Christianity & Evolution Are Compatible...A Reflection

[marktheblake]

markthe...with this comp, this is the best i can do as far as the quote function. Put someones avatar on ig and you will see what happens. i made a mistake when I tried to reverse it, and now i cant. so with this comp, this is all i can do.

I have avatars on ignore too?

have you hidden the WYSIWYG editor perhaps? that is possible in the settings, so you just have to turn it back on.

all you need to do anyway, is copy and paste text to quote, and then wrap the said text with the words 'quote' at the start and '/quote' at the end except replace ' with square brackets

 

[uke2se]

No. I never suggested that I would do that. I said that there are scientists that beleive in creation. Thats it.

You also asserted that there were plenty of them, giving the impression that they make up any significant percentage of the world's scientists. I asked you to back this up. You have so far not done so. We can thus safely conclude that your original claim was false, or at least that you did not have any evidence for what you were saying, making the argument itself false.

You were responding to my statements, you need to stick to the point I was making.

I did. I also managed to make a point in the process. Your lack of logic and understanding of the implications of your assertion made it possible for me to do so.

I never made the argument that you want me to substantiate, so No. You didnt even thank me for naming a dentist.

You made the argument that there are plenty of scientists in relevant fields that believe in creation. I asked you to back that up, and you haven't been able to do so. Are you now saying you did not make the argument? Because, if so, I will copy-paste your original claim for you.

The dentist example flew right over your head. I was talking about examples of "scientists" that have no educational basis for discussing evolution. Dentists is one of them. I know there are dentists who believe in creation. What's funny is that creationists seem to think this gives creation any scientific justification.

Do you realise how hard it is to find a dentist who believes in creation?

Not that hard if you know how to use google. Most creationist apologetics sites lists a number of people with irrelevant degrees that believes in creation.

You just get a list of any scientist.
Who's Who in Creation/Evolution - CreationSuperLibrary.com

That's a pretty good list. 37 people from relevant fields. Not the 50 I asked for, but it's a good start. When taking a closer look at the bios of the people on the list, however, question marks start popping up. It seems a number of the people with relevant degrees aren't actually that relevant. I'll get back to you when I get further down the list.

However, you presented evidence to back up your claim. Congratulations. That didn't hurt, did it? If you could have done that from the beginning, we could have saved ourselves a lot of typing.

Apparently, there are scientists with relevant degrees who believe in biblical creation. That's amazing. I would love to read their work, and see how they stand up to peer-review. I smell a nobel prize for one of them if they manage to actually provide evidence for their assertions.

 

[Hespera]

i have a mail order divinity degree. The assistant principle of the high school i went to got kicked out when his PhD turned out to be phony. i wont necessarily accept a name and degree given in support of position unless i see that it is legit. We have a poster on here who claims to have a PhD and he talks like he didnt go to jr high.

 

[Hespera]

markthe sez....Are you intimating that the 30 cubits is 'rounded' - yeah probably, never seen anywhere quoted as 30.55 cubits for example. " QVOTE////////////////


hespera sez....intimating or stating, its pretty obvious to me that the "30 cubits' is just an approximate number. Every cubit was different; every cubit varies constantly, even if only slightly; no way to use them exactly let alone to fractions!

So we agree then, that the bible is in the case approximate, not exact? Introduces or allows for a degree of error, is not absolutely inerrant?

 

[marktheblake]

You also asserted that there were plenty of them, giving the impression that they make up any significant percentage of the world's scientists.

I apologise for the misunderstanding.

I did. I also managed to make a point in the process.

Fine, however I choose not to pursue the point you are making, and am not interested in letting you push me into your corner.

You made the argument that there are plenty of scientists in relevant fields that believe in creation.

No i didnt. I said scientists with science degrees.

Actually now there is a point, is there such a thing as a scientist without a science degree? Probably not. Ok, i shall revise my 'claim'

There are scientists that beleive in creation.

Done.

What's funny is that creationists seem to think this gives creation any scientific justification.

So laugh then. That is not the topic at hand, You can of course discuss the topic with anyone you like.

Not that hard if you know how to use google. Most creationist apologetics sites lists a number of people with irrelevant degrees that believes in creation.

I already offered you the opportunity to do that yourself. What did you think I was going to use, Creation Alamanac 2008

That's a pretty good list. 37 people from relevant fields. Not the 50 I asked for, but it's a good start.

Its 94 from Science fields. I am glad i was never asked for 100.

It seems a number of the people with relevant degrees aren't actually that relevant. I'll get back to you when I get further down the list.

Do not bother. You are making the 'relevant' field argument, not I.

Just say it straight out, save yourself the time, I know you want to, thats where you have been going from the start.
"There are no peer reviewed papers from scientists in relevant fields supporting creation"

and then I say, I already know that. Doesn't change the fact that some Scientists accept Creation and reject evolution.

You will say I am missing your point again, and I will say again, I am not even interested in your point as its unrelated to the topic I was discussing. Which is closed, the young lady and I have kissed and made up and we are going out for Pie tomorrow. Pie/Pi get it

There, saved you a heap of typing.

 

[uke2se]

There, saved you a heap of typing.

Thank you, kind sir.

 

[Hespera]

What was this all about anyway?

 

[Markus6]

Pure and total objectivity probably IS totally impossible. When it comes to theism, theists dont make an effort; the precondition is to believe in god. So everything is filtered thru that.

This is a complete generalisation assuming that for all theists theism is a precondition to their reasoning and never a result of. Considering there are theists who have become non-theists through reasoning and non-theists who have become theists it is a demonstrably false generalisation.

 

[marktheblake]

So we agree then, that the bible is in the case approximate, not exact? Introduces or allows for a degree of error, is not absolutely inerrant?

The text doesn't say 'exactly' 10/30 cubits, so it is obvious rounding has occurred because only one or neither measurement could be be an exact number.

I do not consider that this is evidence that the bible is not inerrant, as it is reasonable to use rounded numbers in this instance. In fact Pi always has to be rounded to a certain degree.

2 Chron 4:2 and 1 King 7:26
I found the text you are referring to and a reasonable explanation. The width of the brim was a handspan, 1/6 of a cubit. Allowing for that we get 3.1414 - Not bad seeings Pi wasnt discovered.

Value of Pi and more science in Holy Scripture Torah

 

[AV1611VET]

The text doesn't say 'exactly' 10/30 cubits, so it is obvious rounding has occurred because only one or neither measurement could be be an exact number.

Mark, I have a thread on this, if you're interested: 1.

God bless!

 

[Hespera]

it says 10 cubits, 30 cubits. does it mean 30, or is it saying 30 when the real number is something else? maybe it says 6 days of creation when it was really 8.2?

if it is approximate in one place, how do you know its not approximate somewhere else?

im not concerned with the thickness of the brim just with the impossibility of the numbers being anything but an approximation.

its impossible to make such measurements, or to make something without a degree of error.


so is there error, or not?

 

[AV1611VET]

it says 10 cubits, 30 cubits. does it mean 30, or is it saying 30 when the real number is something else? maybe it says 6 days of creation when it was really 8.2?

if it is approximate in one place, how do you know its not approximate somewhere else?

im not concerned with the thickness of the brim just with the impossibility of the numbers being anything but an approximation.

its impossible to make such measurements, or to make something without a degree of error.


so is there error, or not?

We've been over this many times, Hespera.

The best thing I can do now is ignore you when you go on your exactitude rant.

 

[marktheblake]

it says 10 cubits, 30 cubits. does it mean 30, or is it saying 30 when the real number is something else? maybe it says 6 days of creation when it was really 8.2?

When describing the number if days, if a small period, I would expect it to be accurate. Seven means 7. In fact due to the hepatic structure of the entire bible, I am very confident that whenever 7 is used, it is very deliberate.

if it is approximate in one place, how do you know its not approximate somewhere else?

Cant guarantee anything can we. Whenever we read something we first firstly just respect what the author has written and then see if it bears scrutiny or not.

its impossible to make such measurements, or to make something without a degree of error.

Its impossible to be precise with Pi, the numbers have to be rounded somewhere. Other numbers do not have to be rounded.

so is there error, or not?

No error, there is no reason to expect the information in that instance to be any more precise than it is.

 

[Assyrian]

When describing the number if days, if a small period, I would expect it to be accurate. Seven means 7. In fact due to the hepatic structure of the entire bible, I am very confident that whenever 7 is used, it is very deliberate.

Does that mean Jesus had seven eyes? Rev 5:6 I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

 

[Amoeba]

However, the Genesis account as a literal truth is not ridiculous to a Christian who beleives that nothing is impossible for God.

Which really is no justification at all. "I believe in a literal genesis story because nothing is impossible for God." That explains absolutely nothing.

Dirt to Humans evolution is unobservable, and unrepeatable.

A murder without witnesses was also unobservable. But forensic evidence can still put the murdered in prison.

(see I can play the endless repeating the same thing game too)

You are right. Creationists are experts in circular reasoning. Like your belief in a literal Genesis because nothing is impossible for God.

When I say that " the Bible is the framework through which i view things in this world." it does not mean that I am excluding sources of truth outside the bible at all.

So why exclude the scientific truth of evolution by natural selection?

One does not view the world through 'science', one views science through their 'world view'

Scientific truth is independent of world view. You can be a Christian and not reject outright a scientific truth because of a misguided interpretation of an ancient document.

Taking the bible seriously does not mean I have to deny figures of speech. The bible is full of them. Just because a figure of speech is used, does not infer mysticism or allegory at all.

Who said you must deny them? The point is to have a rational understanding of what is literal and what isn't.

Evolution gives people the excuse to abandon a belief in God, that is why the Athiest preaches it with so much religious zeal. He is trying to save the world (from what I do not know).

What people do with evolution is completely independent of the science behind it. Linking the two is a misguided effort.

I thought science was all about being critical and analytical. So what you are saying that science should be just taught to the students and they are to believe every thing on face value?

Science is very much all about critical analysis. Creationism sure isn't that critical though. Critical analysis implies an objective, impartial point of view, something which creationists obviously don't fit that characteristic. Creationists already know the answer. That is not impartiality or objective. Additionally, science itself provides the means of critical analysis through peer-reviewed research, and scientific method. Creationism relies neither on peer-reviewed research, nor, scientific method, and so it is not a valid critique of evolution at all.

How does one explain in scientific terms something that is untestable and unmeasurable?

You said your "focus is on supporting creationism." By your own admission, you have just admitted creationism as non-scientific. Therefore, you should also accept the impossibility of it being taught in the science classroom, or as a valid critique of a evolution.

The Holy Bible is NOT a scientific document.

Then why do you view it as such?

 

[marktheblake]

The word used in that verse is hepta ἑπτά which means seven. Pretty sure that is not a mistake, given that there are more sevens in Revelation that you can poke a stick at.

As for what the verse really means, I have no idea. All I recall is that horn is symbolic of power (or leadership/authority)

 

[Assyrian]

Oh I am sure the word seven wasn't a mistake, it just wasn't meant to be taken literally. The bible still isn't telling us Jesus really had seven horns and seven eyes.

 

[Hespera]

Well, if the bible says 30 but doesnt mean it, ok. i dont believe any of it anyway.

 

[marktheblake]

Which really is no justification at all. "I believe in a literal genesis story because nothing is impossible for God." That explains absolutely nothing.

That is because your paraphrasing of what I said is false.

Like your belief in a literal Genesis because nothing is impossible for God.

When you misrepresent what I say, it does not deserve any response.

By your own admission, you have just admitted creationism as non-scientific. Therefore, you should also accept the impossibility of it being taught in the science classroom, or as a valid critique of a evolution.

Well your lot is not doing a very good job of teaching evolution. From these few references it is showing that roughly 50% of people beleive in creation instead of evolution.
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

Perhaps instead of forcing evolution down the throat of High School students as 'fact', teach them proper science like you said "Critical analysis implies an objective, impartial point of view"

If Evolution builds such a strong case of truth as you claim, then there is no doubt that the High School students will come to accept Evolution as fact.

Otherwise you are leaving them open later to preachers indoctrinating them with creation rubbish, and as they have never been taught to critically analyse they get brainwashed.

See its all your fault for not teaching them in the science classroom properly in the first place.

 

[uke2se]

Well your lot is not doing a very good job of teaching evolution. From these few references it is showing that roughly 50% of people beleive in creation instead of evolution.
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

Perhaps instead of forcing evolution down the throat of High School students as 'fact', teach them proper science like you said "Critical analysis implies an objective, impartial point of view"

If Evolution builds such a strong case of truth as you claim, then there is no doubt that the High School students will come to accept Evolution as fact.

Otherwise you are leaving them open later to preachers indoctrinating them with creation rubbish, and as they have never been taught to critically analyse they get brainwashed.

See its all your fault for not teaching them in the science classroom properly in the first place.

Not necessarily true. I am not familliar with the educational system of the US, but I do know that a lot of fundamentalists either homeschool their children - thus depriving them of a proper scientific education - or they make sure the children are properly indoctrinated even before they start high school - as shown in the documentary Jesus Camp.

A child's mind is very malleable, and things you learn as a child from authority figures remain imprinted in your mind, often for the rest of your life. Evolution isn't taught - to my knowledge - until high school, and by that time it is often too late.

Then we have the problem of fundamentalists trying to disrupt the teaching of evolution. There are many cases of teachers going outside the curriculum to teach "creation science" instead of proper science. Most of these people are then fired, of course, but the damage is done.

Fundamentalism is like a virus. It's going to keep spreading, and the only cure is a proper education. It's been a good couple of years for science in schools, but there is still much work to be done, and it's going to take at least a couple of generations to completely erradicate the fundamentalist infestation.