Creationist have problems with evolution because evolution makes sense.

[SiderealExalt]

I'm more fond of Greek myth, thanks. I can only digest one set of myths in a day I'm afraid.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Methinks someone is way behind the times.

Let me bring you up to speed --- nature is hostile [yet obedient] to God.

This means that if God wants something done, and nature "gets in the way", God simply commands nature to stand aside --- and voila --- a miracle occurs.

If Jesus wanted to walk on water, for example, nature would not permit it; yet not only did Jesus walk on water, but He arranged it so Peter could also.

If the Red Sea said NO WAY to Moses, it said WAY to God.

In the case of Jesus healing others, whether it was direct physical contact, or action-at-a-distance, it got done.

And whether it took a "suitcase full of miracles", as in the Flood, or just a single miracle, as in turning the water into wine, it got done.

And whether it left a bunch of scientists behind scratching their heads, or left a bunch of scientists ahead scratching their behinds --- so be it.

To summarize.... "I don't know how it happened... but god did it."

 

[thaumaturgy]

You mean the fossil record doesn't match the Genesis account?

Two key points here:

1. The Bible was written by humans. It uses human language and even if you think it was directly dictacted or inspired by God it was still written by humans.

2. The rock record (fossils and rocks) WERE NOT written by humans and are not prone to being faked on the scale necessary to bring them all into doubt.

3. The rock record has many many avenues of independent supporting evidence. The Bible only one (itself).

IF you are so afraid of people looking closely at the Bible using standard testing procedures then you must fear for the safety of its truth.

If, however, there is truth in the human-written pages then they will surely be supported by the multiple lines of independent natural data.

That's all.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Two key points here:

1. The Bible was written by humans. It uses human language and even if you think it was directly dictacted or inspired by God it was still written by humans.

2. The rock record (fossils and rocks) WERE NOT written by humans and are not prone to being faked on the scale necessary to bring them all into doubt.

3. The rock record has many many avenues of independent supporting evidence. The Bible only one (itself).

IF you are so afraid of people looking closely at the Bible using standard testing procedures then you must fear for the safety of its truth.

If, however, there is truth in the human-written pages then they will surely be supported by the multiple lines of independent natural data.

That's all.

Not to be the pedantic non-science teacher here... but that was three points.


(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

Not to be the pedantic non-science teacher here... but that was three points.


(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

ROUNDING ERROR! Eek!

Two points...1,2,3...THREE points, 1,2,3,4...FOUR POINTS!

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

[AV1611VET]

Two key points here:

1. The Bible was written by humans. It uses human language and even if you think it was directly dictacted or inspired by God it was still written by humans.

2. The rock record (fossils and rocks) WERE NOT written by humans and are not prone to being faked on the scale necessary to bring them all into doubt.

3. The rock record has many many avenues of independent supporting evidence. The Bible only one (itself).

IF you are so afraid of people looking closely at the Bible using standard testing procedures then you must fear for the safety of its truth.

If, however, there is truth in the human-written pages then they will surely be supported by the multiple lines of independent natural data.

That's all.

Let me be equally keynote:

1. What difference does it make if man actually converted inspiration into alphabetic sequences, or if God Himself would have written the very same words?
2. Show me the rock record (fossils and rocks) in Genesis 1 --- and if you think Genesis 1 is merely an allegory --- still show it to me. And as far as fakery is concerned: whether it was faked (deliberately placed there by God), or assembled there as a consequence of the earth being shuffled like a deck of cards, I have to ask again: what bearing does that have on God not existing, or even the Bible being wrong?
3. That's nice --- and has nothing at all to do with the veracity of the Scriptures.

Me? Afraid of people looking closely at the Bible using standard testing procedures? Are you seriously honest-to-john kidding me, Thaumaturgy? Let me make this point yet again --- go ahead and make it as impossible as you can. Make it look like there's no way in Helsinki it could have happened the way the Bible describes it. Use charts, graphs, peer reviews, evidence in your possession, photographs, historical and archaeological finds, websites, [whatever] to show me it _ didn't _ happen. Even make a star NFL quarterback from the Periodic Table to show your mastery over abiogenesis and cloning --- and you know what I'm gonna look you right in the eye and say? THE BIBLE SAYS IT --- THAT SETTLES IT.

So go right ahead, put the Bible under a microscope, show me how the Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or ANYTHING couldn't have happened.

The more impossible you make it --- the brighter It shines.

 

[atomweaver]

You know. It's times like these why I understand why so many other first world countries laugh at our education system.

Speak for yourself, I'm from Massachusetts

http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2008/12/10/bright_sign_for_tech_in_mass/

Although its sad that the higher performing States no longer want themselves associated with the lower, this result does emphasize the independent nature of state educational systems in the US, which is a point that the wider world tends to ignore...

 

[Jester4kicks]

Let me be equally keynote:

1. What difference does it make if man actually converted inspiration into alphabetic sequences, or if God Himself would have written the very same words?
2. Show me the rock record (fossils and rocks) in Genesis 1 --- and if you think Genesis 1 is merely an allegory --- still show it to me. And as far as fakery is concerned: whether it was faked (deliberately placed there by God), or assembled there as a consequence of the earth being shuffled like a deck of cards, I have to ask again: what bearing does that have on God not existing, or even the Bible being wrong?
3. That's nice --- and has nothing at all to do with the veracity of the Scriptures.

Me? Afraid of people looking closely at the Bible using standard testing procedures? Are you seriously honest-to-john kidding me, Thaumaturgy? Let me make this point yet again --- go ahead and make it as impossible as you can. Make it look like there's no way in Helsinki it could have happened the way the Bible describes it. Use charts, graphs, peer reviews, evidence in your possession, photographs, historical and archaeological finds, websites, [whatever] to show me it _ didn't _ happen. Even make a star NFL quarterback from the Periodic Table to show your mastery over abiogenesis and cloning --- and you know what I'm gonna look you right in the eye and say? THE BIBLE SAYS IT --- THAT SETTLES IT.

So go right ahead, put the Bible under a microscope, show me how the Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or ANYTHING couldn't have happened.

The more impossible you make it --- the brighter It shines.

Once again... "I don't know how... but god did it".

It's easy to make stuff up when you don't have to prove it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let me be equally keynote:

1. What difference does it make if man actually converted inspiration into alphabetic sequences, or if God Himself would have written the very same words?

If you don't get it, your theology is even poorer than anyone suspected.

Show me the rock record (fossils and rocks) in Genesis 1 --- and if you think Genesis 1 is merely an allegory --- still show it to me. And as far as fakery is concerned: whether it was faked (deliberately placed there by God), or assembled there as a consequence of the earth being shuffled like a deck of cards, I have to ask again: what bearing does that have on God not existing, or even the Bible being wrong?

Well if the Bible doesn't correspond to reality, then the Bible is wrong -- neither this nor the Bible has any bering whatsoever as to whether God exists or not.

That's nice --- and has nothing at all to do with the veracity of the Scriptures.

Reality -- no matter how much you tell it to take a hike, has everything to do with the veracity of the Scriptures.

Me? Afraid of people looking closely at the Bible using standard testing procedures? Are you seriously honest-to-john kidding me, Thaumaturgy? Let me make this point yet again --- go ahead and make it as impossible as you can. Make it look like there's no way in Helsinki it could have happened the way the Bible describes it. Use charts, graphs, peer reviews, evidence in your possession, photographs, historical and archaeological finds, websites, [whatever] to show me it _ didn't _ happen. Even make a star NFL quarterback from the Periodic Table to show your mastery over abiogenesis and cloning --- and you know what I'm gonna look you right in the eye and say? THE BIBLE SAYS IT --- THAT SETTLES IT.

Reality can always take a hike with you, AV -- you can't afford to let anything stand between you and the book you worship.

So go right ahead, put the Bible under a microscope, show me how the Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or ANYTHING couldn't have happened.

The more impossible you make it --- the brighter It shines.

Spoken like a true Idolater.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Let me be equally keynote:

1. What difference does it make if man actually converted inspiration into alphabetic sequences, or if God Himself would have written the very same words?

Because man is capable of introducing error. In fact, it is often said "to err is human".

QED.

1. Show me the rock record (fossils and rocks) in Genesis 1 --- and if you think Genesis 1 is merely an allegory --- still show it to me.

I don't have to show you the rocks in Genesis. But if Genesis speaks about events that area recorded by the rocks then the two should correspond.

QED.

1. And as far as fakery is concerned: whether it was faked (deliberately placed there by God), or assembled there as a consequence of the earth being shuffled like a deck of cards, I have to ask again: what bearing does that have on God not existing, or even the Bible being wrong?

It says nothing about God's existence. It says that if the Bible says X and the non-human-produced data says Y then Y is likely more correct.

Especially if the Bible might have been written by people who were doing so for religious reasons (ie as an allegory for faith or religious experience) or because they were simply unaware of the facts. (in other words you still have to prove Genesis was dictated or inspired by God to be inerrant.

QED

1. That's nice --- and has nothing at all to do with the veracity of the Scriptures.

Well, your inability to prove to me that a single source of information that is of unknown provenance written by an anonymous source, is more likely correct when it disagrees with natural (ie no agenda driven) data recorded in the very rocks then I'll stick with the rocks.

Again, you seem to conflate your interpretation of the Bible with the way the Bible must be interpretted. There are Christians out there who think Genesis works just fine as an allegory, and even the creation part-gasp- a myth!

But again, it's not my religion, I don't much care how you guys thrash it out. But if you want to know how a scientist sees the failure of correspondence between Gensis and the rock record (both presumably recording the SAME event but showing different faces), I hope you will understand which way I am going to follow.

Me? Afraid of people looking closely at the Bible using standard testing procedures? Are you seriously honest-to-john kidding me, Thaumaturgy?

YES. I am dead serious. You go out of your way to come up with unfalsifiable conjectures to "prove" your point. Your non-stop ex nihilo apple challenge is a perfect example of it. You want there to be no evidence because that is more comfortable for you especially when evidence would indicate that a non-literal Genesis is what actually happened.

Your "God Cleaned up the Flood" hypothesis appears crafted specifically so that you can account for a lack of evidence in support of the Flood Hypothesis.

Indeed you wish science to "take a hike" when it disagrees with the Bible.

Therefore you seem afraid science will say something you can't really address with actual facts in evidence.

and you know what I'm gonna look you right in the eye and say? THE BIBLE SAYS IT --- THAT SETTLES IT.

That's fine! Honestly! It is your faith! You are free to believe as you wish.

But do note you are on a discussion forum talking to scientists, which means that occasionally science will say things you don't agree with.

So go right ahead, put the Bible under a microscope, show me how the Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or ANYTHING couldn't have happened.

You don't get the whole "logic" thing do you? I am never required to prove a negative. You aren't either. That's why I don't say I'm an atheist because I think God doesn't exist. I am an atheist because I fail to believe God exists.

There's a huge difference there. That's kind of what this whole debate is about.

Again, perhaps I want more from the Bible than you do. I want Truth-with-a-capital T to look so compelling only an absolute idiot could deny it.

But I don't see that in abundance much of anywhere. And so, you'll forgive me if I fail to find your version of truth (predicated in no small part on your ignorance of science and how science is done) to be compelling.

The more impossible you make it --- the brighter It shines.

For you, perhaps. But then I don't know who you are talking to because I don't have to disprove anything. If you want to claim God, then go ahead and claim God. If you want to convince me, then it is up to you to provide positive data in support of your contention. NOT a "lack of negative data".

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again... "I don't know how... but god did it".

Too bad --- I'm not omniscient.

It's easy to make stuff up when you don't have to prove it.

I'll be more than happy to stop "making stuff up" and simply answer "God did it", if that's what you want.

Especially when I get questions by people who know the answer isn't in the Bible --- like, "What happened to the Flood waters"?

 

[AV1611VET]

But if you want to know how a scientist sees the failure of correspondence between Gensis and the rock record (both presumably recording the SAME event but showing different faces), I hope you will understand which way I am going to follow.

And this right here is why we are so diametrically opposed to each other that we can't even compromise - (which I would never do anyway, as I am a Separatist, not an Evangelical).

 

[tanzanos]

And this right here is why we are so diametrically opposed to each other that we can't even compromise - (which I would never do anyway, as I am a Separatist, not an Evangelical).

You do state you are a Baptist; therefore for all intents and purposes an evangelical by creed.

It really would be easier to just admit to evolution and get it over and done with. I promise the bogey man will not touch you

 

[AV1611VET]

You do state you are a Baptist; therefore for all intents and purposes an evangelical by creed.

Nope --- for all intents and purposes --- a Fundamentalist, and an Independent Fundamentalist at that.

There's a difference:

• A Fundamentalist believes in all six [major] points of Fundamentalism, plus he is a Separatist.
• An Evangelical believes in five of the six points (denying VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRATION of the Scriptures), and is not a Separatist.

It really would be easier to just admit to evolution and get it over and done with. I promise the bogey man will not touch you

I'll subscribe to limited evolution, but that's as far as I'll go.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The online resources don't state this either way. My experience with the curriculum comes from those people I know who actually attended the course. Don't take my word for it, though; get evidence. You could easily send an email to one of the CGS life sciences teachers for verification or a more detailed course syllabus. Note, though, that the curriculum summary also doesn't state what you originally asserted, that abiogenesis is taught as fact. The summary merely informs us that the topic is discussed.

I didn't state that it was being taught as fact. I said that it was being taught without evidence.

Abiogenesis is discussed, but it is explained clearly as being in the early, exploratory stages of hypothesis development. Again, don't take my word for it, contact the school.

Which is nothing more that what I stated.

My only "point" was that you are making erroneous assumptions about what is discussed in this class.

I was not.

You saw "origins of life" on a summary, and automatically assumed that whatever is being taught inthe class is being asserted as scientific fact. This is an incorrect assumption, as college courses can include discussions of exploratory areas of research which lack fully grounded scientific theories, but they'll be clearly mentioned as such.

You see my post and automatically assume that I am saying something I am not.

 

[Chalnoth]

I didn't state that it was being taught as fact. I said that it was being taught without evidence.

Something that you have asserted with nothing to back it up whatsoever. You haven't shown anything that states what, specifically, is being taught, nor provided any reason to believe it's being taught without evidence.

Of course, you're probably right that somewhere there's some really, really bad teacher who teaches some wacky nonsense with respect to abiogenesis without evidence. But you haven't shown that even this is the case, and you certainly haven't shown that this is the norm.

 

[atomweaver]

I didn't state that it was being taught as fact. I said that it was being taught without evidence.

Eeek! My absolute apologies, you are correct, that is what you said.

Regardless of my faulty memory, this is still incorrect. What is being taught about abiogenesis is being taught with its supporting evidence. Note that results of experiments which reproduce conditions found on the prebiotic earth are evidence; indirect evidence (which is valued far less, hence no abiogenesis theory), but evidence nevertheless. The Miller-Urey experiment is one example of that. Direct evidence would be things like the calculated atmospheric conditions measured via rock analysis from the appropriate geological era. Iron band formations would be an example of such direct evidence. Reaction products found in/near modern black smokers on the sea floor are another source of direct evidence for an abiogenesis hypothesis.
These direct evidences support the various abiogenesis hypotheses, but no one hypothesis is supported sufficiently to surpass the others, because no one hypothesis explains all of the evidence sufficiently... which is why more experimentation and search for direct evidence from the abiotic era continues.
A biology course would teach about this, because it is an excellent example of what a scientific endeavor in its earliest, exploratory stages looks like.

 

[Split Rock]

Nope --- for all intents and purposes --- a Fundamentalist, and an Independent Fundamentalist at that.

There's a difference:

• A Fundamentalist believes in all six [major] points of Fundamentalism, plus he is a Separatist.
• An Evangelical believes in five of the six points (denying VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRATION of the Scriptures), and is not a Separatist.

I'll subscribe to limited evolution, but that's as far as I'll go.

This is interesting information. I was wondering... where does this concept of VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRATION come from, anyway? This really is the hardest aspect of Fundamentalism for me to accept. It seems to fly right in the face of Free Will. In addition, the Bible just doesn't (in my opinion) read like it was written as if by an omnipotent, perfect God.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is interesting information. I was wondering... where does this concept of VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRATION come from, anyway? This really is the hardest aspect of Fundamentalism for me to accept. It seems to fly right in the face of Free Will. In addition, the Bible just doesn't (in my opinion) read like it was written as if by an omnipotent, perfect God.

I like this explanation:

[FONT=MS Reference Serif, Gill Sans MT, Trebuchet MS]"Verbal Plenary Inspiration" means "God the Holy Spirit so supernaturally directed the human writers of Scripture that, without waiving their intelligence, their individuality, their personal feelings, their literary style, or any other human factor of expression, His Complete and Coherent Message to mankind was recorded with perfect accuracy in the original languages of Scripture: the very words bearing the Authority of Divine Authorship."

SOURCE
[/FONT]

 

[Chalnoth]

Except it's neither complete nor coherent. So why believe it's "God's message"?

P.S. Oh, and that quote undermines your entire "KJV-only" doctrine.