PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Why Scientific Creationism?
       Science and Faith?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If someone wants to belive that the Bible is literally true, and ignore what science says, then their beliefs are, at least, internally consistant.  Why then do people feel the need to use science to try to confirm what is really an issue of faith?  Despite some arguments I've seen here there is really no way to reconcile science and a literal interpretation of the Bible.  Why do people feel the need to try?  What's wrong with saying "These are the beliefs, which I accept on failth", rather then using, or more likely mis-using, science in an attempt to justify them?
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 3:05 PM on April 26, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Exactly.  I have no problem with people saying "this is what I believe".  I do, however, have a problem with people saying "this is a fact.  Look at the evidence!"  And then presenting a mish mash of bad science, out of context quotes, and picking and choosing which facts best support their position, then railing against the S.S.C. when they are shown to be mistaken.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:13 PM on April 26, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do some christians feel the need to give up what they believe to accomodate a lost and dying world in need of salvation?  To be accepted?  To be included?

By even asking such a question, Kronus, it demonstrates you do not believe that what the Bible says is true.  

Jam 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,  
Jam 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?  
Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.  

This demonstrates a concept.  Saying you believe something is meaningless if your actions demonstrate otherwise.  It goes on to say:

Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.  
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.  

For a Christian or 'creationist' to profess belief in God, then in practical life demonstrate otherwise would truely be (as you say) "internally inconsistant".  Are our beliefs defined by what we say we believe, or by what we demonstrate we believe by our actions.

Jesus tells a parable about two brothers.  Their father asks the first if he will go and work in the field.  He says he will not.  The father asks the 2nd if he will go work, and he quickly agrees to go work.  The father walks away.  The first son, reconsiders and decides to go work even though he had said he would not.  The 2nd, who said he would work reconsiders and decides not to help.  Jesus asks - which of these two did the right thing?  Everyone says the first son... the one who went and did as his father had asked.  Jesus replies that they should go and do likewise.  

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.  

Here is what christians call 'the great commission'.  However, it is important to point out that it doesn't say 'to every person'.  It says to every creature.  The Greek word ktisis is the word used for creature.  The Bible uses this word frequently in Genesis in the account of the creation week.  This is a direct link between Genesis and the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John (the Biblical account of Jesus' life, words, etc) which is the basis of all christianity.  It also gives us a 'big picture' of what Jesus' work on the earth accomplished - the gospel (which literally means good news) is for every living thing on the planet - as every living thing was effected by the original sin of Adam.  

It is also interesting that the Greek word Ktisis litterall means:

1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
     a) the act of creating, creation
     b) creation i.e. thing created
     c) institution, ordinance

There is a clear link between the New Testament, Jesus, the gospel (good news) and the account of creation in Genesis.  And we are all commissioned, as christians, to tell everyone of this good news.  

If you look at this in a less spiritual, and more practical way - it can be said that a Christian is just as curious to answer the questions about the world in which we live as anyone else.  We see the wonders of the earth and we interpret them in the context of what we already know about the universe (what the Bible tells us is true).  It is not necessary for us to believe, but it is fascinating to know the answers.

More Bible verses to explain us pesky creationists:

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.  
2Cr 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.  
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.





 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:30 PM on April 26, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

once again, believe what you want, but do not argue that the scientific evidence supports your religous view


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:12 PM on April 26, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 5:30 PM on April 26, 2004 :
For a Christian or 'creationist' to profess belief in God, then in practical life demonstrate otherwise would truely be (as you say) "internally inconsistant".


Well, actually I didn't say that at all, but we'll let that pass for now.  

If I understand the gist of what you're saying, it's that faith must be coupled with acts, or it's meaningless.  Fine, I have no problem with that.  You also say that it's the duty of the faithful to proclaim their faith.  Again, no problem.

What I do have a problem with is that neither of these two points address my question: "Why science?"  According to your own quotes, living a life consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible and sharing your views with others is what the Bible requires.  Why do you, you specifically Gup, since you're the first creationist to answer, use science to try to prove your faith?  If you have faith, then you know it, and don't need "proof."  As it says in 2 Corinthians 13:5, "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to you faith. Test yourself."  Faith is internal, not external.  If you need to prove it, it's not faith at all.

By the way, you may want to brush up on your Bible studies a bit.  Genesis was written in Hebrew, not Greek.  The parable is of two brothers and a vineyard, not a field.  And Jesus does not reply "Go and do likewise", which is from Luke 10:37, but rather (Matt 22:31), "Which of the two did the will of his father? The said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlogs go into the kindom of God before you."  And your quote from Thessalonians was a fragment; the full quote is as follows:
1 Thes 5:19-22, Do not quench the spirit, do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good, abstain from every form of evil.
It's generally considered improper to only quote a few words from the middle of a sentence, and it's definately wrong to change the capitalization and punctuation of a quote to make it fit your purposes.



 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 9:39 PM on April 26, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem with expousing a young earth creation viewpoint using science is you are in effect seeking justification/support for a matter of faith in observational science.

Science should not comment on matters of faith as it does not concern itself with such matters. When was the last time you measured the ambient Godness in the local area?

Never, because you cannot.

Conversely, faith should not comment on matters of science as it is not concerned with the study of the phyiscal world.

Well, thats my opinion at least.

I suppose much of the problem arises from how a Christian views Genesis. Reading poetry as history leads to much confusion  


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 12:07 AM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is my first thread on this forum, so I'm not sure how much editorial control a thread starter is granted.  Some, I hope.  

I'd really rather this thread not turn into a discussion of why you can't use science to back up faith.  My original question was meant sincerely, not rhetorically.  I would trully like to know why Scientific Creationists feel the need to use science to try to back up their faith.  If this thread could stay on that topic, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 09:03 AM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus, I am actually impressed with your research and knowledge of the Bible.  That's pretty rare for someone who supports an evolutionary paradigm.  

I can see I will have to put my 2nd grade level comments away and pull out the secondary level version.

First off - you are correct.  The greek word ktisis is not used in Genesis (as Genesis is written in Hebrew) - my pronouns do me no justice.  The word 'creature' is the word I was referring to being used in Genesis and Mark.  The fact that the Greek word litterally means 'the act of establishing, building, founding, or a created thing' shows that even though it is a greek word, it supports the concept and doctrine of Genesis.  

Also, it is important that all created things hear the good news because all of creation was effected by the fall of Adam.  I was attempting to show how Genesis and the gospel are consistent.  In fact that is the very answer to your question -

Kronus:  I would trully like to know why Scientific Creationists feel the need to use science to try to back up their faith.

Let me give you some scripture to lay a foundation to fully answer your question.  "Then you will see that it is not the spoon that bends... it is yourself." ;)

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I sincerely am not trying to call you a fool... I am trying to point out that I am going to give you the correct answer to the wrong question.  If I thought you a fool, I would answer you according to verse 5.

And now, to the answer:  

1Cr 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:  
1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

You see ... for the Jews, they have been 'God's Chosen people' since the days of Abraham.  The Old testament is actually Jewish law and teachings.  They have had a thorough foundation in truth and have been looking to the fulfilment of the law for thousands of years.  Every Jew KNEW the story of creation, KNEW how Adam fell, how sin entered the world.  They have been looking for the redeemption from that (as orthodox Jews continue to do today).  To preach to the Jews all that was required was to tell them who Jesus was.  They already had enough understanding to know that they were in need of a savior... to know that they needed to be redeemed from the curse of Adam.  

But as 1cor 1:23b says "it was foolishness to the Greeks".  Why?  Why was it foolishness?  Because they didn't have the foundation of knowing Genesis.  They didn't know they needed to be saved, so when you preach the need for a saviour to someone who doesn't know they are lost, it is foolishness.  So often we see people (even those in the church) give in to the evolutionary paradigm and leave that 'science' to secularists when it is the VERY FOUNDATION... the very reason why Jesus came in the first place.  Everything in the Bible is founded on Genesis - it is the very cornerstone and foundation of all the Bible including the Gospels (matthew mark luke john).  

Lets take a another look at some scripture that describes this concept further -

Act 17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.  
Act 17:17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.  
Act 17:18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
Act 17:19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, [is]?  
Act 17:20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.  
Act 17:21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)  


Here we see Paul preaching Jesus to the Jews and then some 'gentiles' (non-jews) come up and it is foolishness to them.  What are all these strange things to their ears?  It is foolishness.  They call Paul a babbler.  Paul changes his strategy -

Act 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.  
Act 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.  
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;  
Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;  

Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:  
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.  
Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.  
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:  
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.  
Act 17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this [matter].  
Act 17:33 So Paul departed from among them.  

Paul had to lay the foundation of Genesis (I put some of that in BOLD) so that they would understnad the significance of the Gospel, and of Jesus life, death, and resurrection.  All deserve death and hell in Adam, but Jesus came that we might have life.



Jhn 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.  
Jhn 10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.  
Jhn 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.  
Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.  
Jhn 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.  

And how telling are these verses from John -

Jhn 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.  
Jhn 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?  

He goes on to say:

Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.  
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  
Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.  
Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  

So - to give a complete answer to your question -

We are fulfilling the command to preach the Gospel to every creature.  If it were a matter of verifying our own faith, there would be no need for creationism.  However, this would be a selfish and arrogant (not to mention exclusionary) behavior that would not fulfil our responsibility to tell the good news.

Lets take another look at some of our motivation:  

Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,  
Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.  
Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;  
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.  
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.  
Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.  
Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.  
Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:  
Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.  
Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.  
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.  
Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.  

Here we see the result of our silence.  Hell is a real place with real torment.  How can we, knowing the truth be silent?  How can we, who have been redeemed already, keep it to ourselves and not make EVERY effort to share the good news.  The enemy seeks to kill steal and destroy.  

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.

How does the enemy kill, steal, destroy?  The same way he did it in the Garden of Eden (when he stole zoe life from all mankind):

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?  
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:  
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.  
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:  
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.  

Humanism was born.  The idea that man can be as God - knowing and choosing their own fate.  Satan tricks Eve into taking the fruit how?  By planting a question of doubt in her mind - "has God said?"  and then a lie "surely you will not die".  It is deception, and it is still the only, (and most powerful) weapon Satan has.  If we are to be successful in our commission, we have to 1) lay a foundation of Genesis so that Jesus' sacrifice is not foolishness, and 2) expose the lie of the enemy and reveal truth in it's place.  

These are the concepts of creationism.  This is why creationists strive to answer the many scientific questions of the 'Epicureans, and  Stoicks' of our day.  Not to re-assure our faith, but to give other's who do not yet share that faith the greatest opportunity to keep from being decieved by the entrapment of the Devil.  

I hope that answers your question.



 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:29 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
drmerik

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"My original question was meant sincerely, not rhetorically.  I would trully like to know why Scientific Creationists feel the need to use science to try to back up their faith.  If this thread could stay on that topic, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks."  - Kronus

Kronus,  as a Creationist myself, the answer that I would give you is that those holding the view of evolution try to back up their faith in evolution with science as well.  The fact is, for both parties, not a single one of us was there to observe this event.  It cannot be scientifically proven.  I back up my belief in Creation with science not because I couldn't believe it otherwise, but because it is as valid a scientific view as evolution is - strictly because no one was there to view it.

 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 2:51 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 2:29 PM on April 27, 2004 :
Kronus, I am actually impressed with your research and knowledge of the Bible.  That's pretty rare for someone who supports an evolutionary paradigm.  



I've taken college level classes in Bible study.  Before I decide something is true or false, or in this case litteraly true or "just" a parable, I like to be sure I know what I'm talking about.

Quote from Gup20 at 2:29 PM on April 27, 2004 :
These are the concepts of creationism.  This is why creationists strive to answer the many scientific questions of the 'Epicureans, and  Stoicks' of our day.  Not to re-assure our faith, but to give other's who do not yet share that faith the greatest opportunity to keep from being decieved by the entrapment of the Devil.  

I hope that answers your question.



I think it does.  If I may be so bold as to condense your rather lengthy post, you're saying "fight fire with fire", yes?

You might be better served by giving your answers in your own words, rather than relying so heavily on quotes from the Bible.  After all, if the Bible was clear and unambiguous, we wouldn't have quite so many branches of Christianity, would we?  I really am less interested in what the Bible says (having read it myself) or even what you think the Bible says, as in what you think yourself.  Most of your post still deals with why you feel the need to preach the Gospel, which, as I said before, I understand.  You also elude to why you feel Genesis is important, which, while interesting, is still not really what I'm asking.  Only at the very end do you seem to get around to my question.  If I may now expand on my condensation:

If people don't believe Genesis, they'll go to Hell, and the most likely way you can get people to listen to you (and thus be saved)  is by using the language of science.

Is that what you're saying?


P.S. I find it improves readablility if you just give the chapter and verse once before a quote, rather than at every line.  i.e. Acts 17:22-31 Then Paul ...  
Just my opinion.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 3:08 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from drmerik at 2:51 PM on April 27, 2004 :

I back up my belief in Creation with science not because I couldn't believe it otherwise, but because it is as valid a scientific view as evolution is - strictly because no one was there to view it.



Let me pose a hypothetical here.  You and I are summoned to a room, in which we find a man standing next to a table, upon which sits a regular shoe box.  He invites us to guess what is in the box, but we're not allowed to look inside.  You go over to the box, heft if in your hands, shake it, listen to it, sniff it.  I give it a quick glance.  He then asks us what we think is inside.  You say "A brick.  The box weighs what a brick should, when I shake it the object inside feels rectangular, and I noticed on the way in that there is a brick missing in the wall outside, and it looks like it was recently taken."  The man then looks at me, and I say "An elephant.  A full grown adult male African elephant."  In response to his bemused expression I shrug and say "I like elephants."

Now, neither one of us looked in the box.  Neither one or us
knows what's in there.  We're both guessing.  But you can't really say that both of our guess are equally valid now, can you?

We do have the ability to figure things out without having to observe them directly.  The ability to do so critically is what seperates science from, well, creationism, among other things.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 4:21 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
drmerik

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In response to that, what critical thinking is there in evolution, in whatever form of the theory that you would like to propose?  Please, for the sake of clarifying this discussion, give me a list of the major events marking the origins of this universe, and the life forms therein, so that I can understand what you believe to be the theory of evolution.  This would help me greatly.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 5:27 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus:  I think it does.  If I may be so bold as to condense your rather lengthy post, you're saying "fight fire with fire", yes?

Not so much.  Like a cancer that eats away at the good flesh, evolution is a humanistic doctrine that undermines the authority and power of the Bible.  To 'fight fire with fire' would be to invent a cancer that eats other cancers.  That is not my intention.  My intention is to heal the cancer and restore the original living cells.  The Bible is most powerful and useful in it's original, non-humanistically-undermined form.  

That's where creation science comes in.  It makes the Bible a much more potent tool for reaching lost souls, and removes cancerous growth of evolution to a healthy interpretation of the universe.  

Kronus, your elephant analogy makes me think you don't really understand creationism.  You are trying to imply that the guy who 'likes elephants' is a creationist... but what I am trying to tell you is that, to creationists, evolutionists are the guys who say 'it's an elephant'.  Can't you see the overwhelming evidence in favor of creation?  Of couse an evolutionist would respond - NO!  Can't you see the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution.  - the creationist would respond, you don't know what you're talking about... look at all this evidence... the evolutionist would respond... GIMME BACK MY EVIDENCE, I AM USING IT IN MY ARGUMENT!!  

As I said before, we all live on the same earth, we all see the same evidence.  DMerik is right...

DrMerik:  The fact is, for both parties, not a single one of us was there to observe this event.  It cannot be scientifically proven.

Science is observation.  We can infer and deduce all we want, but when it comes down to it, none of us were actually there, so our inference and deduction relies on the observer's interpretations of what they DO see.  Facts, evidence - these things don't prove anyting.  They are.  It's the interpretation of facts and evidence that leads to conclusions.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:18 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from drmerik at 5:27 PM on April 27, 2004 :
 Please, for the sake of clarifying this discussion, give me a list of the major events marking the origins of this universe, and the life forms therein, so that I can understand what you believe to be the theory of evolution.  This would help me greatly.


Heh.  You'ld like me to give you the history of the universe?  I could give it a shot, but I'm afraid it would be such an abridged version that it might not be very useful.  However, we don't need to go back to the begining of time to discuss the theory of evolution.  In a nutshell, here it is.

First: Offspring inherit characteristics from their parents.  I'm sure you're aware of this, and won't bore you with details (if you want/need to be bored, let me know )

Secondly: In any population, there will be a distribution of characteristics.  This can be a regular Gaussian distribution, as you see in people with regards to height, weight, skin tone, etc.  Or, it can be a new characterisitic caused by mutation.  I'm assuming you don't need proof that mutations can occur?

Finally: If a characteristic has a positive or negative impact on an individuals chances of survival, then it will increase/decrease the chances of that individual breeding, and thus passing that characterisitic on to its offspring.  Over time, the population will change as favorable characteristics are, well, favored, and deleterious characteristics are weeded out.

This is, of course, a highly simplified explanation of the theory of evolution.  There are many subtleties which I didn't even attempt to discuss.  If you're trully curious, go to any college bookstore and grab an intro bio book.  It will do a much better job then I could possibly do here.

However, I will make some attempt at answering your question, "Where's the critical thinking?"  The first two points I made are simple observations, which anyone who raises livestock will confirm for you.  The last point is a combination of observation and simple deduction, and has in fact been observed in labratory experiments (read The Beak of the Finch for examples.)  The critical thinking comes from making observations, drawing conclusions from them, and testing them.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:39 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

I don't want to interfere in your and DrMerik's discussion here, but isn't it convenient that you have absolutely no answer to his first quesion - origin of the universe... origin of time and space?  You conveniently skip ahead to where humanism takes over.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:54 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

goddidit.  There, and guess what?  Evolution still happens


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:57 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
drmerik

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First: Offspring inherit characteristics from their parents.  I'm sure you're aware of this, and won't bore you with details (if you want/need to be bored, let me know  )

Secondly: In any population, there will be a distribution of characteristics.  This can be a regular Gaussian distribution, as you see in people with regards to height, weight, skin tone, etc.  Or, it can be a new characterisitic caused by mutation.  I'm assuming you don't need proof that mutations can occur?

Finally: If a characteristic has a positive or negative impact on an individuals chances of survival, then it will increase/decrease the chances of that individual breeding, and thus passing that characterisitic on to its offspring.  Over time, the population will change as favorable characteristics are, well, favored, and deleterious characteristics are weeded out.

This is, of course, a highly simplified explanation of the theory of evolution.  There are many subtleties which I didn't even attempt to discuss.  If you're trully curious, go to any college bookstore and grab an intro bio book.  It will do a much better job then I could possibly do here.
- Kronus


First, how and when did this universe, galaxy, but most important to our discussion, this planet, get here?

Second, how did the first creatures, from which you get their offspring and genetic mutations, come to be?  

Third, how long would it take for these mutations to produce the diverse population of species on the planet that we have now?
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 11:46 AM on April 28, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First, how and when did this universe, galaxy, but most important to our discussion, this planet, get here?

God did it.  Or the big bang, or any of the other currenct cosmological theories.  Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology.

Second, how did the first creatures, from which you get their offspring and genetic mutations, come to be?

God did it, or abiogenesis.  Once again, evolution has nothing to do with the first appearance of life.

Third, how long would it take for these mutations to produce the diverse population of species on the planet that we have now?

Well, from the first appearance of life to about now is about 3.5 billion years or so





-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 12:25 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

So lets get this straight -

You believe that God created the universe, and this plannet - he was intelligent enough to create galaxies and solar systems - but not quite smart enough to create people.  

He said 'hrm... I can't quite get the DNA thing down, so I think I just throw this primordia goo down over here and hope it works out for the best'?

Somehow a God powerful enough to create the entire universe can't figure out how to do it in six 24 hour days?  He needs billions of years to figure this out?

This is not likely.  

It is more likely that God created the universe with the earth in it in six literal 24 hour days approximately 6000 years ago.  He created animals and people to inhabit the earth - man being the only creation made in God's own image (in the image of an intelligent designer).  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:44 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ's answers are pretty good.  Just let me expand on them a little here.

Best current guess is that the universe is ~12 billion years old, and the Earth ~4.5 billion.  Our solar system coalesced under the force of gravity from space dust/debris.  Where the universe came from is an open question, with the big bang theory being the leading contender.

Where did the first creature come from?  Excellent question, and a topic of current debate.  As we learn more about the early conditions on the Earth we may figure it out.  Stay tuned for further developments.

As for how long it would take to get a diverse population, we can only say how long it did take.  There is an element of chance here, so it's not like this is a hard and fat schedule.  

These are all in millions of years ago:
first cells appeared:  3500-2800
Cells develop nucleouses: 1500
Multi -cellular organisms: 1500-600
Cambrian explosion: 545
Vertibrates: 500-450
Land animals: 420
plants with roots: 350
after that, things come fairly quickly.

So, from the time when multi-cellular organisms showed to the point where the oceans had as diverse and ecosystem as we have today took around 500 million years.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 2:53 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 Gup, we are unsure how the universe began.  There are theories.  We are unsure how life began.  There are theories.  We do know evolution occurs.  This is a Theory.  We also know the earth was not created 6 000 years ago in 6 days.  That is not only unlikely, it is preposterous.
I never said that god couldn't quite get the DNA thing down.    You may want to look into the "God of the gaps" argument, which Kronus has nicely summarized for you already on one of the threads here




-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:08 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

So where did gravity come from?  What caused the 'big bang'.  

Come on there TQ - you guys have no ideas and no theories that can even come close to touching those questions.  But you have no problem accepting an 8 billion year gap betwen the sudden and unexplainable beginning of the universe and the the earth forming.  You worship at the feet of natural law, yet you can't account for the simplest of laws (such as gravity) origin.  

Then you say 'we know it was not created 6000 years ago in 6 days'.  HA!  You have no idea, yet to claim to know what DIDN'T happen.  There is no definitive proof that the earth could not possibly have been created 6000 years ago.  Only the humanistic dream of a decieved man with which to look through to guide your 'theories'.  

TQ: That is not only unlikely, it is preposterous.

And yet it is far more likely and probable than Evolution.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:17 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gup.  Read his.  carefully.  I'll even use little words:

The ToE does not have a single thing to do with the origin of the universe.  It does not have anything to do with the origin of life.  It explains how that life diversified once it was here.  

Is that clear enough for you?  Probably not, but that is the last time I am answering this ignorance


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:02 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The ToE does not have a single thing to do with the origin of the universe.

That's like saying the fuel in the gas tank of a car has nothign to do with the engine.  Well, obviously you car needs fuel in order to go anywhere.  Otherwise, it's useless and doesn't work.  

Even so, the evolutionary paradigm couldn't happen without there first being a universe with the elemets the ToE says are necessary for life to begin.  

Moreoever, evolution is analogus to putting diesel fuel in a car that says "unleaded gasoline only".   Creationism is analogus to trying to decide between 87, 89, or 92 octane gasoline to put into an "unleaded gasoline only" car.  We are told in the 'instruction manual' (bible) that the car will only accept Unleaded Gasoline.  It is up to us to determine which octain gives us the most horse power.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:20 AM on April 29, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's like saying the fuel in the gas tank of a car has nothign to do with the engine.  Well, obviously you car needs fuel in order to go anywhere.  Otherwise, it's useless and doesn't work.  

Even so, the evolutionary paradigm couldn't happen without there first being a universe with the elemets the ToE says are necessary for life to begin.  

Moreoever, evolution is analogus to putting diesel fuel in a car that says "unleaded gasoline only".   Creationism is analogus to trying to decide between 87, 89, or 92 octane gasoline to put into an "unleaded gasoline only" car.  We are told in the 'instruction manual' (bible) that the car will only accept Unleaded Gasoline.  It is up to us to determine which octain gives us the most horse power.  


Sorry to be pedantic, but most car engine manufacturers recommend a specific octane rating for each engine. Using other ratings may result in less than optimum performance, or unnecessary expenditure on fuel the engine cannot fully utilise.

Gup20, you are very adept at posing questions, which is fine, but I would like you to answer some of your own:

So where did gravity come from?  What caused the 'big bang'.

I would say that gravity "is". It is a physical characteristic of the universe that we humans have put an explaination to through mathematics and physics.

What caused the big bang? all the matter of the universe being contained in a singularity seems to be the general view. Off course, we a re not sure yet that the big bang is an entirely suitable explanation for the universe's origin.

So how would you answer?


-------
Broaden your perspective:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 8:18 PM on April 29, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OccamsRazor:  So where did gravity come from?  What caused the 'big bang'.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.  
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.  

I don't want to give the wrong impression.... I don't believe in the 'big bang'.  I believe God created time and matter and separated time from eternity when separating light from darkness.  God didn't create the Sun or Stars until day 4... he created light on day 1.  

Note that
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 9:17 PM on April 29, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You did not answer the question, the verses you quote can be equally interpreted as gravity coming into being at the instant of creation just as BB cosmology states.

Don't forget the initial resistance to BB cosmology because it was first proposed by a Christian scienitst and that it so closely parallels the Genesis acount.  The theory has been widely accepted because it so thoroughly explains the observational evidence.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:14 AM on April 30, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My post abruptly ends with 'note that'.... I must have willed the rest to appear on the page eh?  What do you think??

Sorry bout that.

What I meant to add was that God is light, God is eternal.  So when God Separates light from darkness, he essentially creates time.  

This is evidenced by scripture -

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

God creates light - separates the light from the dark, and introduces the concept of time - he called the eveniing and morning the first day.  He didn't create the Sun, moon, or stars till day 4.  So clearly separating light from dark is the creation of time.  

God is not bound by time and space.  This is even confirmed mathmatically by Einstein in his theories of relativity (that time elongates as you approach the speed of light).  It is even speculated that matter and energy are convertible with each other.  It is also important to note that God created the earth without form before the creation of light, and before.  Interesting since many natural laws of our universe require light - for example, e=mc^2 light.  Herein the relationships between mass, energy, and time (speed is calculated by distance over time) are expressed.  Gravitational force is calculated using measurements of mass.  We can see that all these relationships, measurements, and equasions require time and light (as constants).  Time and light were created on Day 1 by God.  How did he do it?  He spoke - "GOD SAID..." .  All the 'natural laws' of the universe were probably a result of day 1 of creation.  After this, God begins dealing with water, plants, stars, animals, and people.  Day 1 was, however, the foundation of the universe (and it's properties) as light and time were created.  

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:04 PM on April 30, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I understand the view that God exists outside of time and space (without such a rationalisation, the idea that every prayer can be heard by God is tenuous). However, General Relativity cannot be taken as the proof of such.

As God is the metaphyscial, the explainations of the physical, such as the speed of light and time dialation relative to a point of reference as an object is accelerated towards such a velocity, are not pertinent lines of reasoning to justify his existence.


From your responses, you say you do not believe in the Big Bang  (NB. is believe not an unusual word to use in this context?).

Do you mean you do not believe the aspect of time involved, or the mechanism itself?

Whatever, your postion is tenuous as you are at least picking and choosing which bits of science suit your purpose, and at worst dicounting the findings of many branches of science with no stronger logic than "I want to believe Genesis is the only possible explanation for the physical world and will adapt and interpret it to such end regardless of the veracity of any alternative evidence put before me".

Sorry to be blunt, but you taking a view that, is the very least, highly contradictory.

(Edited by OccamsRazor 4/30/2004 at 5:25 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 5:24 PM on April 30, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OccamsRazor:  However, General Relativity cannot be taken as the proof of such.

It is not my intention to prove that God exists outside of space time, but to demonstrate the intrinsic relationship between light & time and other natural laws of the universe (such as gravity).  

OccamsRazor:  As God is the metaphyscial, the explainations of the physical, such as the speed of light and time dialation relative to a point of reference as an object is accelerated towards such a velocity, are not pertinent lines of reasoning to justify his existence.

I would disagree on your foundational premise.  Logically we can deduce that God is not completely without our realm of time and space - he did cause a virgin to conceive and Jesus was a real person.  Jesus did real miracles.  

OccamsRazor:  Do you mean you do not believe the aspect of time involved...?

Yes.  I would compliment you on your logic. However, as is often the case, we give names to 'ideas' (such as saying jurrassic, triassic, etc instead of layerX layerY).  By saying 'big bang' I am giving a name to the humanistic idea of a natual causation to our universe.  I guess it is appropriate from time to time to state the nature of that label so as to avoid confusion.  

OccamsRazor:  Whatever, your postion is tenuous as you are at least picking and choosing which bits of science suit your purpose, and at worst dicounting the findings of many branches of science with no stronger logic than "I want to believe Genesis is the only possible explanation for the physical world and will adapt and interpret it to such end regardless of the veracity of any alternative evidence put before me".

I imagine the latter is true.  I would indeed believe the Bible over any evidence I can see with my own eyes, or any evidence presented by evolutionism.  That is what FAITH is... the subsstance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.  

How many times have we seen there to be 'alternative evidence' that seems so convincing as to remove all doubt just crumble and fall by the wayside in light of a new bit of evidence?  Take the Scopes trial, for example - the majority of evidence presented to remove creationism from our school systems has since been proven false (such as piltdown man).  Yet, at that moment it seemed an insurmountable, irrefutable body of evidence.  

So as others have asked - why would a christian (using that loosely - to mean young earth believing christian) care about science?  

For the basic principles of defending the authority of the Bible so that others are not swayed from believing.  People's eternal destiny is diretly tied to their belief in Jesus Christ and the sacrifice he made on our behalf.  Allowing humanism to undermine Genesis can, and often does, lead to a total rejection of scripture and subsequently a rejection of Jesus which is what ultimately condemns that person to hell.  We are all about saving lives.  Also, as I have said on this board before, it is our 'great commission' to tell others the good news of Jesus.  

But beyond that still, our purpose on this planet was originally to be stewards of creation for God.  We were commanded to have dominion over this world.

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.

This is where science comes in.  We are to understand and have command over the earth and every living creature.  God basically commissioned science (the study of nature)  in this verse.  He verifies it's importance (and reaffirms his command) when he brings the animals to Adam to name.

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.  

Satan (using humanism) decieved Adam and Eve into giving over dominion of this world to him (as a result of Adam's disobedience).  Jesus came to take it back for all mankind.  John 12:31 "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out".  Jesus was speaking here of his death and resurrection.  That is the Good News.  That we can once again be in comunion with God... that we will fulfill our destiny and purpose and be stewards, once again, (as Adam was created to be) of His creation.  

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 1:25 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Take the Scopes trial, for example - the majority of evidence presented to remove creationism from our school systems has since been proven false (such as piltdown man).  

Piltdown man was never mentioned in the scopes trial

For the basic principles of defending the authority of the Bible so that others are not swayed from believing.  People's eternal destiny is diretly tied to their belief in Jesus Christ and the sacrifice he made on our behalf.  Allowing humanism to undermine Genesis can, and often does, lead to a total rejection of scripture and subsequently a rejection of Jesus which is what ultimately condemns that person to hell.  We are all about saving lives.  Also, as I have said on this board before, it is our 'great commission' to tell others the good news of Jesus.

"Lying for Jesus".  We know.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 4:23 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Piltdown man was never mentioned in the scopes trial

Never mentioned?  Really?  

Piltdown in Scopes trial

The trial record discloses that Bryan handled himself well and when put on the stand unexpectedly by Darrow, defined terms carefully, stuck to the facts, made distinctions between literal and figurative language when interpreting the Bible, and questioned the reliability of scientific evidence when it contradicted the Bible. Some scientific experts at the trial referred to such "evidence" of evolution as the Piltdown man (now dismissed as a hoax). Bryan College Disagrees with you, TQ

See the entry concerning Nebraska man above for comments on the expert testimony in the Scopes Trial. Piltdown Man was mentioned by two experts in affidavits, and in each case Piltdown was given no special status. The sense of the affidavits indicates that Piltdown Man was considered to be anomalous. From Here

ICR - Did the evolutionsists present a good case at the scopes trial

Wow TQ.... I guess you couldn't have been more wrong.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:19 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apparently I was mistaken, but from your own source:
The sense of the affidavits indicates that Piltdown Man was considered to be anomalous.



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:48 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20: on your inital response, I understand the Evangalistic activities of many Christians, and why a promotion of the belief is so widely and enthusiastically pursued.

However, I disagree that the holding of Christian faith requires a belief that the Earth is 6000 years old and created in a manner exactly described as in Genesis (which in itself is a human interpretation). Holding one does not have to put other at polar opposites.

And when I say disagree, I am not doing so in a point of principle, but as a matter of fact based upon people I have met and known.

I notice your use of the term humanism- I hope you so not use this in the way such authors as Ken Ham do


Finally, on Piltdown man I pose you this question: by your rationale, any mistake or falsehood in any area of science is sufficent grounds to invalidate the whole subject area.

If so, why is the science of Evolution et al, so vorciferously scrutinised, while mistakes in other areas of science come and go?

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/1/2004 at 8:08 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:55 PM on May 1, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OccamsRazor: However, I disagree that the holding of Christian faith requires a belief that the Earth is 6000 years old and created in a manner exactly described as in Genesis (which in itself is a human interpretation). Holding one does not have to put other at polar opposites.

For some Christians, it is 'ok' for the Bible to be incorrect in science and history as long as it gets the spiritual truths right.  They are able to compartmentalize and pick and choose the parts of the Bible they want to believe.  However, some people are not built that way.  For those people it is important to show that the Bible is inerrant and accurate, otherwise they will reject the spiritual with the natural.  

We see the influence of humanism on the 'church' today.  There are many demominations who have watered down versions of morality (such as allowing a homosexual to be a priest or minister).  This is the inevitable result of a humanistic undermining of scripture.  The thought that one can choose what is for today, and what is not.  Also, as I have stated before - God is the one who commissioned 'science' (or the study of nature) in Genesis 1.  It says he created man in his image and command man to have dominion over the earth and every living creature in it.  He then confirms this command in Genesis 2 when he brings the animals to Adam to name.  

The reason we are even here is to be Stewards of God's creation.  Our purpose for being here is to learn and understand our world as we serve God.  

OccamsRazor:  I notice your use of the term humanism- I hope you so not use this in the way such authors as Ken Ham

I have watched some of his conferences, and enjoy very much his ministry.  I guess I would need to know what you mean by 'I hope you [do] not use this in the way ... Ken Ham [does].'   I agree very strongly with much of what Ken Ham says (on a general basis).  

OccamsRazor:  Finally, on Piltdown man I pose you this question: by your rationale, any mistake or falsehood in any area of science is sufficent grounds to invalidate the whole subject area.


The streight answer is to say that, no - a mistake does not a complete falsehood make.  However, in the case of Piltdown man, and the scopes trial, the damage was done using false evidence.  That trail was basically a creation vs evolution trial, and it's result was a turn in our society and in our schools away from the Gospel - citing it as a religious book that has no bearing on 'science'.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  And the case was built on piltdown man, nebraska man, etc.... many evidences ... many questions against creation (all of which can be answered today, BTW).  The evolutionists case was built on evidence that is now abandon or disproven.  But that does not repair the damage to society.  It set our country on the path to begin systematically removing our religous liberties.  Today, many people cannot openly practice their religion because of the errosion of religous freedom in this country.  

The 'damage' had been done.  




(Edited by Gup20 5/2/2004 at 1:56 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 11:16 AM on May 2, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Umm, the creation side actually won the Scopes trial.   Scopes was convicted and fined.  The decision was overturned later on a technicality rather than an actual reversal of the law to allow inclusion of evolution.  The 'damage' that was done was based largely on the fact that Bryan did not make a good witness for ye-creationist dogma.  As far as your Piltdown man assertion, you should be careful.  Piltdown man was mentioned in affidavits filed on behalf of Scopes, but the experts were never allowed to testify so Piltdown man did not play any significant role at all in the trial or the decision.  Furthermore, Piltdown man was accorded no special status in those affidavits.  


Cheers

Joe Meert

(Edited by Joe Meert 5/2/2004 at 1:40 PM).
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 1:33 PM on May 2, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The point was that nearly all of the evidence, piltdown man, nebraska man, or whatever, was used as evidence in favor of evolution.  These have since been refuted.  

Basing one's opinion on the 'facts they can see' can typically lead to falsehood.  For every fact you can see many more may go unobserved or ignored.  The Bible gives the only real picture of truth.  By making sure that our theories and observations are within the concept of the truth of scripture, we have a litmus test of sorts with which to guide our models.

As in the example I gave previously about this universe being a car, and the Bible being the manual - creationists know (from reading the manual) that unleaded fuel goes in the tank to run the engine, they just need to figure out which octane gives the best preformance.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:57 PM on May 2, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The point was that nearly all of the evidence, piltdown man, nebraska man, or whatever, was used as evidence in favor of evolution.  These have since been refuted.

And this is a lie, nearly all the evidence for evolution has NOT been refuted!  

Basing one's opinion on the 'facts they can see' can typically lead to falsehood.  For every fact you can see many more may go unobserved or ignored.  The Bible gives the only real picture of truth.  By making sure that our theories and observations are within the concept of the truth of scripture, we have a litmus test of sorts with which to guide our models.

You've yet to give us any 'facts' that contradict evolution, only inaccuracies, lies and misunderstandings.  The Bible is no litmus test of scientific fact, this is already established.  I still can't believe that there are educated adults that believe 3000 year old myths are more accurate than modern science!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:06 AM on May 3, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20
For some Christians, it is 'ok' for the Bible to be incorrect in science and history as long as it gets the spiritual truths right.  They are able to compartmentalize and pick and choose the parts of the Bible they want to believe.  However, some people are not built that way.  For those people it is important to show that the Bible is inerrant and accurate, otherwise they will reject the spiritual with the natural.


So you do not accept that the Bible can be viewed in terms of some sections being historical, while others are poetic. I thought the Bible is full of parables and stories that do not have a direct meaning, but whose wisdom has to be interpreted.

Gup20 wrote: We see the influence of humanism on the 'church' today.  There are many demominations who have watered down versions of morality (such as allowing a homosexual to be a priest or minister).  This is the inevitable result of a humanistic undermining of scripture.  The thought that one can choose what is for today, and what is not.


Some of us may see "watered down morality", while others see the throwing off of long held prejudices. I also note that the "humanistic" undermining of scripture has being going for several hundred years. Shall we re-debate if the Earth orbits the Sun or vice-versa again?

Perhaps what is actually happening is the dismantling of the monopoly of truth organised Christian religion (in this context) extended over every aspect of human life in the period following its "official" adoption by the (late) Late Roman Empire.

Gup20 wrote: Also, as I have stated before - God is the one who commissioned 'science' (or the study of nature) in Genesis 1.  It says he created man in his image and command man to have dominion over the earth and every living creature in it.  He then confirms this command in Genesis 2 when he brings the animals to Adam to name.
 

That is indeed an interpretation of what is written is Genesis, but not what is specifically stated in the passages you quote.

Gup20 wrote: I have watched some of his conferences, and enjoy very much his ministry.  I guess I would need to know what you mean by 'I hope you [do] not use this in the way ... Ken Ham [does].'   I agree very strongly with much of what Ken Ham says (on a general basis).


I find Mr. Ham's use of the term humanism as a catch all for his many and varied (percieved) ills with the world in general objectionable.

Gup20 wrote: The streight answer is to say that, no - a mistake does not a complete falsehood make.  However, in the case of Piltdown man, and the scopes trial, the damage was done using false evidence.  That trail was basically a creation vs evolution trial


Well, those are the two opposing viewpoints in the case, but not the issue that was at stake. I see that as being the intellectual liberty of that generation and those that have (and will) follow it.

Gup20 wrote: and it's result was a turn in our society and in our schools away from the Gospel - citing it as a religious book that has no bearing on 'science'.


By "our", I take you specifically mean schools within the United States of America.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  And the case was built on piltdown man, nebraska man, etc.... many evidences ... many questions against creation (all of which can be answered today, BTW).  The evolutionists case was built on evidence that is now abandon or disproven.  But that does not repair the damage to society.  It set our country on the path to begin systematically removing our religous liberties.  Today, many people cannot openly practice their religion because of the errosion of religous freedom in this country.  

The 'damage' had been done.


I do not argue the point that a tiny number of specific examples used to illustrate Evolution have been deliberate hoaxes. However the underlying concept behind Evolution is sound, and continues to be supported by the observations in the physical world.

Finally, I do not quite see what you mean by the removal of religous liberties and barring of free religous practice. As I assume you are refering to the USA and not the PRC, maybe you would elaborate for further discussion.

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/3/2004 at 08:31 AM).

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/3/2004 at 08:36 AM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 08:26 AM on May 3, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon:  And this is a lie, nearly all the evidence for evolution has NOT been refuted!

No, demon, you misunderstood.  This is a good example of someone who comes into the middle of the conversation and spues nonsense.

We were talking about the Scopes trial and how nearly all of the evidence used in favor of evolution in that trial has since been refuted.

You've yet to give us any 'facts' that contradict evolution, only inaccuracies, lies and misunderstandings.  The Bible is no litmus test of scientific fact, this is already established.  I still can't believe that there are educated adults that believe 3000 year old myths are more accurate than modern science!

Is there a question/argument in there Sparky, or are you just 'flaming for the hell of it'?  (excuse the puns)

OccamsRazor:  So you do not accept that the Bible can be viewed in terms of some sections being historical, while others are poetic. I thought the Bible is full of parables and stories that do not have a direct meaning, but whose wisdom has to be interpreted.

I do, indeed, accept that the Bible can be viewed in terms of some sections being historical and some being poetic.  It is often very clear which is which.  However, it is all truth.  The account of creation in Genesis, for example is clearly written in a 'matter of fact' historical tone.  There is no sensationalism or 'story telling' nature to it.  Job, on the other hand, is a play and IS written in poetic verse.  Psalms is a book of songs written by David - obvious poetic nature there.  

OccamsRazor:  Some of us may see "watered down morality", while others see the throwing off of long held prejudices.

Sin is still sin.  God determined what was and was not sin.  He made the rules.  God doesn't change - the rules don't change.  It's like saying a murderer or rapist is getting a raw deal cause they go to jail for their crimes.  After all - they were born that way, or they had a rough childhood - shouldn't we go easy on em?  Shouldn't we just accept them for who they are?  

The bible paints the right picture - Love the sinner, Hate the sin.  

OccamsRazor:  I also note that the "humanistic" undermining of scripture has being going for several hundred years.

Satan has been using humanism a lot longer than that.  We see the birth of Humanism in the garden of Eden when Satan tempts Eve.  It starts with a questioning God's word, and always ends, ultimately in disobedience to God's word.  Satan asked Eve "hath God said thou shalt not eat".  After the initial quesiton it moves to the lie/contradicition "surely god has not said".  It often involves a tempting or seemingly good result.  In this case "you shall be as God's decerning wright and wrong".  Notice that this wasn't a lie by Satan - it was thr truth - but it had dire consequences that were not revealed until the disobedience was complete.  Namely that in doing so, Adam would give away Eden, and his dominion over the earth and over Satan away, as well as life.  

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

OccamsRazor:  Shall we re-debate if the Earth orbits the Sun or vice-versa again?

Is the implication here that religion forced this false view on the world?  I would agree.  It is not the role of religion (or christianity) to force anyone to do anything.  The very concepts of freedom we cherish in this country come from men who were christians who had a more appropriate view.  They knew that they couldn't worship God correctly under that sort of control.  Where do you think the idea of the freedom in America comes from - it comes from the Bible.  The Bible supports the position that all persons were created equal.  That is what USA was founded on - this BIBLICAL principle.  Obviously, this truth has been lost since the founding of our country... many religous freedoms have been worn away and the ideas striped of their heritage.  


OccamsRazor:  Perhaps what is actually happening is the dismantling of the monopoly of truth organised Christian religion (in this context) extended over every aspect of human life in the period following its "official" adoption by the (late) Late Roman Empire.

That is exactly what humanism does.  It tries to tear down truth and blur the line between right and wrong.  Regarding the Roman Empire and the early catholic church and it's governmental influence - look at Jesus' example.  Do we see him looking to gain political power?  No.  Do we see him looking to force his religion on anyone?  No.  His ministry on earth was all about giving - giving to poor, ministering to the sick and healing them, forgiving sins.  Clearly, there was wrong done by the early church in trying to force religion through goverment.  It is wrong to force religion period.  Christianity is and MUST always be a choice.  How can one make make a choice unless they are free to choose.  If your government forces you to accept a religion, you have not chosen it - it was chosen for you.  This is why our constituion says that the Government can't establish a religion while in the same breath assures that all people (even those in goverment) are free to practice religion.  

OccamsRazor:  Well, those are the two opposing viewpoints in the case, but not the issue that was at stake. I see that as being the intellectual liberty of that generation and those that have (and will) follow it.

It was a 'show trial'.  The stakes were the hearts of minds of the people.  You call it intellectual liberty, I call it the rise of humanism.  As I stated before - there is no liberty so sweet as the liberty for those in Christ.  That biblical principle of liberty is what the USA was founded on.  

OccamsRazor:  By "our", I take you specifically mean schools within the United States of America.

Yes, however, I think you would agree that the USA has a great deal of influence on the rest of the world as well.

OccamsRazor:  As I assume you are refering to the USA and not the PRC, maybe you would elaborate for further discussion.

I am referring to the US (what is PRC?).  In the US, anti-christian organizations such as the ACLU are fighting and litigating to have monuments with religious symbols removed from all public view.  They are trying to have any reference to God or christianity removed.   Many public schools can no longer celebrate Christmas - we have to say 'winter holiday'.  The 10 commandments are removed from many public buildings - public school teachers are fired from their jobs for wearing a neclace with a cross (that person did eventually get their day in court and their job back).  The list goes on.




 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:59 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Scientific Creation is an oxymoron. The first is Methedological Naturalism which excludes theology and the second IS theology. Intelligent Design, however, excludes dieties. There is your science if you wish to study the issue within the scientific method.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 4:34 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Welcome to the conversation Jerry-Don-Bauer (JDB).  

JDB: Scientific Creation is an oxymoron. The first is Methedological Naturalism which excludes theology and the second IS theology. Intelligent Design, however, excludes dieties. There is your science if you wish to study the issue within the scientific method.

Allow me to enlighten you, friend.  

Francis Bacon (1561–1626), Lord Chancellor of England, is usually considered to be the man primarily responsible for the formulation and establishment of the so-called "scientific method" in science, stressing experimentation and induction from data rather than philosophical deduction in the tradition of Aristotle.

Bacon's writings are also credited with leading to the founding of the Royal Society of London.

Sir Francis was a devout believer in the Bible. He wrote: "There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power."


Robert Boyle (1627-91) stands out as one of the principal originators of the 'experimental method'.  His most notable contribution to science is his work with gases. He formulated a law which describes the behaviour of gases under pressure. This is now known as Boyle's Law.

In the year before his death in 1691, Boyle published an important work he called The Christian Virtuoso. In this book he explained that the study and dominion of nature is a duty given to man by God. His basis for this was the command given in Genesis 1:28, where God the Creator blessed the first man and woman and told them to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the Earth and subdue it, and to rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the Earth.

In his lectures and many writings, Robert Boyle showed that science and faith in God can exist side by side. He praised his Creator for all the scientific discoveries he had made, and urged others to do likewise. He recognized that the universe works in accordance with the laws of nature which God established for its order and control. As a powerful Christian apologist, he established in his will provision for the Boyle Lectures for the defence of Christianity. He strongly supported missionary work, and gave great support to societies which promoted the Gospel.


Perhaps you have heard of another famous Creation Scientist - Sir Isaac Newton.  Isaac Newton's contributions to science were many and varied. They covered revolutionary ideas and practical inventions. His work in physics, mathematics and astronomy is of importance even today. His contributions in any one of these fields would have made him famous; collectively, they make him truly outstanding. But Newton remained a modest man who loved his Lord and Saviour.

He loved God and believed God's Word-- all of it. He wrote, 'I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily'. He also wrote, 'Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance'.


Clearly, science and creation are not mutually exclusive.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:58 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 4:34 PM on May 6, 2004 :
Intelligent Design, however, excludes dieties.


I thought the idea behind intelligent design was that God tweaked things at the beginning of the universe to insure that people would be created, and perhaps nudged things along when needed.  A deity is specifically required.


 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 4:58 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Intelligent Design, however, excludes dieties. There is your science if you wish to study the issue within the scientific method.

Please give us the theory of ID then.  What predictions does it make?  What would you expect to find in an ID world?
Gup, do you not find it telling that those three that you listed are all dead and gone about three hundred years ago?  I'm sure they also didn't believe in the moon landing, the PC, or the supersonic jet

(Edited by TQ 5/6/2004 at 5:07 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:03 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***Please give us the theory of ID then.  What predictions does it make?  What would you expect to find in an ID world?****

That's like asking me to give you the theory of science. There isn't one because that's too vague a question.

But ID does make predictions and again that's too vague a question. If you want to ask what ID thermodynamics predict, I can tell you it predicts evolution in the genome as causing disorder and extinction of the organism.

Finally, ID's world is no different than science's.

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:09 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Umm, no.  ID is not science.  Dembski and Behe have absolutely nothing to offer other than an argument from incredulity


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:12 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***ID is not science.  Dembski and Behe have absolutely nothing to offer other than an argument from incredulity***

Hmmm.. that's a fairly broad conclusion to omit your premises, isn't it. But do you feel these two are the be all and end all of ID? Nah...talk to the scientists who actually practice it rather than those who just make a living off books and lectures.

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:19 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And they are?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:30 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 5:09 PM on May 6, 2004 :

That's like asking me to give you the theory of science. There isn't one because that's too vague a question.



Not true.  The theory of science is that through observation and experimentation the underlying cause of phenomena can be discovered.

That's off the top of my head.  There's probably a more precise, and official defintion somewhere.

 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 5:31 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

****Not true.  The theory of science is that through observation and experimentation the underlying cause of phenomena can be discovered.

That's off the top of my head.  There's probably a more precise, and official defintion somewhere.***

Well, we can view it that way, I guess. And if we do then I relate this to ID as: a science based on probability employed to detect design in a given object or system.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:37 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.