Dinosaurs...and Noah's Ark....

[truthsayer]

CS Lewis said a couple of things in "Mere Christianity" which are the compromises through which paganism has driven itself into the churches.

One, he said that religion has its domain, science the other, and that Christianity has nothing to say about things that science addresses. This is poppycock! Most of these guys who preach in favor of the pagan doctrines of men descending from animals at least claim that science has no need for God. Steven Gould said (I read it) he could respect a God that started the universe going (and then left it alone). Meaning he couldn't respect any other.

The Bible has plenty to say about such fools, and Paul warned, beware of "science falsely so-called".

Two, he said he didn't believe witches exist "today" (that was the 1940's, granted). This was naive at best, almost intentionally ignorant. It certainly showed an ignorance of the warnings in the Bible against false doctrines, idolatry, the rest.

Three slips me right now, but digest that for now.

 

[bkane]

woops Ark GUY...I didn't see the rest at the bottom...interesting photo's

 

[notto]

CS Lewis said a couple of things in "Mere Christianity" which are the compromises through which paganism has driven itself into the churches.

One, he said that religion has its domain, science the other, and that Christianity has nothing to say about things that science addresses. This is poppycock! Most of these guys who preach in favor of the pagan doctrines of men descending from animals at least claim that science has no need for God. Steven Gould said (I read it) he could respect a God that started the universe going (and then left it alone). Meaning he couldn't respect any other.

The Bible has plenty to say about such fools, and Paul warned, beware of "science falsely so-called".

Two, he said he didn't believe witches exist "today" (that was the 1940's, granted). This was naive at best, almost intentionally ignorant. It certainly showed an ignorance of the warnings in the Bible against false doctrines, idolatry, the rest.

Three slips me right now, but digest that for now.

You are confusing accepting evolution with atheism. Many Christians accept evolution and it has not affected their faith and in the US, I would guess that most evolutionary biologists are in fact Christian. Throughout the world, young earth creationism is only accepted by a small percentage of Christians.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Someone said CS Lewis believed in evolution. Apparently he had his doubts:

(quote snipped)

Lewis appears to be arguing against atheism here - his point being that if "Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming.", then it is unreasonable to draw absolute conclusions from it. However, if Reason is not this, then it is reasonable to draw conclusions from Reason. From a theistic viewpoint, therefore, the particular conclusions of science (e.g. evolution) are valid.

Is the whole of your post Lewis' words? It's not clear because there are no closing quotation marks. However, it's a shame he was suckered by hostile reporting of DMS Watson. Let's take a look at this creationist favourite quote.

It's dealt with in some detail here: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie031.html, but the thrust is the phrase "clearly incredible". Creationist quoting makes it look like this is an a priori assumption. It is not. Reading Watson's actual article demonstrates that special creation is incredible because it has collapsed due to the evidence.

Of course, much has changed since the 1920s in the field of evidence for evolution, so the point's now pretty moot.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

CS Lewis said a couple of things in "Mere Christianity" which are the compromises through which paganism has driven itself into the churches.

One, he said that religion has its domain, science the other, and that Christianity has nothing to say about things that science addresses. This is poppycock!

No, it isn't. Do you look to the Bible for information on quantum mechanics, embryology or general relativity? Then why on the scientific description of origins?

Most of these guys who preach in favor of the pagan doctrines of men descending from animals

Not a pagan doctrine. It is a scientific model. There are no religions that teach this to the best of my knowledge.

at least claim that science has no need for God.

You'd prefer a "God of the gaps" model requiring divine tinkering?

Steven Gould said (I read it) he could respect a God that started the universe going (and then left it alone). Meaning he couldn't respect any other.

Gould's possible conceptions of God are neither here nor there. You might be better looking at evolutionary biologists who have considered the matter in more detail from a theistic viewpoint, such as Kenneth Miller.

The Bible has plenty to say about such fools, and Paul warned, beware of "science falsely so-called".

Simple hermenutic rules will tell you that since there was no evolutionary biology in Paul's day, he could not have been writing about it.

Two, he said he didn't believe witches exist "today" (that was the 1940's, granted). This was naive at best, almost intentionally ignorant. It certainly showed an ignorance of the warnings in the Bible against false doctrines, idolatry, the rest.

You'd need to define "witch" to argue that one. But it's totally irrelevent to this thread.

 

[Plan 9]

C.S. Lewis was indeed an evolutionist.

 

[Vance]

bkane:

The important thing to keep in mind that, in regards to origins, there are a wide spectrum of beliefs *within* the Christian body, from the YEC view at one fringe extreme all the way to an extreme form of Theistic Evolution (in which God just pushed the first domino and then left it all alone) at the other. There are two vital points draw from this.

The YEC's are at the far extreme of this spectrum.

The truth, almost assuredly, falls somewhere in between.

There is an equally wide spectrum with regard to literalism within the Christian body. Some feel that the whole Bible must be read only theologically, and it is irrelevant whether it is historically accurate. Others feel that every word is to be taken as literally historical unless it is stated specifically to be an allegory or parable. Again, the truth is somewhere in between.

One little test of the literalists, though, is to see how consistent they are. Song of Solomon is a good place to start, since a LOT of groups who will state that they just take the Bible as it is written, plain and simple, are the same groups who believe that Song of Solomon is an allegory for Christ and his Bride (the Church). There is absolutely nothing in the text which indicates that it is not just what it seems to be: a book praising passionate and sexual love. Yet, the self-professed "plain readers" have no problem at all reading it as allegory since a book glorifying erotic love did not "fit" within their concept of God's message to us. Very inconsistent.

 

[lucaspa]

What hypotheses are we talking about? The cave drawings or something else?
Do evolutionists look at creationists alternatives to their veiws? I don't think so.

1. The lack of paintings of reptiles.
2. The supposed cave carving of a dino going head to head with a mammoth.

Pudmuddle, creationism wsa the accepted scientific theory from 1700 -1831. So, yes, it was seriously considered. It was tested and found to be false. Once that happens, you don't consider it anymore. Do we consider flat earth alternatives? Geocentric alternatives? Phlogiston alternatives to combustion? Aether alternatives to the properties of light?

No for each and every one. Why not? Because those theories have all been falsified and we don't need to consider them anymore.

Do you consider Zeus alternatives for every Biblical passage? Marduk alternatives? Why not? Same reason. Those versions of deity have been falsified to the satisfaction of Christians and you don't need to consider ideas that have already been shown to be false.

You have attacked Cuozzo multiple times, on every level.

I have tested him on every level. And found his methodologies, data, and conclusions lacking. It's what I am supposed to do. It's what you are supposed to do.

We were talking about Cuozzo and Mcdonald. Where did all this come from?

It came from your statement: "So, he has a degree in geology and as such is probably not a real scientist in your mind. Can one be a creationist and a paleontoligist? "

Being a paleontologist and a creationist are separate claims. You evaluate claims one at a time. Because MacDonald has demonstrated competence at studying animal tracks doesn't mean his claims about behemoth and leviathan are correct.

I never said you have to believe him. I'm just presenting the evidence that he is a paleontologist, because you said he was not a scientist.

I said "if he is the guy that discusses the Paluxey tracks ..." You never said MacDonald's name. If you had, I would have recognized that it is not the guys who discuss the Paluxey tracks. Again, try to listen and parse the sentences.

Everyone takes criticism personally. Some just admit it.

Not everyone. Part of the training in science is not to take criticism personally. You can't project your own feelings onto everyone.

 

[lucaspa]

Once again I present these two sites:

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/history/history.htm

Several of the examples on these sites were also on the site Pudmuddle used. I already discussed those. Why don't you address my points instead of just reposting the same refuted thing?

 

[lucaspa]

My friends everybody is entitled to their own interpretations and beliefs. If you believe it is how you see it, have it your way. But the same applies to me.

Alessandro, what bkane and vance are doing is falsifying your interpretation and beliefs.

They are taking your beliefs and interpretations as true and then deducing what should be seen. They are putting those deductions in the form of questions trying to get you to look at the data that falsifies your interpretations and beliefs. The dragon stories don't match dinos. For one thing, no dino ever breathed fire. For another, dinos didn't live in caves. Most of them are far too big, for one thing. There simply aren't enough caves to go around for any decent sized (= 20 individuals) population of them.

What we have for Gilgamesh and the others are stories, not history.

If you want to treat the Epic of Gilgamesh as accurate history, then you also have to accept the Flood story in it, including that it is Marduk who has the hero -- Unt-napushtim -- build a raft to take the animals on. Do you really want to do that? Should we take Markuk as real just so you can have your silly "dinos lived with man" idea? The destruction of Judeo-Christianity seems a high price to pay. Of course, the irony that you are destroying Christianity while thinking you are saving it can't have escaped you.

This is one of the many dangers creationism poses for Christianity. In the zeal to defend creationism, creationists make statements that, if they really are true, result in the destruction of Christianity.

 

[lucaspa]

Someone said CS Lewis believed in evolution. Apparently he had his doubts:

Nowhere is the source of the quote listed. Why not?

"One absolutely central inconsistency ruins it; it is the one we touched on a fortnight ago. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula or the remotest part obeys the thought--laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory-in other words, unless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction.

Let's address Lewis' supposed problem and contradiction.

1. Natural selection is not "aimless". It very much has a short term aim: adaptation to the environment.

2. The universe is outside the scientist. IOW, it is not "reality in the remotest nebula or the remotest part obeys the thought--laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory-" but rather that the scientist has figured out the reality that is already there. Lewis loses sight of one of the basic tenets of Christianity: God created a real, objective universe. Instead, he is saying that scientists are creating the universe. Nonsense.

3. Lewis also loses sight of the fact that God is rational and therefore is going to create a rational universe.

4. Having the ability to see the patterns in the physical universe is going to have a selective advantage. It is going to allow the individual hominid to predict natural events in the future, which in turn enables him to take advantage of them. Being able to reason that a sharp stick will hurt an attacking predator is going to enable the individual to drive that predator away, thus enhancing his survival. So, the ability to Reason and see the patterns in objective reality is going to be favored by natural selection.

Lewis simply misunderstood evolution and science. Once you understand both, his objections melt away.

 

[lucaspa]

Most of these guys who preach in favor of the pagan doctrines of men descending from animals at least claim that science has no need for God. Steven Gould said (I read it) he could respect a God that started the universe going (and then left it alone). Meaning he couldn't respect any other.

1. At least half the evolutionary biologists in history have been Christians, starting with Darwin at the time he wrote Origin.

2. Please find the quote by Gould, because in his Non-Overlapping Magisteria and other places, Gould has been admiring of religion. He believes they are in separate domains, but does not feel religion is any less valid than science.

3. The roots of creationism are Plato and Aristotle. Two pagans. The idea that species are immutable arose with them. So having creationism calling evolution a pagan doctrine is the pot calling the kettle black.

Also, Christian theologians disagree with you:
"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.

The Bible has plenty to say about such fools, and Paul warned, beware of "science falsely so-called".

That passage does not refer to science, but actually to ministers. Look it up and read it in context from the beginning of the chapter.

 

[Plan 9]

Nowhere is the source of the quote listed. Why not?



Let's address Lewis' supposed problem and contradiction.

1. Natural selection is not "aimless". It very much has a short term aim: adaptation to the environment.

2. The universe is outside the scientist. IOW, it is not "reality in the remotest nebula or the remotest part obeys the thought--laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory-" but rather that the scientist has figured out the reality that is already there. Lewis loses sight of one of the basic tenets of Christianity: God created a real, objective universe. Instead, he is saying that scientists are creating the universe. Nonsense.

3. Lewis also loses sight of the fact that God is rational and therefore is going to create a rational universe.

4. Having the ability to see the patterns in the physical universe is going to have a selective advantage. It is going to allow the individual hominid to predict natural events in the future, which in turn enables him to take advantage of them. Being able to reason that a sharp stick will hurt an attacking predator is going to enable the individual to drive that predator away, thus enhancing his survival. So, the ability to Reason and see the patterns in objective reality is going to be favored by natural selection.

Lewis simply misunderstood evolution and science. Once you understand both, his objections melt away.

Lewis has been taken out of context here. He was a theistic evolutionist. I'll try to find the book, but I don't remember which one this quote was taken from.
It sounds like it's from Mere Christianity, a series of broadcast talks.

 

[Alessandro]

No, what they are doing is stating THEIR views of the data, or whatever is there.

 

[troodon]

My friends everybody is entitled to their own interpretations and beliefs. If you believe it is how you see it, have it your way. But the same applies to me.

Assuming this is addressed to me (I could be wrong) I'll tell you that there was little interpretation about my post. Do you disagree that Behemoth is described as at least being semi-aquatic? Do you disagree that a 120+ton creature with relatively small feet would sink were it to walk on muddy earth? Do you disagree that peg like teeth would be inefficient to eat soft, watery plants with? Do you disagree that an object placed under water experiences much more pressure than it would outside? Do you disagree that the necks of sauropods not only couldn't bend to allow their necks to go vertical (with the exception of Brachiosaurs) but also their necks could not bend in the way portrayed in some of the pictures in your links?

 

[wblastyn]

Lewis has been taken out of context here. He was a theistic evolutionist. I'll try to find the book, but I don't remember which one this quote was taken from.
It sounds like it's from Mere Christianity, a series of broadcast talks.

In Mere Christianity he said everyone is wondering what the next step in human evolution is, and he says he believes it's the glorified bodies we receive when Christ returns.

 

[bkane]

At some point, views of opinion become fact or fiction....We are just receiving light from stars which are millions of light years away....while it is a complex formula to determine, it's basic premise can be understood in terms of how long light takes to get to earth from our own sun...The amazing thing is that most top creationists from a young earth perspective agree with the figures but insist that light had to have travelled at a slower pace in early creation...like a curve theory....Funny how they don't go after the calculations, but add an additional theory to suffice for a much much shorter period of time....it's astonishing to me really!
While I don't prepose to know how old our earth is, it would appear that much of the evidence appears aged. More than just 10000 years old....although I would argue in a heartbeat for God's ability to have done so in any shorter amount of time...God can mess with time any time He wants. In recent years, science has been a great aid in assisting us with a greater understanding, but scripture must be sought to be undestood relationally, not just factually. I'm not a theistic evolutionist...Sometimes there is no scientific explaination for things that supernaturally occured according to the biblical record. Unless the understanding is supernaturally provided to describe it! God is great however he did it...and is deserving of scientific praise and wonder from all....every knee will bow, but I'm sure we will all be quite amazed how He created the world...with no gaps, just gasps...and amazement...R.C. Sproul once said to me "the best theologian is at best 85% correct"! I'd say this goes for Science relating to this material as well...although I'd give Vance an 86+...

 

[Vance]

Wow, one better than the "best theologian."

Seriously, though, I am neither theologian nor scientist, just a plain ol' Christian who believes that none of these issues are personal salvation issues and I feel I must do what little I can to prevent Young Earth Creationism from causing any more damage to the true mission of spreading the Gospel than has already occured.

If I can prevent even one person from turning from God as a result of YEC teaching, I will count all the time and energy well-spent.

 

[Ark Guy]

The New Testament followers of Christ were young earth...and they didn't seem to have a problem with converting people.

It's only when you filter the bible through evolutionary science does the problems occur.

 

[Vance]

The New Testament followers of Christ were young earth...and they didn't seem to have a problem with converting people.

That is because they had no idea how old the Earth was, nor did anyone else. Now we do. They had no idea that evolutionary processes occur and now we do. YEC'ism, to the extent it existed then, was just as false, but it was not a stumbling block. Now it is.

There was a time when the Church asserted that geocentrism was explicitly taught in the Bible and that to disbelieve geocentrism was to disbelieve the Bible. For a long time, this was not a stumbling block for anyone, but it definitely would be today. That you can not deny.

The same is true of YEC'ism right now. YEC's teach that if you don't believe in the YEC concepts, you don't believe the Bible. They go so far as to tie their concepts to the core concepts of the Gospel! This leaves those who hear their teachings and accept them (like our kids today), believing that if they ever come to disbelieve the YEC concepts, they must disbelieve the Bible! This is outrageous, and I have seen many, many young people struggle profoundly with this and, sadly, have seen some souls lost as a result. These young people were not lost because of the scientific principals they learned, but because the YEC's taught them that it was THEIR way or no Christianity at all.

While YEC'ism is still in the strong minority in the world, it is growing in the US, the UK and Australia, so this danger is spreading.

My message is that YEC's can believe what they like regarding origins, but they should not teach it as the only possible beliefs on these issues. There is no need to do this and it is VERY dangerous.