The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... if it's not a Gap Theory then what is the scale of the evolution that you are proposing ... and when/where are you saying it is described in the Bible?
...could you provide Chapter and Verse please?

StealthRolex
Genesis. In Book one man is created on the sixth day however in Book Two Adam is created after the seventh day, if you take it literally. Therein lies an incongruity from which there lies a huge gap.

Genesis 1 describes the Creation in Chronological Order, while Genesis 2 from Gen 2:4 onwards describes the events surrounding the Creation of Mankind in further detail. Genesis 1 and 2 are both describing the same Creation Events and there is therfore no 'huge gap' or incongruity between them.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... God is all powerful allright ... but He also doesn't lie ... and the Genesis account indicates a Young Earth and a Direct Creation ... and therefore no evolution from Pondkind to Mankind.

StealthRolex
Pondkind to mankind is not supported by evolution or Darwinism either. It is conjecture.

... the Darwinists do claim that we are all descended from a unicellular water-dwelling common ancestor (which I am characterising as 'Pondkind') ... I agree that the Darwinists are engaging in unfounded conjecture that isn't supported by any evidence or logic ... yet it is taught by law as a fact in public schools throughout America!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... and what are the artefacts, which you say "are there to both question our faith to provide clues to God"??

StealthRolex
Cosmological, geological, paleontological records. In fact almost all, if not all of science one way or another leads to God. Only the blind cannot see this.

... you haven't specified what exactly 'only the blind cannot see' within science which "one way or another leads to God."
It is CSI that they are in denial of ... and 'the blind' cannot / don't want to see it... because CSI is unambiguous evidence of an intelligent input into the Creation of life!!!

You also haven't told us what aretefacts are there to "question our faith".
There are none that I am aware of!!!:eek:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The methods of dating the past are based on many assumptions. There is no proven method.

You should know by now that science never proves anything, it builds accuracy levels increasing confidence.

As has been mentioned many many times before scientists do not use just one dating method, they use many. If they all give the same answer you can be pretty sure something is that age.

But that isn't even really the point. Ignoring things like radio meteric dating, you can't explain why these records exist in the first place? If you are prepared to accept the existence of Bible record (who dated the Bible?) then why not the legal and state records of the Egyptians or Chinese?

Oh thats right, because you are ridiculously biased against anything that conflicts with your religious view point. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

The heathen histories are in conflict with themselves and with the Hebrew history. Why is the Hebrew history the one in error?

Because the Hebrew history says they should all be dead when in fact they were all sitting around recording rather mundane state business.

Whether these records are accurate or not doesn't matter, there existence invalidates the Flood theory since it is sort of difficult to write an accurate or inaccurate piece of state business if you are dead and your civilisation has been wiped out.

Yet this is what we find, the Egyptians recording the ins and outs their state business as if no Flood happened. Weird isn't it.

Of course that conflicts with Wolfsbane so it is must be all wrong. The Egyptians must have been wrong when they wrote it (those silly Egyptians thinking they understood their own country better than American Creationists 4000 years later) and the historians who found them must be wrong.

Everyone is wrong except Wolfsbane and JC.

monosharp

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course that conflicts with Wolfsbane so it is must be all wrong. The Egyptians must have been wrong when they wrote it (those silly Egyptians thinking they understood their own country better than American Creationists 4000 years later) and the historians who found them must be wrong.

Everyone is wrong except Wolfsbane and JC.

I think we can safely conclude that nothing, absolutely nothing will ever convince wolfsbane that he is in anyway wrong.

Its pointless, anything which contradicts the bible can be placed into one of two categories, A) wrong or god testing their faith.

Facts have no bearing here.

StealthRolex

J C, wolfsbane, I fail to see how any of your arguments can bring people closer to Jesus. If anything you are alienating those most in need of His Divine Mercy.

Does it really matter when the Earth was created? We know how and we know it is finite. We also know more importantly that each of is will reach our own finite moment sooner than the Earth will. This is a truth even unbelievers know.

Surely it is more important to spread the word that Jesus is our Saviour. Will it matter to a scientist who studies evolution or cosmology who thinks the world or the universe is ancient beyond imagination if he has faith in Jesus and belief in God?

Genghiz Cohen

StealthRolex wrote: »

Does it really matter when the Earth was created?

What?!
YES!

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... if God inspired the writing then He wrote it ... and as He is infallible He didn't need to edit it ... as He 'got it right first time and every time'.

Well he should have edited this bit...

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

J C wrote: »

The Bible is the 'exact message of God' ... and we should take a plain reading of each passage ... reading it as metaphorical when metaphors are clearly being used ... and literally when a literal meaning is clearly implied (as in most of Genesis, for example).

this is a metaphor then?

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;

Apologies if the above is a little OT but I just don't see how the bible can be used as evidence given how clearly flawed it is at times.

J C wrote: »

does this mean that you will provide some evidence for Darwinian Evolution (from Pondkind to Mankind)?

No, I can find the same counter arguments as you by looking up some creationist web pages. Instead, I want you to convince me. I believe the bible cannot be relied upon to be entirely accurate so I want some other evidence for creationism.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

... you must be easily pleased!!!!:)

... I suppose, even a pyrrhic victory must seem like some kind of 'victory' to Evolutionists at this stage!!!:eek::D


The whole Darwinian proposal is wishful thinking ... it has no plausible mechanism ... and no logical basis!!!:):D

We can now discuss why you feel natural selection is not powerful enough to drive evolution. You have said, for example, that selecting spontaneous mutations cannot generate CSI. Yet natural selection can generate functional and complex survival strategies by selecting from multiple copies of systems. And it can efficiently explore the "space of configurations" as mutations are not completely random, but instead closely approximate the original copy.

So I put it to you to tell my why natural selection cannot generate functional information.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You should know by now that science never proves anything, it builds accuracy levels increasing confidence.

As has been mentioned many many times before scientists do not use just one dating method, they use many. If they all give the same answer you can be pretty sure something is that age.

But that isn't even really the point. Ignoring things like radio meteric dating, you can't explain why these records exist in the first place? If you are prepared to accept the existence of Bible record (who dated the Bible?) then why not the legal and state records of the Egyptians or Chinese?

Oh thats right, because you are ridiculously biased against anything that conflicts with your religious view point. :rolleyes:



Because the Hebrew history says they should all be dead when in fact they were all sitting around recording rather mundane state business.

Whether these records are accurate or not doesn't matter, there existence invalidates the Flood theory since it is sort of difficult to write an accurate or inaccurate piece of state business if you are dead and your civilisation has been wiped out.

Yet this is what we find, the Egyptians recording the ins and outs their state business as if no Flood happened. Weird isn't it.

Of course that conflicts with Wolfsbane so it is must be all wrong. The Egyptians must have been wrong when they wrote it (those silly Egyptians thinking they understood their own country better than American Creationists 4000 years later) and the historians who found them must be wrong.

Everyone is wrong except Wolfsbane and JC.

Are you claiming all radio-dating methods give the same age?

Or that they agree with all other dating methods?

The Egyptian records were not written many thousands of years ago. They were written in the Biblical time-frame, but some of them give histories stretching back far beyond that.

The issue is whether or not their history is correct. A North Korean historian could write about the dynasty of Kim Jong-il dating back before the Pharaohs - but that would not mean it existed.

_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

J C

StealthRolex wrote: »

J C, wolfsbane, I fail to see how any of your arguments can bring people closer to Jesus. If anything you are alienating those most in need of His Divine Mercy.

Does it really matter when the Earth was created?

Genghiz Cohen
What?!
YES!

... there is your answer!!!:):D

StealthRolex wrote: »

We know how and we know it is finite. We also know more importantly that each of is will reach our own finite moment sooner than the Earth will. This is a truth even unbelievers know.

Surely it is more important to spread the word that Jesus is our Saviour. Will it matter to a scientist who studies evolution or cosmology who thinks the world or the universe is ancient beyond imagination if he has faith in Jesus and belief in God?

... all this Darwinian Evolution stuff is a major stumbling block to faith in Jesus Christ.

If we cannot rely on the Word of God in the Bible how can we rely on The Word, Jesus Christ??

Joh 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 ¶ And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

wolfsbane

StealthRolex wrote: »

Trying to use the Bible to negate the gift of science is not going to gain anything. The "consensus science" folk, whoever they are, are blind, deaf and dumb and choose science over all else. That is their problem and until they choose to see and hear for themselves they will remain in the dark. There is, always has been and always will be an accommodation between the Bible and science. It is not a case of one being right and one being wrong. It is a case of science will tell us what it can tell us and the Bible will tell us what it tells us.

Accept God as the Creator of the Universe and of Life and all else follows. I'm not sure that the Bible states "Thou shalt not be curious" and if by science more come to recognise God what harm?
If by symbolic or non-literal interpretation of Genesis one can accept science as knowledge and Bible as Truth what harm?

Alienating people by misrepresenting both the Bible and science is not helpful.

I fully agree that science and the Bible will always agree. It is the imperfect knowledge of science that finds fault with the Bible account. The consensus science is not perfect science, not the truth about all that science can investigate. It has large bits right, large bits wrong.

So I'm all for investigative science.

If symbolic/non-literal interpretation of Genesis left the Bible as Truth, I would have no problem. But it doesn't. It requires the NT writers themselves to be either ignorant of the symbolism or of passing it on to ignorant people, knowing they would take it as historical narrative. Nearly 2 millennia would pass before the light would come.

And what does it do to the NT moral imperatives that are based on supposed historical events in Genesis - the headship of man in relation to woman, for example?
_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

J C

gosplan wrote: »

Well he should have edited this bit...

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

... what is wrong with it?

gosplan wrote: »

this is a metaphor then?

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;

... it illustrates the relative magnificence and omnipotence of God!!!

gosplan wrote: »

Apologies if the above is a little OT but I just don't see how the bible can be used as evidence given how clearly flawed it is at times.

... what is wrong with it?

gosplan wrote: »

No, I can find the same counter arguments as you by looking up some creationist web pages. Instead, I want you to convince me. I believe the bible cannot be relied upon to be entirely accurate so I want some other evidence for creationism.

... it's your turn to provide the evidence ... for Darwinism!!!!:D:)

... as there is no evidence for Darwinism ... I'm not holding my breath ... due to the risk of acute anoxia!!!!!:eek::):D

wolfsbane

StealthRolex wrote: »

J C, wolfsbane, I fail to see how any of your arguments can bring people closer to Jesus. If anything you are alienating those most in need of His Divine Mercy.

Does it really matter when the Earth was created? We know how and we know it is finite. We also know more importantly that each of is will reach our own finite moment sooner than the Earth will. This is a truth even unbelievers know.

Surely it is more important to spread the word that Jesus is our Saviour. Will it matter to a scientist who studies evolution or cosmology who thinks the world or the universe is ancient beyond imagination if he has faith in Jesus and belief in God?

If unbelievers are willing to consider the gospel without bringing up evolution as an objection, I would never mention the creation/evolution dispute. As you rightly say, knowledge of the truth about the age of the earth is immaterial to their greatest need.

But the debate is generated here by unbelievers using the supposed age of the earth to discredit the Bible's veracity. When you evangelise do you ignore any objection raised? Do you not try to show the Bible is entirely reliable? Why should they believe the gospel bit of it if other bits are mistaken?
_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 22:28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

We can now discuss why you feel natural selection is not powerful enough to drive evolution. You have said, for example, that selecting spontaneous mutations cannot generate CSI. Yet natural selection can generate functional and complex survival strategies by selecting from multiple copies of systems. And it can efficiently explore the "space of configurations" as mutations are not completely random, but instead closely approximate the original copy.

So I put it to you to tell my why natural selection cannot generate functional information.

... the useless Combinatorial Space for even a short-chain biomolecue is so massive that it will defeat any selection sytem that tries to 'explore' it ... there is simply not enough time or material in the Known Universe to do this!!!

... and the only known way to overcome this useless 'Combinatorial Space' is by the appliance of intelligence ... to produce functional combinations every time!!!:)

... listen to what Dr David Berlinski says about transitions ... and the quantitative maths involved ...

... and here is Ben Stein hitting the Darwinian Nail on the head!!!!

StealthRolex

J C wrote: »

... there is your answer!!!:):D


... all this Darwinian Evolution stuff is a major stumbling block to faith in Jesus Christ.

If we cannot rely on the Word of God in the Bible how can we rely on The Word, Jesus Christ??

Methinks you are taking it too literally and putting up your own stumbling blocks. Nothing like handing ammunition to the enemy.

When Genesis was written the target audience did not have science as we know it today. It is an account of it's time.
If your argument is anything to go by you are also judging and condeming many Christians who do not take Genesis so literally. But as the sig says...

J C

StealthRolex wrote: »

Methinks you are taking it too literally and putting up your own stumbling blocks. Nothing like handing ammunition to the enemy.

When Genesis was written the target audience did not have science as we know it today. It is an account of it's time.

The Word of God is of eternal relevance to Mankind!!!

StealthRolex wrote: »

If your argument is anything to go by you are also judging and condeming many Christians who do not take Genesis so literally. But as the sig says...

... I am not judging anybody ... I leave that to Jesus Christ ... but if the cap fits ... I guess you could wear it!!!:);)

StealthRolex

wolfsbane wrote: »

If unbelievers are willing to consider the gospel without bringing up evolution as an objection, I would never mention the creation/evolution dispute. As you rightly say, knowledge of the truth about the age of the earth is immaterial to their greatest need.

Well, there are bigger issues at hand

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the debate is generated here by unbelievers using the supposed age of the earth to discredit the Bible's veracity. When you evangelise do you ignore any objection raised? Do you not try to show the Bible is entirely reliable? Why should they believe the gospel bit of it if other bits are mistaken?

Those who chose not to believe will not no matter how far you bend science or yourself. Most take it as an introduction to God the Creator and leave it at that. Others may take the descrepancy incorrectly to mean evolution is abiogenesis. That is their problem and anyway that can be dealt without any need to adopt pseudo-science.
So what if there is a discrepancy between the Bible time and Geological time - science cannot say who or what created life any more than it can say who or what created the universe. The only witnesses are God and His Angels.
Take it as written - the Universe, the Earth and Life were created. Genesis says so even if it is in parable form so we get the idea of a seven day week with a day to worship God. Adam and Eve were create from matter, Genesis says so but uses the term dust or earth. Stop wasting time. You're still on just the first two chapters and there's a way to go yet.

StealthRolex

J C wrote: »

... I am not judging anybody ... I leave that to Jesus Christ ... but if the cap fits ... I guess you could wear it!!!:);)

I suppose you think that is a decent Christian answer. Oh well.

Just so you know, Jesus came to save all who would believe in Him. Many Christians today do not adhere to the letter of the law of the Old Testament. Jesus brought Good News. A New Covenant.
Or maybe you and the YECs, IDers want us all getting our foreskins cut and giving up the breakfast bap too. After all that is the "literal" Bible you are talking about.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Are you claiming all radio-dating methods give the same age?

More often than not. I'm sure you can drag out the old examples of where it went wrong (live snails being 20,000 years old). All scientific measurement systems can go wrong from time to time.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Or that they agree with all other dating methods?

Both.

While you may believe that the entire scientific establishment is simply interested in trying to demonstrate your religion is wrong (as if) in reality they are interested in forming working models of the Earth. Dating methods that are utterly unreliable are of no use. Scientists have spend a lot of time verifying the dating methods they use. They aren't just making it up as they go along.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Egyptian records were not written many thousands of years ago. They were written in the Biblical time-frame, but some of them give histories stretching back far beyond that.

The issue is whether or not their history is correct. A North Korean historian could write about the dynasty of Kim Jong-il dating back before the Pharaohs - but that would not mean it existed.

No it isn't. Even if they were making it all up they were still around to write it when they should have been dead in a flood.

J C

StealthRolex wrote: »

I suppose you think that is a decent Christian answer. Oh well.

... the judgement of sin is between the sinner and Jesus Christ ... and that is a theological fact!!!!

StealthRolex wrote: »

Just so you know, Jesus came to save all who would believe in Him. Many Christians today do not adhere to the letter of the law of the Old Testament. Jesus brought Good News. A New Covenant.
Or maybe you and the YECs, IDers want us all getting our foreskins cut and giving up the breakfast bap too. After all that is the "literal" Bible you are talking about.

... on the contrary, we live in the church age ... which is a period of God's grace ... and not His Law!!!

I enjoy a good Irish Fry with the best of them ...
... and I am a sinner like the worst of them!!!!

... and I fully agree that Jesus came to Save sinners ... and I would urge all sinners to avail of His Salvation ... while they still can.

StealthRolex

J C wrote: »

... all sin is between the sinner and Jesus Christ ... that is a theological fact!!!!



... on the contrary, we live in the church age ... which is a period of God's grace ... and not His Law!!!

I enjoy a good Irish Fry with the best of them ...
... and I am a sinner like the worst of them!!!!

Fair enough.

On ID I'll meet you half way - if you can debunk Perry Marshall

J C

StealthRolex wrote: »

Fair enough.

On ID I'll meet you half way - if you can debunk Perry Marshall

Perry's heart is in the right place!!!:)

Ghost Buster

J C wrote: »

... yes it is indeed ironic that Darwinism, which claims to be materialistically based, has no logic or evidence supporting it ... while Creation Science, which scientifically studies the works of a Transcendent Invisible God, has all of the logic and the physical evidence on its side!!!

Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 ¶ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

... so could we have a little less of the word games ... and some (any) evidence for Darwinism ... please!!!!!!!

And that is your grasp of science in a nut shell. I study the clog dancing purple yeti in my closet that nobody can see. You have to believe its there.

Gimmie a break, really.:(

Morbert

J C wrote: »

... the useless Combinatorial Space for even a short-chain biomolecue is so massive that it will defeat any selection sytem that tries to 'explore' it ... there is simply not enough time or material in the Known Universe to do this!!!

... and the only known way to overcome this useless 'Combinatorial Space' is by the appliance of intelligence ... to produce functional combinations every time!!!:)

You are making all sorts of assumptions regarding the minimum complexity of a system required for self-replication. There is no reason natural selection cannot explore the space unless you assume it cannot explore the space.

... listen to what Dr David Berlinski says about transitions ... and the quantitative maths involved ...

That is not the correct maths to use. The mathematics behind development and change involves biological information theory, which is fully consistent with evolution.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

theological fact!!!!.

Isn't that an oxymoron :P

StealthRolex

:pac: I think a-theist is a better oxymoron :P

MrPudding

StealthRolex wrote: »

Those who chose not to believe will not no matter how far you bend science or yourself.

How does one "choose" not to believe?

MrP

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

:pac: I think a-theist is a better oxymoron :P

i'm confused

How is it an oxymoron to describe someone as lacking theism?

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... what is wrong with it?

Erm, it's your basic continuity error. Which came first beast or mankind? the second contradicts the first.

J C wrote: »

... it illustrates the relative magnificence and omnipotence of God!!!

Yes, or it just says the earth is a flat circle. LOL. Perhaps Christian Science is an oxymoron.

J C wrote: »

... what is wrong with it?

As above but there are plenty more.

J C wrote: »

... it's your turn to provide the evidence ... for Darwinism!!!!:D:)

... as there is no evidence for Darwinism ... I'm not holding my breath ... due to the risk of acute anoxia!!!!!:eek::):D

Ok, the fossil record. Attack that as you will and we'll see where we are then.

Also, as I asked please provide your evidence for creationism and try to make it something apart from the bible. That should be more challenging for you.

Or do you only dispute JC? Can YOU claim or prove anything substantial? Can you back up creationism which, as you would say yourself, now stands like an unloved and unfounded orphan on this thread ... with nobody prepared to come to its defense.

StealthRolex

MrPudding wrote: »

How does one "choose" not to believe?

MrP

An atheist is not just a person who does not believe.
An atheist is a person who does not believe because they do not want to.

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i'm confused

How is it an oxymoron to describe someone as lacking theism?

who said anything about theism or atheism? I said atheIST

How many times has it been said that atheism is nothing of itself?

lacking a belief in the obvious is oxymoronic.

belief in no belief is moronic