Evolution eventually leads to....

[Critias]

I am utterly puzzled how you inferred this from my post. There is a day to day practicality that the spiritual side is not of much use for. If I am to solve a problem in say superconductivity then getting out Genesis or Acts is of zero use.

Yet you are typing away on a computer that would not exist if your ideals were practised. That may be all and well and good but my guess is that when you need a need mitral valve in your heart or a teflon knee or a new CPU then you'll want people who don't open Exodus to get their knowledge.

All I rail against is the scientific silliness by people who don't mind using its fruit yet they lambast it for not being of the Bible. If it was all of the Bible we'd be still in the Bronze Age.

My apologies then. Your statement that gave me this impression was the following:

"Or, if we relied on Scripture alone we'd be unable to solve real world problems that involve science."

1) Science covers life cycles.
2) You stated we cannot rely on Scripture alone to solve problems that involve science.

Maybe you have a different idea of science then I do. I believe we can rely on Scripture alone.

Now, if we want to make money, to pay for our living expense: food, shelter, etc, while living in America, then we have to learn what is being used within society. Computers are being used, so we ought to learn them to make money.

If the system was different, they way it used to be, we wouldn't need to learn computers.

To me, the most important thing is God. Scripture alone is sufficient to leading me to God, Jesus Christ, for eternal life. I don't need science, who never speaks of God, to lead me to....what?

Anyways, this was one of my points about why I don't post here anymore, too much animosity, too much anger and hatred for different view points. Too much condoning our sins. Posting here, being apart of it, encourages us to be involved with the spirit of this forum.

Take care and God Bless

 

[KerrMetric]

My apologies then. Your statement that gave me this impression was the following:

"Or, if we relied on Scripture alone we'd be unable to solve real world problems that involve science."

1) Science covers life cycles.
2) You stated we cannot rely on Scripture alone to solve problems that involve science.

Maybe you have a different idea of science then I do. I believe we can rely on Scripture alone.

Now, if we want to make money, to pay for our living expense: food, shelter, etc, while living in America, then we have to learn what is being used within society. Computers are being used, so we ought to learn them to make money.

If the system was different, they way it used to be, we wouldn't need to learn computers.

To me, the most important thing is God. Scripture alone is sufficient to leading me to God, Jesus Christ, for eternal life. I don't need science, who never speaks of God, to lead me to....what?

Anyways, this was one of my points about why I don't post here anymore, too much animosity, too much anger and hatred for different view points. Too much condoning our sins. Posting here, being apart of it, encourages us to be involved with the spirit of this forum.

Take care and God Bless

I see you point but you also contradict yourself. You also by your comment accept you have to leave Scripture to solve a problem, be it using a computer or making a high temperature superconductor.

 

[mixin machine]

I am utterly puzzled how you inferred this from my post. There is a day to day practicality that the spiritual side is not of much use for. If I am to solve a problem in say superconductivity then getting out Genesis or Acts is of zero use.

Jesus helps me with things everyday. You don't need Genesis or Acts, just the Holy Spirit. He cares about the littlest details in your life. Acknowledge him in all your ways I interpet literally.

Andrew

 

[KerrMetric]

Jesus helps me with things everyday. You don't need Genesis or Acts, just the Holy Spirit. He cares about the littlest details in your life. Acknowledge him in all your ways I interpet literally.

Andrew

I don't disagree with that. But I do object to the fundamentalist abhorrence of science and education which is very prevalent in the United States.

 

[United]

The definition of the word "literal" is "the primary meaning of a term or expression," so there is only one literal translation of anything. In Genesis, the literal translation is that it really happened. Theistic Evolutionists think Genesis is not literal.

Hi Brilliand,

I think you are getting a little caught up with the semantics here. When I used the term "literal" it was to imply that the passage was interpreted as a historical event, not mythology or legend.

 

[Smidlee]

I don't disagree with that. But I do object to the fundamentalist abhorrence of science and education which is very prevalent in the United States.

Why? If people tries to use science to hide their religious beliefs that man is a glorified ape then it's time to object to this nonsense especially when there's scientific evidence againest Dariwinism. In USA it's those in ID who want evidence for and againest Darwinism to be presented while the Darwinists who wants to surpress the evidence that goes againest their dogma.

 

[shernren]

Why? If people tries to use science to hide their religious beliefs that man is a glorified ape then it's time to object to this nonsense especially when there's scientific evidence againest Dariwinism. In USA it's those in ID who want evidence for and againest Darwinism to be presented while the Darwinists who wants to surpress the evidence that goes againest their dogma.

I'm all for teaching ID in schools - if you can even find enough material to cover two periods of science class! ID is simply an argument from negation, and doing some practical work, when one tries to form a way to teach it scientifically, one realizes that it is all an appeal to absence of understanding. In other words, if we cannot understand how something formed, it is not because we need a little more technology, but it is because something intelligent is to be blamed.

 

[KerrMetric]

Why? If people tries to use science to hide their religious beliefs that man is a glorified ape then it's time to object to this nonsense especially when there's scientific evidence againest Dariwinism. In USA it's those in ID who want evidence for and againest Darwinism to be presented while the Darwinists who wants to surpress the evidence that goes againest their dogma.

No, those in ID are dishonest because they even lie about whom they are. Whatever your feelings in this area the fact is that the ID proponents are regular old Creationists lieing about their motives. Personally whatever brand of Creationist you are you should at least be honest about your position. The ID people are for the most part bearers of false witness, intentionally. I cannot see how any Christian can back such people.

 

[Smidlee]

No, those in ID are dishonest because they even lie about whom they are. Whatever your feelings in this area the fact is that the ID proponents are regular old Creationists lieing about their motives. Personally whatever brand of Creationist you are you should at least be honest about your position. The ID people are for the most part bearers of false witness, intentionally. I cannot see how any Christian can back such people.

I do know about Darwinists attacks on ID. Even other critics of Darwinism has been accused of been creationist including a few outside of USA. It doesn't matter about the motives since they do have strong evidence to make their case. Scientists in all fields have their motives as well yet this doesn't make their argument invalid. One thing ID movement has done is it reveals the double standard that Darwinist uses to defend their dogma.

 

[KerrMetric]

I do know about Darwinists attacks on ID. Even other critics of Darwinism has been accused of been creationist including a few outside of USA. It doesn't matter about the motives since they do have strong evidence to make their case. Scientists in all fields have their motives as well yet this doesn't make their argument invalid. One thing ID movement has done is it reveals the double standard that Darwinist uses to defend their dogma.

You are supporting the messenger because you like the message and ignoring their inherent duplicity. I cannot in good conscience do that. The only thing the current ID movment has shown is the lengths some people will go to as liars for the Lord.

This has nothing to do with the message at hand. Can you honestly say you support people who slink around lying about what they are?

I cannot support liars!

 

[Smidlee]

You are supporting the messenger because you like the message and ignoring their inherent duplicity. I cannot in good conscience do that. The only thing the current ID movment has shown is the lengths some people will go to as liars for the Lord.

This has nothing to do with the message at hand. Can you honestly say you support people who slink around lying about what they are?

I cannot support liars!

Obviously with all science you got to be aware of the bias and motives of the scientist. One of the big motives is the Almighty dollar. (This is also true with preachers as well)
As far as liars David said in his haste that "All men are liars". Then someone else (I don't remember exactly who) came along which said he had a long time to think about it and still agreed all men are liars. Someone else can easily say evolutionist are liars. So calling each other liars gets no where fast.

 

[KerrMetric]

Obviously with all science you got to be aware of the bias and motives of the scientist. One of the big motives is the Almighty dollar. (This is also true with preachers as well)
As far as liars David said in his haste that "All men are liars". Then someone else (I don't remember exactly who) came along which said he had a long time to think about it and still agreed all men are liars. Someone else can easily say evolutionist are liars. So calling each other liars gets no where fast.

You don't get it do you. Forget the subject being debated. At least the 'evolutionists' admit who they are.

The IDers try to tell people they are not Creationists when they are? That is the problem. They are willing to lie about who they even are to get their foot in the education door.

They got embarrassed recently when some old draft copies of an ID book were leaked to the press and when originally written used the words Creationist and Creation Science. Then when they published it years later it said ID and IDers. But they got caught. They are liars.

 

[Smidlee]

The IDers try to tell people they are not Creationists when they are? That is the problem. They are willing to lie about who they even are to get their foot in the education door.

.

I have no reason to believe Behe is lying when he claims he is not a creationists nor Giuseppe Sermonti either which doesn't even belong to DI. The Icons of Evolution clearly show some of the lies in many biology books so it can easily say evolutionist are liars as well. In fact a few even mention a little lie is justified for the greatly good to prove Darwinism.
Anyone who not a Darwinists are automaticly assume to be creationists by Darwinist. So if you claims the definition of creationists is any scientist speak out againest Darwinism then you are right because Behe and others speaks out againest Darwinists' dogma would be a creationist according to your view. Others would agree someone could reject Darwinism without being a creationist. Thus Behe wouldn't be called a creationist since he agrees with evolution as a whole.

So this to me could make you more looked out to be a liar than the ones who you trying are calling liars. Instead I would rather assume you don't know position someone like Behe holds.

 

[KerrMetric]

I have no reason to believe Behe is lying when he claims he is not a creationists nor Giuseppe Sermonti either which doesn't even belong to DI. The Icons of Evolution clearly show some of the lies in many biology books so it can easily say evolutionist are liars as well. In fact a few even mention a little lie is justified for the greatly good to prove Darwinism.

You are refusing to address the issue and instead make it an evolution debate. I agree that Behe is not a Creationist. In fact that opens up another can of worms for the Creationists. They treat the enemy of my enemy as my friend without fail. Hence you see Creationists tout Behe or Halton Arp even though both those people make fun of Creationists.

But the impetus of ID in the United States is pushed by the Discovery Institute. Most of these people are known Creationists from days gone by, author books where they redact the test and now shout they are not creationists. They are liars for doing this.

Look at what you are doing in this conversation here - throwing up a smoke screen to excuse these folks just because you like their message. I said forget what this debate is about, that is irrelevant. This could be a debate about fly fishing techniques, it does not matter.

But the fact is that a bunch of Creationists (people like Behe I know are not but they are a tiny fraction of IDers) got together and decided to hide who they are so as to get their foot in the education door and deflect any church/state issues. I wouldn't give these people the time of day as far as I am concerned they are despicable.

 

[Smidlee]

But the fact is that a bunch of Creationists (people like Behe I know are not but they are a tiny fraction of IDers) got together and decided to hide who they are so as to get their foot in the education door and deflect any church/state issues. I wouldn't give these people the time of day as far as I am concerned they are despicable.

This is the same as saying all or most evolutionists are atheist which may or may not be true. Most ID doesn't hide that they are christians. Johnson has been wide open when it comes to his faith. Yet Johnson believes (unlike YEC) that Genesis should not be in the debated when it comes to science. Also Dembski hasn't hide the fact he disagree with Behe when it come to the univeral common descent while they agree with intelligent design. While it's true that creationist and ID agrees on some issues as also atheist agrees with Darwinism this doesn't make them the same.
So as a creationist I find myself agreeing with ID as well as with Evolutionists sometimes. Just because I agree with some of evolutionist positions doesn't make me a evolutionists (Especially a Darwinist).

 

[Critias]

I am sorry, but something very obvious here is being demonstrated. First, Kerrmetric you stated you don't like ID because they are liars and you wouldn't follow anything liars said. First, you have to show proof that every ID person is a liar to uphold this blanket claim.

Second, if you want to be consistent, then you shouldn't follow evolutionism either. There have been vast amounts of lies within the science of evolution. One in particular was a 30 year lie of a fossil that was claimed to be the human missing link. No one double checked the work for 30 years of the this particular scientist who lied intentionally. Furthermore, we can find teachings still within textbooks being taught as facts that have been proven wrong.

If you don't follow liars, then there is no man's teachings that you can follow.

 

[KerrMetric]

I am sorry, but something very obvious here is being demonstrated. First, Kerrmetric you stated you don't like ID because they are liars and you wouldn't follow anything liars said. First, you have to show proof that every ID person is a liar to uphold this blanket claim.

No I don't since I was talking about the ID group currently involved in the education debate. Pretty much the entire effort is coming out of the Discovery Institute.

Second, if you want to be consistent, then you shouldn't follow evolutionism either. There have been vast amounts of lies within the science of evolution. One in particular was a 30 year lie of a fossil that was claimed to be the human missing link. No one double checked the work for 30 years of the this particular scientist who lied intentionally.

I actually doubt this story but I am not concerne with one person. All facets of society have their bad apples. My problem is that the ID community led by the Discovery Institute have an institutional case of being bad apples.

Also Critias, my experience has been that the followers of the Young Earth side of Creationism (primarily a US phenomena) have not the capability of understanding the science, or at least don't attempt to. This is why they are pretty much a laughing stock the world over and do Christianity great harm thereby.

 

[Critias]

No I don't since I was talking about the ID group currently involved in the education debate. Pretty much the entire effort is coming out of the Discovery Institute.

Well, it is your claim that the Discovery Institute has an institutional case of being bad apples. So, the burden of proof lies on you. Present every scientists involved with the DI and show why each and everyone are liars as you say they are. That was my point.

I actually doubt this story but I am not concerne with one person. All facets of society have their bad apples. My problem is that the ID community led by the Discovery Institute have an institutional case of being bad apples.

Also Critias, my experience has been that the followers of the Young Earth side of Creationism (primarily a US phenomena) have not the capability of understanding the science, or at least don't attempt to. This is why they are pretty much a laughing stock the world over and do Christianity great harm thereby.

Well, you can read about it anywhere you would like. It was in the Washington Post, LA Times, etc. Maybe they are or aren't credible sources...

I appreciate that you make such a wide judgment call about YECs not being able to understand science. This is easily proved wrong by the many YECs who are doctors practicing medicine, who rely on science to do so; teachers who are YECs who teach science classes, phd scientists, etc. They don't just hand out diplomas for the fun of it. You actually have to do the course work and understand it.

Your again blanket statement shows your misundestanding of what you are speaking of.

I don't worry too much about other people laughing at me. They laughed at Jesus too.

 

[United]

It is unfortunate that ID is so often associated with YEC. Too often is is used as an anti-evolution arugement - which it is not. As Behe says: "My book [Darwins Black Box] concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent." Let's treat ID as separate for YEC & not critise it (or use it) for something it doesn't say.

 

[KerrMetric]

Well, it is your claim that the Discovery Institute has an institutional case of being bad apples. So, the burden of proof lies on you. Present every scientists involved with the DI and show why each and everyone are liars as you say they are. That was my point.

But it is the Institute itself that hides its true intention. They are the oes who published a book that was originally written as a Creationist text and when in recent years it has become useful to hide that aspect then they just altered the text. This is the point I'm getting at - it is institutional deceit.

I appreciate that you make such a wide judgment call about YECs not being able to understand science. This is easily proved wrong by the many YECs who are doctors practicing medicine, who rely on science to do so; teachers who are YECs who teach science classes, phd scientists, etc. They don't just hand out diplomas for the fun of it. You actually have to do the course work and understand it.

There are a miniscule few "scientists" in their community. However I cannot take them seriously when they are usually qualified in unrelated (to this debate) disciplines, don't work as scientists anymore, usually have no history of research at all and work for groups with a faith statement that GUARANTEES they cannot do any research. Also lets not confuse medical doctors with scientists. Medical school for the average doctor is a trade school not a scientific training in any sense of the word.

Your again blanket statement shows your misundestanding of what you are speaking of.

Unfortunately it is a blanket statement that is true.