The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

It's bad manners to question you saying "evolution is not important". I thought this thread was all about evolution. PDN, I respect you depth of knowledge and your challenging posts, but you remind me sometimes of my childhood Priests who didn't want certain questions.

I'm not talking about this thread. Of course evolution is important to a thread on creationism.

I am referring to the practice of inserting questions on evolution into threads on entirely different subjects. In that context it is understandable for myself and others to respond that it is irrelevant or unimportant. It is also inaccurate, IMO, to accuse us on that basis of being proud of our ignorance in scientific matters.

PDN

Bisar wrote:

What was the point of the flood? If the purpose was just to wipe mankind of the face of the earth then surely an omnipotent god could have just snapped his fingers (or whatever it is that deities snap) and the job would have been done and everyone would have been a lot happier.

And then, no doubt, we would have a thread on the finger-snapping of God. I can just imagine some of the arguments:

"How could any intelligent person believe stuff about a God snapping his fingers?"

"Why didn't God use something more natural, like a flood, that would be easier for people to believe in?"

"This whole finger-snapping thing sounds like it was invented by ignorant bronze age people who knew no better."

Plus god could have sat back right now and watched the evolutionists try to explain why the entire human race (minus 8 people) instantaneously died for no earthly reason.

Since belief in evolution does not logically require disbelief in God, or indeed disbelief in the Flood, then why should they bother trying to explain anything away?

Bisar

PDN wrote:

And then, no doubt, we would have a thread on the finger-snapping of God. I can just imagine some of the arguments:



"Why didn't God use something more natural, like a flood, that would be easier for people to believe in?"

Somebody said it earlier (not sure who) - God is omnipotent, not just extremely potent. If one believes in an omnipotent god than why is the instantaneous destruction of all these people any less easy to believe than the giant flood theory?

PDN wrote:

Since belief in evolution does not logically require disbelief in God, or indeed disbelief in the Flood, then why should they bother trying to explain anything away?

Fair enough, belief in god and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive but I would have though that belief in a global flood happening 6000 years ago would run contrary to what most evolutionists believe.

jonny72

JC you say you were an evolutionist right?

So you must have believed in Evolution but that the Earth was 6000 years old, right?

That is the truth right?

Unless of course at the very same time you found the theory of Evolution to be flawed you also..

... decided Paleontology was pretty much entirely wrong.. no no wait, some of it happens to utterly and totally right but the bit that contradicts Creation is totally and utterly wrong..

and Cosmology.. wow, same again..

Oh and Biology.. and Zoology..

Not forgetting Astronomy..

Sensing a pattern here..

Were you always this zealous about your religion or did it just spring up suddenly when you stopped believing the theory of Evolution..?

Because putting two and two together here.. very zealous religious man.. and ..believing the Earth really is 6000 years old..

PDN

Bisar wrote:

Somebody said it earlier (not sure who) - God is omnipotent, not just extremely potent. If one believes in an omnipotent god than why is the instantaneous destruction of all these people any less easy to believe than the giant flood theory?

It was me.

And of course if you believe in an omnipotent God, as I do, then either method would be equally believable. However, most of the posters on this thread have rejected the concept of an omnipotent God and are selective in what they are able to believe.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

It was me.

And of course if you believe in an omnipotent God, as I do, then either method would be equally believable. However, most of the posters on this thread have rejected the concept of an omnipotent God and are selective in what they are able to believe.

Its not about belief PDN, its about confidence. I don't believe in evolution or science in the same way you believe in an omnipotent God. I have confidence in the scientific method because it results in accurate predictions about the world we observe and allows us to use that knowledge to our advantage.

I am selective in what I believe based on the evidence available.

Bisar

PDN wrote:

It was me.

And of course if you believe in an omnipotent God, as I do, then either method would be equally believable. However, most of the posters on this thread have rejected the concept of an omnipotent God and are selective in what they are able to believe.

Well, jury is still out for me. The flood story isn't doing a lot to swing me towards the theistic viewpoint though.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I'm not talking about this thread. Of course evolution is important to a thread on creationism.

I am referring to the practice of inserting questions on evolution into threads on entirely different subjects. In that context it is understandable for myself and others to respond that it is irrelevant or unimportant. It is also inaccurate, IMO, to accuse us on that basis of being proud of our ignorance in scientific matters.

So you were talking entirely about other threads in this thread.
It would be easier to follow your reasoning if you talked about other threads in those threads.

I never accused you or anyone of being proud of being ignorant in scientific matters. I am observing Christians who seem uninterested in any Scientific theory that is antithetical to their beliefs.

jonny72

PDN wrote:

It was me.

And of course if you believe in an omnipotent God, as I do, then either method would be equally believable. However, most of the posters on this thread have rejected the concept of an omnipotent God and are selective in what they are able to believe.

Some people require truth, fact, logic, evidence, etc before they believe in something..

Other people just believe say a story.. or the words of one man who once claimed to many of his friends how he was going to get rich from religion.


At least we can now debate such things without being burned, labeled a heretic, placed under house arrest or whatever.

Zombrex

5uspect wrote:

Its not about belief PDN, its about confidence. I don't believe in evolution or science in the same way you believe in an omnipotent God. I have confidence in the scientific method because it results in accurate predictions about the world we observe and allows us to use that knowledge to our advantage.

I am selective in what I believe based on the evidence available.

Ultimately it is about investment, investment in an idea.

It is far more important to a theists such as PDN that the Flood happened than it is for you or me that the Flood didn't happen.

While we might get some smug satisfaction from saying "Look, this demonstrates beyond all doubt that the Flood didn't happen" (some would say we had this evidence ages ago), aside from that it doesn't really matter. I don't get any validation from the Flood not happening.

On the other hand a theists like PDN who has attracted his entire belief system to the idea that what the Bible describes is accurate, it matters a whole lot. To reject the idea of the Flood one must either come up with a plausible idea for the story being a metaphor (as some Christians do) or one must reject their faith and all the reassurance of said faith.

Ultimately this makes arguing on a purely evidence based level pointless. All evidence is interpreted, and it is an important requirement of science that this is done in a non-biased fashion. When one already has a result that they need to be true this is impossible. They will simple accept the interpretation that they want, no matter how implausible, and reject others.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Unfortunately, that's a very hard discussion to hold without it degenerating into creationists-versus-evolutionists. It is, however, very relevant here in this thread (which has of course already degenerated as far as possible in that direction), so perhaps you could outline your compatible position (and/or others, if you're feeling cagey)?

cordially,
Scofflaw

There are many Christians who believe the Scripture to be inerrant, or verbally inspired, but see no contradiction between evolution and the Bible.

Gordon Wenham's commentary on Genesis (part of the solidly evangelical IVP series) sees the Creation accounts as polemic tracts against polytheism, asserting that the sun, moon, stars, trees etc. were created & therefore are not to be worshipped. The accounts, according to Wenham, are couched in terms that the first readers could understand, using poetical language similar to Job Chapter 38 and in no way pretending to give a scientifically accurate account.

JI Packer, a giant in 20th Century evangelical theology and beloved of fundamentalists, made the observation that interpreters must draw distinctions between "...the subjects about which the Scripture speaks and the terms in which it speaks of them." The writers of Scripture spoke about the natural world in an ordinary, nontechnical language shared with their contemporaries. Their concern was not primarily the inner structure of the world and of humans, but with the relationship of both to God

BB Warfield, author of the most comprehensive evangelical defence of biblical inspiration and inerrancy ever published, believed in theistic evolution. This is also, reportedly, the position of Billy Graham. Wikipedia has an introduction to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Some Christians, of course, see the idea of theistic evolution as compromise or surrender to non-Christian philosophy.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

So you were talking entirely about other threads in this thread.
It would be easier to follow your reasoning if you talked about other threads in those threads.

I never accused you or anyone of being proud of being ignorant in scientific matters. I am observing Christians who seem uninterested in any Scientific theory that is antithetical to their beliefs.

The accusation about being proud of our ignorance was made in this thread. When I questioned it reference was made to comments I have made in other threads.

5uspect

I also posted comments you made in this thread. I'm willing to admitt that proud may be the wrong word, as I've already said.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

There are many Christians who believe the Scripture to be inerrant, or verbally inspired, but see no contradiction between evolution and the Bible.

They do this more by ignoring the question though, rather than any proper attempt to reconcile the two.

For example Wenham basically is saying that Genesis is about proclaiming the glory of God, not a science book, and people shouldn't get bogged down in the details described in the book.

Thats fine, but it doesn't resolve whether or not these things actually happened.

Did Adam and Eve actually exist? Was there a Biblical Flood 5,000 years ago that wiped out all species of land animal? Did the world dialects originate during the destruction of the tower of Babel? etc

If not, are these things made up to proclaim the glory of God? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to make something up to glorify God's power.

Wenham's goal post shifting is a good example of compartmentalization that seems to be a common response when attempting to deal with this issue. The line "The Bible is not a science book", which completely misses the point of whether or not it is accurate, is often heard on this forum as well.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

The accusation about being proud of our ignorance was made in this thread. When I questioned it reference was made to comments I have made in other threads.

Ok, perhaps when replying to posts you could be clearer whether you were talking about the poster or not. It appears when you quote another poster specifically, you are talking about them and not someone else.

Bisar

Wicknight wrote:

"The Bible is not a science book", which completely misses the point of whether or not it is accurate, is often heard on this forum as well.

Isn't that just a tacit admission that the bible is not accurate i.e. not a science book = not factual ?

Zombrex

Bisar wrote:

Isn't that just a tacit admission that the bible is not accurate i.e. not a science book = not factual ?

One would think, but it seems to be used more as a way to deflect away from the actual question.

It reminds me of another common form of conversation that takes place on this thread

Theists - "I don't accept Evolution takes place"

Biologist - "But what about the evidence X of mutation causing fundamental changes in an organisms DNA producing a new physical feature Y?"

Theists - "Well I'm not a scientist"

The purpose of the last reply is to get out of having to justify the first bit in any meaningful way, and in fact implying that not understand what the hell one is talking about is almost a good thing.

The same is true of the response "The Bible is not a science book" when confronted with things like Adam and Eve, or the Flood, or Pi, or Babel. It is simply a nonsensical response to detract from actually answering the question. The only response to that is "And....?"

BrianCalgary

5uspect wrote:

I really find this tragic. Many people have spend years on this thread trying to explain science to people who either don't understand it or just don't want to understand.

Do you want to understand or would you rather not think about it?

Similar question coming from Robin as well.

I find the language used to be far too scientific in its terminology that I get lost after the first paragraph of a lengthy post. The responses are as technical as well.

Therefore I don't get very much out of it. Di I care about the world around me; yes, fascinated by it.

Would I like to learn about it: yes

Do I have time to: No

I figure that I have an eternity to discover all of nature and it's little intricacies.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Similar question coming from Robin as well.

I find the language used to be far too scientific in its terminology that I get lost after the first paragraph of a lengthy post. The responses are as technical as well.

Therefore I don't get very much out of it. Di I care about the world around me; yes, fascinated by it.

Would I like to learn about it: yes

Do I have time to: No

I figure that I have an eternity to discover all of nature and it's little intricacies.

Is there a reason why you reject a lot of what science says even though you don't understand it? Beyond religious reasons?

I think the point people here are trying to get at is the reason behind the trend of rejecting something that one doesn't understand, such as Creationists rejecting evolution even though they don't actually understand evolution at all.

That is ultimately a rejection of science itself.

Ciaran500

BrianCalgary wrote:

Therefore I don't get very much out of it. Di I care about the world around me; yes, fascinated by it.

Would I like to learn about it: yes

Do I have time to: No

I figure that I have an eternity to discover all of nature and it's little intricacies.

Will you just stick with the creationist explanation or will you just sit on the fence untill you do decide to try learn about it?

Zombrex

Ciaran500 wrote:

Will you just stick with the creationist explanation or will you just sit on the fence untill you do decide to try learn about it?

Good question, kinda what I was getting at above

It is not so much not knowing/not understanding

It is not knowing/understand yet decided that something else, something religious, must be true.

BrianCalgary

Ciaran500 wrote:

Will you just stick with the creationist explanation or will you just sit on the fence untill you do decide to try learn about it?

Sitting on the fence gives me a great view. And allows me to concentrate on things that are more important.:D

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sitting on the fence gives me a great view. And allows me to concentrate on things that are more important.:D

I think the point is that you aren't actually sitting on the fence, you come down more often than not on the side of the Creationists, based on your religious convictions. The only problem with that is that you don't, by your own admission, understand that things you believe don't happen.

