The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

I would say it was from your approach to anything posted that would support ID. If I am wrong then apologies.

It then begs the question where do you stand on Christainity and the existence of God and do you hold that His existence is a possibility?

Ah, I might say the flaw is the lack of your belief in Brahma

His posts and immediate responses to throw out the work of scientists who are creationist; already shows the biased that exists.

It shows he throws out the work which he can show as invalid or non science, and that a lot of it happens to be creationist.
Perhaps if you present some non-science claiming to be science by an atheist, this would become apparent...

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

It shows he throws out the work which he can show as invalid or non science, and that a lot of it happens to be creationist.
Perhaps if you present some non-science claiming to be science by an atheist, this would become apparent...

Some of Dawkins' theorising is equally ludicrous. Almost any claim by a cosmetics company. Nearly all the anti-climate-change 'science'. A lot of Green 'science'. Nearly everything New Age. Most holistic stuff.

On the question asked, I don't support any particular position. I don't know whether there is a Creator.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

Some of Dawkins' theorising is equally ludicrous. Almost any claim by a cosmetics company. Nearly all the anti-climate-change 'science'. A lot of Green 'science'. Nearly everything New Age. Most holistic stuff.

Well there we are then.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

If anyone gives a rip about my 2 cents. I would say that Son Goku doesn't need any convincing about the non-existence of God. His posts and immediate responses to throw out the work of scientists who are creationist; already shows the biased that exists.

I have a healthy distaste for bollocks science, but not for genuine religious belief.
I throw out the work of Creationists, not because of some deep seated bias against the concept of God, but because, to be frank, it's very bad science.
Hypothesis are claimed as predications, they make probabilistic arguments without understanding the necessary mathematics and in fact attempt to apply the incorrect math.
Any Creationist Astrophysics essay or "paper" I've ever read has the same poor development and dialogue with no predictive framework.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Any evolutionist that I have ever seen on North American TV or heard on radio claims that there is no God and that Creation scientists are sub standard in their science.

Well I don't know about their being no God, but it certainly is substandard science. Real science is written in a very self-critical manner, with an emphasis on its tentative nature. Creationism is often the polar opposite.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Talk about intolerance and close-mindedness. Why Son Goku and Scofflaw would you conduct your research without even considering the possibility that it was all created by Christ and that everything is a marvel of His handiwork work?

How would it be useful to me? This is the point you're missing. It would require a scenario like this:

ME:Man, what's the Lagrangian for a particle in an electromagnetic field.
*ponders for a bit without coming up with the answer*
ME:Maybe "it was all created by Christ and that everything is a marvel of His handiwork work", so obviously


Would it get me anywhere scientifically more than belief in any other random diety?

robindch

> Any evolutionist that I have ever seen on North American TV or heard on
> radio claims that there is no God

I note that you've not answered most of my previous questions on this thread, so I'm wondering whether or not I should ask this one... However, I trust to your good intentiond and I'll ask it anyway.

Can you please name some (ten would be nice) of these athetistic evolutionists that seem to populate the telly in North America and whom we never see over here?

> and that Creation scientists are sub standard in their science.

We've already shown that idealogically-motivated creationists constantly dissemble about evolution in exactly the same way as you did (presumably until yesterday) about secular humanism. Their science isn't simply bad -- it's lies. Dishonesty. Crap. Total nonsense. Dubious facts cheery-picked to suit their pre-fabricated arguments.

I'm still fascinated to hear why you can't even *consider* the possibility, let alone *grant* the possibility, that you might be misinformed?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

I note that you've not answered most of my previous questions on this thread, so I'm wondering whether or not I should ask this one... However, I trust to your good intentiond and I'll ask it anyway.

Can you please name some (ten would be nice) of these athetistic evolutionists that seem to populate the telly in North America and whom we never see over here?

The big one is Dr David Suzuki. Unfortunately I don't scribble down the names of every evolutionist that is on a radio talk show or TV interview. I just listen to what they have to say.

robindch wrote:

We've already shown that idealogically-motivated creationists constantly dissemble about evolution in exactly the same way as you did (presumably until yesterday) about secular humanism. Their science isn't simply bad -- it's lies. Dishonesty. Crap. Total nonsense. Dubious facts cheery-picked to suit their pre-fabricated arguments.

I'm still fascinated to hear why you can't even *consider* the possibility, let alone *grant* the possibility, that you might be misinformed?

When I read the links to Answers in Genesis and a few others that are pasted by Wolfsbane and JC they are as convincing as the ones you paste. So to get to, I believe Wolfs question, who is a layman to believe? Since there is no doubt in my mind on the authenticity of the Bible as the inspired word of God, it comes down to: do I believe God or Dr. Suzuki or Steven Gould? I will stick to God.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

Since there is no doubt in my mind on the authenticity of the Bible as the inspired word of God, it comes down to: do I believe God or Dr. Suzuki or Steven Gould? I will stick to God.

Well that's a matter of faith rather than fact.

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

Well that's a matter of faith rather than fact.

Some great authors on the authenticity of the Bible and Chrit's divinity try Lee Strobel. A former atheist who has interviewed experts in various disciplines on his journey of faith.

Another is Josh McDowell, who being so fed-up with uneducated stupid Christians who just could not understand modern science embarked on ajourney to debunk Christianity and has now become one of the greatest writers on Christian proofs in the world today.

Give them a try.

A third is Hank Hannegraaf.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

When I read the links to Answers in Genesis and a few others that are pasted by Wolfsbane and JC they are as convincing as the ones you paste. So to get to, I believe Wolfs question, who is a layman to believe? Since there is no doubt in my mind on the authenticity of the Bible as the inspired word of God, it comes down to: do I believe God or Dr. Suzuki or Steven Gould? I will stick to God.

Given there's no doubt in your mind as to the "authenticity of the Bible as the inspired word of God", I don't think there's any question about who you would support. Nor indeed is there much question about the rest of the Creationist posters on this thread.

What strikes me as dishonest, though, is to claim that one has no a priori assumptions (clearly most of our Creationist posters do), or to claim that one's opponents must do because they disagree with that assumption.

Son Goku wrote:

ME:Man, what's the Lagrangian for a particle in an electromagnetic field.
*ponders for a bit without coming up with the answer*
ME:Maybe "it was all created by Christ and that everything is a marvel of His handiwork work", so obviously...

Excellent - very much the point! Certainly as a geologist in the field, the question "what would Christ have done?" is not really going to tell you what the rock is, although the power of faith to move mountains might be useful from time to time.

regards,
Scofflaw

Excelsior

Not to diminish my standing even further but I have had a few discussions face to face with Morbert and Son Goku back in college and both are interested, fair minded skeptics of the best kind. In fact, I think I was once at a lecture Morbert delivered on Science -v- Faith where he brilliantly demonstrated that there was no contradiction.

Hilariously, in that meeting, someone proposed that scientology was a religion based on scientific fact.

So, basically, I vouch for these guys. They are not antagonistic towards Christianity in any way. I see plenty of reason around the world for them to be antagonistic to Christians though. Sadly.

John Doe

This thread was interesting for about 35-40 pages, but unfortunately it's beginning to seem as if we've reached the uncompromisable crux of the argument. I believe in a God. I also trust the painstaking work done by the scientific community, the vast majority of whom reject Creationism and ID. The vast majority of scientists who have experience in evolutionary theory/the origins of the universe also believe Creationism and ID to be negligibly likely.
If I choose the above areas of science as my career, and my research points me towards Creationism and ID, and I believe my own work outweighs that of other scientists in the field, I will then feel justified in bringing real science into the origins of the universe argument.
Until such a time, if I bring science into the argument I MUST side with the vast majority, because there is no reason besides faith for not doing so. I do not have any means for judging these theories apart from the fact that the majority are (usually) right. Perhaps basing my ideas on that is flawed, but how much more flawed would it be to base them on the minority being right, for no other reason than I would like to believe that they are?
No. No, no, no, no, no.
Oh, and one other thing. Waaaaaay back in this thread J C said that we must believe Jesus was the 'author' of the Bible because it says so...in the Bible.
*smack*as I run into a brick wall, investigating whether there's any more point to doing that than arguing on this thread.
I'll get back to ye on the above little experiment.

Scofflaw

John Doe wrote:

Oh, and one other thing. Waaaaaay back in this thread J C said that we must believe Jesus was the 'author' of the Bible because it says so...in the Bible.

Dang! I missed that post. Never mind - in a couple of weeks I can let him have a copy of Genghis Khan's Diaries ("a thrilling read"), which he will know to be authentic by the usual method.


cordially,
Scofflaw

John Doe

It reminds me of the argument that a perfect being must exist, for if he does not exist then he is not perfect. I think it may be logically flawed somewhere, you know.:eek:

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Some of Dawkins' theorising is equally ludicrous. Almost any claim by a cosmetics company. Nearly all the anti-climate-change 'science'. A lot of Green 'science'. Nearly everything New Age. Most holistic stuff.

I'm pressed for time this week (postal strike in Belfast has pushed a lot of work on us), but wanted to respond to your pertinent questions. This particular quote helps me summarize my thoughts.

I admire your intense belief that you have all the science right. But it might be wiser of you to consider that you might be wrong in some of these. At least to accord respect to fellow scientists who present their interpretations that differ from yours. Not to write them off as fools or liars. To admit that there is a debate about these things.

As to the particular scientific questions you asked me - the presence of the Oort cloud, the place of plate tectonics in creationism, etc. - I suggest you ask the experts involved, for example:
Dr Donald DeYoung
Creationist Physicist
(AiG–US)
Education
Michigan Tech University (B.S., M.S., Physics)
Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)
Grace Seminary (M.Div.)

or

Danny R. Faulkner
Professor of Astronomy
(United States)
Dr Danny R. Faulkner has a B.S. (Math), M.S. (Physics), M.A. and Ph.D. (Astronomy, Indiana University). He is Full Professor at the University of South Carolina — Lancaster, where he teaches physics and astronomy. He has published about two dozen papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals. See his university homepage for more details.
Education
B.S., Bob Jones University, Greenville, SC, 1976
M.S., Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 1979
M.A., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 1983
Ph.D., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 1989

or

Dr. Jason Lisle,
Ph.D.
Creationist Astrophysicist
AiG (US)
An astrophysicist with a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado at Boulder, Dr. Lisle is now helping AiG (and the creation movement as a whole) refute the evolutionary account of origins—using his strong science background. He will also help design exciting planetarium programs for the future Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky (near Cincinnati, Ohio).
At the university level, Jason discovered that an important element in scientific study and the drawing of conclusions was this: that scientists usually are not aware of their presuppositions (i.e. they interpret scientific evidence in light of their existing worldview). It thus made it easier for him to see that intelligent scientists, many who were his professors, can disagree on what the evidence really means, for they have different starting points. So as he read creation materials, he could see that when the evidence was properly interpreted, it always supported the biblical account of creation (even with the thorny question of starlight and time).
In graduate school, Dr. Lisle specialized in solar astrophysics. His areas of interest in creation studies are in developing models of cosmology and stellar aging. Creationist thinking in these areas is still very preliminary.
More of his educational background
Dr. Lisle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy, and minored in mathematics. He did graduate work at the University of Colorado where he earned a Master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. While there, Dr. Lisle used the SOHO spacecraft to investigate motions on the surface of the sun as well as solar magnetism and subsurface weather. His thesis was entitled “Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism.” He has also authored a number of papers in both secular and creation literature.

or

John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics/Space Physics
Education:
B.S. Electrical Engineering, Texas Tech University - 1968
M.S. Electrical Engineering, Princeton University - 1970
M.S. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA - 1981
Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA - 1983
Organizations:
American Geophysical Union
Mineralogical Society of America
Professional Experience:
Technical Staff Member/Scientist - Los Alamos National Laboratory, Theoretical Division, New Mexico (1984 - Present).
Member of Technical Staff and Consultant - Rockwell International, Rocketdyne Division, Laser Department (1978-1979, 1981-1984).
Graduate Research Assistant - University of California, Los Angeles, Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences (1979-1983).
Consultant - R & D Associates (1980-1981).
Project Officer - U. S. Air Force, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Laser Division, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico (1971-1975).

but see the lists on:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_creationsci
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp


or the Q & A section on astrophysics and astronomy at Answers In Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp

or the scientific articles in, for example: http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/default.html

BrianCalgary

Excelsior wrote:

Not to diminish my standing even further but I have had a few discussions face to face with Morbert and Son Goku back in college and both are interested, fair minded skeptics of the best kind. In fact, I think I was once at a lecture Morbert delivered on Science -v- Faith where he brilliantly demonstrated that there was no contradiction.

Hilariously, in that meeting, someone proposed that scientology was a religion based on scientific fact.

So, basically, I vouch for these guys. They are not antagonistic towards Christianity in any way. I see plenty of reason around the world for them to be antagonistic to Christians though. Sadly.

Hey Morbert, have you got your notes from that particular lecture, I would love to read it. Because if God did create everything, He created within us the desire to know how it works.

Thanks

John Doe

BrianCalgary wrote:

Because if God did create everything, He created within us the desire to know how it works.

That's a good point. And if it didn't create everything that desire is still there notwithstanding.
Wolfsbane, it might indeed be wise to consider the opinions of the scientists you have mentioned. It might be wise to consider the opinions of all scientists on everything. This, however, wouldn't be practical. Instead we must take the opinions of the majority of the scientific community and trust them, that is if we want to consider our views 'scientifically based'. If we take instead for no reason other than our faith the opinions of a minority of the scientific community and disregard those of the majority it is very misleading to claim a scientific basis. No matter how many eminent theoreticians are in favour of your point of view, until there is either a very significant minority, a majority, or you yourself are one of these scientists it is unscientific to give them credence.

robindch

> The big one is Dr David Suzuki. Unfortunately I don't scribble down
> the names of every evolutionist that is on a radio talk show or TV

Well, his Wikipedia entry doesn't say anything about atheism and a google search only turns up 800 or so entries linking him to atheism or atheist and of the links I looked at, none clearly indicate that he's one. Even his own homepage doesn't even refer to atheism, from which I conclude that if he's an atheist, he's not a very good at prompting atheism. Are you sure you're correct?

And even if he is an atheist, so what? Do you actually believe that whether or not one believes in a god really indicates whether or not somebody's opinion on something else can be trusted?

> I read the links to Answers in Genesis and a few others that are pasted
> by Wolfsbane and JC they are as convincing as the ones you paste. So to
> get to, I believe Wolfs question, who is a layman to believe?

What about accepting what scientists say about science, rather than what religious leaders say about science? I've personally sat through three of Ham's talks here in Dublin and the guy spouted complete crap for almost two hours, some of it quite offensive, and all of it completely inaccurate. Amongst a long litany of lies, he was claiming that radio-dating couldn't be trusted (by selectively quoting out-of-date data, then misinterpreting it), that there are only a few types of dinosaur (nonsense), that evolution causes abortion (huh?), that Piltdown man shows that all science is fraud (Piltdown man was shown by scientists to be a fraud over 50 years ago and *still* creationists produce this old chestnut), and so on and so on.

> Since there is no doubt in my mind on the authenticity of the Bible
> as the inspired word of God, it comes down to: do I believe God or
> Dr. Suzuki or Steven Gould? I will stick to God.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not the bible is the inspired word of a god, isn't the real question whether or not your own personal interpretation of the text is the only true one?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I admire your intense belief that you have all the science right.

You need not. I know enough about the sciences I have quoted as disliking junk science within to know that they're junk. Similarly with ID claims, I know enough about the philosophy of science to know that the proposal is not scientifically testable. With YEC and Flood geology, I know quite enough geology and biology to be able to knock down the junk science presented on its behalf.

wolfsbane wrote:

But it might be wiser of you to consider that you might be wrong in some of these. At least to accord respect to fellow scientists who present their interpretations that differ from yours. Not to write them off as fools or liars. To admit that there is a debate about these things.

I accord respect to scientific work, where it is good. Someone presenting junk science is a presenter, not a scientist, whether they are part of the anti-climate-change coalition or a Creationist.

Try presenting some genuine science, or explaining some genuine puzzles (and there's no shortage of them in science), and you'll find you don't get dismissed.

regards,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Well, his Wikipedia entry doesn't say anything about atheism and a google search only turns up 800 or so entries linking him to atheism or atheist and of the links I looked at, none clearly indicate that he's one. Even his own homepage doesn't even refer to atheism, from which I conclude that if he's an atheist, he's not a very good at prompting atheism. Are you sure you're correct?

I heard him say it on a local talk radio show that he pops up on periodically. He is outspoken on global warming and the environment and is the darling of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC)

robindch wrote:

And even if he is an atheist, so what? Do you actually believe that whether or not one believes in a god really indicates whether or not somebody's opinion on something else can be trusted?

Because he is an atheist he doesn't leave room for a creator to be a part of his study. Which makes his work biased. When he has been confronted about his bias coming into his work he goes rangy. Not just on God, but his environmental work. His foundation rakes in a lot of donations based on what some would call environmental scare tactics.

robindch wrote:

What about accepting what scientists say about science, rather than what religious leaders say about science? I've personally sat through three of Ham's talks here in Dublin and the guy spouted complete crap for almost two hours, some of it quite offensive, and all of it completely inaccurate. Amongst a long litany of lies, he was claiming that radio-dating couldn't be trusted (by selectively quoting out-of-date data, then misinterpreting it), that there are only a few types of dinosaur (nonsense), that evolution causes abortion (huh?), that Piltdown man shows that all science is fraud (Piltdown man was shown by scientists to be a fraud over 50 years ago and *still* creationists produce this old chestnut), and so on and so on.

I had never heard of Ken Ham until this board. But, I do take material from men like him with a grain of salt because of their zeal, as I take from the zealites on the pro-evolution side. Hence, the validity of the scientists that wolfsbane has cited on this board. One of my best friends is a geologist and he is a creationist, and holds to an old earth. Him I trust.

robindch wrote:

Leaving aside the question of whether or not the bible is the inspired word of a god, isn't the real question whether or not your own personal interpretation of the text is the only true one?

No mine is not the only true one. The time I spend reading and studying His word opens new understandings from time-to-time. After all we are 'being transformed into the image of Christ' (Romans 8:29) and I am nowhere close to being Jesus at all.

robindch

> He is outspoken on global warming and the environment and is the
> darling of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC)

Sounds like you don't like him because of these reasons as well. Just out of interest, do you disagree that the world is warming up too because it's a claim, suitably backed up with evidence, which is made by scientists, some of whom might be atheists?

And, btw, having started watching some of the CBC stuff in the last year or so, I have to say that they've a documentary-making division which produces stuff every bit as good as what the BBC produces. Congrats to all concerned.

> No mine is not the only true one.

So does that mean that different interpretations can be "true" too?

And how about this -- some people (theistic evolutionists) believe that god set up the universe with a set of rules by which humanity could ultimately be produced. You believe that god did not do this and instead chose the much simpler task of just creating the world a few millennia ago, with all cylinders firing.

Why do you believe that your vision of god more correct than others? I'd prefer you not to say that you do this "because it says so in the book of genesis", because the stories from genesis are known to be much older than the bible and appear in other Gulf cultures and are a completely unfirm basis upon which to stake your worldview.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Sounds like you don't like him because of these reasons as well. Just out of interest, do you disagree that the world is warming up too because it's a claim, suitably backed up with evidence, which is made by scientists, some of whom might be atheists?.

I used to love his show "The Nature of Things" because their were great on talking about the habits and characteristics of plants and animals. He then wnet to promoting environmentalism and the show became his platform and quite tedious.

The world is warming. But, there agin there is disagreement in the scientific community as to whether or not it is due to fossil fuel emissions or a natural occurence in the Earth's cycles. Because of Kyoto and our city being dependant on fossil fuel energy (although we are doing some great stuff with wind power) it has been a topic of discussion.

robindch wrote:

So does that mean that different interpretations can be "true" too?

Depending on the issue. The topics that there is no compromise on are: salvation through faith by God's grace; Jesus as the way the truth and the life; the resurrection; virgin birth; the trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit being the three persons of the Godhead.

robindch wrote:

And how about this -- some people (theistic evolutionists) believe that god set up the universe with a set of rules by which humanity could ultimately be produced. You believe that god did not do this and instead chose the much simpler task of just creating the world a few millennia ago, with all cylinders firing. .

Yes, however I'm not going to condemn anyone if they hold to this thought. What is unfortunate is the people who would use evolutioary theory to state that there is no God, and that is what I would say happens in our schools

robindch wrote:

Why do you believe that your vision of god more correct than others? I'd prefer you not to say that you do this "because it says so in the book of genesis", because the stories from genesis are known to be much older than the bible and appear in other Gulf cultures and are a completely unfirm basis upon which to stake your worldview.

My vision of God comes from the whole of the Bible, not just from Genesis. But if the accounts appear in other Gulf cultures could it not stand to reason that they are true? The Genesis account was written by Moses (@1500BC) and his writings are used as the Jewish basis of law. The NT is the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets. When the events of Genesis happened are neither here nor there. They did happened and were not recorded until Moses, up until that point they were passed on orally.
BTW, I think the Earth runs between 12 and 15,000 years old. The 6,000 years is way off base because you can't use the genaelogies of the OT as others have; they are incomplete.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

The world is warming. But, there agin there is disagreement in the scientific community as to whether or not it is due to fossil fuel emissions or a natural occurence in the Earth's cycles. Because of Kyoto and our city being dependant on fossil fuel energy (although we are doing some great stuff with wind power) it has been a topic of discussion.

Now Brian, you're going to make me angry all over again. The debate in the scientific community (and it certainly was a real debate) has been settled, and once again only a very small number of scientists are holding out. Most of them do work for oil companies, or oil-company funded foundations, so they do look biased.

The last piece of 'naturalistic warming' evidence (and again, it wasn't, it was a reading that suggested no warming) was the upper-atmosphere satellite data that was but lately corrected (it was supposed to be taking regular readings, but it was actually suffering from clock drift). Corrected for the clock drift, it shows the expected warming of the upper atmosphere.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Yes, however I'm not going to condemn anyone if they hold to this thought. What is unfortunate is the people who would use evolutioary theory to state that there is no God, and that is what I would say happens in our schools

No-one should use the theory of evolution to state that there is no God. The theory certainly does not claim any such thing. This is where a lot of atheists come off the rails, using inflated claims of this kind. If someone is an atheist, then if they're teaching science, they must leave out their atheism, because that's a religious question, not a scientific one - it has exactly the same relevance in a science class as does ID or Creationism.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

As to the particular scientific questions you asked me - the presence of the Oort cloud, the place of plate tectonics in creationism, etc. - I suggest you ask the experts involved

There is, I think, no need. There is no consensus on these matters within Creationism (reading around a few Creationist sites will rapidly show that). Nor would I expect there to be. I could ask one particular creationist what they think, and get one answer, ask another, and get a diametrically opposed answer. JC has stated on this board that plate tectonics didn't happen - other creationists say it might have done.

This is not surprising, because there is no way to establish the validity of one of these claims over the other except by reference to a book that contains no mention of it. Same for the Oort Cloud, Kuiper Belt, galaxy shapes, etc etc.


regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [BrianCalgary] What is unfortunate is the people who would use evolutioary theory
> to state that there is no God,

Nobody, absolutely nobody, uses the theory of evolution to say that there is no god! We've already been over this quite a few times and I really don't know whether it's worth repeating, but to state again, evolution says that life forms change over time and that the ones which reproduce most successfully replace those that don't. It says nothing about god, or the bible, or atheism. It says nothing about Jesus or abortion or the US Republican party and it fits in very well, once you understand it, with whatever view of god, or the bible that you happen to have. If you believe that it denies god or the bible or anything else that you "belive in", then you are wrong and the fault lies with *you* for thinking that it does, and not, as you seem to think, with evolution. As far as I can see, most of people's hatred of evolution comes from the simple fact that they fail to understand it, even a little bit.

Again, I have to ask you this basic question -- the little knowledge of evolution that you have shown on this board is wrong. Not just inaccurate, but plain wrong. Given that you do not understand evolution, do you think that it might be likely that the opinion you have formed of it might be wrong too?

> and that is what I would say happens in our schools

And -- in the USA anyway -- figures for belief in some kind of god hover around 98% to 99% (see the first table in here). So wouldn't that suggest to you that somehow "teaching atheism" through biology, without ever even mentioning god or the bible, must be an incredibly hopeless way of doing it? There seems to be no connection between the fundamentalist claim that there's lots of atheistic biology teachers running around doing enormous damage, and the fact that atheism is a tiny, tiny fringe belief, only just barely measurable with opinion polls. Could it be that fundamentalists are creating an external threat where none exists? One of the finest way of binding together a disparate population that there is?

samb

BrianCalgary wrote:

BTW, I think the Earth runs between 12 and 15,000 years old. .

:eek:

Why do you think this? I would recommend you read up on Geology, it is very interesting stuff.

BrianCalgary

samb wrote:

:eek:

Why do you think this? I would recommend you read up on Geology, it is very interesting stuff.

A very good friend of mine is a professional geologist. He and I debated this topic once over a Chinese food feast. I am not set on the age of the earth at this point. I struugle with the point my geologist buddy came up with. I can concede that the first two days could have been extended period of time. We concluded that God knows, and the first one to Heaven has to be prepared to humble himself when the next arrives or to thumb their nose at the next guy.

From a theological perspective. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Now is this physical or spiritual death? Unrepented sin without Christ leads to spiritual death.
If you count physical death in there how could death then have happened before Adam and Eve sinned?

Therefore nothing could have died before the fall, which brings us to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 with regard to time.

I hope that makes some sense. (I wish I had the time to study all that I would want to learn. time does not permit)

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

A very good friend of mine is a professional geologist. He and I debated this topic once over a Chinese food feast. I am not set on the age of the earth at this point. I struugle with the point my geologist buddy came up with. I can concede that the first two days could have been extended period of time. We concluded that God knows, and the first one to Heaven has to be prepared to humble himself when the next arrives or to thumb their nose at the next guy.

From a theological perspective. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Now is this physical or spiritual death? Unrepented sin without Christ leads to spiritual death.
If you count physical death in there how could death then have happened before Adam and Eve sinned?

Therefore nothing could have died before the fall, which brings us to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 with regard to time.

I hope that makes some sense. (I wish I had the time to study all that I would want to learn. time does not permit)

It seems to me that if you're prepared to swallow the camel of there being no death before the Fall (based on a disputable statement which could be taken to mean spiritual death without any reduction in literality), you're rather straining at the gnat of believing the time periods indicated are not 24-hour days!

regards,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Nobody, absolutely nobody, uses the theory of evolution to say that there is no god!

Pretty universal statement. I have a few colleagues in sport who have categorically stated that evolutio proves no god.

robindch wrote:

We've already been over this quite a few times and I really don't know whether it's worth repeating, but to state again, evolution says that life forms change over time and that the ones which reproduce most successfully replace those that don't. It says nothing about god, or the bible, or atheism. It says nothing about Jesus or abortion or the US Republican party and it fits in very well, once you understand it, with whatever view of god, or the bible that you happen to have. If you believe that it denies god or the bible or anything else that you "belive in", then you are wrong and the fault lies with *you* for thinking that it does, and not, as you seem to think, with evolution. As far as I can see, most of people's hatred of evolution comes from the simple fact that they fail to understand it, even a little bit.?

Robin, I know exactly what evolution staes because you have stated it so many times. It is the world view implications that come as a result of evolutionary theory, and that is (as noted above) that there is no God and we are nothing but beings that have come from muck and are worthless. Christianity brings the worldview that we are special beings created in th eimage of a loving God.

robindch wrote:

Again, I have to ask you this basic question -- the little knowledge of evolution that you have shown on this board is wrong. Not just inaccurate, but plain wrong. Given that you do not understand evolution, do you think that it might be likely that the opinion you have formed of it might be wrong too?

And -- in the USA anyway -- figures for belief in some kind of god hover around 98% to 99% (see the first table in here). So wouldn't that suggest to you that somehow "teaching atheism" through biology, without ever even mentioning god or the bible, must be an incredibly hopeless way of doing it? There seems to be no connection between the fundamentalist claim that there's lots of atheistic biology teachers running around doing enormous damage, and the fact that atheism is a tiny, tiny fringe belief, only just barely measurable with opinion polls. Could it be that fundamentalists are creating an external threat where none exists? One of the finest way of binding together a disparate population that there is?

When you talk to laypeople (as opposed to the learned bunch on this board) the two thoughts can't be reconciled. Ask the question 'do you believe in a god? the answer will be yes. Ask to describe who that god is, and the answers will be quite different. Ask, do you believe that evolution answers the origins of life? the answer would be yes. Now ask them to correlate the two and the average American could't do it.

robindch

> I have a few colleagues in sport who have categorically stated
> that evolution proves no god

Those people are wrong.

> It is the world view implications that come as a result of evolutionary
> theory, and that is (as noted above) that there is no God and we are
> nothing but beings that have come from muck and are worthless.

At this stage, brian, I'm afraid to say that we've begun to go around in circles. You continually claiming that evolution implies what it does not imply, based upon your own incorrect understanding of it. There's therefore no further point in discussing this point any further as I don't believe that you'll rectify the defects in your understanding of evolution.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Those people are wrong.

At this stage, brian, I'm afraid to say that we've begun to go around in circles. You continually claiming that evolution implies what it does not imply, based upon your own incorrect understanding of it. There's therefore no further point in discussing this point any further as I don't believe that you'll rectify the defects in your understanding of evolution.

Robin, you keep on stating that I'm wrong and do not understand evolution.

You fail to pick up on my comments as to where a belief in evolution becomes a foundation for a world view, as opposed to a belief in the Bible and it's foundation for a world view. I have given you personal examples of people that are highly educated that have stated that evolution proves no god. They have utilised evolutionary theory to come to this conclusion. And frankly you can deny it all you like and close your eyes to it; but it happens.