The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

BrianCalgary

5uspect wrote: »

Well seeing how you ignored the rest of my post.

You said that the Atheistic world view requires that life come from non-life..

I just wanted you to clarify your question. Thank you.

yes mu understanding or teh atheist world view is that living matter came from non-living matter some time in the universes history.

5uspect wrote: »

Evolution is a Science. Abiogenesis is a Science. You use the argument of spontaneous generation of fully formed organisms to refute the Scientific Theory of Evolution which describes the changes in organisms to adapt to their environments...

No I don't.

5uspect wrote: »

So are you saying that Evolution isn't Scientific because fully formed organisms can't occur?..

No I'm not.

5uspect wrote: »

If you look out your window you'll see fully formed organisms.
Evolution is happening to them right now. That bird swooping through the air may be eaten by another fully formed organism and its hatchings may die.
If may be too fast or cautious to be caught and it fast or cautious offspring may evade death next season. etc etc..

Survival of the fittest?????

5uspect wrote: »

As I said previously evolution requires replicators. The change in these replicators into complex machinessuch as cells which we deem to be alive is an open and active area in Science. That doesn't mean its an unknown, it's just a difficult problem.

I'm not discussing evolution here.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Of course not, if the kid's asking for the sake of knowledge and is prepared to change their opinion.

If the kid's been planted to discredit the teacher, then the people doing the planting should be ashamed of themselves (but I rather suspect they wouldn't be).

Excellent, we agree.

philologos

Hagar wrote: »

I can't understand Christians who think that the Theory of Evolution is un-Christian. Who says evolution wasn't God's plan? He moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform. Who are we to set limits on His imagination or ingenuity in creation by degrees? How many of us pop a cake in the oven for forty mins and await the results? Are we not made in His image? Would He not do something similar?

I wouldn't say that God and evolution is akin to using a microwave. If God and evolution go together God would have to create an order or if you will an algorithm for how evolution was to work. I personally would hold that God created the laws of science, and this was the order that He set on the universe at the creation whenever or however that was.

goldenbrown

it the physics teacher said

matter cannot be created or destroyed, old earth was something else before it was earth....

what we know we know...the rest is God

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I had a substitute teacher from the USA in my primary school when I was in 5th class. She one day gave us an opportunity to debate creationism vs evolution. Explaining that there was a scientific organisation giving anyone $1mn dollars who could either prove or disprove the theory of evolution in the USA. (I'm not exactly sure whether it was to prove or disprove, perhaps someone can enlighten me on this one).

You're probably referring to Kent Hovind's $250,000 "challenge", a hilariously silly wheeze that Hovind dreamed up in the days before he was jailed for fraud. It seems to have been a response of kinds to skeptic James Randi's million dollar challenge for anybody to reliably do any paranormal phenomenon.

Hovind's prize money almost certainly didn't exist (unlike Randi's which was held in escrow), and Hovind attached so many conditions to the test that short of creating a 4 billion year-old test-tube which was the size of the universe, it would have been impossible for anybody to win it. Hovind didn't release any of the submissions, and neither did he say who was evaluating them. Hardly surprising for a chap who went to a "university" housed in the room behind the brown door of this building:



There's more on Hovind and his "challenge" here:

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Kent_Hovind

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Excellent, we agree.

I think that must be the first time ever -- beers all 'round, on me!

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

I think that must be the first time ever -- beers all 'round, on me!

No, no, it has happened before.

but i'll take the guinness regardless.

2Scoops

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You are fortunate.

Can you tell me of a school which actively prohibits the teaching of religion in religion class?

BrianCalgary

2Scoops wrote: »

Can you tell me of a school which actively prohibits the teaching of religion in religion class?

None,

Understand that here where I was schooled no religion class exists and none existed when I was in school.

2Scoops

BrianCalgary wrote: »

None,

Understand that here where I was schooled no religion class exists and none existed when I was in school.

Fair enough - but how common is that situation? (Genuinely, I don't know).

Anyhoozle, I strongly suspect that many of the most ardent evangelicals are home-schooled, at least in the US, making the school curriculum issue kind of a moot point.

BrianCalgary

2Scoops wrote: »

Fair enough - but how common is that situation? (Genuinely, I don't know)..

Right across Canada.

2Scoops wrote: »

Anyhoozle, I strongly suspect that many of the most ardent evangelicals are home-schooled, at least in the US, making the school curriculum issue kind of a moot point.

The vast majority that I know are schooled in the public system that does not have religion class. Few are homeschooled.

Our church has 1600 that pop by every weekend. I know of three families that home school and I do know a lot of the congregation. There could be more that do.

philologos

2Scoops wrote: »

Anyhoozle, I strongly suspect that many of the most ardent evangelicals are home-schooled, at least in the US, making the school curriculum issue kind of a moot point.

This isn't true.

A sizable portion are homeschooled but they are by no means the majority. There was the "Exodus Mandate" a few years ago to get Evangelical Christians out of the public schools and to be privately educated or educated at home so that they would not be taught what they perceived to be a biased course in the public schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Mandate

It has had limited success. It says that it operates within the Southern Baptist Convention, although officially as a denomination they haven't advocated their cause.

Mark Hamill

BrianCalgary wrote: »

yes mu understanding or teh atheist world view is that living matter came from non-living matter some time in the universes history.

That is also the theist world view. The difference between the two is the method (god for theists, abiogenesis for atheists)

BrianCalgary

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That is also the theist world view. The difference between the two is the method (god for theists, abiogenesis for atheists)

2Scoops

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't true.

Note my descriptor "most ardent," not all evangelicals. I imagine that the sizable minority you mentioned are the ones most likely to be influenced by things like the Exodus Mandate and the like. They are also the ones least likely to have any meaningful contact with the science of evolution.

Continuing the off topic madness, in the US, as of 2005, the people most intransigent to the teaching of both religion and evolution in schools were more likely creationists.

Húrin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The question I have is where did I ever say that creationism should be taught in science class?????

Making assumptions and putting words in.

I did make that assumption. Not unreasonably either. Where, if not science class, are the "evolutionists" trying to shut out other ideas about the origin of species?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And teaching wrong science is wrong as well.
Science once said that tainted meat turned into maggots.
Science also taught that the human egg was a gelitinous blob, we now know it contains some pretty nifty info.
Science is always changing based on new information and new discoveries.

Yet evolution is taught as something that is a fact and non-negotiable. Which in itself is un-scientific.

Such is the nature of basic science teaching. Do you actually classify evolution as wrong science?

Evolution certainly is negotiable. That's why, AFAIK there is debate between gradualists and those who think that evolution moves by punctuated equilibrium.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Then the theory of evolution came about that actually needs spontaneous generation (living from non-living) to happen somewhere along the time-line.

No, it doesn't. Evolution is about the origin of species, not the origin of life. When science does find out the origin of life, I have little doubt it will appear spontaneous, even if it was divine, as I think it was. As I have said before, science doesn't have the tools to reveal God.

BrianCalgary

Húrin wrote: »

I did make that assumption. Not unreasonably either. Where, if not science class, are the "evolutionists" trying to shut out other ideas about the origin of species?.

Atheists are shutting out the teaching of anything Christian in our schools.

Húrin wrote: »

Such is the nature of basic science teaching. Do you actually classify evolution as wrong science?.

It could turn out to be that way.

Húrin wrote: »

Evolution certainly is negotiable. That's why, AFAIK there is debate between gradualists and those who think that evolution moves by punctuated equilibrium..

I only ever hear how Evolution has been proven and how it is a fact. That doesn't sound negotiable.

Húrin wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Evolution is about the origin of species, not the origin of life. When science does find out the origin of life, I have little doubt it will appear spontaneous, even if it was divine, as I think it was. As I have said before, science doesn't have the tools to reveal God.

I find this to always be a nit-pick response. If one goes away from the creation account of Genesis, at some pont in time, there has to be living matter arising from non-living matter.

Science says that this can't be done. Yet at some point in Earth's history it had to done, hence the knowledge of God to commit that task.

Asiaprod

CDfm wrote: »

Obviously - An Act of God:D

A technical glich:)

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

If one goes away from the creation account of Genesis, at some pont in time, there has to be living matter arising from non-living matter. Science says that this can't be done.

Don't be silly, "science" -- whoever that is -- says no such thing!

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Science says that this can't be done. Yet at some point in Earth's history it had to done, hence the knowledge of God to commit that task.

Science seems to be very personified in this thread.

When has science said that this can't be done?

Mickeroo

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Atheists are shutting out the teaching of anything Christian in our schools.

Hmmmm, and i suppose the jews,muslims,buddhists,hindus and the billions of other non-christians would be delighted to have their kids learning christian doctrine in "our" schools? I dont think you understand how a secular school should work.

EDIT: Just so you know I'm not against the idea of a class teaching kids about all the different religions and their beliefs etc and I don't think many people would be.

BrianCalgary

Mickeroo wrote: »

Hmmmm, and i suppose the jews,muslims,buddhists,hindus and the billions of other non-christians would be delighted to have their kids learning christian doctrine in "our" schools? I dont think you understand how a secular school should work.

I do understand. Instead of shutting voices out, give them the freedon to speak.
So that would include: jews, muslims, hindus, NA natives.

Would you shut them up?

Mickeroo

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I do understand. Instead of shutting voices out, give them the freedon to speak.
So that would include: jews, muslims, hindus, NA natives.

Would you shut them up?

No,that was kind of my point..........

BrianCalgary

Mickeroo wrote: »

No,that was kind of my point..........

OK, you edited your post after I responded.

There are too many that would prefer religion to be swept under the carpet instead of learning about one other in open honest diaogue they would have nothing. Whcih leads to whispers and untruths and eventually persecution.

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

Hmmmm, and i suppose the jews,muslims,buddhists,hindus and the billions of other non-christians would be delighted to have their kids learning christian doctrine in "our" schools? I dont think you understand how a secular school should work.

EDIT: Just so you know I'm not against the idea of a class teaching kids about all the different religions and their beliefs etc and I don't think many people would be.

Most minority religions said they would prefer a Christian way of life in the UK than a secular one. I found that very interesting.

‘Many Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and members of other minority religious groups would rather have a Christian-based framework to national life than one that is entirely secular.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1154683/Two-thirds-demand-respect-religion-Christianity-place-public-life-says-poll.html


I know it is the Daily Mail but it is based on a BBC poll.

Húrin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Atheists are shutting out the teaching of anything Christian in our schools.

Atheists and evolutionists aren't the same group.

It could turn out to be that way.

You seem to have your mind made up and you seem to think that we all should see it from your POV. The problem is that while evolution could turn out to be wrong science, no other hypothesis is looking anywhere closer to being right science.

I only ever hear how Evolution has been proven and how it is a fact. That doesn't sound negotiable.

Perhaps you're paying as much attention to scientific debate as the militant atheists. That is, not very much.

I find this to always be a nit-pick response. If one goes away from the creation account of Genesis, at some pont in time, there has to be living matter arising from non-living matter.

Why? Evolution isn't about the origin of life.

wolfsbane

CDfm said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If evolution is not true, I cannot think of any other than a theistic explanation. I think everything you guys have stands or falls with evolution. That's why you so passionately defend it.
That wouldn't explain my position

I agree. Theistic Evolutionists are motivated more by an unwillingness to challenge the 'respectable' view. They would gladly be creationist, if that did not involve the ridicule.

Hope you have a great time away -going anywhere nice or is that being nosey?

Thanks. I had a good time - just around the Province. Lots of charity shops and some great books from 20p - £1.00. Just finished The Sunday Philosophy Club by Alexander McCall Smith - like all his other fiction, a gentle and informative read.

We haven't been abroad since our honeymoon in 1974 - but we have done London, Dublin and Galway once apiece. I'm tempted to venture south again this summer - maybe Tralee or Cork. Any recommendations welcome.

wolfsbane

CDfm wrote: »

I do believe its the truth but that what it teaches is abtract ideas in a very simple way and allegory is very important to in communicating its message.

In what is presented as historical narrative, how do you tell what is allegory and what is not?

Are not our sceptical friends correct when they say this wanton use of the allegory argument means one can never be proved wrong?

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The default position is 'we don't know'.

I'm sure it is:

Matthew 21:23 Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?”
24 But Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: 25 The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?”
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus and said, “We do not know.”
And He said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

wolfsbane

darjeeling wrote: »

Simply not true. Evolution, and what it has revealed about common ancestry, underpins medical and genetic research.

We study gene function in mice, nematodes, frogs, fruit flies and even yeasts to find out what the genes do in humans. This works because common ancestry means we have inherited many of the same genes as these other organisms, and that these genes are carrying out similar functions.

We test new therapies on other mammal species because their relatively recent common ancestry with us means we share comparable biochemistry and physiology, and will respond similarly to treatment.

A Common Designer would give the same outcome as Common Ancestry. A man could design a helicopter and a battle-tank and employ a lot of similar components; so God formed man and mouse without creating everything different. A future observer might hypothesise that the tank and the copter originated in a child's spinning top; or that the tank and copter had the same designer.