The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Oh yes, I almost forgot, Evolutionists don’t believe in Darwinian dogma!!!

No they don't. If Evolution was properly show to be completely incorrect tomorrow the scientific communicy would accept that. Otherwise they wouldn't be following science and would have not right to call themselves scientists.

Of course science is famous for its egos, and individuals refusing to admit they are wrong or incorrect. The history of science is littered with battles of ego maniacs who refused to admit they were wrong. But the community does. In fact they fall over themselves to tell individual scientists that they are wrong. The bloodthirsty nature of science is one of the things that keeps it on the straight and narrow.

You can bet if anyone actually found a serious flaw in evolution (a proper one, not a religous one) they would be shouting it from the roof tops.

J C wrote:

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.

Yes JC we can all read those quotes off the hundred anti-evolution sites as well. I've no idea who H. Lipton is, what his personal views were and I haven't read this article. And I doubt you have too.

J C wrote:

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.

Not really because it is necessary for Creationists to use unscientific methods to reach their conclusions.

For the very basic example of this Creationists start with the huge assumption that God must have created life. Therefore all evidence must support this assumption, if it doesn't then the evidence is wrong. That is unscientific by its very nature.

J C wrote:

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've never heard a Creationisth hypothese that isn't non-scientific by its very nature.

J C wrote:

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.

No, the ideas are scientifically sound we just don't know which one actually happened.

Take something like a black hole. We can model what we think might be happening inside one. This idea is scientifically sound, it can exist. We just don't know if that is what is actually happening.

The same with evolution theory of the start of life on earth. We know it could have happened like this, but there isn't enough evidence yet to show exactly that it did. The theory is valid.

J C wrote:

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.

That is the greatest mis-interpertation of scientific process that Creationists always put forward.

That is if we don't know for sure then we can't know anything. It is nonsense, and it is just a pathetic attempt to get their "theories" on the same level as proper scientific theories, the old "well you might be wrong and we might be wrong so our theories are equal" argument.

Just because we don't know exactually what happened doesn't mean all theories, no matter how ridiculous or non-scientific, are equally possible and all have the same weight. That is nonsense.

If I see my friend Paul go into a room I don't know for sure he is still in the room until I myself go into the room. He might have go out the other door, he might still be in the room, he might have climbed out a window. I have a number of possible theories of what could have happened, but I don't know for sure. That doesn't mean the theory he has teleported to Sweden is equally valid.:rolleyes:

That is one of the things I really don't get about the Creationists. They constantly attack evolution as if they believe that if they can just show evolution is flawed it in some how validates their ideas. The ridiculous thing about this is that the very high standards they apply to evolution would completely blow any Creationist idea of life out of the water. If the high standards show evolution flawed well they have already shown Creationism seriously flawed.

Yet they continue on the mistaken idea that if they can just weaken evolution then it some how puts their theories on the same level of validity. Which is nonsense.

They are shooting themselves in the foot. Creationist theories completely fall apart under even the most simply scientific standards. When you apply the very high scientific standard that they use to attack evolution the Creationist theories look like complete nonsense.

If the high standards of scientic demand that evolution is taken off the table (which I don't believe they do) then welll creationism shouldn't even be allowed into the building

MOGSA

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Well I think that is unlikely, but then there isn't a whole lot of evidence either way

You are starting to re-examine the basics of the Bible. We are spiritual beings in human form and will return to the feet of Jesus in spiritual form. You probably dont look like me and I probably dont look like your grandmother - so how can we all be made in God's image? Why in spiritual image only!

So, it is my contention that there were people on earth (I am led to believe several sets of people, including primitive man etc - dont hold me to this) when Adam & Eve sinned. They were then cast out of a spiritual place called Eden and plonked in the physical world. There are many issues that can be discussed at this point but I think the overall issue has been dealt with. The word of mouth of the successive generations should be evidence enough for most.

Yes older. The people who wrote the OT Bible were not nearly the oldest civilisation

In my terms, not older than Noah

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?

Everything God wants me to know is either in the Bible or communicated directly and through His prophets. The Bible shows clearly different times including when time stood still.

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.

The Bible is written in pictures and parables so it will only be clear to those who are close to God - there I said again, did'nt I? Skirting around the God issue?
But check out Revelations .. look like a straightforward bit of explanation? Explain helicopters to the people of the day?

A day in one statement can be a day in our terms or it can be a thousand or whatever period ..... one has to determine the context and mostly the actual time taken is irrelevent to the message.
It has been estimated that we, as humans, operate in two or three dimensions whereas the experts lost count after determining that God works in at least 8. Too much for my brain, except to understand that it is lots!

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)

Link please.

Try : http://www.nasa.gov This is where I learnt about artesian wells and the Flood.

and : http://www.kjvbible.org/geysers.html
try : http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/education/0000304.php

and : http://www.s8int.com/index.html and http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_flood.html

and probably one you would enjoy : http://www.answersincreation.org/genesisflood.htm
and : http://www.answersincreation.org/genesisflood.htm

Now for more controversy:

• It is my contention that the land masses in the days before and after the flood were one. (Gondwanaland??)
• when God separated the peoples at the building of the Tower of Babel He not only changed languages but separated land masses too through volcanic and asteroid/meteorite (?) action stitching the continents along the current drift. I believe there is fair evidence of this!
  This why a 'local flood' is quite acceptable to me - it would have still covered all the land at the time. People then spread thru the continents (refer to a book called 'God, kings and titans') achieving physical characteristics according to the climate/environment as well as the 'fallen angel' factor. I dont believe people were ignorant at the time based on an advanced civilisation before the flood but certainly lost technological advantages as they scattered and had to improvise. None of this is in conflict with my christian understanding and principles.

  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.

  
  Daily discussions and obedience hardly constitute just comfort. This is like living with my parents without the hassles. How I wish that I knew what I know now as a teenager rather than mid-life! How different my life would have been in terms of comfort and satsfaction.
  
  You cannot accept anything of substance - if the top guys say this is the prognosis (my wife in a wheelchair) and it didnt happen, are we all liars according to you?
  
  Explain what in scientific terms?
  
  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.
  
  If you were never exposed to say, microcode, then you would not have first hand experience of the effect on your program macros or how your PC could boot itself. Do you understand the effect 'MDA' will have on application software becoming a commodity product as a software engineer?
  
  This, to use your expression, doesnt prove anything - I am telling you that the occult exists from firsthand experience, in many more ways than just described.
  
  I will not take exception to your statement 'I doubt she did' as calling me a liar as it is fairly obvious from your posts over the years that you have built a Cocoon around yourself within your environment. Come on, even Homer Simpson expounds some of this stuff!
  
  

  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.
  
  
  Er, thanks but I'll pass :rolleyes:

  
  Of course you would. To you, everything is nonsense. Ignorance is clearly bliss so this exchange would have to see the end of this discourse. I'll only be active in the spiritual warfare thread from now on. :cool:

pH

MOGSA wrote:

People then spread thru the continents (refer to a book called 'God, kings and titans') achieving physical characteristics according to the climate/environment as well as the 'fallen angel' factor.
I dont believe people were ignorant at the time based on an advanced civilisation before the flood but certainly lost technological advantages as they scattered and had to improvise.

I like how you'll do anything to avoid the word 'evolution' even though you clearly accept it yourself! That's dedication to the cause.

MOGSA

pH wrote:

I like how you'll do anything to avoid the word 'evolution' even though you clearly accept it yourself! That's dedication to the cause.

I am glad you, at least, noticed the obvious :cool:

Zombrex

MOGSA wrote:

We are spiritual beings in human form and will return to the feet of Jesus in spiritual form.

I'll take your word on that one ..

MOGSA wrote:

They were then cast out of a spiritual place called Eden and plonked in the physical world.
...
The word of mouth of the successive generations should be evidence enough for most.

No actually, its not. In fact it isn't "evidence" at all in any historical or scientific manner.

MOGSA wrote:

In my terms, not older than Noah

Note sure what you mean by "my terms" ... they are older than Noah. You can choose to not believe that, not then its not really dependent on you believe it or not

MOGSA wrote:

Everything God wants me to know is either in the Bible or communicated directly and through His prophets. The Bible shows clearly different times including when time stood still.

Ok ... that of course works off the assumption the Bible is completely correct, which while it might be perfectly acceptable in religious circles, isn't an acceptable assumption in scientific study.

MOGSA wrote:

and probably one you would enjoy : http://www.answersincreation.org/genesisflood.htm
and : http://www.answersincreation.org/genesisflood.htm

Well there you go, not even the Bible says the Noah flood was world wide. It is probably simply a story based on an interpritation of an actual event.

Doesn't stop Creationists websites being thrown up all over the place saying it was a world wide flood. On of the biggest problems with a concept like Creationism is when all you have to go on is a religious text it is very easy for mis-understandings, misrepresentations etc to emerge.

MOGSA wrote:

[*] It is my contention that the land masses in the days before and after the flood were one. (Gondwanaland??)

Well there is no scientific basis for that, and it actually contradicts all known geological evidence.

MOGSA wrote:

[*] when God separated the peoples at the building of the Tower of Babel He not only changed languages but separated land masses too through volcanic and asteroid/meteorite (?) action stitching the continents along the current drift. I believe there is fair evidence of this!

There isn't. There is no evidence for that, and it in fact goes against what we know about land mass drift. Land mass drift take hundreds of years to move a few metres. Such a rapid expansion of the Earths crust (thousands of miles in a few minutes) would destory most of the surface of the Earth.

Of course if God was doing it you could also say he wouldn't allow that to happen, or he would slow down time, or speed up time or take everyone off earth and then put them back etc etc but you just get into endless imaginative nonsense to explain how it could have happened.

MOGSA wrote:

This why a 'local flood' is quite acceptable to me - it would have still covered all the land at the time.

Then it wouldn't be "local" since Pangaea (the last supercontinent) still contained all the land mass of the Earth stretching from the North Pole to the South Pole.

There is no evidence of a global flood. This is evidence of serveral large floods in the Middle East around the time of Noah, but these were actually local, effecting only a few hundred square miles.

Also all evidence suggests that Pangaea broke up in the Jurrasic period 180 million years ago.

MOGSA wrote:

People then spread thru the continents (refer to a book called 'God, kings and titans') achieving physical characteristics according to the climate/environment as well as the 'fallen angel' factor.

While people did spread in exactly this way, they were doing it long before the time of the Tower of babel. There would simply not have been enough time for the genetic evolution in humans to have taken place if they only started 6000-4000 years ago.

MOGSA wrote:

Daily discussions and obedience hardly constitute just comfort.

They do actually. You say you feel sorry for me, probably because you believe you have a level of happiness in life that I can never achieve without accepting God. It is this feeling that gives you comfort and support in an otherwise confusing and harsh world

MOGSA wrote:

You cannot accept anything of substance - if the top guys say this is the prognosis (my wife in a wheelchair) and it didnt happen, are we all liars according to you?

I don't understand the question. If a doctor says your wife will never walk again and she does walk again you put that down to God. Thats fine, but I would simply put it down to "wow, that was interesting" and probably it would be a reminder to me that doctors don't know everything.

You choose to believe God has helped you when something goes right in your life, and you choose to believe God is testing you when something goes wrong. Thats fine, it is basically what religion is.

But to me trying to justify every event arounds Gods plan just ends up tying you in knots. It is perfectly possible to live life without the need to fit the random events that happen to oneself around the idea that God does and controls everything. At least I feel it is, others like yourself might disagree.

MOGSA wrote:

I will not take exception to your statement 'I doubt she did' as calling me a liar as it is fairly obvious from your posts over the years that you have built a Cocoon around yourself within your environment. Come on, even Homer Simpson expounds some of this stuff!

I'm not calling you a liar, but at the same time I seriously doubt this girl stopped gun fire with the spirit of satan. That might have been what it looked like to people watching, but then that does mean it actually happened. I can get 20 people down the pub to say they have seen asylum seekers getting new cars of the government, hell it was run in a national newspaper. But asylum seekers don't and never have got new cars from the government. Are all the people in the pub liars? No of course not, they are simply mistaken.

It is preciesly because of this reason that scientic demands certain standards when evaluating the world around us, because people have, do and always will make mistakes.

MOGSA wrote:

Of course you would. To you, everything is nonsense.

Not everything, but a lot of things people want to believe in turn out to be nonsense, be in Reiki or simply the feeling someone has that yes today they are going to win the lotto.

It would be very unscientific to assume that because someone thinks something is happening, or simply wants something to be happening, it actually is happening.

If there is one thing I have learnt in this life is that the human brain has a wonderful ability to convince itself of something, even if that something isn't true. Just ask anyone who has had a crush on someone and been convinced that other person feels to same only to find out that other person doesn't even know my ... I mean their ... name ...:p

Never underestimate the human brains ability to decieve itself.

Morbert

I see that JC is back.

I always loved disassembling his straw men arguments.

He never did respond to my abiogenesis posts.

I'll be back in a few days to start highlighting his errors again.

Assyrian

JC wrote:

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.

Science has often observed the selection of mutated genes that confer an advantage in their environment. It has observed the formation of new species as creationists admit. Is it simply an article of faith that says a mutated genes cannot be part of a new species, or simply that you define them as not being genetic information?

Natural selection in bacteria and viruses frequently uses new genetic information, and unless you can define what a created kind is, and identify which animal belong to which kind, all you are doing is applying the label after the fact. In fact no one has ever observed that speciation is 'confined with in created kinds' because no one has observed what created kinds are. Created kinds is a theological dogma, and a not particularly biblical one. It is simply a theological label creationists attach to species, to define all their descendants as be members of the same 'kind'. It is not a scientific observation.

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’.

Jesus certainly engaged in creative activity. He had just done so when he told the Pharisees that he and his Father were still working. He had healed a man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. You may label it temporarily reversing the effects of the Fall, but it sounds like an act of creation to me. The miracle of the loaves and fishes looks like creating new matter in the universe. Genesis tell us God made man in his image and likeness. Psalm 139 tells us when we were made in our mother womb it was God who formed us. But in terms of creating new species, which creationists tell us is still going on, that was something God commanded the earth to do, wasn't it? He commanded the natural process to begin that would create all the species we see today.

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.

I would have to say you are not God an I would tend to take your accounts differently. I would consider the sort of work you would do very different from the sort of work God does and the bible tells me God's days can be very different from human ones. If you had talked about your ‘mighty hand and outstretched arm’ I would probably think you had lost it.

Six days when God get so weary after he his labour he has rest and is refreshed after it, certainly sound like a metaphor to me. Comparing God's work to ours does not sound like a comparison of equals. The evidence from Deuteronomy tells us God can illustrate a literal command with a figurative analogy, something you thought was impossible in the commandments. It tells us God uses anthropomorphic metaphors to in the sabbath commandment. The fact that God describes his work of creation as though he was a weary labourer being refreshed after six days toil, should tell you this is a metaphor too.

What this does is that it leaves you without a single verse in the bible that teaches a literal six day creation.

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... 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.

Yet a single mutation could result in a protein that is photosensitive. It does with porphyria. In fact there are 50 different mutations that can result in porphyria. Now porphyria is pretty debiltiating, but the mutation does not have to be in such a vital system as haem synthesis, and the quantity of chemical produced and its toxicity does not have to be nearly as great.

I think that the conclusion that “God did it” – is considerably more RATIONAL.

I have no problem with believing God did it. The evidence is however, that he chose to use what we call evolution and to take his time in doing it.

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?

I think creation science needs to show it is a science first. Your problem is that bad science is so prevalent among creationists and on creationist websites. There is a strong tendency for a bad argument to keep doing the rounds in creationist circles, simply because it sounds convincing to people who don't understand science. As long as creationists keep making claims like 'the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution', scientists will keep on disrespecting creation science. As long as creationists claim scientists only accept evolution to justify their immoral lifestyle, creation science will keep being treated with the same level of respect. Unfortunately there is an awful lot of name calling that comes from creationists. But the biggest problem for creation science is its simple inability to come up with any evidence to back up its claims of a young earth. Until it does, it dare not claim the name science, because scientists will reasonably conclude the only reasons creationists have for their belief are religious not scientific.

I think it is a tragedy that sincere believers are trapped in a system that pits the word of God against the clear evidence of the world God created. But the bible never says how God created the world and it never tries to teach us how long he took. What I do know as a Christian is that we have a Lord and saviour who loves to teach us though poetry and parable and one of the biggest problems he had with his followers was their inability to get beyond their natural literalism.

Cheers Assyrian

robindch

> Natural / Artificial Selection and Speciation are indeed
> sometimes OBSERVED to be VERY RAPID indeed.

JC, you continue to grow by leaps and bounds! Last year you were saying that speciation had never been observed, that selection didn't exist, and lots of other creationist nonsense, but now, under the careful guidance of myself and others, you've reversed your opinion on almost every one of these dogma items. In fact, I would say that you're rapidly evolving yourself and towards a position that I can only describe as being almost pure Darwinist!

I solemnly declare that there is hope for this thread yet.

MOGSA

Wicknight wrote : Never underestimate the human brains ability to decieve itself

And I could add "to be inflexible" and "to not make all the connections" but I have to move on. I will look forward to your post to this or the general christian thread on or about this time in two years time about how your life has changed! :cool:

To the relief of many, I will only focus on the spiritual warfare thread in future.

robindch

> The world-view of Christianity tends to moral behaviour in its
> sincere adherents. Consistent Christians will be very moral people.

Could you define, please, what you mean by "moral"? I've asked before, but you never answered. In fact, I've asked several people who lecture the rest of us on "morals" so say what's meant, but nobody's answered. I await with interest...

> Hoodies are consistent atheists.

Baaa, baaa, baaa...

> 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.

So, what you're trying to say is that it's only possible to be nice if you're a christian?

bmoferrall

Assyrian wrote:

I would not have a problem with soul/spirit/consciousness being an emergent property that came with the increasing complexity of our brains as long as we recognise that emergent property as part of God's plan to make mankind in his image and likeness
...
He commanded the natural process to begin that would create all the species we see today.

Hi Assyrian
Thanks for your contributions.
If I may just clarify your thinking on this (I accept you don't claim to have all the answers).
Are you saying that the soul/spirit/consciousness (whatever distinguishes from other creatures) emerged using the same natural processes that led to cells, eyes, brains, etc.? If this is true then, given enough time, won't the same traits eventually emerge in other creatures, thus implying that we are really no different from them?
Or, was some intervention indeed necessary by God at the time of the first humans? I think I've gathered from your posts that you believe some tweaking may have taken place long after the initial creation acts.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> The world-view of Christianity tends to moral behaviour in its
> sincere adherents. Consistent Christians will be very moral people.

Could you define, please, what you mean by "moral"? I've asked before, but you never answered. In fact, I've asked several people who lecture the rest of us on "morals" so say what's meant, but nobody's answered. I await with interest...

> Hoodies are consistent atheists.

Baaa, baaa, baaa...

> 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.

So, what you're trying to say is that it's only possible to be nice if you're a christian?

Hmmm. See also this (excerpt below, link here):

Furthermore, of the top 25 nations ranked on the “Human Development Index,” all but one country ( Ireland) are top-ranking non-belief nations, containing some of the highest percentages of organic atheism on earth. Conversely, of those countries ranked at the bottom of the “Human Development Index” -- the bottom 50 -- all are countries lacking any statistically significant percentages of atheism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

That Aussie creationist who was supposed to deliver a "talk" on creationism to a Lancashire school has had his talk cancelled as the headmaster realised that the Aussie guy's views were "extreme" and "unbalanced".

http://www.tes.co.uk/2224721

Better late than never!

robindch

> Hmmm. See also this (except below, link here):

I can't recall when I last mentioned it, so it's probably been a while (forgive me if not), but the demonstrably false assertion that only religion can produce something called "moral" behaviour is discussed in Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine, where it's referred to as an Altruism Trick, and is included as one member of a general class of memetic propagation strategies. Not that the good Alistair McGrath could find it within himself to accept it, though!

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

That Aussie creationist who was supposed to deliver a "talk" on creationism to a Lancashire school has had his talk cancelled as the headmaster realised that the Aussie guy's views were "extreme" and "unbalanced".

http://www.tes.co.uk/2224721

Better late than never!

Oh God, who wants to bet how long it takes for the "censorship" cry to start :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Difficult to argue censorship, given the headmaster's rather balanced reasoning:

Mr Harvey said: “As a scientist and a Christian myself, I like to see a broad perspective expressed rather than one that’s specifically geared towards one view and the rejection of all the others.”

Still, it may not stop some...


cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> who wants to bet how long it takes for the "censorship" cry to start

Well, it's now almost eight hours and not so much as a whimper from our creationist colleagues. Sounds like they're happy with the headmaster's decision about who turns up at his own school to lecture his own charges!

J C

Sorry for mixing my metaphors – but The Evolutionist’s Mexican (hand) WAVES on this thread are now reaching Genesis Flood proportions!!!

Quote Wicknight
You can bet if anyone actually found a serious flaw in evolution (a proper one, not a religous one) they would be shouting it from the roof tops.

Creation Scientists and ID proponents have found such flaws and they ARE shouting from the rooftops.

Most were Evolutionists when they discovered the flaws – and they were disowned by Evolutionism when they began shouting from the rooftops!!

The Duharro Dunes Meeting in 1993 brought together some of the World’s leading Evolutionary Scientists and they found a litany of serious flaws in Evolution. This group then came up with the hypothesis of Intelligent Design to address these deficiencies and shouted it from the rooftops.

The outright rejection of ID by other Evolutionists indicates that Evolutionists, WON'T take serious demonstrable flaws in Evolution ‘on board’.
Indeed the reaction from Evolutionists on this thread provides objective proof that many are more wedded to the concept of Evolution than they are to the objective assessment of it’s shortcomings.


Quote Wicknight
it is necessary for Creationists to use unscientific methods to reach their conclusions……………..

For the very basic example of this Creationists start with the huge assumption that God must have created life. Therefore all evidence must support this assumption, if it doesn't then the evidence is wrong. That is unscientific by its very nature.

This is ACTUALLY the same as Evolutionists do. They start with the huge assumption that God must NOT have created life. Therefore all evidence must support this assumption, if it doesn't then the evidence is wrong.

However, the two disciplines (of Creation Science and Evolutionary Science) are NOT equivalent in that the scientists in each group do NOT have the same depth of understanding or knowledge of the issues involved – the Creation Scientists have the broadest knowledge of the two groups.

To explain :-

Most Creation Scientists are former Evolutionists and so they have an intimate understanding of BOTH Evolution and Creation Science. Therefore when Creation Scientists express doubts about Evolution it is from a position of knowledge of Evolution AS WELL AS Creation Science.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, are NEVER former Creationists and they therefore have little or no understanding of Creation Science (and often no desire to acquire this knowledge).
Therefore when Evolutionists express doubts about Creation it is from a position of very little actual knowledge of Creation Science.


Quote Wicknight
That is one of the things I really don't get about the Creationists. They constantly attack evolution as if they believe that if they can just show evolution is flawed it in some how validates their ideas. The ridiculous thing about this is that the very high standards they apply to evolution would completely blow any Creationist idea of life out of the water. If the high standards show evolution flawed well they have already shown Creationism seriously flawed.

The primary mission of Creation Science is to study Creation. A secondary objective is to answer objections from Evolutionists. The perceived ‘constant attacks’ on Evolution are merely rebuttals of constant Evolutionary claims and attacks on the validity of Creation Science.

Creation Scientists ARE experienced and well qualified conventional scientists. They DO apply the same scientific rigour to all aspects of the study of Creation as they do to Evolution.


Quote Wicknight
with evolution theory of the start of life on earth. We know it could have happened like this, but there isn't enough evidence yet to show exactly that it did. The theory is valid

You either have a working hypothesis or you don’t. If you have a working hypothesis, you need to back it up with repeatably observable EVIDENCE.

Your statement above indicates that you have NEITHER a working hypothesis NOR enough evidence – and so a valid scientific Theory of Evolution DOESN’T EXIST.


Quote Wicknight
Just because we don't know exactly what happened doesn't mean all theories, no matter how ridiculous or non-scientific, are equally possible and all have the same weight. That is nonsense.
If I see my friend Paul go into a room I don't know for sure he is still in the room until I myself go into the room. He might have go out the other door, he might still be in the room, he might have climbed out a window. I have a number of possible theories of what could have happened, but I don't know for sure. That doesn't mean the theory he has teleported to Sweden is equally valid

You are correct – all ideas don’t obviously have the same credibility. The Evolutionary Hypothesis that ‘muck changed into Man’ is the Biological equivalent of a Physics hypothesis that living organisms can be teleported!!!

"Beam me up Scotty!!"

"Ach I Captain - and bring up some of those Muck relations of yours on your boots Jim Lad!!"



Quote Assyrian
Created kinds is a theological dogma, and a not particularly biblical one. It is simply a theological label creationists attach to species, to define all their descendants as be members of the same 'kind'. It is not a scientific observation

The level of Created Kind approximates to the Genus level of taxonomic nomenclature. Indeed the science of Taxonomy itself was founded by a Creationist (Carolus Linnaeus). Taxonomy is actually a good example of science rising above any paradigms – it was invented by a Creationist and is currently used by both Evolutionist and Creationist scientists.

The created Kind IS a valid scientific classification – and it is not an observation ‘after the fact’.

J C

Quote Assyrian
As long as creationists keep making claims like 'the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution', scientists will keep on disrespecting creation science. As long as creationists claim scientists only accept evolution to justify their immoral lifestyle, creation science will keep being treated with the same level of respect.

Living systems do appear to DEFY the The Second Law of Thermodynamics by being ‘uphill’ processes of increasing order. However, they can only do so LOCALLY and with an input of EXTERNAL energy and information.

External energy, on it’s own would merely ACCELERATE the disorder process – the unique aspect to life is it’s ORGANISED ability to utilise energy in a tightly controlled and structured way to increase order. These tightly specified systems are observed to utilise extremely complex and tightly specified genetic information in their construction and operation.
The source of the purposeful information in living systems HASN’T been identified by Science but it is of such an effectively infinite quality (as indicated by the enormous complexity and quality of the information in living systems) as to be of God.

Evolution HAS a basis in the reality of Natural Selection.
Creation Science accepts that populations of Moths can utilise existing genetic information to change their colour ratios – but they DON’T accept that Moths evolve into anything other than Moths. The real argument between Evolutionists and Creationists is about the scale over which Evolution operates – is it ‘muck to Man’ or ‘grey to brown Moth' in it’s scope?

The morality of Creationism/Evolutionism is a philosophical issue that Creation Science DOESN’T concern itself with. For the record, ALL of my Evolutionist friends are people of the highest moral calibre and I greatly value them, as both friends and debating ‘buddies’.


Quote Assyrian
Unfortunately there is an awful lot of name calling that comes from creationists.

The border-line between good-humoured ‘slagging’ and name calling is often indistinct – and it sometimes is dependent on whether you are receiving or delivering the ‘slagging’.
As this thread confirms, name calling isn’t confined to Creationists.
It adds little to the actual scientific debate and Creation Scientists try to avoid it – although, during moments of weakness, they may draw a few witty analogies to help clarify points that they are trying to make.


Quote Assyrian
Jesus certainly engaged in creative activity. He had just done so when he told the Pharisees that he and his Father were still working. He had healed a man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. You may label it temporarily reversing the effects of the Fall, but it sounds like an act of creation to me.

Genesis 2:2 clearly states that “by the seventh say God had finished the work he had been doing” i.e. He finished his Creation activity.

The temporary REVERSAL of the effects of the Fall IS NOT an act of the Physical Creation of Life – only a temporary RESTORATION of damaged life (or the lack thereof in the case of Lazarus) in the direction of it’s pre-Fall i.e. perfect condition.


Quote Assyrian
The miracle of the loaves and fishes looks like creating new matter in the universe.

The Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes involved the rapid replication of food material – i.e. loaves and fishes – by an unidentified miraculous process. It is NOT amenable to scientific evaluation but, what we know about it indicates that it was NOT the de novo Physical Creation of Life or any other physical process.


Quote Assyrian
Genesis tell us God made man in his image and likeness. Psalm 139 tells us when we were made in our mother womb it was God who formed us.

This is confirmation of the immanence of God in the Created World including biological processes. It is NOT the Physical Creation of Life ex nihilo.


Quote Assyrian
in terms of creating new species, which creationists tell us is still going on, that was something God commanded the earth to do, wasn't it? He commanded the natural process to begin that would create all the species we see today.

God commanded the earth to bring forth living organisms in a Fiat Act that Physically Created Life ex nihilo during Creation Week and not via some gradualist process over millions of years.
This was a rapid act lasting less than one day in the case of each aspect of Creation described in Genesis 1.
The rapid nature of each act of the Creation of Life parallels the rapid production of food material in the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes but differs from this miracle by being the Physical CREATION of Life ex nihilo – and not the miraculous REPLICATION of food material.

The second aspect of God’s command was that each organism would reproduce ‘after its kind’ – i.e. the establishment of the Law of Biogenesis – which we see still continuing to operate today.
The rapid speciation sometimes observed involves the isolation/recombination of existing genetic information WITHIN Created Kinds – and it is therefore a rapid ‘sideways’ or ‘downwards’ process utilising the vast amounts of genetic diversity in the genomes of the originally created kinds. It is NOT an upwards, gradual generation of new genetic information as postulated by Evolution.


Quote Assyrian
Yet a single mutation could result in a protein that is photosensitive. It does with porphyria. In fact there are 50 different mutations that can result in porphyria. Now porphyria is pretty debiltiating,

Could I suggest that the Porphyria mutation is an example of the debilitating effect of mutations – and the increase in photosensitivity doesn't lead to any ADVANTAGE for the individual involved.


Quote Assyrian
But the biggest problem for creation science is its simple inability to come up with any evidence to back up its claims of a young earth. Until it does, it dare not claim the name science, because scientists will reasonably conclude the only reasons creationists have for their belief are religious not scientific.

Please consult the following link for proof that T. Rex lived within the recent historical past (i.e. within the past few thousand years at most). It is published by Reuters and involves researchers from North Carolina and Montana State Universities – so it should be acceptable to Evolutionists – if they are the objective people they claim to be with NO emotional attachment to ‘millions of years’ Evolution!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

Equally, the Coelacanth fish was assumed to have become extinct hundreds of millions of years ago – due to the ‘position’ of its fossils in the fossil record and it’s ‘primitive’ physiognomy – but in 1938 it was discovered to be ‘alive and well’ in the ocean off Africa – and looking EXACTLY like it’s supposed 300 million year old fossils.

Evolutionists now postulate that during the 300 million years during which they claim that Mankind was evolving from something that looked like a rat – the Coelacanth fish (and indeed Crocodiles) remained TOTALLY UNCHANGED!!!!!

The only rational explanation is that Humans didn’t evolve from rats over 300 million years and the rocks in which the Coelacanth and Crocodile fossils are found are NOT 300 million years old.

The so-called ‘Geological Column’ is patently not a record of the evolution of life but it does show the expected order of burial in a flood catastrophe i.e. smaller sea floor creatures and flocculated micro-plankton on the bottom ranging up to larger land-based animals (who were able to flee to higher ground) on the top.

The “Cambrian Explosion” in which most of the major animal groups appear ‘suddenly’ in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - DOES fundamentally contradict the idea of a gradually evolving ‘evolutionary tree of life’.
The “Cambrian Explosion” however, IS consistent with the rapid burial under sediment of billions of different marine organisms at the bottom of the World’s oceans at the start of Noah’s Flood.

The Fossil Record is objectively a record of the death of billions of organisms in a water-based catastrophe or catastrophes – and NOT a record of the supposed ‘Evolution of Life’.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Living systems do appear to DEFY the The Second Law of Thermodynamics by being ‘uphill’ processes of increasing order.

That is nonsense JC, absolute nonsense, and you know it. You know it because it has already been explained to you that it is nonsense. The Earth is not a closed system, we have this little thermo-nuclear fire ball called the Sun supplying all the energy we could ever need.

J C wrote:

The source of the purposeful information in living systems HASN’T been identified by Science

Yes it has, and once again you know it has, because it has already been explained to you before about a hundred times. The laws of chemistry predict life, not the other way around. The non-organic molecues form into an order organic system naturally. It has been show that they do this natural. God, you have been shown this BEFORE! :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Evolutionists now postulate that during the 300 million years during which they claim that Mankind was evolving from something that looked like a rat – the Coelacanth fish (and indeed Crocodiles) remained TOTALLY UNCHANGED!!!!!

The only rational explanation is that Humans didn’t evolve from rats over 300 million years and the rocks in which the Coelacanth and Crocodile fossils are found are NOT 300 million years old.

Firstly crocodiles have changed, they just haven't changed very much. And the most rational explanation for this is that crocodiles are nearly perfectly suited for their environment. Which they are. You don't really seem to understand what evolution is. It isn't change for change sake. The mutations in genetic material only survive if they are benefit to the species. If they aren't they don't and won't be seen in future generations.

The rate of mutation in an animal like a crocodile is probably the same as most animals. But if these mutations don't provide extra useful they do not survive.

J C wrote:

The “Cambrian Explosion” however, IS consistent with the rapid burial under sediment of billions of different marine organisms at the bottom of the World’s oceans at the start of Noah’s Flood.

The Fossil Record is objectively a record of the death of billions of organisms in a water-based catastrophe or catastrophes – and NOT a record of the supposed ‘Evolution of Life’.

No its not. Only if you don't understand what the Cambrian Explosion actuall is. The explosion may have been caused by a global change in weather, possibly a global cooling. But it happened about 540 million years ago. We weren't around back then. Noah wasn't around back then.

And before you start, yes they can tell it actually was 540 million years ago and not 4000 years ago.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Creation Scientists and ID proponents have found such flaws and they ARE shouting from the rooftops.

And most scientists are ignoring them because they are scientific nonsense.

"It doesn't fit what is said in our religious book" is not a "flaw" :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

This is the same as Evolutionists ACTUALLY do. They start with the huge assumption that God must NOT have created life.

*Groan*

Thats what they are supposed to do. There is no evidence God or anyone else inteligently created life on Earth. So why assume that something did with no evidence to back that assumption up?

They also don't assume aliens, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, or the tears from a ice dragon created life either.

J C wrote:

Therefore all evidence must support this assumption, if it doesn't then the evidence is wrong. That is CERTAINLY unscientific by its very nature.

There is no evidence for ID. None what so every. Ever. No evidence for ID has ever been found. Let me say that again. NO EVIDENCE FOR ID HAS EVER BEEN FOUND.

J C wrote:

Therefore when Evolutionists express doubts about Creation it is from a position of very little actual knowledge of Creation Science.

No its because it is an un-scientific field of study. Just because you stick the word "Science" after "Creation" doesn't mean "Creation Science" follows any of the high standards as proper science.

J C wrote:

The primary mission of Creation Science is to study Creation.

No, the primary mission of Creation Science is to prove that God created life on Earth.

J C wrote:

You either have a working hypothesis or you don’t. If you have a working hypothesis, you need to back it up with repeatably observable EVIDENCE.

This is exactly my point. Evolution is a working theory backed up by evidence such as the fossil record.

ID isn't a working theory (how did God create life on Earth. Why did he do exactly what he did) and neither does it have ANY evidence to back it up. So why do you continue to attack Evolution when your own theory fails all of the standards you insist evolution fails?

J C wrote:

You are correct – all ideas don’t obviously have the same credibility. The Evolutionary Hypothesis that ‘muck changed into Man’ is the Biological equivalent of a Physics hypothesis that living organisms can be teleported!!!

No its not. In fact it is one of the simplest and easy to understand and predict processes in biology. The model of how this happens makes perfect sense based on what we know about mutation and genetics.

On the other hand the idea that a God would create everything on Earth but then create the world in such a way so it looks like he didn't do any of this makes no sense.

Morbert

JC has not backed up any of his rhetorical assertions with references to scientific journal entries.

Everything he says is unfounded and not backed by scientific research. Absolutely everything.

To be blunt: He is not telling the truth. Disregard everything he says unless he backs it with scientific papers on the subject.

BrianCalgary

Morbert wrote:

JC has not backed up any of his rhetorical assertions with references to scientific journal entries.

Everything he says is unfounded and not backed by scientific research. Absolutely everything.

To be blunt: He is not telling the truth. Disregard everything he says unless he backs it with scientific papers on the subject.

Interesting comment here Morbert.

When I was in Junior High School back in the 70' all the evidence cited by any reputable scientist was that we were headed into an ice age. There was no disputing the evidence. Now it is global warming and there is no disputing all th eevidence that points to it being caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

I have no reason to believe science and it's predictions nor their prognostications. Science and scientists have been wrong in the past , they can be wrong now and they will be wrong in the future.

However God has never been wrong. He has been entirely faithful to my family and I. So why should I believe science over God.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

I have no reason to believe science and it's predictions nor their prognostications. Science and scientists have been wrong in the past , they can be wrong now and they will be wrong in the future.

Of course they will be wrong. Being wrong is one of the most important aspects of science. You cannot get to the true without making mistakes along the way. All science builds on older science, including the mistakes of others. Some of the greatest scientific break-throughs are based on realising someone was wrong about something

BrianCalgary wrote:

However God has never been wrong.

Well I don't know about God, but religion is wrong nearly all the time. Nearly every assertion made by the Christian religoin in the last 2000 years about the nature of the universe has eventually been shown to be incorrect. But that isn't really the problem. After all a lot of science is wrong. The problem religion has is that it has a very hard time adapting after it is shown to be wrong, since it starts off with the position that it cannot be wrong in the first place. While science certainly has its characters with big egos who have a hard time admitting they are wrong, it is an in build concept that everything in science might eventually be shown to be wrong. Evolution might be wrong, thermodynamcis might be wrong, quantun theory might be wrong etc etc. But if they are show to be wrong and replaced with a better theories science continues on. It is in its nature to adapt incorrect theories to more correct theories and build on from that.

BrianCalgary wrote:

So why should I believe science over God.

Well for a start if it wasn't for science you would still be living in a mut hut somewhere, probably dying of an number of countless dieases or starving to death as you try to hunt with a stick. You certainly wouldn't be communicating to others around the world on an electronic computer.

Also there is the fact that the Bible has be wrong about so many things. I really fail to see why people get worked up over the idea of evolution, to me its just another thing the Bible has got wrong. The Christian church didn't crumble to dust when other "science" in the Bible was shown to be incorrect, so why are people so scaried over evolution?

robindch

> all the evidence cited by any reputable scientist was that we were
> headed into an ice age. [...] Science and scientists have been wrong
> in the past

Brian -- didn't think it would take long for us to start to disagree again -- (a) making a prediction based upon a controversial climatic model concerning the future and (b) developing a theory to explain observed facts about the past are two completely different things and I'm frankly surprised that you don't seem to be able to distinguish the two.

> I have no reason to believe science and it's predictions nor
> their prognostications.

From the mild arrogance of this pompous statement, I assume that you don't wish to use the products of science either -- so what on earth are you doing with computers, planes, cars, banks, your house, hospitals etc, etc, etc, all of which are built using science? Or are you one of these ungrateful people who takes what science and scientists offer with one hand, while casually slapping them both in the face with the other?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Brian -- didn't think it would take long for us to start to disagree again -- (a) making a prediction based upon a controversial climatic model concerning the future and (b) developing a theory to explain observed facts about the past are two completely different things and I'm frankly surprised that you don't seem to be able to distinguish the two.?

Of course I can distinguish between the two. However the climactic model back then was not controversal it was undisputed fact as it is today.

When I was younger as well the Earth was only 4,500,000 million years old. Again a fact not to be disputed. Now it is 4,500,000,000 years old. Not to be disputed by reputable scientists.

robindch wrote:

From the mild arrogance of this pompous statement, I assume that you don't wish to use the products of science either -- so what on earth are you doing with computers, planes, cars, banks, your house, hospitals etc, etc, etc, all of which are built using science? Or are you one of these ungrateful people who takes what science and scientists offer with one hand, while casually slapping them both in the face with the other?

Scientific discoveries on modern inventions that one can see working are as different and distinguishable as your asking if I see and understand the difference between future models and past events. And as you keep pointing out, there are different disciplines within science. Now you are trying to lump them all together.

To make myself clearer. Scientific discoveries that are current and tested and marketed are entirely different from exploring the past type science and predicting the future type science. The latter two are the ones that I don't trust.

BTW we can all sound pompous and arrogant with our statements. Most on this thread have been guilty of slamming those on the opposing side of the argument at one time or another.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Of course they will be wrong. Being wrong is one of the most important aspects of science. You cannot get to the true without making mistakes along the way. All science builds on older science, including the mistakes of others. Some of the greatest scientific break-throughs are based on realising someone was wrong about something?

Agreed with respect to inventions and discoveries to benefit us. Different though from science which attempts to uncover the past or predict th efuture.

Wicknight wrote:

Well I don't know about God, but religion is wrong nearly all the time. Nearly every assertion made by the Christian religoin in the last 2000 years about the nature of the universe has eventually been shown to be incorrect. But that isn't really the problem. After all a lot of science is wrong. The problem religion has is that it has a very hard time adapting after it is shown to be wrong, since it starts off with the position that it cannot be wrong in the first place. While science certainly has its characters with big egos who have a hard time admitting they are wrong, it is an in build concept that everything in science might eventually be shown to be wrong. Evolution might be wrong, thermodynamcis might be wrong, quantun theory might be wrong etc etc. But if they are show to be wrong and replaced with a better theories science continues on. It is in its nature to adapt incorrect theories to more correct theories and build on from that.

There is a difference between what man says and what the bible says.

The Bible has never been proven or shown to be wrong. It continually has been shown to be correct in it's historical assertions. Adam and Eve are talked about as being historical characters, Peter mentions them in his book. I will go with the Bible as being the correct document as Jesus was an eyewitness to the events of Genesis.

Wicknight wrote:

Well for a start if it wasn't for science you would still be living in a mut hut somewhere, probably dying of an number of countless dieases or starving to death as you try to hunt with a stick. You certainly wouldn't be communicating to others around the world on an electronic computer.

Agreed. Different scientific disciplines however.

Wicknight wrote:

Also there is the fact that the Bible has be wrong about so many things. I really fail to see why people get worked up over the idea of evolution, to me its just another thing the Bible has got wrong. The Christian church didn't crumble to dust when other "science" in the Bible was shown to be incorrect, so why are people so scaried over evolution?

What has the Bible been wrong about?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

so why are people so scaried over evolution?

If evolution was correct I see the following societal problems developing.

1)the ateistic hooded monster:)

Seriously though, if we came from slime our life has no meaning except to gain as much pleasure from life for ourselves as possible. As opposed to living a life to serve God and others. Evolution is used to prove no existence of a loving caring God.

Th erest of the science as it relates to origins tells us that first there was nothing and then it exploded. Earth was formed out of this explosion wher a primordial soup formed from whence came life and then eventually us. There is no God , no meaning, morals are relative, so there is no right or wrong and we end up with a lifestyle that says 'gain as much pleasure from life for ourselves as possible'.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Of course I can distinguish between the two. However the climactic model back then was not controversal it was undisputed fact as it is today.

Er, what science journals are you reading.

Climate change is one of the most debated areas of science at the moment. No one has an "undisputed" theory about climate change, in fact even the most distingused scientists in the area have trouble agreeing on the issues.

BrianCalgary wrote:

When I was younger as well the Earth was only 4,500,000 million years old. Again a fact not to be disputed. Now it is 4,500,000,000 years old. Not to be disputed by reputable scientists.

Well firstly you must have been born before the 1920s, because that is when the age of the Earth was first put at over a billion years.

Secondly, (and I'm amazed you don't get the irony here), but obviously the date of 4.5 million years was disputed because it was updated to the more accurate date of 4.55 billion years.

I've no idea who told you the earth was 4.5 million years old, or who told you that that was an "undisputeable" fact but who ever it was was talking nonsense.

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

You are complaning about science being in flexable and being "undisputed" and you are using the evolution and change of scientific ideas and understand as proof of this inflexabilitiy. Can you not see how nonsense that is. Your own argument contradicts your inital point.

BrianCalgary wrote:

And as you keep pointing out, there are different disciplines within science. Now you are trying to lump them all together.

And things like computers build on the very theoretical studies such as electro-magnatism and atomic theory, which also lead to things like the dating of the Earth.

Its all very well to say you can see the computer, but you can't see the electrons running around in side of it, or all the different quantum reactions taking place to make it happen.

You only have a computer sitting in front of you because of very theoretical work done in the last century, theoretical work that you turn you nose up at because you cannot hold it in your hands.

Assyrian

bmoferrall wrote:

Hi Assyrian
Thanks for your contributions.
If I may just clarify your thinking on this (I accept you don't claim to have all the answers).
Are you saying that the soul/spirit/consciousness (whatever distinguishes from other creatures) emerged using the same natural processes that led to cells, eyes, brains, etc.? If this is true then, given enough time, won't the same traits eventually emerge in other creatures, thus implying that we are really no different from them?
Or, was some intervention indeed necessary by God at the time of the first humans? I think I've gathered from your posts that you believe some tweaking may have taken place long after the initial creation acts.

Why do you think dolphins laugh at us all the time? Eee-ee-ee-e ee-eee-eeek

Solomon seemed to think animals had a spirit that was in some way comparable to ours, but that it perished with the animal when it dies while our spirits return to God. But there is a often a problem deciding what ruach means in OT contexts, whether it is what we call a spirit, or simply a life force. But if Solomon was talking about soul/spirit/consciousness then it seems to be something that develops naturally as that animal grows and is lost when they die. If animals have evolved, then this is something that has evolved too.

However Solomon saw the human spirit as somehow different. Similar enough to share the same name, but when we die, our spirit return to God, who he says gave it. This suggests that with human beings, the spirit is something we have been given by God, but again this could be something he gives individually to every person born, Heb 9:12 the Father of spirits Isaiah 42:5 who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it. Or simply something he breathed into into the first humans Gen 2:7. Then again if we look at 2Cor 15 we see God taking the natural and transforming it into something imperishable. God could have taken the natural consciousness that arose in those hominids he was looking after, and transformed it into something more.

I think it is interesting that Solomon is the only person in the bible we read of having pet apes. He is the one who speculates about the difference between the spirits of animals and men, and says in the same chapter Eccles 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. God put eternity in our hearts, he gave us a spirit that returns to him when we die, but in ourselves we are but another species of animal. So yes these traits can emerge in other creatures, and probably have, but the bible talks of God doing something more in human beings.

Assyrian