Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
I guess I should point out again that it was mainly Gallileo acting like a muppet and making fun of the Church in his book (which he had full permission to publish by the church) that got him into trouble...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.
so far as I understand it anyway
http://www.answers.com/topic/galileo-galileiPope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberate, Simplicius, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicius. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the pope did not take the public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the pope, and was called to Rome to explain himself.
Not that everyone was innocent0 -
OK, it may not have been exactly what you were looking for. I thought it was in the spirit of what Brian was trying to express; i.e. that Adams viewed the growing acceptance of evolution as further confirmation for him that there was no need for supernatural explanations of our existence.robindch wrote: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: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.So, I was already familiar with and (I'm afraid) accepting of, the view that you couldn't apply the logic of physics to religion, that they were dealing with different types of 'truth? (I now think this is baloney, but to continue...) What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretative and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn't stand up to it. So I became an Agnostic. And I thought and thought and thought. But I just did not have enough to go on, so I didn't really come to any resolution. I was extremely doubtful about the idea of god, but I just didn't know enough about anything to have a good working model of any other explanation for, well, life, the universe and everything to put in its place. But I kept at it, and I kept reading and I kept thinking. 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.0 -
BTW, this was a general perception of mine, and obviously not an intended slight of Excelsior, JustHalf, et al. Maybe, though, it has demonstrated the value of explaining one's position thoroughly, patiently and humbly.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.0 -
bluewolf wrote:I guess I should point out again that it was mainly Gallileo acting like a muppet and making fun of the Church in his book (which he had full permission to publish by the church) that got him into trouble...
so far as I understand it anyway
http://www.answers.com/topic/galileo-galilei
Not that everyone was innocent
He was still considered a heretic by the church, and stood on trial in 1633 on the crime of heresy. It is more that the Pope did not come to his corner, not that all this happened because of his mistake. He had been declared a heretic before he even met the Pope.
The parallels with Galileo's theories and evolution are freaky, when you consider this happened nearly 400 years ago. Galileo argued that his results did not contradict the message of the Bible, and that the Bible should not be take as a literal text.
In fact this argument goes back to St. Augustine of Hippo. These lines are as relivent today as was when they were written in 500AD
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are."0 -
robindch wrote: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.
I hate to it to you (and me looking back at A&A posts) but
Is atheism the logical extension of believing in evolution?
They clearly can’t be irrevocably linked because a very large number of theologians believe in evolution. In fact, any respectable theologian of the Catholic or Anglican or any other sensible church believes in evolution. Similarly, a very large number of evolutionary scientists are also religious. My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.
Richard Dawkins
http://beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889_2.html
Have to say that's pretty conclusive.
Also this quote really leaves no room for Christian God:
"We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment" - Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene0 -
Advertisement
-
> Have to say that's pretty conclusive.
Thanks for locating this -- we now have firm evidence that one guy has used evolution to lead him to deny the existence of a god or gods.
However, one guy is not the entire of society that creationists are claiming are being mislead; see wolfsbane's comments about about "hoodie evoutionists", for example. If "evolutionists" really are winning some kind of spiritual battle with fundamentalists, then why aren't the papers and media full of people saying that evolution has lead them to atheism? Why has it taken so long to find even one guy who's nailed his colors to the mast? Why do 85% to 90% of most populations believe in creationism in some form? Why is there a strong correlation between religious belief + social grievance?
My point in this is to show that the claims of creationists in this, as they are in just about everything else, are demonstrably false, despite the fervency of the beliefs to the contrary.0 -
One guy? Thats Richard "Devil's Chaplain" Dawkins you're talking about!robindch wrote:we now have firm evidence that one guy has used evolution to lead him to deny the existence of a god or gods.robindch wrote:My point in this is to show that the claims of creationists in this, as they are in just about everything else, are demonstrably false, despite the fervency of the beliefs to the contrary.
I agree, but I also think that understanding evolution hammers a huge nail in the coffin of belief in a Christian God.
Without an explanation of where all this wonderful life comes from - 'God created it all' is the most reasonable explanation. Before Darwin there were some philosohical (all powererful or all good God etc) arguments against God, but the theist had creation and life as evidence on their side so to speak.
Do you agree that without theory of evolution (say it had never been proposed and we have no scientific theory of life) more people would believe in God and accept the creation as presented in the Bible.0 -
Also people should remember that evolution, or science in general, is not setting out to prove there is no God. It is setting out to find the truth of the nature of the universe.
It is the chruch that has always brough God into the issue in the first place, by pointing out that the results of science contradict its teachings.
If someone doesn't believe in God because they learned about evolution, that is no different from someone not believing in God because they learned about the big bang, or learned how computers work, or learned about the combustion engine.
To me it is the churches fault people are turning away from God, not science.
The church is setting itself up for these falls. It says "A must be true for God to exist" .. science then comes along and shows A isn't actually true. Everyone who used to believe in God turns to the church and says "So, does that mean there is no God?" The chruch then has to fumble around a lot, make a lot of noise and either totally reject the science, stating that it is still right, or adapt its teachings to fit what we now know.
If the Bible or the church just shut up about science matters (an area they seem to be very bad at) it would not have this problem.
It is the ill-fated logic of the church (that more often that not turns out wrong) that is causing people to leave in droves, not science.0 -
Wicknight wrote:To me it is the churches fault people are turning away from God, not science.
Hum, could be very true indeed.
But what is the alternate: First there was God, he made nothing and it exploded. Not very romantic. Might not get many converts with that line. Better to say God made it all, in seven days, then he made you.0 -
Asiaprod wrote:Hum, could be very true indeed.
But what is the alternate: First there was God, he made nothing and it exploded. Not very romantic. Might not get many converts with that line. Better to say God made it all, in seven days, then he made you.
Well I think it would be better to simply say "God made it all"
So when science discovers that the earth is just a planet around one of the trillion trillion stars in the universe, thats ok.
When science discovers that humans evolved from other animals, who evolved from cells thats ok.
That is the way most of my Christian friends things. They don't mind what science uncovers because they will always believe in God, and to them God did everything so it doesn't matter what we discover because by default it is part of Gods creation.
You only run into problems when you start believing in things like the divinity of the Bible, or the Pope or what ever. Its then when the Bible says one thing and it turns out wrong do you have a problem.
But as I said my friends don't believe in God because they first believe in the Bible. It doesn't (and shouldn't for them) work like that0 -
Advertisement
-
-
bluewolf wrote:
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.
I read the verses supplied and am amazed. the Bilble never states that pi=3. It is giving the dimensions of the tank with a ratio of 3:1. If I am giving measurements as such I would also say 3:1 knowing full well as the writer at the time would know that the ratio is actually pi. How exact would you want it? He would still be writing it as pi goes on indefinitely. This is a straw argument.bluewolf wrote:Furthermore - what about all the times the Bible, er, HAS changed?
The different editions, different translations, different bibles including different books etc?
All the different editions of the Bible are written to reflect the translation from the original language into the (in this case we will use English) receiving language. You can transalte word for word or idea for idea. You can use Old English or modern English. The english language itself has changed over the years and therefore the translation has to reflect the english changes in order to communicate to its intended audience.
The bible has not changed. It is still being translated from the original languages and the oldest manuscripts available.0 -
Scofflaw wrote:
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.
I think we need a new thread on the authenticity of the Bible. And where it came from. The Catholic Church did make changes in the past I don't deny this. However, what we have available today with the many different styles of translations does give us the opportunity to be able to access the manuscripts and dictionaries based on the originals. This does give us an accurate look at what was originally written.Scofflaw wrote: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..
This is my bother. I am aware that science gives us an explanation for everything. But, the bugaboo is that science does not take into account the existence of a supernatural God. They are basing their observations on the non-existence of any supernatural force that could have a bearing or effect on the natural.Scofflaw wrote: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...
But why can't it be a possible answer?Scofflaw wrote: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
And this is where we disagree, because I don't think that anyone has ever tried. Since the eigtheenth century and the growth of naturalism I think thatthere is an assumption that God was not there, as a result He has not been included as a possibility.
We won't know the answer definitively until we are standing with Him and can ask for the video replay.0 -
You Guys pump out a lot whilst I sleep.
I just wanted to attempt to clarify where I'm coming from.
1) My faith is placed in Jesus. That is who my life is in the hands of.
2) I trust that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
3) The Bible is not a scientific journal. If I have indicated this I apologize.
4) The Bible is a book that tells of God's plan of salvation.
5) The bible is historically correct.
6) It is also literature that contains many types of language that must be discerned. ie. you can not take a parable and make it history. I understand that there are those who take the first chapters of Genesis to be symbolic. I don't. Those that do are still Christians because we have agreed on my point 1.
Robin, I don't see why you need qoutes from people that claim to deny God based on their understanding of natural science. I run into people like this on a regular basis. They are the folks who learn science in school. They are people who do not have the time nor the desire to study the topic further, yet they use what is taught as an excuse to turn away from God. You can believe me or not. Frankly I don't care if you do.
In my grade 13 chemistry class we were given two substances that we had to identify through experimentation. Early on in the exercise I made a mistake and ruled out bromide as a possible element of one of my substances. I then based all the rest of my experiments and conclusion based on the results of this one experiment. Well, I was wrong.
Science likewise does the same. They do not take into account a creator God who created the universe in 6 days. That is the problem that I have. Nor do they take into account that Go dcreated it over a period of time and set into motion teh process of evolution. Science can not prove nor disprove the supernatural influence of God, yet it could still account for the possibility, which it does not.0 -
Scofflaw said:
The evolutionary world-view is not about morals, certainly. But if it is true, then one must face the fact that there is no absolute right or wrong, only actions that please or displease an individual. I might be pleased about successfully seducing my neighbour's wife, he might be displeased - but it is neither 'right' or 'wrong'.Hmm. Partially true. The evolutionary world-view does not logically imply any particular morals, because it does not deal with morality. On the other hand, it certainly does not require amorality, nor suggest the abandonment of Christian morals to any but a small subset of Christian sects.
That is correct, but they are being both illogical and unbiblical. They twist the Scripture to fit it into evolutionary science and in the end make something that is as ridiculous to atheists as it is to Biblical Christians.OECs and mainstream Christians have no difficulty reconciling the two - evolution affects the mortal, while God looks after the immortal.
The proof is all around you, if you live in the British Isles.If only you could produce some proof. All the evidence points the other way, actually, as I'm sure you're aware.
You confuse formal atheists with practical ones. The land is teeming with folk who in their hearts believe there is no God, even though they are not members of the Skeptic Society or whatever.Complete rubbish. Most hoodies can't even spell evolution. Not only that, but Ireland only has 500 recorded atheists (Census 2002), and it's a long time since I mugged anyone at an ATM (although I regularly getted mugged by my bank at the ATM!), so the other 499 must be spread pretty thin.
But denying there is any god does, logically. Most societies believed in some deity, so were no atheists. Their morality depended on how close they were to the morality God gave to us all. We all know the history of societies where atheism prevailed: State terror, forced abortions, killing fields. (I know, I know, - 'it wasn't atheism that allowed that, it was Communism. Just a co-incidence that they were atheists.' None so blind,... ).Denying the Biblical God doesn't require a denial of morality, I'm afraid, or most of human society would never have got running.0 -
robindch said:
My apologies, I seem to have missed your question. A common definition:Could you define, please, what you mean by "moral"? I've asked before, but you never answered. In fact, I've asked several people who lecture the rest of us on "morals" so say what's meant, but nobody's answered. I await with interest...
Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.
The key issue is where do we get these standards from? And are they just what I think, or society thinks, or are they from a real God and therefore absolute?
The latter is the Christian definition. What men think and do may correspond with that standard or not. That is the degree to which I describe these folk as moral.
Examples: to steal, rape, murder is immoral and most societies agree on that. To fornicate, get drunk, scrounge, is immoral but many folk think it is OK.
No. It's only possible to be nice and logical if you're a Christian.So, what you're trying to say is that it's only possible to be nice if you're a christian?
0 -
Why?wolfsbane wrote:The evolutionary world-view is not about morals, certainly. But if it is true, then one must face the fact that there is no absolute right or wrong, only actions that please or displease an individual. I might be pleased about successfully seducing my neighbour's wife, he might be displeased - but it is neither 'right' or 'wrong'.
Do you think that you are incapable of judging right from wrong?
Debates on moral relativism, for and against, can go on plenty long without any need for a mention of a god or any external judging idea...
Please or displease? I would say harm, and individual or society rather than just individual.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:Evolutionists that U know deny the existence of God and that because evolution has been proven then God does not exist.
For man it takes time to create a work of art, for God he can do it instantaneously.[QUOTE/]Well I'm an Evolutionist and I don't deny the existance of Allah. You see, I haven't fallen down the hole into taking the bible literally - word for word. The Bible is historicly or scientifically accurate. No where does it say it is to be taken word for word. The Qur'an = yes because it is considered the actuall word of Allah. The Bible was written by men who gave their own opinions, accounts but was inspired by Allah. It contains errors to make us look beneath the surface.
I never said the Earth was 4.6 billion years old. I said it was OVER that. The oldest rock found was dated that, so it is probably much older than that. What is our Earth predominantly made up of? Rocks! It's called Earth for a reason. Rocks are the foundations of our planet. Also, where the hell did you get 12,000 years from? I hope you didn't decide to make that figure up. The Bible doesn't tell us how old the Earth is. The Genesis account doesn't provide any time of when the world was made.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?
Well of course he was there. I don't take the Bible as fully valid. I put my faith in faith...God was there, He has communicated it to us in His word.
True. Well, I respect and tolerate your Creationist belief even though I think it makes no sense at all. I think Creationists and Evolutionists should learn to respect their differences. You can't force anyone to believe something. You can challenge each others. Unfortunately, many have poor debating skills!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.
Many of the well known scientists were quite religious - Galileo was a devout Catholic, Einstein was an Orthodox Jew and Darwin was Anglican I think. The father of Genetics, Gregor Mendel, was actually a monk!0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:I think we need a new thread on the authenticity of the Bible. And where it came from. The Catholic Church did make changes in the past I don't deny this. However, what we have available today with the many different styles of translations does give us the opportunity to be able to access the manuscripts and dictionaries based on the originals. This does give us an accurate look at what was originally written.
That would make an interesting thread. I am aware that we now have some very old manuscripts to work with - however, we do not know whether these are THE original manuscripts. In addition, many biblical literalists favour the KJV, as I'm sure you're aware.BrianCalgary wrote:This is my bother. I am aware that science gives us an explanation for everything. But, the bugaboo is that science does not take into account the existence of a supernatural God. They are basing their observations on the non-existence of any supernatural force that could have a bearing or effect on the natural.
