ created all life IS evidentially supported and it is therefore scientifically valid. That this ‘External Intelligent Agent’ was the God of the Bible cannot be proven by science – but the circumstantial evidence is very strong indeed.
Philosophically speaking, there is no difference between the faith statements that the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ evolved all of life ‘from chemicals to man’ or that Macro-evolution evolved all of life by processes unknown.
In fact, the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ concept is actually a very appropriate analogy for evolution, as undirected processes, if left to their own devices, would indeed produce something like hopelessly tangled spaghetti instead of the strictly ordered DNA helix that we observe.
Quote Samb
ID is the fabrication. The target is drawn after the event. With neo-darwinian evolution many arrows are fired and some will hit the predetermined target (i.e the genetic mix that will best generate offspring). The archer does not reqiure skill if he has enough throws, in nature he clearly does.
ID certainly isn’t a fabrication – it has developed a formal scientific system to identify artefacts that are the result of applied intelligence from those that are caused by undirected natural processes.
The real problem for neo-Darwinian evolution, to borrow your analogy, is how the arrows themselves were made and indeed how the bow and the archer were also constructed in the first place.
Of course IF you have an archer, a bow and many arrows you can hit many points on your proverbial wall – and that is what Natural Selection is demonstrably able to achieve
However, try envisioning how to produce the archer, the bow and the arrows using undirected processes and you will rapidly come face-to-face with the really insurmountable problem for Macro-evolution which is the undirected fabrication of complex interlinked systems that function effectively. These putative undirected processes have never been observed, which is not surprising as they are mathematically impossible.
Just think about it, if you saw a bow and arrow on an archaeological dig and I said that they were just firewood – would you believe me?
Could I suggest that you wouldn’t, because you would intuitively know them to be the result of applied intelligence? What the science of ID has done is to formalise this intuitive process.
ID provides an objective scientifically valid means of declaring artefacts to be the result of applied intelligence, and this has many uses beyond ID itself, including the definitive identification of Human artefacts in archaeology.0 -
Morbert said:
As I have pointed out, being a majority doesn't make one right. There are scientists who hold the oposite view to the majority. Some of them are known personally to me and I can vouch for their personal integrity and modest lifestyle. They are neither liars nor fools, so I am open to their analysis of the creation/evolution debate.No, it is not just mine and 'that man's' opinion. It is the opinion of the scientific community.As I have said before: If IDers want the debate to continue, then they must tender a scientific theory of ID. I have asked you several times to produce references to such a theory, and you have not done so. Articles such as Dembski's, while philosophically interesting, do not define a scientific theory of ID.
Maybe it is my failure to grasp what you are asking for: I assumed you were asking for a statement of ID's proposition against evolution. To me that is evident: simply put, irreducible complexity falsifies the Theory of Evolution; lifeforms we observe cannot be produced by the mechanisms postulated by evolution.
But maybe you are asking for ID's own theory of origins - a scientific explanation of how the Designer did it? If so, ID can have no answers. It would be like me asking you to explain where energy came from, of to expalin its eternality if it did not originate.
I was speaking to a scientist friend tonight, a Professor Emeritus at a leading U.K. university, and asked him about the ID debate. He is a YEC. He suggests the best work on ID is that of Behe, in his 'Darwin's Black Box', where one gets good definitions of ID. My friend thinks Demski overstates or complicates ID in an attempt to keep it separate from creationism.
I also looked at a few sites:http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111005B
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.phpIn an earlier post you said ID could be tested "by demonstrating non-intelligent design could not have done it". How would this be demonstrated? How could the parameters of an intelligent design be applied to biology?
By the math on probability of irreducibly complex organisms arising by chance?
How could it be applied to biology? A bit beyond my ken, but what about regarding the design we have as the best possible and so not to be tampered with in an attempt to improve? With man's increasing knowledge, how long before genetic engineering moves from repairing defects and selecting specialities to thinking we can make a better model?
Yes, I can't see how ID could be falsified in your sense of the term. Just like Evolutionary Theory. But ID's main thrust - do falsifiy evolutionary theory regarding irreducible complexity, could be tested. If several of the alleged irreducibly complex functions could be shown as not so.how can it be tested using the scientific method?
[Sternberg].What would you like to know about him?
Your opinion on his treatment by the 'scientific community'.
Thanks. Helps me get a grasp of where each one is coming from.3rd year of a 4 year science degree (Experimental and Mathematical Physics). Why?0 -
robindch said:
Anyone who agrees with the proposition that creation science is not science and must be excluded from the scientific arena, who denies there is a scientific debate on ID/creationism, who agrees that Sternberg was wrong to publish, surely they are looking to censor? They might justify their censorship, but how can they deny it?Who are you accusing of wanting to censor whom? You're making quite a serious accusation about somebody and you should back it up.Completely untrue. Creationists have a massive publicity machine which has produced the figures which I quoted above, that 85% believe that there is at least some truth to it. I'm finding it really difficult to beleive that you honestly think that this massive majority is somehow an oppressed minority!
85% of the general public. Do the general public run academia? Do they decide who gets published in the scientific journals? Do they decide who graduates or who doesn't? Who gets a position or who doesn't?And what do you think about the case of that philosopher who made a few pointed jokes about Creationism and had the stuffing knocked out of him on his way to work one morning? That story is here:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/de...ng/?city_local
Who are the thought-police here? The 0.15% who are scientists, or the 85% who are creationists in some way?
I think:
It is remarkable why you think it must be creationist who beat this man up. No suggestion is made that they indicated this to him. It might well be the case, seeing he was involved in controversy about it. Or it might be irate Catholics for his criticism of Rome. It might be any of the reasons thugs pick on victims. I was assaulted by two men a few years ago. Was it because of my views on Rome? Creation? Politics? No, they were just looking to show their bully-boy power.
I think the perpetrators in your case should be caught and punished. I think those who intimidate and discriminate against honest men like Sternberg should also be brought to book.
Quite the reverse. If the Biblical account is true, many scientific truths flow from that. For example, There are no other worlds of life out in the universe. Earth is meant as our home, not the stars. Organisms, without disease and defect, are of the best design.I'm not arguing about its internal consistency, because it's completely consistent and that's what's being (almost-pointlessly) satirized by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What's the difference between saying that 'god' created the universe and the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' created the universe? Philosophically, there's absolutely none, and that's what renders creationism worthless as a description, because it describes nothing.
Creationism has nothing to say about how God created ex nihilo. All it says applies to what happens after and how we interact with it. Description of the science of geology, physics, biology, etc. are all testable and productive.
In the real world, we can then apply these truths to avoid great waste, to tackle disease, etc. Had we spent the money on investigating our own planetary home rather than intruding into space, we could have conquerored much disease, prevented famine and generally made the world a healther and happier place. But evolutionary dogma drove us elsewhere.0 -
Advertisement
-
Apologies again for not being able to respond sooner. Hope to catch up at weekend. For tonight;
Sapien said:So you do not suppose that the theses of creation science constitute a priori reasons to believe in the historicity of the bible?
Only as one of many possibilities. That is, creation science is not necessarily Christian. Anyone can believe in ID or that there was a Creator who made a mature creation. Muslims creation scientists, for example, would not hold to the historicity of the Bible. But many creation scientists are Christian and so do believe in the historicity of the Bible.0 -
> Had we spent the money on investigating our own planetary home rather
> than intruding into space, we could have conquerored much disease,
> prevented famine and generally made the world a healther and happier
> place. But evolutionary dogma drove us elsewhere.
Interesting -- NASA is controlled by biologists?
> In the real world, we can then apply these truths to [...] tackle disease, etc.
Do you mean that we can apply Intelligent Design Theory to medical research? Would you care to tell us how this might work?0 -
Quote Morbert
The increase in genetic information has been thoroughly and rigorously documented by countless scientists,
An increase in genetic information has never been OBSERVED. The Pedigree animal example on my previous post illustrates how selection always REDUCES genetic diversity aka information. That is one of the reasons why scientists are so concerned currently about the loss of biodiversity – if Macro evolution existed it would provide new biodiversity and there wouldn’t be any need to worry.
Quote Morbert
You should realise that it is the "noise" from mutations you keep referring to that natural selection acts upon, a principle which has been defined using mathematically rigorous Shannon information theory. This "noise" is under no obligation to be harmful to the organism, and any "noise" which increases an organisms chances of survival will become integrated into the gene pool via natural selection.
I agree that “noise” is obviously under no OBLIGATION to be harmful to an organism. However, “noise” is always OBSEREVED to be deleterious – just look at the effect of a build up of “noise” on a sequentially recorded video tape – after five or six sequential recordings the tape will become un-viewable due to the presence of excessive “noise”.
In fact, there are auto-repair systems in cell nuclei to repair the damage caused by the intrusion of “noise” into the cellular reproduction processes. “Noise” is a fundamentally damaging process that decreases an organisms chance of survival – and it is observed to degrade genetic information, just like Mutations.
The so called increase in information from “noise” as postulated by Shannon Information Theory is an increase in USELESS syntactic information – but NOT an increase in USEFUL semantic information.
Quote Morbert
Let's say the sentence ':-^%?>,!!!*&$#@&**??#@£;@<£\\.~ “?’!'
represents "noise" from random mutations. If natural selection were to act upon this string of information, only "noise" that was beneficial to the survival of organisms would remain.
No matter how you recombine “-^%?>,!!!*&$#@&**??#@£;@<£\\.~ “?’!'” you are NEVER going to get useful information.
It is patently useless and hasn’t the POTENTIAL to ever be anything else but useless as an information source.
Quote Morbert
you must then demonstrate why random mutations are obliged to only affect organisms in a harmful manner, despite the fact that several incidents of gene duplication and beneficial mutation of such genes have been witnessed
Random mutations are not OBLIGED to have deleterious effects – but they are OBSERVED to have such effects in the vast majority of cases. The very rare cases where short term benefit results, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics are still observed to be as a result of a loss of genetic information.
Quote Morbert
The 'valuable genetic information would be preserved in the "brothers and sisters" of the organism, so it would not be subtractive in that manner. And the reason we hit selective walls is simply due to the rate of mutation
Unfortunately, high unrelenting selection pressure would probably eliminate the “brothers and sisters” as well. The reason that we hit ‘selection walls’ is because of the limits of pre-existing genetic information in organisms – and not because of mutations.
Quote Morbert
Fossil preservation is a rare event.
Fossil preservation is a rare event today.
However, there are literally “elephant graveyards” of the stuff in some rocks – and this can only be explained by catastrophic processes operating on a very large scale.
Quote Morbert
But the fact remains that nothing relevant to geology (or any field) suggests a global flood.
Let’s look at a few facts then :-
The Earth is 70% covered by water.
If the Earth was smooth with no mountains or ocean troughs, there is enough seawater to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres (or 1.6 miles).
There is a widespread distribution of sedimentary rocks across the world and these rocks are known to have been formed through the deposition of massive quantities of sediment under water.
These rocks contain the fossilised remains of billions of different animals including representative types of all creatures alive today, as well as considerable numbers of creatures that aren’t.
There is evidence of a mass extinction caused by drowning in the contorted, writhing positions of many creatures entombed in the fossil record.
There is evidence of massive earth movements with aquatic fossils in mountain ranges and terrestrial fossils in ocean troughs.
All of the above and many more facts point towards a global catastrophic flood that nearly destroyed all life on the Planet.
The fact that the folklore tales of many diverse peoples from the Australian Aborigines to the Canadian Eskimos recall this catastrophe also points towards it’s veracity and it’s recent time proximity – of the order of thousands rather than millions of years.0 -
JC!
> The Earth is 70% covered by water.
It's taken you almost one year, but I doff my hat to you at last -- out of the blue, you've written down something which is quite accurate.
What happened? Did you bang your head?0 -
I'm not sure you can argue this. Let's take dogs for example, most would argue that at least at some levels dogs have more genetic diverity than the original wolf population. They certainly have a much wider range of sizes, coats, characteristics and specialities, whereas a wolf is pretty much a wolf.JC wrote:An increase in genetic information has never been OBSERVED. The Pedigree animal example on my previous post illustrates how selection always REDUCES genetic diversity aka information. That is one of the reasons why scientists are so concerned currently about the loss of biodiversity – if Macro evolution existed it would provide new biodiversity and there wouldn’t be any need to worry.
While dogs are not an example of natural selection, they are an example of evolution via a form of selection, breeders chose which animals to breed rather than leaving it up to nature.
