The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ush1

J C wrote: »

Quote:
Like I have said (see the red bit above) ... ID proponents and Creation Scientists have no issue with the existence of Natural Selection ... and it's ability to select from existing genetic diversity ... it is the origin of the gentic diversity, in the first place that ID proposes to explain ... and not it's selection!!!
ID Proponents (and Creation Scientists) have no problem with Natural Selection as one explanation for the survival of the fittest ... it is when it is cited to explain the arrival of the fittest that we have questions about the vaidity of such claims!!!

Sorry but then you don't know what ID is I'm afraid to say. Read the paragraph again.

Natural Selection as the process for evolution is what they take issue with. Evolution is nothing to do with the origins of life itself, it is merely how complex life forms came to be.

crazy dude

Danno wrote: »

Dear Mods and fellow Boards Members.

I wish to open this thread to discuss the Bible and Creationism, and to hear peoples opinions on what can be viewed as the most fundamental part of the origins of man, and also to tease out what prophecy has to offer in where we came from and where we are going.

I hope that with enough interest that this thread becomes a sticky.

I also wish to ask everyone who posts here not to personally attack any person contributing. I look forward to a good debate...

My own understanding of Prophets is someone suffering from Schizotypal personality Disorder, a disorder close to schizophrenia but without the debilitating systems. These are people who go off their head in stress but recover later. In reality, their evolutionary worth is huge because they become leaders of society in emergencies.For example, Moses came on the scene in ancient egypt as various crises such as famines arose. He convinced part of the population they were not egyptians, they were a holy race special to God and then proceeded to split off a sizeable portion of the egyptian population in search of a promised land which took him 40 years to find. Likewise, the middleeastern intolerance of outside influences and the propensity to suicidal policies left first century israel on an almost certain road to destruction as they failed to accomodate the roman invasion and intrusion on their religious freedom. Jesus arose, thought them that they could give onto caesar what was caesar's without necessarily taking away from what they gave onto God i.e. they could live with religious oppression and outlive it. He also split their population as Moses before him did and he made one final gesture of suicide (the crucifiction) so that no one else would feel they should have to sacrifice their life for God, which is what young men to this day in palestine feel they must do for their religion's protection. The other good example is Hitler, arose from ridicule in 1930s Germany, a country driven to exinction by britain and french policy, to appear like a divine prophet from God sent to save Germany, who created his own millenial reign ( see book of revelations, the beast reigns 1000 years!), had his own crucifix(the swastika), his own devils (the jews), annual commeration (Beer hall Putsch), Promised land (The east of europe was to be the land germans would populate) etc. This is what a prophet is rather than a guy who can predict the lotto numbers.

As for creation vs evolution. Well I believe in evolution but I strongly believe in a God too...just not one who is described by the prophets of the bible. I believe in a Quantum Mechanical type God who did not exist until after the big bang occured but who paradoxically created the big bang by simply observing the universe(let there be light!), the rutherford interpretation of the importance of the observer in quantum mechanics! Above all, I recognise that things like the big bang and quantum mechanics will pass as theories too, which is the bit fundamentalist religious people have forgotten about the bible! The bible was the best guess of its time just as quantum mechanics is our best guess ..but its not gospel.
Why do so many people force themselves to believe lies told by people they have never met in person? Don't you remember how the israelites felt about Moses keeping them roaming about a small patch of land 40 years! They thought he was mad.
Wise up, believe in God but don't spend your life letting a bunch of dead prophets limit your experience of God..which is really how you treat and tolerate other people as Jesu rather than Christ said

J C

SleepDoc wrote: »

ID is a ludicrous idea. However people can believe whatever nonsense they like provided it doesn't interfere with their work.

... but the point is that ID isn't a 'ludicrous idea' ... it can be scientifically verified (and Prof Dawkins has confirmed that this is possible)...

... and it has been scientifically verified!!!!

... you are increasingly sounding like a Medieval Pope chastising Galileo for the 'ludicrous idea' that the Earth orbits the Sun ... because the Atheistic Greeks and the academic opinion of the time thought it was the other way around!!!

Ush1

J C wrote: »

... but the point is that ID isn't a 'ludicrous idea' ... it can be scientifically verified (and Prof Dawkins has confirmed that this is possible)...

... and it has been scientifically verified!!!!

... you are increasingly sounding like a Medieval Pope chastising Galileo for the 'ludicrous idea' that the Earth orbits the Sun ... because the Atheistic Greeks and the academic opinion of the time thought it was the other way around!!!

No it hasn't been scientifically verified.

A single research paper for ID has never been published or peer reviewed.

J C

SleepDoc wrote: »

Really? So all the books, interviews and correspondence are just a ruse? He's actually an ID nut-job? Seriously? I feel used.

Here you go again making unfounded prejudicial remarks about a whole group of eminently qualified scientists.

ID Evolutionists are not 'nut-jobs' ... no more that their Materialistic Evolutionist colleagues are not 'nut-jobs' either!!!!

Think of it this way ... these are people that you have a difference of scientific opinon with!!!!

SleepDoc wrote: »

Seriously? I feel used.

WHY???!!!

J C

Ush1 wrote: »

Sorry but then you don't know what ID is I'm afraid to say. Read the paragraph again.

Natural Selection as the process for evolution is what they take issue with. Evolution is nothing to do with the origins of life itself, it is merely how complex life forms came to be.

ID Proponents don't take issue with Natural Selection ....

... here is the proof from the quote you cited:-

wrote:

2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory.

... and that is why most of the ID Proponents that I know are actually Evolutionists!!!!

Please stop insulting your fellow Evolutionists!!!

Ush1

J C wrote: »

ID Proponents don't take issue with Natural Selection ....

... here is the proof from the quote you cited:-

*slaps forehead*
They have a problem with evolution by NATURAL SELECTION!!!

I'm sorry if I sound irate but you seem to be a proponent of something you absolutely don't have the first clue about.

SleepDoc

J C wrote: »

Here you go again making unfounded prejudicial remarks about a whole group of eminently qualified scientists.

ID Evolutionists are not 'nut-jobs' ... no more that their Materialistic Evolutionist colleagues are not 'nut-jobs' either!!!!

Think of it this way ... these are people that you have a difference of scientific opinon with!!!!

Again name one such eminent scientist and direct us to a peer reviewed paper in support of ID.

ID evolutionists indeed! Such people are I'm afraid...nuts. There is no science to have a difference of opinion with.

J C

Ush1 wrote: »

No it hasn't been scientifically verified.

A single research paper for ID has never been published or peer reviewed.

...they're there allright ... and that have been peer-reviewed by other ID Proponents or Creation Scientists, depending on the paper!!!

Materialistic Evolutionists refuse to peer review such papers because of their a priori rejection of ID ... even though they accept that ID can be scientifically evaluated!!!

Ush1

J C wrote: »

...they're there allright ... and that have been peer-reviewed by other ID Proponents or Creation Scientists, depending on the paper!!!

Materialistic Evolutionists refuse to peer review such paper because of their a priori rejection of ID ... even though they accept that ID can be scientifically evaluated!!!

:pac:

I suggest you take your conspiracy theories to the conspiracy forum. ID have jumped the peer review process and published papers to the general public, who for the most part have no clue on the subject. They are a farce in every sense of the word.

They have lost in the science labs, lost in the courts and it looks like they have nothing but Ben Stein left.

J C

Ush1 wrote: »

*slaps forehead*
They have a problem with evolution by NATURAL SELECTION!!!

... they have a problem with evolution by natural selection of mutations ... as the supposed mechanism for the production of genetic Complex Specified Functional Information (CSFI).

ID Proponents have no problem with Evolution by Natural Selection of Intelligently Designed CSFI.

J C

Ush1 wrote: »

I suggest you take your conspiracy theories to the conspiracy forum. ID have jumped the peer review process and published papers to the general public, who for the most part have no clue on the subject.

It isn't a conspracy theory ... it is just old fashioned crass religious discrimination dressed up in pseudo-scientific clothes!!!

SleepDoc wrote: »

ID evolutionists indeed! Such people are I'm afraid...nuts. There is no science to have a difference of opinion with.

...despite the fact that Prof Dawkins has confirmed that it is possible to scientifically assess the 'signature' of intelligent design (by 'aliens' rather than God) ...
... and eminently and conventionally qualified scientists claim to have found scientific evidence that such a 'signature' has been found???!!

SleepDoc wrote: »

They have lost in the science labs, lost in the courts...

... under rules and laws written by Materialistic Evolutionists!!!!

SleepDoc wrote: »

... and it looks like they have nothing but Ben Stein left.

... they have a lot more people as well as Ben Stein on their side ... and they have Almighty God and the TRUTH on their side as well.

SleepDoc

J C wrote: »

... they have a problem with evolution by natural selection of mutations ... as the supposed mechanism for the production of genetic Complex Specified Functional Information (CSFI).

ID Proponents have no problem with Evolution by Natural Selection of Intelligently Designed CSFI.

That is not natural selection. Or evolution. You clearly don't understand either.

J C

SleepDoc wrote: »

That is not natural selection. Or evolution. You clearly don't understand either.

Please tell me what you believe NS and Evolution to be???

SleepDoc

J C wrote: »

It isn't a conspracy theory ... it is just old fashioned crass religious discrimination dressed up in pseudo-scientific clothes!!!


...despite the fact that Prof Dawkins has confirmed that it is possible to scientifically assess the 'signature' of intelligent design (by 'aliens' rather than God) ...
... and eminently and conventionally qualified scientists claim to have found scientific evidence that such a 'signature' has been found???!!

... under rules and laws written by Materialistic Evolutionists!!!!

You pick and choose barely understood snippets of scientific comment (by Dawkins) to bolster your preposterous claims.

You are seriously deluded if you think that science is in any way concerned with religion any more than it is with the tooth fairy or leprechauns.

Again please name one scientist who has come up with any evidence in support of ID and direct us to their peer reviewed published work re same.

SleepDoc

J C wrote: »

Please tell me what you believe NS and Evolution to be???

I refer you to Darwin's excellent book on the subject. First edition.

Galvasean

He's back!!!!!!!!!!

*hugs*

J C

SleepDoc wrote: »

I refer you to Darwin's excellent book on the subject. First edition.

... so you don't know!!!

J C

SleepDoc wrote: »

You pick and choose barely understood snippets of scientific comment (by Dawkins) to bolster your preposterous claims.

You are seriously deluded if you think that science is in any way concerned with religion any more than it is with the tooth fairy or leprechauns.

Again please name one scientist who has come up with any evidence in support of ID and direct us to their peer reviewed published work re same.

... these are not 'snippets' but on the record comments by one of the leading Materialistic Evolutionists on the planet!!!

... and you guys are seriously deluded if you think that Materialists can deny God's Creation (without a shred of evidence for their position) ... and Creation Scientists will stay silent, despite having mathematical proof for the Intelligent Design of life!!!

... and I am not going to name any ID Proponent so you guys can sack him/her!!!

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

He's back!!!!!!!!!!

*hugs*

... 'hugs' right back!!!:)

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

... and I am not going to name any ID Proponent so you guys can sack him/her!!!

If they give themselves up we will give them a fair trial.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

If they give themselves up we will give them a fair trial.

... and then they'll sack them!!!!
... using self-serving rules and laws devised by Materialists!!!!

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

... and then they'll sack them!!!!

Well if it's a fair trial they can't complain.

Ush1

J C wrote: »

... they have a problem with evolution by natural selection of mutations ... as the supposed mechanism for the production of genetic Complex Specified Functional Information (CSFI).

ID Proponents have no problem with Evolution by Natural Selection of Intelligently Designed CSFI.

Listen;

I'm not sure if you understand what evolution is but you clearly have no idea what natural selection is. You clearly have no idea what intelligent design is and you clearly have no clue what Dawkins was getting at.

As the most constructive advice I can give you I would say go and address these things before you post further as you are really only serving to embarrass yourself.

Ush1

J C wrote: »

It isn't a conspracy theory ... it is just old fashioned crass religious discrimination dressed up in pseudo-scientific clothes!!!

Oh dear, I thought ID was science not religion?

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

... here you go again, making unfounded prejudicial comments about eminent conventional scientists!!!

The point about Academic Freedom is that ID scientists should have the freedom to pursue research into an area that even leading Materialists (like Prof Dawkins) admit that it is possible to reach scientifically valid conclusions upon.

All I am asking is to give ID a chance ... I'm not asking any Materialist to become an ID Proponent ... but if s/he would like to do research aimed at disproving any conclusions reached by ID Proponents then they should obviously also be free to do so.
However, the Materialists should not be free to metaphorically 'strangle' ID at its scientific birth!!!
... or to crassly sack/demote ID proponents in the ways that were described in Ben Stein's documentary!!!

How is ID a scientific theory though? There is no structure and no evidence.

Lantus

The bible is about moral and spiritual aspects of people first and foremost. It is not a book about the natural world or science. It has no useful advice on indoor plumbing, car design, medical technology or anyhting else we rely on in the modern world.

If you take it as a spiritual guide to living a certain way then you'll be fine, once you start taking the rough guide to creation in genesis which was no doubt put in to give context and meaning to the rest of the book and use it as some sort of literal written guide to how we all came into being it gets really messy. I dont recall Jesus spending any amount of significant time debating this topic yet it seems to be all that bible has to offer these days for those passionate about making it canon.

It's no doubt important for christians to feel they have a real sense of certainty about their religion but attacking science wont help. there will be many other amazing scientific advances and discoveries in the years and hundred and even thousands of years to come. Some of these may be unwelcome to a great many religous groups.

But it shouldn't require this conflict, both can live in harmony if they respect each other and as the bible unlike science wont change in the next 1000 years christians should accept what they have and learn to live and adapt to the changing world around them, NOT the other way around.

wolfsbane

Lantus wrote: »

The bible is about moral and spiritual aspects of people first and foremost. It is not a book about the natural world or science. It has no useful advice on indoor plumbing, car design, medical technology or anyhting else we rely on in the modern world.

If you take it as a spiritual guide to living a certain way then you'll be fine, once you start taking the rough guide to creation in genesis which was no doubt put in to give context and meaning to the rest of the book and use it as some sort of literal written guide to how we all came into being it gets really messy. I dont recall Jesus spending any amount of significant time debating this topic yet it seems to be all that bible has to offer these days for those passionate about making it canon.

It's no doubt important for christians to feel they have a real sense of certainty about their religion but attacking science wont help. there will be many other amazing scientific advances and discoveries in the years and hundred and even thousands of years to come. Some of these may be unwelcome to a great many religous groups.

But it shouldn't require this conflict, both can live in harmony if they respect each other and as the bible unlike science wont change in the next 1000 years christians should accept what they have and learn to live and adapt to the changing world around them, NOT the other way around.

The problem with that understanding of what the Bible is about, is that it contradicts the Bible's testimony about itself. One can have a book with a mistaken or fictional history and a spiritual message - but the Bible is not that sort of book. It declares itself to be the word of God, the word that cannot be broken. That all it asserts is true. That's the Bible's witness to itself.

Now one may say it mistaken about its inerrancy, or one may say it is correct - but one may not honestly say it is both. If science is correct and it contradicts the Bible, the Bible is mistaken.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?


_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 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. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

wolfsbane

SleepDoc wrote: »

ID evolutionists indeed! Such people are I'm afraid...nuts. There is no science to have a difference of opinion with.

For clarity, how do the Theistic Evolutionists here feel about this? Do they hold that God intervenes in the evolutionary process, directing it to His ends? That would be ID, right?

If any of you hold to that, are you nuts, and is your science non-existent?

_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,

wolfsbane

crazy dude wrote: »

My own understanding of Prophets is someone suffering from Schizotypal personality Disorder, a disorder close to schizophrenia but without the debilitating systems. These are people who go off their head in stress but recover later. In reality, their evolutionary worth is huge because they become leaders of society in emergencies.For example, Moses came on the scene in ancient egypt as various crises such as famines arose. He convinced part of the population they were not egyptians, they were a holy race special to God and then proceeded to split off a sizeable portion of the egyptian population in search of a promised land which took him 40 years to find. Likewise, the middleeastern intolerance of outside influences and the propensity to suicidal policies left first century israel on an almost certain road to destruction as they failed to accomodate the roman invasion and intrusion on their religious freedom. Jesus arose, thought them that they could give onto caesar what was caesar's without necessarily taking away from what they gave onto God i.e. they could live with religious oppression and outlive it. He also split their population as Moses before him did and he made one final gesture of suicide (the crucifiction) so that no one else would feel they should have to sacrifice their life for God, which is what young men to this day in palestine feel they must do for their religion's protection. The other good example is Hitler, arose from ridicule in 1930s Germany, a country driven to exinction by britain and french policy, to appear like a divine prophet from God sent to save Germany, who created his own millenial reign ( see book of revelations, the beast reigns 1000 years!), had his own crucifix(the swastika), his own devils (the jews), annual commeration (Beer hall Putsch), Promised land (The east of europe was to be the land germans would populate) etc. This is what a prophet is rather than a guy who can predict the lotto numbers.

As for creation vs evolution. Well I believe in evolution but I strongly believe in a God too...just not one who is described by the prophets of the bible. I believe in a Quantum Mechanical type God who did not exist until after the big bang occured but who paradoxically created the big bang by simply observing the universe(let there be light!), the rutherford interpretation of the importance of the observer in quantum mechanics! Above all, I recognise that things like the big bang and quantum mechanics will pass as theories too, which is the bit fundamentalist religious people have forgotten about the bible! The bible was the best guess of its time just as quantum mechanics is our best guess ..but its not gospel.
Why do so many people force themselves to believe lies told by people they have never met in person? Don't you remember how the israelites felt about Moses keeping them roaming about a small patch of land 40 years! They thought he was mad.
Wise up, believe in God but don't spend your life letting a bunch of dead prophets limit your experience of God..which is really how you treat and tolerate other people as Jesu rather than Christ said

Your insight into reality is both vivid and coherent. Utterly mistaken, but at least not a sad attempt to reconcile evolution and the Bible.

Those of us who have a real experience of God know how mistaken you are about His prophets and His operations in the universe. We commend you to put you theory/model of reality on hold and explore the historic Christian one. If you sincerely seek the truth about God, He will cause you to find it.
_________________________________________________________________
Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood[c] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’