They have to. Science does not, by definition, have the toolset to use the supernatural (which God is, by definition) in its observations.
Only when all naturalistic explanations, excluding all supernatural possibilities, have been exhausted, can science actually say "this is beyond science, and therefore supernatural". However, the way that science works means that the question can always be reopened for reconsideration at a later date.
This is one reason why Creationists pick away so hard at "evolutionist" science - in the hopes of forcing science to say "we cannot explain x without resorting to a supernatural agency". If the science that Creationists used was better science, that would be a useful avenue, since it is one of the few ways by which science can reveal God.
To paraphrase my earlier remarks - science cannot know God, nor measure God, since science deals only with the mundane and earthly. The only way in which science can reveal God is by tracing his outline with the limits of science.[/QUOTE]BrianCalgary wrote:But why can't it be a possible answer?
It is a possible answer, and one that cannot be disproved. Unfortunately, for the same reason, and also because it is a non-naturalistic explanation which is less useful (scientifically) than competing naturalistic explanations, it is not a "scientific" answer.BrianCalgary wrote:And this is where we disagree, because I don't think that anyone has ever tried. Since the eigtheenth century and the growth of naturalism I think thatthere is an assumption that God was not there, as a result He has not been included as a possibility.
We won't know the answer definitively until we are standing with Him and can ask for the video replay.
Any history of science will bear me out, I think! I would agree that modern science is a-theistic, and that it operates on the basis that God should not be included in any explanation put forward as scientific. From the point of view of the scientist, God is the "get out of jail free card" - we could invoke Him at any point. However, that's a bit like writing anything you like in a crossword and claiming to have done it - it's not what the job is about.
To paraphrase again - science is entirely about finding natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a scientist invokes God, or any other supernatural cause, then it ceases to be science, because the explanation is not natural.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Assyrian said:
It is the Christian's last enemy. In itself, it is the judgement of God on sinners. God created it for that purpose. Just like Gehenna,the lake of fire, is the last enemy for the wicked, an enemy that they will never vanquish. God created Gehenna for the wicked angels, and from the Fall, for unbelieving man also.It seem an odd theology to say that God created something so evil it is called the last enemy. According to your beliefs, God created death to punish sin, death is simply God's servant, so how is it his enemy? It makes much more sense theologically to say death was simply part of the world God created, and only became the enemy when man sinned.
You read into it more than sense implies. The command from God established Adam's right and responsibility to rule over plant and beast. He did not have that before it was given. Now he knows he can properly direct all things according to his desire; he will not be violating their dignity as God's creatures.Of course the animal weren't in rebellion. They were living free lives. If Adam already had dominion why was he told to subdue the earth, an unfallen earth should have recognised the Adam's dominion without being subdued.
My garden produces plenty of weeds without any extra curse, so it must be from that original one. I doubt it was County Armagh Adam was sent to.Did God curse the ground all over the planet, or just the adamah, the red earth Adam was going to till (Gen 3:17-19), from which he was taken (v19 & 23), which he was sent back to till after he was thrown out of Eden (v23)?
Says nothing about, doesn't mean it's not. The co-incidence surely is remakable. Join that to the Rom.8:20 comment on the bondage of decay. No explanation of why this bondage came about? Surely an unlikely thing in this great exposition of God's plan? But it fits perfectly with the fallen creation I have outlined.But even If God did curse the ground, it doesn't say anything about cursing animals (except a snake). Romans 8:20 says nothing about animals falling with man either. Even if it doesn't fit YEC theology, it is still a profound discussion on God's plan for nature and how the bondage to decay was all part of God's plan. Hardly a throwaway comment.
When do you suggest bipeds first became human? Were Adam and Eve the first? Are the genealogies of Scripture that indicate only several thousands of years of human existence literal or figurative?Perhaps because people were not human until God breathed his spirit into them. Perhaps because before the fall people had the tree of life, or whatever that symbolised, which meant they could live forever Gen 3:22. Perhaps because Romans 5 is talking about spiritual death rather than physical death, or that combination of spiritual death with human mortality that cuts us off from the hope of resurrection.
Like robindch, you seem confused as to what I mean by adaption. You read it as evolution from cell to fish, bird, mammal. I mean only from one sort of fish, bird, mammal to another: one with longer body, smaller wings, bigger arms, etc. You have the fish, bird and mammal all with a common ancestor. I have the fish with a fish ancestor, bird with a bird ancestor, etc.It is amazing how YECs believe in really rapid evolution after the flood...
You missed the point: it is not 'increase' but 'make great'.Or as Youngs Literal translation puts it, multiply song that thou mayest be remembered. People with harps usually know some songs already. It was Eve's pain God was going to make great, which says pain was already there to increase.
Never doubted it. I'm made in His image. That is good. Doesn't make my sin a part of His 'very good' creation.Glad you are coming around to see the goodness of creation.