I've asked this before, would it really be so hard to believe that in 100,000 years time the pekinese could no longer breed with the great dane?0 -
wolfsbane wrote:robindch said:
Anyone who agrees with the proposition that creation science is not science and must be excluded from the scientific arena, who denies there is a scientific debate on ID/creationism, who agrees that Sternberg was wrong to publish, surely they are looking to censor? They might justify their censorship, but how can they deny it?
.
I think it is because they want science journals to be confined to science, otherwise they would just be regular commercial publishers without thier credibility.
If I wrote a letter into the editor of a fashion magazine about this topic, would it be censorship if they told me they would not publish it?0 -
Scofflaw said:
For example,1. where in the Bible does it say that it is the word of God?
Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
Acts 1:16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus;
2 Peter 1:21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
Covered by the above.2. if it does not say it explicitly, how do we know it's the word of God?
3.
Yes, for the progression of revelation is specifically stated as culminating in Christ and His apostles.if the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, is it the final Testament?
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
Hebrews 2:1 Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
The movement was from the types and shadows of the OT revelation to the antitype and reality of the NT revelation. The parable Christ told of the Wicked Vinedressers shows Christ as the final word to man. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2020:9-19;&version=50;49;9;47;
The only revelation to come is that of Christ Himself when He '...is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed. 2 Thessalonians 1:7b-10.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:For example,
Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
Acts 1:16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus;
2 Peter 1:21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
No, none of the above say that the Bible is the Word of God. The first one says that man lives by the Word, the second states that a prophecy must be fulfilled (because it was by action of the Holy Spirit), the third says the Prophets spoke prophecy by action of the Holy Spirit, and the last says that Jesus spoke the Word of God.
I'll have to ignore the rest of your post until you can sort out this bit.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Anyone who agrees with the proposition that creation science is not science and must be excluded from the scientific arena, who denies there is a scientific debate on ID/creationism, who agrees that Sternberg was wrong to publish, surely they are looking to censor? They might justify their censorship, but how can they deny it?
To follow on from samb: if creation science is not science (and I for one hold that view), then its exclusion from the scientific arena follows logically, as does the fact that there is no scientific debate. This is not censorship, any more than it is censorship to 'exclude' Elvis sightings. You haven't proved that creation science is science (and by and large you've done a very good job of showing how anti-scientific it is), and the scientific mainstream doesn't think it is, so the other effects follow on logically. Not censorship, just sense.
And before we have another 'conspiracy' post - consider that many theories that were regarded as wild and improbable eventually came to be accepted. They did this by providing predictions that better fit the observed facts in situations where it was possible for them not to do so.
And that, in turn, is to make the point that your belief in YEC is entirely valid, as a belief. In a certain sense, it only fails because it is neither fallible nor practically useful - not fallible, because God can do anything, including making the Universe look very old, or having South America & Africa fit together - not practically useful, since it makes no predictions. This, for anyone who might have missed it, is what makes it unscientific - it cannot be disproved, and therefore cannot be tested. Therefore, it is not science, even if it is correct.0 -
robindch said:You're referring here to the divinely-inspired Christian churches who up to quite recently, used Heresy and Blasphemy laws to jail anybody they liked; confining scientists to house arrest, burning people at the stake, tossing witches into ponds, chopping people up into small bits (and all the rest of it) before they had to stop all of *that* because of an outbreak of secularism? I find your late conversion to concern for the dangers of orthodoxies unconvincing in the extreme.
You rightly point to the wicked practises of churches that claimed to be following Christ's will. But were they? Absolutely not! Search the NT and you will find no indication that the church was to harm those who opposed it, nor meddle with the affairs of state. The church was to exercise restraint on its members, by rebuke or even excommunication. They were not to physically harm anyone. The paganization of the later church led it to adopting the world's methods of enforcing order. Indeed, Baptists like me would have been fuel for their fires. Even those who woke up to the corruption of Rome took some time in unlearning its mindset on heresy. The Reformers just naturally continued with the practice of physically punishing dissenters.
They could hardly argue from Scripture for the Church to do these things, so they made the case that the State was obliged to punish heresy in the same way it was to punish crime. But that is also not Scriptural. Church and State are entirely separate.
So my 'late conversion' to concern for civil and religious liberties was not late at all. There has always been those who held to Scripture alone for their ethics, and who saw that the church was not called to destroy men.
You are also right in saying the persecuting churches were forced to desist by the forces of secularization. But it was not long before these forces had on the mantle of their predecessors. Atheism has produced as fine a crop of mass murderers, brain-washers, intimidators, and double-thinkers this world has ever seen. The Reign of Reason has been one of Terror. And now the liberal West in its degeneracy is using the same tools of censorship once enjoyed by the 'Holy' Roman Church. OK, no thumbscrews for heretics yet, but loss of career is pretty close. The mindset is there - just the opportunity awaits.0 -
Advertisement
-
Whiskey Priest said:To JC and wolfsbane - you are not Christians, you are book-worshippers.
You are either a great thinker, one who has discovered the true nature of Christianity after all the churches got it wrong for nearly 2000 years - or you are demonstrating the validity of your name.Christ spoke, and men wrote it down. The Apostles do not agree with each other. They cannot all be right, and therefore the Gospels cannot all be literally true.
That comment alone shows you are outside of Christianity, for all historic churches - Roman or Reformed - hold to the infallibility of Scripture.
You obviously do not understannd what theology means when it refers to the NT superceding the OT. It does not mean that the OT Scriptures have been found faulty and replaced by a new model. Christ and the apostles regarded the OT as the infallible word of God. What is meant is the the NT Scripture brings further light. But especially it means that the Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant. It is not the Scriptures of the OT that failed, but the Old Covenant that was given to Moses. In itself it was good and holy, but it failed because man could not keep it. Therefore God promised to make a new one, completely different to the old in that God guaranteed His people would keep it.The New Testament supercedes the Old. Therefore some parts of the Old Testament are not literally true. Yet you cling to them.The Bible has been translated, and there are many versions. If the Bible is literal truth, how can there be many versions? If only one version is correct, who vouches for it? How can literal truth pass through many languages?
If you mean exact word for word, that is not possible in any language. But we can convey the meaning intended by the speaker from one language to another. The message is the thing, not the medium.
The Church in general never held the Genesis account to be other than narrative. It is only under pressure from the claims of science since the 19th Century that some true Christians have resorted to allegory as an interpretation of Genesis. The two accounts are complimentary.Genesis itself contains two creation stories - each important as allegory. By insisting on the literal truth of the words in Genesis, you make the account of Creation itself an absurdity.You require the Bible to be literally true, so that there is no room for misinterpretation. Where there is a book, there must be a reader, and the reader reads, and translates the words in the silence of their own thoughts. In your arrogance you say that you are reading it right, and others are reading it wrong. The Word of God, and are you its only interpreter?
Indeed one must be careful. It is wise to ask how others have understood the text, what possible alternative interpretations exist, etc. But my reading is the historic Christian one. The onus is on those who wish to go against the historic view of the church to prove their case. Any attempts I have read produce great difficulties in interpreting the rest of Scripture.
Good question. God is known when He speaks to our spirit by His Spirit, using our reading of the Bible. He also prompts us to reflect on His word (the Bible) and leads us by moving us to want to do His will. The gospel - His message of salvation given in the Bible - is His means of entering in to relationship with us. We are born of the word of God. So it is not the words only, but also the working of the Spirit whose the words are, that causes us to know God.If the Bible repesents the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, what does it mean to know God? How can God speak, when he has finished speaking? Can one know God only through the words in a book?If we can only know God through the book, and the New supercedes the Old, what of later books? What of the Qu'ran? What of the Books of Gold? What is a book but a book - if the Bible is true, why not these? They too are books.
What is the difference between a truth and a lie? Both are words. Are they the same? - of course not. The Bible is as it claims to be, the word of God. The other books you refer to are the words of mere men, despite their claims. How do we know the difference? God reveals it to our hearts, our consciences know it.You, and those like you, wish to lock God into a book, to say that he no longer speaks, and that only you know how his Word should be read. The Word of your silent God, locked in a book for two thousand years!
God's final word exists as a testimony against you. You can rail at it all you like, it remain when you stand before Him to give account of what you did with His message to you.0 -
robindch said:Interesting -- NASA is controlled by biologists?
Only if all evolutionists are biologists. I was assuming all the types of scientists involved in NASA were evolutionists. That also goes for the political manipulators who gave life to the space program.Do you mean that we can apply Intelligent Design Theory to medical research? Would you care to tell us how this might work?
Just as for Evolutionary Theory - only in so far as to foundation principles. I can't see how the idea of macro-evolution or intelligent design can be used to make specific discoveries.
But they can inform what we allow ourselves to do in the name of science. ID should give us a profound respect for life, especially human life, seeing we may be answerable to the Designer. Christian creationism is totally clear on this: man is the image of God, therefore experiments on him are wicked. For example, the breeding of embryos for research would be outside the pale.
Also, ID would cause us to accept the current model (in its non-diseased form) is the optimum model. We therefore would not waste time on seeking to improve it. No Frankenstien Science. No production of specialized models for war, labour, etc. No Brave New World.
Evolutionary Theory must admit to the possibility of man-made 'improvements' or specializations. It must also allow there can be no scientific reasons against producing humans for experiment/spare parts/labour supply.0 -
samb said:I think it is because they want science journals to be confined to science, otherwise they would just be regular commercial publishers without thier credibility.
If I wrote a letter into the editor of a fashion magazine about this topic, would it be censorship if they told me they would not publish it?
I agree. The censorship comes when one group of scientists seek to portray the ideas of their scientific opponents as not science and therefore not open to being debated in the journals they control.
If they were writing about fashion I would not expect them to get published or debated in a science journal - but it is scientists claimimg to be putting forward an alternative explanation of specific observed scientific data.
One might not agree with their conclusions, nor the motives that drive them to challenge the current understanding, but one cannot for that write them off as not putting a scientific argument. Look how they treated Sternberg and ask yourself are they being sincere or are they trying to censor their opponents.0 -
Scofflaw said:No, none of the above say that the Bible is the Word of God. The first one says that man lives by the Word, the second states that a prophecy must be fulfilled (because it was by action of the Holy Spirit), the third says the Prophets spoke prophecy by action of the Holy Spirit, and the last says that Jesus spoke the Word of God.
OK, here's something from the Lord Jesus Christ that uses the exact terms you require:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
Note 'word of God' and 'Scripture'.0 -
Scofflaw said:if creation science is not science (and I for one hold that view), then its exclusion from the scientific arena follows logically, as does the fact that there is no scientific debate.
This is the debate; can one side exclude the other, their peers, by such a device? Could Creationists, if they were the 'scientific community', rightly cast Evolutionary Theory as non-science and exclude it from debate?
If you were talking about laymen arguing the case, I could accept your argument. But it is well-credentialed scientists. That, and the treatment given to evolutionists who are willing to discuss the matter, is what makes me see the hand of the Secular Inquisition.it cannot be disproved, and therefore cannot be tested. Therefore, it is not science, even if it is correct.
How can we disprove Evolutionary Theory? Is it therefore not science?
Creationism can be tested. The geologic record, for example, can be examined for consistency with a world-wide flood. Creationist scientists have done so and have defended creationism on that basis. Their conclusions are challenged by evolutionists - as here on the list with JC and yourself. One side must be wrong - but does that mean their arguments are non-science?0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Evolutionary Theory must admit to the possibility of man-made 'improvements' or specializations. It must also allow there can be no scientific reasons against producing humans for experiment/spare parts/labour supply.
There are plenty of man made improvements already, it's not just a possiblity. All our crops and domestic animals have been selectively bred (evolved in other words) from the base species that evolution (or as you may argue God) gave us.
A racehorse and a gun-dog, along with a cow and a wheat plant are all man-made 'improvements'
Are you saying that selective breeding is also a myth? That God designed the cow (As we see say a friesian today)and that it has not been bred from original Auroch?
Also, there are no 'Scientific Reasons' against boiling babies alive in oil, just very good moral ones, what's your point?0 -
As usual, a couple of points:wolfsbane wrote:OK, no thumbscrews for heretics yet, but loss of career is pretty close. The mindset is there - just the opportunity awaits.
Well, I for one would not equate "difficulties in career advancement if you are in a career whose scientific underpinnings conflict with YEC" with "down to the basement for thumbscrews and a side-order of burning no matter who you are". The mindset is not there. You are not being persecuted, you are being ridiculed.wolfsbane wrote:This is the debate; can one side exclude the other, their peers, by such a device? Could Creationists, if they were the 'scientific community', rightly cast Evolutionary Theory as non-science and exclude it from debate?
They are not excluded. The New Scientist carries articles concerning ID. It has also been pointed out to you that Creationists are not writing, rather than not being published, which is hardly surprising given the very small numbers of them. You cast Evolutionary Theory as incompatible with faith, and you think that Science mirrors your position. It does not. Creationism excludes itself from science, but you exclude evolution from faith - and you'll note that others on this board, who are Christian, do not do so.wolfsbane wrote:How can we disprove Evolutionary Theory? Is it therefore not science?
Evolutionary theory makes various testable assertions about the world. If these were found to be false, then the theory would be knocked down. Contrary to your stubbornly held opinion, it is not a faith.wolfsbane wrote:Creationism can be tested. The geologic record, for example, can be examined for consistency with a world-wide flood. Creationist scientists have done so and have defended creationism on that basis. Their conclusions are challenged by evolutionists - as here on the list with JC and yourself. One side must be wrong - but does that mean their arguments are non-science?
No, the Flood is not a test of Creationism. It is a test of the literal truth of the Bible, and the literal record of the Flood. The amount of truth-bending that JC does is the kind of mental contortions that are required to be convinced of the truth of 'Flood Geology'. It's pure and simple rubbish. We actually have flood sediments from the end of the glacial era which we can compare with the rest of the record, and the Flood hypothesis doesn't hold water (so to speak). If you have to bend or ignore the truth to make your theory fit the world then your arguments are indeed non-science.
I did geology at college (to post-graduate level, so I'm at least as qualified as the handful of scientific supporters of Creation), and I worked on the oil rigs and assorted other geological jobs after college. During that time I looked at a lot of rock, and JC's assertions regarding Flood Geology are nothing like the world (for example his claims about the purity of limestones are utterly false). I also studied (as my minor) Botany, and again, I can safely say, from my own examination of the evidence, and consideration of your theory (and as I said, we covered YEC and Creationism on my courses), that your assertions regarding most of Biology are equally inaccurate.
Creationism itself cannot be tested. The only prediction it makes is that God made the world, and the explanation of any evidence is 'God made it so'. If you prefer this as an explanation of the world, that is your option. If you wish to claim that it is scientifically testable, then give me an example where 'God made it so' does not explain the evidence.
Although you act as if the abandonment of literal biblicism is recent and unreasonable, it is anything but. You should bear in mind that Creationism, and a literal reading of the Bible as scientifically accurate, were perfectly normal parts of science until the late Victorian era. I have read, out of historical interest, Victorian papers on geology and biology that have a creationist basis. They were abandoned not because of some secular conspiracy, but because they did not work as a practical basis for science. Creation science has been tried, found lacking, and abandoned. Since then, the Bible has not changed. The case you are arguing has been closed for years. Time to move on.
The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on, nor all thy piety and wit, shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Scofflaw said:
OK, here's something from the Lord Jesus Christ that uses the exact terms you require:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
Note 'word of God' and 'Scripture'.
I don't see any mention of the Bible (and certainly not the King James version!). Also, I think if you were going to accept that one, you'd have to accept Matthew 5:17, which rather indicates that there is no New Covenant.
Nope. Still too vague.0 -
While I'm here, I might as well make a further point on the subject of your assertion that anyone not reading the Bible literally is doing something new. This is not the case - the Bible has been read allegorically since the Church Fathers. You, on the other hand, are a Baptist, which is, in fact, a new movement (relatively - if you claim Anabaptists as predecessors, you can get back about 400 years), and not the main strand of Christianity. I'm sure you have some explanation of how your novelty is actually a return to fundamentals (despite the fact that I bet you're not reading the Bible in Aramaic, or Hebrew, or even Greek), when in fact it is no such thing, but a bizarre literalist (and Anglophone) departure from the Christian norm.0
-
Advertisement
-
> I'm sure you have some explanation of how your novelty is actually
> a return to fundamentals
Has anybody else noticed that most (all?) religions easily break down into two camps?
On the one hand, you've got the ones which can somehow trace their tradition(s) back into the mists of time (and must be right, because they're very old), while on the other hand, you've got the ones which "return to the true meaning" of the religion's holy book (and must be right, because they're interpreting the text in the "correct" way)?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement