The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

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.

I don't think anyone is denying that it happens. To do so is incorrect, however, and implies a level of misunderstanding of evolution, and a fixity of notions of God, similar to Creationists.

It's certainly the case that evolution pretty much contradicts a Young-Earth Creator. However, I don't think you can deny that there are people who believe in a Young-Earth Creator who do not understand evolution.


regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Again, evolution certainly does not imply that we are "nothing but beings that have come from muck and are worthless". Even atheism (properly understood) does not say that.

I know plenty of people who are Creationist in that they believe that God created the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang, and 'evolutionist' in that they think that life has evolved since the world came into being. They also believe that God loves humanity, but are prepared to accept that there might be life elsewhere, and that God might love that life too. They just don't believe that God created this particular planet a few thousand years ago, and assembled the rest of the apparent Universe just as a special (and very temporary) abode for us.

You mistake evolution's specific contradiction of your particular position as contradiction of the existence of God. And you're so loud about it that other people think you're right, and so they think evolution contradicts the existence of God because it contradicts the existence of the God you have chosen to believe in. They're wrong for exactly the same reason that you are.

regards,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't think anyone is denying that it happens. To do so is incorrect, however, and implies a level of misunderstanding of evolution, and a fixity of notions of God, similar to Creationists.

It's certainly the case that evolution pretty much contradicts a Young-Earth Creator. However, I don't think you can deny that there are people who believe in a Young-Earth Creator who do not understand evolution.


regards,
Scofflaw

Absolutely, I didn't realize how much I misunderstood evolution until you guys came along.
Although (and this is going to bug Robin:) , I still luv'ya though buddy) I can not accept evolution because I see too many good arguments coming from both sides, nor do I have the time to delve into it as thoroughly as you all do.
Therefore I have to rely on the experts to do the research.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Absolutely, I didn't realize how much I misunderstood evolution until you guys came along.
Although (and this is going to bug Robin:) , I still luv'ya though buddy) I can not accept evolution because I see too many good arguments coming from both sides, nor do I have the time to delve into it as thoroughly as you all do.
Therefore I have to rely on the experts to do the research.

And then we'd have to ask - what defines a 'good argument' for you? Given that you "have to rely on the experts to do the research"?


regards,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

And then we'd have to ask - what defines a 'good argument' for you? Given that you "have to rely on the experts to do the research"?


regards,
Scofflaw

I have never tried to define a 'good argument'. I'll have to ponder that one. Right off I would have to look at how it is presented and does it make sense. I am talking general arguments here not just scientific.

We are studying womens role in the church and are reading papers presented by both egalitarians and complementarians. Both have good arguments that support their view, but the premise that one side bases their argument on I strongly disagree with which makes a lot of their following arguments invalid.

With regard to science I'm almost afraid to say anything as you guys are in a different league than I am as I haven't had to study it since High School chemistry 28 years ago.

John Doe

BrianCalgary wrote:

I can not accept evolution because I see too many good arguments coming from both sides, nor do I have the time to delve into it as thoroughly as you all do.
Therefore I have to rely on the experts to do the research.

I don't think there's much point in going into this further, but here goes anyway : I can't seem to avoid the conclusion that a quick look at the very surface of this debate (insofar as there is one) shows a vast, overwhelming majority in favour of evolution. Surely if you don't have time to delve into it you would take (as I have done) the opinions of the vast majority over the tiny minority?

BrianCalgary

No, because there are times when the majority can be completely wrong.
The majority of the confederates was that slavery was OK.
The majority said the earth was flat.
There are even a lot of people that I am finding out think that Northern Ireland is Ireland and not part of GB. So the majority isn't always right.

John Doe

If you believe that the issue of who or what created the universe is akin to the issue of whether people should be property, then fair enough. I don't see the two issues as being anything like each other. The former is a scientific debate. The 'majority' involved are scientists. I hold them to be more qualified than you or I on the issue. The latter was a human rights issue. We are all humans. I do not count anyone, anywhere, more qualified than anyone else with regard to human rights.

BrianCalgary

John Doe wrote:

If you believe that the issue of who or what created the universe is akin to the issue of whether people should be property, then fair enough. I don't see the two issues as being anything like each other. The former is a scientific debate. The 'majority' involved are scientists. I hold them to be more qualified than you or I on the issue. The latter was a human rights issue. We are all humans. I do not count anyone, anywhere, more qualified than anyone else with regard to human rights.

I agree the slavery is a bad example, but it's what came to mind first.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

No, because there are times when the majority can be completely wrong.
The majority of the confederates was that slavery was OK.
The majority said the earth was flat.
There are even a lot of people that I am finding out think that Northern Ireland is Ireland and not part of GB. So the majority isn't always right.

Nor, I'm afraid, is the majority always wrong. In fact, I think you'll find that the majority of people now think the world is not flat, that the majority of Unionists think Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and the majority of Americans now think that slavery is wrong.

No-one is right simply because they're in a minority.

regards,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Nor, I'm afraid, is the majority always wrong. In fact, I think you'll find that the majority of people now think the world is not flat, that the majority of Unionists think Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and the majority of Americans now think that slavery is wrong.

No-one is right simply because they're in a minority.

regards,
Scofflaw

Agreed. Which means that truth is just that truth, regardless of peoples opinions.

Since Jesus claimed to be God, raised Himself fom the dead to prove that He is so said, "I am the way, the TRUTH (emph Added), and the life...", I'm going to tend to His word and hence the creation acoount as written.

Do I believe God or men?, is the question.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Agreed. Which means that truth is just that truth, regardless of peoples opinions.

Since Jesus claimed to be God, raised Himself fom the dead to prove that He is so said, "I am the way, the TRUTH (emph Added), and the life...", I'm going to tend to His word and hence the creation acoount as written.

Do I believe God or men?, is the question.

Which is fine, but I think you'd have to accept that that's a faith-based position, not an empirically grounded one.


regards,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Which is fine, but I think you'd have to accept that that's a faith-based position, not an empirically grounded one.


regards,
Scofflaw

I would say that the literal translation of Genesis is faith based. As to the person of Jesus and what He did and who He is. Not faith. I highly recommend a book called "The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobel.

For more info on Lee:

http://www.zondervanchurchsource.com/instrobel.htm

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

Do I believe God or men?, is the question.

Well, though you may believe the work divinely inspired, it was men that wrote the bible. You're taking their words on faith.

samb

BrianCalgary wrote:

No, because there are times when the majority can be completely wrong.
The majority of the confederates was that slavery was OK.
The majority said the earth was flat.
There are even a lot of people that I am finding out think that Northern Ireland is Ireland and not part of GB. So the majority isn't always right.

True, most people are religious. Although in educated societies this is changing

Son Goku

Some may find this link interesting:
New Chronology
as well as this one:
Novelty Theory
and
Götaland theory

Every single one of these theories have supporters who accuse Western acedemics of being involved in a conspiracy against their theory.
They are all in a tiny minority in their field, but I bring particular attention to "New Chronology" which actually has more scientific support than Creationism.

New Chronology makes the same kind of arguements as Creationism, the narrow-minded nature of the acedemic majority being a common theme in both.
Now an arguement I've heard on this thread, quite a lot is "who is the layman to believe?" even when one of the sides has vastly less scientific evidence.

Well here's a theory that goes against Creationism, but all the typical Creationist arguements equally apply to it.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Every single one of these theories have supporters who accuse Western acedemics of being involved in a conspiracy against their theory.
They are all in a tiny minority in their field, but I bring particular attention to "New Chronology" which actually has more scientific support than Creationism.

What scientific support has the New Chronology? Creationism has the support of hundreds/thousands of qualified scientists. New Chronology seems to me to be just a quaint revisionist history. Messing about with history was something the Soviets had a lot of experience with. Their difficulty is to explain how all the cultures of the world have been involved in this 'conspiracy' - the Chinese, Japanese, Arabic as well as the Western and Russian.

New Chronology makes the same kind of arguements as Creationism, the narrow-minded nature of the acedemic majority being a common theme in both.

So? That is also the argument Galileo could make against the establishment in his time. Was he wrong? "Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you"

Now an arguement I've heard on this thread, quite a lot is "who is the layman to believe?" even when one of the sides has vastly less scientific evidence.
Well here's a theory that goes against Creationism, but all the typical Creationist arguements equally apply to it.

Being in the minority doesn't make one right; neither does being in the majority. Truth is truth, no matter who says what. The issue for the layman, especially the Christian non-scientist, is whether we believe the vast majority of scientists who hold to evolution or the smaller number of equally qualified scientists who hold to creationism.

The quality difference is seen in the Christian character of the latter - that is what gives credibility to their assertions that science is on the creation side. Christians expect honesty from their brethren. If they had no scientific argument, we expect them to say so. Of course there will be the odd liar in our midst - but that cannot explain the bulk of fine christian and scientists upholding creationism.

Reminds me of the advice given by the Professor to the Narnia children, regarding whom to be believed. Should they believe Lucy's incredible tale of Narnia at the back of the wardrobe, or Edmund's much more likely account? 'Who have you found to be the more reliable in the past?', He asked.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

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.

It is certainly true that the specific mechanisms that give rise to the evidence is always up for revision. Are you saying that is not so in the evolutionary camp? Even my brief reading of evolutionists suggests they have lively debates among themselves as to the hows and whens. Or are you saying only those evolutionists who agree with your hows and whens are real scientists?

wolfsbane

John Doe said:

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.

Hmm. Einstein's theories should not have been given credence as science by the ordinary man until the majority of scientists concurred? Also, when are we allowed to think the previously minority view is right - 50%, 50% + 1? Would we be guilty of being unscientific if we continued to hold to the now minority view of the 49%?

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Hmm. Einstein's theories should not have been given credence as science by the ordinary man until the majority of scientists concurred?

Yes, because they wouldn't have concurred for good reason.
Also, far more than evolution, Einstein's theories really discount a Young Earth.

wolfsbane wrote:

What scientific support has the New Chronology? Creationism has the support of hundreds/thousands of qualified scientists. New Chronology seems to me to be just a quaint revisionist history.

You've missed my point.
Both Creationism and New Chronology have next to no evidence. However if you were to allow very speculative evidence, New Chronology actually has more than Creationism.

So? That is also the argument Galileo could make against the establishment in his time. Was he wrong? "Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you"

That's a weak arguement wolfsbane and you know it. The motivations of the "establishment" and the "individual" were completely different in both cases.

Being in the minority doesn't make one right; neither does being in the majority. Truth is truth, no matter who says what. The issue for the layman, especially the Christian non-scientist, is whether we believe the vast majority of scientists who hold to evolution or the smaller number of equally qualified scientists who hold to creationism.

The quality difference is seen in the Christian character of the latter - that is what gives credibility to their assertions that science is on the creation side. Christians expect honesty from their brethren. If they had no scientific argument, we expect them to say so. Of course there will be the odd liar in our midst - but that cannot explain the bulk of fine christian and scientists upholding creationism.

That's great, except the majority of Christian Scientists hold to evolution.
There is actually more "establishment" scientists who are Christian than there are Creation Scientists.

Scofflaw

Plus, once again, wolfsbane's argument against believing the majority of scientists resolves to dismissing them as liars:

1. He knows they're liars because they argue against Creationism.

2. He know people who argue against Creationism are liars because Creationism is true.

3. Creationism has scientific support because a number of scientists support it.

4. These scientists are in the minority but that doesn't matter, because the majority are liars.

5. How does he know they're liars? See Point 1.

He can also dismiss your statement that a majority of Christian scientists support evolution because this would mean that they don't support the literal reading of the Bible - therefore they are not Christians, although they think they are (that is, to reference an earlier post, they are honestly deluded). And that means they enter wolfsbane's universe at point 1 as well.

Certainly I cannot see a way out of wolfsbane's Catch-22, but perhaps someone else can.

circularly,
Scofflaw

John Doe

I sure as hell can't see a way out. It's at times like these that debate seems depressingly pointless. We must soldier on regardless, fellow proponents of reason and logic! It's ok for me to be pretentious cos I'm doing it ironically.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Plus, once again, wolfsbane's argument against believing the majority of scientists resolves to dismissing them as liars:

I never suggested such a thing! They are interpreting the evidence with a presupposition of materialism, therefore they look only for a solution in accord with that. To be liars they would have to consciously know they were in the wrong.

But you are right about the third point:

3. Creationism has scientific support because a number of scientists support it.

How else would one say a theory had scientific support? The theory may be right or wrong, but if scientists argue the scientific case for it, it has scientific support.

He can also dismiss your statement that a majority of Christian scientists support evolution because this would mean that they don't support the literal reading of the Bible - therefore they are not Christians, although they think they are (that is, to reference an earlier post, they are honestly deluded).

Let me answer Son Goku and you together. There are true Christians who hold to evolution. They are greatly mistaken in doing so, for they have to treat Scripture in an arbitrary manner (using a hermeneutic on Genesis that they refuse to use on the accounts of the birth or resurrection of Christ).

However, I agree that most who call themselves Christians (scientists or otherwise) are not Christians in the Biblical sense of the word. They have not repented toward God and believed in His Son, have not embraced the essential doctrines of the faith and do not live lives in keeping with that doctrine. Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I never suggested such a thing! They are interpreting the evidence with a presupposition of materialism, therefore they look only for a solution in accord with that. To be liars they would have to consciously know they were in the wrong.

Noted. I add a rider to state "or deluded".

wolfsbane wrote:

How else would one say a theory had scientific support? The theory may be right or wrong, but if scientists argue the scientific case for it, it has scientific support.

Not if their scientific case is flawed. That a large number of scientists believe in socialism does not make socialism "scientifically supported" - it makes it "supported by people who are scientists" (Einstein supported it, for example, but not, I fear, with the same scientific rigour that hebrought to physics). Same with Creationism - there is no good science backing it, so the fact the any number of scientists support it also becomes "supported by people who are scientists".

wolfsbane wrote:

Let me answer Son Goku and you together. There are true Christians who hold to evolution. They are greatly mistaken in doing so, for they have to treat Scripture in an arbitrary manner (using a hermeneutic on Genesis that they refuse to use on the accounts of the birth or resurrection of Christ).

However, I agree that most who call themselves Christians (scientists or otherwise) are not Christians in the Biblical sense of the word. They have not repented toward God and believed in His Son, have not embraced the essential doctrines of the faith and do not live lives in keeping with that doctrine. ...

No rider required on that one, then.


regards,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Like Scofflaw said wolfsbane, people who are scientists support it, but I've never seen it argued in an honest scientific way.

I never suggested such a thing! They are interpreting the evidence with a presupposition of materialism, therefore they look only for a solution in accord with that.

A presupposition of materialism?
Science only deals with the material and what can be tested.
That'd be a valid criticism in an argument about the human soul, the afterlife ,e.t.c. where you could say somebody is presupposing a purely materialistic world.
However what is dating rocks and explaining bones, if not a purely materialistic exercise?

We're still playing with the evidence here on Earth, wolfsbane. I haven't yet gone near the cosmological evidence which is when the pre-made Creationist arguments start to disappear.
There are galaxies 13.7 billion light years away and intra solar system rocks dating the Solar system to 4.7 billion years old, e.t.c.
These are the dates returned by measuring apparatus.

The problem is that a lot of people still think science is like a debate and whoever makes the best case wins or if somebody is arguing there is still room to argue.
That’s not the case, if it doesn't match the evidence then it is wrong.

Creationism says the world is 6,000 - 12,000 years old. Any random rock from the moon or mars dates to, on average, 2 billion years.
Creationists will say there is something wrong with our apparatus, citing some anecdotal story where dating was incorrect but never producing any evidence of it.
We then say that there are, literally, twenty different measurement systems and they all converge on the same answer, but we'll just get some vague hand-wavy statement about how we built them with bias or something.

That’s twenty different measurement apparatus collecting from over one million sources, which all give Earth and the other planets to be well over 6,000 - 12,000 years old.

Our "presupposition" is that we have to explain that, like true science does, not explain it away.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Like Scofflaw said wolfsbane, people who are scientists support it, but I've never seen it argued in an honest scientific way.

Let me refer you to the creationist sites. There are several but I have found
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/ very helpful in the articles and links it provides. Also see http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and http://www.icr.org/

A presupposition of materialism?
Science only deals with the material and what can be tested.
That'd be a valid criticism in an argument about the human soul, the afterlife ,e.t.c. where you could say somebody is presupposing a purely materialistic world.
However what is dating rocks and explaining bones, if not a purely materialistic exercise?

The presuposition comes in the ruling out of any Designer. Evolution insists origins must be explained by entirely naturalistic processes right back to the original atoms. It would allow a god to have created them, I suppose. Creationism says that all lifeforms were created functioning, fully formed. If evolutionism confined itself to interpretation of the evidence, it would be open to the idea that a Designer could have made a mature universe equally as well as an embryo one. They would then argue from the evidence for the latter. But they rule out any such debate.

These are the dates returned by measuring apparatus.

Are there no presuppositions applied to the data? For example, how much radioactivity would be present at the time of formation?

That’s not the case, if it doesn't match the evidence then it is wrong.

Creationists fully agree with that.

Creationists will say there is something wrong with our apparatus, citing some anecdotal story where dating was incorrect but never producing any evidence of it.
We then say that there are, literally, twenty different measurement systems and they all converge on the same answer, but we'll just get some vague hand-wavy statement about how we built them with bias or something.

I haven't heard that from creationists. I have seen dating figures that vary widely, depending on the method. One could say they all give millions of years rather than thousands - but the fact that they give widely different dates suggests to me the underlying assumption of them being a good guide to age needs looked at. Also, what of other methods of dating that drastically reduce the age of earth to relatively recent times? At the least it says dating methods are not absolute and are unreliable indicators of the real age of the earth/universe. Articles of interest: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=quicksearch&f_keyword=dating

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Sigh. See, for example, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/07/newsweek_letter_id_arguments_are_testabl.html and follow it up.

Links such as these do not contain testable theories of ID. They simply contain refuted arguments against evolution. Yet even if the arguments still stood today, they would not provide evidence for intelligence.

You must provide a testable hypothesis for ID... *Not* arguments against evolution. Unless you want to define ID as simply a set of arguments against evolution.

OK, lets forget the Bible for a moment and look at ANY communication. This thread, for example. I say Morbert's rebuttals of JC should not be taken literally, since we know JC has the facts on his side. Rather, Morbert meant to convey the message of creation in a metaphor. His arguments were actually highlighting how the marvellous complexities of nature flowed from one source. The flow he called evolution, but this should be understood not as a crass literal event lasting billions of years, but as the seamless creation that began some 6000 years ago, lasted for 6 days and has been upheld by God's power since.

Would you not say I'm making a nonsense of any understanding of language? That if what I claim is true, nothing said on this thread can be known for sure - it is all open to a myriad of meaning. You would insist on the normal rules of interpretation.

That's all I'm asking regarding The Biblical account of Creation and the Flood. Whether one takes the history as accurate or invention, it is presented as history and no one has the right to cast it in any other light.

Context tells us that a metaphorical interpretation of my arguments is meaningless, as I am explicitly correcting J C's misunderstanding of the facts.

The same cannot be said for Genesis. There is nothing in the Bible which suggests Genesis is an attempt to convey the history of life on earth. Genesis as an allegorical description makes perfect sense with the rest of the Bible.

BrainCalgary... as soon as I find/re-write the notes, I can give them to you.

Scofflaw

Morbert wrote:

The same cannot be said for Genesis. There is nothing in the Bible which suggests Genesis is an attempt to convey the history of life on earth. Genesis as an allegorical description makes perfect sense with the rest of the Bible.

As far as I am aware, myths and allegories do not usually say "By the way, this is a myth/allegory". That Genesis does not say so does not indicate, therefore, that it is a factual account.

While I'm aware that using the term myth may be seen as disrespectful, it is not so intended - it is intended to designate a story that contains truth that is not factual or material.


regards,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Unless you want to define ID as simply a set of arguments against evolution.

Yes, that would be my understanding of ID. Creationism is much broader and makes positive assertions.

The same cannot be said for Genesis. There is nothing in the Bible which suggests Genesis is an attempt to convey the history of life on earth. Genesis as an allegorical description makes perfect sense with the rest of the Bible.

On the contrary, the New Testament gives both genealogies that depend on Genesis being literal, and establishes doctrinal cases based on the literal understanding of Genesis as history. They would be meaningless if Genesis were allegorical. Can you offer an explanation that differs?

Excelsior

The genealogies were never interpreted literally or to be comprehensive. They are sociological signifiers of identity.

Jesus does not need to explain himself with reference to words written anything up to 1300 years before he taught seeing as he is the source of the ethical code and not Genesis. However, speaking to Jews he uses the Pentateuch. He also refers to it as "Moses has written..." where no where else in Canon is this claim made explicitly. In that case are you to understand that Jesus is arguing Moses somehow literally wrote Genesis or rather that Jesus is speaking to Jews as Jews would understand him?