Creationism vs God...

Two very well writen posts, Lucaspa.

Yesterday at 11:14 PM Hanani said this in Post #25

no God gave us all the important information the only truely important information is having to do with salvation everything else is extra

Click to expand...

If you truly believe this, then what is your problem with evolution?

What difference to salvation does it make if God created by evolution? Are you not just as saved?

So what is your problem with accepting the evidence God left in Creation that He created by evolution and not a literal intepretation of Genesis?

Today at 12:28 PM Melchior said this in Post #41

Two very well writen posts, Lucaspa.

Click to expand...

:o Thank you.

Today at 01:58 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #29

This could also be applied to Darwin's theory and how it has changed. To change it is to put words into his mouth. Or maybe he was to lame to understand "Modern science".

Click to expand...

This is projecting religious ideas onto science.  Religion requires its prophets and messiahs to be "perfect".  None of their views on theology can be wrong.  Because their whole "authority" comes from trust.  We must trust that they are telling us the truth about God since God is speaking only to them.

Science isn't like that.  Scientific ideas are independent of the people who propose them.  To be science, those ideas must be testable by everyone.  So the ultimate authority in science is the data -- the physical universe itself.

So Darwin can be, and was, wrong about some of the things he said.  And yes, we can change them because the data says we have to.  It's no reflection on Darwin. Darwin isn't required to be perfect because it is the data that is important.  Also, no one requires Darwin to be omiscient and know what new data is going to be found.  Since data is the authority, new data is going to require that we change the theory.

Again, this is in contrast to a literal interpretation of the Bible.  It can't be changed because 1) no more Bible is ever going to be written and 2) literalists don't accept any other authority than the Bible.

We admire Darwin because he got so much right.  Despite the vast new amounts of data since then, it is amazing how the vast majority of his ideas have withstood the test of that new data. He even anticipated punctuated equilibrium and exaptation.  A truly great mind.

According to Aristotle: "God put creation into motion through desiring or thinking things into being and then drawing all things toward himself as an object of "existential desire." http://www.newgenevacenter.org/biography/aristotle2.htm

Yesterday at 12:17 PM lucaspa said this in Post #39


Creationism based on a literal interpreation of the Bible was falsified before 1830.  Just like the data showing the earth not to be flat will never go away, so the data showing creastionism to be false will never go away.  So however science refines its theories about the origin of the universe, the origin of species, etc. it will never go back to creationism.  It can't.

I'm afraid you are expressing wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

How exactly was creationism falsified before 1830?  No matter what assumption scientists make, what concrete proof is there about the origin of the world?  Were you there?  Therefore, one can either place his faith in flawed men, or in a perfect Creator.  Creation will never be proved false because the truth of God's Word will always prevail.

Job 5:3
From my experience, I know that fools who turn from God may be successful for the moment, but then comes sudden disaster.


 

Job 5:3
From my experience, I know that fools who turn from God may be successful for the moment, but then comes sudden disaster.

Click to expand...

What has evolution got to do with turning away from God?

Yesterday at 12:10 PM lucaspa said this in Post #38

Arikay is echoing an idea by Michael Shermer that humanity seems to consist of Skeptics and True Believers.  True Believers are certain they have the answers even tho they don't have the evidence to be certain or even if the evidence contradicts them.

YECers (such as those at ICR and AiG) and biblical literalists like Micaiah are True Believers.  So are atheists like William Provine and Peter Atkins.  Most Christians are Skeptics. They have a good grounding between what they know and what they believe.  Shermer even classifies Jesus as a Skeptic due to his doubts in the Garden of Gethsemane.

So the 'know-it-all-ism" isnt a new age religion. It is a different way of describing an age-old way that some people look at the world.

Click to expand...

Jesus had doubts? Jesus, being in flesh form knew what was fixin to happen him and that being in the flesh he would feel it all. Knowing this he was at his weakest point ever with the battle with the flesh. He ask God the father to take this cup from him. At that weakest point he was actually asking the father for help In dealing with what was fixin to happen to him.God the father did not answer him, which reafirmed what he already knew. So he did what he needed to do because of his love for us. He died for our sins. He gave his life just as we might give ours for a loved one. There was no doubt.

Yesterday at 11:43 PM wblastyn said this in Post #47

What has evolution got to do with turning away from God?

Click to expand...

What does evolution have to do with God? I have not seen anything in the Bible pertaining to Darwins ideas.

Yesterday at 10:42 PM Wasp said this in Post #46

How exactly was creationism falsified before 1830? 

Click to expand...

When, for example, the founding fathers of geology realized the impossibility of a 6000 year old Earth and that a global flood could account for the complexities of geologic features.

 No matter what assumption scientists make, what concrete proof is there about the origin of the world?

Click to expand...

Science works with evidence to deduce the most logical conclusions. The only assumptions scientists make are ones that are tested, not merely guesses assumed to be true. There is no concrete, 100% proof in science--only factual evidence and the logically deducted theories that explain it.

Were you there?

Click to expand...

No, neither were you and neither were the authors of the Bible.

Therefore, one can either place his faith in flawed men, or in a perfect Creator.

Click to expand...

Since the Bible was written by "flawed men" also, it is really just between the words of "flawed men" versus the words of "flawed men". The difference is that scientists use evidence. The only observable evidence for your Bible comes from within it (that is to say, "the Bible is true because it says so"). Your claim is that it is the work of a perfect Creator, but you have no evidence, and that assumption is based on circular logic. It's not really about faith either. Faith is about belief without evidence. That's what you have toward your holy book written by "flawed men" who may or may not have been "inspired" by some deity. Science, however, is based upon evidence, so it is not simply faith (belief without evidence).

Creation will never be proved false because the truth of God's Word will always prevail.

Click to expand...

Perhaps your interpretation of what you refer to as "God's Word" is the problem. Your posts seem to indicate you take a Young Earth Creationism viewpoint, however reality itself falsifies that perspective. Either your interpretation must be wrong, or your interpretation is right and your God is a deceptive one.

Your interpretation does not prevail because it has been falsified whether you want to admit it or not. Simply claiming that a book is "God's Word" and its writings "will always prevail" over what we observe in reality does nothing to change the facts.

Today at 01:14 AM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #50

When, for example, the founding fathers of geology realized the impossibility of a 6000 year old Earth and that a global flood could account for the complexities of geologic features.



Science works with evidence to deduce the most logical conclusions. The only assumptions scientists make are ones that are tested, not merely guesses assumed to be true. There is no concrete, 100% proof in science--only factual evidence and the logically deducted theories that explain it.



No, neither were you and neither were the authors of the Bible.



Since the Bible was written by "flawed men" also, it is really just between the words of "flawed men" versus the words of "flawed men". The difference is that scientists use evidence. The only observable evidence for your Bible comes from within it (that is to say, "the Bible is true because it says so"). Your claim is that it is the work of a perfect Creator, but you have no evidence, and that assumption is based on circular logic. It's not really about faith either. Faith is about belief without evidence. That's what you have toward your holy book written by "flawed men" who may or may not have been "inspired" by some deity. Science, however, is based upon evidence, so it is not simply faith (belief without evidence).



Perhaps your interpretation of what you refer to as "God's Word" is the problem. Your posts seem to indicate you take a Young Earth Creationism viewpoint, however reality itself falsifies that perspective. Either your interpretation must be wrong, or your interpretation is right and your God is a deceptive one.

Your interpretation does not prevail because it has been falsified whether you want to admit it or not. Simply claiming that a book is "God's Word" and its writings "will always prevail" over what we observe in reality does nothing to change the facts.

Click to expand...

Same old stuff for refuting Creation. I wonder how old these ideas are. Seems I have been hearing them forever. And no matter the evidence I show, someone always falls back on the same old arguements. I wonder sometimes if anyone can come up with new stuff for refuting Creation. These arguements are so old, they make dust appear on my screen.

And christian arguments for refuting evolution and the age of the Earth and the universe are any newer? "Goddidit..."

Today at 06:01 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #49 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684597#post684597)

What does evolution have to do with God? I have not seen anything in the Bible pertaining to Darwins ideas.

Click to expand...

Neither does the bible contain anything pertaining to atomic theory. So should we toss out this theory because the bible doesn't mention it?

What a strange topic - Creationism versus God. Clearly this is a manufactured contradiction since the position of the Creationist is that of Scripture. Essentially it is a convenient term to describe those who believe the Scriptural record of Creation, ie the word of God. No contradiction here or opposition. Show me my position isn't Scriptural and I'll change my views.

The great thing about Scripture is that we are not left in the dark. We can be confident in our understanding of the plain teaching of Scripture, and do not need to be confused by the convoluted arguments of those who doubt the truth of Scripture. Scripture is not a text on science but it does make clear assertions about the facts of Creation which allow Christians to recognise God did not use the process of evolution.

Yesterday at 01:30 AM lucaspa said this in Post #42 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=681747#post681747)

If you truly believe this, then what is your problem with evolution?

What difference to salvation does it make if God created by evolution? Are you not just as saved?

So what is your problem with accepting the evidence God left in Creation that He created by evolution and not a literal intepretation of Genesis?

Click to expand...

What are your beliefs about the doctrine of salvation. That may help to answer the question.

What a strange topic - Creationism versus God. Clearly this is a manufactured contradiction since the position of the Creationist is that of Scripture. Essentially it is a convenient term to describe those who believe the Scriptural record of Creation, ie the word of God. No contradiction here or opposition. Show me my position isn't Scriptural and I'll change my views.

Click to expand...

Your calling God a liar since He apparantly planted false evidence for evolution and an ancient universe.

The great thing about Scripture is that we are not left in the dark. We can be confident in our understanding of the plain teaching of Scripture, and do not need to be confused by the convoluted arguments of those who doubt the truth of Scripture. Scripture is not a text on science but it does make clear assertions about the facts of Creation which allow Christians to recognise God did not use the process of evolution.

Click to expand...

But that's only your interpretation, and you're wrong because creation itself proves you wrong.

Today at 01:24 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #51

Same old stuff for refuting Creation. I wonder how old these ideas are. Seems I have been hearing them forever. And no matter the evidence I show, someone always falls back on the same old arguements. I wonder sometimes if anyone can come up with new stuff for refuting Creation. These arguements are so old, they make dust appear on my screen.

Click to expand...

It's the "same old stuff" because the same old and refuted creationist arguments were presented. The reason they keep getting repeated is because apparently creationists cannot address them and simply bring up the same old arguments.

No new evidence is needed for refuting creationism when evidence already exists that falsifies it.

In your opinion. Not us creationists. I actually believe evolution on the grand scale that most evolutionists propose has been falsified by dna and genetics, as well as information theory killing abiogenisis. The way evidence is interpreted, by different people causes people to come to different conculsions. My belief is this, you who say that creation is falsified, don't have all the information obviously, so you are of the opinion that it is falsified. It is opinion only, not fact.

thats ridiculous lanakila, genetics is not creationisms friend

creationism doesn't have a theory to falsify, thats why it isn't science