Repent for being a Mac user!!
- Thread starter simX
- Start date
bighairydog
tail-wagging member
Firstly, it's good that you are willing to debate this other Christians who are not so secure in their beliefs just get angry when I argue with them. Ill answer your points:
Take the argument that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Creation scientists build the law up to be inviolable, say that evolution violated it, and then forget to mention that it only applies to closed systems, and therefore doesnt apply to the open system of DNA/Organisms. I dont believe that they dont know this it is an integral part of the theory and any physicist knows it, and by missing out a point in the theory they are effectively deceiving hoping that the listener doesnt know that what they are saying isnt the real law of thermodynamics.
) There are well known processes that increase the amount of genetic information. To name three:
Nice, as always, to converse with you Matt,
Bernie)
I couldnt find an authoritative text, but a google search reveals that majority opinion is that he was a Christian, and that those who say that he wasnt are generally using his beliefs to say that he cant have been a real Christian, regardless of whether he thought he was or not. It was a lecturer who first told me.
Not even the existence of two different creation stories convinces you that either one is true and the other not,or alternatively that they are both metaphors?
That clears it up for you? It says just what I did, i.e. that creation science is arguments put forward to support creationism, nothing about seeking better hypotheses or considering any arguments that do not support creationism
I'm not sure if they lie in the sense of making up evidence, but they commonly use a 'scientific' argument, and then forget to mention a vital clause in the theory that renders what they are saying a misapplication of that theory. This is tantamount to lying.
Take the argument that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Creation scientists build the law up to be inviolable, say that evolution violated it, and then forget to mention that it only applies to closed systems, and therefore doesnt apply to the open system of DNA/Organisms. I dont believe that they dont know this it is an integral part of the theory and any physicist knows it, and by missing out a point in the theory they are effectively deceiving hoping that the listener doesnt know that what they are saying isnt the real law of thermodynamics.
Firstly, I agree - evolution of life from molecules is of course not compatible with creation, but the Creation scientists often say that evolution of one form of life into another doesnt occur as well. Also, you have steered the debate to a field in which Im more comfortable arguing
) There are well known processes that increase the amount of genetic information. To name three:- Genetic Translocation, vector induced or spontaneous. This involves the duplication of a section of DNA to another part of the Genome, and has been observed in the furit fly Drosophila. Evidence that it has hapened is in the fact that cows have two almost identical Digestion Enzyme genes, flagged by sequences similar to the translocation sequences in Drosophila
- Polyploidy the mating of two genetically distinct species which doubles the number of chromosomes in the offspring. Modern strains of wheat are made this way by plant breeders
- Chromosomal mutations e.g. downs syndrome is the result of a duplication of a chromosome, and not all such duplications are detrimental
Treating literal interpretations of bible passages as evidence to support the idea that literal interpretations of bible passages can be used as evidence is a circular argument: Q: how do we know that this book is the word of god? A: Because the book tells us so Q: How do we know that the book is correct? A: Because it is the word of God.
Nice, as always, to converse with you Matt,
Bernie
)
bighairydog
tail-wagging member
It is the common destiny of those that believe in the scientific truth of Genesis and choose to take it up with others to be in a minority in intellectual forums.
However, Matt is currently doing a good job, and has increased my estimation of Christians.
Bernie
)
scruffy
Notorious Olive Counter
Speaking of ganging up - I admit here I didn't read Matt's relevant post, just Bernie's counterarguments. I may be taking Matt out of context here.
History, surely, is a narrative of events as recorded, remembered, or passed on by witnesses. But then
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
pretty much rules out witnesses to record those events, seems to me...
History, surely, is a narrative of events as recorded, remembered, or passed on by witnesses. But then
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
pretty much rules out witnesses to record those events, seems to me...
ebolag4
Fundamentalist whack-job
In the Judeo/Christian belief, many of us (myself included, call me a wacko if you wish) who are literalist in our interpretation of Scripture believe that the Bible is a record of both history and doctrine (among many other uses as well). Some of us believe that the Bible came from God himself verbally (written/spoken) and that He is the only source of that knowledge. In that light, some of us believe that there are events in the recorded history of Scripture that only He witnessed. Things that we would otherwise have no knowledge of if He did not choose to reveal it. Some of us even believe that there are innumerable things that He has not chosen to reveal to mankind. That there are some things He might reveal in the future, and some things He might never reveal. He's God, what He does is up to Him, and my opinion of Him makes absolutely no difference (my personal belief).
Hopefully some of that made sense.
Not trying to start another war here, but I have a question to Ed and others of pagan belief. This is for my own knowledge and not to start another debate, so feel free to PM me if necessary. Are there things (beliefs) in paganism that would not change if modern science found evidence that a paganistic belief was in error (as many charge Christianity), or do modern day pagans place their belief in a modern day framework that is changeable according to the knowledge of man through scientific discovery?
For example, is there something in paganism like the creation/evolution debate. I, as a literalist Bible believer, reject science as having the answer to origins. I believe that science can find evidence of origin, but science cannot prove origin (neither evolution nor creation). Therefore, my faith relies totally on the Scripture. Are there things in paganism that are the same. Are there paganistic beliefs that have scientific evidence against them that are still believed, or do pagans follow current scientific thought in their belief system?
Enjoying the thread
-ebolag4
Hopefully some of that made sense.
Not trying to start another war here, but I have a question to Ed and others of pagan belief. This is for my own knowledge and not to start another debate, so feel free to PM me if necessary. Are there things (beliefs) in paganism that would not change if modern science found evidence that a paganistic belief was in error (as many charge Christianity), or do modern day pagans place their belief in a modern day framework that is changeable according to the knowledge of man through scientific discovery?
For example, is there something in paganism like the creation/evolution debate. I, as a literalist Bible believer, reject science as having the answer to origins. I believe that science can find evidence of origin, but science cannot prove origin (neither evolution nor creation). Therefore, my faith relies totally on the Scripture. Are there things in paganism that are the same. Are there paganistic beliefs that have scientific evidence against them that are still believed, or do pagans follow current scientific thought in their belief system?
Enjoying the thread
-ebolag4
Valrus
Now With Even More Dumb!
Proof? Proof?
Proof is why the closest thing I have to a religion is mathematics. It's weird but it has worked for me... I think it's as legitimate a belief system as any and it doesn't lead me to go out and kill people or anything. Check this out if you want to know more about this craziness. And if you liked that, you might just love this... I'm pretty proud of those two journal entries. Comments anyone?
I'm vain. I know.
-the valrus
4398579-857
Registered
No long post here...
just a quick answer, I'm sure others will fill in more.
Pagans and or counter religions or faiths have the same mixed bag of those who have absolute belief and faith systems that are not influenced by anything science says. In fact I would have to say that is more the norm.
Pagan beliefs are very old and steeped in tradition and have less science to them than even some more modern religions.
Then again there ARE groups that have a more modern thought and application of the beliefs and practice. I do know Jews and Catholics with the same concepts though.... some follow strict traditional belief while others have their own more modern version of the religion.
I am of no particular faith or religion I suppose you could call it "Me,ism" I follow my heart and my inner spirit. My Wife on the other hand is a completely NON practicing Jew that observes nothing. Go figure. She sees being Jewish more as a cultural identity but shuns all that has to do with religion.
just a quick answer, I'm sure others will fill in more.
Pagans and or counter religions or faiths have the same mixed bag of those who have absolute belief and faith systems that are not influenced by anything science says. In fact I would have to say that is more the norm.
Pagan beliefs are very old and steeped in tradition and have less science to them than even some more modern religions.
Then again there ARE groups that have a more modern thought and application of the beliefs and practice. I do know Jews and Catholics with the same concepts though.... some follow strict traditional belief while others have their own more modern version of the religion.
I am of no particular faith or religion I suppose you could call it "Me,ism" I follow my heart and my inner spirit. My Wife on the other hand is a completely NON practicing Jew that observes nothing. Go figure. She sees being Jewish more as a cultural identity but shuns all that has to do with religion.
Edge100
Registered
What if, one day, God wanted to bake a cake. And He decided to go down to the grocery store and look for a box of Betty Crocker chocolate fudge. He was so hungry, He said "I think I'll go home and make a cake identical to the one on the box...Yes, I will make a cake in the image of the one on the box!"
So God goes home and adds some eggs and milk to the mix and beats it all up and puts it in the pan. He then thinks to Himself, "This doesnt look the one on the box." God, being a quick worker, had forgotten to read the box and didnt realise the cake needed to be baked first. "Ahh," said God, "I shall bake it first, then I shall have a cake in the image of the one on the box."
So God puts the cake in the oven, and low and behold, 20 minutes later he has a cake that looks identical to the one on the box.
Sorry for this trite little story, but evolution and creation are NOT necessarily opposites. God surely could still be in the process of making us in his own image. We may be "baking" right now.
To be honest, I am not a Christian. I believe in myself. The whole thing (religion...ALL religions) can so easily be seen as simple metaphors used thousands of years ago to provide solace to people who had no answers and no way of finding answers to what they saw around them. I believe Jesus existed and that he was a great leader. But Immaculate Conception? Sorry. Jesus was akin to Mohammed or Ghandi, for that matter.
Evolution occurs every day in my lab (yes, I'm a scientist). It happens in cell culture when I use selection pressure to select out a certain strain of bacteria or cell. Evolution is fact. It is not (necessarily) inconsistant with creation (although I do not agree with creation).
Thank you.
So God goes home and adds some eggs and milk to the mix and beats it all up and puts it in the pan. He then thinks to Himself, "This doesnt look the one on the box." God, being a quick worker, had forgotten to read the box and didnt realise the cake needed to be baked first. "Ahh," said God, "I shall bake it first, then I shall have a cake in the image of the one on the box."
So God puts the cake in the oven, and low and behold, 20 minutes later he has a cake that looks identical to the one on the box.
Sorry for this trite little story, but evolution and creation are NOT necessarily opposites. God surely could still be in the process of making us in his own image. We may be "baking" right now.
To be honest, I am not a Christian. I believe in myself. The whole thing (religion...ALL religions) can so easily be seen as simple metaphors used thousands of years ago to provide solace to people who had no answers and no way of finding answers to what they saw around them. I believe Jesus existed and that he was a great leader. But Immaculate Conception? Sorry. Jesus was akin to Mohammed or Ghandi, for that matter.
Evolution occurs every day in my lab (yes, I'm a scientist). It happens in cell culture when I use selection pressure to select out a certain strain of bacteria or cell. Evolution is fact. It is not (necessarily) inconsistant with creation (although I do not agree with creation).
Thank you.
scruffy
Notorious Olive Counter
That reminds me of a native Canadian story that accounts for the reason people come in different colours. I guess it was an adaptation of the creation stories they were hearing from European missionaries. Sorry, no links to back any of this up, I just remember it from a while back, probably high school sometime.
God was going to make the perfect man and woman to inhabit the most beautiful paradise on Earth - North America, obviously. He dug up some sandy clay, and molded a man and a woman out of it. When they had dried, he saw that they were all pasty-looking and pale from the sand in the clay. 'Eugh. They're too ugly for paradise.' He threw them away from himself, and they landed in Europe.
He tried again, but this time he baked the man and woman in an oven to darken them. They turned a funny yellow colour, and he decided they wouldn't do either. He threw them away from himself, and they landed in Asia.
He found some darker clay, and made another set, but he left these ones in the oven too long, and they were burnt completely black. He threw them away from himself, and they landed in Africa.
He tried again with the darker clay, but watched the humans carefully, and pulled them out of the oven as soon as they had turned a beautiful coppery red colour. Finally, he had a set of humans beautiful enough to go into his paradise garden.
The moral of the story is: You shouldn't hate people whose skin is the wrong colour; after all, they couldn't help it if God was a lousy potter.
MDLarson
Registered
I want to apologize for that. I meant no offense and I should have made it clear that I was just trying to reply to the accusation that most creation scientists were deliberatly misleading people. I didn't pause to realize that some would feel the same exact way I felt.Originally posted by Ed Spruiell
Matt - you had best watch what you are saying and how you say it or we may stop discussing and go back to not being friends. To imply that evolutionists, by lack of being literal interpretationists of the Bible, lack a moral code is just plain ignorant and borders on stupid. You might not have intended it that way, but you have just attacked me and claimed that i have no morals. or that my morals aren't as good as yours because they aren't written down where i can check them when i forget what they should be. (or maybe because i don't have somebody telling me what to believe, i can't believe anything) shame on you young man.
Maybe I can elaborate a little further so my point isn't missed completely: If indeed we are a product of random evolution (I'm using the atheistic version of evolution, of course), who's to say what's wrong or right? I don't doubt that many Christians are lacking morals and many non-Christians DO have morals, but that's not the point. The point is that Christians have a source to look to, an instruction book if you will, that claims to be the Word of God complete with the 10 commandments. There are very clear statements about what is wrong, and what is right. Those who have no foundation therefore have no absolute right and wrong, as Christians may claim. That's not to say non-Christians don't ever choose to do the "right thing". But taken from a completely non-Biblical perspective, there's nothing to stop them, really, from doing whatever they want and still feel like they did no wrong.
I don't think so. It only came up recently what your true intentions were for asking the question of how many humans were created, and I simply didn't follow. Perhaps you could do a little better job explaining what you are getting at right from the get-go so as not to confuse me. I can probably reply with a much more thoughtful answer. Also please realize that my discussion regarding the pope was very rightfully discussed, because somebody made (and continued to make) the claim that since the pope believed in evolution, Christians shouldn't have a problem with it. I have two major issues with this statement (1) I am not Catholic, which is the branch of Christianity that the pope has power over. (2) The pope is NOT the final authority on what the Bible says or what it doesn't say.
I have always said what I believe. Maybe not as thoughtfully as I should have or whatever, but I am sure I do NOT post paragraphs that I myself do not believe, whether that be what my pastor said or what AIG says. Perhaps this would explain my apparant lack of understanding of Genesis, as you claim I have. I am willing to debate to the best of my ability, but I would be foolish to agree or disagree with something right off the bat, without researching it first.
MDLarson
Registered
This disturbs me. What you're implying is absolutely contrary to their name, Institute for Creation Research.
I should mention that I was present at a Grand Canyon trip organized by ICR. Dr. Andrew Snelling and a guy by the name of Dr. Steve Austin (not the "Stone Cold" type) were both scientists on the trip. Dr. Snelling was the acting tour guide, and while Dr. Austin was present for part of it, his real reason for being in the canyon was some type of research (I forget exactly what). Anyway, that is my experience with ICR.
Here's a pic of us in the Colorado River, somewhere in the upstream half of the canyon
Attachments
nkuvu
Gone
Ahh, this is the $64,000 question. How do you decide what is right?
I've heard this before, a lot, and my answer never satisfies the asker.
I decide what is right by what feels right. I can't explain it more than that. There is no one source that I rely on to make those choices. Part of my feelings come from society, part from reading about religion (any religion), part from just my gut feelings.
Tell me -- do you torture small animals? I am hoping that the answer is no. But how did you decide that? The bible? Where does it say that you should not torture small animals? What about situations where the bible does not address? You just kind of extrapolate, correct?
I do not believe that any book has all the answers. Nor do I believe in taking the bible as the last word. In my mind, when people respond to a question with "Because the bible tells me so" I feel that those people are missing something. Usually it is the ability to think for themselves, but I realize that this is a vast overgeneralization, so please don't take offense if this doesn't describe you. I also encounter a significant number of bible-followers who have never taken the time to look in to any other religions or philosophies. I think that it is extremely important for anyone to research everything before deciding on one thing for their whole life.
I've heard this before, a lot, and my answer never satisfies the asker.
I decide what is right by what feels right. I can't explain it more than that. There is no one source that I rely on to make those choices. Part of my feelings come from society, part from reading about religion (any religion), part from just my gut feelings.
Tell me -- do you torture small animals? I am hoping that the answer is no. But how did you decide that? The bible? Where does it say that you should not torture small animals? What about situations where the bible does not address? You just kind of extrapolate, correct?
I do not believe that any book has all the answers. Nor do I believe in taking the bible as the last word. In my mind, when people respond to a question with "Because the bible tells me so" I feel that those people are missing something. Usually it is the ability to think for themselves, but I realize that this is a vast overgeneralization, so please don't take offense if this doesn't describe you. I also encounter a significant number of bible-followers who have never taken the time to look in to any other religions or philosophies. I think that it is extremely important for anyone to research everything before deciding on one thing for their whole life.
ebolag4
Fundamentalist whack-job
To answer for myself at least, you are correct when you say that we "extrapolate" when the Bible does not say word for word exactly what to do. Take your example for instance. No, I don't torture animals, nor do I condone such actions. Take this passage from the Bible: "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." --Proverbs 12:10. This would be my basis for treating the animals of this planet with kindness. There are other verses and passages which would add weight and qualify this belief. This passage does not tell me not to torture small animals, but this one tells me to regard the life (care about) of my own animal. I am also admonished by other Biblical passages to regard the property of others, and to be a good steward of the planet God has created. All of these together, plus some others, create a framework for me.
Some follow their "heart" while others of us use this "book" to give our heart a guide to follow.
Does that make sense? I don't claim to be a Bible expert. I'm learning and growing more every day. I don't agree with everything that other Christians believe, and often argue with many Christians over issues much like what we have been discussing here. But one of the main things is that we can remain friendly and open in our discussions.
I guess one of the main things that I am serching for is for those who are non-Christians to extend the same hand of friendship and tolerance than they are asking from us. I know this is not politically correct, but tolerance does not mean acceptance. Many of you here totally disagree with Matt, myself and other Christians, yet you have been tolerant of our beliefs. Just because it is tolerated does not mean you believe it or accept it yourself. I can tolerate a belief that is in opposition or conflict with my own without accepting it.
Where did all that come from? This post went a little longer than I planned.
Cheers!
MDLarson
Registered
Let me briefly point out that your search was hopelessly biased in looking for sources saying that "Darwin was a Christian". But the point is moot, because I tried this Google search and the result yielded only 2 results to your 28.
The above quote is allegedly directly from Darwin's own letters, and if true, makes him non-Christian by definition, at least at the time he said this. The catch is in the last paragraph when he says "I do not believe in the Bible as divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God". Very simply, one must accept Christ's divinity in order to claim Salvation. Otherwise, how can Christ claim to offer it? If we can agree on this point, and if Darwin really said the above, we should safely be able to say that Darwin was not a bona-fide Christian.
As I posted just a little bit ago, I am only now really becoming aware of this idea. I plan on looking at it. In the mean time maybe you and Ed can explain what the apparent inconsistency is, for the benefit of others.
Here is the definition I was referring to:
I understand your point, and it's valid, but only in a scientific community where the possibility of the supernatural is tossed out the window. By default, creation scientists believe in a Creator God, and only seek to prove the truth of creation by means of science. Science is not an end, but a means to a greater truth. This may "cheapen" creation science to you, but it is a matter of perspective. This definition also allows for perfectly valid scientific arguments within the greater context of creation science. All that is left for debate within this context can be solved in a case by case examination of the evidence and which world-view it supports; evolution or creation. My arguement would be that more evidence really suggests a young-earth creation, but I think neither side of the current debate is ready for that. (Maybe we are?)
Let me ask you a question, though; have you ever performed an experiment and afterwards asked yourself how it fit into the bigger picture of evolution? If you have, we are in the same boat. (not that I'm a scientist, mind you
)Also, regarding the genetic biology stuff, you probably will win. Biology does not interest me very much, and admittedly, I probably know the classic creationist arguments and that's it. I definitely want to hear you explain (in layman's terms) the positive mutation stuff. To give you an idea of what I think about molecular biology
I know that past science believed the cell to be the smallest building block of life, then it was something like the cell parts, then the atom, then we find that the atom has different parts to it, etc The point is that the more we look, the more complex life becomes, and the more unlikely this all happened by chance. The creation scientist rejoices while it forces the evolutionist to ask more questions (and change the theory of evolution yet again).
Whew! I've been going at this for a few hours now. Hope you don't get too bored with my posts!
nkuvu
Gone
That is precisely what I want to hear. Far too often, I meet religious people who are 1. certain that I am doomed because I do not accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour and 2. intent on converting me to their beliefs.
When I have time, I really enjoy discussing religion with level headed individuals. I have enjoyed this thread, because when things got near to the point of name-calling, everyone apologized and backed off. That's cool.
I chose the small-animal-torture bit because I didn't think that there was anything in the bible about it. I am no expert on the bible, of course. And before anyone thinks that I am a hypocrite, you don't have to read the bible to understand the basics of Christianity. In fact, it is often the case that different factions of Christianity differ from my interpretation of biblical passages, so it is better for understanding if I don't look at the bible.
My point is that when there is any extrapolation of the biblical passages, you are doing what I do in every day life. You extend what you believe to be right and just, and do that to your best ability. I do the same. You start from the bible, I start from what has been taught to me as right and wrong by society (and previous experiences of my own).
For a specific example. When I was a lot younger, I was not sure what my own boundaries were for right and wrong. That's part of growing up, so I doubt that anyone can honestly say that they aren't the same as me in this respect. Anyway, I was not a troublesome child as such. But I did get into a few fights. In one particular instance, my mom and I had just moved to a new state, and I was starting to attend a new school. There was one kid there who thought that I was an easy target. He was a little smaller than I was, but I was a shy child, so he tried to get me to fight him. His first attempts were met with a brush off. "Go away, I don't want to fight you" He kept it up, and would not be dismayed by my lack of response. I talked to my teacher, I talked to my parents, I even went on my own to the school principal. All to no avail. The kid kept it up, trying to engage me by name calling, shoving, et cetera. One day I decided that enough was enough. I attacked him after he pushed me, and I think his surprise was what caught him off guard. I don't recall exactly, but I believe that I hit him four times in the face and stomach. He ran, and I chased. He stopped behind a teacher's desk (unoccupied) and I basically had cornered him. Someone asked if I wanted them to grab him so I could hit him some more. Disgusted with the whole instance, I shook my head and walked away. It didn't feel like the right thing to do, at all. I hated that I had to hit him to stop him from taunting me. He never bothered me after that, and we were friends for a while. But I never heard from my brief stints in Sunday school that fighting is wrong. I never heard it at home. It just felt wrong.
To this day I trust those same instincts, and I am considered by many of my friends to be a gentle and tolerant person. Intolerance (whether it be for race, gender, nationality, or other) feels wrong. Hurting others feels wrong. Forcing my beliefs on one who disagrees with me feels wrong. And my one unshakable truth: Killing is wrong.
Hopefully that may give a little more insight to how I decide on things, but I honestly doubt that it does.
Sorry for the long post -- I even tried to trim it down some, but I have too much to say.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
I didn't imply anything, it is a statement of fact. The goal of ICR is to provide proof for true believers like you that the Bible's accounts are accurate. Any research would mean that there would be the possibility that any part would be brought into question. Also, why doesn't Snelling note where he got his PhD? A PhD is a more important degree than a BS, why omit this?
And you have yet to address my statement about why people like me would take part in a mass cover up when the truth (as you and the ICR would like to believe it) must be completely clear to us.
Also, I would like to point out the method that I (and others like me) use in doing our research. When working on a theory, I take observation and try and create a model of nature from it. I then take and use this model and try and make predictions to see if the model holds true to nature. If it does I continue trying with other predictions. If the predictions do not match nature, then I rework the theory to take into account the new observations, and then apply the model once again to see how it compares with nature.
My personal area of study is large scale structure of space-time, where I apply my specialty in the area of differential topology to the general areas of gauge theory, quantum field theory, and relativity. Though my work puts me at odds with the physics community at large (when it comes to the current inflation cosmology theory), it does not put me in a situation where I am disregarding evidence and observations that can be easily checked (I just see a different theory using the same observations).
And Matt, I don't want to damage your safe little world, but I would point out that these people have a great deal of power over you. Think about this for a moment. You need reaffirmation that what the Bible is saying is accurate, people who need that are not going to ask the really hard questions of those willing to confirm this because it might prove that the evidence that you must have (in your rigid world) may not be there, or worse, completely false.
When I started my studies of the early Universe, I knew that what we had was some observations and a number of theories that had been disproved (like steady state theory for the most part, though I did have a professor who still believed in it) or had been reworked as more and more data was collected (like the big bang theory which has given rise to inflation cosmology). I also realized that some people had amended things that really didn't need amending with the introduction of a large amount of data from the late 70's (this is not that hard to believe seeing as many physicist do not have a complete command of the mathematics that they are using). The point being, there is no dogma involved. At no point did we all collectively come together and say we are going to believe this one thing and stick to it no matter what. On the contrary, science is ever changing, which is the nature of dealing with the unknown (which I can understand where that scares someone like you).
You don't want to see the conflict of interest of those you want to believe in. I know that evidence that proves otherwise is dismissed because it does prove them wrong. Is this lying? I would like to think they are of the same mind set as you, your faith lets you not see what is clearly in front of you (this is not rejoicing, it is hiding). It protects you from the parts of the world that you can't handle. Which is fine.
MDLarson
Registered
Ugh
Racer, you wear me out!
To answer the implying thing, you're right. I used the wrong wording.
My Grand Canyon post was nothing more than my experiences. I was hoping you would shed some more info on the subject, but you're theorizing too broadly.
Am I living in my own little world? Nah I don't mind the debate, but for now I'm tucking in.
{ADDITION}
Actually, I believe a lot of things, but I believe the evidence really supports Creation, like I said in one of my latest posts (what am I up to tonight? 4?). I think instead of both sides saying "You're deceived!", we should bring up evidences in favor of their favorite worldview. Whaddya think?
To answer the implying thing, you're right. I used the wrong wording.
My Grand Canyon post was nothing more than my experiences. I was hoping you would shed some more info on the subject, but you're theorizing too broadly.
Am I living in my own little world? Nah I don't mind the debate, but for now I'm tucking in.
{ADDITION}
Actually, I believe a lot of things, but I believe the evidence really supports Creation, like I said in one of my latest posts (what am I up to tonight? 4?). I think instead of both sides saying "You're deceived!", we should bring up evidences in favor of their favorite worldview. Whaddya think?
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
You know I don't want to put time pressure on you.
Interesting point.
ICR's age of the Universe vs time needed for light to move from point to point. As I recall from the talks I had with ICR members, they were under the impression that the Universe was about 7,000 years old. This means that light would only be able to reach us from objects that are within 7,000 light-years of where we are.
The Grand Canyon: ICR would have you believe it was formed by the great flood, but very large floods leave a different type of scarring (badlands here on earth and areas of Mars both show what large scale floods can do).
And again, the conspiracy theory about us, who must be hiding the truth for some reason. Why are we doing it, what would stop me from letting the cat out of the bag.
Why would God provide us with false data? Assuming that we are not lying about all this, why would the data counter Biblical stories so sharply.
Why is the World not flat? Biblical accounts would have the world be both flat and unmoving. The motions of the planets in our own solar system and the Earth's place run completely counter to what literalist should be getting from the Bible. Why take some things as actual facts and not others (shouldn't the rule for reading the Bible be completely steadfast)?
That should give you a good start.
Interesting point.
ICR's age of the Universe vs time needed for light to move from point to point. As I recall from the talks I had with ICR members, they were under the impression that the Universe was about 7,000 years old. This means that light would only be able to reach us from objects that are within 7,000 light-years of where we are.
The Grand Canyon: ICR would have you believe it was formed by the great flood, but very large floods leave a different type of scarring (badlands here on earth and areas of Mars both show what large scale floods can do).
And again, the conspiracy theory about us, who must be hiding the truth for some reason. Why are we doing it, what would stop me from letting the cat out of the bag.
Why would God provide us with false data? Assuming that we are not lying about all this, why would the data counter Biblical stories so sharply.
Why is the World not flat? Biblical accounts would have the world be both flat and unmoving. The motions of the planets in our own solar system and the Earth's place run completely counter to what literalist should be getting from the Bible. Why take some things as actual facts and not others (shouldn't the rule for reading the Bible be completely steadfast)?
That should give you a good start.
bighairydog
tail-wagging member
Now were getting somewhere Matt this is the best argument against my beliefs I have been given. Wrong, but very good ;o)
For many experiments, I have interpreted the results of them on the presupposition that natural selection occurs, basing that presupposition on experiments (using guppies) that have proven that natural selection occurs. Id love to put a link up, but I cant find one. Natural selection is a fact, which nobody informed person can deny, because you see it happening over the course of weeks.
As for evolution in the sense of new species emerging from others, I believe that I have seen enough evidence to think that this occurs, and has occurred, so I would frame observations about e.g. fossils in the context of evolution over huge time scales. Yes, if I saw a strange fossil I would instantly think "how did this evolve?" In this way I am being as unscientific as the Creation Scientists. However, I justify it on the basis that My opinion is based on evidence I have evaluated, not on a decision to believe a book. I constantly try to pick holes in the logic of textbooks to test them, and for example have identified several flaws in Richard Dawkins anti-creationism books. Conversely, I dont see Creation Scientists saying Can I disprove the Bible, does it stand up to rigorous attacks from all conceivable angles? I only believe a book when the facts in it have withstood numerous attempts to invalidate them, and no holes have been opened up.
However, I would never fit an experiment into the context of evolution of life from molecules without divine intervention, as I have no reason to know whether or how that might have happened.
Ill PM you the other questions answer, as this post is getting a bit long...
Also, as for the argument that the Bible gives people morals, I have morals, and I didnt get them from the Bible.
//edit -
Also, can I point out, that although you didn't explicitly say this, you implied that human wants are at odds with the Bible, and therefore humans will behave immorally if they do not have a defined moral code. This conjures up an image in my head of Christians desiring to break the code laid down in the bible, but being restrained by fear of divine retribution.
Does that really qualify as morality?
Bernie)
Interesting point. I think that many evolutionist zealots *cough* Richard Dawkins *cough*, shoot themselves in the foot by assuming that evolution is true, and formulating an Ad Hoc hypothesis to explain away any evidence against it. They then criticise Creation Scientists for doing the same, and they are undoubtedly both guilty of it. Ill answer your question seperately, for the three levels of evolution, to avoid confusion.Originally posted by Matt
Let me ask you a question, though; have you ever performed an experiment and afterwards asked yourself how it fit into the bigger picture of evolution? If you have, we are in the same boat. (not that I'm a scientist, mind you
For many experiments, I have interpreted the results of them on the presupposition that natural selection occurs, basing that presupposition on experiments (using guppies) that have proven that natural selection occurs. Id love to put a link up, but I cant find one. Natural selection is a fact, which nobody informed person can deny, because you see it happening over the course of weeks.
As for evolution in the sense of new species emerging from others, I believe that I have seen enough evidence to think that this occurs, and has occurred, so I would frame observations about e.g. fossils in the context of evolution over huge time scales. Yes, if I saw a strange fossil I would instantly think "how did this evolve?" In this way I am being as unscientific as the Creation Scientists. However, I justify it on the basis that My opinion is based on evidence I have evaluated, not on a decision to believe a book. I constantly try to pick holes in the logic of textbooks to test them, and for example have identified several flaws in Richard Dawkins anti-creationism books. Conversely, I dont see Creation Scientists saying Can I disprove the Bible, does it stand up to rigorous attacks from all conceivable angles? I only believe a book when the facts in it have withstood numerous attempts to invalidate them, and no holes have been opened up.
However, I would never fit an experiment into the context of evolution of life from molecules without divine intervention, as I have no reason to know whether or how that might have happened.
Ill PM you the other questions answer, as this post is getting a bit long...
Also, as for the argument that the Bible gives people morals, I have morals, and I didnt get them from the Bible.
Thats absurd. I do what I want to. I do not want to cause others harm. Therefore, I dont, and I dont need a Book to tell me that. You imply that what non-Christians feel like doing are horrible, wrong and immoral things. Thats silly.
//edit -
Also, can I point out, that although you didn't explicitly say this, you implied that human wants are at odds with the Bible, and therefore humans will behave immorally if they do not have a defined moral code. This conjures up an image in my head of Christians desiring to break the code laid down in the bible, but being restrained by fear of divine retribution.
Does that really qualify as morality?
Bernie
)
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Not to take this to far off the subject, but Bernie brought up an interesting point based on this quote:
Matt, Christians do the "wrong" thing all the time. I am constantly amazed at how non-Christian many Christians act. Your faith lets you get away with anything because you believe that by believing in Jesus your salvation is secured. I would take it a step further and say that the fact that you don't need to follow those morals in a book make you more of an unknown ethical element than those who reach their own ethical conclusions independently.
My personal experiences with Christians has been that the more Fundamentalist they are, the more there is a risk that they are going to act without regard for ethics (actually, I think that is true of Fundamentalist of any of the middle east religions). And lets face it, if you have not actually struggled with ethics to reach your own conclusion, then you are more of a risk. I would trust someone who knows right from wrong because they feel it more than someone mindlessly following a book.
Quick question here: If you found out that nature does not follow a Creation model, are you going to stop following the morals and ethics that our society is based on?
(note: if the answer is yes, Bernie and I should stop right here)
Matt, Christians do the "wrong" thing all the time. I am constantly amazed at how non-Christian many Christians act. Your faith lets you get away with anything because you believe that by believing in Jesus your salvation is secured. I would take it a step further and say that the fact that you don't need to follow those morals in a book make you more of an unknown ethical element than those who reach their own ethical conclusions independently.
My personal experiences with Christians has been that the more Fundamentalist they are, the more there is a risk that they are going to act without regard for ethics (actually, I think that is true of Fundamentalist of any of the middle east religions). And lets face it, if you have not actually struggled with ethics to reach your own conclusion, then you are more of a risk. I would trust someone who knows right from wrong because they feel it more than someone mindlessly following a book.
Quick question here: If you found out that nature does not follow a Creation model, are you going to stop following the morals and ethics that our society is based on?
(note: if the answer is yes, Bernie and I should stop right here)