At least is my understanding from your posts on this thread.

Galvasean

J C wrote:

Galvasean
No species of rhino has a big bony frill, bird like hips or a crocodile like tail or beak.

Can I quote from Wikipedia on this matter at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceratops

“Although no complete skeleton has been found, Triceratops is well-known from numerous partial specimens collected since the introduction of the genus in 1887.”

….so reconstructions of the Triceratops skeleton are based on INCOMPLETE skeletons.

Still complete enough to tell it had a beak, horny frill, bird like hips and a crocodile like tail.

JC wrote:

……and I have NEVER seen a bird running around on FOUR legs ……so ‘bird like hips’…I think NOT, in the case of the Triceratops ........ or do you also think that a Rhino has the backside of a bird!!!

Since the rhino has very different hips to a bird or indeed a Triceratops I clearly don't think the rhino has a bird's backside. In fact that was exactly my point. Please read my entire post, not the words you spot at first glance, before replying.

J C wrote:

…. equally, the ‘crocodile-like tail’ turns out to be a ‘mammalian tail’ similar to those of Cattle!!!!

Crocodile tail:


Cattle tail:


Triceratops (including tail):

J C wrote:

….and the ‘beak’ turns out to be a narrow mouth with TEETH…..just like the Black Rhino’s narrow mouth!!!:cool:

J C wrote:

Galvasean
Does the wide mouthed rhino have a beak? NO.
Does the black rhino have a beak? NO.

…and does the Triceratops have a beak? ..NO.

....it had a narrow mouth with teeth ……just like the Black Rhino’s narrow mouth!!!:cool:

No beak huh? So what the heck is that at the front of its face?

Feet?

J C wrote:

Galvasean
You will not find ANY texts, not even Creationist ones which say rhinos (mammals), Komodo dragons (lizards) and crocodiles (crocodilians) are dinosaurs.

…...you DO find Evolutionist texts that claim that the Rhino-like Triceratops, and the Komodo-like Dino-lizards as well as Crocodiles lived during the so-called ‘Age of the Dinosaurs’!!!!!:eek:

Yes it is stated that these animals look alike, but never said they were one in the same. But you didn't respond directly to my earlier statements. Why start now huh?


And just for fun!



Look to the right, an arrow is pointing to a beak! :O

5uspect

BrianCalgary wrote:

Similar question coming from Robin as well.

I find the language used to be far too scientific in its terminology that I get lost after the first paragraph of a lengthy post. The responses are as technical as well.

Therefore I don't get very much out of it. Di I care about the world around me; yes, fascinated by it.

Would I like to learn about it: yes

Do I have time to: No

I figure that I have an eternity to discover all of nature and it's little intricacies.

May I ask then for a small bit of your time (and anyone else interested)?
Can you explain to me using non technical language your understanding of evolution by natural selection.

I'm curious if you at least get the concept and that this thread isn't a total waste.

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote:

They do this more by ignoring the question though, rather than any proper attempt to reconcile the two.

For example Wenham basically is saying that Genesis is about proclaiming the glory of God, not a science book, and people shouldn't get bogged down in the details described in the book.

Thats fine, but it doesn't resolve whether or not these things actually happened.

Did Adam and Eve actually exist? Was there a Biblical Flood 5,000 years ago that wiped out all species of land animal? Did the world dialects originate during the destruction of the tower of Babel? etc

If not, are these things made up to proclaim the glory of God? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to make something up to glorify God's power.

Wenham's goal post shifting is a good example of compartmentalization that seems to be a common response when attempting to deal with this issue. The line "The Bible is not a science book", which completely misses the point of whether or not it is accurate, is often heard on this forum as well.

But (I'm going to be lynched for this) does any of that stuff actually matter? Does it really make a difference, from a spiritual point of view, whether we all descended from two people or gradually grew from similar ancestors? Surely it's the practise that counts, and not the dogma.

I think that if a few hard-line Christians spent a little less time trying to discount valid scientific theories and a little more loving their neighbour and all that jazz, then the world would be a much better place.

Incidentally, Wicknight, please refer to creationists as creationists and not as theists. Most intelligent theists don't believe in creationism, and you're contributing to the bad name that fundementalism is putting on them.

dan719

J C wrote:

Wicknight
[way)[/B]


……a recent issue of the New Scientist (p 54-55, 9th December 2006) published an interview with Biblical Creationist and Geophysicist, Dr. John Baumgardner who developed a new model of convection in the Earth’s mantle when he worked in the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Other topics covered in the New Scientist article includes Dr. Baumgardner’s catastrophic plate tectonics model of the Genesis Flood, and a report on his interactions as a scientist who is a Creationist, with his colleagues in Los Alamos.
His fellow scientists gave him a lot of respect for upholding his position, even when they disagreed with him. Great to see New Scientist publishing this portrait of a great Christian Geophysicist.:D

You’re needlessly complicating a relatively simple phenomenon…..

If you start with 2 people and they have 4 children in the second generation…..who become 2 couples who have 4 children each, you have 8 children in the third generation….who become 4 couples who have 4 children each, you have 16 children in the fourth generation ……and so on up to the 33rd generation when you will have over 8 BILLION people!!!

If we assume an average generation length of 35 years, this could occur in only 1,155 years.

It is a shame that you do not read New Scientist more regularly, they may have a portrait of a 'creationist scientist'( a contradiction in fact) that appeals to you but they also refute your population growth model in an issue three months ago. Not only tht but you are propogating incest- shame on you!

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote:

I find the language used to be far too scientific in its terminology that I get lost after the first paragraph of a lengthy post.

Well, that's a challenge! Allow me to try to answer 5uspect's question:

You need three things to happen for "evolution" to take place:

1. Things give birth to children
2. The children aren't the same as the parents.
3. There are more children than the environment can support

When these three things happen at the same time, something called "evolution" happens over time. Why?

Because if there are more children than can be supported, then some children will die -- usually the ones which were not well suited to the environment. But the children who are well suited will survive and they can reproduce, giving their successful design (or something like it) to their own children. And so, if you do this for lots of generations, you get successive generations which are better and better suited to their environment.

That's what "evolution" is.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I figure that I have an eternity to discover all of nature and it's little intricacies.

Even the longest journey must begin with a single step.

Is the explanation above clear? Does it make sense?

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Son Goku wrote:

population is governed by the Logistic Map discovered by Pierre François Verhulst, although it wasn't fully appreciated until Chaos Theory came on the scene in the 1970s.

You’re needlessly complicating a relatively simple phenomenon…..

Population is governed by the logistic map, that's it, end of story. I'm not needlessly complicating a relatively simple phenomenon, you are erroneously simplifying a chaotic phenomena.
If something turns out to be more complicated than you would immediately intuit, then you are wrong. This is the kind of confidence/arrogance I'm talking about. Instead of realising he is incorrect, JC would rather imagine that I'm being over complicated. The truth is population is more complicated than you would guess and if you don't use the logisitic map you won't get any meaningful results.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sitting on the fence gives me a great view. And allows me to concentrate on things that are more important.

I figure that I have an eternity to discover all of nature and it's little intricacies.

I'm the same about whether the grass is green or blue. Some of my friends who are more knowledgeable about colour insist that it's green, but I'm happy to get on with life and know I can take an Art course someday if I ever need to know.

BrianCalgary

5uspect wrote:

May I ask then for a small bit of your time (and anyone else interested)?
Can you explain to me using non technical language your understanding of evolution by natural selection.

I'm curious if you at least get the concept and that this thread isn't a total waste.

Robins works well. But that is not the issue. It is when the discussion gets into more technical language and every other subject around the topic is where I get lost.

Son Goku's comment on colour works fine. He's not too concerned with whether or not the grass is green or blue. (ours right now is leaning toward yellow and brown). And does he have the time to bother about it when there is far more interesting stuff to him in the world. (I hope I haven't put words in yoru mouth SG)

I think the point is that you aren't actually sitting on the fence, you come down more often than not on the side of the Creationists, based on your religious convictions. The only problem with that is that you don't, by your own admission, understand that things you believe don't happen.

Quote wicknight
I think the point is that you aren't actually sitting on the fence, you come down more often than not on the side of the Creationists, based on your religious convictions. The only problem with that is that you don't, by your own admission, understand that things you believe don't happen.

Not just on my religious convictions, but also on the (I'm going to get tarred for this by a bunch:D ), the evidence.

The world and ecosystems are just far to complicated to be set up by random chance. The numbers just don't work.