Does belief in unsupported creation theories necessitate pseudoscience?

[Chalnoth]

In a physical sense, you're right; but in a legal sense, you're wrong --- since His "secretaries" wrote it.

Okay, so let's accept that stance for a moment. Prove to me that Jesus took the Genesis account literally.

 

[shernren]

In a physical sense, you're right; but in a legal sense, you're wrong --- since His "secretaries" wrote it.

[bible]2 Timothy 3:16[/bible]

When a corporate memo comes down from the CEO, you don't say it came from the secretary, the author gets the credit for its contents --- good or bad.

Although the CEO didn't write it --- he wrote it.

But of course, inspiration is a different thing from authorship.

 

[Cirbryn]

Let's just say, for the sake of your example, that you're right.

In that case, evolution ended on Day Six, and should not be observed as an on-going process today.

You keep trying to place God's actions within the time stream He created. If He is as you describe Him, then He stands outside that. By the end of God's sixth day He finished creating all the organisms that ever lived or ever will live. Some of those He placed deep in our past. Some He placed far in our future. All of them He created using evolution, as is demonstrated by the evidence He left for us to find.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Because the two are mutually exclusively. Genesis 1 was meant to be interpreted literally, as Jesus did, and not metaphysically, as Tolkien would.

If Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both literal, then the Bible can't be innerrable. The two stories disagree on the literal order in which events occured. Either some of the Bible is allegorical rather than literal, or it contradicts itself.

Trickster

 

[birdan]

If Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both literal, then the Bible can't be innerrable. The two stories disagree on the literal order in which events occured. Either some of the Bible is allegorical rather than literal, or it contradicts itself.

Trickster

Naw, that's no problem really. After dialoguing with many biblical literalists, I have gleaned what is meant by 'literal' when discussing the bible:

"The bible is literally correct, except where it must be interpreted, and then the interpretation is literally correct".

Pretty much covers all contingencies.

 

[moogoob]

Awesome OP. You, sir, are truly intelligent, by the definition found in my signature at least.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Awesome OP. You, sir, are truly intelligent, by the definition found in my signature at least.

Ma'am, actually, but what's the diff? Thanks!

Trickster

 

[moogoob]

Ma'am, actually, but what's the diff? Thanks!

Trickster

Oops.

Before people start flaming me about my last post, I meant what I said, regardless. Many people are simple-minded, and utterly unable to handle any sort of implied contradiction without having a conflict of faith. I think your approach is much healthier, saner and more intelligent.

 

[Praxiteles]

If Ken Hamm is saying that Tasmanian Aborigines had developed a boomerang, then that is simply one more reason to ignore him as a liar.

The Tasmanians didn't have a boomerang; never did. In fact, they were not as technologically advanced as their mainland brethren.

Also, let's not confuse Evolution with culturally generated racism. The racism of the West (including the appellation "primitive") far predated the development of the ToE.

 

[AV1611VET]

If Ken Hamm is saying that Tasmanian Aborigines had developed a boomerang, then that is simply one more reason to ignore him as a liar.

You keep ignoring Ken Ham as a liar, and you'll eventually talk yourself out of existing.

The Tasmanians didn't have a boomerang; never did. In fact, they were not as technologically advanced as their mainland brethren.

They didn't, huh?

A boomerang is a simple wooden implement used for various purposes. It is primarily attributed to Australian Aborigines, but other forms are found amongst peoples of North East Africa, Arizona Indians and in India.

Also, let's not confuse Evolution with culturally generated racism. The racism of the West (including the appellation "primitive") far predated the development of the ToE.

Ya --- prior to Darwin it was as you said: 'racism'; today it's called 'evolution'.

 

[nvxplorer]

They didn't, huh?

Tasmania is an island off the coast of Australia. The quote from the wiki article does not mention Tasmania.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tasmania is an island off the coast of Australia. The quote from the wiki article does not mention Tasmania.

Nor does it mention Ken Ham being a liar.

 

[Tomk80]

Nor does it mention Ken Ham being a liar.

Why would it. It doesn't treat Ken Ham in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know Jesus interpretted it literally? How do you know he wasn't just using a well-known fictional story to make a point?

Because if it had just been a "well-known fictional story", God wouldl not have included it in the Ten Commandments --- something that He, Himself wrote (not Moses).

[bible]Exodus 20:11[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you totally and utterly deny reality.

You've heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, yes? Those evolved. And herbicide-resistant plants? Those evolved. The flu virus that changes every year? That's evolution.

Nope ---

• Observed changes in living things head in the wrong direction to support evolution from protozoan to man (macro-evolution). Selection from the genetic information already present in a population (for example, DDT resistance in mosquitoes) causes a net loss of genetic information in that population. A DDT-resistant mosquito is adapted to an environment where DDT is present, but the population has lost genes present in the mosquitoes that were not resistant to DDT because they died and so did not pass on their genes. So, natural selection and adaptation involve loss of genetic information.

-The Answers Book, by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, p25.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, so let's accept that stance for a moment. Prove to me that Jesus took the Genesis account literally.

From Jesus' own words:

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

But of course, inspiration is a different thing from authorship.

Not in this case:

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith...

 

[AV1611VET]

You keep trying to place God's actions within the time stream He created. If He is as you describe Him, then He stands outside that. By the end of God's sixth day He finished creating all the organisms that ever lived or ever will live. Some of those He placed deep in our past. Some He placed far in our future. All of them He created using evolution, as is demonstrated by the evidence He left for us to find.

Either that, or He worked within the time-space continuum and created their prototypes ("kinds").

Evidence, of course, would be non-existent, since evidence points to cause-and-effect, but God used ex nihilo, instead.

 

[Chalnoth]

• Observed changes in living things head in the wrong direction to support evolution from protozoan to man (macro-evolution). Selection from the genetic information already present in a population (for example, DDT resistance in mosquitoes) causes a net loss of genetic information in that population. A DDT-resistant mosquito is adapted to an environment where DDT is present, but the population has lost genes present in the mosquitoes that were not resistant to DDT because they died and so did not pass on their genes. So, natural selection and adaptation involve loss of genetic information.

-The Answers Book, by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, p25.

Sure, selection involves a loss of genetic information. But that information is replenished through mutation. The combination of selection and mutation results in a net gain in information over time.

 

[Chalnoth]

From Jesus' own words:

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]

So? He was talking about marriage, and using a familiar story to the people of the day to press home a moral point. Can you prove that this viewpoint is wrong?