So speaks a true evolutionist. Must make visiting the sick a bit hypocritical.It's all part of life. We are way too mollycoddled today..0 -
Advertisement
-
wolfsbane wrote:The evolutionary world-view is not about morals, certainly. But if it is true, then one must face the fact that there is no absolute right or wrong, only actions that please or displease an individual. I might be pleased about successfully seducing my neighbour's wife, he might be displeased - but it is neither 'right' or 'wrong'.
You assume that (a) only prescriptive morality is real morality, and that (b) religion has a monopoly on prescriptive morality.wolfsbane wrote:That is correct, but they are being both illogical and unbiblical. They twist the Scripture to fit it into evolutionary science and in the end make something that is as ridiculous to atheists as it is to Biblical Christians.
To be honest (and meaning no offence) the contortions required of Young-Earth Creationism are far more absurd than anything the OECs have to do.wolfsbane wrote:The proof is all around you, if you live in the British Isles.
I'll kindly let you away with the term, although there are people who find it deeply offensive. What proof would this be?wolfsbane wrote:You confuse formal atheists with practical ones. The land is teeming with folk who in their hearts believe there is no God, even though they are not members of the Skeptic Society or whatever.
But denying there is any god does, logically. Most societies believed in some deity, so were no atheists. Their morality depended on how close they were to the morality God gave to us all. We all know the history of societies where atheism prevailed: State terror, forced abortions, killing fields. (I know, I know, - 'it wasn't atheism that allowed that, it was Communism. Just a co-incidence that they were atheists.' None so blind,... ).
There's no such thing as a "practical atheist" - or at least I would recognise no such animal. There are people who don't think about religion at all, but they are not atheists - it would be difficult even to describe them as agnostics, since they are not in a state of doubt. Certainly they do not reject God, or deny his existence, which would be a bit of a minimum qualification for an atheist.
You, on the other hand, are confusing coercive atheism (which is nothing more than the state as religion) with organic atheism, which is a personal rejection of God. If you want to do so, I have to insist that every Christian take all necessary responsibility for anything bad any Christian or Christian country does (Crusades, Inquisition, heresy trials, priestly child abuse, hypocrisy, witch trials, gay-bashing etc) - your opt-out of "those people are Christian only in name" applies equally to State Atheism!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
And both faith and science meet in perfect harmony within Creation Science!!!
Quote Scofflaw
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,
Sincere apologies – the meeting was actually held in Pajaro Dunes – and not Duharro Dunes. I was using the word as I remembered it spoken a few years back. An example of the DEVOLUTION of information with the passage of time.
Wicknight
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.
To err is Human!!!
I have re-checked my sources – and I agree that Prof Kenyon did lose faith in his own theory of the Chemical Pre-Destination of Evolution during the early 1980’s – rather than during the Pajaro Dunes meeting.
However, he WAS and I think continued to be an Evolutionist after he became an ID advocate.
Prof Kenyon’s Evolutionary credentials were as impeccable as you are going to get – I understand that he was actually Professor of Evolutionary Biology in San Francisco State during the ‘70s.
My substantive point is still valid that when Prof Kenyon came to the realisation that the Laws of Chemistry DIDN’T actually predict life he abandoned his own Theory of Chemical Pre-Destination and became one of the leading advocates of Intelligent Design.
He IS an example of a leading Evolutionary Scientist changing his mind and rejecting his own theory. Truly an example for all scientists of how science SHOULD work!!!
Robin
I assume that you don't wish to use the products of science either -- so what on earth are you doing with computers, planes, cars, banks, your house, hospitals etc, etc, etc, all of which are built using science? Or are you one of these ungrateful people who takes what science and scientists offer with one hand, while casually slapping them both in the face with the other?
On the basis of your logic, Evolutionists won't use MRI Scanners because they were invented by a Creationist.
I probably drive a car that was designed by an Evolutionist Engineer, drive over bridges designed by a Creationist Engineer, buy food that was grown by an Intelligent Design advocate and books written by Creationists and Evolutionists.
As a working scientist I contribute to the product output of science – so I think that it is reasonable that I also benefit from the product output of science as well.
Your idea that Evolutionsists have some kind of monopoly on science is unfounded. Indeed, your idea becomes really problematical when you move on to suggesting that the benefits of scientific breakthroughs should effectively be confined to 'Card Carrying' Evolutionists.
Quote UU
Adam and Eve have two sons, one dies then does Cain procreate with is mother and have babies with genetic disabilities?
God directly created TWO people – Adam and Eve. He told them in Gen 1:28 to “Be fruitful and increase in number”(NIV). Cain, Abel and Seth as well as many other unrecorded children were conceived by and born to Adam and Eve. Gen 5:4 confirms this fact “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters”(NIV). Such was the perfection of Humans and the newly created environment, that Adam lived for 930 years!! The number of children produced by such long-lived healthy people would be very large indeed.
There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any significant danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is the main historical reason for banning incest among consenting adults).
Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood when background mutation rates greatly increased (as measured by the rapid collapse in longevity from several hundred years to an average of 70 years) – and a Law was then given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.
Although not advisable because of our increasing ‘mutation loads’, near cousins may still legally marry – so there shouldn’t be any great wonder about close relatives marrying each other during the immediate subsequent generations from Adam and Eve.
Quote UU
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)?
The original genetic diversity of Adam and Eve contained all of the genetics that eventually lead to all of the genetic diversity of mankind.
Quote UU
Why do we have a tailbone?
The Coccyx and Sacrum work synergistically to anchor the various muscles and tendons that allow us to stand up and walk bipedially as well as facilitating other 'soft-tissue functions' in this area.
Quote UU
Why do fossils of early humans have ape-like characteristics?
They are usually fossilised monkeys / apes – and in some cases fossilised Humans suffering the effects of disease and/or old age.
In the case of ‘Nebraska Man’ this so-called ‘Hominoid fossil’ was later identified as an extinct PIG’S TOOTH!!!.
Piltdown Man was discovered to be a combination of an Orang-utan’s jaw and a Human skull after being displayed for over 40 years as a missing link between Humans and our supposed ‘Hominoid ancestors’!!!!!
Quote UU
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").
Warfarin is a precision biological poison that acts on the blood clotting mechanism of the Rat. Indeed, there is a wide species divergence in the LD50’s for Warfarin – with Rats and Mice highly susceptible and other animal like Cats and Dogs quite resistant.
Rats became resistant to Warfarin due to its intense selection of rats for the PRE-EXISTING genetics that provides resistance to this poison. The proof that it was due to PRE-EXISTING genes in the rat population rather than a mutation lies in the fact that different populations of rat exposed to Warfarin ALL became similarly resistant. If it was due to one chance point mutation – then only descendents of the original mutant would survive – and all other rat populations would have been wiped out by Warfarin.
Quote UU
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?
I own a Draught Horse that stands 17 Hands at the withers and over 8 Feet at the head. I also own a small child’s pony that is 9 Hands at the withers and about 4 Feet at the head. Some horses are STILL only half the height of other horses!!
Improved nutrition will obviously increase the phenotypic expression of genes for size – in all directions!!!!
This has NOTHING to do with Natural Selection or Evolution – just over-eating and/or under-exercising!!!.0 -
Quote Assyrian
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
You are hand waving again!!!
Yes, tissue can be ‘remarkably preserved’ over THOUSANDS of years – but NOT over MILLIONS of years.
Because ANY well-preserved T. Rex tissue has turned up, this rules out the ‘millions of years’ hypothesis, full stop, end of story. Indeed Creation Science is aware of NUMEROUS similar finds of Dinosaur tissue within fossils.
This provides objective 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!!!
However, you are still 'hand waving' and denying the obvious – just like the rest of the Evolutionists on the rest of this thread!!!.
Quote Scofflaw
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?
Try lying on a beach on a hot sunny day without your sunscreen and feel the destructive energy of the Sun on your skin. Sunburn IS destructive to your skin.
My basic point is that the Earth is a unique planet in our Solar System (and probably elsewhere) due to the presence of life on it. The reason that luxuriant forests and all kinds of other complex gismos exist on Earth and nowhere else in the Solar System is due to life and living creatures (especially Man).
External energy, on it’s own would merely ACCELERATE the disorder process using runaway chemical and physical processes (like your example of rusting). You would end up with a desert like Mars or Venus without life.
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 density of the information in living systems) as to be of God.
Quote Scofflaw
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.
Yes, the river does ‘work’ – and the quantity this ‘work’ is linked to the ‘raw energy’ of the river. However, the quality and efficiency of the ‘work’ produced by the river is pretty poor compared to what living systems and intelligently designed Human machines are capable of.
If you want a load of gravel moved from point A to point B it will be moved with certainty, precision and efficiency by an Intelligently Designed JCB and Lorry driven by Intelligent People.
Indeed unless there is a direct gradient between A and B, and the river actually runs between both points, the gravel won’t even be moved AT ALL by the river between these two points.
Both the carving out and the deposition of sediment by a river is either destructive or useless ‘work’ – while the appliance of intelligence to making your driveway is the crucial ingredient to producing this useful ‘work’.
Life is a QUALITATIVE ‘step change’ that undirected processes are incapable of either explaining or producing.
Assyrian
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.
Every species that is alive today is well adapted to it’s environment.
The aquatic environment in which Coelacanths, Sharks and Crocodiles live IS very dynamic and competitive. Indeed Sharks and Crocodiles are themselves very aggressive and competitive creatures and you would expect that they would change dramatically over 300 million years – if Evolution is true and they have been around for 300 million years!!
If Evolution is positively ‘jumbling the genome’ – why are Coelacanths, Sharks and Crocodiles not also showing this effect – and becoming ‘super’ Coelacanths, Sharks and Crocodiles?0 -
J C wrote:"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
And they both meet in perfect harmony within Creation Science!!!
Both lame and blind.J C wrote:Sincere apologies – the meeting was actually held in Pajaro Dunes – and not Duharro Dunes. I was using the word as I remembered it spoken a few years back.
To err is Human!!!
Accepted/noted! I'm much happier when I don't think you're just making stuff up.J C wrote:I probably drive a car that was designed by an Evolutionist Engineer, drive over bridges designed by a Creationist Engineer...
Using fuel and metals found by evolutionist geology, I feel forced to add. Engineers can be Creationist all they like.J C wrote:As a working scientist I contribute to the product output of science – so I think that it is reasonable that I also benefit from the product output of science as well.
I'm curious - may I ask what field of science?J C wrote:Your idea that Evolutionsists have some kind of monopoly on science is unfounded. Indeed, your idea becomes really problematical when you move onto suggesting that benefits of scientific breakthroughs be confined to 'Card Carrying' Evolutionists.
No, even a Creationist can do good scientific work, of course. Science as a whole can't be creationist, though, for the reasons given in my post to wolfsbane.J C wrote:Quote UU
Why do fossils of early humans have ape-like characteristics?
They are usually fossilised monkeys / apes – and in some cases fossilised Humans. In the case of ‘Nebraska Man’ this so-called ‘Hominoid fossil’ was later identified as an extinct PIG’S TOOTH!!!. Piltdown Man was discovered to be a fraudulent combination of an Orang-utan’s jaw and a Human skull after being displayed for over 40 years as a missing link between Humans and our supposed ‘Hominoid ancestors’!!!!!
Sigh. This old chestnut. Yes, yes, JC, all kinds of silly malarkey happened back in the great days of fossil hunting - people "reconstructed" the most bizarre things. So what? A thousand fake Noah's arks have been found - doesn't that invalidate the Bible, by your logic?
We now have thousands of hominid remains, JC - Piltdown man was 1912, Nebraska man 1922, and everyone knows they're fakes by now. Do you perhaps have a more recent example? I can certainly think of recent examples of Noah's arks, which people are still defending.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:I read the verses supplied and am amazed. the Bilble never states that pi=3. It is giving the dimensions of the tank with a ratio of 3:1. If I am giving measurements as such I would also say 3:1 knowing full well as the writer at the time would know that the ratio is actually pi. How exact would you want it? He would still be writing it as pi goes on indefinitely. This is a straw argument.
That is a ridiculous apologetic argument that is actually completely debunked in the same article I posted.
You are basically saying the authors were just rounding off for the sake of clarity but they must have known that in fact the relationship between the tank was actually 1 to 3.14... and they just didn't bother writting that in the Bible
So the Bible is wrong, but its ok because the writers knew it was wrong at the time.
Sure can you not use that argument for every other mistake in the Bible. Yes the earth was created 4.6 billion years ago, but sure the Bible writers knew this but they just put down a "week" for the clarifity of the story.
Even if you work on the assumption that the Bible writers knew that the Bible was wrong at the time you still cannot escape the fact that the Bible is wrong about certain facts.0 -
The Pajaro Dunes, held by Prof. Phillip Johnson, was meeting was held in 1993, but it was not a meeting where a whole load of evolutionist scientist suddenly accepted ID.J C wrote:I have re-checked my sources – and I agree that Prof Kenyon did lose faith in his own theory of the Chemical Pre-Destination of Evolution during the early 1980’s – rather than during the Pajaro Dunes meeting.
Of the members all were either ID believers already, or classic Creationists, or religious leaders.
This is very true, as I said he rejects the religious aspects that surrounds a lot of Creationism such as the Biblical account of creation.J C wrote:However, he WAS and I think continued to be an Evolutionist after he became an ID advocate.
He believes in classic evolution, and old earth theories, and pretty much everythign else in modern science except he believes that the first molecules of life could not have happened on their own, that some form of helping hand must have taken place.
I would ask you an interesting question though...
You are using this guy as an expert that we should listen to. Does that mean that you also reject most of the early earth Cretaionist thinking as well, since you seem to admire this mans thoughts on the matter so much?
I am just wondering how about this because you have already put forward some rather out there Creationist ideas, like you don't accept the oil and gas are actually remains of organic matter, and some various comments on things like the Flood.
Prof. Kenyon's views are ironically at conflict with the majority of Creationist viewpoints, including those of Davis who co-authoured the famous book "Of Pandas and People" with Kenyon.
So if you don't accept Prof. Kenyon's findings, and most Creationist/ID/Young Earth groups don't accept Kenyon's findings, I find it strange that you would expect us to?
He was Professor of Biology, not sure they had a Professor of Evolutionary Biology. He taught a general biology class.J C wrote:Prof Kenyon’s Evolutionary credentials were as impeccable as you are going to get – I understand that he was actually Professor of Evolutionary Biology in San Francisco State during the ‘70s.
He tried to get ID introduced into his class but this idea was over ruled by the rest of his peers. I would tend to trust the views of many over the views of the few or the one. But I haven't read much about his logic for ID so I can't really comment on how valid they are.
Scientists change their mind all the timeJ C wrote:He IS an example of a leading Evolutionary Scientist changing his mind and rejecting his own theory. Truly an example for all scientists of how science SHOULD work!!!
Stephen Hawkins, possibly the most brilliant mind of the later 20th Century, has rejected his own ideas a number of times, and has even rejected an idea and then returned to it years later.
The one thing Prof Kenyon cannot do is produce any tangable evidence for ID, expect his belief that these things are too complex to have formed on their own. This is one of the reasons he has come up against opposition when he has attempted to ID introduced into his Biology classes. His peers have said "Give us evidence for this idea" and he cannot produce any. So at this time it is merely his opinion, his belief, which while it should be respected, doesn't hold a whole lot more weight above the simple "we don't know yet" answer.0 -
J C wrote:Because ANY well-preserved T. Rex tissue has turned up, this rules out the ‘millions of years’ hypothesis, full stop, end of story. Indeed Creation Science is aware of NUMEROUS similar finds of Dinosaur tissue within fossils.
I always find it hilarious that young earth creationists on the one had attack since at every stage, basically saying everything that science has told us about the Earth in the last 100 years is wrong, but as soon as science produces something that they can use as evidence for their theories they are jumping all over science like a rabit in heat.
Do you not realise that even if what you are saying is correct (it isn't by the way), that the science used to determine this T. Rex tissue is the same used to date dinosars millions of years ago.
You can't have it both ways JC. You cannot claim that the vast majority of biological and historical science is wrong, except for the bits you actually. like.
If so much of science is wrong, so much well established theories that are supported with evidence from a wide range of different sources is wrong, how do you know the science used to date and identify this bone is not also wrong? Is it correct just because you like what it is telling you?0 -
Wicknight wrote:That is a ridiculous apologetic argument that is actually completely debunked in the same article I posted.
You are basically saying the authors were just rounding off for the sake of clarity but they must have known that in fact the relationship between the tank was actually 1 to 3.14... and they just didn't bother writting that in the Bible
So the Bible is wrong, but its ok because the writers knew it was wrong at the time.
Sure can you not use that argument for every other mistake in the Bible. Yes the earth was created 4.6 billion years ago, but sure the Bible writers knew this but they just put down a "week" for the clarifity of the story.
Even if you work on the assumption that the Bible writers knew that the Bible was wrong at the time you still cannot escape the fact that the Bible is wrong about certain facts.
Actually the ratio according to my calculator is not 3.14:1, so you are wrong. It is 3.14285714285:1 would you rather that the bible stated this number? Oh wait a minute, my excel spreadsheet says it is 3.14285714285714:1.
Which number would you have us use?
This example vs. the Genesis creation account are two diferent writings. IOn eis a descriptive writing of an obeject, which is pretty accurate. The other is an historical narrative (although there are those who say it is symbolic).0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:Actually the ratio according to my calculator is not 3.14:1, so you are wrong. It is 3.14285714285:1 would you rather that the bible stated this number? Oh wait a minute, my excel spreadsheet says it is 3.14285714285714:1.
Notice the ".." at the end of the "3.14.." ... that means it is an infinate number that had digits extending on from simply 3.14 :rolleyes:
I would have "us" use the correct one, to what ever degree of accuracy you deamed necessary.BrianCalgary wrote:Which number would you have us use?
3.14 could be considered correct for the task of building a round tank. 3 couldn't.There is no level of accuracy where "3" will give you the right result. It is simply wrong You might as well use 4 or 2.
The other possibility is that the tank wasn't a circle. But then it is described as a circle, so that would be an example of the Bible being wrong.
Either way you look at it the Bible has made an error in maths. Which isn't surprising, Pi was not the most widely known mathematical theory at the time (though you would assume God would be aware of it). Other, non-Biblical, writing of the time have incorrectly stated that Pi was 3. The people who wrote the Bible might not have been aware of Pi, or even decimal numbers.
It does throw open the idea that the Bible is the infalable word of God. Which, to most Christians, isn't a big deal. Most Christians I know believe the Bible was written by other Jews and Christians who were attempting, as people do now, to explain the world in a religious context. It is an important book, but it isn't mean every detail is meant to be taken literally.
Sure in 500AD St. Augustine was already saying that Christians should not take the science in the Bible at totally face value. He describes non-Christians laughting at the "science" in the Bible, even back then. And if it is good enought for a Saint who are we to argue?BrianCalgary wrote:This example vs. the Genesis creation account are two diferent writings. IOn eis a descriptive writing of an obeject, which is pretty accurate. The other is an historical narrative (although there are those who say it is symbolic).
"Pretty accurate" as in incorrect. There is no maths, engineering or science exam in the world that would accept 3 as the answer. 3.14 is pretty accurate, 3 is simply wrong.
I would beg the question what else other areas of science the Bible got pretty accurate (ie wrong)?0 -
Advertisement
-
Just a tiny little nail in the coffin of "scientists conspire to prevent Creationism from getting a hearing" - I see from New Scientist that the American Physical Society are happy to present a poster by Robert Gentry on the Genesis account of creation at an APS poster session.
cordially,
Scofflaw0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement