The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Puck said:
'A purely literal interpretation of the Bible is going to throw all sorts of contradictions at you. For instance, did the Israelites walk out of Egypt or were they carried on eagle's wings? You will eventually have to draw the line somewhere between metaphor/poetry and plain speaking. A poetic reading of the parts of the Bible that are clearly not literal enables one to know that the Israelites walked out of Egypt and also see the beauty and truth of the "eagle's wings" line.'

I certainly agree that all of Scripture is not to be taken literally. Your error is taking what seems literal and is appealed to as literal by Christ and the apostles, and making it merely 'poetic' just to avoid ridicule by the unbelievers.

One would need very strong evidence to make the plain statements of Genesis and the rest of Scripture regarding the Fall of man, the enterance of death and suffering, the historicity of Adam, Eve and their children, etc. to be 'poetic'. Using the same hermenutic, what can be said of the virgin birth? The resurrection of Christ? I'd be interested to hear your views on these - are they too to be understood poetically? If not, why not?

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:
'from the contemporary Rabbinical tradition of Jesus to Origen (student of John's school) to Augustine, the historic response of Christianity has been to see what we know unbiblically call "Genesis 1" as a figurative piece.'

Not from what I have read. See the New Testament. For the Fathers, who were not infallible like the apostles, we get some strange ideas mixed with Biblical doctrine; but Seraphim Rose has a big work on this, Genesis, Creation and Early Man
Fr Seraphim Rose
Saint Herman of Alaska
Brotherhood, Platina, CA, 2000

Here's a quote from a review of it by Terry Mortenson;
Rose helpfully explains and documents that the ‘Holy Fathers’ interpreted Genesis (and other Scriptures) both literally and symbolically. That is, they believed the text was literal history, but that it also had a mystical meaning related to the spiritual life of the individual believer or the whole church. It is for this reason that superficial readers of these ancient writings can find passages, which appear to support their non-literal, old-earth views. Among the details of Genesis 1–11 that the ‘Holy Fathers’ (even the most mystical ones) clearly took literally are these: length of days (24-hours), order of Creation events (e. g. earth and plants before the Sun), instantaneous creation of living things with maturity (e. g. Adam being created as an adult not an infant, plants with fruit on the branches, etc.),5 Adam created from the dust and Eve from Adam’s rib, Adam’s naming of the animals, a literal talking serpent in the literal Garden of Eden, a global Flood, the 900-year life-spans of the pre-Flood patriarchs, and the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 (no gaps, strictly chronological). They were not dogmatic about the precise age of the earth since the Greek text of the OT (Septuagint (LXX)—preferred by Orthodox theologians) and Hebrew (Masoretic) text disagreed (which didn‘t bother the ‘Fathers’),6 but they placed it approximately at 5500 BC . However, it is important to note, the ‘Holy Fathers’ were equally explicit that in the literal history of Genesis (as elsewhere in the Bible) the anthropomorphic language describing God was not literal (pp. 87, 198, 247, 277, 404).

It was interesting to see that the ‘Holy Fathers’ expounded many other important points in the modern young-earth creationist position. For example, they understood that Cain married one of his close relatives (p. 232), that all people groups are descended from one man (p. 480), and that each original ‘kind’ was fixed to reproduce according to its distinct nature and not to change into a different kind (pp. 123, 133–137, 386–388).

Excelsior further said:
'Literalism in this issue began as a movement as a result of the lobbying of 7th Day Adventists and grew to the state it has now reached due to the epistemological malaise that struck American conservative Christianity in the 1960s.'

Not true. I've just read Calvin - mid 1500's - and he is explicitly literalist on Creation. All of the Reformed commentators I have read agree. I repeat: a literal understanding of Creation is the historic Christian view.

Excelsior again:
'Literalism is not the historic response. Creation science cannot be the historic response since it is parasitic on the body of evolution theory. "Science" didn't exist in 300AD. Augustine therefore could not be a Creation Scientist. Barnabas did not concern himself with flood geology.'

You confuse Literalism regarding Creation with Creation Science. The Church down the ages did not articulate a scientific defense of Creation; only with the rise of the Darwinian worldview did it become necessary.

Asiaprod

Wolfsbane,JC, thanks for the fun.
In parting I will leave you with words of wisdom from the Hitchhikers Guide.

"Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish.";)

I'm out of here Excelsior.

robindch

Wibbs - thanks for your interesting reply. WRT direct evidence of speciation, try googling for "ring species" (or take a look at http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html). WRT advantageous mutations, check out G6PD gene mutation and the evolution of resistance to malaria (or try http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html). WRT DNA evidence, this was what clinched it for evolutionary theory, since it demonstrated a transport mechnism which permitted differential reproductive success to operate. If you drop the anthropocentric viewpoint which declares that we're the most "developed" form of life, you'll find that there's actually no problem there at all with carps having more DNA than we do. Why shouldn't they? Much of what we contain is already unused, as it no doubt is in the carp (ie, why do we carry genetic material which is unexpressed in us, but is expressed in mice? Makes perfect evolutionary sense, but doesn't suggest that an "intelligent designer" was very bright).

> regular visitors to this forum like Son Goku and Robin
> and so on, it would be great if you wouldn't feed the trolls

Nah, I gave up on saturday night -- JC's doing a better job of lampooning creationism than I'll ever manage

Keep truckin', folks.

Puck

Yes, enough troll feeding. We've gotten to the point were we're just repeating ourselves to people who won't listen.

In parting though I have something for wolfsbane:

I really couldn't give a **** about ridicule by unbelievers or anyone else for that matter.

Bye.

Wibbs

Puck wrote:

Yes, enough troll feeding. We've gotten to the point were we're just repeating ourselves to people who won't listen.

In parting though I have something for wolfsbane:

I really couldn't give a **** about ridicule by unbelievers or anyone else for that matter.

Well summed up and if I had a strong faith I'd be taking exactly the stance expressed in your last line. I seem to remember most religious leaders/founders(as well as other great minds in history, even Darwin) took a fair bit of flak and ridicule, so you would seem to be in good company.



PS sorry, robindch I wasn't taking the anthropocentric view(dont confuse me with oul' J C ). I said more complex life would be expected to have more complex DNA. The example of human/carp confused things, but a slug still has more chromosomes than a chimp. The ring species you describe are very arguably still sub-species. Another eg.; American wolves have been isolated from their European cousins for many 1000s of yrs, yet still will happily crossbreed in captivity with each other. You expect some drift in that time given environmental diffs between them. Isolation and genetic drift notwithstanding, there are still interesting issues with the mechanisms of evolution. I'm not suggesting that evolution is a dead end, I'm merely suggesting that there's more than meets the eye re the mechanism based on the current theories. Anyhoo, this is more suited to the biology/sceptics fora so, toodle pip an all that.

wolfsbane

To any honest atheist/agnostic on this thread: <EDITED AGAIN. INSULT LIKE THIS AGAIN AND I AM MOVING THIS UP TO USER BANNING - Excelsior>. Real Christianity is defined by its manifesto, the Bible. Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but their claim can be tested by comparing their doctrine and praxis to that of the Bible.

Of course, Puck claimed the Bible does not rule out evolution. Tony Blair could claim to be a Communist: he could even claim the Communist Manifesto does not rule out his policies. In both cases, all you have to do is read the documents for yourself. No amount of spin can shield the truth from honest examination.

robindch

Wibbs - I've created a thread over in the biology foums, just to follow up on the evolutionary points you've made. It's at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054846558 if anybody's interested in discussing evolution (and not creationism/religion).

Wibbs

robindch, cool I may drop over.

As for "Puck running for cover', I suspect like me he ran out of troll pellets and sadly my local pet shop is out of stock.

Speaking as a heathen(possibly out of turn), it always seems a pity to me that so many religious people argue over the minutae of doctrine while failing to take on board the(by all accounts) positive teachings and sublime example of someone like Jesus. Feed and clothe the sick, give comfort to those who need it and do as much good for your fellow man as possible. All lofty ideals that deserve more time and effort than endless debate while all around many would say humanity is needlessly lacking. If more led by example in this way, I'm sure more would be open to the message. Just my 2 cents.

wolfsbane

Wibbs

Perhaps you think denying the doctrine of the Fall of man is a small thing - but all the other doctrines that make up the Christian faith are tied to it. Reject man's sin as the cause of all the suffering and death that came into the world and you have no Christianity. All you have is a pick'n'mix religion with a 'Christianity' name-tag.

As for doing good to our fellow-man, William Wilberforce, Dr. Barnado, and countless others took the doctrines of the faith very seriously and because they did they attempted great works of compassion. It is when we treat God's Word as a wax-nose that we can feel free to treat others just how we please.

J C

Quote Puck
Questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17, 21 are not directly related to evolution, the questions relate to the existence of a Creator, the highly remote chance of life just coming about on its own, the inability of scientists to copy God's work in a lab and... art. That's over half of your questions. You're questions have already been answered by someone apparently far more knowledgeable regarding evolution than I, if those questions don't suit you then tough, you can't just cover your ears and refuse to listen. The fact remains that the questions have been answered.


ALL questions are directly related to the SCIENTIFIC validity of ‘muck to Man’ evolution – for example, Question 1 queries the evidence for the transition from inanimate muck to animate life – which must be proven if the rest of evolutionary story is to have any coherent scientific credibility. Ditto for ALL of the other questions.

Could I again point out that answers were ATTEMPTED by Wibbs to NINE of my questions – and I have made comprehensive rebuttal to all nine answers without a response – and therefore all 21 questions remain unanswered.


Quote Puck
None of the Christians here are saying that God is not the "Sovereign Creator God of the Universe and all life therein". This is the reason I don't use the word "creationist" to describe you but choose to use "literalist" instead.

If you want to criticise God's skill as a poet then go ahead but I won't be joining you. I love the beautiful poetic imagery in Genesis, I'm a big fan of God's poetry

Unless you can provide coherent answers to my 21 SCIENTIFIC questions on evolution and satisfactorily explain the glaring anomalies between the Genesis account of Creation and the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence, Theistic Evolution will continue to have an intellectual credibility problem.

I’m also a big fan of God’s poetry and I most certainly don’t criticise God’s poetic skills WHEN He is actually engaged in poetry, as in the Psalms for example – which I believe to be the BEST poetry ever written.

The ‘literary position’ of Theistic Evolutionists on Genesis is akin to somebody who praises Shakespeare for the ‘poetry’ of his Plays rather than his Sonnets!!!


Quote Puck
If taken poetically then Genesis doesn't make a mention of how the universe was created, it addresses the far more important question of why it was created.

Genesis 1 tells us HOW the Earth was created, HOW life was created and HOW man was created in SIX DAYS – sounds much more like a ‘HOW’ than a ‘WHY’ account to me!!!


Quote Puck
The Bible makes no mention of evolution making it just about as "un-Biblical" as putting on my pants in the morning.

Genesis makes it clear that The Conventional Evolutionary Sequence DIDN’T occur for the reasons already outlined in my previous postings and in the following passages of scripture, to cite but a few :
Ex 20:11, Mk 10:6, Rom 5:12-14 and 1 Cor 15:45-48.

In addition, 2 Pet 3:3-6 confirms that “the last days will” actually be marked by people who reject the Genesis 1 account of the creation of a WATER COVERED Earth (which is a direct contradiction of the Big Bang) – 2 Pet 3:5 says that “they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s Word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water”. (NIV) In case anybody might be inclined to put a ‘poetic spin’ on the “water” in this particular statement, St Peter goes on to confirm in 2 Pet 3:6 that these were REAL waters “By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed” – thereby also confirming the veracity of Noah’s Flood.


Quote Son Goku
I used these words for a reason, if you want to argue against the Big Bang you need to understand differential geometry.
If you think these words describe "Nothing", then you are wrong.
They're used in General Relativity for a reason and that reason is that they are needed.

Could I ask you if "an area of extreme Ricci curvature" or "a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime" has ever been OBSERVED – and if it HASN’T then surely it must by definition be classified as scientific speculation and conjecture – with no more SCIENTIFIC status than God’s statement that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.


Quote Puck
A purely literal interpretation of the Bible is going to throw all sorts of contradictions at you. For instance, did the Israelites walk out of Egypt or were they carried on eagle's wings?

I can confirm that Creationists aren't Bible literalists - and they believe that the Israelites LITERALLY walked out of Egypt and they were METAPHORICALLY carried on Eagle’s wings by being assisted and protected by God.

Wibbs

J C wrote:

Could I again point out that answers were ATTEMPTED by Wibbs to NINE of my questions – and I have made comprehensive rebuttal to all nine answers without a response – and therefore all 21 questions remain unanswered.

Eh, no you didn't and no they don't. Some may remain unanswered, or at least unanswered to the satisfaction of yourself(some even to me), but many of my "rebuttals" you chose to ignore(the ones about the flood and the obvious flaws in your argument thereof spring instantly to mind). So the ball is in your court to back up....... Oh oh and here's me thinking I'd run out of troll pellets.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Could I ask you if "an area of extreme Ricci curvature" or "a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime" has ever been OBSERVED – and if it HASN’T then surely it must by definition be classified as scientific speculation and conjecture – with no more SCIENTIFIC status than God’s statement that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.

Yes, particularly the second, you see them every day.
In fact a day wouldn't make sense without them.

Now bring this discussion over to the science forums.

Excelsior

Wibbs wrote:

robindch, cool I may drop over.

I'll drop over too. But only if you allow me to insist that Wordsworth's Daffodils was actually intended as a scientific treatise on floral reproduction.

Wibbs wrote:

As for "Puck running for cover', I suspect like me he ran out of troll pellets and sadly my local pet shop is out of stock.

Nail has been hit on its head.

Wibbs wrote:

Speaking as a heathen(possibly out of turn),

Absolutely not. This is a forum for discussing issues related to Christianity on a secular website. If anything, the preachers are speaking out of turn.

Wibbs wrote:

it always seems a pity to me that so many religious people argue over the minutae of doctrine while failing to take on board the(by all accounts) positive teachings and sublime example of someone like Jesus.

It literally makes me cry. I'll say again for effect what has become my refrain on this issue: If its too much work for Satan to lure us in to active sin, he is quite content to let us waste our time on trivialities that amount to nothing. If Jesus is the Son of God, then at the end of our days, he is going to put his arm around our (collective our of Christianity) shoulder and say, "Guys, seriously. Why did you think it mattered that you should teach starving children about theistic evolution? Give them water and food."

Wibbs wrote:

If more led by example in this way, I'm sure more would be open to the message. Just my 2 cents.

All I can say is sorry.

I am not locking this thread for fear of being called a censor. But I do advise folk with any time demands- be they careers or study or family or friends or a mild fondness for soap operas or a field in which you can watch grass grow, to spend their time more fruitfully.

Wibbs

Excelsior wrote:

I'll drop over too. But only if you allow me to insist that Wordsworth's Daffodils was actually intended as a scientific treatise on floral reproduction.

You mean it isn't.:eek: There goes my membership of the Wordsworthian church up in smoke..

All I can say is sorry.

Hardly Excelsior, from your previous posts I've read, you're the type that gives religious people a good name.

Asiaprod

Wibbs wrote:

Hardly Excelsior, from your previous posts I've read, you're the type that gives religious people a good name.

Nice statement, we don't get many of those. I'll support that one 100%

Dades

Wibbs wrote:

Hardly Excelsior, from your previous posts I've read, you're the type that gives religious people a good name.

Touché.

The reason creation science will never be taken seriously by the general scientific community is that it is "science" with an agenda. All CS does, is try to to cement the notion that God created the world as written in the bible. Objectivity, alternative theories, the willingness to accept that a favored theory can be disproved are what make science credible - and creation science practices none of these.

Why? Because (J C) you purport that watering down Genesis to metaphor is unacceptable, and is paramount to denying the bibles validity as a whole. This attitute merely puts your back to the wall regarding any alternative theory concerning the origins of man. Put simply - you have to support the Genesis theory regardess of any scientific evidence to the contrary. To accept any other answer would render your personal beliefs invalid.

However real science is not about preserving your personal beliefs at all costs. And that is why "creation science" is a misnomer.

Asiaprod

you have to support the Genesis theory regardess of any scientific evidence to the contrary. To accept any other answer would render your personal beliefs invalid. However real science is not about preserving your personal beliefs at all costs. And that is why "creation science" is a misnomer.

Damn, that was what I wanted to say, but could not find the right words, well done Atheist.

Wibbs

Asiaprod wrote:

well done Atheist.

Words not normally associated with Christianity debates. That goes to show how well balanced this forum is.

juddd

Just chiming in again, dont mind me.
If we evolved from apes or monkeys or whatever then how come there are still monkeys and apes that have not evolved into humans, when a species evolves into a new form does it not then seem reasonable that the old form would no longer exist, also when we interfere with nature like cross breeding two different breeds of animals, how come they are almost always born sterile, it's as if nature or God is preventing the continuation of the newly formed species to pro-create.
Just a thought.????

hairyheretic

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
From:
By Martin Penner
November 07, 2005


THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:
'If Jesus is the Son of God, then at the end of our days, he is going to put his arm around our (collective our of Christianity) shoulder and say, "Guys, seriously. Why did you think it mattered that you should teach starving children about theistic evolution? Give them water and food."'

So Creationists don't feed starving children? Perhaps we kill them and drink their blood? We seem to be the Jews of the 'liberal Christian' reich. How do you know what we give to the needy? From my experience, Evangelicals have been to the front of works of compassion. What we ALSO do, not instead of, is bring the Word of God to them. Saving their souls and strengthening them in the Truth. This oneness of true Christians you mention is the work of God, involving a growing knowledge of and obedience to the Truth. The passage often referred to by 'liberal Christians' actually refutes their wooly sentiments:

John 17: 1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.
9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.


20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.
24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

This is the real Jesus Christ, who says 'Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth', not the one who downplays the truth. The world being created without sin, suffering and death is NOT 'trivialities that amount to nothing', but a foundational concept of real Christianity.

J C

Quote Son Goku
Probabilities like the ones you are using only work for things like rolling a dice or judging the odds of a royal flush coming up in a game of poker.
Independent events.
Using standard Bernoulli probability is just wrong.
If you want to argue atoms and molecules, you have to use Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions.
No matter how "jargony" you feel it is, you just do.
If there is one thing I know it's mathematics and the odds of a useful protein forming are no where near that low.

I wasn’t talking about the chemistry involved or indeed the protein manufacturing process itself, which raises many other very serious problems. For example, many of the bonds in protein chains can only be achieved by the use of very specific enzymes whose use is synchronised in nano-seconds with exact sequential cascades of reactions by other equally complex and specific enzymes – and undirected processes cannot plausibly produce such co-ordination and precision.

Please remember that I was ONLY talking about the achievement of useful critical amino acid SEQUENCES using undirected processes – and therefore Bernoulli probability does apply.

The really devastating thing about this ‘Universe Defeating’ problem however, is that a 10 year old child of normal intelligence would take less than 20 minutes to arrange ANY specified sequence of 100 bricks representing a specific useful amino acid sequence choosing from a box of mixed bricks representing all 20 amino acids.
What would clearly defeat every electron in the known universe randomly producing useless amino acid sequences for an effective eternity of time could be achieved with certainty by a 10 year old in 20 minutes – and that is but one small example of the importance of applied intelligence to ensuing that any complex system works.
We all instinctively know this to be the case – who would buy a car without a steering wheel and expect it to take them home safely without any “intelligent input” from the driver?


Quote Excelsior
Augustine therefore could not be a Creation Scientist. Barnabas did not concern himself with flood geology.

Whatever about Augustine or Barnabas, Jesus Christ HIMSELF certainly DID confirm the REALITY of Noah’s Flood and thereby the veracity of “Flood Geology” in Mt 24:37-39 and Lk 17:26-27 when he said “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking , marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all”. You can’t get any plainer than that from the very mouth of Jesus Christ Himself !

The non-Christians and the ‘Doubting Thomases’ amongst you can also evaluate the physical evidence for this global flood catastrophe “upfront and personal” by visiting your local outcrop of sedimentary or metamorphic rock. Equally, you can confirm the global scale of Noah’s Flood by getting a JCB to strip back the clay in your own back yard and see, at first hand, the massive quantities of sedimentary / metamorphic rock that are present (over most of the surface of the Earth).

Quote Wibbs
animals/plants most likely to be fossilised are sea creatures. Surely a flood wouldn't affect them at all? If you believe in Noah's flood, you would expect more fossils of land animals as a result.

A Flood as described in Genesis where massive volumes of water were released from deep within the Earth as well as massive land movements, would result in huge silt clouds in the sea water that would rapidly inundate and bury sea creatures on a grand scale AS WELL AS land animals – when dry land disappeared beneath the waves, and that is what we find in the fossil record.

Quote Wibbs
As for trilobite eye; fossilisation of many of these eyes is pretty complete. In fact one can even examine the eyes down to the levels of fossilised cells. Decay in such situations would be quite easy to spot.

The fossilisation of eye tissue at all, indicates instantaneous burial, and fossilisation within weeks at most, as these soft tissues decay rapidly (within days of death normally). This is indicative of catastrophic burial under sediment and water AS WELL AS very rapid fossilisation. This completely invalidates the claim that deep layers of sedimentary rocks are very old because they were laid down by gradual sedimentation processes. It also debunks the claim that fossilisation takes enormous lengths of time thereby removing the two biggest reasons cited by evolutionists for an old Earth and old sedimentary rocks.

It is postulated by Creation Science that huge volumes of HOT Calcium Carbonate was released from deep within the Earth during Noah’s Flood and this reacted with other ingredients to rapidly petrify sedimentary rocks in a process akin to the setting of modern cement. Hot Calcium Carbonate and other caustic chemicals such as quicklime would rapidly degrade and chemically erode exposed soft tissue such as the compound eyes of dead Trilobites and the resultant effect could be to literally ‘melt’ the eyes out of their sockets thereby leaving what would appear to be fossilised ‘photosensitive pits’ showing no signs of decay.


Quote Wibbs
Actually it was over 100,000 yrs ago IIRC and it was always stated in the lit. that it was a closely related group of women, not the "eve" popularised in the media. Anyway if it was Noah and his wives and son's then they would all have to be so closely related as to be family for your theory to work.

Creation Scientists are satisfied that the correct regression equations indicate an age of less than 10,000 years.

If they were ‘a closely related group of women’ who were so closely related as to be effectively of one family, then this points to a common mother in their immediate ancestry and Eve would be an obvious candidate.
If, on the other hand, these women were closely related but not as close as immediate family members then the wives of Noah and his sons would be obvious candidates as they would probably be reasonably closely related given the marriage customs of the time and the relative isolation of Noah and his sons from his ‘fellow man’ because of his religious convictions.


Quote Wibbs
The humble bee has a language. Bonobos have moral behaviour(many would say more than us) and conceptualisation.

The humble Bee has a pre-programmed (i.e. instinctive) ability to communicate the location of nectar to other Bees in it’s hive – this is not comparable in almost any respect to the open-ended abstract linguistic ability of Mankind.
Bonobos and indeed most mammals have instinctive (i.e. pre-programmed) behaviour such as caring for their young that may appear like Circumstantial moral behaviour – but Humans are capable of non-circumstantial moral behaviour. In addition, because we have free will, Humans are also capable of the greatest evil, which NO ANIMAL can match.

Humans are BOTH fearfully and wonderfully made - and every day we see examples of Humans exercising their free will to do great GOOD and great EVIL. Animals tend to do just whatever is necessary to survive and reproduce.

Wibbs

Looks like the pellets came back into stock....

J C wrote:

The non-Christians and the ‘Doubting Thomases’ amongst you can also evaluate the physical evidence for this global flood catastrophe “upfront and personal” by visiting your local outcrop of sedimentary or metamorphic rock. Equally, you can confirm the global scale of Noah’s Flood by getting a JCB to strip back the clay in your own back yard and see, at first hand, the massive quantities of sedimentary / metamorphic rock that are present (over most of the surface of the Earth).

...and igneous and conglomerates. So, conglomerates alone throw your theory in a spin for a start, as they are made up of previously formed sedimentary/metamorphic/igneous(even previous conglomerates). Just how many floods were there in this theory? Digging up ones back yard only serves to confirm the various geological processes, not debunks them.

A Flood as described in Genesis where massive volumes of water were released from deep within the Earth as well as massive land movements, would result in huge silt clouds in the sea water that would rapidly inundate and bury sea creatures on a grand scale AS WELL AS land animals – when dry land disappeared beneath the waves, and that is what we find in the fossil record.

What about whales. Did Noah have two of them in the Ark? Why wasn't room found for the trilobites? Why did the nautilus survive when the ammonites did not? Both would have been affected by this "silt".

The fossilisation of eye tissue at all, indicates instantaneous burial, and fossilisation within weeks at most, as these soft tissues decay rapidly (within days of death normally). This is indicative of catastrophic burial under sediment and water AS WELL AS very rapid fossilisation. This completely invalidates the claim that deep layers of sedimentary rocks are very old because they were laid down by gradual sedimentation processes. It also debunks the claim that fossilisation takes enormous lengths of time thereby removing the two biggest reasons cited by evolutionists for an old Earth and old sedimentary rocks.

For a start compound eyes last quite a long time. Take a microscope to any long dead wasp on your windowsill for evidence of that. The vast majority of well preserved fossils were rapidly buried as you say(usually by volcanic ash or landslide), but most fossils are not that well preserved, especially those of land animals. Except in exceptional circumstances all you get are the hard tissues remaining and even those are rarely articulated. In fact many of them show degradation by scavengers, which suggests anything but a quick fossilisation. If you understood fossilisation you would see that the mineralisation of bone takes a very long time.In fact if you understood the various processes of fossilisation at all you would see that the idea of a flood catastrophy would make little sense. Many fossils are formed without the direct interaction of water. Burial in tar/salt/ice/very dry sand for a start. How are these explained away by the flood hypotheses?

It is postulated by Creation Science that huge volumes of HOT Calcium Carbonate was released from deep within the Earth during Noah’s Flood and this reacted with other ingredients to rapidly petrify sedimentary rocks in a process akin to the setting of modern cement. Hot Calcium Carbonate and other caustic chemicals such as quicklime would rapidly degrade and chemically erode exposed soft tissue such as the compound eyes of dead Trilobites and the resultant effect could be to literally ‘melt’ the eyes out of their sockets thereby leaving what would appear to be fossilised ‘photosensitive pits’ showing no signs of decay.

Even in limestones which contain a lot of calcium carbonate, soft tissues are preserved. What about such rocks that have little or no evidence of Calcium carbonate at all, such as triassic red sandstones?

Creation Scientists are satisfied that the correct regression equations indicate an age of less than 10,000 years.

Satisfied by what exactly? DNA clocks, Carbon dating?

If, on the other hand, these women were closely related but not as close as immediate family members then the wives of Noah and his sons would be obvious candidates as they would probably be reasonably closely related given the marriage customs of the time and the relative isolation of Noah and his sons from his ‘fellow man’ because of his religious convictions.

Big stretch that one.

The humble Bee has a pre-programmed (i.e. instinctive) ability to communicate the location of nectar to other Bees in it’s hive – this is not comparable in almost any respect to the open-ended abstract linguistic ability of Mankind.

Yes, but the humble bee shows evidence of basic "culture" in that these languages change over time and vary between colonies. The behaviour of the higher apes also shows evidence of primitive culture and language. Animals are not just pre programmed autotomata.

Bonobos and indeed most mammals have instinctive (i.e. pre-programmed) behaviour such as caring for their young that may appear like Circumstantial moral behaviour – but Humans are capable of non-circumstantial moral behaviour. In addition, because we have free will, Humans are also capable of the greatest evil, which NO ANIMAL can match.

As have bonobos. One was even observed tending to a small bird that had accidently flown into a tree. Caring for it till it had regained its composure before releasing it. If this isn't circumstantial moral behaviour as you call it, I don't know what is(understanding the fright of another species etc). As for evil; the chimp is capable of unbelievable violence and "evil" towards its own kind and others. Some have even killed human children and played with the bodies. There's little "instinctive" about that, in your world view.

Animals tend to do just whatever is necessary to survive and reproduce.

As do humans. Altruism is a good survival technique.

Excelsior

J C wrote:

Whatever about Augustine or Barnabas, Jesus Christ HIMSELF certainly DID confirm the REALITY of Noah’s Flood and thereby the veracity of “Flood Geology” in Mt 24:37-39 and Lk 17:26-27 when he said “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking , marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all”. You can’t get any plainer than that from the very mouth of Jesus Christ Himself !

JC, you make a massive leap there where you say "Jesus believed in Noah's flood" and then conclude "Therefore he believed in flood geology". This need not be the case and you know full well, I am sure, that the Hebrew word used in Genesis's account of the punishment flood for world is used 16 times elsewhere throughout the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to the broader region of the Israelites.

I believe in a cataclysmic flood. I believe God intended for this flood to be a punishment on a scale that hasn't been seen before. I also believe from geological evidence that this flood was only global in the relativistic sense of the whole world as the Israelites knew it.

I don't in any way feel a need to challenge your young Earth hypothesis. As I have laid out already today, you are my brother in Christ. I need convert you from nothing. The pure motivation you have for holding to the views you hold to are clear. But can't you accept that there are more ways than yours to be authentic as a follower of Jesus and more than one legitimatly attempted interpretation of the Scriptures? (I am not saying all interpretations are right. I am saying all are probably to some extent wrong but yours and mine are both certainly sincere)

I'm gone from this thread now unless rudeness forces me to moderate. I just didn't want to be accused of running for cover.

Asiaprod

juddd wrote:

If we evolved from apes or monkeys or whatever then how come there are still monkeys and apes that have not evolved into humans, when a species evolves into a new form does it not then seem reasonable that the old form would no longer exist, also when we interfere with nature like cross breeding two different breeds of animals, how come they are almost always born sterile, it's as if nature or God is preventing the continuation of the newly formed species to pro-create.
Just a thought.????

Hi Juddd,
Thank the lord for an easy question to answer, this other stuff, while fascinating, has me all afloat (oh, there`s a pun).

Re the apes and monkeys, evolutionarily speaking:rolleyes: what appears to happen is that a line of creatures branches out on its own to form a new line. The reasons for this are many and varied. In the case of monkeys and apes, it could be as depicted in the film 2001 Space Odyssey, one group of apes developed the ability to use weapons, which required the use of an opposing thumb which set it apart from all others. The human is the only creature to have an opposing thumb which give us the dexterity to build and so on. (I use this movie as a reference only as I am sure there are many reasons why this particular branching occurred.) But this did not mean that the original line disappeared, it carried on at its own merry pace to its own conclusion. Darwin`s theory of natural selection possibly applies here since there is no rule or requirement for the original line to cease existing. Hence today, we have monkeys, apes and humans all coexisting and evolving.

In the case of interfering with nature by cross breeding two different breeds of animals, and how come they are almost always born sterile, I am afraid it is more down to biology than God work here. Some lines of animals can be cross-bred and some cannot. It is a simple answer I know, but that is the way it goes. We already have many new types of animals cross bred in the last 10 years. It is just a case of selecting the right animals to cross breed. I am sure there is a religious side to this debate, but I am not qualified to answer that line for you. I will stick to the biological reasons.


All praise the Coelacanth, the fish that escaped the flood and lives on to defy the CS theorists.

robindch

Mixed news in from the USA today where Kansas has approved the teaching of creationism:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4419796.stm

...while the school board which did the same a while back in Dover, Pennsylvania, was booted out of office:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4417560.stm

Looks like the writing's on the wall

J C

Quote Son Goku
Originally Posted by J C
Could I ask you if "an area of extreme Ricci curvature" or "a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime" has ever been OBSERVED – and if it HASN’T then surely it (The Big Bang) must by definition be classified as scientific speculation and conjecture – with no more SCIENTIFIC status than God’s statement that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.
Yes, particularly the second, you see them every day.
In fact a day wouldn't make sense without them.

To recap – we started debating about whether my definition of the Big Bang (that first there was nothing and then it blew up) was correct. You contended that it was not correct and you explained that a singularity was “an area of extreme Ricci curvature” and that the Big Bang was “a point on the 4-D surface that is the universe” which you subsequently refined to "a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime".

You NOW tell me that these concepts actually describe aspects of what a DAY is.

However, could I gently point out that the above obtuse concepts were first ‘rolled out’ by you to describe the Big Bang – and I cannot see ANY link between The Big Bang and a DAY.


Quote The Atheist
This attitude merely puts your back to the wall regarding any alternative theory concerning the origins of man. Put simply - you have to support the Genesis theory regardess of any scientific evidence to the contrary. To accept any other answer would render your personal beliefs invalid.

However real science is not about preserving your personal beliefs at all costs.

I fully agree that REAL science is ALL about directly observing and reporting on REAL phenomena.

The only people with their (scientific and theological) ”backs to the wall” on this thread are the evolutionists of all faiths and none who are determined to hold onto their belief in evolution even when they cannot coherently explain what it actually is or cite any evidence in support of it’s existence.

I am a man of both science and faith.

I have raised 21 valid scientific questions about evolution – questions that 150 years of scientific study should have settled long ago – yet nobody on this thread has been able to effectively answer any of them.

Wibbs has attempted several questions and he HAS made some valid points, mostly about issues other than evolution.
However, the general thesis of my 21 questions still remains intact – i.e. that the current evolutionary theory is a woefully inadequate explanation of the origins of life and the massive amount of highly specified purposeful genetic information observed in all species.

I have also raised profound questions about how Theistic Evolution can be theologically reconciled with either the Genesis account of Creation or with Jesus Christ’s own words on the subject.

The ‘stock answers’ forthcoming is that “black can literally be called white” when observed through some putative ‘poetic lens’ that Theistic Evolutionists apparently use when they read Genesis.

Two can play this particular game.
I find that Charles Darwin was actually at the peak of his poetic abilities when he wrote about his belief in Divine Special Creation in his great opus, which he entitled “The Origin (and Creation) of Species by (God without any) Natural Selection.”
You see, my ‘poetic lens’ allows me to expand the text to say what Darwin actually meant to say, but didn’t say, because he was writing for semi-illiterate Victorians and because he had senile dementia himself at the time.
I have also found that a small minority of primitive LITERALISTS object to my preference for Darwin’s great Creation poetry, as I prefer to call it. In fact, I think that these ‘Darwin Literalists’ completely demean Darwin’s great work with their narrow-minded belief that he actually said what he meant and meant what he said.
I find that Darwin’s poetic account of the creation of the six Galapagos Finches during the six days of Divine Special Creation, especially speaks to me of the great work of God in the Universe and people who claim that Darwin was an evolutionist couldn’t possible have any basis for this belief if they really read Darwin’s writings as Darwin meant them to be read.
Darwinian fundamentalists insist on giving the poetic words of Charles Darwin an evolutionary meaning even though his words were never intended to be scientific. These fundamentalists were “all over me like a rash” when I claimed that even the title of Darwin’s book proves that he was a creationist and I am at a complete loss as to why they should be so unreasonable.

If we all go down this road then could I suggest that language will completely lose it’s meaning and nobody will know what they are talking about anymore – something like the current ‘sorry state’ of evolution actually!!!!


Quote hairyheretic

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

I also read a similar account to your posting, in Saturday’s Irish Independent.

If the Vatican wishes to add evolution to their pronouncements on ‘matters of faith and morals’ by stoutly defending Charles Darwin and presumably by direct implication his Darwinian evolutionary hypotheses they are obviously quite entitled to do so.

If The Vatican wishes to establish Divine Authority for ‘muck to Man evolution’ however, they will have to explain what Jesus Christ meant when He said (as He endorsed Gen 1:1 and 1:27) in Mt 19:4 “Haven’t you read. He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female” and again in MK 10:6 when He said “But at the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” (NIV).

If they wish to establish the SCIENTIFIC credibility of ‘muck to Man evolution’, they will have to provide proper answers to hundreds of questions that completely demolish evolution SCIENTIFICALLY, of which my 21 scientific questions on evolution are but a small sample.

If The Vatican wishes to establish the THEOLOGICAL credibility of evolution, they will have to explain how they reconcile the Genesis account of Creation with The Conventional Evolutionary Sequence – and resorting to poetry will not be an option.

Clearly a lot of work remains to be done if evolution is to be rehabilitated.

Creation Scientists and Intelligent Design proponents are ‘on the case’ and they are making major breakthroughs into the mainstream – just tonight, the Channel 4 News had a 10-minute feature on the new Answers in Genesis Creation Museum in Kentucky – and it hasn’t even been officially opened yet.

Quote hairyheretic
His (Cardinal Poupard’s) statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail

I though that the Roman Catholic Church DID believe that “the universe is so complex that some higher being (aka God) designed every detail”.

Son Goku

JC, my responses are here on the Science forum:
Here.

If you want to debate Science, then come along.

Asiaprod

JC....I suppose Atheists do need somebody to DEFEND them.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Please stop this thread. It is no longer interesting, it is infact now distastefull and has dropped to a level of personal attacks. IMHO this thread is now hard science and in its current form has only a passing interest in what this board is about. Thanks