The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

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.

No journasl. That is what was beingtaught in th eschools and written about in th enewspapers as climate is today with respect to global warming.

Wicknight wrote:

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..

School science textbooks.

Wicknight wrote:

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.


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..

Science is very flexible and that is the problem I have with it. The egos involved can not allow them selves to be wrong. The climatologists of the 70's weren't wrong, it wasn't until the next generation came along that climatologogical predictions changed. Now this generation will not allow themselves to be wrong, until the next generation comes along.

Science is flexible, unfortunately the scientists who study evolution will not allow themselves to be wrong with respect to an existence with God. They will not entertain the idea that there could be a God who created everything in 6 days 12,000 years ago.

I do not turn my nose up at theoretical work that develops into someting workable. The invention of my computer is a whole different scientific discovery and motivation than that that produces the forensics of past events.

As Robin has pointed out numerous times, evolution is not big bang tehy are different as is biogenesis and asro physics, etc, etc.

robindch

> However the climactic model back then was not controversal it
> was undisputed fact as it is today.

Again, completely untrue. Climatology and world models for future weather patters are a hotly disputed topic and your assertion that anything in the topic is undisputed is nonsense. I suggest that you read some books by climatologists on the topic, rather than referring (as you seem to) to reports printed by a thin section of the popular North American media.

> 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.

Again, completely false -- where on earth do you hear these things? As Wicknight pointed out above, the figures for the earth's age has been moving around for quite a while and everybody knows that. If you'd like to read an interesting and ACCURATE account of how the age of the earth was determined, then I suggest you get a copy of Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything which has a few very readable and interesting chapters on how many, many lines of evidence were used to bring us to our current understanding (which I've no doubt will continue to change as new lines of evidence are considered).

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

I lumped them all together because you rubbished science in general, so I suggested that if you detest it in general, then you should not take advantage of what it offers in general.

> Scientific discoveries that are current and tested and marketed are
> entirely different from exploring the past type science and predicting
> the future type science.

No, they are not (btw, why do you refer to marketing here?)

> The latter two are the ones that I don't trust.

So does this mean that the only "science" you trust is stuff that happens here and can be seen (or heard, or touched, or smelled, or tasted) immediately? So when a structural engineer builds a bridge and uses FEA to work out how strong it will be, you don't believe the results because it's "future type science"? And when a doctor takes a blood or hair sample to work out how much of something has been consumed in the past, you don't accept that either? I'll admit, I'm completely puzzled by how you divide up the world -- it makes no sense to me at all!

Scofflaw

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.

I think that's based on a misreading of "billion" - as in 4.6 billion years (the age of the Earth). The US billion, which everyone now uses, is a thousand million - the UK billion, which has fallen into disuse over the last 20 years, is a million million. It's a translation/localisation error in a school textbook, I'm afraid - not something you should really base a sceptical view of science on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

UU

BrianCalgary wrote:

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'.

Hi Brian!

Can ask you, have ever even studied evolution because I have in Biology in school! In fact I've studied both the genesis account and Darwin's theory. I think the approach is to link them both. I think it is the biggest religion vs science folly of all time. Just bickering and disputing over this and that over what? Facts? Charles Darwin was a very religious man who was actually going to become a priest.

Your view on Evolution is ridiculous. It doesn't deny the existence of Allah (God), we didn't come from slime (in Genesis we came from mud though!) and the Big Bang was created by Allah! Allah works in mysterious and clever ways. He obviously intended to create one species above the rest. It is like creating a piece of art - it takes time. He created the roots, the foundations and let the clock tick and watched his creation is come alive and evolve and grow and mature.

The age of the Earth is over 4.6 billion years old due to the oldest rock found. It took that long for the plates to move, mountains to form, oceans to spread...

These are just my views on it all but I'd be informed about both subjects before debating. Many Christian religions accept Evolution as valid. The Vatican no longer attacks it and there were celebrations in churches on the anniversary of Charles Darwin.

Everything happens for a reason, Allah's reason. It's called destiny. Morals, ethics do exist. That is why religion and science should work together, not fight. The result would be dire!

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Science is very flexible and that is the problem I have with it. The egos involved can not allow them selves to be wrong. The climatologists of the 70's weren't wrong, it wasn't until the next generation came along that climatologogical predictions changed. Now this generation will not allow themselves to be wrong, until the next generation comes along.

It may interest you to know, then, that some of those involved in the climate work in the 70's are involved in climate work now. This shouldn't come as a big surprise, I hope - climate science is climate science. The work done in the 1970's laid the groundwork for much of modern climate change modelling.

Having said that, much of what is touted as "the global cooling theory of the 70's" was about as scientific in origin as "The Day After Tomorrow" - nor was the term used at the time. The excitement was almost entirely in the media, and much of that was based on a misunderstanding of the term "soon" as used by geologists. We are in fact statistically due an Ice Age sometime in the next few tens of thousands of years (this is "soon" to a geologist, just as anything younger than a few million years is "recent").

It's funny, but Creationists in particular seem to believe that science offers absolute truths - it does not, and cannot do so.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Science is flexible, unfortunately the scientists who study evolution will not allow themselves to be wrong with respect to an existence with God. They will not entertain the idea that there could be a God who created everything in 6 days 12,000 years ago.

That's where science started, Brian. Sigh. Look, do I really have to say this again: Science started as a respectful exploration of God's Creation, following the teachings of the Bible and Genesis. Geology began as an examination of the records of the Flood.

Science was forced into a position, as the evidence came in, where it could either change its methodology, or abandon Creationism and Biblical literalism. There was no "third way" - no way to use the assumptions of Creationism in science. That it was correct to abandon the latter rather than the former is abundantly proven by what science has done since.

BrianCalgary wrote:

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.

Well, Brian, perhaps you should Google the "Duharro Dunes Meeting" that JC claims "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."

I can't find it, I've never heard of it, I can't find a single reference to it, and I don't believe for a minute that he's referring to anything other than a Creationist strategy meeting.

BrianCalgary wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, as we all know, Brian, it's full of inernal contradictions. Something that contradicts itself cannot help but be wrong, since one or other of the contradicting verses must be correct, and the other, incorrect. Sorry.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Science is flexible, unfortunately the scientists who study evolution will not allow themselves to be wrong with respect to an existence with God. They will not entertain the idea that there could be a God who created everything in 6 days 12,000 years ago.

And quite right to because there is no evidence at all for that position, and it is contradicted by all the known about the earth and solar system. Everything we know about the Earth and solar system must be wrong, all the evidence must be fake, for that position to be true, and there is isn't even any evidence to support that position in the first place.

So why entertain it? Even if they did entertain it with in a few seconds it would be a shown wrong by any number of different sources. Just because it is written in the Bible doesn't mean it is true when all the evidence says it isn't.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I do not turn my nose up at theoretical work that develops into someting workable. The invention of my computer is a whole different scientific discovery and motivation than that that produces the forensics of past events.

No actually its not. The same standards of science that lead to the theory of electo-magnatism that lead to the development of your computer, also leads to things like the dating of the universe and earth, and to theories like evolution.

Do you not think it is a bit funny that you trust all of the scientific process except the bit that seem to contradict your very literal reading of the Bible? Do the standards of the scientific process just suddenly slide and fall apart when it gets to the areas you don't like, and then suddenly rise again when we get back to areas of science you do want to accept, like computers?

It seems a bit funny that it would work out like that, that by some crazy conincidence the standards of science would down just in the areas you don't like what science is telling us.

UU

Also, if Creationism is correct then how do they procreate? Adam and Eve have two sons, one dies then does Cain procreate with is mother and have babies with genetic disabilities? Also, how do we have Caucasian (White), Negroid (Black), Asian and other races if we came from two person 12,000 years ago (even though it doesn't say that figure in the Bbile)? Why do we have a tailbone? Why do fossils of early humans have ape-like characteristics? Here's a good website I found: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/primate.html
It's really good and has fossil pictures!

Evolution occurs in front of our eyes! Humans used to use a chemical called Warfin to kill rats. Certain rats developed a gentic mutation which enabled them to become resistant to it and survived (i.e. "Survival Of The Fittest"). Fossils of early giraffes had shorter necks. Horses used to be half the height they are now. Even humans used to be smaller due to less food. How are we bigger now?

As the Kabbalah says, "Life is made up of stories. The most important one is the one of you".

J C

Quote Robin
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!

The policies adopted by private organisations such as schools and churches are entirely a matter for these organisations – and they are of no concern to Creation Science.

Parents have ultimate responsibility for the education of their children.
Personally, I would encourage my children to fully evaluate all sides of an argument and I believe that it is counter-productive to isolate children completely from any paradigm – ‘forbidden fruit’ can be very attractive !!!!


Quote Robin
Climatology and world models for future weather patters are a hotly disputed topic and your assertion that anything in the topic is undisputed is nonsense. I suggest that you read some books by climatologists on the topic, rather than referring (as you seem to) to reports printed by a thin section of the popular North American media.

The Kyoto Accord, which mandates serious changes in the years ahead on the basis of the Greenhouse Effect, indicates that all leading scientists ARE united in their opinions on Climatology – and so Brian is correct in his assertion that future weather patterns are NOT a hotly disputed topic among leading scientists at present.


Quote Wicknight
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.

I agree that The Earth IS an OPEN system with readily available energy from The Sun. However, raw energy from the Sun would be completely USELESS unless INTELLIGENTLY devised mechanisms were invented by Mankind to directly or indirectly utilise this energy.

All “raw energy” is chaotic and therefore either useless or randomly destructive – until order is imposed on it through the application of intelligence. For example, the chaotic flow of water in a river is either completely useless or downright dangerous, if you get in it’s way. However if order is IMPOSED on the river flow through the application of intelligent design and engineering, the chaotic raw energy can be safely harnessed to do useful work.
Similarly living organisms use very complex systems that impose order on otherwise chaotic processes – such as chlorophyll capturing the chaotic raw energy of the Sun and converting it into sugars.

The reason why artificial systems or living processes can overcome the Second Law of Thermodynamics is due to the availability of energy AND intelligently devised systems to capture and utilise this energy to do work and increase order.

Undirected or random processes are not capable of utilising energy to impose order and so they remain chaotic even if energy is inputted into them.
In fact, increasing the energy input into an undirected process, such as pouring fuel onto an uncontrolled fire will actually increase its destructive (chaotic) potential.

Evolution, as an undirected process, is equally incapable of overcoming the Second Law of Thermodynamics and thus is in the unique position of being ruled out by the Laws of BOTH Physics and Biology.


Quote Wicknight
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!

I feel your pain !!

Prof Dean Kenyon, Emeritus Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University was an Evolutionist and the leading proponent of the idea that the Laws of Chemistry predict life - he even went so far as to claim the Chemical Pre-Destination of Life.

However, I have bad news for you. Prof Kenyon was amongst the group of leading Evolutionists that attended the Duharro Dunes Meeting in 1993. He explained his theory of 'Chemical Pre-Destination' and listened to the ensuing debate.
He then came to the realisation that the Laws of Chemistry DIDN’T actually predict life and abandoned his own Theory and became one of the leading advocates of Intelligent Design today.
Here is an example of a leading scientist changing his mind and rejecting his own theory. Truly an example for all scientists of how science SHOULD work!!!

Creation Scientists still don't share Prof Kenyon's views on the Evolutionary origins of life - but they greatly respect him as an honourable man prepared to sacrifice his own theory once it's invalidity was pointed out to him.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Quote Robin
Climatology and world models for future weather patters are a hotly disputed topic and your assertion that anything in the topic is undisputed is nonsense. I suggest that you read some books by climatologists on the topic, rather than referring (as you seem to) to reports printed by a thin section of the popular North American media.

The Kyoto Accord, which mandates serious changes in the years ahead on the basis of the Greenhouse Effect, indicates that all leading scientists ARE united in their opinions on Climatology – and so Brian is correct in his assertion that future weather patterns are NOT a hotly disputed topic among leading scientists at present.

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists are in agreement that climate change is happening, and that our greenhouse emissions are the cause. As far as what exactly will happen, there's a lot of disagreement - many different climate models, some with big changes like Gulf Stream shutdown, others without.

J C wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

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.

I agree that The Earth IS an OPEN system with readily available energy from The Sun. However, raw energy from the Sun would be completely USELESS unless INTELLIGENTLY devised mechanisms were invented by Mankind to directly or indirectly utilise this energy.

Like, growing plants to eat, for example?

J C wrote:

All “raw energy” is chaotic and therefore either useless or randomly destructive – until order is imposed on it through the application of intelligence. For example, the chaotic flow of water in a river is either completely useless or downright dangerous, if you get in it’s way. However if order is IMPOSED on the river flow through the application of intelligent design and engineering, the chaotic raw energy can be safely harnessed to do useful work.

Hilarious. Sunshine is chaotic? Sunshine is useless or randomly destructive? The chemical energy used in our cells is chaotic? Useless or randomly destructive? What are you gibbering about?

J C wrote:

Similarly living organisms use very complex systems that impose order on otherwise chaotic processes – such as chlorophyll capturing the chaotic raw energy of the Sun and converting it into sugars.

Er, yes - you assume these are "intelligently designed", we reckon they aren't. You're using your assumption to prove your assumption.

J C wrote:

The reason why artificial systems or living processes can overcome the Second Law of Thermodynamics is due to the availability of energy AND intelligently devised systems to capture and utilise this energy to do work and increase order.

Undirected or random processes are not capable of utilising energy to impose order and so they remain chaotic even if energy is inputted into them.
In fact, increasing the energy input into an undirected process, such as pouring fuel onto an uncontrolled fire will actually increase its destructive (chaotic) potential.

And you're back to wibbling again. Take the flow of water in a river - does it do any work? Yes, it moves a suspended load of solutes & fine particles, plus a bedload of coarser particles, downstream. Along the way, it may carve rock or soil out of its banks and channels (this is work), and it may also deposit sediments.

Take wind, which is driven by nothing more than sunlight - does it do work? Yes, it moves sand around in dunes. It also erodes rocks, shifts accumulations of gases from volcanoes and plants, gives us our weather systems, cools the Equator and warms te high latitudes.

You're fixated on the idea that "work" is a process directed towards an end specifically chosen by a human being - and that closes the loop, because by and large, while natural systems do a lot of work, it's not work directed towards an end chosen by a human being. Rather the reverse - while it's "undirected energy" in its "chaotic, useless, or dangerous" state that gives us rain, we do not direct the rain to fall - we simply take advantage of the fact that it does.

J C wrote:

Evolution, as an undirected process, is equally incapable of overcoming the Second Law of Thermodynamics and thus is in the unique position of being ruled out by the Laws of BOTH Physics and Biology.

Alas, JC, it's clear that your comprehension of energy is almost unbelievably limited, and your pronouncements mere bombast.

J C wrote:

However, I have bad news for you. Prof Kenyon was amongst the group of leading Evolutionists that attended the Duharro Dunes Meeting in 1993. He explained his theory of 'Chemical Pre-Destination' and listened to the ensuing debate.

He then came to the realisation that the Laws of Chemistry DIDN’T actually predict life and abandoned his own Theory and became one of the leading advocates of Intelligent Design today. Here is an example of a leading scientist changing his mind and rejecting his own theory. Truly an example for all scientists of how science SHOULD work!!!

Would you care to point us in the direction of some record of this meeting? I can't find even the name "Duharro", let alone any scientific meeting. Is there really such a place? By the way, your "dramatic conversion" story is bunkum - Kenyon was a Creationist in 1980 - from his Wiki entry:

In 1980, the San Francisco State University Department of Biology had a dispute over Kenyon's presentation of creationism, then called "scientific creationism" in Biology module 337 Evolution

I'm not certain why you think you can simply spend your time on this board lying, JC. I don't think anyone else is, but it's pretty clear from the above that you are.

Scofflaw

bounty

IMO the bible, creationism And the prophecy are all irrelevant.

Agnostic is the only true belief.

All religions are based on unfounded opinion.

Scofflaw

bounty wrote:

IMO the bible, creationism And the prophecy are all irrelevant.

Agnostic is the only true belief.

All religions are based on unfounded opinion.

Well done. Now if only agnosticism were a belief, perhaps this piece of trite nonsense would be relevant to one of the several threads you've posted it to.

Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

All “raw energy” is chaotic and therefore either useless or randomly destructive

That is possibiliy the silliest thing you have so far said JC, and shows a complete lack of understand of even the most basic Junior Cert chemistry. Of what energy is for that matter.

"Raw" energy like the energy from the sun provides the energy for chemical reactions to take place. It is the laws of chemistry that "impose" order on the chemical reaction, not the type of energy used.

For someone who used to claim to be a "trained scientist" you really seem to lack knowledge of even the most basic areas of science.

J C wrote:

The reason why artificial systems or living processes can overcome the Second Law of Thermodynamics is due to the availability of energy AND intelligently devised systems to capture and utilise this energy to do work and increase order.

Again, absolute nonsense.

Even the most basic non-organic molecules can "capture" and use the energy from the sun for chemical reactions to "increase order" as you like to put it. In fact nearly all natural chemical reactions on earth use directly or indirectly energy from the sun. Everything from ozone production in the upper atomosphere to rust on your bike.

J C wrote:

Undirected or random processes are not capable of utilising energy to impose order and so they remain chaotic even if energy is inputted into them.

Again, nonsense.

The laws of chemistry impose order on the chemical reactions JC. You have been told this before, not just by me. Chemistry is not a random science, molecules do not form completely random bonds. They form complex but structured and ordered bonds naturally.

"Life" is just a big series of complex chemical reactions. Granted they are very very complex, but they all build on the laws of chemistry. There is nothing random about them, nor do they need an intelligent designer to impose order. Chemistry itself imposes the order on life. There is nothing that happens in an organic molecule that breaks or defies the laws of chemistry. Life is entirely predictable in what we know about chemistry, and (as I've told you about 10 times) non-organic molecules have been show in a lab to form simply organic molecules under natural conditions.

J C wrote:

Evolution, as an undirected process, is equally incapable of overcoming the Second Law of Thermodynamics and thus is in the unique position of being ruled out by the Laws of BOTH Physics and Biology.

Neither chemistry or evolution are "undirected". They are both directed by the laws of chemistry.

JC I'm going to say this for the last time chemistry is not a random process!

J C wrote:

However, I have bad news for you. Prof Kenyon was amongst the group of leading Evolutionists that attended the Duharro Dunes Meeting in 1993. He explained his theory of 'Chemical Pre-Destination' and listened to the ensuing debate.
He then came to the realisation that the Laws of Chemistry DIDN’T actually predict life and abandoned his own Theory and became one of the leading advocates of Intelligent Design today.
Here is an example of a leading scientist changing his mind and rejecting his own theory. Truly an example for all scientists of how science SHOULD work!!!

Are you just making this sh*t up as you go along?

Prof Dean H. Kenyon has been teaching Creationism and ID since the late 1970s. In fact he had already come to blows with the board of San Fran State twice, once in 1980 when he tried to get the biology class he taught changed to include Creationism and again in 1992 when he was censured for the (alleged) unathorised teaching Creationism in his biology class.

Kenyon was also a leading member in the switch from using the term Creationism to using the term Intelligent Design in the late 1980s

In fairness to Kenyon, he has always said that his ideas are limited to the idea that the first sparks of organic life on Earth must have been spawned by an intelligent creator, he rejects the idea that teaching ID means one has to teach a religious text like the Bible as a literal description of creation.

But I have no idea where you got the idea that he was a leading evolutionist till he went to this "meeting" in 1993 and came out a converted Creationist/ID believer.

He didn't, and I seriously doubt any of the other "leading" evolutionist you talk about did either.

robindch

FYI -

The ID-hoaxer and numerologist William Dembski who was invited around a year or so ago to set up a think tank in the "Southern Baptist Theological Seminary", has left it already, apparently moving westwards slightly to become a "research professor of philosophy" at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:

http://www.swbts.edu/publicrelations/story.cfm?id=6AF30AD4-F56F-42A0-AECAE37C070C8424%20-%2016k

Dembski's blog at http://www.uncommondescent.com/ doesn't mention this move, nor any convincing reason as to why he left what seemed to be a pretty plum job after such a short time. The blogtext is a fascinating insight into the pretty twisted way that the mind of a leading creationist works -- note references to "liberals" and "conservatives", soviets, the frothing idiocy of Ann Coulter for whom he claims to have written a few chapters in some recent book of "hers", lies, conspiracies, dogma, ignorance, etc, etc. In fact, predictably enough, it's got just about everything there to wind up his carefully-targeted Republican/Conserative authority-obsessed audience. Except any discussion of evolution, of course.

Actually, a brief taste of Dembski's audience can be found in the reaction to a worthy proposal by the spanish socialist party to extend some human rights to other primates:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1075

"When you elevate apes to human status, you don’t elevate apes. You debase humans" -- can't you just *feel* the contempt and cold fear of this poster?

BrianCalgary

UU wrote:

Your view on Evolution is ridiculous. It doesn't deny the existence of Allah (God), we didn't come from slime (in Genesis we came from mud though!) and the Big Bang was created by Allah! Allah works in mysterious and clever ways. He obviously intended to create one species above the rest. It is like creating a piece of art - it takes time. He created the roots, the foundations and let the clock tick and watched his creation is come alive and evolve and grow and mature.

Evolutionists that U know deny the existence of God and that because evolution has been proven then God does not exist.

Fo rman it takes time to create a work of art, for God he can do it instantaneously.

UU wrote:

The age of the Earth is over 4.6 billion years old due to the oldest rock found. It took that long for the plates to move, mountains to form, oceans to spread... !

How do you know it's 4.6 billion years. The rocks may be, that doesn't mean the Earth is. My house is built with wood, concrete and vinyl siding. The wood is going to be over 50 years old maybe hundreds. The vinyl, which is a petroleum based product could be dated in the millions and the concrete, maybe the rock in it will be in the millions. TO carbon date alll the materials in my house and base your dating of the construction would put well out of the 1995 date that it was actually built. The builders needed material that were old in order to build the foundation so the home would last. God is almighty. He can do anything. How can you claim that God did not create rocks that were 4.6 billion years old in order to set the foundation for the Earth 12,000 years ago?

God was there, He has communicated it to us in His word.

UU wrote:

These are just my views on it all but I'd be informed about both subjects before debating. Many Christian religions accept Evolution as valid. The Vatican no longer attacks it and there were celebrations in churches on the anniversary of Charles Darwin.

Everything happens for a reason, Allah's reason. It's called destiny. Morals, ethics do exist. That is why religion and science should work together, not fight. The result would be dire!

I agree that science and religion should work together, but the scientists would not even entertain my point above as being valid. Science wants to deny the existence of a creator.

robindch

Brian -

> Science wants to deny the existence of a creator.

We seem to be moving backwards here a bit. Science is all about seeking naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena. It's not about theology or god or allah or zeus or any other deities. Science does not say anything about god, because god, by definition, is supernatural. Therefore, your understanding that a disembodied science (the natural) somehow wants to deny the existence of god (the supernatural) is simply a contradiction in terms within yourself.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Evolutionists that U know deny the existence of God and that because evolution has been proven then God does not exist.

Fo rman it takes time to create a work of art, for God he can do it instantaneously.

Firstly evolution doesn't comment on the existance of God one way or the other. It is Creationists who say the if evolution is correct then there must be no God, and then they spend a whole lot of time trying to prove evolution wrong.

In reality there is no reason to believe just because evolution is correct that their is no God. Millions of Christians around the world accept evolutions whole heartly and still believe in a divine God. In fact they say "How clever of God to invent something as so simple yet complex as evolution"

I mean did people stop believe in God or the church when they found out Pi was 3.14... instead of 3 as describe in the Bible? Nope. Did people stop believing in God when it was shown that the sun did not go around the Earth as described in the Bible? Nope. Did people stop believing in God when it was shown that the Earth is a lot older than described in the Bible? Nope. So why the big hangup over evolution?

If you faith in God is based solely on the correctness of the Bible then I'm sorry but that is pretty weak faith.

BrianCalgary wrote:

How do you know it's 4.6 billion years. The rocks may be, that doesn't mean the Earth is.

Actually yes it probably does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Earth

BrianCalgary wrote:

How can you claim that God did not create rocks that were 4.6 billion years old in order to set the foundation for the Earth 12,000 years ago?

Why would you claim he did?

It seems a bit stupid of God to do something and then spend a whole lot of time planting evidence showing that he did something else. All th evidence shows that the Earth is at least 4.6 billion years old. Why would God, if the did make the Earth 12,000 years ago, spend all this time planting evidence that shows the earth is 4.6 billion years old if it isn't? It doesn't make sense.

BrianCalgary wrote:

God was there, He has communicated it to us in His word.

So why believe the men who wrote the Bible over the evidence itself? I'm not saying don't believe in God, but seriously just because you believe in God why believe the literal Bible? Has God himself actually told you that the Bible is his word or do you just believe this because others tell you this?

BrianCalgary wrote:

I agree that science and religion should work together, but the scientists would not even entertain my point above as being valid. Science wants to deny the
existence of a creator.

No, science doesn't want to touch the issue of the existance of a creator with a barge poll.

It is only Creationists that say "If A is true then there is no God, therefore A must not be true". Science has never said such a thing, or will ever attempt to say such a thing.

YOU are saying that if the Bible is wrong then there is no God. So therefore you are using that assumption to try and show that science, by proving the Bible wrong, is also trying to prove the God doesn't exists, when in fact it is doing no such thing.

As it ever occured to you this possibility

There is a God, but the Bible is wrong about a lot of things

The Bible has already been shown to be incorrect about scientific things (Pi being one obvious example), yet most people ignore these things because to them belief in God doesn't come from a literal interpritation of the Bible. Their belief in God is external to the Bible.

You say the Bible can't be wrong because it is Gods word. Why do you believe that? Has God himself said "Yup, I wrote that"

It is mind boggling to me that some people would rather spend so much time and energy trying to stop the inevitable advancement of science, so much energy trying to prove that this theory is wrong, that theory is wrong, coming up with the most ridiculous "explinations" of how something can still fit in with the literal Bible (God made the Earth from older rock that was just, umm, lying around somewhere). When all they would have to do is say "I still really believe in God, but I accept that while written by holy men and have important lessons, the Bible might have got a few things wrong here and there".

Millions of Christians around the world have already done that. They believe in the principles of the Bible only because they already believe in God. The believing in God bit comes first. They would still believe in God if the Bible was shown to be a fake tomorrow, they wouldn't care. They would not suddenly lose faith. To me that is real faith. They don't believe in God because they believe in the accuracy of the Bible. That is looking for proof instead of faith.

Assyrian

Pajaro dunes perhaps? Organised by Phillip Johnson in 1993. Behe was one of the speakers. The world leading evolutionary scientists getting together? They sound like committed IDists to me.

J C wrote:

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’.

So why does Leviticus talk of every raven of any kind Lev 11:15 when there is only one genus of raven? How can created kind be a valid scientific observation, when you haven't seen the common ancestor being created to rule out the possibility of another ancestor back common to that and another genus you label different created kinds?

It's bad science and bad theology, the bible never talks of 'created kinds' just different kinds of animals.

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.

LOCALLY : in a cell or organism
EXTERNAL energy: food or in the case of plants, light.

In other words living creatures have no difficulty with the second law of thermodynamics because the local increase in order uses external energy from the sun.

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?

So somehow in a discussion of the second law of thermodynamics, we get this unproven ID claim about 'tightly specified genetic information'. Yes cells use metabolic pathways which are controlled by genetics. But the second law says nothing about whether a mutation to a gene can be beneficial or not. That is simply creationist dogma which has nothing to do with the physics and chemistry of thermodynamics.

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’.

A gracious attitude in what can be a heated debate.

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.

It was a statement in a UK Christian magazine by IDist Prof Andy McIntosh I believe there won’t be revival in this country until the Church repents of its acceptance of the idolatry of evolution, that drew me into the debate. It is mild compared with some of the stuff I see.

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.

Which Jesus contradicted when he said his father never stopped working. Hebrews tells us that God's seventh day rest is not a weekend off God took off a long time ago, but is a spiritual state we can still enter into. Meanwhile As Jesus tells us and the bible consistently illustrates, God has been very busy watching over things being made.

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.

Evolution is not an act of the Physical Creation of Life either. So what is the problem?

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.

Certainly not the creation of life, these were dead fish he multiplied. But this is the Lord of Creation showing his power. How do you know new matter cannot have been created?

You seem to have this strange idea of what Christ was allowed and was not allow to do. Where do you get it from?
The Pharisees thought Jesus could do miracles as long as it wasn't on the Sabbath, you think he could do miracles as long as it didn't involve Creating.

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.

It is God making things. We find the same words used for creation in Genesis create bara, make asah, form yatsar, used throughout the OT to describe God's work.

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.

I have highlighted the first nine words in that quote, because they actually are supported by the text of Genesis. The rest is all conjecture. God may have said ''fiat lux' when he created light, (if you are sure he spoke Latin) But he didn't go 'Fiat' when he created life. He didn't say 'Let there be life...' He said 'Let the earth produce life'. Literally 'Let the earth cause herbs to sprout... and the earth caused herbs to sprout.' 'Let the earth to produce living creatures...'

Now the only argument I can think of to say God didn't use natural processes would be if it all happened in six literal days. But, as we have seen, Genesis never says it happened in six literal days. Even if you take the numbered days literally, and there is plenty of evidence they were not, you still have the numbered days beginning after each work of creation. There is plenty of time for the hundreds of millions of years natural process would have needed to follow God's command. God wasn't in a hurry.

God never commanded that organisms would reproduce ‘after its kind’. He commanded the earth to produce different kinds of organisms, exactly what science tells us happened through evolution.

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.

Of course the increase in photosensitivity doesn't lead to an advantage. We already have perfectly good eyes. My point is that is is very simple for a single mutation in an organism without any eyes to lead to the production of a photosensitive chemicals.

Assyrian

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/

The researchers have not identified the composition of the material found, and do no know if it is original T Rex tissue, polymeric material formed during decomposition, or an compounds formed in the lab when the fossils were soaked in acid. Even if it was identified as original tissue, you would need to know decomposition rates that material in the environment it was preserved, deep inside unusually fossilised bone.

It does raise difficult questions for young earth creationists. We know tissue can be remarkably preserved over thousands of years. We find mummified bodies preserved in peat bogs, in deserts and in pyramids. Otzi was preserved perfectly in an Alpine glacier. We find mammoths in Siberian permafrost badly decayed, but still preserved. YECs believe dinosaurs come from the same period, at most a difference of a few hundred years between them. Where is all the tissue? There should be slabs of dinosaur jerky being dug up in deserts around the world. You should be able to find the marrow in every dinosaur bone you crack open. T Rex teeth should still have dried up roots and identifiable DNA. Why is there such a meat gap between mammoths and dinosaurs?

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.

Apparently your coelacanth was different enough from the fossilised ones to be classified as a different genus, which according to you would make it a seperate created kind wouldn't it? Coelacanths, sharks and crocodiles were never an issue for evolution. If a species is well adapted to it environment and the environment doesn't change drastically there is little pressure to change.

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’.

I have no idea how the waters of a single flood were supposed to carry the amount of sediment we see in in our rocks. Nor do they explain the continuous signs of life going on as normal as the layers are laid down. How do termites burrow in layers of rock being laid down underwater? How do dinosaur leave foot prints? How do trees being gradually buried under layer after layer of sediment grow roots up into these layers?

The Cambrian layers present a real problem for young earth creationists because of the lack of modern organisms fossilised there. Where are the halibut and cod? Where are the plaice and flounders. What about all the modern shellfish we find on the seafloor today. If they had been created before the flood, why weren't they buried when the the flood dumped all that sediment on top of them? Our sea floors are crawling with life. Why was it all so different in the cambrian?

It it was sorted hydrodynamicaly, why aren't fossils arranged by size and density?

Limestone is formed when tiny sea creatures absorb calcium from the water and make shells, die and fall to the bottom of the sea. How did this happen suddenly? Could the seas dissolve that much calcium in the first place? How did the white cliffs of Dover form? Were these creatures swimming in around in shoals so dense when the all died they fell to the bottom and formed a layer of chalk 350 feet thick? Why aren't the flints all at the bottom?

Assyrian

"But afterward I will restore the fortunes of the Ammonites, declares the LORD." Jer 49:6

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Firstly evolution doesn't comment on the existance of God one way or the other. It is Creationists who say the if evolution is correct then there must be no God, and then they spend a whole lot of time trying to prove evolution wrong..

Unfortunately as I have stated before that those that I know who believe in evolution use it as a denial of God's existence. That may not be the goal of scientists but it is used by many to create the result.

Wicknight wrote:

I mean did people stop believe in God or the church when they found out Pi was 3.14... instead of 3 as describe in the Bible? Nope. Did people stop believing in God when it was shown that the sun did not go around the Earth as described in the Bible? Nope. Did people stop believing in God when it was shown that the Earth is a lot older than described in the Bible? Nope. So why the big hangup over evolution?..

Show me the Pi one. Never seen it before.
Where does the Bible say that teh sun goes around the earth?

Wicknight wrote:

If you faith in God is based solely on the correctness of the Bible then I'm sorry but that is pretty weak faith.

Not really. When you see who Christ is and He confirms the scriptures as being divinely inspired and Peter confirms it in his writing, then the authenticity of the Bible becomes part of the faith.

Wicknight wrote:

It seems a bit stupid of God to do something and then spend a whole lot of time planting evidence showing that he did something else. All th evidence shows that the Earth is at least 4.6 billion years old. Why would God, if the did make the Earth 12,000 years ago, spend all this time planting evidence that shows the earth is 4.6 billion years old if it isn't? It doesn't make sense.

4.6 Billion yaer old rocks are needed for the foundation of the Earth as 50 year old trees are needed to provide the foundation of my house. Why can't you entertain the possibility of this?

Wicknight wrote:

So why believe the men who wrote the Bible over the evidence itself? I'm not saying don't believe in God, but seriously just because you believe in God why believe the literal Bible? Has God himself actually told you that the Bible is his word or do you just believe this because others tell you this?

The Bible itself tells us that the scriptures are God breathed. Jesus uses them Himself. The prophecies in the OT have come true.

Wicknight wrote:

YOU are saying that if the Bible is wrong then there is no God. So therefore you are using that assumption to try and show that science, by proving the Bible wrong, is also trying to prove the God doesn't exists, when in fact it is doing no such thing.

As it ever occured to you this possibility

There are those who do use science to prove the Bible wrong, therefore making God null and void. If the Bible is wrong then a chunk of the Christian faith is busted. We build our faith on the resurrection of Christ. On Him being the Messiah as the result of Him fulfilling all the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah. If either are shown to be invalid then the faith collapses. The Bible is as it says it is or it isn't. If it is the inspired word of God then everything in it is the truth. If it isn't inspired then why believe in it?

As I have stated before I have room for other Christians to believe in evolutio, but when it is used to make God uneccesary which is a roadblock to people coming into relationship with Jesus, then it is a problem. ANd it is used as such.

There is a God, but the Bible is wrong about a lot of things

Wicknight wrote:

The Bible has already been shown to be incorrect about scientific things (Pi being one obvious example), yet most people ignore these things because to them belief in God doesn't come from a literal interpritation of the Bible. Their belief in God is external to the Bible.

Give me the references. I'll look into them.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

It is mind boggling to me that some people would rather spend so much time and energy trying to stop the inevitable advancement of science, so much energy trying to prove that this theory is wrong, that theory is wrong, coming up with the most ridiculous "explinations" of how something can still fit in with the literal Bible (God made the Earth from older rock that was just, umm, lying around somewhere). When all they would have to do is say "I still really believe in God, but I accept that while written by holy men and have important lessons, the Bible might have got a few things wrong here and there".

Millions of Christians around the world have already done that. They believe in the principles of the Bible only because they already believe in God. The believing in God bit comes first. They would still believe in God if the Bible was shown to be a fake tomorrow, they wouldn't care. They would not suddenly lose faith. To me that is real faith. They don't believe in God because they believe in the accuracy of the Bible. That is looking for proof instead of faith.

I don't see how (God made the Earth from older rock that was just, umm, lying around somewhere) is ridiculous. The rocks weren't just lying around, God made them, He spoke them into existence. For me that is a much better explanation than 'first there was nothing then it exploded'.

And honestly I don't spend too much time and energy on this. I spend much more on working with teenagers and trying to be a positive influence in their lives. But when they start questioning God's existence based on their science classes then their eternal existence concerns me.

It's the final sentence that is at the bottom of my concerns.

Thanks for the discussion.:)

robindch

> Unfortunately as I have stated before that those that I know who
> believe in evolution use it as a denial of God's existence. That may
> not be the goal of scientists but it is used by many to create the result

Speaking with somebody who's got scientists as relations and has hung around scientists for over twenty years, I have yet to come across any scientist who claims this. The last time this topic came up, you mentioned he Canadian broadcaster Suzuki who has produced nothing that I can find that says that god doesn't exist. Likewise, with Dawkins who's always been clear that it's his *belief* that god doesn't exist. He specifically does not say that god does not exist. As wicknight says, the only person who says that "scientists" say that god doesn't exist are the creationists on this board. It simply isn't backed up by any reality that I can locate.

Anyhow, as the discussion seems to be going in circles again, lets change the topic slightly, with a question:

Why do you have such strong opinions about something (evolution, physics, cosmology etc), that you know very little about? I accept that you believe that the bible is infallible and you believe that this, ipso facto, beats any other argument without question. But -- here's the question -- why, for you, is your own infallible *belief* more convincing than somebody else's *fact*? Or is the answer really as obvious as it seems?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> Unfortunately as I have stated before that those that I know who
> believe in evolution use it as a denial of God's existence. That may
> not be the goal of scientists but it is used by many to create the result

Speaking with somebody who's got scientists as relations and has hung around scientists for over twenty years, I have yet to come across any scientist who claims this. The last time this topic came up, you mentioned he Canadian broadcaster Suzuki who has produced nothing that I can find that says that god doesn't exist. Likewise, with Dawkins who's always been clear that it's his *belief* that god doesn't exist. He specifically does not say that god does not exist. As wicknight says, the only person who says that "scientists" say that god doesn't exist are the creationists on this board. It simply isn't backed up by any reality that I can locate.?

Bill S. Degree in Petroleum Technology
David Suzuki He may not post it but he has said it. Just because it is not reported on the Internet does not mean it doesn't happen.
Dave W. Degree in some sort of science. Can't remember which.
Bill W. Columnist for Calgary Sun
Just to name a couple.

If it is your belief that He doesn't exist then wouldn't you then state that He doesn't exist and have some evidence to support that fact?

robindch wrote:

[Why do you have such strong opinions about something (evolution, physics, cosmology etc), that you know very little about? I accept that you believe that the bible is infallible and you believe that this, ipso facto, beats any other argument without question. But -- here's the question -- why, for you, is your own infallible *belief* more convincing than somebody else's *fact*? Or is the answer really as obvious as it seems?

I try and sum it up for you.
There is no question that the Bible is a divinely inspired book. God says He created the universe in six days. He has no reason to lie about it. Since He was the only one eyewitness that has communicated that it happened this way I believe Him.

Science has changed it's mind over *facts* in the past. I trust that evolution will happen the same way. Please here don't confuse church teaching over biblical writing. Because the Bible has never changed.

Whom do I trust: man who fouls things up in the worst way and gets it wrong time and again or God; who is looking out for my best interest and who gave Himself up for me on the cross.

What has never been answered is why you or the other evolutionist can not accept the idea that God created 4.6 billion year old rocks to lay the foundation of the Earth?

bmoferrall

Assyrian wrote:

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.

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.

It's seems to me that mysteries about the origins of consciousness or 'life force' remain. Can their essence really be distilled down to the level of atoms/molecules? As for souls/spirits, I guess any understanding of these (for those that believe we have them) is outside the remit of science and belongs in the realm of the supernatural. I presume I'm right in thinking that the atheist believes any differences between us and other creatures can be explained purely in naturalistic terms (higher intelligence, being top of the evolutionary tree, etc.)?

Not having any background in the life sciences, I have to rely on others to illuminate the various issues for me, an unavoidable (for now) position I'd rather not be in. I know from my own chosen discipline that superficial knowledge of a subject will only take you so far. Therefore, any presuppositions I may have about the validity of evolution are probably useless; the argument that's it seems impossibly complex doesn't hold water - I still marvel at the ingenuity involved in designing and producing something like a silicon chip. The conviction of so many here (and elsewhere) that there is bad science on the Creationist side cannot be lightly dismissed by the layman; if this is true, I hope it is weeded out in due course.

I've dismissed the theistic evolution perspective up to now as coming from the casual/liberal 'sunday worshipper' who either has little knowledge of the bible, or doesn't regard it as a reliable record of God's word. It's clear to me that Assyrian has a substantial knowledge of both the science and the theology involved. Whether gradual evolution can be somehow reconciled with the Genesis creation account seems to at least depend on whether death/violence could have been allowed (by God) to exist amongst living creatures (and be seen as 'good') in the period before God 'created' Adam, and before Adam 'fell/died' (spiritually/physically). There are other objections (literal 6 days, etc.) from the creationist perspective but that seems to be a key one anyway. I still hold the belief that God could have, and may have, created everything in a week had he so wished. Maybe, just maybe, he wasn't in any great hurry and preferred to establish the necessary laws at the outset, knowing in advance that they would eventually lead to what we see today ('one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day').

Not knowing the science (or indeed all the theology) involved, I think I'm gonna hop onto the fence for now

bmoferrall

robindch wrote:

> Unfortunately as I have stated before that those that I know who
> believe in evolution use it as a denial of God's existence. That may
> not be the goal of scientists but it is used by many to create the result

Speaking with somebody who's got scientists as relations and has hung around scientists for over twenty years, I have yet to come across any scientist who claims this. The last time this topic came up, you mentioned he Canadian broadcaster Suzuki who has produced nothing that I can find that says that god doesn't exist. Likewise, with Dawkins who's always been clear that it's his *belief* that god doesn't exist. He specifically does not say that god does not exist. As wicknight says, the only person who says that "scientists" say that god doesn't exist are the creationists on this board. It simply isn't backed up by any reality that I can locate.

Here's an example posted on these boards a while back (Douglas Adam's)

Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology, particularly in the form of Richard Dawkins's books The Selfish Gene and then The Blind Watchmaker and suddenly (on, I think the second reading of The Selfish Gene) it all fell into place. It was a concept of such stunning simplicity, but it gave rise, naturally, to all of the infinite and baffling complexity of life. The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

I try and sum it up for you.
There is no question that the Bible is a divinely inspired book. God says He created the universe in six days. He has no reason to lie about it. Since He was the only one eyewitness that has communicated that it happened this way I believe Him.

There's also no question that this is circular - the bible is authentic because the bible says it's authentic because the bible says it's authentic...

Science has changed it's mind over *facts* in the past. I trust that evolution will happen the same way. Please here don't confuse church teaching over biblical writing. Because the Bible has never changed.

Even when shown to be wrong e.g. rabbits chewing their cud, birds being bats, pi being 3, etc.
Science has changed its mind over theories constructed on facts as new facts come to light. It is a GOOD thing that these things change, because they are based on observable data. Evolution has been observed. As we get more advanced and better technology that is able to observe more and more, more accurately, we learn more. I would rather learn more and admit when something was incomplete than stubbornly insisting something is right whether it's true or not.

Furthermore - what about all the times the Bible, er, HAS changed?
The different editions, different translations, different bibles including different books etc?

Whom do I trust: man who fouls things up in the worst way and gets it wrong time and again or God; who is looking out for my best interest and who gave Himself up for me on the cross.

The former wrote the Bible.

What has never been answered is why you or the other evolutionist can not accept the idea that God created 4.6 billion year old rocks to lay the foundation of the Earth?

If they're 4.6 billion years old then I'm not seeing the problem as the trees that were blah old were clearly in existence as old as they are...
what's the point...?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

There is no question that the Bible is a divinely inspired book. God says He created the universe in six days. He has no reason to lie about it. Since He was the only one eyewitness that has communicated that it happened this way I believe Him.

As bluewolf says, that's a circle.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Science has changed it's mind over *facts* in the past. I trust that evolution will happen the same way. Please here don't confuse church teaching over biblical writing. Because the Bible has never changed.

Has it? Are you thinking of theories there? Or interpretation of facts? Better measurements? Indirect measurements altered by a change in theory?

As to the Bible never changing - I think that's an article of belief on your part, which would hardly be accepted by anyone for whom it is an open question. Certainly the Catholic Church is known to have made changes, and, for all it gets said, I certainly cannot see how later bibliolators can possibly claim to have "reconstructed" the original.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Whom do I trust: man who fouls things up in the worst way and gets it wrong time and again or God; who is looking out for my best interest and who gave Himself up for me on the cross.

I'm not certain, then, why you choose the evidence given in a book written by men over the evidence offered by God's creation all around you.

BrianCalgary wrote:

What has never been answered is why you or the other evolutionist can not accept the idea that God created 4.6 billion year old rocks to lay the foundation of the Earth?

I do know scientists who believe exactly that, and consider many of the theories of "planetary formation" to be the same kind of dangerous rubbish that YECs believe the theory of evolution to be.

There are plenty of OEC's, both within and without science, but as you said yourself, they are normally dismissed pretty much out of hand.

As to why it is not a standard assumption in science - the answer is because science seeks "natural" explanations for everything. To you, this makes it a-theist (in the sense that its explanations leave God out), which it largely is: however, you also assume that it is a priori atheist (in the sense that its explanations preclude and deny God), which it is not. Science cannot easily consider "supernatural" explanations, whether they involve God or advanced aliens, because they are not something science is equipped to study.

I'm sure you've heard the expression "if all you have is a hammer, everything ooks like a nail" - this is true of science. God is not excluded as a possible explanation for some "doctrinal" reason, but because an explanation that includes God cannot ever be disproved. If a sufficient amount of positive evidence pointed to the work of a Creator, that is then a viable theory, but no amount of negative evidence can ever disprove the work of a Creator.

Taking as an example your suggestion that God used 4.6 billion year old rocks to lay the foundations of the Earth a few thousand years ago - how could this possibly be disproved? There are no limits to God, so we would have to ask "would God do such a thing?", which is simply not a question that science can answer.

In brief, then, science cannot disprove creation - nothing at all in science cannot be explained by the limitless power of God! Unfortunately, were science to adopt an arbitrary creation, it would cease to be.

The minute we assume that the world (or God's Creation) is not arbitrary, we start to build a framework that explains the world. If we extend that framework only in ways that ensure the extension fits the rest of the framework, we have a coherent worldview. If our framework does not require God, or Creation, that does not make it a priori atheist, unless that is one of our starting assumptions.

As far as I can tell, you believe that atheism is one of the starting assumptions of the scientific worldview, when the opposite is in fact the case.

Historically, science started with the assumption that God created the world, as described in Genesis, and that the job of science was the observation and elucidation of the marvels of God's work, and the discovery of their application to humanity. As scientists made more observations, it became clear that the world is non-arbitrary - that one can predict something unknown about the world from the known. As the framework extended, it became clear that it could no longer be fitted into the Genesis account, and science was faced with a choice - it could cripple itself to fit into the Genesis account, or it could abandon Genesis.

That science does not adhere to Genesis is not, as fondly believed by Creationists, a result of its atheistical assumptions - it is simply a result of observation. As written, the account given of the origin of the world in Genesis does not fit with the observable world.

regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Unfortunately as I have stated before that those that I know who believe in evolution use it as a denial of God's existence. That may not be the goal of scientists but it is used by many to create the result.

Oh I've no doubt. In fact I would expect it, as it is yet another thing science shows happens naturally that we once believed had to require a god to do. I'm sure that people use the fact that the Sun doesn't go around the Earth, and the fact that Pi doesn't equal 3 also as reason not to accept the Bible at face value.

If based on that they no longer believe in God, well that is their own personal choice. Everyone has to decide what they do and do not believe. Are you suggesting that we keep people ignorant of the nature of the universe simply so they continue to believe in God? Is that really faith?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Show me the Pi one. Never seen it before.

The Bible states in a number of different places the relationship between a circles diameter and its circumference as being 1 to 3 (which of course it isn't)

A good description is found here, along with the "explinations" from Bible-apologetics and why these explinations are also incorrect.

http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/bible-pi.html

BrianCalgary wrote:

Where does the Bible say that teh sun goes around the earth?

Lots of places. It was the reason that such brilliant scientists such as Galielo were considered heretics by the Church of the day, because they challanged the teaching of the Bible.

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not really. When you see who Christ is and He confirms the scriptures as being divinely inspired and Peter confirms it in his writing, then the authenticity of the Bible becomes part of the faith.

But you only know this because the Bible tell you so. Its the chicken and the egg. You believe in the Bible because Jesus says believe in the Bible. How do you know Jesus said believe in the Bible? Well sure its written in the Bible.

Do you have a reason to believe in the Bible that isn't based on anything actually written in the Bible in the first place?

BrianCalgary wrote:

4.6 Billion yaer old rocks are needed for the foundation of the Earth as 50 year old trees are needed to provide the foundation of my house. Why can't you entertain the possibility of this?

Because rocks don't form in the vastness of space. They form under pressure inside planets. You have to have a planet first.

So the only possibility is that there was a planet before Earth, God smashed it to pieces 12,000 years ago and put it back together again. But we know the formation of this new "planet" would alter the dating of the rocks use to make the plaent. The rocks would still end up with dating of 12,000 years. You can't just stick a planet together with glue.

So the only possibility after that is that God smashed up this before planet, put it back together again 12,000 years ago, and then altered all the evidence he did this to make it look like the planet was 4.6 billion years old. Which is just stupid.

Also this ignores the fact that we know the moon is about 4.5 billion years old and we know the moon formed around the same time as the Earth. So again, God would have to make the moon 12,000 years ago and then alter everything on the moon to make it look like it formed 4.5 billion. Which is silly as well.

Why would God do this? Is it not more likely that the Bible is just wrong?

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Bible itself tells us that the scriptures are God breathed. Jesus uses them Himself. The prophecies in the OT have come true.

So you believe the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says its the word of God?

BrianCalgary wrote:

There are those who do use science to prove the Bible wrong, therefore making God null and void.

The Bible proves itself wrong, simply by getting things incorrect.

BrianCalgary wrote:

If the Bible is wrong then a chunk of the Christian faith is busted.

No, because most modern Christian (that I know at least) believe that the Bible was written by good men who were inspired by their faith in God, not that it is a literal from the mouth of God translation. It is possible, and some woudl say easy, to believe in the message of the Bible while realising that of course it is going to make mistakes in areas of science that were unknown to the writers at the time.

BrianCalgary wrote:

If either are shown to be invalid then the faith collapses.

True, but that has very little to do with evolution, the value of pi or the sun going around the Earth. I am aware of no current scientific theory or experiment that is trying to show Jesus was not resurrected.

Are you saying that if one part of the Bible is incorrect then the whole thing must be wrong? Are you serious? Remember the Bible is actually a large number of different books, with different authors written over long periods of time.

BrianCalgary wrote:

If it isn't inspired then why believe in it?

Because it was written by people who believed in and devoted their lives to God. Is it not possible that these people were good people who were each influenced by God? Why believe in your priest or your fellow christians? Are you saying they never made a mistake? And if they did does that mean they are not worthy of attention?

BrianCalgary wrote:

As I have stated before I have room for other Christians to believe in evolutio, but when it is used to make God uneccesary which is a roadblock to people coming into relationship with Jesus, then it is a problem. ANd it is used as such.

A religious belief is a personal thing that should be independent on what ever science discovers about the nature of the universe. You should not hide the truth of the universe from people because you are scared that when confronted with this truth they will not accept your religion. That doesn't say very much for your faith in the power of your religion now does it.

If someone only believes in God because that belief answers certain questions for them, and when science gets around to also answering those questions they stop believing in God, well I wouldn't consider that proper faith to begin with.

Is that really the "faith" you want to save?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

I don't see how (God made the Earth from older rock that was just, umm, lying around somewhere) is ridiculous.

It might not be, but the idea that God made the Earth from rock he imagined into existance, put the earth together 12,000 years ago and then altered everything to make it look like the Earth was created 4.6 billion years ago, that is knocking on the door of ridiculous. Why would he do that?

BrianCalgary wrote:

But when they start questioning God's existence based on their science classes then their eternal existence concerns me.

So you believe they should be keep ignorant of science so they have a reason to believe in God.

To me if someone is presented with all the truth of nature, from the age of the Earth to evolution to the value of Pi, and after that they don't believe in God then they never had faith to begin with, only an easy explination for things that they no longer accept because they have a better explination.

robindch

> Just to name a couple.

Thanks for the names, but you still haven't provided any quotations. All I'm looking for is even a single person who has said "I am an evolutionist and therefore I do not believe in god". I contend that there are very, very few such people, and quite likely absolutely none. A verifiable quotation is what's needed. I apologise for baning on about this, but I believe that you are misinterpreting and misunderstanding what other people are saying about their own beliefs.

> If it is your belief that He doesn't exist then wouldn't you then state
> that He doesn't exist [...]

No, I wouldn't, because it's dishonest to misrepresent a belief as a fact.

> Science has changed it's mind over *facts* in the past.

Yes, because facts are provisionally agreed amongst interested parties, pursuant to subsequent modification in the light of new evidence.

> There is no question that the Bible is a divinely inspired book.

Yes, there is -- I question it for all the many reasons that others and I have said before. The difference between you and me is that you do not.

Ultimately the problem here seems to be that you seem to think that I think like you think. I don't, and neither do scientists in general. We do not have fixed facts, we do not make final conculsions, we do not assert the absolute truth of anything. This flexible, evidence-based, alterable view of how the world operates seems to be something that some folks can't accept, so a simpler, closed and authoritarian world of fixed views and fixed rules holds instead.

Hey ho, each to their own!

robindch

bmoferrall wrote:

Here's an example posted on these boards a while back (Douglas Adam's)

It took me a few moments to realise that you were arguing for creationism, not against it. Here's the relevant bit from that that full article:

I am, however, convinced that there is no god [...] I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that.

Note very carefully what's Adams says here. He does not say that there is no god. He does not assert god's non-existence as a matter of fact. He does say that he's *convinced* that there's no god, but he is prepared to accept that he might be wrong about it.

Out of interest, do any of our creationists accept that this is what Adams says? I'm asking because creationists appear to have massive difficulty in interpreting and understanding texts like this.