Creation-based Science Graduate Programs Anyone?

[Dust and Ashes]

When we get into specific theories, some are currently unsubstantiated (e.g. string theory) and some are falsified (e.g. phlogiston theory of fire) and some have supportive evidence without any falsification to date (e.g. evolution). Theories about the origin of biodiversity which are based on a literal approach to scripture have been scientifically falsified.

If you want to go into this, just ask. I am perfectly happy to discuss it.

Please do. This is not issued as a challenge, I sincerely want to know as a seeker of truth. (It's sad that I have to note that I'm not issuing a challenge but this topic is subject to such heated debate that I felt it necessary.)

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The parable of the sower and samaritan were both told as parables.

And we know that the Genesis creation narratives were not how exactly? As it happens, I'd personally add Jonah and Job to the list, but that's by the by.

In the begining God threatened Adam with death if he were to eat of the tree of knowledge.

Now we're getting somewhere. God said Adam would die the same day if he ate the fruit. What actually happened in the story? Adam gets expelled from the presence of God, but physically he lives for another 800 years or whatever. Is God a liar? Or did God mean spiritual death - removal from His presence? I know what makes sense to me.

If Adam knew what death was in the garden, and it went on regularly then why was it such a big deal for him to eat from the tree, what secret did it protect, did God view death as "good" in his created world?

How would you answer those questions from your perspective?

In addition if the two deaths are not the same then why did Christ need to raise his physical body? Does it serve a purpose?

Of course it does! Indeed, it means exactly what you take it to mean. I don't really see where you're going with this - fact - our physical bodies die. Fact - Jesus' resurrection paves the way for our resurrection. How that death came about is really neither here nor there.

Maybe this is one of those truths that you choose to not believe.

Word to the wise - don't make assumptions like this.

Because it is my understanding that Christ died, descended into hell for three days, and rose from the grave. He beat death for us, this does not mean that we will not die (physically) but we will be raised again. This is why the second coming and the resurrection of our bodies from the grave (mentioned in Revelation chapter 20:5 and in I Thesselonians 4:16) is so important.

Yep. Couldn't agree more.

Christ did come to save us from the physical death as well as being sent into the lake of fire. But tell me again, why is Murder a sin if God planned this earth ot be nothing but a slaughter-ground for his creation.

Where does this "nothing but..." come from? You're sailing very close to a strawman there. Murder is a sin because it denies another person of the most basic rights - right to life. It causes misery and grief. Moreover, it contravenes the Golden Rule. I don't need a theological treatise on the original immortality of man to see murder as wrong.

Was it his intention to bring all the pain and anguish of death to this world.

This is the end result. The problem I have with the creationist version is that God is a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-up God. His creation goes completely wrong almost immediately - and, being omniscient, God knew it'd be a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-up from the start. Frankly, this God needs sacking and a new one hiring pronto. I have to believe that for whatever reason the universe we have is the universe God intended, or I have to believe that God is incompetent.

Something else I might add in reguards to your statement on taking all or none please see Revelation chapter 22:18-19.

Someone writing "this book" before the Bible was put together can only mean the book they were writing. The verses refer specifically to the book of revelation and it is a misuse of them to construe them as meaning the Bible as a whole.

I would like to say to you on a personal not that I do enjoy throughly reading your posts even if we dont see eye to eye on all levels!

Sincerely

Douglas

I aim to please.

 

[gluadys]

Of that latter 49%, four fifths (40% of total) believe that God guided the process, and one fifth (9% of total) believe that God had no part in the process. Thus, 87% believe that a supreme being created humans either directly or indirectly.

One interpretation of the Gallup poll is that (to the nearest 5%):

• 45% of Americans believe in creationism
• 40% of Americans believe in God-guided evolution but reject the "theory of evolution
• 10% of Americans believe in the naturalistic theory of evolution, i.e., neo-Darwinism
• 5% are undecided

It's not a valid interpretation though, as it assumes that the 40% of Americans who believe in God-guided evolution are rejecting neo-Darwinism. They are not.

It also assumes that naturalistic = without God. That is also untrue. So it assumes the 10% who believe God took no part in the process are atheist. That is not necessarily true. They could be Deists, for example.

So other ways to interpret this poll are:

85% believe in creation (with a 9:8 ratio of creationists to non-creationists).

10% believe in non-guided evolution (with no information given as to whether or not they also believe in creation).

5% are undecided.


OR

50% believe in evolution (with 4 out of 5 specifically adhering to God-guided evolution; the beliefs of the others in respect to God are unknown.)

45% believe in creationism

5% are undecided.

 

[gluadys]

Please do. This is not issued as a challenge, I sincerely want to know as a seeker of truth. (It's sad that I have to note that I'm not issuing a challenge but this topic is subject to such heated debate that I felt it necessary.)

So what would you like to begin with? Here are some options:

Basic philosophical axioms of science
Methodological vs philosophical naturalism
The real theory of evolution (minus the extras many uninformed people tack on to it)
Lines of evidence for the real theory of evolution.

At some point it would be important to go into how the science affects interpretation of scripture, but as I see it, it is important to understand the science first.