Would you change your opinion

[lucaspa]

I answered am a creationist and won't change my mind. This is of course hypothetical, and my answer is derived from the fact that I live by faith not by sight to begin with.

Then let me ask: what exactly do you have faith in? What do you think you are changing your mind about?

Likewise, it would be too easy for such evidence as asked for to be falsified.

No, it's not easy. That is because science works only with evidence that is the same to everyone under approximately the same set of circumstances. The bones are available to anyone who wants to look at them. Anyone can do the DNA tests and get the same answer, and many people have done the DNA tests. Anyone can go out and watch changes in populations, and many have.

You are not talking about fraudulent evidence now, but a huge conspiracy involving millions of Christians. Why would they participate in this conspiracy?

Remember, the few mistakes or frauds that have been discovered and publicized by creationists -- Piltdown, Nebraska man, Haeckel's embryo drawings, Archeoraptor -- were all discovered by scientists and evolutionists. So just why would you think the millions of pieces of evidence would be fraudulent?

 

[lucaspa]

Genesis one and two are accurate accounts of the creation. Genesis one provides the details of the six days of creation while Genesis two focuses on the creation of man. The creation of man took place on the six day according to Genesis one. Additional details of man's creation on day six are given in Genesis two. It is not a revised, corrected version of Genesis one.

1. I would say that Genesis 1 and 2 are accurate theological accounts of creation. They are not accurate historical or scientific accounts. But then, they aren't meant to be and don't need to be.
2. By saying Genesis 2 is a detail of day 6 makes more problems, because birds are created after man in Genesis 2 but they are created on day 5 in Genesis 1. So your idea that Genesis 2 is a detail of day 6 of Genesis 1 is falsified by the text itself.

There is not contradiction between Genesis one and two with respect to the day (6th) man was created and the only reason this so-called contradiction has been developed is to make Genesis fit the theory of evolution.

Recognition that Genesis 1 and 2 represent different creation stories and contradict one another happened long before evolution. Therefore, you can't say evolution caused the recognition when evolution came after the recognition. The cause cannot come after the result.

One contradiction comes in that Genesis 2 says the heavens and the earth were created "in the day" (beyom). So the heavens and the earth are created in one day in Genesis 2 but take 6 days (or 4 if you mean only the earth and the heavenly bodies without animals and man) in Genesis 1.

Once again you have tried to change the claim.

The interpretational somersaults require to make that work violate the standard rules of interpretation. The same type of twisting of the language if used throughout the Bible corrupt and dilute the message.

Can you make a literal interpretation of either Genesis 1 or 2 be consistent with what we find in God's Creation? No. Can't be done. I agree that the interpretational hoops that Schroeder jumps thru as an OEC simply can't work.

As I said before, I don't know how to reconcile the six day creation story with the theory of evolution but I think it's a grave mistake to twist the clear language of the Bible to make them fit.

You don't reconcile a 6 day creation story with the theory of evolution.

There is simply a different way to interpret Genesis 1-3. You stop trying to make it what it was never intended to be: an historically accurate portrayal of how creation took place. IOW, you don't try to reconcile a literal Genesis 1-3 with evolution. I don't think you've realized this yet. You seem fixated on trying to fit science and a literal Genesis.

1. A literal Genesis 1-11 gets discarded because of linguistic and textual clues.
2. Further reason to discard a literal Genesis 1-11 comes from God in His Creation. God's two books must not contradict, and the evidence God left us tells us that a literal Genesis 1-11 is wrong.
3. So, having gotten rid of a literal Genesis 1-11, what do we do now? We go back, discard our human pride, and try to figure out what God meant to tell us there. Not what we want Him to have told us, but what He wanted to tell us. When we do that, using the Rules of Interpretation and looking at the Rule of Historical Context, we immediately see that Genesis 1 is set in Babylonian science. That is, Genesis 1 has a flat earth, a crystal dome (firmament) above the earth, storehouses of water above the firmament and storehouses of water in vast caverns beneath the earth. The stars are not other suns far away but are lights attached to the firmament. The sun goes around the earth. All this is documented as Babylonian science in Babylonian documents. Since Genesis 1 was written at the end of our just after the Babylonian Captivity, that makes sense.

Now, we already know that Babylonian science is wrong. God knew it too. So having Genesis 1 set in Babylonian science is another piece of evidence that God wanted us not to read it as literal. It should be read as theology.

I've already stated many times, and earlier in this conversation, that the theological messages are not dependent on the Babylonian science. Those messages work just as well, sometimes better, in the accurate science we know now.

This is how I, and other theistic evolutionists, do it. We read Genesis 1-11 as God intended we read it: who created, why did God create, how you and I get separated from God, the consequences (spiritual death) of that separation, the price of human rage and jealousy (Cain and Abel), that God can destroy the world if we are too wicked and **** Him off too badly (Noah's Flood), but that God is infinitely patient and, even when we **** Him off a lot, He still loves us and refrains from that destruction (the sparing of Noah and the covenant at the end of it).

Now, I'm not saying you have to agree with this, but this is an outline of how I read Genesis 1-11.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm having this discussion based on the hope that everyone involved is being honest and sincere.

But you aren't accepting that I am honest and sincere. There's the rub. When I say that I have heard Muslims and Mormons testify to dramatic changes of direction conversions, I am not accepted.

If you're ever in Brooklyn go visit the Brooklyn Tabernacle and you can meet hundreds of people that have had the dramatic life changing experiences I'm talking about.

And I told you to visit a Mormon Temple or an Islamic mosque.

The millions are the millions. No exaggeration. I'm one in that number (you can believe it or not).

How do you know it's not an exaggeration? Anyone done a count. I will accpet millions that have had experience of deity -- if you include the quiet not so dramatic experiences -- but there aren't millions of the wham-bang experiences, particularly when you get specific about drugs and crimes. If there were that many, our prisons would be empty.

The personal testaments alluded to in the links you provided are testamonies of people that as a result of an intellectual/spiritual pursuit over a period of time believe they have found the answer to the big questions of life.

Not all of them. Again, you aren't looking closely.
"Overtaken by a painful crisis of identity and faith, he gave up writing and sought refuge in a French monastery.....but something must have struck a chord, for a year on, we find him emerging from his retreat with his early interest in Islam confirmed."

Dramatic change from monastery to Islam.

"I knew now, beyond any doubt, that it was a God-inspired book I was holding in my hand: for although it had been placed before man over thirteen centuries ago, it clearly anticipated something that could have become true only in this complicated, mechanized, phantom-ridden age of ours"

Dramatic conversion while reading the Quran.

"I purchased a copy of Savary's French translation of the Qur'an .... It was as if a ray of eternal truth shone down with blessedness upon me."

Conversion while pursuing the truth in reading the Koran isn't the same.

If the wham-bang is with the Risen Christ or with what Muslims consider the direct, dictated words of God, that is pretty much the same thing. In each case the claim is that God is speaking directly. The Risen Christ didn't get a stenographer. Muslims say Allah did -- Mohammed.

The Apostle Paul wasn't a criminal or drug addict BUT he was going in one direction and was turn 180 degrees around in a moment in time which is the definition you had trouble understanding.

No, I don't have trouble with the definition. I just have trouble with your attempt to make it exclusive to Christianity. Again, I have heard stories of dramatic turnarounds -- Christian monastery to Islam above and even more dramatic stories -- from Muslims and Mormons. Look at Joseph Smith. Conservative Christian and then has a dramatic experience with the angel Morotai, then becomes a preacher and founds a new religion. How is that so different from Paul? Yes, you believe one and not the other, but that isn't the point. The point is, on an objective level, how are they significantly different?

You're going around in circles on the resurrection/fact issue. I'm not backing away from my statement, I'm backing away from you characterization of my statement.

You did back away from your statement as fact and stated it as a belief. That was my whole point.

And it doesn't matter if I'm dealing with an atheist or a believer of another religion, what ultimately sets Christianity apart from other religions are the claims of it's founder, that He is Savior, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the Way, Truth and the Life. One of the evidences that His claim is true is the dramatic, life changing experiences of millions of believers, including the Apostle Paul.

The first part I mostly agree with. The claims about Jesus are that he is Savior, King of Kings, Lord of Lords. He never said that. This is what his followers deduced about him. They may or may not have been correct. Jesus may have said "I am the way, the truth, and the life" or those words may also have been put in his mouth. So yes, those claims about Jesus distinguish Christianity from any contemporary major montheistic religion. Mormonism, Moonies, and JW's, of course, claim the same thing. However, Jesus is not the first person claimed to have been resurrected or be the resurrected son of God. Mithraism before Christianity had that figure.

Now, the second claim -- "one of the evidences that His claim is true" -- I also partially agree with. But here it does matter who you are dealing with and how you make your claim. Yes, you can point to these wham-bang experiences and say they are evidence of a deity. However, since Christianity has slower conversions where people are searching and then find Jesus and other religions have wham-bang experiences, you can't use them as evidence for Christianity as opposed to Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism.

Let me try to explain why once more:
1. You are denying the validity of all those millions of Christians who have had the slow experience. By saying those experiences aren't valid for Islam, you say the experiences aren't valid. Not valid for Islam, not valid for Christianity. Just not valid, period.
2. Because the wham-bang are such a minority of experiences, you open up the can of worms that the experiences aren't due to God or Jesus but to some minor physiological glitch that has nothing to do with God: epilepsy, incipient brain tumor, idiosyncratic reaction to certain foods, etc.
3. And, or course, your claim that other religions don't have them without having done the research to see if they do. If you dogmatically stick to this claim and arbitrarily dismiss the dramatic experiences of any other religion, all you show is Christianity being arbitrary and arrogant, not right.

If Jesus is who He claimed to be then His quoting of Genesis validates it as what the Jews beleived it was, the Word of Almighty God.

But Mark 10 and Matthew 19 don't show Jesus validating Genesis. Rather, they show Jesus using the authority of the Pentateuch to validate his words. You are still using circular reasoning.

The Jews of His day recognized His special authority not just because of the miracles He did but they recognized a special authority in His proclaiming the Word of God and expounding on the OT scriptures.

I'm afraid that they didn't. Remember, in John you have two instances where Jesus is proclaiming his authority as God and the Jews nearly stoned him on the spot. The Midrash -- rabbinical writings -- state that Jesus was not crucified by the Romans but rather was stoned by the Jews for apostasy -- claiming to be God when he wasn't.

The Scribes and Pharisees proclaimed the Word of God but lacked the authority ascribed to Jesus.

In your view and mine. But not in theirs. In theirs Jesus did not have the authority because he had never gone thru the training necessary to become a Scribe or Pharisee.

But we are straying from the main issue: does Jesus validate a literal reading of Genesis 1-11. The answer is, no, he did not. Jesus did use Genesis at least twice in his preaching -- once about divorce and once about making a point that the Kingdom of God would take people unaware, as the Flood took people unaware -- but in neither case is Jesus backing that creationism is correct. Jesus is borrowing the theological messages from Genesis 1-11. That's OK. No one is saying the theological messages are wrong. But we are saying that Biblical literalists go too far in the claim that this confirms a literal Genesis 1-11.

I didn't use italics and underlines to give the words more authority but to help you separate my quotes of your statements from my responses. Just trying to help you keep things straight .

Thank you, but I haven't had such problems before, have I?

The words speak for themself. Jesus wasn't claiming that Moses was wrong but that divorce isn't what God originally intended when He created man and women.

So Moses wrote down an erroneous law. No way around it, Jesus is saying that Moses didn't write down God's intention correctly.

Jesus quotes the reference regarding man and woman in Genesis two referring to God's intention BEFORE the fall and that the accomdation for divorce was giving afterwards because of the hardness of their hearts (a result of the fall).

And just how did you read this into the passages? That's amazing. Jesus isn't talking about before and after the Fall. Jesus goes on to say in Matthew 19:9 "I tell you, then, that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman." We are still after the Fall, the hardness of hearts still applies, and Jesus is now telling them that Moses was wrong. Or, if you prefer that this is God's doing, you are saying that God was wrong. There never should have been the accomodation and Jesus is now saying it doesn't exist.

You have now hoist yourself on your own petard. By saying what you did, without looking at the whole chapter, you have made a position where God is wrong. What is more, you may have completely separated Jesus from God. This is what comes of using ad hoc hypotheses. Yes, you address the immediate criticism and perhaps duck it, but since the ad hoc hypothesis was made in such a narrow context, it conflicts with other areas and causes great harm to areas that are of far greater importance.

 

[ElElohe]

I have faith that there is one True God that created man (and everything), and that after man chose to disobey God, God worked out a plan that has come to fruition in Christ's death and resurrection attaining victory over death, though the battle rages on for the sake of those who still deny their own shortcomings before a Holy and Just God.

What did you expect me to say? Any scientific discovery wouldn't change my faith in that because as my earlier post pointed out, faith is not a matter of sight (as Scripture points out).

Let me ask you this: why would a scientist want to create a fraud?

You answer my second concern with confidence, and you can do that being in the scientific community. But you ignored my example of why a person should have his gaurd up high. And you're telling me I can go look at these bones--and as if I have the time to do the personal research prior to looking at them in order to know enough to say they aren't a fraud without a doubt.

Further, a bone won't convince me of anything. If a man listens, creation itself will speak to him of God (Ps 19). But that is no better evidence to a scientist of creationism than a bone should be evidence of evolution.

() () () () () we go () () () () ()

Then let me ask: what exactly do you have faith in? What do you think you are changing your mind about?

No, it's not easy. That is because science works only with evidence that is the same to everyone under approximately the same set of circumstances. The bones are available to anyone who wants to look at them. Anyone can do the DNA tests and get the same answer, and many people have done the DNA tests. Anyone can go out and watch changes in populations, and many have.

You are not talking about fraudulent evidence now, but a huge conspiracy involving millions of Christians. Why would they participate in this conspiracy?

Remember, the few mistakes or frauds that have been discovered and publicized by creationists -- Piltdown, Nebraska man, Haeckel's embryo drawings, Archeoraptor -- were all discovered by scientists and evolutionists. So just why would you think the millions of pieces of evidence would be fraudulent?

 

[lucaspa]

I have faith that there is one True God that created man (and everything), and that after man chose to disobey God, God worked out a plan that has come to fruition in Christ's death and resurrection attaining victory over death, though the battle rages on for the sake of those who still deny their own shortcomings before a Holy and Just God.

Then I don't understand why you wouldn't change your mind about creationism and accept evolution. After all, evolution doesn't conflict with this faith at all. Your statement of faith didn't specify how God created man.

What did you expect me to say? Any scientific discovery wouldn't change my faith in that because as my earlier post pointed out, faith is not a matter of sight (as Scripture points out).

But the question in the OP wasn't talking about your faith in God, was it? It was talking about whether you would give up creationism. Do you think creationism = faith in God?

[/quote] You answer my second concern with confidence, and you can do that being in the scientific community. But you ignored my example of why a person should have his gaurd up high. And you're telling me I can go look at these bones--and as if I have the time to do the personal research prior to looking at them in order to know enough to say they aren't a fraud without a doubt.[/quote]I'm saying it can be done. What you are saying is that there are some practical issues involved about whether you can do it. Apples and oranges.

Notice you said "if I have the time to do the personal research prior to looking at them ". That's a practical problem for you. It's not saying it cannot be done, but that you won't do it. Do you see the difference? The evidence is there for everyone to see. Everyone may not want to see or be able to see due to practical difficulties, but the evidence is still there and will be the same for everyone.

Further, a bone won't convince me of anything. If a man listens, creation itself will speak to him of God (Ps 19). But that is no better evidence to a scientist of creationism than a bone should be evidence of evolution.

Are you equating evolution with atheism?

Both creationism and evolution are scientific theories. Both talk about how God created. So yes, a bone can and sometimes does show a theory to be wrong. The discovery of Archeopteryx showed creationism to be wrong (again) because it was an animal with characteristics of two obvious "kinds" -- reptiles and birds. Creationism says such mosaics can't exist because one kind can't turn into another kind. The transitional series of shells below from one species of snail to another is another type of bone that shows creationism to be wrong and supports that God created by evolution.

Let me ask you this: why would a scientist want to create a fraud?

1. Because he is stupid. The scientist will always be caught.
2. Many of the "frauds" that creationists point to are not frauds by scientists, but frauds on scientists. Piltdown and Archeoraptor fall into this category.

3. Of the attempts by scientists to pass off fraudulent data, there are a couple of motives:
a. Publish or perish pressue. Lots of pressure to publish, and the experiments are not going quite right, so just make them come "right".
b. Funding pressure. The grants are running out and the scientist needs that extra bit of data to justify the next grant. Over half the instances of fraud published by NIH in their "Grant Sources" (where instances of fraud are published) are found in grant applications.

 

[lucaspa]

You answer my second concern with confidence, and you can do that being in the scientific community. But you ignored my example of why a person should have his gaurd up high.

What was your example? Was it this? "I don't watch magic shows because I know it is an illusion, and particularly with TV you can do just about anything these days "

OK, however skeptical you are, scientists are a million times more. Why do you think I come to these argumentative boards for relaxation? Because however critical and argumentative they are, they don't come close to the arguments and criticism I face as a scientist. Scientists fight like cats and dogs over anything that can be fought over. And they scrutinize every photograph to be sure it isn't fraudulent, comparing that photo to the controls. I've seen a couple of instances where the reviewers are sharp enough to look at gel profiles of dozens of bands and realize 1) it is another one just upside down or 2) is the same gel profile they saw in a paper a year ago!

When scientists reach consensus it's because the data is so overwhelming that they have no choice.

Also, if a scientist tries the illusion or a fake he is going to get caught. Absolutely. The reason for this is that science studies a unified universe and that we build on earlier work. Even if we don't duplicate that work directly, it becomes part of all the underlying hypotheses you assume are true when you test your next hypothesis. If that data was faked, your experiment is going to come up with some really weird results and you are going to uncover the fraud.

Also, if you fake a series of bones to show an evolutionary lineage, then other bones are not going to fit with that lineage. This is what happened to Piltdown. When A. africanus fossils were found in Africa, they didn't look a thing like Piltdown. Since there were a couple dozen of these fossils, Piltdown stood out and didn't belong. Not only was it in the wrong place, but the skull didn't look like anything that could transition from ape to A. africanus or from A. africanus to human. Since it didn't fit with the whole picture, it came under suspicion as a fraud.

David Copperfield can get away with it because people are only looking from one direction and at one time. What happens when the audience is all around, underneath, and above him? Can he pull an illusion off then? Or what happens when he makes a plane "disappear" and some guy walks across the runway where the plane is? That is, when you test the illusion by not only sight but by touch?

Sorry, here is the picture. Click on it to enlarge

 

[ElElohe]

"

OK, however skeptical you are, scientists are a million times more.

Knowing how things are taught in public schools I can't believe this.

They are bred with a bias.

 

[ElElohe]

Then I don't understand why you wouldn't change your mind about creationism and accept evolution. After all, evolution doesn't conflict with this faith at all. Your statement of faith didn't specify how God created man..

I'm glad you noticed that. It was very intentional.

But the question in the OP wasn't talking about your faith in God, was it? It was talking about whether you would give up creationism. Do you think creationism = faith in God? .

Actually it was. I can't say I've ever thought of having faith in anything less.

And no creationism does not = faith in God.

Are you equating evolution with atheism? .

I am but you shouldn't be surprised if you remember conversations we've had in the past. I don't mean to get into that here but, again, I'm glad you saw my intent.

Both creationism and evolution are scientific theories. Both talk about how God created. So yes, a bone can and sometimes does show a theory to be wrong. The discovery of Archeopteryx showed creationism to be wrong (again) because it was an animal with characteristics of two obvious "kinds" -- reptiles and birds. Creationism says such mosaics can't exist because one kind can't turn into another kind. The transitional series of shells below from one species of snail to another is another type of bone that shows creationism to be wrong and supports that God created by evolution..

Now this is something I haven't ever seen you say before, but agree with completely. But to your Archeopteryx example I would say how do you know these are not just kinds of animals that are extinct? Because an animal looks different than anything we know of today will not logically lead into it's status as a transitionary fossil.

To your other reply, you're right. I don't have the time to be researching and looking at bones and that is my perogative (and most peoples actually. Though that is not all good. And I would like to, but my priorities and passion lies elsewhere.). But as I intended to evidence by my answer to your question of what do I have faith in, my faith is in God and I will adhere to the doctrine of preservation of Scripture--Scripture as the continuing infallible word of God. Do I know all of what is in that book? No. Will I ever? No, even if I dedicated my every waking hour there are things that God does and thus that are written of in the Bible that we as men will never come to understand.

And the same will be for science, secular or otherwise.

 

[Bushido216]

Knowing how things are taught in public schools I can't believe this.

They are bred with a bias.

Teachers aren't scientists.

 

[Bushido216]

I am but you shouldn't be surprised if you remember conversations we've had in the past. I don't mean to get into that here but, again, I'm glad you saw my intent.

How do you come to this conclusion? The basis of Christianity is faith in Christ as the only way to Heaven. I certainly accept that, so does lucaspa. By saying that evolution is atheism you are feeding the militant atheists.

 

[lucaspa]

Knowing how things are taught in public schools I can't believe this.

They are bred with a bias.

Next time there is a scientific society holding a meeting in a city near you, attend. The meetings are open to the public; you may have to pay a fee to get in. But you can check out my statements for yourself. You can also get a book called The Evolutionists by Henry Morris (not the creationist but a science writer) that will detail the bitter and acrimonious debates within evolutionary biology in recent time. Genesis and Geology by CC Gillespie details the arguments over geology in the period 1790-1850 in England.

Public schools are a different thing. What is being taught there are the observations and theories that have already passed thru that wall of skepticism. The ones that scientists have reluctantly come to accept because the data is overwhelming. There are a lot of those, because we have 400 or more years to cover. So there isn't time in a public school setting to spend hours on debate over heliocentrism or germ theory. If we did that we would run out of time to cover all the information that needs covering.

Just like in history class we don't cover all the arguments over how the Battle of Antietam was fought or all the arguments and disagreements that took place during the writing of the US Constitution. We present the document as "fact". There simply isn't time at that level.

As I said, public schools to 12th grade deal with those areas where consensus has already been reached. They don't go into the new areas still under research. And, of course, this is where the arguments take place.

Now, in graduate school where scientists are really trained, you will see it. Journal Club in my department is specifically set up to train Ph.D. students to be hypercritical. They analyze a paper word by word, go back and check sources, examine all the data, and most importantly, compare the conclusions to the data. They then present this analysis orally to their fellow grad students and the faculty. Their instructions are specifically to criticize the paper, not cheer-lead it. They are graded on how well they criticized, not on how well they defended the paper. The grad students not presenting are also required to verbally question the paper at these sessions. The faculty keeps track of which ones do and which ones keep quiet.

 

[wblastyn]

The faculty keeps track of which ones do and which ones keep quiet.

What if some people keep quiet because they have Social Anxiety Disorder?

 

[lucaspa]

Actually it was. I can't say I've ever thought of having faith in anything less.

And no creationism does not = faith in God.

But the OP didn't ask about faith in God, did it? And the poll questions don't ask about faith in God, do they? They only mention creationism. So, if you don't think creationism = faith in God, then why would you not change your mind about it?

I am but you shouldn't be surprised if you remember conversations we've had in the past. I don't mean to get into that here but, again, I'm glad you saw my intent.

Evolution is not atheism. Never has been, isn't now. So you are basing your conclusions on a false premise. I am surprised because I thought we had corrected that misunderstanding.

Now this is something I haven't ever seen you say before, but agree with completely.

You haven't seen me before say creationism is a scientific theory and that both creationism and evolution are theories of how God created? How could you miss this? Do you even read my posts? Show of hands among the TEs here: haven't I said this many, many times in both forums here?

But to your Archeopteryx example I would say how do you know these are not just kinds of animals that are extinct? Because an animal looks different than anything we know of today will not logically lead into it's status as a transitionary fossil.

Remember the statements of a theory. Creationism says God created "kinds" and it is impossible for one kind to transform to another. Now, just how finely tuned are kinds? Reptiles and birds are specifically mentioned as different kinds in Genesis 1. Created on different days, even. Since reptiles can't transform into birds, or vice versa, then you can't have a kind in the middle. Otherwise you get to the point that you can't tell what a kind is (which is where creationism is at, BTW).

Birds are birds and reptiles are reptiles, according to creationism. That means there has to be characteristics that only birds have and characteristics only reptiles have. So, birds cannot have reptile characteristics because only reptiles have those. And reptiles can't have bird characteristics because only birds have those. If you get to mix characteristics, then you can't tell anymore whether you have a bird kind, a reptile kind, or some other kind, can you?

Now, there are two uses of the word "transitional". One is as an intermediate between two kinds or taxa. The other is as in the direct evolutionary lineage between one taxa and another. Creationists mix up the uses for their own purposes. Right now I am using Archie as an intermediate between reptiles and birds. It is not a "transitional" in the second sense. It is one of the hundreds of side branches in the bush as you trace the twig from a reptile species that is the ancestor of all birds to birds. It is not the grandfather of birds but the granduncle.

But, for creationists, such intermediates between kinds shouldn't be there. If you get these intermediates such that you have a sequence of intermediates connecting one kind to another, then you have a transformation of one to the other. If you say that God created these intermediates as separate kinds unconnected to the ancestor and descendent, then you run into some major theological problems about God. And that is the real weakness of creationism -- the danger it poses to God.

But as I intended to evidence by my answer to your question of what do I have faith in, my faith is in God and I will adhere to the doctrine of preservation of Scripture--Scripture as the continuing infallible word of God.

Do you acknowledge that God speaks in places other than the Bible? Or is the Bible the only word of God for you?

 

[lucaspa]

How do you come to this conclusion? The basis of Christianity is faith in Christ as the only way to Heaven. I certainly accept that, so does lucaspa. By saying that evolution is atheism you are feeding the militant atheists.

Worse, Elohe is 1) not understanding Biblical creation and 2) accepting the basic statement of faith of atheism. In effect, by saying this Elohe is being an atheist.

 

[ElElohe]

lucaspa:

As much as you post (it seems to be your job) I'm sure I could have missed you saying You haven't seen me before say creationism is a scientific theory and that both creationism and evolution are theories of how God created? How could you miss this? Do you even read my posts? Show of hands among the TEs here: haven't I said this many, many times in both forums here? That is why I said "I haven't heard you say that before.

While I might visit CF daily it's not for hours on end, and in all honestly I tend to avoid the Creation/Evolution forums because most of the conversation in them amounts to mudslinging. There is very seldom conversation with a listening ear.

I posted in the Open Debate Creation/Evolution forum a link to the article entitled A Missionary Speaks out on Science/Faith Conflicts from the magazine http://missionfrontiers.org/2004/01/200401.htm that addresses this (although it seems hard for evolutionists, since this is a Christian publication, to look at the subject and not nit-pick at the details they might disagree with in the article. I trust you're above that.).

 

[ElElohe]

Your ignorance shines brightly.

Worse, Elohe is 1) not understanding Biblical creation and 2) accepting the basic statement of faith of atheism. In effect, by saying this Elohe is being an atheist.

 

[lucaspa]

Your ignorance shines brightly.

That doesn't negate my claim. Yes, you think you are a theist, but the position you are taking in regards to evolution is actually atheism. In order to think that evolution is atheism, you have to take the basic statement of faith of atheism -- natural = without God -- and accept it as true. There is no other way to get to evolution is atheism.

Biblical creation doesn't have any gaps. That is, God created a complete universe, without gaps. Yet the position that evolution is atheism denies this. It is saying that there is a gap in the 'natural' world to insert God.

 

[lucaspa]

I posted in the Open Debate Creation/Evolution forum a link to the article entitled A Missionary Speaks out on Science/Faith Conflicts from the magazine http://missionfrontiers.org/2004/01/200401.htm that addresses this (although it seems hard for evolutionists, since this is a Christian publication, to look at the subject and not nit-pick at the details they might disagree with in the article. I trust you're above that.).

Hammond tries to get to the bottom of why there is mudslinging. I think Berry's essay does a better job, and that is here in the thread "Bottom issue of creationism". Berry's second half of the essay deals with what Hammond touches on: creationists end up by saying that science is worthless and all scientists are to be distrusted. Or, put another way, creationists end up saying that science is not a valid method of getting knowledge. This, of course, angers scientists.

In reading the article, I see that Hammond shares your basic misconception -- evolution/science is atheism. As a missionary he is concerned with converting people to Christianity. He is really concerned with combating atheism. Yet he doesn't see the danger to his mission of this misconception.

Atheists love creationism. Creationism is the best weapon atheists have against Christianity in particular and theism in general. Equating evolution with atheism serves several purposes for atheism:
1. It disguises that atheism is a faith. Saying "evolution is a faith" doesn't help because evolution isn't a faith. Atheism is. So atheists can now occupy the "high ground" in the culture war and portray this as a battle between reason and faith rather than a battle of two faiths that it is.
2. By focussing on trying to overthrow evolution, the creationists end up overlooking all the weaknesses of atheism. By diverting creationists to evolution, atheists never have to defend their faith.
3. Creationists actually set atheism up to be proved! After all, if evolution is true then, by the equation, atheism is true also. Atheists, of course, love this. They now have the entire scientific community "proving" atheism (when they are not).
4. The corollary is that creationists can now set up Christianity to be disproved. If creationism is wrong, then Christianity is wrong. Atheists of course love this. Go to infidels.com. They hate theistic evolutionists and love Biblical literalist creationists. Why? Because they can't beat TEs. That's why TEs get the same type of personal insult from militant atheists as they do from creationists: can't beat them on reason so insult them personally.
5. As Hammond points out, creationists engage in internecine warfare: YECs vs OECs vs TEs. In the process creationists look less like Christians and more like witch-hunters or the Inquisition.

So, you want to destroy Christianity? My advice is to continue to propagate the myth that evolution or science is atheism.

 

[pmh1nic]

I'm not saying you're being dishonest. What I'm saying is you're mistaken regarding your portrayal of those stories as similiar to the dramatic conversion stories I've alluded to. If the type of "dramatic" conversion stories I'd hear at a Mormon or Islamic temple are the type you've conveyed it still wouldn't provide an example of the dramatic conversions I've been discussing. I mentioned Brooklyn Tabernacle because the reality of dramatic Christian conversion is there in the heart of NYC to to be seen. I can produce testamony after testamony of individuals who's lives have been dramatically turn around via an encounter with Jesus. You can't produce (you haven't so far which leads me to believe you never could) the same in Mormanism or Islam.

You made the claim that I was stating fact not me so I'm not backing away from anything. You make a bogus claim and then say I'm backing away from a claim you made. Unfortunately for you what I said is in writing and easy enough to go back and check. You used the word fact, I didn't.

So Jesus may have said He was the Way, the Truth and the Life? Someone put these words in Jesus mouth?

O.k. let me ask this question since the answer will cut to the core of the issue. Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

 

[lucaspa]

I'm not saying you're being dishonest. What I'm saying is you're mistaken regarding your portrayal of those stories as similiar to the dramatic conversion stories I've alluded to. If the type of "dramatic" conversion stories I'd hear at a Mormon or Islamic temple are the type you've conveyed it still wouldn't provide an example of the dramatic conversions I've been discussing.

And that's what I'm saying. There are two sets of stories here:
1. The ones I've given you from the Internet after spending a minute searching.
2. The ones I've heard myself.

You claim the ones on the Internet don't meet your standards. I disagree but the ones I've heard in person match exactly what you've told me:
drugs, petty crime, life going down the drain followed by complete 180 degree turn instantaneously after they've found the "truth" of Islam or Mormonism. Now, you do realize that the Mormon stories also involve Jesus, don't you? After all, Mormons also accept Jesus as Savior. But the conversions are directly into the Mormon subset of Christianity.

I mentioned Brooklyn Tabernacle because the reality of dramatic Christian conversion is there in the heart of NYC to to be seen. I can produce testamony after testamony of individuals who's lives have been dramatically turn around via an encounter with Jesus. You can't produce (you haven't so far which leads me to believe you never could) the same in Mormanism or Islam.

Might I remind you that I've only done the Internet, and you haven't produced any Internet stories, either? Instead, you can "produce" them from a particular church. Well, I can point you to the particular mosques and temples the people belonged to. The Mormon Temple in Macon, GA is one.

You made the claim that I was stating fact not me so I'm not backing away from anything.

You did state your belief as fact. Then you backed away from it being fact. That backing away is a good thing. Your original statements weren't fact; they were belief.

You make a bogus claim and then say I'm backing away from a claim you made. Unfortunately for you what I said is in writing and easy enough to go back and check. You used the word fact, I didn't.

Then please go back and check. Right now I'm totally confused as to what you are referring to. I'm looking at posts #69, 70, and 72. Specifically, I am looking at these sentences by you in #69
"The resurrected Christ (Budda is dead, Mohammad is dead, Joseph Smith is dead) and the miraculous change in the lives of millions testify that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life."

Now, Christians believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but you didn't phrase it that way.

So Jesus may have said He was the Way, the Truth and the Life? Someone put these words in Jesus mouth?

Possibly. They put other words in his mouth and changed some of the words he did speak. See the Gospel of Thomas and how many of the sayings of Jesus were altered in that one.

Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

I hold to the Nicean Creed. See Rule #6.
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end."

I also recognize that what I have is a belief here. It's possible that Jesus in ultimate reality is not this. IOW, I try very hard to keep track of what I know and what I beleive and not confuse the two.