Keachian
On Sabbatical
Well you could always start here:
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
maybe even Francis Collins' The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief would be of help
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)
- Thread starter Metal Minister
- Start date
Well you could always start here:
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
maybe even Francis Collins' The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief would be of help
Keachian
On Sabbatical
I have adequately looked at the information enough to accept it, I'm of the position that to be a true Polymath would take a lifetime so am quite happy to accept the consensus of the majority in a field with regards to their field, I'm sure they are also quite happy to do the same for the fields I am pursuing Computation and Logic, and Christian Theology
LOL at collins toohaahhahaha
What is your contention with Collins?
Upvote
0
I thought your collins reference was a joke given what i posted on earlier pages on here (emails with the guy). I want you to convert me to "evolution" please BUT i need EVIDENCE. There is nothing polymathematic (lolz) about blindly accepting dogma. We can settle this very easily by shooting a few emails off....
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Francis Collins believes in the resurrection and the miracles of the New Testament, he just takes Genesis figuratively. Guess he considers it written in the vernacular of New Eastern Literature (NEL). I can't speak for all young earth creationists but there is no reason for me to have a problem with someone like that, especially given his amazing accomplishments as head of the human genome project.
I don't really think a literal rendering of the Genesis account is what is at issue when dealing with Darwinians. I think the miracles are the only real issue and you will never hear a self respecting Darwinian admitting to miracles. That's usually a tell tale sign on someone making an empty profession as a pretense for rapier skepticism. You never get a straight answer when you start asking them what they believe about the New Testament, resurrection, new birth or especially the new creation at the end of the age.
At least the man understand the primacy of faith and discerning between essential doctrine and speculative natural theology.
Grace and peace,
Mark
I don't really think a literal rendering of the Genesis account is what is at issue when dealing with Darwinians. I think the miracles are the only real issue and you will never hear a self respecting Darwinian admitting to miracles. That's usually a tell tale sign on someone making an empty profession as a pretense for rapier skepticism. You never get a straight answer when you start asking them what they believe about the New Testament, resurrection, new birth or especially the new creation at the end of the age.
At least the man understand the primacy of faith and discerning between essential doctrine and speculative natural theology.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Ok so you emailed Collins, he points you to his book, I could care less about "converting" you to evolution. Though if you want to have a watch of something then maybe this youtube playlist;
How Evolution Works - YouTube
I really don't get the rock story, but it seems to me that you won't accept evolution until someone invents a time machine and takes you personally back through time to live through all of the history of life on this planet, as such I'm not really interested in continuing this conversation if this is the case.
Upvote
0
The rock story is an analogy for what *most* of neodarwinian delusion is based on. Assigning processes to the UNOBSERVED past. I can make up ANY fairytale on the PLANET using this framework. Collins referenced me that human chromosome 2 paper which does what the rock story does. ASSIGN UNOBSERVED ALLEGED CAUSE TO THE PAST.
Neodarwinian "theory": Apriori axiom-everything on the planet came from inorganic matter by natural selection/random mutation ~3.5 billion years ago. Look at any 2 things on the PLANET today. Find similarity. Confirm prediction that everything on the planet came from inorganic matter by natural selection/random mutation ~3.5 billion years ago. THIS LOGIC IS UNBEATABLE I CANT COMPETE. Again if you would like to do science and find out if this is tenable please go to NCBI and type in "neofunctionalization" skim the paper then direct link it.
Neodarwinian "theory": Apriori axiom-everything on the planet came from inorganic matter by natural selection/random mutation ~3.5 billion years ago. Look at any 2 things on the PLANET today. Find similarity. Confirm prediction that everything on the planet came from inorganic matter by natural selection/random mutation ~3.5 billion years ago. THIS LOGIC IS UNBEATABLE I CANT COMPETE. Again if you would like to do science and find out if this is tenable please go to NCBI and type in "neofunctionalization" skim the paper then direct link it.
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
So your objection is that uniformitarianism is not a sound theological principle, I disagree, in fact I posit that uniformitarianism is required when it comes to understanding that not only did God involve himself in the act of creation but he is inherently involved in creation still, his divine providence if you will.
Here's the start of a three part series on a theological understanding of uniformatism that is inline with Biblical theology:
The Biblical Premise of Uniformitarianism: A Response to John MacArthur, Part 1 | BioLogos
I highly encourage you to read the entire series
Upvote
0
It isnt, Noahs flood is not 'uniformitarianism', it is 'catastrophism". Both are in the unobserved past, one has historical data (bible) one doesnt (uniformitarianism). Both take FAITH to believe. One is faith accompanied with creator of universes word (Noahs flood account in genesis) one is blind faith with none. Have you read the bible of the evolution religion (origin of species)?
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
You haven't read the article series I suggested, it argues for theistic uniformitarianism, while catastrophism is all well and good it emphasises God's providence without looking at the character of God in his unchangability. No I haven't read the origin of species, evolution is not a religion, it's a science, a study of God's creation, why on earth should God's word and his creation be in conflict? Or would you have that God is not creator or not author the Bible?
Upvote
0
I read the 3 part article. It should be noted (quote mine approaching) Charles Lyell (as John Mckay mentioned in that interview he has with Richard Dawkins) writer of "Principles of geology" said "My goal is to remove the sciences from Moses". What did Moses write of? Noahs flood. Has he achieved that? Yes. How? "The present is the key to the past".
"No I haven't read the origin of species"
I have read overviews of shakespeare, watched documentaries on shakespeare, aware of other peoples opinions of shakespeare, (attempt) to talk to people about shakespeare, all without reading a single book of shakespeare. Is it ignorant for me to talk with authority on shakespeare all without reading a single one of his books?
"evolution is not a religion,"
Which definition of evolution are you using? Change in allele frequency over time? Speciation? Mutation? Natural selection? Variation? Plants/animals/human beings came from inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago? (hint one of these is a FAIRYTALE)
"it's a science"
Again please specify which definition your intending. If it is the one you might think it is from above, i agree it is a FORM of science.....a PSEUDOscience
"No I haven't read the origin of species"
I have read overviews of shakespeare, watched documentaries on shakespeare, aware of other peoples opinions of shakespeare, (attempt) to talk to people about shakespeare, all without reading a single book of shakespeare. Is it ignorant for me to talk with authority on shakespeare all without reading a single one of his books?
"evolution is not a religion,"
Which definition of evolution are you using? Change in allele frequency over time? Speciation? Mutation? Natural selection? Variation? Plants/animals/human beings came from inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago? (hint one of these is a FAIRYTALE)
"it's a science"
Again please specify which definition your intending. If it is the one you might think it is from above, i agree it is a FORM of science.....a PSEUDOscience
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Obviously you missed the part where God is the same yesterday as he is today, you missed the part where any cultural historian or theologian also presupposes the same present is the key to the past.
Oh but the difference here would be me reading or watching adaptations of Shakespeare, while I haven't read Shakespeare itself I have read enough that I am confident that I understand the overarching ideas. Perhaps another way of looking at it is that Origin of Species is Romeo and Juliet and I've read all of Macbeth, Hamlet and Julius Caesar, does that mean I know all of Shakespeare's work? Hardly but I do know of some of the effects that Shakespeare has had on the English language and literature in general, something that reading about doesn't give you.
Um, well considering that "Plants/animals/human beings came from inorganic matter" is a rather rough description of abiogenesis and not evolution I can happily say that that one isn't evolution. I do also accept abiogenesis, or whatever will actually come of biochemistry and its overarching theory. I used to have this written in my sig:
Regardless of what science attests as theists and Christians we must adamantly proclaim that not only did God do it but he is continuing to do it.
Oh but the difference here would be me reading or watching adaptations of Shakespeare, while I haven't read Shakespeare itself I have read enough that I am confident that I understand the overarching ideas. Perhaps another way of looking at it is that Origin of Species is Romeo and Juliet and I've read all of Macbeth, Hamlet and Julius Caesar, does that mean I know all of Shakespeare's work? Hardly but I do know of some of the effects that Shakespeare has had on the English language and literature in general, something that reading about doesn't give you.
Um, well considering that "Plants/animals/human beings came from inorganic matter" is a rather rough description of abiogenesis and not evolution I can happily say that that one isn't evolution. I do also accept abiogenesis, or whatever will actually come of biochemistry and its overarching theory. I used to have this written in my sig:
Regardless of what science attests as theists and Christians we must adamantly proclaim that not only did God do it but he is continuing to do it.
Upvote
0
jinx wrote:
This shows the core of why some people reject science. Because some people massively underestimate how much evidence there really is in any given field. When someone is ignorant, it is a natural human tendency to think that their isn't as much knowledge (the product of work) than there is. This is the source of the well established Dunning-Kruger effect, where the more ignorant someone is, the more they overrate their own knowledge.
It may come as a surprise, but no, you can't "find out very quickly what "evidence" there is." It would take years of study, an advanced degree, years of apprenticship and research, and years on top of that, to even understand the evidence in one small subset supporting evolution, much less than 1% of the evidence for evolution there is. You can start here, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent but please don't think you'll have seen much of the evidence even if you understand all the evidence explained there.
That's why it is so sad to see someone confidently disagreeing with the experts. They are almost always ignorant of the mountains of evidence, lifetimes of work, and multiple confirmations from very different fields of study that go into the understanding the experts have. That's why creationists are doing more to show people that they can disregard Christianity than all the atheists in the world could only dream of doing.
Papias
This shows the core of why some people reject science. Because some people massively underestimate how much evidence there really is in any given field. When someone is ignorant, it is a natural human tendency to think that their isn't as much knowledge (the product of work) than there is. This is the source of the well established Dunning-Kruger effect, where the more ignorant someone is, the more they overrate their own knowledge.
It may come as a surprise, but no, you can't "find out very quickly what "evidence" there is." It would take years of study, an advanced degree, years of apprenticship and research, and years on top of that, to even understand the evidence in one small subset supporting evolution, much less than 1% of the evidence for evolution there is. You can start here, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent but please don't think you'll have seen much of the evidence even if you understand all the evidence explained there.
That's why it is so sad to see someone confidently disagreeing with the experts. They are almost always ignorant of the mountains of evidence, lifetimes of work, and multiple confirmations from very different fields of study that go into the understanding the experts have. That's why creationists are doing more to show people that they can disregard Christianity than all the atheists in the world could only dream of doing.
Papias
Last edited:
Upvote
0
P
PartyAnimal
Guest
I don't think creationists realise the harm they are causing. I'm sure they really believe their position but when you want to substitute established theories with unsupported ones it kind of pushes people away.
If we as a group continually show a refusal to accept what is true in one area, how are we supposed to get others to see the most important truth of all?
Upvote
0
PartyAnimal said:
So are you suggesting we disregard God's word for the sake of man's? The reason we yec's hold so firmly to our view is not that we refuse science, but that we don't agree with the assumptions and theories posited as absolute truth. There are always more and different ways to look at evidence, OEC's and theistic evolutionists believe billions of years and that Genesis is mostly hyperbole, while yec's tend to believe Genesis is more literal. We yec's believe that OEC's and te's have allowed the words of men to sway them from some of the words of God.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Um, just to let you know the way I understand the Genesis creation accounts is becoming quickly very popular in TE circles, it kind of helps when renown biblical scholars publish books on ANE understanding of creation narratives and they get promoted in the circles. I'd hardly think that it is hyperbole and is in my opinion far more literal than your own interpretation.
Upvote
0
progmonk said:
I was using a generalization not getting into details for a new member (BTW welcome aboard party animal!) and meant no disrespect, but have you had a chance to check out that book I mentioned to you?
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
P
PartyAnimal
Guest
No. I didn't mean to imply that we should. Science is not the word of man. Whether people wish to accept it or not, science is what it is today for two reasons. 1. God 2. Christianity. God created the rules that allow us to apply science. Christians pushed science forward. It was after all, a Christian who discovered The Big Bang and an Atheist that initially argued against it. Science is god given, just like the bible. Both compliment each other and should be given authority within their specific areas of expertise.
I understand your position. At least, I think I do. But you see, you said something there that is not true of science. Science does not claim the Big Bang or that evolution is an absolute fact. It is more of a conclusion based on the available evidence. That's why theories change when new evidence is discovered.
We disagree on what sways people away from god. You believe it's evolution/OEC because it is different from the revealed word. I think it's YEC because they hold an unsupported position and reject the carefully constructed, evidence supported ones.
Upvote
0
MM worte:
No, he's suggesting you disregard man's interpretation of God's word and instead look at all of God's revelation, including the revelation He left in His creation, just as you already have realized to do with the interpretations regarding germs, pregnancy, a round earth, and so on. You don't seem to realize that your literalist view of Genesis is a man's interpretation of God's word.
Papias
No, he's suggesting you disregard man's interpretation of God's word and instead look at all of God's revelation, including the revelation He left in His creation, just as you already have realized to do with the interpretations regarding germs, pregnancy, a round earth, and so on. You don't seem to realize that your literalist view of Genesis is a man's interpretation of God's word.
Papias
Upvote
0
Similar threads
