The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Ironically, evolution is at least as well-understood and as firmly supported as gravity. Perhaps better understood, since there is ambiguity regarding many elements of gravity and it's origins.

True, evolution is far better understood than gravity. Scientists only know how gravity works at a high abstract level, they really don't know what it is or how it functions at a low level.

But then there is always intelligent falling.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

On rare occasions, J C uses terms that actually mean something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Oh... after reading said article I am convinced J C is calling the pot kettle black again. Accusing theistic evolutionists with inserting God into the gaps in their understanding indeed..

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

J C, do you believe in "microevolution"?

Yes......it occurs rapidly, sometimes instantaneously.....and within Kinds!!!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really. If you dropped a ball would you say it spontaneously fell to the ground? Or would you say the Earth spontaneously rotates around the Sun?

.....YES, I would say that a dropped ball DOES spontaneously fall to the ground.....i.e. it is under the influence of a non-intelligently guided process (Gravity).....as it spontaneously falls to the ground:D

......on the other hand, when a ball hits the back of a net from 50 metres out.....it can be described as being intelligently directed......and millions of Euro are paid every year for the immediate sources of this intelligent direction!!!:D

Wicknight wrote: »

JC uses "spontaneous evolution" to misrepresent how evolution works. He attempts to paint it as a chaotic random process. But it is no more like that than a process such as gravity is.

......and BOTH Evolution and Gravity are incapable of generating functional information.....and so NEITHER are capable of producing / increasing the functional information base of life......or any other intelligently designed, delicately balanced, interactive structure (like the Universe)!!!!!:D

Fanny Cradock

J C wrote: »

THREE Questions:-

1. IF you DON'T see Evolution as important enough to warrant discussion....then WHY are you on the Bible, Creationism and Prophecy Thread discussing it???


2. As a Theistic Evolutionist what EXACTLY DO you believe in.....when it comes to Evolution.......do you believe in a 'God of the (Evolutionary) Gaps'.....or do you believe in something even more bizzarre and unbelievable?????


3. Are you named after 'Fanny May' .......or her sister 'Fanny May Not'......
.........or their neighbour 'Sweet Fanny Adams'????:D

1. I ask myself the same question. In fact, this thread was one of the reasons why I avoided this forum after I first joined Boards . Facetiousness aside, I hopped in to this thread to correct a howler from moosejam.

2. Well, even though I have discussed my beliefs on this matters in the past, you are probably aware that I am now reluctant to put much in the way of effort in a reply other than out of politeness. To give you a quick answer: Much like most of the posters here I subscribe to the theory of evolution. However, unlike some, I believe that this process was guided by God at specific moments to suit his design. This means that when Genesis speaks of the image of God, I find it to be discussing a purely spiritual image.

3. No. I'm named after a celebrity chef of the same name. The reason why I chose this escapes me. Indeed, I've been meaning to change it for some time now.

Flamed Diving

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

2. Well, even though I have discussed my beliefs on this matters in the past, you are probably aware that I am now reluctant to put much in the way of effort in a reply other than out of politeness. To give you a quick answer: Much like most of the posters here I subscribe to the theory of evolution. However, unlike some, I believe that this process was guided by God at specific moments to suit his design. This means that when Genesis speaks of the image of God, I find it to be discussing a purely spiritual image.

That is far more logical.

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

1. I ask myself the same question. In fact, this thread was one of the reasons why I avoided this forum after I first joined Boards . Facetiousness aside, I hopped in to this thread to correct a howler from moosejam.

.....so you avoided the Christianity FORUM.....because of this THREAD......I see.....
........are you in denial over something......like the literal veracity of Genesis and the invalidity of Evolution....perhaps????:D

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

2. Well, even though I have discussed my beliefs on this matters in the past, you are probably aware that I am now reluctant to put much in the way of effort in a reply other than out of politeness. To give you a quick answer: Much like most of the posters here I subscribe to the theory of evolution. However, unlike some, I believe that this process was guided by God at specific moments to suit his design. This means that when Genesis speaks of the image of God, I find it to be discussing a purely spiritual image.

.......so you DO believe in a 'God of the Evolutionary Gaps'......a God with neither Biblical evidence for His existence NOR Scientific evidence for His activity!!!!!:pac::):D

.......you have EVEN MORE FAITH than the Atheists!!!!!!:):D

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

3. No. I'm named after a celebrity chef of the same name. The reason why I chose this escapes me. Indeed, I've been meaning to change it for some time now.

......I'm glad we cleared that up!!!!!:D

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock said:

3. No. I'm named after a celebrity chef of the same name. The reason why I chose this escapes me. Indeed, I've been meaning to change it for some time now.

Ah, I remember her well. Black & White, maybe even 405 lines?

Amazing how things have 'advanced' - Johnny sipping the sherry has been replaced by foul-mouthed despots as a interest-grabber.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Fanny Cradock
2. Well, even though I have discussed my beliefs on this matters in the past, you are probably aware that I am now reluctant to put much in the way of effort in a reply other than out of politeness. To give you a quick answer: Much like most of the posters here I subscribe to the theory of evolution. However, unlike some, I believe that this process was guided by God at specific moments to suit his design. This means that when Genesis speaks of the image of God, I find it to be discussing a purely spiritual image.


Flamed Diving
That is far more logical.

I suppose that almost ANYTHING is 'far more logical' than Spontaneous/Materialistic/Darwinian (or whatever you're having yourself) Evolution!!!!:eek::D

....and HOW exactly is God supposed to have guided Evolution "at specific moments to suit his design"?????

.....are we now to believe that God 'interfered' with two pregnant Apes......that then produced two Human babies????!!!!:eek::)

......not only would an Evolutionist God be a 'God of the Gaps'......He would also be a meddlesome God continually 'fiddling' with pregnant creatures all along the continuum from 'primordial cells to Man'!!!!!!
....and there is quite simply NO EVIDENCE for the activities of such a God .....either now or in the past!!!!!:)

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

From dictionary.com:


Presumably 'spontaneous evolution' would therefore be a legitimate term to use to describe evolution that is not planned or directed by an external agency - evolution that is purely a result of natural processes. It seems to me, as a non-scientific layman, that such a term neatly describes theories of evolution that differ from theistic evolution, or any theory of evolution that incorporates Intelligent Design.

Same here. Just can't see why all the huffing & puffing about the term - unless it is prodding their sore spot (the odds against evolution).

Let them be men about it; accept it is incredible, but defend it as the only acceptable explanation if one is to reject Creation.

Flamed Diving

'it as the only acceptable explanation if one is to reject Creation'

No, evolution has nothing to do with creation. After 11,500 posts I think you should know that by now.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes. Don't all Christians believe they will have a "body" in heaven?

sure - but the document was dealing with Man's condition at his creation, not after the resurrection at the end of the ages.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

'it as the only acceptable explanation if one is to reject Creation'

No, evolution has nothing to do with creation. After 11,500 posts I think you should know that by now, unless you are a bit thick.

Exactly - evolution is THE alternative to creation.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Exactly - evolution is THE alternative to creation.

No, it isn't.

Fanny Cradock

J C wrote: »

.....so you avoided the Christianity FORUM.....because of this THREAD......I see.....
........are you in denial over something......like the veracity of Genesis and the invalidity of Evolution....perhaps????:D

I'm not in denial. Like you I happen to believe in the veracity of Genesis, I just view it's message it in a different way.

J C wrote: »

.......so you DO believe in a 'God of the Evolutionary Gaps'......a God with neither Biblical evidence for His existence NOR Scientific evidence for His activity!!!!!:pac::):D

.......you have EVEN MORE FAITH than the Atheists!!!!!!:):D

Nope. I would think that a 'God of the evolutionary gaps' is more consistent with young earth creationism rather than theistic evolution. I would also think that positing God of the gaps when knowledge fails us is really asking for trouble down the road.

I'm at pains to explain this in a manner as devoid of insult as I can muster, JC. With the greatest respect to your beliefs regrading truth behind evolution, I really don't see how our opposing view impact our belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Assuming one of us is at some stage proved correct and the other incorrect, it really shouldn't overshadow the fact that we are Christians. My faith in Jesus isn't grounded upon my belief that apes turned into men.

At this stage, I'll bow out. I'll pop in around the 15,000 post milestone to congratulate you all!

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, it isn't.

Pretend all you like, escape from the Creator is the motivation of all alternative theories of Origins. Evolution is a superb attempt - doomed to failure, but a truly powerful delusion.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Pretend all you like, escape from the Creator is the motivation of all alternative theories of Origins. Evolution is a superb attempt - doomed to failure, but a truly powerful delusion.

Creation - God created life

Evolution - Does not include creation of life, only addresses adaptation of already existing life.

How are both of these alternatives? Answer is, they are not.

It would appear that you are the one who is delusional, but I guess you have to be fairly disconnected from reality to believe in talking snakes.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Creation - God created life

Evolution - Does not include creation of life, only addresses adaptation of already existing life.

How are both of these alternatives? Answer is, they are not.

It would appear that you are the one who is delusional, but I guess you have to be fairly disconnected from reality to believe in talking snakes.

Creation (the Biblical account) rules out evolution. If evolution is true, then the Biblical Creation (and the Biblical Creator) is not. Hence why the wise of this world jumped at the alternative to Creation.

Yes, I also beleive in angels, God, the resurrection, etc. All marks of reality disconnect to the evolutionist - or do you have a reason one can pick and choose which bits of the Biblical account to beleive?

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creation (the Biblical account) rules out evolution. If evolution is true, then the Biblical Creation (and the Biblical Creator) is not. Hence why the wise of this world jumped at the alternative to Creation.

According to your narrow interpretation, yes. For me, my non-belief in god/s has nothing to do with evolution. In fact, no scientific theory makes me believe any less/more. Whether you like it or not, evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. If it poo-poo's all over your interpretation of a bronze age text, thats your problem.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I also beleive in angels, God, the resurrection, etc. All marks of reality disconnect to the evolutionist - or do you have a reason one can pick and choose which bits of the Biblical account to beleive?

Yes, because none of it is true.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

Yes......it occurs rapidly, sometimes instantaneously.....and within Kinds!!!!:D

So microevolution is possible but macroevolution, whether it occurred or not, is somehow impossible? Why? All macroevolution represents is microevolution over an extended time period.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....YES, I would say that a dropped ball DOES spontaneously fall to the ground.....i.e. it is under the influence of a non-intelligently guided process (Gravity).....as it spontaneously falls to the ground:D

And you'd be wrong. The ball is reacting to the gravity generated by a large mass, the Earth. This is an influence external to the ball. There is an internal element also of course, the ball is pulling the Earth towards it too. But overall, the process is not spontaneous.

J C wrote: »

......and BOTH Evolution and Gravity are incapable of generating functional information.....and so NEITHER are capable of producing / increasing the functional information base of life......or any other intelligently designed, delicately balanced, interactive structure (like the Universe)!!!!!:D

We can show that mutation produces "functional information" in a laboratory setting and that it has occurred in the wild. That's not really a matter of debate as we've directly observed it countless times.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creation (the Biblical account) rules out evolution. If evolution is true, then the Biblical Creation (and the Biblical Creator) is not. Hence why the wise of this world jumped at the alternative to Creation.

I think you may be confusing evolution with abiogenesis again. The differences have been explained here numerous times.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Same here. Just can't see why all the huffing & puffing about the term - unless it is prodding their sore spot (the odds against evolution).

See that is exactly the point.

If you are using the word "spontaneous" coupled with "evolution" in terms of the "odds against evolution" then you are misrepresenting the theory.

Evolution is not spontaneous, the odds of it happening are very very high. It is a naturally occurring process that will always happen given a certain set of circumstances, like dropping of a ball. What are the odds that a ball will drop if you are on a planet with gravity and you let go of it?

Posters like JC and Wolfsbane couple "spontaneous" in front of evolution to make it sound like it is an unlikely processes that some how just happens.

Which is a gross and deliberate misrepresentation of both the theory and the process the theory is modeling.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let them be men about it;

That is a bit rich coming from you Wolfsbane considering how to consistently and repeatably misrepresent the theory.

wolfsbane wrote: »

accept it is incredible

That is the whole point. It isn't incredible in the slightest. It is mundane.

I really hope PDN is reading this.

wolfsbane wrote: »

but defend it as the only acceptable explanation if one is to reject Creation.

So far it is the only scientific model that appears highly accurate. Given that Creation isn't even a scientific model, let alone a accurate one, Creation is really irrelevant.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creation (the Biblical account) rules out evolution.

Not according to the vast majority of people who believe in Biblical creation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If evolution is true, then the Biblical Creation (and the Biblical Creator) is not.

No, if evolution is true your interpretation of Biblical Creation is not.

Given that evolution is true then it seems quite clear that your interpretation of Biblical Creation is wrong (as most Christians would no doubt tell you)

It would seem far more sensible to simply recognize that your interpretation is obviously flawed and look at a new interpretation, than to try and make out that everyone else is wrong but you.

It is rather ironic that you accuse evolutionists of arrogance.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Exactly - evolution is THE alternative to creation.

Flamed Diving
No, it isn't.

......oh yes it is!!!!!

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Creation - God created life

Evolution - Does not include creation of life, only addresses adaptation of already existing life.

How are both of these alternatives? Answer is, they are not.

It would appear that you are the one who is delusional, but I guess you have to be fairly disconnected from reality to believe in talking snakes.

.....Satan, as a fallen angel can manifest in various guises....including adopting the appearance of a snake.

......the Evolutionists are the ones who belive that snakes (reptiles).......evolved into Man........
.......so they actually believe that ALL men are 'evolved snakes'.......with nothing added but time.....and talk!!!!:D:)

......so I'll let the reader be the judge of who is delusional on this one!!!!:):D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.......so they actually believe that ALL men are 'evolved snakes'.......with nothing added but time.....and talk!!!!:D:)

That isn't true, they don't believe that at all.

Snakes appear about 150 million years ago, where as mammals seperated from reptiles about 350 million years ago.


Of course I'm sure you already knew that being the trained scientists you are ....

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

......the Evolutionists are the ones who belive that snakes (reptiles).......evolved into Man........
.......so they actually believe that ALL men are 'evolved snakes'.......with nothing added but time.....and talk!!!!:D:)

......so I'll let the reader be the judge of who is delusional on this one!!!!:):D

Clearly it is you considering not one single evolutionary biologist has ever stated that snakes evolved into people.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....Satan, as a fallen angel can manifest in various guises....including adopting the appearance of a snake.

......the Evolutionists are the ones who belive that snakes (reptiles).......evolved into Man........
.......so they actually believe that ALL men are 'evolved snakes'.......with nothing added but time.....and talk!!!!:D:)

So what if they even did say such a thing? What is your point? That the notion of a reptile species changing gradually over time is somehow more ridiculous than a literal belief in the serpent in the garden?

As the others have said, current thinking is that mammals did not evolve from reptiles, let alone snakes specifically. The first land organisms diverged into two groups, the amniotes and the amphibians. The amniotes themselves diverged into two groups, the reptiles and the synapsids, which eventually gave rise to mammals. The reptiles evolved in parallel to the synapsids, not in sequence. The above may turn out to be inaccurate, but we'll happily accept evidence on that.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No. I'm named after a celebrity chef of the same name. The reason why I chose this escapes me. Indeed, I've been meaning to change it for some time now.

A guy using a woman's name on an internet discussion board - there's got to be a verse in Leviticus or Deuteronomy that allows us to stone you for that!