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)
Comments
-
Just thought I'd clean up the last tree using the code tag to force it in to a monospaced font because it wasn't lining up right on my screen... I hope it's not too presumptuous of me AH...
-----C------- ---S---- H | | | | | | DC PC | | ------ ------ | | SH SC | | | ------------ | SCH
Oh that's nice- so if I just use the /CODE tag I get monospace? The way I was doing it before was a total pain. Thanks!0 -
It's beyond my field to be so specific, but I imagine what applies to the larger concept applies also here. That is, the tree may or may not be actual; it is an interpretation of how things worked out. Could have been an orchard, could have been a single tree - what best fits the evidence? If one accepts the orchard concept, then one still has individual trees.Wolfsbane? Would you accept these trees work for features developed by microevolution within "kinds"?
Seems not only creationists see big problems with the single tree image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Doolittle
Because of his philosophical musings on the non-existence of an all-encompassing Tree of Life, Doolittle has occasionally been cited on Intelligent Design blogs. However, though Doolittle argues that a bifurcating tree is not an adequate metaphor for the evolution of life on earth, he is not a supporter of Intelligent Design. A single common ancestor and tree relating all of life on earth is not a necessary component of the theory of descent with modification, the essence of evolution.
If some parts of the consensus tree have been acknowleged as imaginary, so might the whole tree.0 -
Please point out where he precluded the possibility of two related mammal species traversing the comparitively trival amount of genetic space required to arrive at a similar tooth morphology independently?marco_polo wrote: »Also wolfsbane could you please explain to me the mechanism whereby the massive genetic change required to generate over 360 species of Dinosaur from roughly 50 different 'kinds' on the ark is feasible over a few thousand years (aig numbers), while precluding the possibility of two related mammal species traversing the comparitively trival amount of genetic space required to arrive at a similar tooth morphology independently?0 -
Mark Hamill said:
Only if God is not the ultimate truth. Being the ultimate truth, His 'opinions' are the objective truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, for God - their Judge - it would be moral, but not for you and me.
Thus making the morality of the act subject to who is doing it, me or god. Therefore all morality, in act or opinion is subjective.
All they needed was God's word. You are just making excuses for sin: I didn't know how much suffering I would cause to his family when I murdered him, so I'm not guilty of murder. The truth is our murderer knew it was wrong to murder, even if he did not appreciate just how horrible a sin it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, they knew it was wrong because God said not to. Their relationship to God would make that evident - they knew Him face to face, knew He was God and they His creatures.
But it was the only thing they had been told not to do, and they had never been told, or seen anything else be told, not to do something, so they had no contrast, they had no knowledge of the divine consequences of doing something god didn't want them to do.
As above, Adam knew enough to be without excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, it comes with a free-will - the ability to choose to obey God or not.
But if that will is uninformed, of what it is to disobey god, what the actual consequences are of doing so, then its not really free, not when it was created by a god who knew they would be tempted by the serpent.
Never caused by. The choice is there.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Arose from need not mean caused by. My act of kindness in giving a beggar £5.00 might give rise to an on-looker mugging me for my wallet. I did not cause him to rob me, but it arose from the good I was doing.
You are not god, so anything you do is limited by your humanly interpretation of events and lack of omnipotence and omniscience. God on the otherhand, would know what giving events would come to be if he gave that fiver to the beggar, not to mention the events those events would cause , and so on and so on. Anything that arises from a set in circumstances is caused by those circumstances, and it is god that creates all circumstances.
Subject to the authority, not subjective as opposed to objective.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You forget the proper authority aspect; what may be right in itself may be wrong for you to do.
You forget that if something is moral due to authority, then its morality is subjective to that authority, thus making morality subjective.
As above; he knew enough.And the fact he had no knowledge of evil, and therefore wouldn't know the possible consequences of doing evil worked against him
Adam knew enough. We do not have to know every thing about the consequences of sin for us to be guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Correct. But altering Adam so he couldn't sin would have been to remove his free-will. And God was not obliged to re-enforce His clear commandment.
And He did tell them the consequences if they sinned.
God only told them they would die (Genesis 2:17), he did not tell them that eating of the fruit would not actually kill him, it would actually open up their eyes to the knowledge of good and evil, but that he would throw a hissy fit, dump them out of the garden of eden and allow them to die a slow and painful death. Maybe if better informed Adam he wouldn't have eaten the fruit. Maybe if Adam knew anything of death (humand death), he would have been more wary of it.
It wasn't evil. But in their sinful condition, it was exposure that was not welcome. When they had no guilt, they had no reason to fear scrutiny.On a side note: when they ate from the tree, they realized they were naked and clothed and hid themselves because they were afraid. Why is it that before they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil they didn't know that being naked was evil? was god hiding that from them? If it was evil, then it was against gods will, so why did he have them naked? (there's no issue of free will here, before the knew it was evil to be naked, adam and eve had no concept of it being evil to be naked, so they wouldn't have had to make a "free will" to do so, and even if they had, why wasn't that freewill choice punished?)
No, they may permit us to sin, never force us to sin.Circumstances, as set by an omnipotent and omniscient being, make us do whatever the omnipotent and omniscient being want us to do.
Yes, as I said before, God could have prevented Adam from sinning. But not if He wanted Adam to have free-will.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
God did not touch Adam's free-will. He was left to do as he pleased about God's command.
God, being god, would be aware of every single point of adams existence, and being god, he was able to alter any single aspect of that existence at will. To not do so, would require and active choice by god, he would have to choose to let adam do what he was doing, thus making adams will subject to gods will. This is shown when adam finally does something god doesnt want him to do, and so god comes along and punishes him.
Again, circumstances did not make Adam fall - his choice did. His choice was not forced on him by circumstances, it was free.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
God's intervention after the Fall is another matter. It has nothing to do with how He treated Adam before the Fall.
How he treated adam caused the fall, and caused everything that happened afterwards. God, being god, knew exactly what would occur because of the fall, he knew that by punishing adam for doing something that he was tricked into doing, that he (god) would have to sacrifice himself to himself so he could stop punishing everyone for adams "sin", and that he would eventually have to start altering peoples will so they would begin to love him again.
Circumstances do not make us sin. They may influence us one way or the other. God's goodness to Adam & Eve and His evident glorious holiness would have influenced them to obey Him. Satan's lies influenced them the other way. Satan is guilty of his part their fall and will be punished eternally for it. They were guilty for their part in their fall. Christ was sent as their redeemer.As above circumstances set by god... etc. Also you kepp saying adam was sin free, had no internal sinful pressures, well this just means that the sin came from outside of him, that someone made him/ tricked him into sinning it. This either means that the sin was gods fault, because set the circumstances that resulted in adams "sin" or it was the serpents fault, because he tricked adam into sinning. either way, doesnt really look like god is really just in punishing adam for sinning.
That's the point: He allows men to sin, never forces them to. He forces them to not sin, and to not sin in particular ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I said before, the ultimate outcome is how God wants it, but the sin of man is not His will. He overides man's sin to bring about His chosen end.
But he created mans sin to bring about his chosen middle. You dont seem to get that every aspect of creation is exactly as god wants it, it has to be. God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knows all that occurs and can change it if he pleases. You have already admitted that he has no problem using his omnipotence and omniscience in removing peoples free will to force them to love him when he wants it, so therefore he must also be using his omnipotence and omiscience when he forces allows people to sin.
I agree. But as you keep making the objection, I have kept giving the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Circumstances do not make us do anything. They affect how we choose only by informing us of alternatives and appealing to our sinful natures. We make the choice.
This is just repetition,
Outcome is chosen by God, but not the sinful steps leading to it. He permits them, not orders them. The Outcome is set only in the sense that God overules the sin of man and demon and turns their disobedience to achieve His plan.my reply is the same:
Circumstances-> set by god
Nature-> set by god
Outcome-> set by god.
Our nature today is not the unfallen nature Adam originally had. Adam fell and took his posterity with him. God did not make us fallen - Adam did.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Certainly, God uses circumstances to direct our hearts. He knows how sinful men love the sinful course; how godly men love to do His will; how suffering will move us this way or that - but every choice is ours. Some resist to the end, others capitulate at the start. Some learn; others are stubborn.
Well of course he knows how people will react, he gives them the natures they are born with (sinful or godly) and then changes them at will fro the outcome he wants. There is no real resisting, or capitualtion, god alters peoples natures and wills to his desire (you already made this clear when he said that he makes people love him).
So, Yes, God does sovereignly change some people's natures - from being slaves to sin they become slaves to God, indeed the children of God. He does that by bringing the gospel to them, changing their hearts so that they will no longer hate Him and His word, causing them to repent and believe.
In the sense that He decided what He would allow and not allow.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, when He determines something, it will happen.
Yes when god determines something it will happen, but dont forget that god has determined all existence, so therefore he has determined that all will happen.
No contradiction: your sins are your responsibility. God does not make you do them. He could prevent you doing so - but that is no excuse for you when you do sin.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But that does not mean He determines you will sin against your will, nor that He will make you do so by circumstances, against your will. Your sin is your responsiblity. God may permit you to sin freely, or He may prevent you from doing so.
You keep contradicting yourself, you have already said that everyone has a sinful nature, that only those that god chooses will chose to love him, this just shows that god changes peoples nature and wills all the time for whatever outcome he wants, its no obstacle to him.
So if I allow you to steal my neighbour's car, it's not your crime?They had no free will, I've already said that, their choices where subject to gods will allowing them to happen.
They were told they would die if they ate the fruit. It was not merely a don't eat the poisonous berries or you'll die thing - it was a commandment not to eat the fruit. Death was the punishment for doing so, not just a natural consequence.Besides that,they where completely uninformed of the actual consequences of their "sin", they where told they would die, but there is nothing to show that they, as beings knowing only the perfect existence in eden, would understand what it means to suffer and die, and that the death would actually be a punishment for doing something god din't want them to do, not and actual consequence of eating the fruit, as was implied.
I agree, though happy implies He is happy about the sin rather than happy about it being made to accomplish His plan. God is angry about sin, and will bring every sin to account.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
God is going to end all sin, but in the meantime He calls all sinners to repentance. When that time of grace ends, the sinners will be stopped. Forever.
But god is only going to end all sin when it suits him, until then he's happy to let it continue, becaus eit suits his purposes. If is didn't, if sin was an obstacle to gods ultimate desired outcome, then he would not allow it to exist.0 -
It's beyond my field to be so specific, but I imagine what applies to the larger concept applies also here. That is, the tree may or may not be actual; it is an interpretation of how things worked out.
No. The tree is actual. At the most, what is in question is what it means. Do you understand how we come to that conclusion?Could have been an orchard, could have been a single tree - what best fits the evidence?
As I've said, what best fits the evidence is a single tree which features some horizontal gene transfer. For eukaryotes (basically everything except microbes), the HGT is rare and insufficient to convey polygenetic traits. In fact, it is so rare that it can be used as further evidence of common descent between certain species.If one accepts the orchard concept, then one still has individual trees.
The orchard concept doesn't work whether you consider HGT or not. It is contradicted by the most rudimentary observations of organisms. Accepting the orchard concept is out of the question- it's not just unsupported by the available evidence, but contradicted directly by it.Seems not only creationists see big problems with the single tree image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Doolittle
Because of his philosophical musings on the non-existence of an all-encompassing Tree of Life, Doolittle has occasionally been cited on Intelligent Design blogs. However, though Doolittle argues that a bifurcating tree is not an adequate metaphor for the evolution of life on earth, he is not a supporter of Intelligent Design. A single common ancestor and tree relating all of life on earth is not a necessary component of the theory of descent with modification, the essence of evolution.
I don't know what the philosophical (or scientific) basis of Doolittle's position is, but he is correct that evolution does not rely on a single common ancestor for all life. However, it does appear that all life is related by descent, indeed HGT would not be nearly so common amongst prokaryote species if this were not the case.If some parts of the consensus tree have been acknowleged as imaginary, so might the whole tree.
Oh come on. Are you so eager to dismiss the concept of the tree that you'll take the opinion (and I note that it is a philosophical position) of one scientist regarding part of the tree, without even knowing the basis of that opinion, and use that as a reason to call the entire thing into question? The tree structure I have described to you and the rationale for it holds up for eukaryotes at the very least, and the existence of HGT does not change this.
Were you to ask Dr. Doolittle (!) whether he thinks that the traits of vertebrates forms a nested tree, I'm quite sure he'd confirm this, though he would point to some discrete examples of HGT in that tree.0 -
Advertisement
-
Only if God is not the ultimate truth. Being the ultimate truth, His 'opinions' are the objective truth.
Well no, they are still just opinions, and while they may be always true, they are only always true because god is god, making the truth of the opinions subject to the opinions being gods opinions, ie subjective.All they needed was God's word. You are just making excuses for sin: I didn't know how much suffering I would cause to his family when I murdered him, so I'm not guilty of murder. The truth is our murderer knew it was wrong to murder, even if he did not appreciate just how horrible a sin it was.
But for the punishment to be just, how the murdered saw his crime and why the mureder commited it had to be measured. It would not be just to punish a murderer who kills for money in the same way as a murderer is menatlly diminished and doesnt underrstand what they are doing.
Besides all that, you are only holding up the significance of gods word after knowing what the punishment would be to go against it and having a full bible to defend that significance, adam and eve didn't have that, they werent told the actual punishment or the importance of following gods word.Never caused by. The choice is there.
No, the appearance of choice is there. The "choice" is made as a result of the nature the person has (as given by god) and how that nature has been molded (by circumstances god creates). God makes the choice in every conceivable way, but then tricks man into thinking he himself has made the choice.Subject to the authority, not subjective as opposed to objective.
Are you honestly serious? Is this a joke or something? Subjective is the adjective form of subject, so if something is subject to something, it is a subjective thingAs above; he knew enough.
No, as above, while you might know enough with a full bible of tales of why its wrong to go against gods will, adam didnt.Adam knew enough. We do not have to know every thing about the consequences of sin for us to be guilty.
But the punishment needs to take account of how the sinner sees the sin in order to be jsut.It wasn't evil. But in their sinful condition, it was exposure that was not welcome. When they had no guilt, they had no reason to fear scrutiny.
And they thought that by tying fig leaves around themselves would block gods scrutiny? There's an argument for diminished responsiblity there because they sound like idiots.Yes, as I said before, God could have prevented Adam from sinning. But not if He wanted Adam to have free-will.
He prevented adam from commiting any of the ten commandments purely by not telling him of them. But instead god tells adam of the tree of knowledge which he happens to leave in an area where eve will wonder by herself at the same time as satan will be there to tempt here (all foreseen by god). What was so important about adams freewill in that choice, a choice god knew he would fail.That's the point: He allows men to sin, never forces them to. He forces them to not sin, and to not sin in particular ways.
Wait so he allows men to sin and he forces them to not sin? Hes not forcing very hard is he?I agree. But as you keep making the objection, I have kept giving the answer.
But never actually refuting my points, just repeating the same thing over and over again, with no actual argument behind them. Try explaining how a reality created by god doesn't actually cause every outcome rather than just stating it.Outcome is chosen by God, but not the sinful steps leading to it. He permits them, not orders them. The Outcome is set only in the sense that God overules the sin of man and demon and turns their disobedience to achieve His plan.
Every step is an outcome of the previous step. Now either god chooses every outcome, including the sinful ones, or god only chooses the final outcome, and doesnt care of the intervening ones.Our nature today is not the unfallen nature Adam originally had. Adam fell and took his posterity with him. God did not make us fallen - Adam did.
God made adam fallen which made us fallen, or are you claiming that adam chose to make all his decendents fallen?So, Yes, God does sovereignly change some people's natures - from being slaves to sin they become slaves to God, indeed the children of God. He does that by bringing the gospel to them, changing their hearts so that they will no longer hate Him and His word, causing them to repent and believe.
Glad we are in agreement, people only "choose" to follow god because god makes the do so.In the sense that He decided what He would allow and not allow.
"What he would allow" is all existence and every outcome of every choice that occurs.No contradiction: your sins are your responsibility. God does not make you do them. He could prevent you doing so - but that is no excuse for you when you do sin.
But if people sin because they have a sinful nature, and that nature was created by god, then he is ultimately responsible for themSo if I allow you to steal my neighbour's car, it's not your crime?
Yep, its gods, for creating me the way he did and giving me the circumstances which would lead to sinful outcomes he would have foresaw.They were told they would die if they ate the fruit. It was not merely a don't eat the poisonous berries or you'll die thing - it was a commandment not to eat the fruit. Death was the punishment for doing so, not just a natural consequence.
They where told they would surely die for eating the fruit. They where not told that god would kill them (by making them mortal), that they would lead a painful existence (pain during birth, toiling in th earth etc) and that billions and billons of their decendents would likewise suffer.I agree, though happy implies He is happy about the sin rather than happy about it being made to accomplish His plan. God is angry about sin, and will bring every sin to account.
If he is happy about the outcome, and has the power to create any circumstances to get that outcome, he must be happy about the actual circumstances that he chooses. To be angry is just plain crazy.0 -
Good reality-based article on the evolution of viruses, particularly the current outbreak of Swine Flu(*):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/health/05virus.html?_r=2&ref=science&pagewanted=all
I'd be interested to hear creationist "explanations" for why god, the intelligent designer responsible for new information, has created this new virus. The Bearded Wonder over in AIG is unfortunately maintaining radio silence on the topic.
(*) Might be "Mexican Flu" if you're jewish.0 -
Noahs Flood Debunked
1
2
I already posted video 1 some time back, but just for continuity I thought I would include it again. Enjoy!0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
Please point out where he precluded the possibility of two related mammal species traversing the comparitively trival amount of genetic space required to arrive at a similar tooth morphology independently?
The fact that the whole article was going on about how all new whale intermeduiates are fossil creatures are 'chimeras'? Magic eh? :rolleyes: (really I should have stopped reading there TBH), This leads me to believe that the author may be discounting the possiblity of convergent mammal evolution in this instance. Perhaps?
Did I read it wrong or something?
Please tell me because I have no intention of clicking that link again. 0 -
....MOST of the Dinosur species (that we know from fossils formed during the Flood) became extinct in the Flood...and the Dinosaur Kinds never recovered their former glory after the Flood!!!marco_polo wrote: »Also wolfsbane could you please explain to me the mechanism whereby the massive genetic change required to generate over 360 species of Dinosaur from roughly 50 different 'kinds' on the ark is feasible over a few thousand years (aig numbers), while precluding the possibility of two related mammal species traversing the comparitively trival amount of genetic space required to arrive at a similar tooth morphology independently?
The explantion for the second half of your argument is that it is POSSIBLE to intelligently design organisms to metamorphose dramatically and to even traverse the extremes of genetic diversity ... but it is IMPOSSIBLE for undirected spontaneous processes to traverse the comparitively trival amount of genetic space required produce even one simple specific functional protein from another one!!!:pac::):D
.....it's the difference between a Butterfly metamorphosing from a caterpillar .... and a piece of clay spontaneously becoming anything ... except a piece of clay!!!:D0 -
Advertisement
-
AtomicHorror said:
I is inconceivable to me that such well-qualified men would not know the difference between science and religion. Their arguments in fact bring out such distinctions as examples, so they must know the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, it is a matter of character judgment for me, as I'm not qualified to assess the scientific argument. So I have equally well qualified scientists on both sides of the argument, but only one side saying the other aren't scientists/aren't doing science.
I have a choice:
1. Say the creationist scientists I personally know to be godly men are in fact liars, presenting non-science as science.
To call them liars would suggest they're aware that they're wrong and understand why what they are doing is not science. I don't think that they do.
They are either lying or they are giving a sincere scientific explanation.
But creationists have a perfectly acceptable alternative: they can admit that they have no scientific explanation for the evidence, that the evolutionary model fits most facts, but they know God will reveal the truth in His good time.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
2. Say the evolutionary scientists are prejudiced or too sure of their case and so are dismissive of the other side.
All I have encountered so far makes the latter the certain choice.
You're presenting a false dichotomy here. Those are not your only two options at all. My explanation is that, in general, creationists are being sincere. I think that the ramifications of what is being presented by the scientific community are very frightening to many creationists and that as a result they are ignoring evidence, or attacking minor weaknesses as justifications for denying that evidence in total and thus becoming subject to rather extreme confirmation bias. You have yourself admitted that you find the implications of evolution upsetting, so I'm sure you can at least accept that some worry will be contributing to the motivation of creationists.
I'm sure there are many other shades of grey explanations open to you aside from the above.
That's what I would expect from honest folk, if they knew they did not have the arguments. So we are back to my assessment of their character, and I have no doubt about the ones I personally know, and they speak likewise about a much greater number whom they personally know.
No, but they need to be very sure it has been.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I don't have a problem with a scientist who says the creation scientific argument would require so much revision of current assumptions that it must be unlikely; that it has many objections to overcome; that he prefers the current explanation.
As long as he acknowledges the evolutionary argument has its share of objections to overcome; and that the creationist case is scientific, even if coming to the wrong conclusions.
But what if this is genuinely not the case? Should scientists give a fair hearing to any argument that has already been put to bed scientifically?
If the creation/evolution debate was so clear cut, I would agree. But when I see the near-certainty alleged on Man-Made Global Warming, and each side on specific models of evolution, etc., I know that scientists cannot be trusted when they claim near-certainty. Where there is well-qualified dissent, the case in not closed.If a person wished to claim to you that the sky was green, how many times would you politely listen to new arguments on that theme before you started to feel like your time might be better spent considering actual open questions?
New evidence has been presented in abundance since the revival of scientific creationism in the second half of the 20th C. That's what has so upset the evolutionary establishment.Have you seen how scientists treat competing scientific arguments? They demand evidence appropriate to the claims being made and if the evidence is insufficient they dismiss the claim pending new evidence. This happened with creationism some time prior to 1900.0 -
What did you think of my rebuttal of the "designed objects for a tree argument"? Do you see my point about the differences we see between the distribution of traits in life forms versus designed objects?I is inconceivable to me that such well-qualified men would not know the difference between science and religion. Their arguments in fact bring out such distinctions as examples, so they must know the difference.
They are either lying or they are giving a sincere scientific explanation.
I don't see what qualifications have to do with the matter. Even modestly intelligent people can get degrees and even PhDs. And I don't think that many creationists do see much of a distinction between religion and science, except that science cannot challenge their faith.But creationists have a perfectly acceptable alternative: they can admit that they have no scientific explanation for the evidence, that the evolutionary model fits most facts, but they know God will reveal the truth in His good time.
Were that their position I don't think we'd have nearly so much to argue about.That's what I would expect from honest folk, if they knew they did not have the arguments. So we are back to my assessment of their character, and I have no doubt about the ones I personally know, and they speak likewise about a much greater number whom they personally know.
I have similar regard for my colleagues and they speak highly of a vast community of scientists, but it would be foolish of me to accept their assertions on that basis. But we're not even talking about scientists, we're talking about people who don't want to submit their scientific arguments to scientific peer-review. They've decided that, since the scientific community rejects their hypotheses, that the community is at fault and thus they will have to start their own peer-review system.
Whenever a contentious science has arisen, it has been appropriately resisted. But whenever they were correct, that resistance was overridden by evidence: just look at the furore that erupted around Einstein! Because of that combination of resistance and revolution, conventional science with peer-review has heralded in every major scientific discovery in the last century. Doesn't it seem odd to you that the creationists' assumption when they are rejected by the scientific community, not once but countless times, is that there's something wrong with science?
In a related question, what functional scientific discoveries have been made by creation science?No, but they need to be very sure it has been.
I say that we are. And so do ten million other scientists. So where does that leave us, if character is your main consideration?If the creation/evolution debate was so clear cut, I would agree. But when I see the near-certainty alleged on Man-Made Global Warming, and each side on specific models of evolution, etc., I know that scientists cannot be trusted when they claim near-certainty. Where there is well-qualified dissent, the case in not closed.
In the case of global warming there is a strong consensus on only one central point- that it is being influenced by human activity. That has been the consensus for quite some time. However, the details of matters such as specific climate models are subject to considerable debate and dissent. After all, we're dealing with a chaotic system when it comes to climate and more to the point, these models need to go beyond mere prediction (by which I mean anticipating the content of gaps in our knowledge) and into forecasting (predicting future conditions). The case is not closed on how climate change will play out, it's just agreed that humans are a significant influence on it.
Evolution is quite another matter. The certainty on the existence of evolution the phenomenon (that species are related and change over time) exceeds that of the consensus on climate change. Similarly, the consensus is that evolution occurred by variation and natural selection (that's the theory of evolution). There's considerable room for debate and discussion beyond that, but these two facts are held with a certainty on a par with our understanding of gravity and the colour of the sky. The only difference is that evolution is not as intuitive as the colour of the sky, which leaves room for debate in only one arena; the public.New evidence has been presented in abundance since the revival of scientific creationism in the second half of the 20th C. That's what has so upset the evolutionary establishment.
It really isn't what's bothering us. Creationism bothers us for the same reason that having non-Christians criticise the bible on the basis of Leviticus annoys you. You've refuted these arguments many times and yet they just seem to keep coming up due to what can only be ignorance. It can be rather exasperating, and I'm sure you can identify with that.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30551
....MOST of the Dinosur species (that we know from fossils formed during the Flood) became extinct in the Flood...and the Dinosaur Kinds never recovered their former glory after the Flood!!!
Some dinosaurs were also much too big to get on the boat i'd like to point out.:pac::D:)The explantion for the second half of your argument is that it is POSSIBLE to intelligently design organisms to metamorphose dramatically and to even traverse the extremes of genetic diversity ... but it is IMPOSSIBLE for undirected spontaneous processes to traverse the comparitively trival amount of genetic space required produce even one simple specific functional protein from another one!!!:pac::):D
.....it's the difference between a Butterfly metamorphosing from a caterpillar .... and a piece of clay spontaneously becoming anything ... except a piece of clay!!!:D
This was clearly proven in the X-men comics!!!:D:pac::):p:eek:0 -
-
Apologies if this video has been posted before (I'm not reading through 1000+ pages of posts to find out!) but it seemed pertinent to the whole "tree" structure posts (and is a very thorough and illuminating on the subject IMHO and well worth a look):
0 -
Apologies if this video has been posted before (I'm not reading through 1000+ pages of posts to find out!) but it seemed pertinent to the whole "tree" structure posts (and is a very thorough and illuminating on the subject IMHO and well worth a look):
I do like those videos, though I have to confess that I find the rapid-fire delivery a little unapproachable. I can't see many uncertain (or diehard) creationists sitting through the whole thing. Which is a shame.0 -
Hi Folks,
I havn't read read the numerous posts on this thread so forgive me if I repeat someone elses point.
I believe that if we want to be scientific about how we got here (evolution or creation) then we must avoid the "leaps" of faith that are made by both sides.
Some evolutionists use the phrase "it took millions of years" when they want to make an improbable leap.
Some creationists may just quote bible verses or use the old "God works in mysterious ways" chestnut to make their own improbable leaps.
If we get back to basics, then it all comes down to cause and effect.
The effect is "intelligent design" the cause must have been intelligent.
The next step is to establish the source of the intelligence... was it an advanced alien? was it an all powerful God?..... perhaps both? (God's not from earth, is he)
I think the next logical question is the clincher.... did he care?
Well, when I look around me I don't just see things that are practical and designed with mere purpose in mind... I see things that are beautiful that have me happy and smiling before I know it.
When I need to eat to acquire energy and the materials to regenerate my body cells... I don't just eat a pill or lump of goo with mere purpose in mind... I choose from a huge variety of tastes and smells and experience great pleasure in eating ...
This argument continues true for reproduction, hearing, touch, thinking etc...
Then finally, comes the subject of most songs, the thing that makes humans truly special.... that feeling from inside our chest cavity (and sometimes all the way into our stomach) ... we spend billions of hours between us trying to express it in words, in poems, books, songs.... and in actions
LOVE!!! whoever designed us, included love in our design... need I say anymore.0 -
Are these two beliefs mutually exclusive?0
-
Most Christian scientists (that's scientists who are Christian rather than a sect) believe in both. They hold that life was created by God and that evolution came after that - it's really only creationists and fundamentalists (and I suppose on the other side, atheists) who believe they are mutually exclusive.0
-
God invented evolution
0 -
Advertisement
-
Hello, no they're not necessarily exclusive. How our physical bodies came to be is of secondary importance in the grand schema of things. The important point is that God created a spiritual soul in the first two true human beings (Adam and Eve). The soul didn't evolve, it was created directly by God.Lovethinking wrote: »Are these two beliefs mutually exclusive?
God bless,
Noel.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »I do like those videos, though I have to confess that I find the rapid-fire delivery a little unapproachable. I can't see many uncertain (or diehard) creationists sitting through the whole thing. Which is a shame.
I like the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism a lot. I think they're more for people who are on the fence or people who tend to wind up getting in arguments with creationists more than the die-hard bunch.0 -
-
I suppose on the other side, atheists
Not at all, it seems to be a common tactic for creationists to say that if you believe in evolution you cannot believe in God, however your average atheist actually understands evolution and knows it has nothing to do with how the universe/world was created et al so they believe nothing of the sort.
The belief in evolution has nothing to do with your religion really- the Roman Catholic church support evolution, for example.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,021 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 90259
Some people treat the New Testament as Gospel and the Old Testament as being less rigourous with the exact events while still containing the substance.
It was a Jesuit who confirmed that the earth is truly insignificant when he put a spectroscope up to a star. It had the same spectrum as the sun. Suddenly our solar system wasn't special, we were just another point of light. You have to remember that the Churches were political for a long time, look at the wars of religion and the papal states.
If the old testament was 100% accurate then you have to explain why we can see stars that are more than 7,000 light years away. Or you can treat the 7 days of creation as referring to eras rather than periods of 24 hours. (and how was there day and night before the sun / moon ) It's not like ancient biblical peoples had as good a grasp of cosmology as we do today.
Each day would last longer than the next one. This seems ok on the first 5 days but I've seen better explanations , probably from Jewish point of view,.
something like http://www.hpcisp.com/~kls/page2.html0 -
I was under the impression that the official position of the catholic church was that church teaching was 'not in conflict' with evolution.
Is this not the case?0 -
I was under the impression that the official position of the catholic church was that church teaching was 'not in conflict' with evolution.
Is this not the case?
You're correct and Galileo Galilei is also off the hook and for what they did to him they're 'sorry' but unlike the Anglicans the Catholics are not going to apologise to Darwin.0 -
Lovethinking wrote: »Are these two beliefs mutually exclusive?
People can believe in anything they want.0 -
but unlike the Anglicans the Catholics are not going to apologise to Darwin.
What would they be apologising for?
The Pope believes in Evolution, OP. Knock yourself out.0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement