The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

quit the nit picking...she was clearly talking about the lack of FOSSIL evidence for one Kind evolving into another!!!!

You mean like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus, Dorudon, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Eurhinodelphis and Mammalodon which show the evolution of whales from land mammals?

monosharp

J C wrote: »

quit the nit picking...she was clearly talking about the lack of FOSSIL evidence for one Kind evolving into another!!!!

Define a kind, scientifically. What is a 'kind', please give me an example of a 'kind' and please tell me how much change is required for that 'kind' to no longer be that 'kind.

....and Prof Dawkins changed the subject from fossils to DNA

Would that be after the 3rd time he told her the evidence is in museums and all she needs to do is go there and look whereas she answered this by denying the existence of this evidence.

... and Wendy challenged his 'DNA evidence' by pointing out that he was talking about 'commonalities' ... and not common descent

No he was talking about the evidence for evolution from one species to another.

...in the case of Haeckel's Embryos, Evolutionist Science continued to promote and defend the indefensible for over 100 years!!!
.....with no evidence of ANY Evolutionist questioning these ERRONEOUS drawings during this time!!!!

You have been corrected on this at least a hundred times.

...ditto with the now disproven 'horse evolution' pictures as well

Science is not 'gospel' JC, things get corrected every single day. If it didn't there would be no science.

What mistake with horse evolution anyways ?

Sam Vimes

monosharp wrote: »

Science is not 'gospel' JC, things get corrected every single day. If it didn't there would be no science.

"Science knows it doesn't know everything. If science did know everything, it'd stop" - Dara O'Briain

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

So wolfsbane, the bible might well be the perfect word of god but you are not perfect and given that you are a fallible human being you might have interpreted incorrectly.

No doubt I have some misinterpretations. There are some things hard to understand, things open to more than one interpretation, etc.

But that does not mean most of it is. Most of it is plain enough, just as most of the posts here are easy enough to understand, even if we don't agree with them.

Could it not be that the stories in the old testament were meant by god for primitive people who had no concept of DNA or genetic mutation to make sense of their existence and that we were always meant to graduate beyond those stories by use of our god given brains, recognising the allegorical nature of these stories while still maintaining our faith in the resurrection of Jesus?

No, for that would make all of the historical narrative - every incident recorded - unknowable. We do not apply that treatment to any other history. One might question any history's reliability, but not its intention. How does one make allegory out of the Creation event and Noah's flood, but not out of the virgin conception and resurrection from the dead of Jesus?

Is it not far more amazing to think of god employing natural laws to bring about the pinnacle of his creation over billions of years than metaphorically clicking his fingers and beaming us down to earth fully formed?

I don't think millions of years of suffering and death are amazing in any good sense.

A perfect creation is.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Evolution is defined in science the way it is defined, if you are to argue through science then you are expected to argue using the scientific defintion.
If you deem a definition inappropriate then you need to outline evidence and hypothesises as you why to the definition should change.
If we do not state clearly what our definitions refer to then the discussion is pointless!

In science, everything has their own precise definition and it is assumed that when you use these words you are referring to that precise definition.

Making your own unaccepted definition is strawmanning, end of.

Rubbish. That's like me claiming any of the scientific laws for creationism, and not allowing evolutionists to incorporate them in their models.

Our definition of evolution is to show the concept we reject - the mammal to bird type of change over time. You may well claim different sorts of beak on finches shows evolution, but that is not what we mean when we speak of evolution.

Yes, the scientific establishment can make up definitions to suit, but that does not mean everyone is obliged to go with them.

But we have tried at times to accommodate, using terms macroevolution to refer to the concept we reject and microevolution to refer to the concept we accept. That has its own problems, however, not revealing the difference between mere change and increase in genetic information:
The changing colors of flower populations in response to new pollinators is a terrific example of natural selection in action. But it isn’t an example of the sort of evolution that supposedly turned molecules to men over millions of years. That “evolution” would have required dramatic increases in genetic information, akin to a columbine flower developing a sophisticated, entirely new anatomical feature through chance mutations—something we don’t observe. This study reminds us that the term “evolution” is frequently used to mean these two very different ideas. Through equivocation, scientists attempt to “prove” the second meaning with the first.
5. ScienceDaily: “Study of Flower Color Shows Evolution in Action”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/07/04/news-to-note-07042009

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Indeed. Something creationists don't seem to realise is that if you make up your own definition of evolution that no one else accepts, it doesn't matter how definitively you disprove this made up definition, you've still done nothing but make yourself look like an idiot.

As we continue to expose the folly of first living cells to man evolution, we are glad to look like idiots to those who are gullible enough to hold to it.

In the interests of logic, however, let me point out that our definition is included in yours - so when we disprove the former we also disprove the latter.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
....unless you are now saying that Evolutionist Science ISN'T claiming that Pondslime evolved into Man ... in which case we are in agreement ... and our debate is over ...
Evolutionary biologists do not claim this. By your words, the debate is over.

You are just playing with words. You know very well JC refers to the first living molecules/cells when he uses the term pondslime.

I've heard evolutionists speak of the prebiotic soup such cells supposedly emerged from - but I did not think they referred to a food prepared in a saucepan. Soup in a sea or slime in a pond - I think most of us get the idea.

Your tactic is just another exposure of the desperation of your argument. :pac:

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, for that would make all of the historical narrative - every incident recorded - unknowable. We do not apply that treatment to any other history. One might question any history's reliability, but not its intention. How does one make allegory out of the Creation event and Noah's flood, but not out of the virgin conception and resurrection from the dead of Jesus?

The troublesome stories are in the old testament written hundreds of years before the new testament. The whole covenant between god and man was different during that time. Also the new testament specifically states that if Jesus is not raised your faith is useless but it doesn't state that you must believe that Adam and Eve literally existed as described. There are methods that are used by biblical scholars to interpret the bible that I'm sure PDN can tell you all about

The thing is that if you're hanging your entire faith on you having correctly interpreted that these stories are meant to be taken literally, I'm afraid your god was disproven a long time ago. One big indicator you can use to know if the old testament stories are meant to be taken literally is that there are mountains of unequivocal, unambiguous, insurmountable evidence that prove that events did not literally happen as described in the bible. At this point you have three options:

1. Deny reality, which is what you're currently doing
2. Acknowledge that as a flawed human being you have interpreted the bible incorrecty and update your understanding of your creator
3. acknowledge that the bible is wrong and give up your faith in god

Which of those options do you find most palletable?

wolfsbane

monosharp said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So, evolutionist definitions rule! Never mind how the rest of mankind use the term.
Its the scientific definition of evolution, the dictionary definitions are wrong and contradict the real definition of evolution as well as each other.

Each defines the term as they see fit. The key is answering your opponent's definition as well as presenting and defending your own.

Quote:
That is fine, for those who want to use it so. But you need to be clear about what Creationists mean when they deny evolution.
Which is EXACTLY what I am asking JC and yourself.

JC has and continues to infer that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing, that they are inseparable which is complete and total nonsense.

No, he doesn't. Abiogenesis is clearly not biological evolution and JC makes that clear. It is the origin of choice for most evolutionists, however, and it is acceptable for JC to point that out.

JC never argues anything, he makes nonsensical statements attacking evolution and then as evidence for his attack on evolution he starts talking about abiogenesis.

I think his arguments have been substantial, and his use of the abiogenesis stick is valid when it deals with the presuppositions of evolutionists.

Or do you deny abiogenesis is THE supposition of most evolutionists?

Quote:
We deny the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower
This is something IMPLIED by Evolution, if this was disproven tomorrow it would not even change the definition of Evolution.

Quote:
, not the variation of flies or carrots. New species of fly is within the concept of creationism. Birds evolving from dinosaurs is not.
Which is an aspect of Evolution, it is not evolution itself. Again, if you proved this tomorrow it wouldn't change evolution. It would change an aspect of the theory of evolution which gets changed and corrected all the time.

This really intrigues me! Evolution could be true even if higher forms of life did not gradually arise out of lower forms???

Can you sketch me your alternate evolution?

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

The troublesome stories are in the old testament written hundreds of years before the new testament. The whole covenant between god and man was different during that time.

Indeed. But what has that to do with how one reads the narrative? Jesus and the NT writers referred to the OT 'troublesome stories' and seemed to regard them as ordinary history.

Also the new testament specifically states that if Jesus is not raised your faith is useless but it doesn't state that you must believe that Adam and Eve literally existed as described.

True - nor does it say one must believe in a literal Abraham or David. But the necessity to do so follows from the records of descent that end with Christ. If any of them were not real, neither was Christ truly human.

That, and the normal requirement to believe in a straight forward manner all that the Bible teaches. We are not free to interpret what has all the indications of historical narrative as metaphor - or vice versa.

There are methods that are used by biblical scholars to interpret the bible that I'm sure PDN can tell you all about

Yes, I'm well aware of hermeneutics. In fact, it is why I reject the non-historical interpretations of Adam and Eve, Noah, etc.

The thing is that if you're hanging your entire faith on you having correctly interpreted that these stories are meant to be taken literally, I'm afraid your god was disproven a long time ago. One big indicator you can use to know if the old testament stories are meant to be taken literally is that there are mountains of unequivocal, unambiguous, insurmountable evidence that prove that events did not literally happen as described in the bible.

No, there's not. I've heard such assured claims before, only for them to bite the dust with fresh archeological discoveries.

At this point you have three options:
Deny reality, which is what you're currently doing
Acknowledge that as a flawed human being you have interpreted the bible incorrecty and update your understanding of your creator
acknowledge that the bible is wrong and give up your faith in god

Which of those options do you find most palletable?

I go with the alternative:
Reject current fables, hold to the Bible as the word of God and advance in the faith.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, there's not. I've heard such assured claims before, only for them to bite the dust with fresh archeological discoveries

Example(s) please!

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When thinking about this apparent conspiracy JC and wolfsbane, bear in mind that even if you definitively disproved evolution, I still wouldn't believe in the bible and the same could be said for pretty much every non-believer in the world. There were atheists long before Darwin.

Proving evolution wrong would simply move the orgins of the complexity back into the "unexplained" scientific category, which is still an awful lot bigger than the "explained" one and it would mean we'd have to start looking for a new explanation. It wouldn't automatically mean that intelligent design is true and it certainly wouldn't mean that the bible is true any more than the qu'ran. Contrary to creationist opinion evolution is not the foundation of atheism. And also contrary to creationist opinion, "unexplained" is not synonymous with "god did it"

You mistake our reasons for disputing evolution. I agree, disproving it would not cause anyone to become a Christian. There are plenty of other satanic bolt-holes for the unbeliever to retreat to.

We dispute evolution for two main reasons:
1. To remove it as a comfort blanket for unbelievers, to force them to open their minds at least for a time to the idea that the Bible could be true. This with the intention of bringing them to the spiritual truth of the gospel, that they might be saved. We are not concerned about merely bringing them to the scientific truth of creation.

2. To bring re-assurance to believers, who have had their faith shaken by the false claims of scientism.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the scientific establishment can make up definitions to suit, but that does not mean everyone is obliged to go with them.

Evolution under its scientific definition is what we are arguing here.
If you want creationism to be classed as science then you better start by playing by the rules.
Science needs precise definitions for every phenomena. It is for this reason that in science words/terms like:
Weight. (Not how fat you are)
Mass. (Not how much you weigh)
Matter. (Not a criteria for determine importance)
Phase. (Not a mood swing)
Work. (Not a job)
Energy. (Not a quantity of how active or full of life you feel.)
Potential. (Not a measure of your ability)
Force. (Not pressurising someone)
etc etc

Have their own exact and specific scientific definitions.
Refer to any of these as something other than their scientific defintions and your papers/articles will never get published. Hmm maybe that's what you guys have being doing wrong all these years. :rolleyes:

This really intrigues me! Evolution could be true even if higher forms of life did not gradually arise out of lower forms???

Can you sketch me your alternate evolution?

You're really not getting it,

Evolution is the word/name given to the phenomena behind lifes diversity.
The theory of evolution is the scientific model that explains the phenomena using evidence and predictions. From the observations done on the evolution phenomenon the theory arrives at the model of common ancestry.

Even if the above theory is proved wrong, evolution will still be the phenomena we are trying to describe. Perhaps we should just call it creation and leave you guys to be.

The alternate theory will still be called a the theory of evolution unless some scientist proposes good reason to change the definition.

The theory of gravity is an explanation of the observed phenomena of gravity.
The theory Gravity has been modified twice yet we did not change the name of the phenomena, why do this for evolution?

wolfsbane

2Scoops said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, there's not. I've heard such assured claims before, only for them to bite the dust with fresh archeological discoveries
Example(s) please!

Begin here:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed. But what has that to do with how one reads the narrative? Jesus and the NT writers referred to the OT 'troublesome stories' and seemed to regard them as ordinary history.

You'd have to ask PDN, he's the biblical expert. All I know is there are about a billion people in the world who manage to believe in both evolution and christianity, probably because their faith is based on the message and divinity of Jesus instead of their own literal interpretation of the bible

wolfsbane wrote: »

I go with the alternative:
Reject current fables, hold to the Bible as the word of God and advance in the faith.

Reject reality it is so. At this stage I could go on about how the fact of evolution has been proven and creationists are engaged in deliberate distortion of reality but your rejection of evolution has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with your mistaken belief that you'll have to give up your religious beliefs if you accept it so really there's little point.

You should know though that creationists make the atheist case that little bit easier. Christians often say that there's no way the apostles could have been so dedicated unless they actually witnessed the resurrection but I can just point at people like you who continue to firmly believe what you want to believe in the face of proof to the contrary and suddenly what the apostles did (or what it was claimed they did) doesn't seem so amazing

wolfsbane

Malty_T said:

Evolution under its scientific definition is what we are arguing here.

No, its not. It is that part of the current scientific definition that extrapolates the variation we observe in, for example, flies to that which they allege happened from apes to man.

Evolution is the word/name given to the phenomena behind lifes diversity.
The theory of evolution is the scientific model that explains the phenomena using evidence and predictions. From the observations done on the evolution phenomenon the theory arrives at the model of common ancestry.

Even if the above theory is proved wrong, evolution will still be the phenomena we are trying to describe. Perhaps we should just call it creation and leave you guys to be.

I (think) I see where you are coming from. Evolution is the phenomena behind lifes diversity - so as it's undeniable that life diversifies, evolution must be true.

OK then, let the creationists have a go:
Creation is the phenomena behind lifes diversity - so as it's undeniable that life diversifies, creation must be true.

You aren't allowed to prove your case by making definitions that claim for your own what the opposition also claim. You may believe those definitions, but they are not proof of your case.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

I (think) I see where you are coming from. Evolution is the phenomena behind lifes diversity - so as it's undeniable that life diversifies, evolution must be true.

OK then, let the creationists have a go:
Creation is the phenomena behind lifes diversity - so as it's undeniable that life diversifies, creation must be true.

You aren't allowed to prove your case by making definitions that claim for your own what the opposition also claim. You may believe those definitions, but they are not proof of your case.

Utterly missed the point.

The name of the bloody phenomena does not matter call evolution "aedjnadfaggasegasfasdfr" for all I care.
It's the concept of the phenomenon that matters i.e lifes diversity.

The theory used to explain a phenomenon is usually named after it's phenomenon
"The theory of adfagdasdkgaslgjka"

You disagree with parts of the model in evolutionary theory, even if you overthrow the model and prove an that there was no common ancestor it will STILL be called the theory of evolution.
Or in my case:
"The theory of adfgahaskljawiojflka"

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:
Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Indeed. But what has that to do with how one reads the narrative? Jesus and the NT writers referred to the OT 'troublesome stories' and seemed to regard them as ordinary history.
You'd have to ask PDN, he's the biblical expert. All I know is there are about a billion people in the world who manage to believe in both evolution and christianity, probably because their faith is based on the message and divinity of Jesus instead of their own literal interpretation of the bible

People can so easily hold conflicting truths in their head - but most of the billion don't know much of the Biblical side anyway, so it is not too difficult for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I go with the alternative:
Reject current fables, hold to the Bible as the word of God and advance in the faith.
Reject reality it is so. At this stage I could go on about how the fact of evolution has been proven and creationists are engaged in deliberate distortion of reality but your rejection of evolution has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with your mistaken belief that you'll have to give up your religious beliefs if you accept it so really there's little point.

I assure you, if the evidence all pointed to evolution I would not be saying otherwise. I would (hopefully) hold to creation and admit I must wait for new scientific light to overturn the evolutionary case. But there is a lot already that appears to go against evolution, so I don't face that dilemma.

You should know though that creationists make the atheist case that little bit easier. Christians often say that there's no way the apostles could have been so dedicated unless they actually witnessed the resurrection but I can just point at people like you who continue to firmly believe what you want to believe in the face of proof to the contrary and suddenly what the apostles did (or what it was claimed they did) doesn't seem so amazing

If the evidence for evolution were as rock-solid as you allege, you would have a point. But it's not. Creationists have no difficulty facing the scientific evidence and arguing from it that the biosphere is not the result of billions of years of increasing complexity. They see the reality of degradation and loss of information, not the opposite.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Utterly missed the point.

The name of the bloody phenomena does not matter call evolution "aedjnadfaggasegasfasdfr" for all I care.
It's the concept of the phenomenon that matters i.e lifes diversity.

The theory used to explain a phenomenon is usually named after it's phenomenon
"The theory of adfagdasdkgaslgjka"

You disagree with parts of the model in evolutionary theory, even if you overthrow the model and prove an that there was no common ancestor it will STILL be called the theory of evolution.
Or in my case:
"The theory of adfgahaskljawiojflka"

Call it evolution if you like - diversification is still part of the creation model. But if you persist in calling it evolution in our debate, you will make life difficult for everyone.

Why not apply our argument to the aspects of your theory we dispute?

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Call it evolution if you like - diversification is still part of the creation model. But if you persist in calling it evolution in our debate, you will make life difficult for everyone.

Why not apply our argument to the aspects of your theory we dispute?

Because that is like treating 'Work' as 'force'.
The definition must be exact and used in the correct way.
Not criss crossed or redefined.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

I assure you, if the evidence all pointed to evolution I would not be saying otherwise. I would (hopefully) hold to creation and admit I must wait for new scientific light to overturn the evolutionary case. But there is a lot already that appears to go against evolution, so I don't face that dilemma.


If the evidence for evolution were as rock-solid as you allege, you would have a point. But it's not. Creationists have no difficulty facing the scientific evidence and arguing from it that the biosphere is not the result of billions of years of increasing complexity. They see the reality of degradation and loss of information, not the opposite.

Wolfsbane, the only people who support creationism are those who began with the assumption that the bible was perfect truth and ignored anything contradictory. These people are lying to you and making an idiot of you. Science does not have any agenda, it follows the evidence and if there was the slightest shred of evidence to support creationism it would be the accepted theory but there isn't, there are just people who will say anything to avoid accepting the facts because they conflict with their religious beliefs

Edit: looking at the 9 intermediary fossils I mentioned on the last page between land mammals and whales, do you think I made them all up?

J C

wrote:

Morbert
Please provide evidence that Evolutionary biologists promoted and defended those drawings for over 100 years.

...the 'Horse' drawings are in the CURRENT Irish Leaving Certificate Biology Textbook!!!!!

...and the Haeckel drawings still appear in graduate-level biology textbooks, such as the 'Molecular Biology of the Cell'.

....and here is why Materialistic Evolution is STILL being taught as fact in classrooms across the world ... even though it is known to be invalid:-

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."
–Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris
on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...the erroneous 'Horse' drawings are in the CURRENT Irish Leaving Certificate Biology Textbook!!!!!

...and the Haeckel drawings still appear in graduate-level biology textbooks, such as the 'Molecular Biology of the Cell'.

....and here is why Materialistic Evolution is STILL being taught as fact in classrooms across the world ... even though it is known to be invalid:-

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."
–Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris
on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders

Ahh Science.. gotta love it.

We have no acceptable theory of gravity at the moment either

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Ahh Science.. gotta love it.

...did you read what the guy said???

...he effectively said that he was teaching a load of baloney ... until something better comes along!!!

...and when something BETTER did come along (in the form of ID) they went to court to STOP it being taught!!!!

...I suppose if you believe that you are pondslime with nothing added but time ... then logic is not your strong point!!!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...I suppose if you believe that you are pondslime with nothing added but time ... then logic is not your strong point!!!!!

Thankfully that is not what I believe.:D

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Thankfully that is not what I believe.:D

...great to hear that...

....ceasing to believe that unicellular pondslime evolved into Man .... was the first stage in my progression from Evolutionist to Creation Scientist as well !!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...great to hear that...
....ceasing to believe that unicellular pondslime evolved into Man .... was the first stage in my progression from Evolutionist to Creation Scientist as well !!!!

Er,
JC I never ever believed in the pondslime idea.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Er,
JC I never ever believed in the pondslime idea.

....even better again...
....so have ALWAYS been a Creationist?

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....even better again...
....so have ALWAYS been a Creationist?

Well if that's what you call creationist, I guess so.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Well if that's what you call creationist, I guess so.

...GOOD!!!!

...I just knew that logic would eventually prevail!!!!:D