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
Comments
-
Wicknight wrote : No, he is pointing out that this man is not an expert in evolution as you claimed. Only if you don't understand what is happening.
Certainly this was my laymans perception especially in the manner he was introduced to me. I must confirm that in the areas where I do have some knowledge, he appears spot on which lulled me into thinking that all the areas presented were equally so.
I had already stated my lack of knowledge in the subject so I must accept your reasoning. But I am not giving up on the Creationist debate:
I believe that God's 'time' is variable. A lifetime for Methusela was almost 1000 years. My lifespan is going to be nearer 90.
I therefore believe that the answer to the debate lies somewhere between the two contentions. You did not respond to the second part of my rock throwing exercise after jumping on the Veith issue:
"Who says (gathered from the posts) that you (both sides) arent both right but talking at cross-purposes? Who says Adam & Eve were the first humans - the KJV bible doesnt!? In fact it could be intepreted as just the opposite for good reason!"
What if? Half a pint of warm beer to the person who knows the KJV Bible best!
PS I have lots of rocks, not all of them in my head!
0 -
Quote Scofflaw
By the way, to ask a general question of our Creationists - given that an adult human being would appear to contain a lot more information than a single-celled fertilised egg, how do you think this increase in information comes about?
ALL of the genetic INFORMATION required to produce an adult Human Being IS present in a single celled Zygote.
The Human embryo develops into an adult Human Being by a process of replication and differentiation using the genetic information in it’s genome. Therefore there is NO increase in information.
Adults DON’T contain more genetic INFORMATION than a single-celled fertilised egg – just like a million photocopies of a single page DOESN’T contain any more INFORMATION than the original page.
Adults do contain a greater VOLUME of DNA – but no more actual INFORMATION!!!
You’re confusing quantity with quality, Scofflaw.
Quote Scofflaw
Codswallop. There are plenty of living organisms with eyes that would be "partially functional" from our point of view (lacking focus, or colour, or being only able to sense the direction of light). There are also animals with vestigial eyes.
So-called “partially functional” eyes are fully functional for the tasks that they perform – unless they have been environmentally or genetically degraded.
Equally, all of these eyes show no evidence of being intermediate to something else.
Vestigial eyes are actually evidence of a LOSS of functionality and therefore DEVOLUTION in action.
When it comes to continuums of increasing complexity, Prof. Richard E. Dickerson’s quote sums it all up for evolutionists:-.
“We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imaginations so far have not been very helpful.”
Quote Scofflaw
so those were "super-wolves"), in order to contain within themselves every possible trait and variation we see today - otherwise, oh dear, we have to somehow have the genetic information increasing after the Flood! ………..
So, super-animals in the Ark
‘Got it in one’ Scofflaw – I just knew that some of the logic of Creation Science would eventually ‘rub off’ on you !!!!!
You’re beginning to think like a Creationist and write like a Creationist – do you know what Scofflaw – YOU ARE a Creationist!!!!
Who said that nobody gets converted on this thread?
Quote JustHalf
74 pages later, and I reckon robindch et al have been brought no closer to converting to Christianity by "the power" of your arguments for creationism.
The “power” of the Theistic Evolution argument also hasn’t converted them!!!
The results of Creation Science research have never stopped anybody believing in Jesus Christ – quite the reverse actually.
You can bring a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
Robin et al are now ‘up to their oxters’ in Creation Science ‘water’ – but they are ‘manfully’ refusing to even wet their lips.
That is their choice, and I respect their right to be wrong.
Quote Scofflaw
Yes, the dosage was too high. It's now a standard technique for producing beneficial mutations (see above). JC is attempting to substitute dramatic punctuation for facts (and common sense, I'm beginning to think).
Yes indeed, there were poor results from the initial seed mutagenesis experiments during the 1950’s.
Nowadays, radiation induced mutagenesis is used to induce genetically RECESSIVE characteristics in plants.
Radioactive mutagenesis always reduces genetic information and the resultant mutant plants only survive under controlled domestic farming conditions – they would rapidly disappear under outbreeding with ‘normal’ genetically dominant stock.
The mutagenic effects of radioactivity is ALWAYS destructive to the genome – otherwise we would all be using X-Ray machines to pump ourselves full of ‘gene changing’ radiation!!!
I’ll let the reader be the judge of who is talking ‘common sense’ here!!
Quote Scofflaw
There's no such thing as JC's "Critical Amino Acid Sequences". I don't know whether he made it up personally, or whether it was made up for him, but either way it's a little bit of fiction.
There certainly are Amino Acid Sequences that are Critical.
The tight specificity of the amino acid sequences along critical sections of functional proteins is one of the major discoveries of Molecular Biology over the past 20 years.
It has been demonstrated that substituting even one amino acid along these critical sections will radically alter the three-dimensional shape and/or chemical activity characteristics of the protein, thereby making it functionally useless.
Quote Scofflaw
The 80% dry well rate is exactly my point - if they used Creation Science (and it worked), they'd do a lot better, wouldn't they? Funny, then, that they don't, but you and I both know why - because "Creation Science" miserably fails to do anything useful.
Creationists working as Geologists in the Oil Industry ARE probably using insights gained from Creation Science to assist them in finding oil.
With an 80% dry well ‘target’ to aim at – things can only get better with the appliance of Creation Science!!!
But then again, there may be greater satisfaction to be gained from doing things the ‘hard’ (i.e. Evolutionists) way!!!0 -
J C wrote:Quote Scofflaw
By the way, to ask a general question of our Creationists - given that an adult human being would appear to contain a lot more information than a single-celled fertilised egg, how do you think this increase in information comes about?
ALL of the genetic INFORMATION required to produce an adult Human Being IS present in a single celled Zygote.
The Human embryo develops into an adult Human Being by a process of replication and differentiation using the genetic information in it’s genome. Therefore there is NO increase in information.
Adults DON’T contain more genetic INFORMATION than a single-celled fertilised egg – just like a million photocopies of a single page DOESN’T contain any more INFORMATION than the original page.
Adults do contain a greater VOLUME of DNA – but no more actual INFORMATION!!!
You’re confusing quantity with quality, Scofflaw.
You're confusing genetic information with all information. The human adult contains a lot more meaningful information than the fertilised egg. A lot of this is in fact genetic - mutations, epigenetic changes, gene suppression and expression - but that's not really relevant to the point, which is that it takes a lot more information to describe an adult human being than it does to describe the zygote. Your photocopying analogy is an almost perfect demonstration of your misunderstanding of information.J C wrote:Quote Scofflaw
Codswallop. There are plenty of living organisms with eyes that would be "partially functional" from our point of view (lacking focus, or colour, or being only able to sense the direction of light). There are also animals with vestigial eyes.
So-called “partially functional” eyes are fully functional for the tasks that they perform – unless they have been environmentally or genetically degraded.
Equally, all of these eyes show no evidence of being intermediate to something else.
They are intermediate in terms of functionality, and in many cases intermediate in terms of evolution. That they are "fully functional for the tasks they perform" is the point - they are intermediate, and they are fully functional. Your original suggestion remains codswallop.J C wrote:When it comes to continuums of increasing complexity, Prof. Richard E. Dickerson’s quote sums it all up for evolutionists:-.
“We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imaginations so far have not been very helpful.”
Neither voting the graveyard nor quoting the graveyard is impressive. Why are none of your scientific references less than 20 years old?J C wrote:Quote Scofflaw
so those were "super-wolves"), in order to contain within themselves every possible trait and variation we see today - otherwise, oh dear, we have to somehow have the genetic information increasing after the Flood! ………..
So, super-animals in the Ark
‘Got it in one’ Scofflaw – I just knew that some of the logic of Creation Science would eventually ‘rub off’ on you !!!!!
You’re beginning to think like a Creationist and write like a Creationist – do you know what Scofflaw – YOU ARE a Creationist!!!!
Who said that nobody gets converted on this thread?
Nah, it's easy to think like a Creationist. Very easy.J C wrote:Quote Scofflaw
Yes, the dosage was too high. It's now a standard technique for producing beneficial mutations (see above). JC is attempting to substitute dramatic punctuation for facts (and common sense, I'm beginning to think).
Yes indeed, there were poor results from the initial seed mutagenesis experiments during the 1950’s.
Nowadays, radiation induced mutagenesis is used to induce genetically RECESSIVE characteristics in plants.
Radioactive mutagenesis always reduces genetic information and the resultant mutant plants only survive under controlled domestic farming conditions – they would rapidly disappear under outbreeding with ‘normal’ genetically dominant stock.
The mutagenic effects of radioactivity is ALWAYS destructive to the genome – otherwise we would all be using X-Ray machines to pump ourselves full of ‘gene changing’ radiation!!!
I’ll let the reader be the judge of who is talking ‘common sense’ here!!
Assuming the reader knows what "recessive" actually means in genetics, they will at least have a laugh, since you clearly don't.J C wrote:Quote Scofflaw
There's no such thing as JC's "Critical Amino Acid Sequences". I don't know whether he made it up personally, or whether it was made up for him, but either way it's a little bit of fiction.
There certainly are Amino Acid Sequences that are Critical.
The tight specificity of the amino acid sequences along critical sections of functional proteins is one of the major discoveries of Molecular Biology over the past 20 years.
It has been demonstrated that substituting even one amino acid along these critical sections will radically alter the three-dimensional shape and/or chemical activity characteristics of the protein, thereby making it functionally useless.
Go on then, JC, references for this "major discovery"? I don't seem to be able to find any, alas!J C wrote:Quote Scofflaw
The 80% dry well rate is exactly my point - if they used Creation Science (and it worked), they'd do a lot better, wouldn't they? Funny, then, that they don't, but you and I both know why - because "Creation Science" miserably fails to do anything useful.
Creationists working as Geologists in the Oil Industry ARE probably using insights gained from Creation Science to assist them in finding oil.
With an 80% dry well ‘target’ to aim at – things can only get better with the appliance of Creation Science!!!
But then again, there may be greater satisfaction to be gained from doing things the ‘hard’ (i.e. Evolutionists) way!!!
Hilarious, and exactly the point - if Creation Science worked, then they'd use it, for the benefits you describe. Do you really think we'd do things the hard way, if the easy way netted us a few extra billion dollars a year, JC? Why don't you simply admit that you can't answer the question?
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
None of the geologists that I know utilize their religion to find wells. They use geology and don't give a fig as to when the rocks where formed.
One will tell you that God created them 12,000 years ago with all the oil reserves and had to make 4,000,000,000 year old rocks to set the foundation of the Earth.
One will tell you that the God made the earth 4,000,000,000 years ago and another will tell you that first there was nothing then it exploded.
But all three use geological formations to narrow down the likelihood of where a well will be.0 -
Hi wolfbane
It seem an odd theology to say that God created something so evil it is called the last enemy. According to your beliefs, God created death to punish sin, death is simply God's servant, so how is it his enemy? It makes much more sense theologically to say death was simply part of the world God created, and only became the enemy when man sinned.Death became an enemy the moment it touched us. Yes, God created this enemy. He did so as a punishment for our evil, not as a 'very good' part of life. Death for His people and the animal kingdom will cease at the Last Day. It will continue in its spiritual form forever for the wicked, men and angels.
Of course the animal weren't in rebellion. They were living free lives. If Adam already had dominion why was he told to subdue the earth, an unfallen earth should have recognised the Adam's dominion without being subdued.His mandate was to subdue the earth to his tastes, to order it, to tend and cultivate it. He was also given dominion over all other creatures. That didn't mean they were in rebellion against him. No more than God having dominion over the holy angels means they were once in rebelion against him.
There is direct Scripture for the ground being cursed for man's sin. And the Rom.8:20 quote strongly supports the fall of the animals with Adam. Otherwise it is just a throwaway comment, something God did sometime without any explanation or connection to man's fall.
Did God curse the ground all over the planet, or just the adamah, the red earth Adam was going to till (Gen 3:17-19), from which he was taken (v19 & 23), which he was sent back to till after he was thrown out of Eden (v23)? But even If God did curse the ground, it doesn't say anything about cursing animals (except a snake). Romans 8:20 says nothing about animals falling with man either. Even if it doesn't fit YEC theology, it is still a profound discussion on God's plan for nature and how the bondage to decay was all part of God's plan. Hardly a throwaway comment.
The bible say nothing about the lesser flowing from the greater, or animal death being the result of human.OK, but the lesser flows from the greater.
Perhaps because people were not human until God breathed his spirit into them. Perhaps because before the fall people had the tree of life, or whatever that symbolised, which meant they could live forever Gen 3:22. Perhaps because Romans 5 is talking about spiritual death rather than physical death, or that combination of spiritual death with human mortality that cuts us off from the hope of resurrection.The real problem for you is the text at least tells us that human death did not occur before the Fall. How does that fit in with the evolutionary scenario?
You haven't shown from scripture that humans had dominion yet, or that human dominion should effect animals when humans sinned, or given any suggestion in scripture that God would torture animals because of human sin. It is all just human theology with no scripture to back it up.Same reason as before, they are part of man's dominion. They fell with him, not morally but in behaviour and consequences.
I think God created man who learned how to build ships, in fact adam means 'man'. But I agree, it is a celebration of creation using the framework of Genesis 1. (I think it is very interesting that the Psalmist saw Genesis 1 as a framework describing creation in the first place.) But what you have to realise is that the Psalmist's celebration of God's creation, written in the framework of Genesis 1, saw God feeding lions as part of that creation, not a corruption of the creation that resulted from the fall.You are tyring to force the Psalmist to refer only to events at the Creation, but he evidently is celebrating God's work both then and what we enjoy of it now. Surely 'ships' is a key to seeing it cannot speak only of the Creation event? Or do you hold that God created ships when He created Man?
Because God was instituting a law forbidding the eating of blood? Because God was institution a new covenant which reiterated some of the old. Why did God repeat the command to circumcise their children in Leviticus when he had already commanded all Abraham's male descendants to be circumcised?That is a most unnatural reading. God specifically grants every living thing as food for Man - if that were already the case, why say it?
It is amazing how YECs believe in really rapid evolution after the flood...Adaption certainly will have led to being better fitted to meat. But that says nothing about how they were originally.
Or as Youngs Literal translation puts it, multiply song that thou mayest be remembered. People with harps usually know some songs already. It was Eve's pain God was going to make great, which says pain was already there to increase.I have taken time to check out the Hebrew behind your 'multiply' argument, as the argument has a lot of weight - Zero sorrow cannot be multiplied to give much sorrow.
Edward J. Young, the great bible scholar, http://www.opc.org/today.html?history_id=48
translates Genesis 3:16: Unto the woman he said: Causing to be great I shall cause to be great thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth sons, and unto thy husband will be thy desire, and he will rule over thee.
I looked at Geseneius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to see where he got this. The usage here means to make or do much and the same usage is seen in Isaiah 23:16:“ Take a harp, go about the city,
You forgotten harlot;
Make sweet melody, sing many songs,
That you may be remembered.”
Here it is 'sing many'
So God is saying to Eve that He will make her sorrow great. Multipling doesn't come into it.
Glad you are coming around to see the goodness of creation.You err in thinking a fallen creation must be all bad: but while man is undoubtedly wicked, he still bears the image of God (making it a capital offence to kill him, Gen.9:6). Likewise the rest of creation: it all displays the glory of God, declaring His eternal power and Godhead, Rom.1:20. But it is still fallen, in the bondage of corruption, Rom.8:21.
It's all part of life. We are way too mollycoddled today..Hey, what's a week or two of agony to a theistic evolutionist? To the Creationist, it is a week or two too long.
So YEC organisations are kinder gentler muggers?Tell that to the victims and their families. I'm sure they would appreciate the opportunity to donate or not as they please. But that's just a Creationist speaking. Obviously evolutionary theory affects how one sees life.
Cheers Assyrian0 -
Advertisement
-
BrianCalgary wrote:None of the geologists that I know utilize their religion to find wells. They use geology and don't give a fig as to when the rocks where formed.
One will tell you that God created them 12,000 years ago with all the oil reserves and had to make 4,000,000,000 year old rocks to set the foundation of the Earth.
One will tell you that the God made the earth 4,000,000,000 years ago and another will tell you that first there was nothing then it exploded.
But all three use geological formations to narrow down the likelihood of where a well will be.
I appreciate that petroleum geology is not something everyone has studied. However, even the basic wikipedia article makes the point that one of the key factors in identifying possible reservoirs is the thermal history of the rocks, and another is the structural history.
Neither the thermal maturation history of reservoir rocks, nor the structural histories of their settings, can be in any way fitted into the YEC timescale, or related in any way to Biblical events.
The sedimentology of reservoir rocks is heavily, intensively, and expensively studied by oil company geologists, and at no point does the Biblical Flood get a look in.
Young Earth Creationism, and its attendant "Creation Science", is moonshine, pure and simple - about as useful in the real world as a chocolate teapot. You don't even have to take my word for it - take the evidence of the oil industry!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Sure this is a verse that explains how biblical symbolism works. But not every occurrence of a biblical symbol comes with a built in explanation does it? What is does show you is that the bible can use 'day' with numbers when the meaning is symbolic. YECs base their arguments on the claim this does not happen.JC wrote:In this case, it is clear that there is a DIRECT LINKAGE between particular numbers of days and the equivalent number of years. No such linkage is made between the Days of Creation Week and any other time period.
Luke 13:32 And he said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Was Jesus being literal or figurative?
The bible says he rest on the seventh day, not that he started to rest on the seventh day and still continues. In fact Exodus 31:17 says on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. Which tells us the rest and refreshing all belong on the seventh day.Creationists fully accept that God rested on the Seventh Day of Creation and also that He continues to rest i.e. refrain from further Direct Acts of Creation.
The quote in Hebrews says God rested on the seventh day (the Greek en meaning 'in'). There is no suggestion it simply started the seventh day and continued. What the writer tells us is that this rest, God's seventh day rest, is still going on. The writer was clearly thinking a day in the bible could refer to a much longer period. Look at how he treats the word 'today' in Psalm 95:7.
Heb 3:7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, "Today, if you hear his voice, 8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness... 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. The writer of Hebrew saw two great day ages going on, one was the 'today' we live in, the other is God's seventh day we enter into by faith.
You mean the sort of tweaking Jesus referred to in John 5:17? But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."This actually invalidates any regular ‘tweaking’ interventions by God, which is implied by Theistic Evolution.
The commandments were meant literally, the illustration used to explain them was clearly figurative. Read the same commandment in Deuteronomy. Deut 5:14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter... 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.The statements were made in the context of the Ten Commandments – which were LITERAL LAW – and therefore NOT metaphorical!!
Are God's mighty hand and outstretched arm literal or another anthropomorphic metaphor?
I am not talking about the Big Bang. I am talking about the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud 160,000 light years away, measured by triangulation. I am talking about distances to more distant galaxies measured by cephid variables whose accuracy has been confirmed by measurements of the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud.You cannot produce any repeatably observable evidence that the Big Bang actually occurred.
The Big Bang is just the latest idea in an endless series of fallible imaginings by Human Beings.
I prefer to take the Word of God on the matter, unless and until it is disproven by repeatable objective means.
A broken Vitamin C synthesis genes we share with apes is pretty strong evidence. So is the way fossils change as you go down through geological strata. So is the way paleontologists knew what age of rock, or as YECs would put it, what random ratio of potassium and argon, when they wanted to find a fish with legs, or ape fossils with unusually large brain cavities.There are only THREE problems with your idea:-
1. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that ‘Muck to Man Evolution’ ever occurred.
God makes no mention of any mechanism, though he does command the earth to produce living creatures.2. God makes no mention of Evolution in His account of Creation in Genesis.
Even if God commanded it? I think you underestimate God's creation when he designing the carbon atom and its chemistry.3. The spontaneous generation of the sequence for a simple Protein is a mathematical impossibility.
I suspect ID confuses these two types of information, there is no semantic message in DNA (though it has been suggested it would be a great place for SETI to look for hidden messages). The order of nucleotides in DNA simply controls where amino acids fit, the same as the information in the structure of a snow flake controls where the next water molecule fits and how it is orientated. Information yes, message no. Change the structure of the DNA and a different amino acid will go in that place. If it works it will probably be passed on, if not it probably won't. But there is no semantic message.Information Theory describes two types of information – syntactic and semantic.
Syntactic information is raw data with no meaning. A good example is a snowflake, or indeed any crystalline structure. A snowflake is a complex arrangement of hexagonal ice crystals. There is information there, but it is syntactic – or meaningless. A snowflake is a reasonably complex and ordered hexagonally based structure, often of great beauty, but it doesn’t contain any discernable message or meaningful information.
As I said the vast majority are simply harmless, but harmful mutations are much easier to spot than beneficial ones. Harmful: people get sick with weird symptoms or die, doctors try to find out why. Beneficial: people stay well or don't get diseases. Unless they are in a very high risk category for a disease like African prostitutes, no one is going to check their genetics to see why they don't get sick.The overwhelming majority (99.9%) of mutations are harmful or useless. An exceedingly small number of mutations are ‘useful’. This is hardly a promising mechanism to shepherd life on an upwards and onwards curve of increasing perfection and complexity – as proposed by Evolution.
However, the final ‘nail in the coffin’ of the Mutation/Evolution relationship is the fact that ALL i.e 100% of all observed mutations are genetically DESTRUCTIVE and result in REDUCED genetic information.
Instead you get the good genes, the original version, passed on through a brother or sister.All random changes are quadrillions of times more likely to ‘crash’ living system than they are to result in ANY improvement. Could I also remind you that when a living system “crashes” – death is often the result for the organism affected – and so each ‘crash’ may remove the ‘bad genes’ involved but it will also eliminate any ‘good genes’ which this organism may also have possessed.
I am suprised IDists resurrected this old chesnut. Irrreducible Complexity is just a new version of the old Creation argument about the eye which has been totally discredited. As the saying goes, 'in the land of the blind a one eyed man is king'. Actually in the land of blind a creature who can tell the difference between light and shadow is king. It can tell when other animals are moving around it simply from their shadow.The phenomenon of IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY means that an organ with an ultimate advantage, say a functioning eye, is a significant DISADVANTAGE in any intermediate non-functioning stage...
Intermediate stages (if such ever existed) would always confer net disadvantage – because an eye, for example, is only useful when it is a functioning eye - otherwise it is a liability...
Poodles are interesting though. I never saw a wolf with curly hair. Do you think it might be a successful mutation? Poodles are actually quite an old breed of German water retrievers with a quite a lot of genetic diversity, but even if they were inbred, your two mongrels would have less than four times their genetic diversity. Successful breeding populations are usually much larger.Even today, crossing TWO mongrels will provide more genetic diversity than a MILLION Poodles!!
The original Created Dog Kind did have ENORMOUS genetic diversity – and it DID produce all of the various dog breeds as well as all of the feral members of the Dog Family observed today.
As a Christian I believe in Creation and I like science, does that count? If you go in for the Aristotelian philosophy of 'fixity of species' or 'kinds', all you have to realise is that the eucaryote 'kind' never evolved into anything other than other eucaryotes, our chordate ancestors never evolved into anything other than chordate kind. Vertebrates are still vertebrates, gnathostomata are still gnathostomata, synapsids are still synapsids and mammals are still part of mammal kind.The 'penny is beginning to drop' Assyrian – you are not quite a Creation Scientist just yet - but you are getting there!!!
Cheers Assyrian0 -
Scofflaw wrote:
Neither the thermal maturation history of reservoir rocks, nor the structural histories of their settings, can be in any way fitted into the YEC timescale, or related in any way to Biblical events.
The sedimentology of reservoir rocks is heavily, intensively, and expensively studied by oil company geologists, and at no point does the Biblical Flood get a look in.
I think that my geology friends would disagree with you here. One in particular is an OEC, knows the flood happened and it's effect on the geological formations in the Canadian prairie basin that once was covered in ice when the flood occured and he would say covered in water at some other point in history.
He knows where to find the oil, where every rock is in the basin (my words based on my knowledge of rock formations here) and he thanks God for the formations that He created and the clues He provided to find deposits.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:I think that my geology friends would disagree with you here. One in particular is an OEC, knows the flood happened and it's effect on the geological formations in the Canadian prairie basin that once was covered in ice when the flood occured and he would say covered in water at some other point in history.
He knows where to find the oil, where every rock is in the basin (my words based on my knowledge of rock formations here) and he thanks God for the formations that He created and the clues He provided to find deposits.
Conveniently for your friend, there was a large flood (well, several) in Canada, related to subglacial meltwaters. Major meltwater floods are reasonably well known at this stage - it's one of the ways that Flood Geology can be disproved, by comparing evidence from real floods. For an example of scientific studies on this kind of thing, see here.
As a matter of interest, does your friend work for one of the oil majors, and does he apply Flood Geology to his prospecting?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
MOGSA wrote:
Wicknight wrote : No, he is pointing out that this man is not an expert in evolution as you claimed. Only if you don't understand what is happening.
Certainly this was my laymans perception especially in the manner he was introduced to me. I must confirm that in the areas where I do have some knowledge, he appears spot on which lulled me into thinking that all the areas presented were equally so.
I had already stated my lack of knowledge in the subject so I must accept your reasoning. But I am not giving up on the Creationist debate:
I believe that God's 'time' is variable. A lifetime for Methusela was almost 1000 years. My lifespan is going to be nearer 90.
I therefore believe that the answer to the debate lies somewhere between the two contentions. You did not respond to the second part of my rock throwing exercise after jumping on the Veith issue:
"Who says (gathered from the posts) that you (both sides) arent both right but talking at cross-purposes? Who says Adam & Eve were the first humans - the KJV bible doesnt!? In fact it could be intepreted as just the opposite for good reason!"
What if? Half a pint of warm beer to the person who knows the KJV Bible best!
PS I have lots of rocks, not all of them in my head!
Well you see you get back to the point I was making about JC's logic, that when ever a religious person hits a brick wall, find something that contracticts his belief the easy answer is simply "God did it"
You are explaining away the huge inconsistancies between the traditional Judo/Christian ideas of the earth and what modern science can tell us by stating that God is simply manipulating everything, like time.
That fine, but it ain't science. In fact it is scientific nonsense. You can believe it all you like, but you will have a hard time trying to show its correct.0 -
Advertisement
-
> Isnt this typical? You attack the man's integrity without knowing
> the man or the basis for his comparisons.
With respect, while I certainly don't know the chap, I do know what he's talking about and as I said in my earlier posting, it's an absolutely standard rehashing of absolutely standard creationist nonsense. There must be thousands upon thousands of creationist pages out there that go on about the Mt St Helen's eruption and not a single one that I've seen suggests that a normal geologist might be able to tell the difference between something formed last week and something formed a million years ago. I don't find this enormously honest of creationists.
> I watched all 16 of his 90min videos with a critical eye and certainly
> did not accept each and every hypothesis presented.
As you're prepared to put some time into understanding this, I suggest that you try spend some time reading up on evolution. A good place to start is http://www.talkorigins.org which has a lot of reference material on it relating to evolution, as well as plenty of stuff which debunks creationism and creationists. It's well-written, clearly presented and very interesting!0 -
Scofflaw wrote:As a matter of interest, does your friend work for one of the oil majors, and does he apply Flood Geology to his prospecting?
cordially,
Scofflaw
Her doesn't work for a major. He is now in th emapping business. He has quite a successful business preparing geological maps of Alberta, showing wells and the varied rock formations and starta. It's pretty fascinating stuff.
I don't know the answer to the second question. Next time we get together I think we will have a chat about the flood in a little more depth than we have in the past.0 -
Watching this thread go and move over the last few months and having someone somewhere back there in the dark recesses of the history of this thread ask me why I believe what I do. I think that I have come up with a response.
We watch CSI in our house quite a bit. The characters are attempting to solve a crime where no witnesses exist, except the perpetrator. They are trying to determine what occurred at a past event by gathering the evidence at the scene.
Creation is the same. Trying to put together evidence to determine what happened at a past event. I think that we can all agree that there are four possibilities:
1) Old Earth created by God
2) Young Earth created by God
3) Old Earth no creator
4) Young Earth no creator
I don’t think any one here would buy into option 4.
I go with option 2, other Christians would go with option 1. Both have found salvation in Christ.
I go with option 2 because, assuming God is real, He is an eyewitness to the event and has communicated to us through His word as to what happened. He says 6 days and I go with 6 days.
The other witnesses are the angels, including Satan.
Satan wants to lie about the events and remove God from the creation. He argues for option 3.
Those involved in the scientific community leave me with the impression that 1 and 2 are not possible therefore not even worth considering as options. They only operate within option 3. That is one of the reasons that I don’t trust their judgement.
Evolution is only one aspect of the argument. Bottom line is that the scientific community wants to explain origins. The talk about the origin of the universe it is big bang. The origin of species it is evolution and so on. Therefore a Christian is not looking for a satisfactory explanation from evolution, but an explanation from science to explain it all.
Do I believe science or God?0 -
robindch said:
Both. For example, holding to a pacifist position will strongly tend to cause one to avoid violence. It does not guarantee it, but it is the likely outcome. Of course, someone could espouse pacifism so as to be accepted in Quaker circles, with a view to comely lass, or career advancement. When the ulterior motive has been fulfilled, the pacifism could go out the window.Ah, but I thought you said that that "evolutionism" caused "evil"?
So, you seem to say that when religious people do bad stuff, it's the people that are at fault, and not the "moral teachings". But when these "hoodie evolutionists" of yours do bad stuff, it's the "moral teachings" of evolutionism that are wrong and nothing to do with the people.
Which one is it to be? Tell the truth!
Likewise, holding to National Socialism will strongly tend to cause one to oppress the Jews. It does not guarantee it, but it is the likely outcome. But someone could join the Party for ulterior motives and really not be in favour of persecuting the Jews.
The world-view of Christianity tends to moral behaviour in its sincere adherents. Consistent Christians will be very moral people. The paedophile priests are just phoney Christians.
The world-view that embraces evolution logically is amoral and tends to produce that in its adherents. Hoodies are consistent atheists. But if someone refuses to follow the logic of the system and instead impose morality upon themselves, then they may be very moral folk. Phoney atheists, if you like.:D0 -
Quote Wicknight
all you have ever posted JC is wild assumptions based on miss-understanding of scientific processes like biology and evolution.
I have posted substantial rebuttals that invalidate almost every aspect of Gradualist Macro-Evolution
I HAVE posted quotes from LEADING EVOLUTIONISTS that indicates that THEY have MORE doubts about Evolution than even I have myself!!!!!.
Please read my Post #1469 AGAIN !!!
Evolution is a ‘dead duck’ – it just hasn’t been buried yet!!!
Quote Scofflaw
Neither voting the graveyard nor quoting the graveyard is impressive. Why are none of your scientific references less than 20 years old?
Current Evolutionists are too scared to go public with their reservations about Evolution – and I respect their fears and their confidences in this regard.
The deficiencies identified by Prof George Gaylord Simpson et al still remain valid.0 -
Wicknight wrote:Well you see you get back to the point I was making about JC's logic, that when ever a religious person hits a brick wall, find something that contracticts his belief the easy answer is simply "God did it"
You are explaining away the huge inconsistancies between the traditional Judo/Christian ideas of the earth and what modern science can tell us by stating that God is simply manipulating everything, like time.
That fine, but it ain't science. In fact it is scientific nonsense. You can believe it all you like, but you will have a hard time trying to show its correct.
How hard is it for you to take the gap I gave you more than once in my challenge about Adam & Eve not being the first humans and that the earth could be as old you reckon? You are in fact pushing on an open door - the difference between you and I is that I believe the God of Abraham (Jehovah if you wish) created heaven and earth, no matter how long it took in our terms.
This whole argument is about the time it took to do so. The creationists want it to happen in a flash based on Adam & Eve being the first humans and you saying it took millions of years, probably without God.
You critisise me 'hiding' behind 'God did it' - God has different definitions for time - thats a fact. How do know that 'a day' in creation time didnt mean 500 million years? You, in fact, miss the point entirely - I have already known for some time that the earth is old - the real issues are Adam & Eve and Noah!
On the other hand, I dont put my God in a box - He could reconstruct the universe in a millisecond of our time, should He choose. But biblically (and I know I am going to get flak for this) it doesnt say so!
Do/could you believe in the God of Abraham? is it only the so-called creationists that prevent you from doing so or is there a deeper reason?0 -
robindch wrote:
As you're prepared to put some time into understanding this, I suggest that you try spend some time reading up on evolution. A good place to start is [url]http://www.talkorigins.org[/url] which has a lot of reference material on it relating to evolution, as well as plenty of stuff which debunks creationism and creationists. It's well-written, clearly presented and very interesting!
I respect your knowledge on your area of expertise and the contribution you have made to this debate. A quick scan of the suggested contents reveals nothing I havent looked at before.
of course you would not know that I spent years in another spiritual dimension, read every book on aliens I could, devoured every word of Erik von Daniken (sp?) and had some very unnerving experiences.
Then someone lent me a book on the geology of the Bible. I like to think that I have an open mind [behind every open door, there is a closed mind
] so I read it in detail, set out to disprove the bible in every facet and landed up here, defending that which I know I know - not because of my knowledge, but because of the knowledge provided me whenever I need it.
The prior comment to Wicknight discusss my thoughts on this. Maybe the Moderator should spin this off onto a new thread (or the one on spiritual warefare) so as not to kill this sterile debate. The argument, for me at least, will be about the issues of Adam & Eve and Noah, thus leaving out most non-believers, although I know that Asiaprod will provide userful food for thought.0 -
J C wrote:I have posted substantial rebuttals that invalidate almost every aspect of Gradualist Macro-Evolution
Well, you've posted substantial rubbish that indicates your failure to understand almost every aspect of Gradualist Macro-Evolution, so you're close.J C wrote:I HAVE posted quotes from LEADING EVOLUTIONISTS that indicates that THEY have MORE doubts about Evolution than even I have myself!!!!!.
And you have frequently misquoted or misunderstood leading evolutionists, that's also true. You've also been known to do a neat job of finding quotes from the 50's, 60's and 70's that indicate honest doubts which have subsequently been resolved.J C wrote:Evolution is a ‘dead duck’ – it just hasn’t been buried yet!!!
Creation is not just dead, but was scientifically buried in the early years of last century. Why you choose to drag the corpse around in public is beyond understanding.JC wrote:Current Evolutionists are too scared to go public with their reservations about Evolution – and I respect their fears and their confidences in this regard.
The deficiencies identified by Prof George Gaylord Simpson et al still remain valid.
That's certainly very kind of you. Of course, it also saves you from having to "prove" that there are such doubts. Many of the deficiencies have been addressed - it's the nature of the scientific process to move forward...
I don't know, JC - you're certainly entitled to your odd beliefs, but it's quite hard to resist poking fun at you when you make wild (and heavily capitalised) claims!
Scofflaw0 -
Quote Wicknight
when ever a religious person hits a brick wall, find something that contracticts his belief the easy answer is simply "God did it"
Whenever an Evolutionist hits a brick wall or finds something that contradicts his belief (which must happen at least daily) – the easy answer is simply “Evolution did it.”
So there you have it – the choice is basically between an all powerful, infinitely intelligent ever loving God or Evolution.
Difficult choice really!!!!0 -
wolfsbane wrote:The world-view that embraces evolution logically is amoral...
Hmm. Partially true. The evolutionary world-view does not logically imply any particular morals, because it does not deal with morality. On the other hand, it certainly does not require amorality, nor suggest the abandonment of Christian morals to any but a small subset of Christian sects. OECs and mainstream Christians have no difficulty reconciling the two - evolution affects the mortal, while God looks after the immortal.
To have evolution deny morality requires the acceptance that Biblical literalism is true, and that all morality stems from the Bible. You believe that, so you believe evolution is immoral.wolfsbane wrote:...and tends to produce that in its adherents.
If only you could produce some proof. All the evidence points the other way, actually, as I'm sure you're aware.wolfsbane wrote:Hoodies are consistent atheists.
Complete rubbish. Most hoodies can't even spell evolution. Not only that, but Ireland only has 500 recorded atheists (Census 2002), and it's a long time since I mugged anyone at an ATM (although I regularly getted mugged by my bank at the ATM!), so the other 499 must be spread pretty thin.wolfsbane wrote:But if someone refuses to follow the logic of the system and instead impose morality upon themselves, then they may be very moral folk. Phoney atheists, if you like.:D
To make a great laughing noise! Denying the Biblical God doesn't require a denial of morality, I'm afraid, or most of human society would never have got running.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
BrianCalgary wrote:Creation is the same. Trying to put together evidence to determine what happened at a past event. I think that we can all agree that there are four possibilities:
1) Old Earth created by God
2) Young Earth created by God
3) Old Earth no creator
4) Young Earth no creator
I don’t think any one here would buy into option 4.
I go with option 2, other Christians would go with option 1. Both have found salvation in Christ.
I go with option 2 because, assuming God is real, He is an eyewitness to the event and has communicated to us through His word as to what happened. He says 6 days and I go with 6 days.
The other witnesses are the angels, including Satan.
Satan wants to lie about the events and remove God from the creation. He argues for option 3.
I'm not aware that Satan's position on the matter is recorded anywhere.BrianCalgary wrote:Those involved in the scientific community leave me with the impression that 1 and 2 are not possible therefore not even worth considering as options. They only operate within option 3. That is one of the reasons that I don’t trust their judgement.
This is certainly true for some scientists. On the other hand, a majority of scientists are religious, so it can't really be the case for the majority, can it? Not to mention the fact that your analysis is exclusively Christian, and comes very close to wolfsbane's claim that scientists are motivated by the Devil.
YEC's talk as if science sprang full-blown into being with rejection of the Bible and an atheistic mindset already built in. Despite this, we see that they regularly claim a lot of dead scientists as Creationists, which is entirely correct, since most early scientists were of course Creationists.
Creationism has been found to be scientifically untenable, much against the feelings of many scientists. All kinds of tricks and contortions were tried to fit the expanding scientific picture of the world into the Bible's timeline and history, much as Creationists do now. The contortions involved became sillier and sillier, and eventually, nearly everybody stopped. Science has outgrown Biblical literalism, but that's not the same thing as simply "dismissing" it out of hand.
That this is not some kind of secular conspiracy by scientists (an entirely unsubstantiated claim) can easily be seen from the fact that the Young Earth model is not used in any applied industry (mining, petroleum, bloodstock, medicine, etc etc), where there would be a financial inducement to adopt it if it worked.BrianCalgary wrote:Evolution is only one aspect of the argument. Bottom line is that the scientific community wants to explain origins. The talk about the origin of the universe it is big bang. The origin of species it is evolution and so on. Therefore a Christian is not looking for a satisfactory explanation from evolution, but an explanation from science to explain it all.
Do I believe science or God?
You obviously believe they're mutually exclusive, which is the silly bit. What puts you so strongly against the OEC position, or the idea that God created the Universe (rather than the world) and set it to run according to laws?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Scofflaw wrote:
You obviously believe they're mutually exclusive, which is the silly bit. What puts you so strongly against the OEC position, or the idea that God created the Universe (rather than the world) and set it to run according to laws?
cordially,
Scofflaw
Just enough time to respond to this. Not mutually exclusive as I am amazed at how things work and how God created them to work I look to science to tell me how God's creation does work. So I like nature shows and ignore the bits when they say that a creature evolved into it's current form.
What puts me against the OEC position is that God says 6 days in Genesis. My geologist buddy is an OEC and he and I have an agreement that the first guy to Heaven finds out how it was doen and thumbs his nose or bows to th enext guy to arrive, whichever is appropriate.0 -
Quote Assyrian
It is amazing how YECs believe in really rapid evolution after the flood...
Natural / Artificial Selection and Speciation are indeed sometimes OBSERVED to be VERY RAPID indeed.
However, they are ALWAYS observed to utilise PRE-EXISTING genetic information and to be confined within Created Kinds.
Original Quote by J C
This actually invalidates any regular ‘tweaking’ interventions by God, which is implied by Theistic Evolution
Quote Assyrian
You mean the sort of tweaking Jesus referred to in John 5:17? But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."
I was referring to God’s work of physical Creation being finished as confirmed by Genesis 2:2 which states that “by the seventh say God had finished the work he had been doing” i.e. He finished his physical Creation activity.
In Jn 5:17 Jesus confirms that His Father and Himself continued to work towards the Spiritual Salvation of Mankind – which included every action (or work) that Jesus undertook while on Earth.
Please note that Jesus DIDN’T engage in any Evolutionary activity while on Earth. When He intervened with biological systems it was to raise the dead or cure the sick – i.e. temporarily reversing the effects of the Fall – but NOT engaging in ‘genetic tweaking’.
Quote Assyrian
The commandments were meant literally, the illustration used to explain them was clearly figurative. Read the same commandment in Deuteronomy. Deut 5:14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter... 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
Are God's mighty hand and outstretched arm literal or another anthropomorphic metaphor?
We are back to a PLAIN READING of the text here.
If I were to tell you that I 'worked for the past six days' – you would conclude that I had worked for six LITERAL days.
If I were to tell you that I helped somebody through some personal crisis with 'mighty hand and outstretched arm' – you would conclude that I had generously assisted the person and my ‘mighty hand and outstretched arm’ comment was clearly a ‘figure of speech’ – i.e. METAPHORICAL.
So a plain reading of the Biblical references to six days would indicate that they ARE literal while the 'mighty hand and outstretched arm' metaphor is clearly allegorical.
Quote Assyrian
'in the land of the blind a one eyed man is king'. Actually in the land of blind a creature who can tell the difference between light and shadow is king. It can tell when other animals are moving around it simply from their shadow.
It is indeed very true that 'in the land of the blind a one eyed man is king'.
However, such a conclusion DOESN’T explain HOW something that is blind can becomes sighted using spontaneous processes.
To put this ‘problem’ into some perspective, can I give you a sketchy overview of the biochemistry of sight in ONE retina cell:-
When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (BTW a picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single Human hair.)
The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters it’s behaviour. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP).
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (cGMP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers it’s concentation by acting as an ‘absorber’.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of Sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows Sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein ‘pumps’ them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and the ‘pump’ keeps the level of Sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of the cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentrations of positively charged Sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.
If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP and Sodium ions would be depleted quickly. Several mechanisms turn off the proteins that were turned on, in order to restore the cell to it’s original state. Firstly, the ion channel also lets Calcium ions in as well as Sodium ions. The Calcium is ‘pumped’ back by a different protein so that a constant Calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, Calcium concentrations also decrease too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP slows down at lower Calcium ion concentrations. Second, a protein called guanlate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when Calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. And this is how the cell limits the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin and is reconverted to 11-cis-retinal which is again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, transretinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol – a form containing two more Hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retionol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added Hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal and one cycle is completed (in about one nanosecond).
You may choose to believe that random chance or indeed blind chemical forces produced all of the above systems – but please bear in mind that if EVEN ONE of the above biochemical processes are missing or in the wrong position on the cascade, this will mean that the creature will be COMPLETELY blind.
I think that the conclusion that “God did it” – is considerably more RATIONAL.
Again Prof. Richard E. Dickerson’s quote sums it all up for evolutionists grappling with functional intermediate systems to the one described above:-.
“We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imaginations so far have not been very helpful.”
Please also note that whether you believe that “God did it” or it arose spontaneously, doesn’t affect either your ability or indeed your desire to scientifically describe and understand biochemical processes.
Creation Scientists and Evolutionists can BOTH be excellent Biochemists.
Is it fair or indeed rational that Evolutionists completely discount both the abilities and qualifications of scientists who believe (with good reason) that God is the direct originator of all life?
Creation Scientists respect both the abilities and the qualifications of Evolutionists - is it too much to expect a reciprocal respect from Evolutionists?
Or is Creation Science now the only love that dare not speak it's name?0 -
That you find the science complex, JC, is not actually a conclusion about the science.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
No you haven't you have posted nonsense arguments that don't stand up to the least bit of investigation, like your claim that it is statistically impossible for non-organic molecules to form into organic ones. These arguments are either based on false reasoning (for example you claim the only way this could happen is randomly, where as there is nothing random about chemistry) or a miss-representation of processes like evolution altered to prove you point.J C wrote:Quote Wicknight
I have posted substantial rebuttals that invalidate almost every aspect of Gradualist Macro-Evolution
You are confusing the honesty that we simply do not know for sure how life started on Earth with doubt over evolution.J C wrote:I HAVE posted quotes from LEADING EVOLUTIONISTS that indicates that THEY have MORE doubts about Evolution than even I have myself!!!!!.
There is a big difference between saying we don't know and saying that the theory is implausable.
Most scientists, unlike religion, accept when they don't know something. We don't know exactly how life began on Earth. That does not mean the theories and concepts of evolution are invalid or that their are "doubts" over them. Evolution explains 90% of all biological history of the earth. The idea that the 10% we don't know some how negates the 90% we do know is ridiculous.
You can choose to believe that God started life on Earth. Thats fine, I don't care. There is no evidence God didn't start life on Earth. But there are plenty of workable plausable theories that explain how life on Earth could have started that don't include God. These theories fit into a grand model of biology and chemisty that works quite well without a divine creator. There are no doubts over the validity of these theories, we simply don't know for sure which one is actually correct.
Thats the way science (unlike religion) actually works, you don't work on assumptions, you don't work on guess work. You state when you don't know something.
You say these scientists have doubts when all they are really saying is "we don't know". That doesn't mean it is impossible, it doesn't mean any theory is wrong.
That is nonsense and you know it. Evolution fits everything we know about biology, geology, and chemistry. If evolution is wrong all what we know about all these other areas of science is wrong also.J C wrote:Evolution is a ‘dead duck’ – it just hasn’t been buried yet!!!
There is no other theory that explains 0.01% of the stuff evolution does. It simply fits all the evidence we have.0 -
MOGSA wrote:How hard is it for you to take the gap I gave you more than once in my challenge about Adam & Eve not being the first humans and that the earth could be as old you reckon? You are in fact pushing on an open door - the difference between you and I is that I believe the God of Abraham (Jehovah if you wish) created heaven and earth, no matter how long it took in our terms.
Er, ok ... Adam and Eve weren't the first humans, and the world was not created 6000 years ago.
If you are saying that despite this Adam and Eve might still have existed I'm not sure what point you are making. If they weren't the first humans then the Bible account is simply wrong.
There is a lot of historical theories about how the Adam and Eve stories arose, that are actually based on real places and other stories from older cultures. That is all plausable.
What is a fact?MOGSA wrote:You critisise me 'hiding' behind 'God did it' - God has different definitions for time - thats a fact.
I don't but then that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.MOGSA wrote:How do know that 'a day' in creation time didnt mean 500 million years?
A day is defined as the time it takes for the earth to do one revolution. A "day" has very little meaning outside of that. Of course a "day" on Mars is longer (or is it shorter?) and a "day" in the Milk Way is hundreds of thousands of years (the time it takes the Milk Way to rotate once).
So it is possible that the "day" that the Bible referres to a period of time that is external to the rotation of the Earth. But then that to me is grasping as straws in an effort to fit the Bible stories into what we actually know about the universe.
Is a more plausable explination simply that the Bible story of creation is simply incorrect?
Well again the stories of Noah may have been based on actual events. There were a number of severe flood in the Middle East that could have formed the basis for the story of Noah. But there is no evidence for a world wide flood some 4000 years ago, or even a plausable scientific theory about how it could have happened. It would not be possible for the earth to be flooded in 40 days, it would not be possible for the water to recend. It would not be possible to hold 2 of every animal on the arch and 2 of every animal would not explain the genetic structures of all life on earth. I could go on and on about all the things that are implausable about the Flood story.MOGSA wrote:You, in fact, miss the point entirely - I have already known for some time that the earth is old - the real issues are Adam & Eve and Noah!MOGSA wrote:Do/could you believe in the God of Abraham? is it only the so-called creationists that prevent you from doing so or is there a deeper reason?
Honestly, no. I think humans made the whole thing up.
It is in our nature to try and answer questions. Why did that happen? Why does rain fall from the sky, where does the moon go in the day? Why did the crops fail last year?
It is also in our nature to fashion answers around concepts we are already aware of. That is where, I believe, the concept of "God" came from.
If you look at the evolution (excuse the pun) of the concept of the modern Judo/Christian God you can see the transition from multi-gods to a single "God". Originally the gods explained different aspects of the world. Zeus or Thor for example handled the weather, explained lightning. Others explained love, death, dieases etc etc.
As cultures and civilisation developed monotheism developed in a number of different cultures. The concepts of multiple gods was replaced with the concept of one single "God" that explained it all. This God takes on the role of the father figure (or in some cultures a mother figure depending on the role of women in the society).
I'm sure you don't believe in the accient Roman, Greek or Viking gods. Do you accept that humans made them up, not in a purposeful act of fiction, but simply as an attempt to explain through imagination the world around them. For me that is the same with the Judo/Christian monotheist "God"
Ironically it is the same quest to explain, the same sense of wonder of the natural world that lead humanity on the quest to develop religion as well as science. Both are attempts to bring order and understanding to the world around us. Except, for me, religion does this by looking at what we want to believe is happening and science does this by looking at what we believe is actually happening.
Evolution is the classic example. Creations want to believe God created life on Earth. They are coming to the table with a preconcieved requirement that must be met by the evidence. So, by default, the evidence must support this idea or the evidence must be wrong. Which is why you have Creationists bending over backwards to fit everything into their already established concept that God exists and had a role in creation. This can range from the some what reasonable (I will admit that intelligent design is a reasonable theory except it is highly implasuable based on the evidence) to the down right wakey (people claiming the Flood water was sucked out to space and now is frozen around the astroid belt).
So there is always going to be a conflict betweem science and Creationism because a Creationist beleives they already know the answer and they are now simply trying to make the evidence fit that answer. They believe they will eventually be proven correct by science, but the more evidence is put forward to more it contradicts the Creationist view point and the more threatened they become. I'm not just talking about the last 20 years, this has been the case for the last 600 years. Every new bit of scientific understanding that has challanaged the religious position has been fought by the church but eventually accepted by that masses. And every time the religious position has to be adapted and altered to fit in what we know from science.
The same is true with evolutions. Despite what JC claims there is no "doubt" over the theory of evolution, it fits the vast majority of what we know about biology and chemisty. Sure it ain't the same theory as Darwin came up with 100 years ago, but then astrophysics isn't at the same level as Galileo 500 years ago either. And more importantly with evolution, nothing has come along that seriously contradicts it.
There is still a lot of questions about how life actually starts, how a non-organic molecule forms into a self replicating organic molecule. Labs have show this can happen under natural environments, but we still don't know and may never know, how it actually happened 4 billion years ago on Earth.
But for me the conflict religion has at the moment, and has always had, to try and fit their dogma and beliefs into the on going development of science is something religion has to work out itself. I cannot try and manipulate or distort the science for its own ends.
If the theory is wrong show it is wrong and come up with a better one. Don't say it is wrong because it doesn't fit into your religious ideas of what you want to have happened, and don't try and replace the theory with religous dogma.
If science doesn't prove your religion that isn't science's fault.0 -
Wicknight wrote:If they weren't the first humans then the Bible account is simply wrong.
No it isnt wrong it is very specific - try reading Genisys up about the end of chapter 4 carefully. In the KJV bible obviously, even the NIV is flawed.There is a lot of historical theories about how the Adam and Eve stories arose, that are actually based on real places and other stories from older cultures.
Older?? This is the point when you start with Noah and the Sumerians etc.That is a fact?
do I now attempt to become equally obtuse - also about what constitutes a day?Is a more plausable explination simply that the Bible story of creation is simply incorrect?
I cannot find one iota of evidence that it is incorrect. Not the way I read it, but more importantly, experience it.Well again the stories of Noah may have been based on actual events. There were a number of severe flood in the Middle East that could have formed the basis for the story of Noah. But there is no evidence for a world wide flood some 4000 years ago, or even a plausable scientific theory about how it could have happened. It would not be possible for the earth to be flooded in 40 days, it would not be possible for the water to recend. It would not be possible to hold 2 of every animal on the arch and 2 of every animal would not explain the genetic structures of all life on earth. I could go on and on about all the things that are implausable about the Flood story.
For a start you could go to the NASA website, they have a very reasonable explanation.It is in our nature to try and answer questions.
If science doesn't prove your religion that isn't science's fault.
My God says 'I choose who I choose and I am not to be questioned about it' or words to that effect. I am so grateful for being chosen because I dont have to have the answers to 'practical' christianity:- people receiving their sight back - not just hearing about it, being part of the prayer session and witnessing it first hand! One of many miracles witnessed first hand.
- having to explain to the top orthopedic surgeons in the country who told us my wife would be permanently in a wheel chair within months - some 15 yeas later - looks and acts at least 10 years younger!
- my son not being hit by almost 200 rounds of AK47 fire (9 robbers) a few months ago from less than 20m in an open road
- God guiding me and talking to me just as I can hear the voice of anyone around me
- Not having to explain my friend's xrays when the doctors told her she must have the wrong ones because she had been healed
This is all crap to you so lets try the dark side:
A young girl (a bride of Satan) has to pass her test in order to be sacrificed to Satan shortly. A man aims at her and fires several shots at her from close range. She collects the speeding bullets (obviously thru the power of her spirit guide demon) and casually hands them back to him as fulfilment of the test.
Please explain in scientific terms. Would you like to meet her? Could you explain Reiki too while youre at it?
Of course you would have to become a Satanist or have an ex-satanist you trust to verify this one and several million other such stories. Obviously the only way out for a Satanist is death/suicide or Jesus - so there is an immediate problem! Try it - make sure you keep the hot-line to Jesus available, just in case and tell us about your practical experience in Satanism if you can - its better than putting down theory!
God, to me, is a physical and mental, real experience on any everyday level. On a non-sarcastic and reconciliatory basis, I do feel sorry for you and I am sure that we could start a prayer pettion to stand in the gap for you.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:Just enough time to respond to this. Not mutually exclusive as I am amazed at how things work and how God created them to work I look to science to tell me how God's creation does work. So I like nature shows and ignore the bits when they say that a creature evolved into it's current form.
What puts me against the OEC position is that God says 6 days in Genesis. My geologist buddy is an OEC and he and I have an agreement that the first guy to Heaven finds out how it was doen and thumbs his nose or bows to th enext guy to arrive, whichever is appropriate.
And to be equally brief, this is what makes trying to persuade you that there is no scientific evidence for your position so entirely futile: to a firm believer in Creation, everything that science has ever said weighs less than one sentence in the Bible. Equally, of course, it makes any claim that science supports your position automatically suspect: 6 days is 6 days is 6 days - you either accept it, or not - and if you do, the evidence has to support it: it can't not do.
I'm not here because I disagree with people believing in Young Earth Creation - I simply object to its claims of scientific veracity, because to fit the one to the other requires an immense distortion of science, and is also totally unnecessary.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Ok I kinda see what you mean. They might not have been the first humans but they could be the first of God people, the first tribe of Abraham, the first Jews.MOGSA wrote:No it isnt wrong it is very specific - try reading Genisys up about the end of chapter 4 carefully. In the KJV bible obviously, even the NIV is flawed.
Well I think that is unlikely, but then there isn't a whole lot of evidence either way
Yes older. The people who wrote the OT Bible were not nearly the oldest civilisationMOGSA wrote:Older?? This is the point when you start with Noah and the Sumerians etc.
I just don't know what you mean by "fact". You claim it is a fact that God has different definitions of time. Do you mean that it is a fact that the Bible has different definitions of time or are you claiming to know what God knows?MOGSA wrote:do I now attempt to become equally obtuse - also about what constitutes a day?
Well it is incorrect if you take it literally. The only way it can be correct is to interpreate the different meanings like "day" differently. Which of course is possible but to me it is more likley that the people who wrote the bible just got it wrong.MOGSA wrote:I cannot find one iota of evidence that it is incorrect. Not the way I read it, but more importantly, experience it.
Not saying you are wrong, but I find it hard to believe Nasa put forward a explanation for a world wide Biblical flood (though with Bush in office I wouldn't be surprised)MOGSA wrote:For a start you could go to the NASA website, they have a very reasonable explanation.
Link please.
Not quite sure what this has to do with anything, but it kinda shows my point. You look to "God" for explinations for events in life you don't or cannot understand. God provides an answer to put your mind at rest. The concept of a God watching over and guiding you gives you peace of mind. That is what humans have done for thousands of years.MOGSA wrote:My God says 'I choose who I choose and I am not to be questioned about it' or words to that effect. I am so grateful for being chosen because I dont have to have the answers to 'practical' christianity:
Explain what in scientific terms?MOGSA wrote:Please explain in scientific terms. Would you like to meet her?
If you are asking how a woman possessed with the spirit of Satan managed to stop a hail of bullets in mid air and throw them back at her attack then, while I'm not familiar with that story, I would have to say I doubt she did.
Explain what? I don't know much about Reiki but there is no scientific evidence it works beyond the placebo effect. Reiki is also set up in such a way that it is impossible to actual link it to any improvement, but people still assume if someone feels better it is the Reiki, if they don't then they are "resisting" the treatment. It seems like nonsense to me.MOGSA wrote:Could you explain Reiki too while youre at it?MOGSA wrote:On a non-sarcastic and reconciliatory basis, I do feel sorry for you and I am sure that we could start a prayer pettion to stand in the gap for you.
Er, thanks but I'll pass :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
Quote Wicknight
for me the conflict religion has at the moment, and has always had, to try and fit their dogma and beliefs into the on going development of science is something religion has to work out itself. I cannot try and manipulate or distort the science for its own ends.
Oh yes, I almost forgot, Evolutionists don’t believe in Darwinian dogma!!!
On the distortion of science to meet it’s own ends, can I give you a quote from Prof H S Lipton FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, ‘A physicist looks at evolution’ Physics Bulletin, vol 21 1980 pp138.
“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”
Quote Wicknight
Evolution fits everything we know about biology, geology, and chemistry. If evolution is wrong all what we know about all these other areas of science is wrong also.
Or so the Evolutionist claims!!
Evolutionism and Creationism are PARADIGMS i.e. frameworks within which we can view the world.
The facts and observations of Biology, Geology and Chemistry are there for all to see and so these scientific disciplines are independent of ALL paradigms, including Evolution.
Evolutionists may reach evolutionary conclusions and Creationists may find evidence for Creation using the Scientific Method.
A debate may ensue about the scientific validity of the conclusions of either side – and that is healthy.
As I have said before, neither Creation Science or Evolutionism has a monopoly on wisdom or knowledge. The World is indeed an amazing and quite complex place – and it is the noble role of Science to evaluate all objectively verifiable hypotheses proposed to explain how the World ‘works’.
Occasionally, competing hypotheses may be proposed by Evolutionists and Creationists. Neither side will do themselves much credit by an a priori rejection the other sides hypotheses.
I say, just go and ‘do the science’ on it – and may the hypothesis that best fits ALL of the evidence win.
Quote Wicknight
There are no doubts over the validity of these theories, we simply don't know for sure which one is actually correct.
If we “don’t know for sure which (theory) is correct” – it logically follows that there is doubt over the validity ALL of the theories.
Indeed as long as there are competing hypotheses and no definitive scientific conclusion reached – these hypotheses ALL continue to remain within the realm of FAITH.
Quote Scofflaw
That you find the science complex, JC, is not actually a conclusion about the science.
The fact that the PROCESS (of the Biochemistry of sight) is extremely complex does provide considerable evidence for an intelligent Creator rather than blind natural processes – a conclusion actually confirmed by Prof Richard Dawkins, Dept of Zoology, Oxford University, UK. in ‘The necessity of Darwinism’. New Scientist, vol 94, 15 April 1982 pp 130.
“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent designer."
The biochemistry of sight is so tightly specified and complex that it IS statistically IMPOSSIBLE that it occurred by chance – and the obvious alternative to chance, as Prof Dawkins has confirmed, is an intelligent designer.
Prof Dawkins does qualify his conclusion by using the word ‘superficially’ – but I don’t have any such reservations!!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement