The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

ISAW wrote:

I am just asking if we were designed perfect why is it we have redundancies and imperfections?

I think the Creationist "answer" to this is that all imperfections are the result of the Fall. Now, I'll grant you when God said to Adam "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread until you return to the earth, from which you were taken, because earth you are and to earth you shall return", the Bible does not record him as saying "and also your descendants shall suffer genetic imperfections, and rhesus babies, and apparently vestigial organs, and a general downgrading over the years that will in fact get worse as time goes by, so that the further removed from the sin the worse the effects".

There's a question - Creationists have repeatedly referred to the idea that not only were imperfections introduced by the Fall, but that they have increased since then, as if this were a given. Where does this have Biblical standing?

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

it is not a known reality it is a blind belief.

My point was that it is a known reality to the Christian. Obviously not to the others, for they remain spiritually blind. It requires God to act to give spiritual sight, before anyone can be converted.

Defiine your definition of truth. How is your christian "truth" more true than other "truths" such as Muslim "truth" or Aborgional "truth"? They are all equally as true and as false as each other.

No, that is only the non Christian's assessment, as he is unable to consciously tell which is true or false. A thing is either true or not, regardless as to what anyone believes about it. The Christian knows the truth because God has revealed it to him.

Oh the other had it is indeniably true that the sun is bigger and hotter than the earth.

Yes, we can be sure of that from observation and physics. It requires no spiritual abilities.

Evolotion is a scientific truth that has been accepted by the vast majority of scientists.

It is claimed to be true by a vast majority of scientists. That doesn't make it so.

It has acheived this beause it, as a scientific theory, is able to explain and predict life far better than any other theory available.

That is denied by those scientists who do not agree evolution is a fact.

Your fulfilled prophecy is nothing more than wishful thinking.

That is your opinion, not a statement of proven fact. Just like your belief in evolution.

Unlike a faulty view of science, however, a faulty view of spiritual reality will land you in hell. So you better be right. A wise man would reflect earnestly on the claims of the Bible before writing them off as man-made nonsense.

But your are saying exactly this. The bible is the "proof" of your religous beliefs and you refuse to provide evidence that the bible is true other than your arguement from personal credulity. You then build your creationist beliefs on this blind faith and only then do you even consider looking for evidence which you do a poor (some would say deliberate) job of misrepresenting.

I say the evidence for the truth of the Bible is written clear in the hearts of everyman and declared in the marvellous complexity of nature. Conscience and nature speak to all; but some - like all on this list - have also had the privilege to hearing the gospel of Christ declared to them. You are much more without excuse than the heathen who have never heard.

The reason you continue to reject God and claim not to know how to tell if any religion or none is right, is that your innermost being is opposed to God and has suppressed His truth. That suppression is not complete, and conscience sometimes stirs fear that you must one day answer to Him.

I know that is true, for I was in the same position, as are all men and women.

So the bible is clear in justifying the sending of bears to eat children and the rape of women over the rape of men?

To eat ungodly rebels, yes. The giving of the woman to be raped was the action of a man, not something commanded by God.

If morality is a product of the bible then we would be living in a pretty nasty world.

We are living in a pretty ghastly world, and this is because man ignores the morality of the Bible.

I cannot find any logical reason to have a problem with gay people yet you seem to feel that these otherwise "normal" people are sinners in front of god because they may love each other for the sole reason that you found it in a book. You discriminate against homosexual people in defiance of logic.

Seems logical to me that a Christian should believe the same word that told him of God's offer of mercy to all who come to Him. If he believed the latter and has experienced this great salvation, why would he think it wrong about homosexuality?

You're lieing, evolution is based purely on rational arguements, this has been shown again and again. Creationism however ignores vast amounts of data that contradict its beliefs while using incorrect assumptions and misrepresented work to fit this so called evidence to a biblical conclusion.

That is exactly what creationists say about evolutionism.

Science is capable of putting its hands up and say this is wrong we need to ammend this theory creationism is only capable of saying oh the materialistic scientists got it wrong, hence god exists.

You just display your ignorance of what Creationism teaches. This can be read by anyone in the various sites, e.g., http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.creationresearch.org/
http://trueorigin.org/

No, science is capable of modifying or replacing the basic presupposition, creationism is not. Your will never hear a creationist claim to have found proof that god doesn't exist.

If we found proof that God did not exist, then of course we should believe it. As a Christian I know that can't happen - just as you and I know we are not figments of each others' imaginations. But hypothetically, we can speak of that possibility.

However (in your words) a "materialist" alternative theory to evolution by natural selection which explained life better than evolution would be the biggest scientific breakthrough possibly ever.

It should be warmly accepted. But the only likely one involves a Creator god, something materialists insist must be ruled out completely.

Some have tried to propose such theories and all have failed. Evolutionary theory has been modified quite a bit since Darwin, however the fundalmental concept of evolution by natural selection is still there because for the most part Darwin got it right.

Or it is there because the alternative is too unpalatable to sinful men.

Honest? Maybe, but I think this guy needs to talk to a psychologist. Just because one scientist undergoes a religous experience when suffering from the following symptoms (wikipedia)

Many Christians were converted at a moment of crisis in their lives. Often it takes that to grab our attention.

doesn't mean evolution is wrong and god exists:

I agree. He was just telling how it happened for him. My story is quite different.

All very nasty. If this guy was suffering from AIDS and he asked the almighty to save him and suddenly the HIV virus left his body then I would take notice. However he recovered from a relatively easily curable disease and hardly evidence of divine intervention.

I don't think it was told as proof of such, just as an explanation of how God brought him to faith.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

So you define this as a sexual relationship that can produce offspring.

Not wanting to quibble, but it is important to say that marriage is valid even if child-bearing is impossible.

What about asexual animals? Some lizards can essentially clone themselves by producing fully developed females from unfertilized eggs. Hypothetically it may even be possible for a sexual encounter between two female reptiles to trigger a female into producing such clones.

Good point. Primarily, the issue of male/female sexual conduct relates to mankind. The other male/female creatures have no requirement for fidelity. But the Bible clearly shows that sex is for one man/one woman in a permanent relationship of mutual love. Other creatures have various reproductive mechanisms.

Rather poor choice of analogy considering the two crashes recently in Asia.
The thing is tho, like religion airplanes are man made. However our rather recent accomplistment of powered flight have obvious and undeniable consequences when things go wrong. If an aircraft crashes it is true that it is likely people will die. You cannot say your superstition is true - you can't show the consequences of not following it.

But I can say so. That you choose not to believe it, is another matter. The natural consequences for disregarding the Bible on morality are evident all around. The eternal consequences are clearly foretold in the Bible, but will not be known until it is too late - just like the effect of the plane hitting the ground at 300mph, something that may be described in writing but is only truly known in the experience of it.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

You say the evidence supports your view better but you fail to show it. To believe that the universe was created mature 6000 years ago in the face of all the evidence to the contary is similar to a child believing milk comes from the supermarket.

Study the creationist material on the sites I recommended.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Frightening? Worse than knowing that I, and everyone I've ever loved, and everyone I will ever love, will all just end? That everyone who died is just dead, inanimate, no longer moving, like a dead dog in a ditch? That there's no-one in charge? That the wicked flourish, and the good die, and there's no balancing act? That anyone can just die, or be hurt, or be broken, and there's no reason, no redress, no complaint, no justice, because stuff just happens? That whole lives can be wasted because of a mistake, or the lack of a bit of luck, or the wrong decision, and there's no point?

Eternal punishment seems to me to be much worst than mere annihilation. At least the suffering ends in the atheist scenario.

But I'm glad you admit the stark reality of atheism. It can offer no justise, no meaning for our pain and suffering. The best it offers is some good times here then oblivion.

If there is a God to whom we all must render account, then even if I am damned, it will be hard for me to be truly unhappy, because I will know that there is a chance that someone I love has gone to Heaven, and because there will have actually been some point. No, it's not frightening, wolfsbane, it's a comforting idea, which is why you cling to it.

Eternal punishment has no consolations, Scofflaw. It is the place of eternal weeping.

If I am vehement, and I am, it's because bit by bit, stone by stone, science is out there building a picture of the universe, while you hide in your cupboard, waiting for your daddy and telling us we'll be sorry when he comes home.

The magnificent picture real science gives of the universe points to its infinitely magnificent Creator. You want to believe it all just came to be, despite what it cries of the Intelligent Designer. One of us is certainly hiding in a box of our own making. If you are right, I have denied myself a lot of easy pleasures. If I am right, you are enjoying the free-fall before impact.

wolfsbane

Asiaprod said:

Natural diseases spread by unnatural acts indicate the perversity of homosexual behavior. This is very confusing don't you think? Are you by any chance referring to AIDs which, correct me if I am wrong, came about as a result of the unnatural act of eating Monkey meat?

Diseases are themselves not natural - that is, not the way God created us in the beginning. But sin brought the conquences.

No, I was thinking more of hepatitis. But homosexual behaviour is mostly not one man/one man for life, but many partners. The usual STDs, including AIDS, follow from that.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

You want to believe it all just came to be, despite what it cries of the Intelligent Designer.

How does it cry of an intelligent designer?
You can't just say this stuff. Explain how and explain it properly, don't give a "because it is resplendent in its glory" type comment.

If you are right, I have denied myself a lot of easy pleasures. If I am right, you are enjoying the free-fall before impact.

Don't construct a false dichotomy. There is a million possibilities that are neither atheist nor fundamentalist Christian.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Diseases are themselves not natural - that is, not the way God created us in the beginning. But sin brought the conquences.

How did Sin create disease?

Could you fill in the missing steps in your underpants gnome-esque arguement:
1. Man sins.
2. ???????
3. Disease.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Eternal punishment seems to me to be much worst than mere annihilation. At least the suffering ends in the atheist scenario.

That assumes that life is suffering. You seem to suffer from a rather bleak view of both yourself and the world. You seem to find it an unpleasant place filled with evil and suffering - a vale of tears, in which you are an unworthy sinner....were you like this before your conversion, or was it Christianity that made you gloomy?

wolfsbane wrote:

But I'm glad you admit the stark reality of atheism. It can offer no justise, no meaning for our pain and suffering. The best it offers is some good times here then oblivion.

C'est la vie...I don't need someone else's meaning, thanks. I can work towards justice and meaning right here, right now. So could you.

wolfsbane wrote:

Eternal punishment has no consolations, Scofflaw. It is the place of eternal weeping.

Short of actually enforcing my misery by changing me into a different person, I still consider it better than simply being snuffed out.

wolfsbane wrote:

The magnificent picture real science gives of the universe points to its infinitely magnificent Creator. You want to believe it all just came to be, despite what it cries of the Intelligent Designer. One of us is certainly hiding in a box of our own making. If you are right, I have denied myself a lot of easy pleasures. If I am right, you are enjoying the free-fall before impact.

Alas, it only cries of an intelligent designer if you presume design. Also, if you're right, less than 0.0001% of all those who have ever lived will be going anywhere other than Hell. That's a very exclusive club, which I suspect I wouldn't be joining anyway...but enjoy your exclusivity by all means. After all, if I'm right, you'll never find out.

By the way, to suggest that all you're denying yourself is "a lot of easy pleasures" is to miss the mark by a mile. You are failing to make the most of this life while you wait for the next - and for all you believe, this life is definite, the next is not. In addition, you, and those like you, could make more of a contribution if you faced facts.

regards,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

ISAW said:

Indeed one could ask if one never read the Bible could one be a good christian. In fact Christ or the Apostles never read the Bible. Christ is only recorded in the Bible of writing something on one occasion.

This makes me think you have never read the Bible! The New Testament is full of Christ and the apostles quoting the Bible, e.g:
Matthew 12:3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?
Matthew 12:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
Acts 17:2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

I wonder what the early christians used for five centuries when they didnt have the Bible?

They had the Bible from the start. It consisted of the OT and then of the gospels and letters of the apostles as they were written. They recognised these as the word of God and refused to surrender them to be destroyed by the Roman authorities. Those who did hand them over were called 'traditores', from where we get the word 'traitors'.

I would dispute this. where does the Bible say homosexuality is evil?

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

How, since marriage doesn't exist in nature?

Last time I looked, mankind was part of nature.

There are no natural diseases spread by homosexual behaviour. The only diseases are spread by sexual behaviour, being homosexual makes little difference.

All sinful sexual behaviour exposes one to risk of disease. Homosexual sex has its particularly prevalent risks: hepatitis, AIDS, due to the nature of the sexual acts and to the lifestyle of most of its community.

Science.

Science tells you that homosexuality is not due to a perversion of heterosexual orientation, but as a specific and individual sexual orientation? And that is not just someone's assertion, but a proven fact? See fuller discussion in http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=630

Beastiality has nothing to do with homosexuality, and is actually not that common.

Just pointing out that other forms of sexuality could equally claim to be 'natural'. Sauce for the goose, if you'll pardon the pun.

And how is that a "proper" partner?

It is proper because that is how God made it to be. Anything else is improper.

The "facts" of the Bible are just your interpretation of it. For every fact you can find you can find something to counter it. It comes down to which parts you put special emphasis on and which you don't

Sure, there are things difficult to understand in the Bible, just as in science. But things like homosexuality are clear-cut, just like the law of equal and opposite force in science.

True, but then who says the portrait of God revealed in the Bible is an accurate portrait of the real God.

Leaving aside how Christians know the difference, my point is that one cannot be a Christian and not hold to the Bible as His word. If one holds the Bible as man-made and mixed with error, then one believes in a god other than the Biblical one.

As I said, there is only one God (if you believe in a God to start with).

That does not logically follow. There could be a million gods.

If the Bible is wrong that God still exists, His existance is not dependent on the people who wrote the Bible understanding Him properly

Yes, if the Bible is wrong, a god or gods may exist. Again, my point is one cannot honestly claim to be a Christian and hold to that.

But you don't know that. It is just your belief. My Christian friends would disagree in the extent that he revealed himself in the Bible. They believe that Jesus existed and that he was the living God. But they accept that the Bible is just humanities attempt to understand God, and as such is not without flaws and errors.

Aren't they being very illogical then? How can they know Jesus existed, or that He was the living God? If they base that on the Bible record, how can they tell it is not one of the errors they believe to be in the Bible? If it is just what they feel in their hearts, then they are believing in another God, another Jesus than the one declared in the Bible.

You don't have to. They believe that the men who wrote the Bible were attempting to weave their understanding of God around their own lives, just as people do today. Some people believe God instructs them to stand on street corners with signs that say "God Hates Fags". I'd imagine that 4000 years ago some believed exactly the same thing, and as such such silly morality found its way into the Bible. That does not mean God actually wants this.

Your friends are just as much non-Christians as the 'God hates fags' brigade. They both refuse to hear what the Bible teaches, and have made up their own morality.

No, it is the work of men attempting to understand the wishes of God, men who are fallable and who can make mistakes, just like the men of today.

How then can your friends be sure the God and Christ it reveals are not likewise the figments of men's imaginations?

Look at how many contradictions are present in the many branches of Christianity today. They can't all be correct, since so many parts conflict with others. Naturally some will be wrong. They are all trying to understand the wishes of God. It is natural to assume that the men that wrote the Bible were attempting to do exactly the same thing.

Many who call themselves Christian are not, for they deny the clear teaching of the Bible. Some true believers differ on some of the more difficult doctrines of the Bible, but they are sure on the fundamentals.

There is only one God wolfbane, He either exist or he doesn't. I think he would be a little insulted if you proclaimed that his existance is wholely dependent on the Bible.

No, but He is insulted when one calls Him a liar, by saying the word He claims is infallible is in fact erroneous.

Thats my point. If someone is touched by God through their conscience that is just as valid as if someone reads the Bible, is it not?

One needs to be sure it is conscience speaking, not our sinful heart. The only way to check is to compare it with what God has written:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Only if you assume the Bible is the air traffic control. If it is just a guy in a field with a walky talky telling you the airport is over there when you can clearly see it isn't, its over there, who are you going to believe, your own eyes or what some nut case in a field pretending to be the air traffic controller?

Exactly. The Bible is either God's air traffic control or it is the word of some nut cases. Your eternal destiny rests on the choice you make.

The Bible isn't the autopilot, ones conscience is the autopilot.

One's conscience will always agree with the Bible. One's evil heart will hear the whispers of Satan assuring you that all is well.

Well if you believe there are lots of different Gods out there that fine. Most people are monotheistic, they believe in one God, including my religous friends. I personally don't believe in any gods.

You and most of the rest of mankind will be in big trouble if you are mistaken about the One True God.

Is it not more likely that the conflicting part of the Bible is based on a mistake (not a lie, a genuine mistake)

How then can one be sure it is not the existence of God that is the mistake, rather than homosexuality as sin?

To them there is only one God wolfsbane. To them the Bible is simply an attempt by men of 4000 years ago to understand Him, just as people today struggle to understand Him.

I'm sure that is their position. It just makes them non-Christian.

You keep saying that if they don't accept the Bible as all correct they must reject God. You have it back to front. They believe in God, that bit comes first. Then they see that the Bible as an attempt to understand him, just as they attempt to understand Him. And as such it can be flawed, and make mistakes, just as people of today can be flawed and make mistakes.

They don't need to reject an god because their belief in God came before any ideas in the Bible. They would still believe in God if the Bible never existed. They don't believe in God because it was written in the Bible.

Yes, the god in whom they believe bears no relationship with the Bible. So they cannot claim it is the Christian God.

And you know the Bible is correct because....?

God has convinced me of it in my heart. That is how anyone becomes a Christian - they are born of God, given eyes to see the truth, hearts to believe in Him.

No, belief in Jesus is the definer of Christianity.

Not so. Many people believe He existed, as a prophet, a sage, a deceiver, whatever. That does not make them Christians. To truly believe in Jesus one must believe all that the Bible teaches about Him, e.g., He is God manifest in the flesh. One cannot pick and choose what to believe.

No I stated that the notion of love is not the reason for marriage in the Old Testment. Marriage in the old testement is about property and economics.

When Christ spoke of the first man and wife, property and economics were not mentioned. A suitable companion, bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh, characterised Adam and Eve, and marriage is referred to as two becoming one flesh. Not one property. And your objection was that Christ had used the OT.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Let's dispose of a pretension of yours. You don't actually want science to "consider the supernatural". You want science to consider your specific supernatural explanation, and have no interest in any other, because you believe them to be wrong, and yours to be right.

I'm happy for science to consider any specific supernatural explanation. Most will of course be as silly as the materialistic evolution one, but that's OK.

It is evidence we should look for, before ruling out possible causes. If science were only the domain of Christians, then we could dispense with looking elsewhere, as we already have the truth. But science is open to all, and it is therefore necessary for unbelievers to have an open approach if they are to find the truth.

Unfortunately, you are in a minority sect of a single religion, so I can't see how your supernatural explanation has to be considered any more than the next one. I know, you say you're right. And so does the sect next to you, and the religion next to them. None of you have any less certainty than the others, and none of you have any scientific proof. Until you've sorted out your differences, why should science pick one of your many competing explanations to give greater adherence to? Particularly since there is nothing whatsoever stopping you from carrying on scientific research according to your own world model.

If only mainstream scientists would agree, and dispense with their materialistic presuppositions. Let us all look at the evidence before us and see what it suggests about origins. Don't give any more credence to one origins idea or the other - see which best fits the evidence.

So, let us know when Creation Science creates something useful, like a prayer-powered car, won't you?

Just like Evolutionary Science creating a car from nothing? Or a perpetual motion machine?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

The YEC claim is that basically every date that has ever been established to be over 10,000 years old in the last 200 years is a mistake. Which is a bit of an illogical and silly claim. If they are all a mistake then how come independent dating of objects or events give similar dates?

But do they?
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/radiometric.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I meant to comment on this earlier. Again, while what is claimed appears to be science, it is not. The predictions made are (a) not unique to Creationism, and therefore cannot be used to test it, (b) are so vaguely stated as to be almost impossible to disprove, and (c) are not derived from the Biblical account except in the most indirect way.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/physics.asp

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Last time I looked, mankind was part of nature.

Ok, but that is kinda like saying atomic weapons are a part of nature, and bio-chemical weapons are a part of nature.

Humans invented marriage, it is a produce of our higher intelliect. It is not a naturally occuring phenomona.

wolfsbane wrote:

All sinful sexual behaviour exposes one to risk of disease.

So does non-sinful sexual behaviour.

It is quite possible to contract a diease through non-sexual contact that is then passed on through sexual contact. Cold sores are the herpes virus except in the mouth. Once passed to a sexual organ (i'll leave how that happens to your imagination) it is herpes, a treatable but uncureable sexual transmitted infection.

Behaviour, sinful or not, sexual or not, exposes one to risk of disease.

wolfsbane wrote:

Homosexual sex has its particularly prevalent risks: hepatitis, AIDS, due to the nature of the sexual acts and to the lifestyle of most of its community.

That theory has been long debunked wolfsbane, as the spread of HIV in Christian African countries demonstrates. If anything the "lifestyle" of openness and willingness to discuss sexual matters has greatly decreased the risk modern gay men have of catching HIV, while the unwillingness of heterosexual people, particularly in countries with more fundamentalist christian beliefs, to discuss matters of sex has greatly increased the risk.

wolfsbane wrote:

Science tells you that homosexuality is not due to a perversion of heterosexual orientation, but as a specific and individual sexual orientation?

Yes

wolfsbane wrote:

Just pointing out that other forms of sexuality could equally claim to be 'natural'. Sauce for the goose, if you'll pardon the pun.

They could. Paedophiles often claim that their orientation is natural. I've no problem with that. You are missing the point of why certain sexual behaviour is considered harmful. A paedopile is not harmful to society unless he harms children. A normal homosexual harms no one, so I see no problem with the orientation.

wolfsbane wrote:

It is proper because that is how God made it to be. Anything else is improper.

As I've explained, God made homosexuals.

wolfsbane wrote:

Sure, there are things difficult to understand in the Bible, just as in science. But things like homosexuality are clear-cut, just like the law of equal and opposite force in science.

Aparently not, as ISAW seems to believe the Bible does not teach that homosexuality is wrong.

wolfsbane wrote:

Leaving aside how Christians know the difference, my point is that one cannot be a Christian and not hold to the Bible as His word.

Says who?

wolfsbane wrote:

If one holds the Bible as man-made and mixed with error, then one believes in a god other than the Biblical one.

I would not put it quite llike that. I would phrase it more as One believes the Biblical description of the one true God is possibly in error The god doesn't change, but what you believe He wants does.

wolfsbane wrote:

That does not logically follow. There could be a million gods.

Thats a rather funny thing for a Christian to claim ..... ?

wolfsbane wrote:

Again, my point is one cannot honestly claim to be a Christian and hold to that.

Again, says who? My Christian friends would say that they believe Jesus was the son of God, that they believe in his message, as presented by parts of the Bible.

Put it this way, I've never met Gandai, and I don't believe everything that was ever written about him was a perfectly accurate portait of him. Does that mean I can't believe he existed, or believe in his message of peaceful resistance?

The requirement to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus and believe in his message for the people of Earth. It is not to believe that the accounts of his life or even his message were prefectly recorded.

wolfsbane wrote:

How can they know Jesus existed, or that He was the living God?

They don't know. They believe. How do you know? You don't know, you believe also

The only difference between them and you is that you take the Bibles accounts as perfect, where as they don't assume that. Anymore than I assume everything I read about Gandai was prefect. It doesn't need to be for me to get his over all message.

wolfsbane wrote:

They both refuse to hear what the Bible teaches, and have made up their own morality.

They would claim God has made up their mind on morality.

wolfsbane wrote:

How then can your friends be sure the God and Christ it reveals are not likewise the figments of men's imaginations?

They can't. They believe He wasn't, probably because they believe in His message of peace.

How can you be sure?

wolfsbane wrote:

No, but He is insulted when one calls Him a liar, by saying the word He claims is infallible is in fact erroneous.

You call Him a lair when you claim the Bible is His word, when the Bible is clearly so wrong on so many things. Under your logic God is either lying in the Bible or lying in nature, since the two don't match.

wolfsbane wrote:

One needs to be sure it is conscience speaking, not our sinful heart. The only way to check is to compare it with what God has written

Thats not the only way, and it is a little troubling that you would believe it is.

wolfsbane wrote:

Your eternal destiny rests on the choice you make.

Only if you make the wrong one. So do you not think you should use a bit more than blind illogical faith to decide, as my friends do?

wolfsbane wrote:

One's conscience will always agree with the Bible.

Thats not true. I would be very worried if I met someone today that believed its ok to rape women so long as you compensate the father, or that slavery is justificable so long as you are a Hewbrew.

wolfsbane wrote:

You and most of the rest of mankind will be in big trouble if you are mistaken about the One True God.

Who says my friends are? How do you know you are not mistaken?

(I personally don't believe in God, so I'm pretty much screwed no matter what form God takes).

wolfsbane wrote:

How then can one be sure it is not the existence of God that is the mistake, rather than homosexuality as sin?

Because God commanding homosexuality a sin makes no sense, where as men from the time of the Bible commanding homosexual as wrong does, just as men of this time do.

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm sure that is their position. It just makes them non-Christian.

To be a Christian one has to believe in Christ. They believe in Christ.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, the god in whom they believe bears no relationship with the Bible. So they cannot claim it is the Christian God.

Believing in a perfect Bible is not a requirement to being a Chrisitan, anymore than believing in the New York Times is a requirement to believing in Gandai's message.

wolfsbane wrote:

God has convinced me of it in my heart.

Fair enough, not much point arguing with that.

Saying that my friends would say that God has convinced them in their heart and emotions that believing something like homosexuality is wrong and sinful is incorrect, and such a belief is in fact wrong.

wolfsbane wrote:

To truly believe in Jesus one must believe all that the Bible teaches about Him

Thats not true. Any more than to believe in someone like Gandai I have to believe everything that was ever written about him.

It is perfectly possible wolfbane to bring a bit of common sense to study of the Bible. They Bible was written by men attempting to understand God and Jesus. Naturally men are fallable, and will make mistakes. That doesn't mean they are lies.

wolfsbane wrote:

He is God manifest in the flesh. One cannot pick and choose what to believe.

They believe what God instructs them in their heart is right, as do you. You have choosen to believe the Bible over say the Quar'an. You claim God has instructed you that this is the correct choice. The same princple applies to my Christian friends. They know, deep down in their emotions, that a lot of what the Bible teaches is wrong, and parts are even hateful. God instructs them, through their conscience, to ignore these parts as the mistakes of misguide men.

wolfsbane wrote:

When Christ spoke of the first man and wife, property and economics were not mentioned.

Then Christ need to read the OT a bit better, its all there in black and white

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm happy for science to consider any specific supernatural explanation. Most will of course be as silly as the materialistic evolution one, but that's OK.

Well, the materialistic evolution one works, you see, without requiring any intervention. I don't see why any of the others would be in any way silly, as such - there's nothing inherently more ridiculous about the world being created out of the body of a dead giant than any other supernatural explanation.

wolfsbane wrote:

It is evidence we should look for, before ruling out possible causes. If science were only the domain of Christians, then we could dispense with looking elsewhere, as we already have the truth. But science is open to all, and it is therefore necessary for unbelievers to have an open approach if they are to find the truth.

There is no meaningful evidence that can prove the supernatural, because there is no limit to what the supernatural can do. Any piece of evidence can equally well be explained as the work of a supernatural entity (eg "tiny invisible demons are responsible for what appears to us to be erosion - so that the rate and form of erosion depends entirely on the humour of the demons") as by materialistic cause and effect.

It is simply not possible to disprove any of these explanations - for example, I would like you to disprove the one I suggest (invisible demons do all the work of erosion).

So, to make this point for the nth time - the supernatural lacks all explanatory force. It tells us nothing useful, because what God decided to do here may have no relation to what God decided to do somewhere else.

Even Creationists implicitly recognise this - they seek naturalistic explanations for the work of God - that is, they ascribe a naturalistic mechanism such as water-borne sorting to explain how fossils are layered, whereas it is quite sufficient to say that God chose to have it that way, for reasons that he did not choose to make known.

wolfsbane wrote:

If only mainstream scientists would agree, and dispense with their materialistic presuppositions. Let us all look at the evidence before us and see what it suggests about origins. Don't give any more credence to one origins idea or the other - see which best fits the evidence.

They're not testable. The Biblical account seems testable, but it doesn't require that the mechanisms actually be scientifically testable (because God can do anything), so it's not really testable.

Look at it this way. The Bible doesn't mention heaps of stranded fish after the flood waters receded, whereas any natural flood does strand fish. You might infer from this that the floodwaters receded very slowly (although even if that is the case, fish still get stranded in pools that become puddles), or you might conclude that God tidied up, possibly out of regret, or you mght conclude that they simply weren't mentioned. Which one is true? We don't know, and can't know.

wolfsbane wrote:

Just like Evolutionary Science creating a car from nothing? Or a perpetual motion machine?

Well, the latter are unscientific, and the former evolved....what were you offering as an example of the triumphs of Creation Science?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Wicknight said:

But do they?
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/radiometric.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

Yeah they do ... as those links show ... not really following the point?

"Contrary to the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the Earth is millions of years old. The vast age has simply been assumed.2 The calculated radiometric ‘ages’ depend on the assumptions that are made. The results are only accepted if they agree with what is already believed."

While the quality and accuracy of the analytical work undertaken by all the laboratories involved is unquestionably respected, all the calculated ‘ages’ are mere interpretations based on unproven assumptions about constancy of radioactive decay rates, and on the geochemical behaviour of these elements (and their isotopes) in the unobservable past.

It is of course nonsense, the "assumptions" are based on sound, tested, and well understood scientific theory, and independent testing have been used to prove the assumptions are correct. If you test a object in 10 different ways and 9 ways come up with the exact same answer you can be pretty sure the 9 tests are working correctly, and the inital assumptions you made are in fact correct.

robindch

> I'm happy for science to consider any specific supernatural explanation.

Out of interest -- if you brought your car down to your mechanic and he said that the clunking sound was caused by bad spirits, would you be happy with that explanation?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/physics.asp

OK, wolfsbane, I've read it. Essentially, Humphreys agrees with himself, and the ICR interviewer thinks he's great. That's nice, but I fail to see how it applies.

The predictions he made remain vague, alternately explicable, and derived from Genesis in a vague and easily disclaimed manner. How would an interview change that?

I've said this before, but....it is perfectly possible to explain the entire world as God's creation, completed 6000 years ago, and examine every piece of evidence and find that to be true. I don't, and can't, deny that this is so. It is perfectly possible for God to have created the world, as it now appears, at any point. So this remains entirely plausible as an explanation of the world.

Science is an alternative explanation, not involving the supernatural. It works too. Nearly everyone uses it, because it has far more explanatory and predictive power in the material world than the alternatives. It has no spiritual value, nor any pretensions to such, but is entirely plausible as an explanation of the world. I know you don't accept that, but you're in a tiny minority.

What is not possible is to combine the two explanations - they are alternatives, arising from different assumptions that are entirely incompatible. Science assumes materialism, Creationism assumes God - these are opposites, as you keep pointing out. Science does not work without its assumptions, and Creationism does not work without its assumptions - science and Creationism therefore cannot be combined.

I can only presume that you are actually scared that a materialistic explanation of the world works, because fundamentally you're a reasonable person, and you know that means that God is not necessary. But it is not necessary for God to be necessary.


cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I think the Creationist "answer" to this is that all imperfections are the result of the Fall.

Correct.

Now, I'll grant you when God said to Adam "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread until you return to the earth, from which you were taken, because earth you are and to earth you shall return", the Bible does not record him as saying "and also your descendants shall suffer genetic imperfections, and rhesus babies, and apparently vestigial organs, and a general downgrading over the years that will in fact get worse as time goes by, so that the further removed from the sin the worse the effects".

There's a question - Creationists have repeatedly referred to the idea that not only were imperfections introduced by the Fall, but that they have increased since then, as if this were a given. Where does this have Biblical standing?

The Bible tells us that God made everything perfect and that suffering and death only came after the Fall.
Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

The Bible gives the origin of death - sin and God's judgement on it. That that was worked out in suffering, deformities, disorganization in man and nature rather than just a sudden zap at the end of your alloted span, it doesn't elaborate on. That is the record it gives of what happened after the Fall.

That it has increased in severity is recorded, man's lifespan dropping from the 900 mark pre-Flood to the 70 mark post-Flood. There is no explanation given (as far as I am aware) so Christians speculate it must be related to the conditions after the Flood. Modern discoveries give us grounds to suspect genetic degrading due to increased exposure to solar radiation.

Diogenes

wolfsbane wrote:

Modern discoveries give us grounds to suspect genetic degrading due to increased exposure to solar radiation.

I'm sorry what? What modern discovery suggests that humanity used to have a 700 year old plus life span, but was reduced due to increased exposure to solar radiation?

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

How does it cry of an intelligent designer?
You can't just say this stuff. Explain how and explain it properly, don't give a "because it is resplendent in its glory" type comment.

How can one describe beauty and majesty? Let me just say how nature spoke to me, pointing me on my way to seek after the One who made it all.

It began when as a lad of 11 or 12 I first lay out at night looking at the stars. I knew the naturalistic explanation, but something made me feel that was not enough. When I looked at particularly spectacular appearances of the Moon, or the Sun in a vivid sunset/sunrise, that too spoke to me. The more I took in of life, the more I knew there was someone behind it, even when I was not happy about that knowledge - I knew it would make demands of me.

Looking into the eyes of a pet dog; into the eyes of a loving parent, all this told me we were more than intelligent chemicals.

You say you don't see this. The Bible says you do, but are suppressing that knowledge because you don't want to serve the God it reveals.

Don't construct a false dichotomy. There is a million possibilities that are neither atheist nor fundamentalist Christian.

I was dealing with Scofflaw's and mine. Some of the others would put me in hell or back here again as an evolutionist . But if mine is true, then all I said for Scofflaw applies to everyone except the true Christian.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

How did Sin create disease?

Could you fill in the missing steps in your underpants gnome-esque arguement:
1. Man sins.
2. ???????
3. Disease.

Sure.
Man sins.
God sentences him to death.
God causes benign organisms to attack all life, bringing suffering and death.

Hope that doesn't give you a wedgie.:)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

The Bible tells us that God made everything perfect and that suffering and death only came after the Fall.
Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

The Bible gives the origin of death - sin and God's judgement on it. That that was worked out in suffering, deformities, disorganization in man and nature rather than just a sudden zap at the end of your alloted span, it doesn't elaborate on. That is the record it gives of what happened after the Fall.

That it has increased in severity is recorded, man's lifespan dropping from the 900 mark pre-Flood to the 70 mark post-Flood. There is no explanation given (as far as I am aware) so Christians speculate it must be related to the conditions after the Flood. Modern discoveries give us grounds to suspect genetic degrading due to increased exposure to solar radiation.

So, just the record of the lifespan of the Biblical patriarchs? And the recent increase in life expectancy means what then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

That assumes that life is suffering. You seem to suffer from a rather bleak view of both yourself and the world. You seem to find it an unpleasant place filled with evil and suffering - a vale of tears, in which you are an unworthy sinner....were you like this before your conversion, or was it Christianity that made you gloomy?

On the contrary, I find much to rejoice in. The food, shelter, family, job, music, etc. Not to speak of the greater joy in knowing God.

But life brings sorrow and suffering too. Many of our fellowmen know hardship we have never experienced. When one is faced with that and no possibility of it getting better, the Christian has a reason to go on. The logical thing for the atheist is to end it all.

Even life itself has a guarantee of death at the end, often involving indignities and suffering. Why does the atheist bother? Why should he not his quietus make with a bare bodkin?

C'est la vie...I don't need someone else's meaning, thanks. I can work towards justice and meaning right here, right now.

Yours can only be delusional, if all we are is intelligent chemicals.

By the way, to suggest that all you're denying yourself is "a lot of easy pleasures" is to miss the mark by a mile. You are failing to make the most of this life while you wait for the next - and for all you believe, this life is definite, the next is not. In addition, you, and those like you, could make more of a contribution if you faced facts.

Making the most of a pointless life? The best would be hedonism. There would be no place for compassion, justise, etc.

But the latter are the things Christians have sacrificed even their lives for. Their choice makes sense, of course, if Christianity is true. For the atheist to endure hardship for the sake of others makes no sense - just shows how subconsciously he knows better.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:

Sure.
Man sins.
God sentences him to death.
God causes benign organisms to attack all life, bringing suffering and death.

Hope that doesn't give you a wedgie.:)

Holy ****! That's a bit agressive isn't it?
However can you actually show that the above sequence of events is truthful using the scientific method?

How can one describe beauty and majesty? Let me just say how nature spoke to me, pointing me on my way to seek after the One who made it all.

It began when as a lad of 11 or 12 I first lay out at night looking at the stars. I knew the naturalistic explanation, but something made me feel that was not enough. When I looked at particularly spectacular appearances of the Moon, or the Sun in a vivid sunset/sunrise, that too spoke to me. The more I took in of life, the more I knew there was someone behind it, even when I was not happy about that knowledge - I knew it would make demands of me.

Your reasons are poetic and emotive. This is not scientific reasoning. Another person could come to the conclusion that the universe was created by a team of Gods, as it is so complex and varied. You have no evidence-based reason to conclude this.
However even going by emotive standards, you still haven't explained yourself. Why did you feel it wasn't enough? You haven't shown any reasoning.

You say you don't see this. The Bible says you do, but are suppressing that knowledge because you don't want to serve the God it reveals.

I don't see it because from studying physics, I think that the universe has too much freedom in how it could have ended up as it did. Everything follows from the level beneath it and the deeper you go the more tightly it is constrained. I can't see anywhere to put design and I've actually tried on occasion just to see if I could, as a mental exercise.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Ok, but that is kinda like saying atomic weapons are a part of nature, and bio-chemical weapons are a part of nature.

Humans invented marriage, it is a produce of our higher intelliect. It is not a naturally occuring phenomona.

The examples you give are of man-made things. Marriage was God-made. It was the way He made us to be.

So does non-sinful sexual behaviour.

It is quite possible to contract a diease through non-sexual contact that is then passed on through sexual contact. Cold sores are the herpes virus except in the mouth. Once passed to a sexual organ (i'll leave how that happens to your imagination) it is herpes, a treatable but uncureable sexual transmitted infection.

Behaviour, sinful or not, sexual or not, exposes one to risk of disease.

I agree. Crossing the road can lead to injury - but doing so without looking is a much riskier activity. Same with proper sex and perverted sex.

That theory has been long debunked wolfsbane, as the spread of HIV in Christian African countries demonstrates. If anything the "lifestyle" of openness and willingness to discuss sexual matters has greatly decreased the risk modern gay men have of catching HIV, while the unwillingness of heterosexual people, particularly in countries with more fundamentalist christian beliefs, to discuss matters of sex has greatly increased the risk.

To my knowledge, it is not fundamentalists who are at greatest risk. It is those who sleep around. (Not their faithful partners, of course, who get infected by their unfaithful spouses). The 'Christian' African countries contain millions of those who sleep around - something not on the Christian agenda.

Do you really think it is ignorance of the cause of AIDs that accounts for its spread? Or the cause of lung cancer in smokers? Or pregnancy among unmarried girls? It is the willingness to take the risk to get the pleasure.

Yes

Others would question your scientific certainly as to the causes of homosexuality.

They could. Paedophiles often claim that their orientation is natural. I've no problem with that. You are missing the point of why certain sexual behaviour is considered harmful. A paedopile is not harmful to society unless he harms children. A normal homosexual harms no one, so I see no problem with the orientation.

So you would have no trouble with paedophiles publishing novels of their fantasies, so long as they did not act them out? Or of them arguing for legalisation of consentual sex with under12s? Or making animated movies of paedophilia?

As I've explained, God made homosexuals.

Only if He made murderers, thieves, etc.

Aparently not, as ISAW seems to believe the Bible does not teach that homosexuality is wrong.

ISAW seems not to have read the Bible.

Son Goku

Son Goku wrote:

Holy ****! That's a bit agressive isn't it?

I had to laugh.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Says who?

Logic says one cannot be a Christian and reject the teachings of the book that reveals what Christianity is.

I would not put it quite llike that. I would phrase it more as One believes the Biblical description of the one true God is possibly in error The god doesn't change, but what you believe He wants does.

He is therefore not the god of the Bible, so not the Christian God.

Thats a rather funny thing for a Christian to claim ..... ?

I was using your logic. In fact, this discussion seems to be bogged down not so much in our disagreements, but in your lack of logic.

Again, says who? My Christian friends would say that they believe Jesus was the son of God, that they believe in his message, as presented by parts of the Bible.

What logical reason can they have for doing so?

Put it this way, I've never met Gandai, and I don't believe everything that was ever written about him was a perfectly accurate portait of him. Does that mean I can't believe he existed, or believe in his message of peaceful resistance?

You can't then describe yourself as a Ghandian. If you reject the only documents that set out his teachings, you only believe in a Ghandi of your own imagination.

The requirement to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus and believe in his message for the people of Earth. It is not to believe that the accounts of his life or even his message were prefectly recorded.

You cannot say you believe in His message and then say it may be erroneous in parts. Logic, my friend, logic.

They don't know. They believe. How do you know? You don't know, you believe also

That is the difference in real Christianity and the nominal sort. Christians do know. God has revealed it to them in His word and confirmed it to them by His Spirit.

The only difference between them and you is that you take the Bibles accounts as perfect, where as they don't assume that. Anymore than I assume everything I read about Gandai was prefect. It doesn't need to be for me to get his over all message.

If you reduce Christianity to 'love your neighbour as yourself', or some other single truth, you make Judaism Christian. Or any other religion that also teaches that truth. Christianity involves believing all that the Bible clearly teaches about God, and not picking and choosing what doctrines to believe.

They would claim God has made up their mind on morality.

Not the god of the Bible, obviously, not the Christian God.

They can't. They believe He wasn't, probably because they believe in His message of peace.

How can you be sure?

True Christians are so because God gives them this knowledge by His word and Spirit.

You call Him a lair when you claim the Bible is His word, when the Bible is clearly so wrong on so many things. Under your logic God is either lying in the Bible or lying in nature, since the two don't match.

If your reading of nature were true, the Bible would be a lie. But you are the one in error.

Thats not the only way, and it is a little troubling that you would believe it is.

Your have another way of checking if it is conscience speaking?

Only if you make the wrong one. So do you not think you should use a bit more than blind illogical faith to decide, as my friends do?

My faith is not blind or illogical. That's the point. You have admitted your friends operate on blind faith, that they don't know for sure. Real Christians do know for sure.

Thats not true. I would be very worried if I met someone today that believed its ok to rape women so long as you compensate the father, or that slavery is justificable so long as you are a Hewbrew.

What makes you think that Israelites under the Law did not have qualms of conscience about things God tolerated? Christ made it clear that some things were allowed under the Law that were against His will. I'm sure their consciences reminded them of some of this.

Who says my friends are? How do you know you are not mistaken?

God tells me otherwise.

Because God commanding homosexuality a sin makes no sense, where as men from the time of the Bible commanding homosexual as wrong does, just as men of this time do.

If He made us as He said, then it makes perfect sense. Logic again.

To be a Christian one has to believe in Christ. They believe in Christ.

The Devil believes in Christ. Does that make him a Christian?

Believing in a perfect Bible is not a requirement to being a Chrisitan, anymore than believing in the New York Times is a requirement to believing in Gandai's message.

The New York Times is not the only source of Ghandi's teachings. If it were, and claimed to be his message, then to say it is full of errors would be to deny the revealed Ghandi. You would have a Ghandi of your own imagination.

Saying that my friends would say that God has convinced them in their heart and emotions that believing something like homosexuality is wrong and sinful is incorrect, and such a belief is in fact wrong.

They would have to have some support for that before calling it Christian. The only support that would be determining would be the Bible. The historic teaching of the Church would be a secondary authority. Both of these condemn homosexuality.

Thats not true. Any more than to believe in someone like Gandai I have to believe everything that was ever written about him.

See above on the source of teaching on Christ.

It is perfectly possible wolfbane to bring a bit of common sense to study of the Bible. They Bible was written by men attempting to understand God and Jesus. Naturally men are fallable, and will make mistakes. That doesn't mean they are lies.

Yes, if it is the work of men, then honest mistakes would play a part. Just that we would have no reason to believe any of it, in that case. Especially as it claims to be the infallible word of God. If it is not, then it is just a delusion at best.

They believe what God instructs them in their heart is right, as do you. You have choosen to believe the Bible over say the Quar'an. You claim God has instructed you that this is the correct choice. The same princple applies to my Christian friends. They know, deep down in their emotions, that a lot of what the Bible teaches is wrong, and parts are even hateful. God instructs them, through their conscience, to ignore these parts as the mistakes of misguide men.

OK, their God is not the God revealed in the Bible. He is one who has maybe something said of him in the Bible, but the real information is that which they find in their hearts. I'm sure that varies from person to person, so they each have a god differing from all the others.

Christians have the God of the Bible.

Then Christ need to read the OT a bit better, its all there in black and white

Show me where He was wrong, where marriage originated not as He described but as you did.

J C

Scofflaw
Letter publication is not peer-review, JC.
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp
In the following quote the editor of the Journal is quite frank in his opinion:-

“I'm torn by your request to submit a (thoughtful) response to critics of your non-evolutionary (ID) theory for the origin of complexity. On the one hand I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy, and I think it is counterproductive. But on the other hand we have fixed page limits for each month's issue, and there are many more good submissions than we can accept. So, your unorthodox theory would have to displace something that would be extending the current paradigm.”
I agree with the Editor that the rejection of a thoughtful letter by a highly qualified and distinguished conventional scientist like Dr Behe is indeed counter productive.
Indeed I know of many fair-minded Evolutionists who believe that ID should be scientifically examined – and not rejected a priori.

Could I suggest that the Journal concerned should have published the letter and a further response to the letter, if it felt there were any inaccuracies in it.


Scofflaw
How convenient to have a God who forgives those things you cannot forgive yourself for.
What a friend we have in Jesus!!!
Jesus Christ looks after our every need – including our need for the forgiveness of sin.
That is actually the Good News of Salvation, after all !!


Originally Posted by Prof Francis Collins, Scientific Director of the US Human Genome Project
Another issue, however—one where I am very puzzled about what the answer will be—is the origin of life. Four billion years ago, the conditions on this planet were completely inhospitable to life as we know it; 3.85 billion years ago, life was teeming. That is a very short period—150 million years—for the assembly of macromolecules into a self-replicating form. I think even the most bold and optimistic proposals for the origin of life fall well short of achieving any real probability for that kind of event having occurred. Is this where God entered? Is this how life got started?
Scofflaw
He may not think much of current proposals about the origin of life, but I'm afraid Prof Collins is that terribly tedious thing - a mainstream Christian

I too am a 'mainstream Christian' – and I don’t find it to be in the least tedious!!!

I’d say that Prof Collins doubts about current Evolutionary explanations for the origins of life are very well founded!!

Scofflaw
No - it's a "statement" - you know, of position. I know you do have that sort of thing confused with presentation of scientific data, but not everyone does.

Far be it for me to tell Evolutionists how to further their cause – but don’t you think that a ‘statement on the validity of evolution’ would carry more weight if it provided some scientific evidence for such a position?

Of course, the fact that this evidence DOESN’T exist may have been somewhat of a constraint to providing it.


Scofflaw
Your claims are now so wide as to be unsupportable by anyone but a top-range polymath

A “top-range polymath” no less!!

You will give me a ‘big head’ if you keep going on like that Scofflaw!!!

I thank you for the generosity of your praise though – and I accept it with humility!!!:o


5uspect
See here for citations of scientific work that shows increase in complexity due to mutation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

And see here for peer reviewed scientific proof that mutations DON’T increase information and AREN’T consistent with neo Darwinian Theory
http://trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp


5uspect
Large macro mutations are nearly always detrimental, but not always. They are not the main driving force behind evolution but may have played a somewhat larger role before the evolution of sexual reproduction

Information is the virtual expression of INTELLIGENCE using an encoded language that is capable of being decoded by the recipient.
Both computer code and DNA code are examples of purposeful information.
The fact remains that ALL ultimate sources of information that have been identified, have been observed to be intelligent.
Where the source has been identified, the quality of the intelligence applied is also always observed to be directly proportional to the quality of the resultant information created.

The source of the purposeful information in living systems HASN’T been identified by Science but it is of such an effectively infinite quality (as indicated by the enormous complexity and density of the information in living systems) as to be of God.

Mutations DON’T produce new additional genetic information – which is the critical problem that must be explained by all ‘origins’ theories.