Evolution

[fatboys]

They did make amino acids though. So, the experiment was a success in that the amino acids were created. But, hey, if you want your house of cards understanding, that's fine. If we actually create a cell in the future, I guess your entire faith falls apart.

But here is the problem I see. You want us to believe creating amino acids is a great feat that man has accomplished and nature created amino acids by accident. Even if man creates a cell you want us to believe that nature did this by chance. The amino acids gathering together into some form of RNA in the right sequence to build some sort of DNA and then to come together in the right amount of matter to create a cell seems far fetched. Then the cell has to survive. Does nature depend on one chance that this will happen or does it happen many times? And we can not get stable amino acids.

 

[LoAmmi]

But here is the problem I see. You want us to believe creating amino acids is a great feat that man has accomplished and nature created amino acids by accident. Even if man creates a cell you want us to believe that nature did this by chance. The amino acids gathering together into some form of RNA in the right sequence to build some sort of DNA and then to come together in the right amount of matter to create a cell seems far fetched. Then the cell has to survive. Does nature depend on one chance that this will happen or does it happen many times? And we can not get stable amino acids.

The experiment was to see if it was possible for them to come together. That's it. It succeeded. There's good evidence that it happened more than once, by the way. Something to do with finding life that sequenced a way different than we're used to, but I might be remembering that wrong.

"I think it's far fetched" isn't a good defense of anything. I think Christianity is far fetched, yet I'm fairly sure the Christians on here will hold onto their faith despite my rousing argument. It's quite possible that it could have happened differently and life would be different today. That it happened the way it did would not depend on math, as the chances of any specific thing happening are astronomical when viewed long term.

 

[AV1611VET]

Generally, I have a very high tolerance for those who think differently than I do. But not so much when they think their beliefs are at the level of Godhood.

I have to admit.

I'm not familiar with this form of belief.

Are you talking about someone who deifies his belief(s)?

 

[smaneck]

from post 146

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

Uh, you can't take one professor's word that other professors agree with him. In any case, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science. St. Augustine, John Calvin, and John Wesley all believed Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand. In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation. St. Thomas Aquinas argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended. Calvin stated that "Had he [Moses] spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity."

 

[dlamberth]

Are you talking about someone who deifies his belief(s)?

I was responding to someone who said about his beliefs that to argue against Intelligence Design is "..to argue against God Himself". Now I don't care if he has his beliefs of Intelligence Design. As a Lover of God, I have my own beliefs about the creation process that are somewhat different. But what tweaks me and what I was responding to is when someone raises their own particular beliefs to the level of Godhood and than equates not believe what they believe is to argue against God Himself. I find that totally ridiculous.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was responding to someone who said about his beliefs that to argue against Intelligence Design is "..to argue against God Himself". Now I don't care if he has his beliefs of Intelligence Design. As a Lover of God, I have my own beliefs about the creation process that are somewhat different. But what tweaks me and what I was responding to is when someone raises their own particular beliefs to the level of Godhood and than equates not believe what they believe is to argue against God Himself. I find that totally ridiculous.

And yet the angels ... including Lucifer ... when they saw God's design for the earth -- shouted for joy.[VERSE=Job 38:6-7,KJV][VERSENUM]6[/VERSENUM] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; [VERSENUM]7[/VERSENUM] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?[/VERSE]I fail to see how someone arguing against that design would be doing anything other than arguing against the One Who created that design in the first place.

 

[dlamberth]

I fail to see how someone arguing against that design would be doing anything other than arguing against the One Who created that design in the first place.

It's not an argument against God. It's an argument against those who raise there pet beliefs to the level of Godhood. As I wrote previously, I have my own ideas on how God creates. But I'd look rather foolish to make claim that if someone argues against my ideas they are arguing against God.

.

 

[1213]

Does our current inability to raise a mountain range make the whole idea of mountain ranges improbable?

No.

 

[smaneck]

And yet the angels ... including Lucifer ... when they saw God's design for the earth -- shouted for joy.[VERSE=Job 38:6-7,KJV][VERSENUM]6[/VERSENUM] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; [VERSENUM]7[/VERSENUM] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?[/VERSE]I fail to see how someone arguing against that design would be doing anything other than arguing against the One Who created that design in the first place.

Again, I don't have any problem with the notion that God designed the universe. My problem with ID is that it presents itself as a science theory when it isn't. Whether or not the universe has a purpose is not a scientific question.

 

[BobRyan]

from post 146

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================



As it turns out - "the details" matter - as noted in my post above.

Uh, you can't take one professor's word that other professors agree with him.

He is talking about his peers on a subject that is central to their field of study - which is "what kind of literature is it" that they are studying. I think he knows a thing or two about his own peers.

But if someone else here is a professor of Hebrew and OT studies at a world class university as well and wishes to give their contrary view -- I am also happy to listen.

Until then - as I said above - the details matter. We cannot simply wish them away.

And in this case the professor is supported by the Legal code of Ex 20:11.

We are talking about the science of linguistics and determining the "kind of literature" that it is -- and this is precisely their field of study.

I will go with the academics on this one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Again, I don't have any problem with the notion that God designed the universe. My problem with ID is that it presents itself as a science theory when it isn't. Whether or not the universe has a purpose is not a scientific question.

Is it "scientific" to argue that a world class painting shows that the creator of it - has no intelligence or that the painting does not reveal the attribute of intelligence about the one doing the painting??

On the contrary - the measure of intelligence, and even looking for signs of it - are all fields of scientific study.

 

[cloudyday2]

Is it "scientific" to argue that a world class painting shows that the creator of it - has no intelligence or that the painting does not reveal the attribute of intelligence about the one doing the painting??

On the contrary - the measure of intelligence, and even looking for signs of it - are all fields of scientific study.

That's a really interesting question - what does it mean for something to be intelligent or designed? One might say that the world class painting is NOT intelligent or designed, because the world class painter is NOT intelligent or designed, because humans are NOT intelligent or designed. Scientific knowledge, artistic techniques, social organizations, etc. all evolve. So how do we define "intelligent" and "design"?

Here are some ideas for elements of design:
- a design goal (interestingly many religions believe God's design failed - is that intelligent?)
- artificial testing (computer modeling, thought experiments, war games, etc.)
- applying laws (logic, math, science, design patterns, etc.)
- ... ?

Skimming the intelligent design article, it seems that they are arguing that random variables are very unlikely to explain the fossil record and the current state of life. If we can improve simulations, we might be able to prove or disprove that claim someday. We could simulate billions of years and an entire planet full of chances.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Here's a quick rule of thumb:

If your objection to scientific findings is based on the fact that these do not line up neatly with a literalist reading of iron age mythology written by people for whom lightning and rainbows were supernatural, inexplicable phenomena - don't expect to be taken seriously.

Homo sapiens's way of purposefully re-arranging matter is the exception, not the rule. To anthropomorphise reality (or the orderly processes that give it its shape) strikes me as the most childish approach possible, like arguing that basalt crystals on the shores of Ireland must have been a giant's attempt at building a road through the ocean, or that snow crystals are formed in cloud factories filled with artistic ice elves.

 

[AV1611VET]

If your objection to scientific findings is based on the fact that these do not line up neatly with a literalist reading of iron age mythology written by people for whom lightning and rainbows were supernatural, inexplicable phenomena - don't expect to be taken seriously.

Oh, I think they knew that whatever Mother Nature could do, God could do as well -- even better.

So when lightning struck, they may have not been able to explain positive & negative electromagnetic forces, but they didn't have to.

What they could do though, long before "modern" scientists ever came along, is explain that God is the One Who created nature in such a way as to make lightning possible.[VERSE=Job 28:26,KJV]When he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder:[/VERSE]Not to mention the fact that thunder was associated with lightning.

So while [I assume] Gaia's godchildren are blaming war, pestilence, and famine on Malthusian catastrophies, Bible-believers who "line up neatly with a literalist reading of iron age mythology" already know that lightning can come from either Mother Nature, or God can send it at His will.[VERSE=Psalms 83:15,KJV]So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.[/VERSE]

 

[fatboys]

Oh, I think they knew that whatever Mother Nature could do, God could do as well -- even better.

So when lightning struck, they may have not been able to explain positive & negative electromagnetic forces, but they didn't have to.

What they could do though, long before "modern" scientists ever came along, is explain that God is the One Who created nature in such a way as to make lightning possible.[VERSE=Job 28:26,KJV]When he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder:[/VERSE]Not to mention the fact that thunder was associated with lightning.

So while [I assume] Gaia's godchildren are blaming war, pestilence, and famine on Malthusian catastrophies, Bible-believers who "line up neatly with a literalist reading of iron age mythology" already know that lightning can come from either Mother Nature, or God can send it at His will.[VERSE=Psalms 83:15,KJV]So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.[/VERSE]

God didn't create lightening. It has always existed. If a person lived long enough and gained all the knowledge there was to know he could command matter to form and create an earth from matter that was already existing. He could tell molecules to rub together to create lightening. But this has always existed.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Clash of the creation myths!

 

[AV1611VET]

God didn't create lightening.

I suppose it all depends on how you look at it.

But for the sake of arguing, let's say He didn't.

Then what He can do, is conjure it up and send it on a specific target area.

 

[dlamberth]

What they could do though, long before "modern" scientists ever came along, is explain that God is the One Who created nature in such a way as to make lightning possible.

In strange way I agree. The difference though is that I see God in the lightning and in the thunder and in all things that exist including evolution. So it's not so much that God created those things, it more that God IS those things.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

In strange way I agree. The difference though is that I see God in the lightning and in the thunder and in all things that exist including evolution. So it's not so much that God created those things, it more that God IS those things.

But I don't think those "iron age mythologists" thought of it as "God is lightning."

They simply documented God's control over, and manipulation of, lightning.

Just because God sends a lightning bolt someone's way doesn't mean every single lightning strike is God sending it.

 

[dlamberth]

Clash of the creation myths!

One of the things I learned from Matthew Fox and the Creation Spirituality movement is how important the Creation Stories are to a culture. Fox saw it as one of the main things that culturally brings a people together into a common social grouping. Today the world is in the midst of creating a new Creation story created by the discoveries of science. This new Creation story is reaching way beyond local culture as it becomes a world wide phenomenon. Clashes are occurring as people are desperately clinging on to the old Creation stores. They are hunkering down into their like minded social group fighting tooth and nail the new Creation story that is replacing the old story. But there's no way they can stop the momentum of change. A new science based Creation story is coming to be. And that's just how it is. So the question for us Lovers of God, how/where are we able to see the Divine activity with in the new science awakened Creation story?

.