Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Options
1…334335337339340…822

Comments

  • Options
    #10082
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Why? Either are fatal to the Biblical account. Head chopped off or blown to pieces, all the same to the individual.

    But evolution is fatal only if you choose to take the bible as literal truth instead of metaphor. However, abiogenesis blows any creator hypothesis out of the water. No matter what your religion or belief.


  • Options
    #10083
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    robindch wrote: »
    Except of course, researchers are already using evolution to help them develop better antibiotics:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050922021043.htm

    Do creationists believe that god is reaching down into the test-tube and helping out the researchers here by fiddling with the chemistry to make it looks like evolution is happening?
    Looks like 'micro-evolution' to me - that God's system of adaptation and variation within the created 'kind' is at work.

    Or are you saying the bugs are no longer bugs? That a person with sickle-cell anemia is has evolved from being human?


  • Options
    #10084
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Looks like 'micro-evolution' to me - that God's system of adaptation and variation within the created 'kind' is at work.

    Or are you saying the bugs are no longer bugs? That a person with sickle-cell anemia is has evolved from being human?

    Well... (I hope you dont get carried away with what I'm about to say) evolution really is only micro, when you think about it from generation to generation. There are no huge jumps between generations, only tiny incremental ones. But they don't follow some strict guidelines of staying 'within kinds' it is completely shaped by the environment and has nothing to do with what 'kind' the animal is. Genes can't tell the difference. So i'm afraid that 'kind' argument just doesn't work. Even within 'microevolution'.


  • Options
    #10085
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    daithifleming wrote: »
    But evolution is fatal only if you choose to take the bible as literal truth instead of metaphor. However, abiogenesis blows any creator hypothesis out of the water. No matter what your religion or belief.
    The choice of literal or metaphor is not there. Genesis 1 & 2 is written as narrative history. To make it metaphor would be to remove any principle of interpretation from the Bible. It could then mean anything - and if a thing can mean anything, it means nothing.

    Abiogenesis would accommodate God creating the universe and ordering it so that abiogenesis and evolution would eventually occur. Theistic Abiogenesis seems as valid an argument as Theistic Evolution.


  • Options
    #10086
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Just curious, but is creationism limited to the world of christendom? or are there other groups? muslim/hindu etc?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #10087
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Just curious, but is creationism limited to the world of christendom? or are there other groups? muslim/hindu etc?

    Yup, there are muslim creationists. Though oddly enough, the Quran seems to have more room for scientific theories such as the big bang and evolution. But this is only what I have heard.


  • Options
    #10088
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The choice of literal or metaphor is not there. Genesis 1 & 2 is written as narrative history. To make it metaphor would be to remove any principle of interpretation from the Bible. It could then mean anything - and if a thing can mean anything, it means nothing.

    Abiogenesis would accommodate God creating the universe and ordering it so that abiogenesis and evolution would eventually occur. Theistic Abiogenesis seems as valid an argument as Theistic Evolution.

    Fair enough.


  • Options
    #10089
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The choice of literal or metaphor is not there. Genesis 1 & 2 is written as narrative history. To make it metaphor would be to remove any principle of interpretation from the Bible. It could then mean anything - and if a thing can mean anything, it means nothing.

    I'm not entirely sure. Do you believe God planted a tree of life in the Garden of Eden, that if Adam ate from it, he would have everlasting life? I do agree, that in my understanding, Adam and eve were historical figures, but all the Genesis account being literal? I'm not entirely convinced. I'm not contradicting you, but I certainly would not have the outlook that if its got a certain amount of symbolism in it, it means the whole of the scriptures fall.


  • Options
    #10090
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    daithifleming wrote: »
    Well... (I hope you dont get carried away with what I'm about to say) evolution really is only micro, when you think about it from generation to generation. There are no huge jumps between generations, only tiny incremental ones. But they don't follow some strict guidelines of staying 'within kinds' it is completely shaped by the environment and has nothing to do with what 'kind' the animal is. Genes can't tell the difference. So i'm afraid that 'kind' argument just doesn't work. Even within 'microevolution'.
    Well, you will be able to tell me where bugs have been observed to evolve into non-bugs, then. But I take it the time-scale has not enabled that?

    So you will point to the fossil record and assert that it displays a series of incremental steps from a more primitive organism into an entirely different one - organic slime to, say, a snail? Or whatever. I'll be glad to hear your best example.


  • Options
    #10091
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I'm not entirely sure. Do you believe God planted a tree of life in the Garden of Eden, that if Adam ate from it, he would have everlasting life? I do agree, that in my understanding, Adam and eve were historical figures, but all the Genesis account being literal? I'm not entirely convinced. I'm not contradicting you, but I certainly would not have the outlook that if its got a certain amount of symbolism in it, it means the whole of the scriptures fall.
    I see how it is easy to imagine a metaphoric solution to a specific like the Tree of Life - but to do so calls into question the whole account - we are left with apparent historical narrative being non-historical metaphor. There really has to be some indication that metaphor is being introduced into narrative for it to be a valid interpretation.

    For instance, if the Tree of Life is too incredible to be literal, what about Adam being made from the soil? Or Eve from Adam's rib? Or Jonah and the fish? Or Jesus conceived without a human father? Or any of His miracles? Or His resurrection? What would science tell us about the possibility of any of those?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #10092
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Humour an old layman by telling me specifically where the kid might see this "new information" being generated in his microscope.
    Antibiotic resistance is the easiest one.

    Follow the instructions here and culture a dish of bacteria in the presence of some mild antibiotic agent. Over successive generations, looking through the microscope, take the most energetic looking bacteria and culture them on successive new dishes.

    Over time, the bacteria will become less and less affected by the antibiotic.

    Bingo -- evolution in action.


  • Options
    #10093
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The choice of literal or metaphor is not there. Genesis 1 & 2 is written as narrative history. To make it metaphor would be to remove any principle of interpretation from the Bible. It could then mean anything - and if a thing can mean anything, it means nothing.
    That's the second time in a week that you admit that your interpretation must be absolutely flawless, or the bible is useless.

    Do you trust your own interpretive skills to be absolutely flawless?


  • Options
    #10094
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Well, you will be able to tell me where bugs have been observed to evolve into non-bugs, then. But I take it the time-scale has not enabled that?

    So you will point to the fossil record and assert that it displays a series of incremental steps from a more primitive organism into an entirely different one - organic slime to, say, a snail? Or whatever. I'll be glad to hear your best example.

    Sorry, but the fossil record isn't my speciality, so perhaps someone else can dig that one up. But the evidence I accept for speciation (and for evolution as a whole) is in the DNA/genetic record. We are able to trace all ancestors of any creature simply by following the trail back through time. Therefore we can actually find a common ancestor for the crocodile and the duck, for example. But I know that this isn't good enough for you because you want to actually see a bacteria turning into a snail. But I can't provide that.


  • Options
    #10095
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    daithifleming wrote: »
    It comes down to what you classify as speciation, I suppose. Science can provide numerous examples of speciation, but you guys just won't accept it until you see a frog turn into prince charming. :p

    Which, by the way, is not what evolution predicts. No big changes, only small incremental ones.
    Yes, I know evolutionists are not talking about sudden total changes a la frog/prince. For proof of their type I expect either fast-breeding bugs to be observed to produce non-bugs, or the fossil record to show such a change in any organism.


  • Options
    #10096
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    robindch wrote: »
    Antibiotic resistance is the easiest one.

    Follow the instructions here and culture a dish of bacteria in the presence of some mild antibiotic agent. Over successive generations, looking through the microscope, take the most energetic looking bacteria and culture them on successive new dishes.

    Over time, the bacteria will become less and less affected by the antibiotic.

    Bingo -- evolution in action.

    But it didn't turn into a lion...


  • Options
    #10097
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Just curious, but is creationism limited to the world of christendom? or are there other groups? muslim/hindu etc?
    It's principally a north american phenomenon, presumably since that's where most cash can be made out of it.

    However, creationism has has some successes in other religious landscapes too. The turkish extremist Harun Yahya (http://www.harunyahya.com/) -- beloved and trusted by no less a man than Kevin Myers -- is current market leader in selling creationism to islamic religious consumers.


  • Options
    #10098
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    daithifleming wrote: »
    Sorry, but the fossil record isn't my speciality, so perhaps someone else can dig that one up. But the evidence I accept for speciation (and for evolution as a whole) is in the DNA/genetic record. We are able to trace all ancestors of any creature simply by following the trail back through time. Therefore we can actually find a common ancestor for the crocodile and the duck, for example. But I know that this isn't good enough for you because you want to actually see a bacteria turning into a snail. But I can't provide that.
    I'm interested to hear exactly how the crocodile and duck are linked by their DNA. Is it one feature that only they possess? Or is it that they both have eyes? :D I'm all ears. :)


  • Options
    #10099
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Yes, I know evolutionists are not talking about sudden total changes a la frog/prince. For proof of their type I expect either fast-breeding bugs to be observed to produce non-bugs
    You'll probably need to be around for millions of generations to see this change take place.

    Change is only small from generation to generation, but if you multiply small changes by lots of generations, you create lots of change. The results of this are the similarity of genes between widely differing lifeforms, with the genetic clock information roughly conforming to their positions within the fossil column.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    or the fossil record to show such a change in any organism.
    It's been seen many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, times and has been quoted many, many, many, many, many, many, many, times on this thread. Look up whale evolution if you're interested.


  • Options
    #10100
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I see how it is easy to imagine a metaphoric solution to a specific like the Tree of Life - but to do so calls into question the whole account - we are left with apparent historical narrative being non-historical metaphor. There really has to be some indication that metaphor is being introduced into narrative for it to be a valid interpretation.

    For instance, if the Tree of Life is too incredible to be literal, what about Adam being made from the soil? Or Eve from Adam's rib? Or Jonah and the fish? Or Jesus conceived without a human father? Or any of His miracles? Or His resurrection? What would science tell us about the possibility of any of those?

    firstly, i'm not saying the tree of life is 'too incredible' to be literal. I'm just calling to question its creation, asking 'why' would such an object be created, then to paraphrase the heavenly voice, 'we must send them from eden and guard it, in case they should come and eat from the tree of life.' Also, the fact that the 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' has no time implication. Before the luminaries creation that is. The fact that it was so matter of fact that a snake was talking to eve. Eve didn't think, 'this is odd, its a talking snake', but rather conversed with it and believed it. Again, I'm not taking a side, just merely asking the question. Its not of great importance to me and my Faith in Christ, and I don't really share the view that if it contains symbolism, it means we must question all miraculous acts. I mean, even if it contains symbolism, its still saying God exists and created the whole universe, quite an example of his power anyway.


  • Options
    #10101
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    robindch wrote: »
    It's principally a north american phenomenon, presumably since that's where most cash can be made out of it.

    However, creationism has has some successes in other religious landscapes too. The turkish extremist Harun Yahya (http://www.harunyahya.com/) -- beloved and trusted by no less a man than Kevin Myers -- is current market leader in selling creationism to islamic religious consumers.
    Strangely enough, creationism was the position of the Christian Church
    long before Christians ever set foot in north america:
    Commentary on Genesis
    By John Calvin
    http://incolor.inebraska.com/stuart/calcrtn.htm


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #10102
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    JimiTime wrote: »
    firstly, i'm not saying the tree of life is 'too incredible' to be literal. I'm just calling to question its creation, asking 'why' would such an object be created, then to paraphrase the heavenly voice, 'we must send them from eden and guard it, in case they should come and eat from the tree of life.' Also, the fact that the 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' has no time implication. Before the luminaries creation that is. The fact that it was so matter of fact that a snake was talking to eve. Eve didn't think, 'this is odd, its a talking snake', but rather conversed with it and believed it. Again, I'm not taking a side, just merely asking the question. Its not of great importance to me and my Faith in Christ, and I don't really share the view that if it contains symbolism, it means we must question all miraculous acts. I mean, even if it contains symbolism, its still saying God exists and created the whole universe, quite an example of his power anyway.
    How would you then defend the resurrection of Christ as being literal and not metaphoric, for example?


  • Options
    #10103
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    How would you then defend the resurrection of Christ as being literal and not metaphoric, for example?

    Testimonies of the Apostles. They saw Jesus and spoke with him. There was nothing that could be questioned as symbolism regarding his resurrection. Moses was thousands of years after the Genesis account, so he wasn't an eye witness. He was writing down what we needed to know. Even if the Apostles were Pagans, its still eye-witness testimony, that They saw a man die, and then spoke with him again a feww days later. I really don't think its an issue.


  • Options
    #10104
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    robindch wrote: »
    You'll probably need to be around for millions of generations to see this change take place.

    Change is only small from generation to generation, but if you multiply small changes by lots of generations, you create lots of change. The results of this are the similarity of genes between widely differing lifeforms, with the genetic clock information roughly conforming to their positions within the fossil column.It's been seen many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, times and has been quoted many, many, many, many, many, many, many, times on this thread. Look up whale evolution if you're interested.
    I did. First search on a creationist site:
    See section Whale evolution? in:http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3856/

    Whale evolution?
    http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3834/

    A whale of a tale?
    http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776

    The Overselling of Whale Evolution
    http://trueorigin.org/whales.asp

    The strange tale of the leg on the whale
    http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/802


  • Options
    #10105
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Not being a scientist, I may have misunderstood what it said caused drug resistance. Please point out where it says mutation is not the cause. Am I confusing it with natural selection?

    Groan ...

    Did you actually read the article you linked to?

    You seem to have no trouble providing these papers Wolfsbane, but strangely when problems in them are pointed out you claim ignorance because you are "not a scientist"

    If you aren't a scientist, and you clearly don't understand the Creationist articles you are linking to, why do you think they back up your arguments?


  • Options
    #10106
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I did. First search on a creationist site:
    See section Whale evolution? in:http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3856/

    Whale evolution?
    http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3834/

    A whale of a tale?
    http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776

    The Overselling of Whale Evolution
    http://trueorigin.org/whales.asp

    The strange tale of the leg on the whale
    http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/802

    Let me guess ... you aren't a scientist, so if we point out any flaws in these articles you will simply claim ignorance

    You appear to what your cake and to eat it to.


  • Options
    #10107
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Testimonies of the Apostles. They saw Jesus and spoke with him. There was nothing that could be questioned as symbolism regarding his resurrection. Moses was thousands of years after the Genesis account, so he wasn't an eye witness. He was writing down what we needed to know. Even if the Apostles were Pagans, its still eye-witness testimony, that They saw a man die, and then spoke with him again a feww days later. I really don't think its an issue.
    Moses was writing what God told him - and surely He is the best eye-witness?

    As to the apostles, can they not be speaking metaphorically, even if it appears to be historical narrative?

    Did they not mean us to get the spiritual truth rather than any historical or scientific truth? Science tells us dead people don't rise again.

    Maybe the apostles were talking about Jesus' spirit, or even His example, in a symbolic manner. Like Him, we live on after we are dead - and the better people we are, the longer we live in people's minds. And God never forgets us. Etc., etc.


  • Options
    #10108
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Let me guess ... you aren't a scientist, so if we point out any flaws in these articles you will simply claim ignorance

    You appear to what your cake and to eat it to.

    No, I just point that other scientists differ in their interpretation of the evidence. The flaws may be actual - or of your own preconceptions.


  • Options
    #10109
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Well, you will be able to tell me where bugs have been observed to evolve into non-bugs, then. But I take it the time-scale has not enabled that?

    Well you would have to define "bug" first. Its a phrase you seem to enjoy using, probably because you know it has no scientific meaning and as such your question is completely unanswerable in any proper fashion.

    You might as well ask when has a "creepy-crawly" ever evolved into a non-creepy-crawly :rolleyes:

    Oh and by the way, any time you want to demonstrate evidence of a species evolving into another species "within its kind" please go ahead ...


  • Options
    #10110
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Groan ...

    Did you actually read the article you linked to?

    You seem to have no trouble providing these papers Wolfsbane, but strangely when problems in them are pointed out you claim ignorance because you are "not a scientist"

    If you aren't a scientist, and you clearly don't understand the Creationist articles you are linking to, why do you think they back up your arguments?
    Usually because they say so.

    But you haven't answered my question: Please point out where it says mutation is not the cause..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #10111
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    No, I just point that other scientists differ in their interpretation of the evidence. The flaws may be actual - or of your own preconceptions.

    Yes but you have picked position despite claiming to be completely lacking in the ability to assess if the side you have picked has any standing or merit.

    You don't know if the different "interpretations" have are pointing out have any merit to them or if they are just nonsense.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement