Bible-Creation-Evolution

[mzungu]

The fact comes to this, everything in the Bible speaks of Creation and nothing in the Bible speaks of evolution.

The bible does not speak of the space shuttle, the Andromeda galaxy, interferon, and billions of other things that are real. So according to your philosophy; None of the above exist because they are not mentioned in the bible?

 

[TheReasoner]

Sounds like Christianity is hanging on your conclusion.

Since you have chosen which Scripture is real and which is Parable, you are able to create what ever kind of reality you choose.

By that definition you can not even be sure if Jesus is who He says he is in the Scripture.

The fact comes to this, everything in the Bible speaks of Creation and nothing in the Bible speaks of evolution.

No sir. I do not choose such. I approach it with humility. I cannot say I am correct in my interpretation, whatever that interpretation is. BUT, at times things come around which disprove/falsify an interpretation so we can know a certain interpretation is wrong. Among these we can find a couple of very concrete mistakes the church has made up through the time. One is geocentrism, which is about as thoroughly falsified as is possible. The other is young earth creationism. It is not a matter of some small mistake having been made by scientists or some constant a little off which will fix the entire problem, thereby validating your position. Your position is as thoroughly falsified as the notion that the earth is flat.

Therefore, if your interpretation of the bible is the correct way to read it by extension we will know with certainty that Christianity is false. For the same reason that we know that if the bible had hinged on a claim that the earth is flat it would also have been falsified in it's entirety. But - even though some people interpret the bible to say the earth is flat such a claim is certainly nothing the bible hinges upon. Nor do I consider such claims to hold any real authority at all. Which, incidentally, is what I think of your claims as well. I do honestly not see why they should have any support at all. Not from any perspective.

I don't think so. I do not for a second believe your position has any merit. BUT, that does not mean I am impossible to convince. I think it about as difficult to convince me of as the claim that 10+10=10 000 000, but I suppose with sufficient coercion it's doable as everything can be forced upon someone with the right brainwashing techniques.

 

[Mr Dave]

Since you have chosen which Scripture is real and which is Parable, you are able to create what ever kind of reality you choose.

You're gravely mistaken if you are of the opinion that (for example) TEs choose which bits of scripture is parable and which is not. 'Real' isn't a fair opposite, it's all 'real'.

As Augustine (?) said, "If your interpretation of the Bible contradicts the what is known in the world, it is your interpretation that is wrong."

No-one chooses which bits to read in whatever way. There are various tools for determining how any passage was intended to be read and what the passage is trying to say. It's not a matter of choice.

 

[TheReasoner]

You're gravely mistaken if you are of the opinion that (for example) TEs choose which bits of scripture is parable and which is not. 'Real' isn't a fair opposite, it's all 'real'.

As Augustine (?) said, "If your interpretation of the Bible contradicts the what is known in the world, it is your interpretation that is wrong."

No-one chooses which bits to read in whatever way. There are various tools for determining how any passage was intended to be read and what the passage is trying to say. It's not a matter of choice.

Thank you for that eloquence mr. Dave!
"If your interpretation of the Bible contradicts the what is known in the world, it is your interpretation that is wrong."
Aye. Well said indeed!

 

[Mr Dave]

Thank you for that eloquence mr. Dave!
"If your interpretation of the Bible contradicts the what is known in the world, it is your interpretation that is wrong."
Aye. Well said indeed!

I must hand it to Augustine (pretty sure it's Augustine) and the mainstream view point from 1,700 years ago which he got from those before him. Thanks though

 

[Greg1234]

Don't feel bad. It was not intended as an insult at all. I myself am quite ignorant of many things. I am for example very ignorant of psychology or pediatrics. Or any number of other things. There is nothing wrong in not knowing. Wrong is only in claiming to know when one does not.

Well I feel better now that I'm not stupid but it's just that you're right and I'm wrong. Thanks for telling me that. At least its better than being stupid right?

If so, why do you make so many rookie mistakes at the top echelons of your "society"?

There wasn't any mistake.

Perhaps it is better that you who do the critiquing should learn what you're criticizing? Is that really too much to ask?

You claimed that we didn't evolve from Chimps, then pick another beast. This isn't particularly relevant.

Weeeeell..... In a way. But not the way you seem to think. What IS entropy precisely? Is it really degradation over time? No. It isn't.

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

Again, please learn what you're criticizing before you criticize it.

Actually we can observe the accumulation of random mutations, loss of function mutations etc. These are what criticize Darwinism and potential exceptions are not required seeing that demonstrations in biological systems are available.

No it doesn't. Look at whatever point you want. Whatever claim you creationists boast. The best you can come up with is that we don't know every detail about certain things. But one cannot from that conclude that the thing about which our knowledge is lacking was made by an engineer, human, divine or otherwise.

This isn't valid. Note that I do not recognize the "Science debunking thor so shut up" argument. Or that religion emerged from things we do not know so everything we do know about religion is what we do not know. That's mainly why the Thor argument is erected: To provide a source of intimidation so great, to generate a fear so immense, that even where theists have the evidence for god, even where theists have the upper hand, atheism's non-evidence is actually millions of times greater. Imagine that. Atheists don't have to provide evidence for the chance assembly of man because they inherently have [future] evidence of everything. Taken materialism to new heights. But what if the study of texts renders the Thor argument and the overall science over religion wall-banging, impotent. With materialism tying itself to science and empirical observation, one would never guess that it is materialism that doesn't have the evidence, that it is materialism who has the "Santa Clause". But that's just it: one would never guess.

Bacterial flagellum? Sorry, but that's a logically fallacious statement. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or cillium are very similar to each other or other proteins in the respective cell or other cells.

Apparently not similar enough for the flagellum to be reducible via its manipulation of protein structure to compensate for a reduction in complexity and maintain function .

Their evolution is not all that difficult to explain, all you need do is search a bit. The process is well documented.

We tend to deal with testing.

As is the structure. In fact, this level of biology is where my expertise starts coming into play. The size is within my realm. Their functions and compositions as well. Although I am not yet an expert, I should add.

You already cited your level of expertise. I think I get it.

You say design is identifiable via physical means. I say this presupposes a comparable level of intelligence and an understandable level of complexity. Give an intergrated circuit or other device with complex enough mechanics to someone from the deep amazon and they might not recognize it as designed. You probably wouldn't if I showed you some of the stuff we work on. Heck, I wouldn't on first glance. I'd need an AFM.

They would, should they choose to employ the theory of Intelligent Design. Fortunately we were those primitive people before we could venture into the complexity of cellular components and life overall. We recognized the design we were able to relate to with our technological aptitude at that time and they would as well. We see in biological systems, having gained the capability to understand even vaster levels of complexity, even more evidence of design, and even more complexity which we can relate to with factories and assembly lines. There are even higher levels, but none of these suggests that we cannot identify design.

Thing is, if we humans cannot recognize our own designs as such what makes you think we can recognize God's designs as such? It seems highly fallacious.

Human design, God's design, intelligent design.

It also seems highly problematic to assume He would design things the way we did in the industrial era. As it is today we use evolution as a design tool in many areas of engineering and science. Both biological and abiological. Why do you think God is incapable of using that which we use?

Funny how the trend shown via the evolution of video games, the evolution of technology, the evolution of cars, the evolution of airplanes, are instances of creationism, despite the ability of these aforementioned machines to adapt and despite an increase in complexity depicted over time, individually created with limited adaptation.

Metaphysical?

Yep

Whatever. We weren't made from something inanimate and then into what we are now without any transition.

God is not inanimate. You're quite the fellow aren't you.

We evolved. Everything points to that. Nothing points to us being created as we are now from no other living creature before our current "form".

Actually the evidence points intelligent design.

 

[mzungu]

You're gravely mistaken if you are of the opinion that (for example) TEs choose which bits of scripture is parable and which is not. 'Real' isn't a fair opposite, it's all 'real'.

As Augustine (?) said, "If your interpretation of the Bible contradicts the what is known in the world, it is your interpretation that is wrong."

No-one chooses which bits to read in whatever way. There are various tools for determining how any passage was intended to be read and what the passage is trying to say. It's not a matter of choice.

Excellent post. Well put

 

[TheReasoner]

Well I feel better now that I'm not stupid but it's just that you're right and I'm wrong. Thanks for telling me that. At least its better than being stupid right?

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you're wrong about this. I'm not saying I'm right. In fact I know I'm wrong. I just also know I am less wrong than you - on this subject.

There wasn't any mistake.

Right. No mistake in making all those wrong claims about this and that in regards to most or all fields in natural science. Are they aking a conscious effort at telling untruths then? That is to say, are they lying? I'm not saying they are you know. I'm saying they are making mistakes, and there is no solid evidence to the contrary.

You claimed that we didn't evolve from Chimps, then pick another beast. This isn't particularly relevant.

Eh. It sort of is if someone bases their criticism of anything on a false premise.
Okay. Creationists say we didn't evolve from chimps. That's true. We didn't. But we did (and do) evolve. You see I have this apparently crazy notion that criticism can be harsh, but it should always be given with integrity and be free of logical fallacies. Which means; no ad-hominem attacks. No straw men. No false accusations. No tu-coque fallacies. Etcetera.

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
Actually we can observe the accumulation of random mutations, loss of function mutations etc. These are what criticize Darwinism and potential exceptions are not required seeing that demonstrations in biological systems are available.

Ugh. Yes. I have read similar things before. Sounds nice, if you don't know what entropy is. It's building on almost nearly correct assumptions, which are then hacked mangled and lit on fire. Their understanding of the 'phenomenon' which is entropy is severely limited. Please don't take this article for any more than what it is: A severe mistake based on utter lack of comprehension.

See, yes. Entropy will always increase in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, and we can have a local decrease in entropy provided we have an increase somewhere else. And we do. Observe the sun. Do the calculations on received radiation vs. emitted radiation and you'll see conditions are favorable for development of life. Had this not been the case you would never have seen any life at all. Not just no evolution of life, no growth. No ordered structure of any kind. No crystals, no ordered structure of any kind. Besides, entropy is also subject to a balance. At times it will increase, at times reduction of free energy is more favorable than increase of entropy and so a system will tend to reduce it's entropy one way or another, reducing local complexity.

And yes, I saw the "phd" there. Is he one of the hoaxes like Hovind? Reading YEC dissertations can be... Entertaining: http://doctore0.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf

This isn't valid. Note that I do not recognize the "Science debunking thor so shut up" argument. Or that religion emerged from things we do not know so everything we do know about religion is what we do not know. That's mainly why the Thor argument is erected: To provide a source of intimidation so great, to generate a fear so immense, that even where theists have the evidence for god, even where theists have the upper hand, atheism's non-evidence is actually millions of times greater. Imagine that. Atheists don't have to provide evidence for the chance assembly of man because they inherently have [future] evidence of everything. Taken materialism to new heights. But what if the study of texts renders the Thor argument and the overall science over religion wall-banging, impotent. With materialism tying itself to science and empirical observation, one would never guess that it is materialism that doesn't have the evidence, that it is materialism who has the "Santa Clause". But that's just it: one would never guess.

FALSE! You cannot create an illusion that science=atheism. Evolution and the big bang are scientific theories based upon objective observations, NOT upon an attempt to disprove Christianity. At that you creationists excel and are doing a FAR better job than Anton Lavey, Dawkins and your pick of other anti-christians could ever dream of doing.

I wonder at your apparent belief that evidence and knowledge of how things happens means God didn't do it. Well, He created this universe with all it's laws, didn't He? Does us being able to explain it lessen His glory? Not at all.

Also, please don't pull random numbers out of thin air like that. It hurts.

Why do you HAVE to make this about atheism? Atheism is not even remotely related to this. Oh sure you creationists often insist that it is, but it really isn't. It's just about observing reality. Nothing more.
My example of Thor is valid. We have flown above and through storm clouds. We now know without any uncertainty that Thor does NOT make lightning. The same way we have observed the universe and can conclude with the same degrees of certainty that your belief in a young earth is false. That does NOT mean God does not exist. It does NOT mean Christianity is false. It means you've made a mistake. You're human, right? Capable of making mistakes?

Your position decrees that your interpretation of the bible must be infallible while everything we can objectively see and read out of the universe - God's creation - is wrong. Requiring God to be a liar and a deceiver. Hence falsifying His existence.

Very many scientists - quite probably most - are also religious. Many who are not avoid religion because of creationists who have pushed so hard for so long to create the false impression that the universe is at odds with a God. The Thor example, which I made up on the spot here, was not at all designed to induce fear. It was an analogy, a comparison I was hoping you could understand. See when you make these creationist claims you are making just as much sense as someone who claims Thor is riding his chariot. We know you're wrong. And for all your fancy words, all your links and your "scientists" with diploma mill generated phd diplomas attacking people, bringing irrelevant speculation into the equation and not addressing the case at hand it's still fake. And guess what? People notice. This is not a question of you being persecuted by the atheist hordes. Most scientists are probably religious, judging by the statistical data concerning religion I have seen. It is a question of you people making an enemy where none abides. A big, scary tale about something which does not exist or is too tiny to really be much of a problem. The issue however is that the more you push the more you polarize the scene. You manage to pull some gullible people into your wake, dragging them along and feed fuel to the irrational fears of science you feed so diligently. But the problem is of your own making. Science cannot disprove God. It can disprove bad interpretations. It did concerning geocentrism, it did concerning creationism. But God emerges the same only in greater glory and detail, every time.


Don't alienate Christ from academia. They are also people who need Jesus. And following Jesus does NOT mean creationism. The bible has some good definitions. Among which "thou must believe in a six times twenty-four hour creation!" is not among them.

Apparently not similar enough for the flagellum to be reducible via its manipulation of protein structure to compensate for a reduction in complexity and maintain function .
We tend to deal with testing.
You already cited your level of expertise. I think I get it.
They would, should they choose to employ the theory of Intelligent Design. Fortunately we were those primitive people before we could venture into the complexity of cellular components and life overall. We recognized the design we were able to relate to with our technological aptitude at that time and they would as well. We see in biological systems, having gained the capability to understand even vaster levels of complexity, even more evidence of design, and even more complexity which we can relate to with factories and assembly lines. There are even higher levels, but none of these suggests that we cannot identify design.
Human design, God's design, intelligent design.
Funny how the trend shown via the evolution of video games, the evolution of technology, the evolution of cars, the evolution of airplanes, are instances of creationism, despite the ability of these aforementioned machines to adapt and despite an increase in complexity depicted over time, individually created with limited adaptation.

ID is NOT a theory. It is not testable, it is not falsifiable, it has not undergone and withstood scrutiny and repeated lab trials over a long period of time and it does not have the scientific concensus. Words have meanings. Kindly use the proper words with the proper definition. Creationism and ID are pseudosciences by the very definition of the term. They are directions of thought which pretend to be sciences but do not meet the necessary requirements to meet the requirements for fitting the label. So don't use it.

God is not inanimate. You're quite the fellow aren't you.

Are you suggesting we were made from God's body now? I see nothing suggesting that in any biblical interpretation.

Actually the evidence points intelligent design.

Repeating yourself ad nauseum does not make it so. IF you were right you can go to university, work hard, and get nobel prizes in every discipline.

Thing is, you're wrong. So you won't manage that.
Just as wrong as someone who claims the earth is flat. All we need do to falsify your position is look at any ONE scientific discipline - or all of them together - and observe the data available. Astronomy may be the most visually stunning, and the most easily understood by laymen. Simply: A photon has a fixed speed. We can therefore measure the distance to stars and galaxies around the universe and at the same time measure the time that light has been in transit. We have observed planets orbiting stars further away than you claim the universe is old. That means the information we get is either true and you're wrong - OR you're right and God's a liar.

And we know that you're wrong on the age of the universe. Just as surely as we know Thor does not throw Mjølnir around when lightning flashes. You come up with positions which are utter tripe and make strong claims which have no backing at all apart from pure sophism. Words do not matter. Show me the math. Show me the experimental data. You do not have that. Or if you can find something - which you can by googling it - the experiments conducted are incredibly shoddy, poorly documented and ridden with miscalculations. And often will most likely never have taken place, but rather be a collection of random photos and some ad-hominem attacks on the scientific community at large for being "so stupid to think that ..." usually followed by more attacks on various scientific theories such as relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, archeology and so on. It's almost always hogwash though. I say "almost" because I am not aware of all such sites so I can't say you can't find accurate albeit poorly presented and controversial stuff out there. You probably can.
Worthless.

 

[Tiberius]

1611 AV, are you going to respond to my post? What was your point about asking whether life forms are still alive 10,000 years after they are born?

 

[1611AV]

The bible does not speak of the space shuttle, the Andromeda galaxy, interferon, and billions of other things that are real. So according to your philosophy; None of the above exist because they are not mentioned in the bible?

Right, But again, it does speak of direct creation so we know at least that much now, don't we. It also speaks of non believers and mockers.

 

[1611AV]

1611 AV, are you going to respond to my post? What was your point about asking whether life forms are still alive 10,000 years after they are born?

Was the "common ancestor" that Adam evolved from alive when Adam was created? was the "common ancestor" of that "common ancestor" alive when Adam was created and so on...

 

[1611AV]

No sir. I do not choose such. I approach it with humility. I cannot say I am correct in my interpretation, whatever that interpretation is. BUT, at times things come around which disprove/falsify an interpretation so we can know a certain interpretation is wrong. Among these we can find a couple of very concrete mistakes the church has made up through the time. One is geocentrism, which is about as thoroughly falsified as is possible. The other is young earth creationism. It is not a matter of some small mistake having been made by scientists or some constant a little off which will fix the entire problem, thereby validating your position. Your position is as thoroughly falsified as the notion that the earth is flat.

Therefore, if your interpretation of the bible is the correct way to read it by extension we will know with certainty that Christianity is false. For the same reason that we know that if the bible had hinged on a claim that the earth is flat it would also have been falsified in it's entirety. But - even though some people interpret the bible to say the earth is flat such a claim is certainly nothing the bible hinges upon. Nor do I consider such claims to hold any real authority at all. Which, incidentally, is what I think of your claims as well. I do honestly not see why they should have any support at all. Not from any perspective.

I don't think so. I do not for a second believe your position has any merit. BUT, that does not mean I am impossible to convince. I think it about as difficult to convince me of as the claim that 10+10=10 000 000, but I suppose with sufficient coercion it's doable as everything can be forced upon someone with the right brainwashing techniques.

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

How do you explain this? Why would man be alone with all the billions of years of evolution, No Female???? Did God speed up evolution for Adam and cause the "common ancestor" to produce a full grown Human Female for Adam. Did God bring Adam a Baby to raise and marry and eventually mate with? Did the sub Human ancestor raise her?

No, God brought forth a Woman not a baby Gen 2:21-22 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

That is as strait forward as it gets. If you don't believe what the Bible says regarding the creation of Eve, then you don't believe the Bible. God Created Eve. She did not evolve.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

How do you explain this? Why would man be alone with all the billions of years of evolution, No Female???? Did God speed up evolution for Adam and cause the "common ancestor" to produce a full grown Human Female for Adam. Did God bring Adam a Baby to raise and marry and eventually mate with? Did the sub Human ancestor raise her?

Or is the whole "Adam and Eve" thing an etiological myth?

Something to consider once you realize that Genesis 2 doesn't even match up with Genesis 1.

 

[Research1]

God Created Eve. She did not evolve.

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

This is another major reason why homosexuality is anti-biblical and morally wrong.

Evolutionists in contrast believe that the sexes evovled from a hermaphrodite or asexual organism, hence their theory attempts to justify homosexuality.

 

[Hespera]

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

This is another major reason why homosexuality is anti-biblical and morally wrong.

Evolutionists in contrast believe that the sexes evovled from a hermaphrodite or asexual organism, hence their theory attempts to justify homosexuality.

Keep it up, the rest of us understand this kind of sick fiction says far far more about you than it does about anyone else.

 

[Mr Dave]

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

This is another major reason why homosexuality is anti-biblical and morally wrong.

Evolutionists in contrast believe that the sexes evovled from a hermaphrodite or asexual organism, hence their theory attempts to justify homosexuality.

What's that got to do with the topic
What an out of the blue false stereotyping of a massive group of people.

 

[mzungu]

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

This is another major reason why homosexuality is anti-biblical and morally wrong.

Evolutionists in contrast believe that the sexes evovled from a hermaphrodite or asexual organism, hence their theory attempts to justify homosexuality.

 

[TheReasoner]

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

This is another major reason why homosexuality is anti-biblical and morally wrong.

Evolutionists in contrast believe that the sexes evovled from a hermaphrodite or asexual organism, hence their theory attempts to justify homosexuality.

*sigh*

Jesus loves homosexuals as well. Don't forget that. Also do not forget that we need to love them too.

As for your view of evolution... Mneeeh... Sort of. If you go far enough back there's certainly a time when one can find a common ancestor consisting of a single cell. But your simplification is... Extreme.

You can also look at it this way: Homosexuality is, from an evolutionary perspective, a manifestation of something wrong in a person's genetic makeup resulting in a condition removing said person from the human gene pool. That is to say: Homosexuality is a condition which brings with it the worst punishment evolution has to "offer": Failure to procreate.

But, your attempt at trying to tie evolution in with ethics is misguided. It is a scientific theory explaining a natural process. It is not something which has any ethical baring whatsoever. No more than the theory of gravity does. Or the atomic theory. They are just descriptions of observed facts. This is also the case when it comes to evolution.

 

[sandwiches]

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

This is another major reason why homosexuality is anti-biblical and morally wrong.

Evolutionists in contrast believe that the sexes evovled from a hermaphrodite or asexual organism, hence their theory attempts to justify homosexuality.

These are the kinds of posts that have been giving away your real agenda since you started posting in this forum pretending like you're not a creationist or a Christian.

 

[AV1611VET]

These are the kinds of posts that have been giving away your real agenda since you started posting in this forum pretending like you're not a creationist or a Christian.

And here's an example of you guys':

God should not have written down that Christians should burn witches if he didn't want Christians to go out can actually do it.