HCW, I was being nice previously in saying “not really.” A more blunt response would have been, “no they are not.” If you do not agree, then I suggest you consult a thesaurus.
quote:
Rather than acknowledge the simple fact that you & I used the same words differently you say bogus and fraud are "not really" synonyms, "and especially not as" YOU "used them."
More accurately, rather than pointing out that you are dead wrong, I chose to give you a softer answer, hoping to turn away wrath. That seems not to have worked, so unless you wish to calmly discuss some of the points I brought up in my immediately previous post, I’ll bid you adieu.
Gee. All that started because I posted a couple of links about stuff YOU don't agree with.
quote:
Nope. I merely pointed out that the first link was not what you claimed it to be and that the second was to a bogus offer. Other than to briefly and calmly clarify a couple of terms that you seem not to understand, note that the theory of evolution is compatible with Bible-based Christian belief, and clarify my interest in the topic, I have said little.
So. You DIDN'T do all of that BECAUSE I posted a couple of links?
Oh. I see. You just wanted to:
a. make sure I knew I didn't know what I was doing when I CHOSE to post the one link,
b. let me know that I also didn't know the second link was to a bogus offer.
c. you wanted to clarify for me things YOU think I don't understand,
d. "note" something you're pretty sure I don't know about how the theory of evolution IS compatable with Bible-based Christian belief.
e. Clarify you interest in the topic.
Other than saying All of that you have said little. BUT. I have carried on about many unrelated things... to what you said.
Who said I was ONLY talking to YOU? Other than your ego, that is?
quote:
quote:
What of the recently accepted, as scientific fact, that all mankind is genetically connected to ONE woman said to have lived, "coincidentally," about 6000 years ago?
Accepted by whom, on the basis of what evidence? If accepted as “fact,” that suggests to me that the person(s) accepting are not very scientific. The last I read...
The last you read, apparently is old news. Could it be that you are actually IGNORANT of something that I know? Try accepted by all of the scientific minds who've discovered it, and accepted it and had their findings published in places like TIME magazine. You questions suggest you are ignorant of some of the latest findings on this topic you're so interested in. Hmmm.
Then again, had you actually READ, more than skimmed and summarily dismissed the AiG site you might have found that all of the contributors to the site are NOT fundamentalist Christians.
If you were as up on "absolute" dating techiniques (that are "more accurate" than carbon dating) you'd know that THE most accurate dating techniques have an increasing margin of error curve that the older the object appears to be the wider the margin. An absolutely dated object that is determined to be 50,000 years old can have a margin of error as old as they think the object is. In other words they can be 10's of thousands of years off on an object they think may be 10's of thousands of years old.
In further other words, the only thing absolute about absolute dating techniques is that they absolutely don't know how hold an object absolutely is.
quote:
If what you know of science is what you’ve read or heard from Christian Fundamentalist sources, then your knowledge is lacking. There is nothing about the theory of evolution that rules out the God of the Bible.
One word about the evolution of man from one-celled organisms that rules God out of the picture is this:
RANDOM.
The concept that the proper things randomly came together and created life that evolved into human beings is ludicrous.
Evolutionists NEED millions and billions of years to support their claims. Their own science requires thousands of years for even the smallest evolutionary change within a species. Not to mention evolutionary changes between different species.
quote:
The ones putting forth that argument are a minority of Christians. Most Christians, most scientists, most people who understand science, and even most atheists would disagree.
...and YOU have counted everybody...?
And why is is you throw all of these 'barbs' "most people who understand science" into your posts? Are YOU a scientist, or just an uninformed person who understands science?
Don't you understand that 'dissin' fundamentalists is just the common buzz "thing" of the day? Sheesh.
quote:
That’s fine. Assuming that, do you really think the Bible says in just a few paragraphs exactly how God brought everything into being?
Why couldn't the all powerful, PERFECT God be perfectly succinct?
Besides. Had you actually READ the Bible you'd know that the totality of God's word was written by HIM in the stars, not just a few paragraphs. Further. Had you actually, did a scientific type study of the few paragraphs, you'd see how much there is perfectly crammed into them. AND you's see many other paragraphs in the bible that ellucidate the ones in Genesis' first few chapters.
If this were a calm and rational conversation maybe....
More accurately, rather than pointing out that you are dead wrong, I chose to give you a softer answer, hoping to turn away wrath. That seems not to have worked, so unless you wish to calmly discuss some of the points I brought up in my immediately previous post, I’ll bid you adieu.
In your own words you've added little substance to this discussion but to correct me, now you're leaving because you THINK I'm showing you wrath.
Ok. -->
If you wish to come back and actually add something other that your obviously superior attitude, feel free attitude and all. I'm sure we'd all like to hear just how the evolutionary process of random selection actually fits "like a hand in a glove" with God creating the first human.
Or are you saying the first Adam was a pithecanthropus erectus?
I know exactly what you're talking about when you say evolution fits with the Bible. Its bogus.
Horse, you've posed some very good questions (as have others).
quote:
Originally posted by Horse Called War:
Why would a subject that affects all of us not get more "face time"? Seems like a pretty simple question - When did death enter the world? Is the Bible silent on such simple questions?
Is the sum total of Bible knowledge actually:
Adam sinned
Man dies
Sin according to the Way is "missing the mark". Weirwille tried to explain life before adam with his convoluted Formed, Made, Created "teaching" which simple research shows these words were interchanged. (Please see the PFAL errors thread Rafael started)
Essentially saying that "soul life" in animals was not created in the 7 days of Genesis it was already in existance.
Has anyone read or heard of a better explanation for the bible's teachings on this subject?
After a great deal of thought and study, I came up with what I think is a better explanation years ago, back when I believed that the Bible was the Revealed Word of God. I now think that much of the Bible is myth. However, if I accept the "universe" of the Bible in much the same way I accept the universe of a fantasy or science fiction story, I still think the explanation fits the Biblical universe. In other words, I think that it is worth considering for those who believe the Bible is revealed truth. It's been years since I've given it much thought and I no longer have my notes on the subject, but I've been working (slowly, because of other considerations) on putting together a series of posts. I'll eventually get around to posting my thoughts, either on this thread or on one or more dedicated to the topics I'll be discussing.
Wow. This thread has taken off at light speed. Can't begin to keep up with it, so I'll offer a brief response to Lindyhopper's comment about science. You said that one woman's discovery is a credit to science.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the fact that one scientis among thousands didn't buy the "junk DNA" assumption and looked deeper to make an important discovery means we should feel good about the direction science is going in.
So one scientist out of 1,000 wasn't bulldozed by Darwin's error. Hooray for SCIENCE! I think that's backwards. If science is doing what it's supposed to, if the Scientific method is really being employed faithfully and objectively, those numbers should be reversed.
'Bulldozed' by Darwin's error huh? So you know as a *matter of proveable fact* that they didn't think things through or utilize any critical thinking skills when/if they accepted Darwin's theory? They were just _bulldozed_ (ie., swamped, coerced, intimidated, ((ahem)) *brainwashed* into accepting or believing evolution to be true?
As if scientists are led into evolution, borg-style? With no dissent from the 'drones'?
If that is indeed the case, then please explain to me, sir, why lively discussions, heated debates, difference of opinions, and new and different theories regarding evolution or the parts thereof continue to this day in the scientific community? All of these behaviors which just do not indicate a supposed lock-step of singularity of opinion that would be indicated by the 'bulldozed' comment.
What they do indicate is a freedom to question, analyze, criticise, and so forth that genuine science is all about.
And the 'one' example that you seem to believe is the only indicator of dissent in science just doesn't cover the whole field. Sorry , but no it doesn't.
:D--> I love reading all the rather desperate attempts to portray science as supposedly practicing the same kind of mindless religious faith that the religious counterparts are accused of doing, thus supposedly making science no different. ... Why, it almost has a conspiratorial ring to it. (insert shifty eyes icon and James Bond music here)
It is a credit to science because it continues to move forward in the search for reality. Whether it is 1 in 1000 or 1000 to 1, the goal of science is to make discoveries and make closer appoximations to reality. While the 1000 threw out one layer they were not screwing up the rest of the work they were doing, they were still moving forward. When a study is repeated or peer review and is found faulty, it is not due to the downfall of science but a faulty aplication of science, a faulty hypothesis, prediction, observation, or experiment. Maybe an assumption that should never have been made was the fault. Still the fact that science catches a mistake or questions a success is to its credit.
Even if evolution is partially incorrect, even the incorrect aspects of it are not without merit entirely when you consider the other discoveries that it has helped reveal.
And as Garth pointed out one incident should not be used as the measure of "science" in general.
I would be interested in someone commenting on my point of creation not being a theory but a hypothesis. You can make observations. You can make a hypothesis. I guess you could even make predictions, but there is no way to test those predictions to support your hypothesis. Therefore, scientificly (which is usually what we are referencing when using this word) you can not declare it a theory. The only definition that fits using the word theory next to the word creation is that of conjecture. Guesswork.
I DO believe that when Adam ate, as God instructed him not to, he died.
But the fact that he didn't drop dead on the spot, seems to imply that the kind of death refered to isn't what we commonly think of as physical death. That would solve a lot of the confusion as to how carnivores could have survived before the fall and how other forms of death could have been present before Adam sinned.
the other Jerry?
Are you implying that Adam and Eve, barring sin, would have died a natural physical death? That entropy was in the original design? Was god the author of this physical death? If not where, when and why did it change?
I’ve decided not to go into as much detail on this as I had previously intended. I’ve forgotten a lot of what I once worked up and to reconstruct it and express it coherently would take a long time and a lot of effort. So I’ll just toss out some food for thought for anyone interested. Everything that follows will presume that the Bible is revelation from God, some of which is figurative. It will also presume generally accepted scientific knowledge and theory. The point is not that either is necessarily true, but that they are (at least conceivably) compatible.
If we assume that all sorts of species lived and died prior to Adam, then whatever death entered the world as a consequence of Adam’s sin must not have been physical plant and animal death. Instead, it must be a sort of death that is particular to humans. Biblically, that would include spiritual death but, if there is something different about human life than animal life, it could also include some sort of uniquely human cognitive or soul death. The Bible doesn’t include enough information to affirm that, but neither does it give enough to exclude that possibility.
Humans are not much different than many other extant animals, particularly other primates. If, however, humans can have a spiritual life, then there must be something different about them that scientific investigation has not identified, and possibly that it cannot identify. The fossil record includes evidence of many human-like species that have existed in the past. It includes, apparently going back many tens of thousands of years, specimens that are physically indistinguishable from modern humans, which are generally taken to be modern humans. Something we cannot know about them, though, is whether or not they possessed whatever attribute (perhaps even a yet-unknown physical or chemical attribute of the brain) modern humans have that allows for a spiritual life.
Suppose that creatures existed some thousands of years ago that were physically indistinguishable from humanity of today, but did not possess this attribute. By most any standard we could measure, they would be humans, but by a standard based on actual or potential spiritual life, they would not be the same.
Now suppose that God created creatures (Adam and Eve) that looked just like those other creatures, perhaps could even interbreed with them, but that had spiritual life and the conjectured attribute that allowed for spiritual life. It could be complete creation or more along the lines of adding an enhancement to existing beings.
The conjectured “attribute” would not necessarily be singular, but could be a combination of traits, all of which might need to be expressed in order for there even to be the potential for spiritual life. If all were genetically encoded and recessive, then only a person who inherited all the right genes (I’ll call them “Adamic genes”) from both their father and mother would even have the potential to have spiritual life. Now let’s explore possible implications for the Christ line.
Suppose there were two lines of “humans.” Members of the Adamic line, if pure, would have all the traits necessary to harbor spiritual life. Members of the non-Adamic line would have none. Offspring of interbreeding between the two lines would have some Adamic genes, but the traits would not be expressed. If the traits were recessive and interbreeding were extensive, there would be a danger that some of the Adamic genes might eventually “die out” (not be carried on to future generations). It could easily get to the point that only one family (let’s call them the Noahs) maintained all the Adamic genes necessary to harbor spiritual life (remained pure Adamic line).
What about the nephilim? Well, suppose that particular combinations of Adamic and non-Adamic genes resulted in greater than normal strength, size, agility, intelligence, or other advantageous traits. People with those traits might very well be “giants,” “mighty men,” “men of renown.” They would likely accumulate wealth and power, have great influence, and have more offspring than the average person. They also might directly kill off, enslave, or impoverish other people, particularly those who were trying to maintain a pure Adamic line, thereby reducing their likelihood of producing offspring. They might also take, by force, wives of pure Adamic line, thereby depriving them from men of pure Adamic line (dang, that sounds sexist, but that’s the way the world was once). The net result would be to reduce in the population, over time, the percentage of Adamic genes, and particularly of individuals with homozygous Adamic genes. Some might recognize that as natural selection.
How about after Noah? Well, the Bible would indicate that Noah, his wife, and his sons were pure Adamic line. If one or more of his daughters-in-law weren’t, that could allow for some of the “eruptions” later in the Bible, in Canaan, for example.
I’ve kept this fairly simple, by emphasizing a conjectured combination of homozygous recessive genes being necessary for spiritual life, but the genetic code is extremely complex and we’ve only just begun to scratch the surface of it, and are many years, at best, from comprehensive understanding. It could be that there are both genetic traits that are required in order to have potential spiritual life and other genetic traits that block the potential. If so, there could actually be a genetic component to some doctrines of predestination and election that wouldn’t make God seem so capricious.
Edit: I never actually believed the above. I was merely considering “outside the box” possibilities, of which the above was one. This was about 20 years ago, when I was trying to be a good fundamentalist Christian. A simpler explanation is that the creation story is mostly allegorical, which still allows it to be inspired by God. What I think, and have for many years, is that the Bible is mostly a collection of myths. I don’t put much stock in any of it, except as good ancient literature.
'Bulldozed' by Darwin's error huh? So you know as a *matter of proveable fact* that they didn't think things through or utilize any critical thinking skills when/if they accepted Darwin's theory? They were just _bulldozed_ (ie., swamped, coerced, intimidated, ((ahem)) *brainwashed* into accepting or believing evolution to be true?
As if scientists are led into evolution, borg-style? With no dissent from the 'drones'?
If that is indeed the case, then please explain to me, sir, why lively discussions, heated debates, difference of opinions, and new and different theories regarding evolution or the parts thereof continue to this day in the scientific community? All of these behaviors which just do not indicate a supposed lock-step of singularity of opinion that would be indicated by the 'bulldozed' comment.
What they do indicate is a freedom to question, analyze, criticise, and so forth that genuine science is all about.
And the 'one' example that you seem to believe is the only indicator of dissent in science just doesn't cover the whole field. Sorry , but no it doesn't.
:D--> I love reading all the rather desperate attempts to portray science as supposedly practicing the same kind of mindless religious faith that the religious counterparts are accused of doing, thus supposedly making science no different. ... Why, it almost has a conspiratorial ring to it. (insert shifty eyes icon and James Bond music here)
Garth. I say "bulldozed" because the presentation of any scientific information in the public arena is done in a Darwinian framework. You watch a documentary about human sexuality and they preface everything with some comment about how our ancestors used this behaviour. You watch a nature channel show about snakes and they preface everything by saying, how old snakes are and how they evolved into this behavior or that configuration. All of this is of course conjecture, but it's never presented that way. This is a kind of brainwashing. And having said that, let me crank up the rhetoric one more notch. The Nazi's are credited with proving that you can make people believe any lie if you tell it often enough.
The theory of Darwinian evolution is presented ubiquitously day in and day out, not only in schools, but in any information presented to the public.
People that are schooled in the sciences get even more of suuch treatment because there is an entrenched mindset in the scientific community that resists any information that might lend credence to the Bible or even theories that might support the Bible. And yes Garth this mindset is documented.
None other than Albert Einstein, the founder of modern astrophysics, changed his data to avoid lending credence to the Bible. Consider this passage from Darwin's Black Box
quote:
Many people, including important and well respected scientists just don't want there to be anything beyond nature. They don't want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the intervention may have been. In other words, like young-earth Creationists, they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kind of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior
It was only about seventy years ago that most scientists thought the universe was infinite in age and size. That view had been held by some Greek philosophers in antiquity, as well as by diverese religious groups, and by those who thought there was nothing beyond nature. In contrast, Judaism and then Christianity thought the universe was created in time and was not eternal. Having few scientists among them, the early Jews did not try to adduce evidence for the finiteness of the universe, and in the Middle Ages Thomas Aquinas, the eminent theologian, said that it could be known only through faith that the universe had a beginning. But time marches on. Earlier this century Einstein discovered that his general theory of relativity predicted an unstable universe-one that would either expand or contract, but would not remain stationary. Einstein was repulsed by such a universe and, in what he later admitted was the greatest mistake of his career, inserted a "correction factor" into his equations solely to make them predict a stationary, eternal universe.
As parents and teachers always say, cheaters never prosper. A short time later, astronomer Edwin Hubble observed that wherever in the sky he pointed his telescope, the stars appeared to be moving away from the earth....Furthermore, the speed with which the stars was receding was proportional to their distance from the earth...This was the beginning of the Big Bang hypothesis.
To many the notion of the Big Bang was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event-the creation, the beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many in voicing his utter disgust with such an idea.
quote:
Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; (emphasis added)...
Nonetheless, despite its religious implications, the Big Bang was a scientific theory that flowed naturally from observational data, not from holy writings or trancendental visions. Most physicists adopted the Big Bang theory and set their research programs accordingly. A few, like Eintstein before them didn't like the extra-scientific implications of the theory and labored to develop alternatives.
I could go on, but I trust you get the point. There is an entrenched anti-Biblical philosophy in the Scientific community that retards advancement by resisting observations that lend credence to the Bible and by continuing to resist the acceptance of hypotheses based on such observations.
This is still a problem. If you study the exploration of Venus you will find that there is an enormous controversy about origgin of Venusian craters. The dominant theory was that Venus' craters were made by meteor strikes. One astronomer proved that this was not the case and that they were the result of cyclic volcanic activity. There was almost universal resistance to the theory and some prominent astronomers still reject it despite the overwhelming evidence. Why? Because of the young-earth controversy. In my opinion, the entrenched resistance to the idea that Venus' craters are the result of volcanic activity means that if it could happen on Venus, it could happen on earth and a planet's volcanic activity could give it the apperance being much older than it really is. So here we have yet another example of entrenched anti-Christian worldviews retarding the advancement of Science. This certainly isn't the way science is supposed to operate. But we don't live in a perfect world. We all have our agendas and biases. We're all resistant to data that weakens the base of our personal biases and so we challenge and resist it. Scientists, beig people too, are no different. We need to understand that in order to understand how scientists in many fields can be "bulldozed" into accepting theories that dont' fit the facts.
Jerry, the quote seems not to support your conclusion. Einstein made a mistake, because he was trying to fit his equations to the generally accepted notion of a static universe. Hubble later produced observational data that indicated that the universe was expanding. So what happened? The scientific community accepted that data and developed new models based on it, even though some found the implications philosophically repugnant. And Einstein acknowledged his mistake. The vast anti-theistic conspiracy of scientists some people seem to believe exists didn’t manufacture evidence to adamantly hold to a theory that discounted the possibility of creation. Rather, new theories were developed that incorporated new data. And it all happened in a relatively short period of time, with nobody being persecuted for “scientific heresy.” (Vigorous debate is not persecution.) It seems to me to be a wonderful large-scale example of the very essence of science, not a refutation of it.
Regarding your Venus example, could you name the one astronomer you say proved that Venus’ craters “were the result of cyclic volcanic activity” and maybe cite a source for your information?
I couldn't help but notice that your post was sprinkled with phrases like 'anti-Bible' and the like, thus portraying a certain 'defiance of God/Christianity/any Higher Authority' flavor to it.
Want to know why I interpret it that way? ... Because I too used to have that kind of ((ahem)) 'bulldozed' mindset. I know how that tactic/POV works, as it places an 'enmity' factor on all those who have the mitigated gaul to dispute the Biblical account. That POV/mindset has been dominant within the church ever since science really got going since Galileo, even before. And you know, and I know (if you're honest about it) that it has its roots in resisting any challenge to the Scriptures. *ANY* challenge to the Scriptures, despite any valid point raised or any complaint about science practicing the same behavior, valid or not.
And for your information, I accept that there are a good number of evolutionary scientists who have their head up their nethers, and often put their professional pride above intellectual honesty. (Just like there are Creationists in the same boat.)
Oh by the way, speaking of such, remember that account about the Nebraska Man (I think that's what it was) where the bones were found to be modern dog bones or some such, but that those findings were buried in order to support the evolution theory further? ... Want to know who brought that fraud to light? Young Earth Creationists or Bible believing people? Ahh, nope. Other evolutionary scientists who didn't need fraud to make their case, and had the temerity to slam dunk the lying twerps. With no apologies. (On John Schoenheit's CES tape regarding evolution, I heard him teach about that incident, yet he conveniently didn't mention that it was evolutionists who blew open the case. ... Amazing what leaving out certain information can do to influence the image and conclusion of a certain incident, hmmm?)
The 'collective resistance' of scientists to creationism, even if they did do it more out of pride and anal-retentiveness than scientific objectivity, has FAR more to do with the ingrained human nature and 'pointy haired' pride, than any supposed/alleged 'anti-Christian, devil inspired' motivation of that nature; for one thing, that a good number of evolutionary scientists are Christian puts a Titanic sized hole in that boat.
...Later on in the NT God says(emphasis mine) that believers SHOULDN'T just take what they were taught on "blind faith," but that they SHOULD SEARCH the scriptures EVERY DAY at to whether the things they were taught fit with what the scriptures said.
Now, how many times have I heard, "God says"? Well, plenty and definetly not from God! It's always been a person who says "God says".
There are many good prudence standards, principles, etc offered in the Bible as well other scriptures from other cultures.
To say that "God says" seems to offer the same "blind faith" that should be avoided.
I will detail anyone's vehicle once every two weeks for one year if they can prove GOD SAID ANYTHING! Well, not the particular word "anything". :P-->
So, JB, are you saying that over the past serveral hundred years that we would have made far greater leaps in science if they would have allowed the posibility of an unobservable unpredictable untestable God to influence their positions?
Or would you agree that this would be the antithesis of the scientific method, a method that has proved to be quite helpful.
sidebar-
it would seem that now the Big Bang Theory which as your author pointed out was thought to point to creation in its infantcy, is now thought to be anti-Creation by many if not most Christians today.
Jerry, the quote seems not to support your conclusion. Einstein made a mistake, because he was trying to fit his equations to the generally accepted notion of a static universe. Hubble later produced observational data that indicated that the universe was expanding. So what happened? The scientific community accepted that data and developed new models based on it, even though some found the implications philosophically repugnant. And Einstein acknowledged his mistake. The vast anti-theistic conspiracy of scientists some people seem to believe exists didn’t manufacture evidence to adamantly hold to a theory that discounted the possibility of creation. Rather, new theories were developed that incorporated new data. And it all happened in a relatively short period of time, with nobody being persecuted for “scientific heresy.” (Vigorous debate is not persecution.) It seems to me to be a wonderful large-scale example of the very essence of science, not a refutation of it.
Regarding your Venus example, could you name the one astronomer you say proved that Venus’ craters “were the result of cyclic volcanic activity” and maybe cite a source for your information?
Read it again LG. Einstein didn't "make a mistake". His own calcualtions told him something he didn't want to believe, so he changed them. He fudged the data because he didn't like the outcome. And Hubble's evidence was resisted for the same reason. The point I'm making is, most people don't expect scientists to behave this way. Especially those who ridicule Creationists and imply that they ignore scientific evidence that refutes their beliefs. I'm simply stating that there is bias on both sides of this debate and it colors scientific observation and theory just as it colors religious presentations of the natural world.
The venus info is from a documentary I saw a few months ago. I'll have to do some digging to get the names and specifics. :-)
So, JB, are you saying that over the past serveral hundred years that we would have made far greater leaps in science if they would have allowed the posibility of an unobservable unpredictable untestable God to influence their positions?
Or would you agree that this would be the antithesis of the scientific method, a method that has proved to be quite helpful.
sidebar-
it would seem that now the Big Bang Theory which as your author pointed out was thought to point to creation in its infantcy, is now thought to be anti-Creation by many if not most Christians today.
What I'm saying Lindy, is that science would be farther along by now if it didn't have an entrenched mindset that resists Christian thinking. ANY entrenched mindset is contrary to the scientific method. If scientists did what we expedt them to do an simply observe the data honestly, I suspect that Darwin would have already been cast aside. Certainly not 100 years ago, because natural selection is an observed phenomenon. But in the past five to ten years, as scientists have learned more about the minute complexity of nature, both in medical, zoological, and phsyics, there has been a mounting field of evidence that supports intelligent design. Withouth the entrenched bias against Christian thinking, this evidence would have been evaluated more honestly, more objectively.
Of course, as Garth will point out, if it were not for the heavy handed history of the Church and its attempt to control all aspects of life and society, there might not be so much antagonism against it in the scientific and acadamic communities. Although I do believe there is a spiritual aspect to this "anti-Bible" bias, there is a logical reactionary root to it as well.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
39
27
33
Popular Days
Apr 11
31
Apr 8
24
Apr 9
19
Apr 13
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Jbarrax 22 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 39 posts
LG 27 posts
HCW 33 posts
Popular Days
Apr 11 2005
31 posts
Apr 8 2005
24 posts
Apr 9 2005
19 posts
Apr 13 2005
18 posts
LG
HCW, I was being nice previously in saying “not really.” A more blunt response would have been, “no they are not.” If you do not agree, then I suggest you consult a thesaurus.
More accurately, rather than pointing out that you are dead wrong, I chose to give you a softer answer, hoping to turn away wrath. That seems not to have worked, so unless you wish to calmly discuss some of the points I brought up in my immediately previous post, I’ll bid you adieu.Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
So. You DIDN'T do all of that BECAUSE I posted a couple of links?
Oh. I see. You just wanted to:
a. make sure I knew I didn't know what I was doing when I CHOSE to post the one link,
b. let me know that I also didn't know the second link was to a bogus offer.
c. you wanted to clarify for me things YOU think I don't understand,
d. "note" something you're pretty sure I don't know about how the theory of evolution IS compatable with Bible-based Christian belief.
e. Clarify you interest in the topic.
Other than saying All of that you have said little. BUT. I have carried on about many unrelated things... to what you said.
Who said I was ONLY talking to YOU? Other than your ego, that is?
The last you read, apparently is old news. Could it be that you are actually IGNORANT of something that I know? Try accepted by all of the scientific minds who've discovered it, and accepted it and had their findings published in places like TIME magazine. You questions suggest you are ignorant of some of the latest findings on this topic you're so interested in. Hmmm.
Then again, had you actually READ, more than skimmed and summarily dismissed the AiG site you might have found that all of the contributors to the site are NOT fundamentalist Christians.
If you were as up on "absolute" dating techiniques (that are "more accurate" than carbon dating) you'd know that THE most accurate dating techniques have an increasing margin of error curve that the older the object appears to be the wider the margin. An absolutely dated object that is determined to be 50,000 years old can have a margin of error as old as they think the object is. In other words they can be 10's of thousands of years off on an object they think may be 10's of thousands of years old.
In further other words, the only thing absolute about absolute dating techniques is that they absolutely don't know how hold an object absolutely is.
One word about the evolution of man from one-celled organisms that rules God out of the picture is this:RANDOM.
The concept that the proper things randomly came together and created life that evolved into human beings is ludicrous.
Evolutionists NEED millions and billions of years to support their claims. Their own science requires thousands of years for even the smallest evolutionary change within a species. Not to mention evolutionary changes between different species.
...and YOU have counted everybody...?
And why is is you throw all of these 'barbs' "most people who understand science" into your posts? Are YOU a scientist, or just an uninformed person who understands science?
Don't you understand that 'dissin' fundamentalists is just the common buzz "thing" of the day? Sheesh.
Why couldn't the all powerful, PERFECT God be perfectly succinct?Besides. Had you actually READ the Bible you'd know that the totality of God's word was written by HIM in the stars, not just a few paragraphs. Further. Had you actually, did a scientific type study of the few paragraphs, you'd see how much there is perfectly crammed into them. AND you's see many other paragraphs in the bible that ellucidate the ones in Genesis' first few chapters.
If this were a calm and rational conversation maybe....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Gee. I'm really mad now.... NOT! I'm not angry. I'm amused.
In your own words you've added little substance to this discussion but to correct me, now you're leaving because you THINK I'm showing you wrath.
Ok.
-->
If you wish to come back and actually add something other that your obviously superior attitude, feel free attitude and all. I'm sure we'd all like to hear just how the evolutionary process of random selection actually fits "like a hand in a glove" with God creating the first human.
Or are you saying the first Adam was a pithecanthropus erectus?
I know exactly what you're talking about when you say evolution fits with the Bible. Its bogus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Howard,
It looks like you're straining, man. Picking at gnats, as it were.
Kick back with a Bud Light or something. Of course it is the weekend, so make it a Michelob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I didn't say I was leaving the discussion.
Horse, you've posed some very good questions (as have others).
After a great deal of thought and study, I came up with what I think is a better explanation years ago, back when I believed that the Bible was the Revealed Word of God. I now think that much of the Bible is myth. However, if I accept the "universe" of the Bible in much the same way I accept the universe of a fantasy or science fiction story, I still think the explanation fits the Biblical universe. In other words, I think that it is worth considering for those who believe the Bible is revealed truth. It's been years since I've given it much thought and I no longer have my notes on the subject, but I've been working (slowly, because of other considerations) on putting together a series of posts. I'll eventually get around to posting my thoughts, either on this thread or on one or more dedicated to the topics I'll be discussing.Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Garth! If you've got the time. I'll bring the beer! Michelob is fine w/ me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
You know Long Gone. I'm actually glad you're niot leaving the discussion.
I wasn't kidding, I actually would like to hear what you have to say on this topic.
I was never mad at you at all. Still am not now.
Specifically, HOW much of the Bible do you now think is a myth? How do you determine what is and what is not myth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Wow. This thread has taken off at light speed. Can't begin to keep up with it, so I'll offer a brief response to Lindyhopper's comment about science. You said that one woman's discovery is a credit to science.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the fact that one scientis among thousands didn't buy the "junk DNA" assumption and looked deeper to make an important discovery means we should feel good about the direction science is going in.
So one scientist out of 1,000 wasn't bulldozed by Darwin's error. Hooray for SCIENCE! I think that's backwards. If science is doing what it's supposed to, if the Scientific method is really being employed faithfully and objectively, those numbers should be reversed.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Yo Jerry,
'Bulldozed' by Darwin's error huh? So you know as a *matter of proveable fact* that they didn't think things through or utilize any critical thinking skills when/if they accepted Darwin's theory? They were just _bulldozed_ (ie., swamped, coerced, intimidated, ((ahem)) *brainwashed* into accepting or believing evolution to be true?
As if scientists are led into evolution, borg-style? With no dissent from the 'drones'?
If that is indeed the case, then please explain to me, sir, why lively discussions, heated debates, difference of opinions, and new and different theories regarding evolution or the parts thereof continue to this day in the scientific community? All of these behaviors which just do not indicate a supposed lock-step of singularity of opinion that would be indicated by the 'bulldozed' comment.
What they do indicate is a freedom to question, analyze, criticise, and so forth that genuine science is all about.
And the 'one' example that you seem to believe is the only indicator of dissent in science just doesn't cover the whole field. Sorry , but no it doesn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Jerry,
It is a credit to science because it continues to move forward in the search for reality. Whether it is 1 in 1000 or 1000 to 1, the goal of science is to make discoveries and make closer appoximations to reality. While the 1000 threw out one layer they were not screwing up the rest of the work they were doing, they were still moving forward. When a study is repeated or peer review and is found faulty, it is not due to the downfall of science but a faulty aplication of science, a faulty hypothesis, prediction, observation, or experiment. Maybe an assumption that should never have been made was the fault. Still the fact that science catches a mistake or questions a success is to its credit.
Even if evolution is partially incorrect, even the incorrect aspects of it are not without merit entirely when you consider the other discoveries that it has helped reveal.
And as Garth pointed out one incident should not be used as the measure of "science" in general.
I would be interested in someone commenting on my point of creation not being a theory but a hypothesis. You can make observations. You can make a hypothesis. I guess you could even make predictions, but there is no way to test those predictions to support your hypothesis. Therefore, scientificly (which is usually what we are referencing when using this word) you can not declare it a theory. The only definition that fits using the word theory next to the word creation is that of conjecture. Guesswork.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
the other Jerry?
Are you implying that Adam and Eve, barring sin, would have died a natural physical death? That entropy was in the original design? Was god the author of this physical death? If not where, when and why did it change?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I’ve decided not to go into as much detail on this as I had previously intended. I’ve forgotten a lot of what I once worked up and to reconstruct it and express it coherently would take a long time and a lot of effort. So I’ll just toss out some food for thought for anyone interested. Everything that follows will presume that the Bible is revelation from God, some of which is figurative. It will also presume generally accepted scientific knowledge and theory. The point is not that either is necessarily true, but that they are (at least conceivably) compatible.
If we assume that all sorts of species lived and died prior to Adam, then whatever death entered the world as a consequence of Adam’s sin must not have been physical plant and animal death. Instead, it must be a sort of death that is particular to humans. Biblically, that would include spiritual death but, if there is something different about human life than animal life, it could also include some sort of uniquely human cognitive or soul death. The Bible doesn’t include enough information to affirm that, but neither does it give enough to exclude that possibility.
Humans are not much different than many other extant animals, particularly other primates. If, however, humans can have a spiritual life, then there must be something different about them that scientific investigation has not identified, and possibly that it cannot identify. The fossil record includes evidence of many human-like species that have existed in the past. It includes, apparently going back many tens of thousands of years, specimens that are physically indistinguishable from modern humans, which are generally taken to be modern humans. Something we cannot know about them, though, is whether or not they possessed whatever attribute (perhaps even a yet-unknown physical or chemical attribute of the brain) modern humans have that allows for a spiritual life.
Suppose that creatures existed some thousands of years ago that were physically indistinguishable from humanity of today, but did not possess this attribute. By most any standard we could measure, they would be humans, but by a standard based on actual or potential spiritual life, they would not be the same.
Now suppose that God created creatures (Adam and Eve) that looked just like those other creatures, perhaps could even interbreed with them, but that had spiritual life and the conjectured attribute that allowed for spiritual life. It could be complete creation or more along the lines of adding an enhancement to existing beings.
The conjectured “attribute” would not necessarily be singular, but could be a combination of traits, all of which might need to be expressed in order for there even to be the potential for spiritual life. If all were genetically encoded and recessive, then only a person who inherited all the right genes (I’ll call them “Adamic genes”) from both their father and mother would even have the potential to have spiritual life. Now let’s explore possible implications for the Christ line.
Suppose there were two lines of “humans.” Members of the Adamic line, if pure, would have all the traits necessary to harbor spiritual life. Members of the non-Adamic line would have none. Offspring of interbreeding between the two lines would have some Adamic genes, but the traits would not be expressed. If the traits were recessive and interbreeding were extensive, there would be a danger that some of the Adamic genes might eventually “die out” (not be carried on to future generations). It could easily get to the point that only one family (let’s call them the Noahs) maintained all the Adamic genes necessary to harbor spiritual life (remained pure Adamic line).
What about the nephilim? Well, suppose that particular combinations of Adamic and non-Adamic genes resulted in greater than normal strength, size, agility, intelligence, or other advantageous traits. People with those traits might very well be “giants,” “mighty men,” “men of renown.” They would likely accumulate wealth and power, have great influence, and have more offspring than the average person. They also might directly kill off, enslave, or impoverish other people, particularly those who were trying to maintain a pure Adamic line, thereby reducing their likelihood of producing offspring. They might also take, by force, wives of pure Adamic line, thereby depriving them from men of pure Adamic line (dang, that sounds sexist, but that’s the way the world was once). The net result would be to reduce in the population, over time, the percentage of Adamic genes, and particularly of individuals with homozygous Adamic genes. Some might recognize that as natural selection.
How about after Noah? Well, the Bible would indicate that Noah, his wife, and his sons were pure Adamic line. If one or more of his daughters-in-law weren’t, that could allow for some of the “eruptions” later in the Bible, in Canaan, for example.
I’ve kept this fairly simple, by emphasizing a conjectured combination of homozygous recessive genes being necessary for spiritual life, but the genetic code is extremely complex and we’ve only just begun to scratch the surface of it, and are many years, at best, from comprehensive understanding. It could be that there are both genetic traits that are required in order to have potential spiritual life and other genetic traits that block the potential. If so, there could actually be a genetic component to some doctrines of predestination and election that wouldn’t make God seem so capricious.
Edit: I never actually believed the above. I was merely considering “outside the box” possibilities, of which the above was one. This was about 20 years ago, when I was trying to be a good fundamentalist Christian. A simpler explanation is that the creation story is mostly allegorical, which still allows it to be inspired by God. What I think, and have for many years, is that the Bible is mostly a collection of myths. I don’t put much stock in any of it, except as good ancient literature.
Edited by LGLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Garth. I say "bulldozed" because the presentation of any scientific information in the public arena is done in a Darwinian framework. You watch a documentary about human sexuality and they preface everything with some comment about how our ancestors used this behaviour. You watch a nature channel show about snakes and they preface everything by saying, how old snakes are and how they evolved into this behavior or that configuration. All of this is of course conjecture, but it's never presented that way. This is a kind of brainwashing. And having said that, let me crank up the rhetoric one more notch. The Nazi's are credited with proving that you can make people believe any lie if you tell it often enough.
The theory of Darwinian evolution is presented ubiquitously day in and day out, not only in schools, but in any information presented to the public.
People that are schooled in the sciences get even more of suuch treatment because there is an entrenched mindset in the scientific community that resists any information that might lend credence to the Bible or even theories that might support the Bible. And yes Garth this mindset is documented.
None other than Albert Einstein, the founder of modern astrophysics, changed his data to avoid lending credence to the Bible. Consider this passage from Darwin's Black Box
I could go on, but I trust you get the point. There is an entrenched anti-Biblical philosophy in the Scientific community that retards advancement by resisting observations that lend credence to the Bible and by continuing to resist the acceptance of hypotheses based on such observations.
This is still a problem. If you study the exploration of Venus you will find that there is an enormous controversy about origgin of Venusian craters. The dominant theory was that Venus' craters were made by meteor strikes. One astronomer proved that this was not the case and that they were the result of cyclic volcanic activity. There was almost universal resistance to the theory and some prominent astronomers still reject it despite the overwhelming evidence. Why? Because of the young-earth controversy. In my opinion, the entrenched resistance to the idea that Venus' craters are the result of volcanic activity means that if it could happen on Venus, it could happen on earth and a planet's volcanic activity could give it the apperance being much older than it really is. So here we have yet another example of entrenched anti-Christian worldviews retarding the advancement of Science. This certainly isn't the way science is supposed to operate. But we don't live in a perfect world. We all have our agendas and biases. We're all resistant to data that weakens the base of our personal biases and so we challenge and resist it. Scientists, beig people too, are no different. We need to understand that in order to understand how scientists in many fields can be "bulldozed" into accepting theories that dont' fit the facts.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Jerry, the quote seems not to support your conclusion. Einstein made a mistake, because he was trying to fit his equations to the generally accepted notion of a static universe. Hubble later produced observational data that indicated that the universe was expanding. So what happened? The scientific community accepted that data and developed new models based on it, even though some found the implications philosophically repugnant. And Einstein acknowledged his mistake. The vast anti-theistic conspiracy of scientists some people seem to believe exists didn’t manufacture evidence to adamantly hold to a theory that discounted the possibility of creation. Rather, new theories were developed that incorporated new data. And it all happened in a relatively short period of time, with nobody being persecuted for “scientific heresy.” (Vigorous debate is not persecution.) It seems to me to be a wonderful large-scale example of the very essence of science, not a refutation of it.
Regarding your Venus example, could you name the one astronomer you say proved that Venus’ craters “were the result of cyclic volcanic activity” and maybe cite a source for your information?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Jerry,
I couldn't help but notice that your post was sprinkled with phrases like 'anti-Bible' and the like, thus portraying a certain 'defiance of God/Christianity/any Higher Authority' flavor to it.
Want to know why I interpret it that way? ... Because I too used to have that kind of ((ahem)) 'bulldozed' mindset. I know how that tactic/POV works, as it places an 'enmity' factor on all those who have the mitigated gaul to dispute the Biblical account. That POV/mindset has been dominant within the church ever since science really got going since Galileo, even before. And you know, and I know (if you're honest about it) that it has its roots in resisting any challenge to the Scriptures. *ANY* challenge to the Scriptures, despite any valid point raised or any complaint about science practicing the same behavior, valid or not.
And for your information, I accept that there are a good number of evolutionary scientists who have their head up their nethers, and often put their professional pride above intellectual honesty. (Just like there are Creationists in the same boat.)
Oh by the way, speaking of such, remember that account about the Nebraska Man (I think that's what it was) where the bones were found to be modern dog bones or some such, but that those findings were buried in order to support the evolution theory further? ... Want to know who brought that fraud to light? Young Earth Creationists or Bible believing people? Ahh, nope. Other evolutionary scientists who didn't need fraud to make their case, and had the temerity to slam dunk the lying twerps. With no apologies. (On John Schoenheit's CES tape regarding evolution, I heard him teach about that incident, yet he conveniently didn't mention that it was evolutionists who blew open the case. ... Amazing what leaving out certain information can do to influence the image and conclusion of a certain incident, hmmm?)
The 'collective resistance' of scientists to creationism, even if they did do it more out of pride and anal-retentiveness than scientific objectivity, has FAR more to do with the ingrained human nature and 'pointy haired' pride, than any supposed/alleged 'anti-Christian, devil inspired' motivation of that nature; for one thing, that a good number of evolutionary scientists are Christian puts a Titanic sized hole in that boat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Now, how many times have I heard, "God says"? Well, plenty and definetly not from God! It's always been a person who says "God says".
There are many good prudence standards, principles, etc offered in the Bible as well other scriptures from other cultures.
To say that "God says" seems to offer the same "blind faith" that should be avoided.
I will detail anyone's vehicle once every two weeks for one year if they can prove GOD SAID ANYTHING! Well, not the particular word "anything".
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
I dig the gig in the Bible when Jesus was asked what is truth and no answer was given!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Jeesh this seems like an evanescent moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
I said , "Jeesh this seems like an evanescent moment."
Well, I'm quickly back considering moments.
I actually have a record of an Indian who lived 400 summers. Of cousre it was written!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
felix culpa
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
So, JB, are you saying that over the past serveral hundred years that we would have made far greater leaps in science if they would have allowed the posibility of an unobservable unpredictable untestable God to influence their positions?
Or would you agree that this would be the antithesis of the scientific method, a method that has proved to be quite helpful.
sidebar-
it would seem that now the Big Bang Theory which as your author pointed out was thought to point to creation in its infantcy, is now thought to be anti-Creation by many if not most Christians today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Read it again LG. Einstein didn't "make a mistake". His own calcualtions told him something he didn't want to believe, so he changed them. He fudged the data because he didn't like the outcome. And Hubble's evidence was resisted for the same reason. The point I'm making is, most people don't expect scientists to behave this way. Especially those who ridicule Creationists and imply that they ignore scientific evidence that refutes their beliefs. I'm simply stating that there is bias on both sides of this debate and it colors scientific observation and theory just as it colors religious presentations of the natural world.
The venus info is from a documentary I saw a few months ago. I'll have to do some digging to get the names and specifics. :-)
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Song, I just dont' "get" your posts. I wonder if we're on the same wavelength. :-)
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
What I'm saying Lindy, is that science would be farther along by now if it didn't have an entrenched mindset that resists Christian thinking. ANY entrenched mindset is contrary to the scientific method. If scientists did what we expedt them to do an simply observe the data honestly, I suspect that Darwin would have already been cast aside. Certainly not 100 years ago, because natural selection is an observed phenomenon. But in the past five to ten years, as scientists have learned more about the minute complexity of nature, both in medical, zoological, and phsyics, there has been a mounting field of evidence that supports intelligent design. Withouth the entrenched bias against Christian thinking, this evidence would have been evaluated more honestly, more objectively.
Of course, as Garth will point out, if it were not for the heavy handed history of the Church and its attempt to control all aspects of life and society, there might not be so much antagonism against it in the scientific and acadamic communities. Although I do believe there is a spiritual aspect to this "anti-Bible" bias, there is a logical reactionary root to it as well.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.