Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't care whether it "fits well into the ToE" or not. If the ToE was overturned tomorrow it would not change the way I read Genesis. I believe what it says, I just don't believe that it is accurate literal history--nor that it was intended to be by it's author(s).So you think Genesis can be combined and fit well into the TOE. Guess what. It can't. You're wrong.
You can't just decide it isn't literal because you don't believe what it says.
I don't care whether it "fits well into the ToE" or not. If the ToE was overturned tomorrow it would not change the way I read Genesis. I believe what it says, I just don't believe that it is accurate literal history--nor that it was intended to be by it's author(s).
None of it is. Much of it is historical in the sense that narrates the life and times of real historical people, but that's a far cry from "accurate literal history," what historiographers call "historical positivism," which no one wrote in biblical times or expected to read, especially in a holy book. Bald, factual historical narrative is in any case too confining to do justice to spiritual truth.What other parts of the Bible do you believe are not accurate literal history?
So? the Two options aren't evolution and design. If you want a third, then eternal life from another dimension is one. Or, yet another third option (which is actually the default of choice in Science) is "We don't know."3 things:
1) first: you showed no evidence for a third possibility.
No they don't... well, not scientifically valid evidence, at least.2) they also bring up evidence for design.
No they're not. Take the time to read them.3) even if 1+2 were wrong those papers are scientific papers against evolution.
Correct. we will not ever be anything other than human from here on, even if we do survive a billion years as a race. Surely you would have understood evolution by now, so why haven't you taken the time to understand it properly already?actually this is incorrect. if evolution just means variation over time then even if human will stay as human for a billion years you will call it evolution. but he still will be a human.
No, they aren't scientists because they're not doing science.are you saying that if they dont believe in evolution they arent scientists? by this logic any scientists who believe in evolution isnt a scientist too.
Apart from not being peer reviewed science, this is a great big fancy argument from irreducible complexity - which is not an argument. I can see why it didn't make a scientific peer reviewed journal, and I'm not even a Biologist, nor do I play one on TV.
Argument from Ignorance. That, and it isn't peer-reviewed science either.P. Nelson and J. Wells, “Homology in Biology: Problem for Naturalistic Science and Prospect for Intelligent Design,” pp. 303
Michael Behe was in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case, he quite embarrassed himself when he insisted there was no evidence for the blood clotting cascade evolving, or that it was possible to lose parts of it and still be functional (i.e. his irreducibility argument) , only to be presented with entire university text books and research papers on the very subject which he claims he'd never seen... so much for being a molecular biologist worth his salt. His definitions were such that by his criteria, Astrology (you know, Horoscopes, tarot & palm reading, etc.) would qualify as science.Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” pp. 352-370
M. J. Behe, “Design in the Details: The Origin of Biomolecular Machines,” pp. 287
Another book of "not peer reviewed science". Again, argument from ignorance. "We don't know any other reason, therefore Intelligent Designer!" doesn't actually cut it in Science.Douglas D. Axe and Ann K. Gauger, “Explaining Metabolic Innovation: Neo Darwinism versus Design,” pp. 489-507
Michael Behe was in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case, he quite embarrassed himself when he insisted there was no evidence for the blood clotting cascade evolving, or that it was possible to lose parts of it and still be functional (i.e. his irreducibility argument) , only to be presented with entire university text books and research papers on the very subject which he claims he'd never seen... so much for being a molecular biologist worth his salt. His definitions were such that by his criteria, Astrology (you know, Horoscopes, tarot & palm reading, etc.) would qualify as science.
Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” pp. 352-370
M. J. Behe, “Design in the Details: The Origin of Biomolecular Machines,” pp. 287
Hi Kenny, well I sure am glad you looked up the definition of rampant for yourself, and posted it to confirm to the folks around here that the OP and I used the word properly!
If that were the case, it would be untrustworthy, for man is untrustworthy. When 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" and 2 Peter 1:21 says "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." we should understand that the Scripture is not man's words, but God's words. The word "inspiration" (Greek "theopnustos") is not the natural inspiration of a beautiful sunset inspiring a painter, or the good life of one person inspiring another. "Theopnustos" inspiration was when God came upon the writers he chose to pen the scriptures, and supervised (micro-managed) what they wrote down, using their own vocabulary mostly (though not totally), their own personality, writing style, and background, but did so in such a way so that they did not make any mistake, typo (if you will), contradiction to any other scripture, error in science, or anything other than perfection. Thus the scriptures are not the work of Moses, Paul, or any of the other writers, but of God upon these men to speak (write) through them. Much more could be said, but this is the jist of the origin of the Scriptures. God is their true Author. Men were only writers. Psalms 12:6-7; 2 Peter 1:16; Colossians 3:16.It is man's words as inspired by God.
The point is, you could have a million evolutionists, and only 10 creationists; you could have the first with many more hours of "schooling", but this doesn't prove who is right or wrong. All of the educated people in the world once agreed together that the planet Earth was the center of the rest of the heavenly objects in the sky. For a time, only one person realized they were all incorrect as he gazed through his telescope over a period of a few nights, and could see that Jupiter had moons orbiting it, not the Earth. The rest of the world later would admit they had been wrong, and that this one man was right. His name was Galileo.Non-sequitur response is a non-sequitur.
None of that changes the reality that creationists are, on average, less educated than non-creationists. That's just statistical reality.
yes, I believe that is the traditional interpretation, not just for you Bible Christians, with the caveat that the degree of "micro-management" may vary. Certainly it is pretty much what my church teaches.If that were the case, it would be untrustworthy, for man is untrustworthy. When 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" and 2 Peter 1:21 says "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." we should understand that the Scripture is not man's words, but God's words. The word "inspiration" (Greek "theopnustos") is not the natural inspiration of a beautiful sunset inspiring a painter, or the good life of one person inspiring another. "Theopnustos" inspiration was when God came upon the writers he chose to pen the scriptures, and supervised (micro-managed) what they wrote down, using their own vocabulary mostly (though not totally), their own personality, writing style, and background...
Here is where we differ. You have made some assumptions about what constitutes "perfection" which are not necessarily widely shared by all Christians.but did so in such a way so that they did not make any mistake, typo (if you will), contradiction to any other scripture, error in science, or anything other than perfection.
Yes we differ, and I am not concerned with what all Christians may believe. I am concerned with what the Bible really says and teaches. Many Christians are off on a lot of things in regards to the Scriptures, and all of us are going to be wrong at least on some minor things, for none of us are perfect, and all of us are limited in our understanding. It will be nice when we all are well into eternal glory, and no longer make mistake or are under misunderstandings or believe in any misinterpretations. Wishing you well.yes, I believe that is the traditional interpretation, not just for you Bible Christians, with the caveat that the degree of "micro-management" may vary. Certainly it is pretty much what my church teaches.Here is where we differ. You have made some assumptions about what constitutes "perfection" which are not necessarily widely shared by all Christians.
LIES... then what have they been publishing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology all these years?
(Not to mention other scientific journals like Evolution, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Genome Biology and Evolution, and so on...)
If that were the case, it would be untrustworthy, for man is untrustworthy. When 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" and 2 Peter 1:21 says "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." we should understand that the Scripture is not man's words, but God's words. The word "inspiration" (Greek "theopnustos") is not the natural inspiration of a beautiful sunset inspiring a painter, or the good life of one person inspiring another. "Theopnustos" inspiration was when God came upon the writers he chose to pen the scriptures, and supervised (micro-managed) what they wrote down, using their own vocabulary mostly (though not totally), their own personality, writing style, and background, but did so in such a way so that they did not make any mistake, typo (if you will), contradiction to any other scripture, error in science, or anything other than perfection. Thus the scriptures are not the work of Moses, Paul, or any of the other writers, but of God upon these men to speak (write) through them. Much more could be said, but this is the jist of the origin of the Scriptures. God is their true Author. Men were only writers. Psalms 12:6-7; 2 Peter 1:16; Colossians 3:16.
There is no evidence, and you have not presented me with any "evidence" to prove that the original writings of the Bible were not true. On the contrary I know of evidence that proves the Bible is true, though people that are set on not believing the Bible will not accept that evidence for themselves. I don't want to debate such people that have already made up their mind. What's the point? People have been having such debates for centuries, running around in circles, getting nowhere, not winning people to either side. Now those that have honest questions, and are open to finding out the truth, even if it is not what they currently believe, that is a different matter. I think we both know which group you are in.How did you, a mere human, come to understand the bible is to be accepted and interpreted as always true, regardless of evidence? Because you can't base it on evidence, you refuse all evidence unless it agrees with your ideas about the Bible. So you are making that religious opinion without using evidence. What do you use, instead?
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.
As a side note, Michael Behe actually accepts the evolutionary relationships of species on Earth via common descent.
I always find it odd to see creationists that reject common descent often cite the works of those who accept it (Denton being another).
Sigh.What do you expect creationists to do? Of course we deny the 'science'. There's a huge difference between observable science and stuff that happened supposedly billions of years ago and all you have are rocks. Most of these fossils I've seen that supposedly prove we evolved from a common ancestor with chimps are tiny fragments. You go into a museum and these fragments are completely filled in with plaster to make it look whole and there's a massive corresponding image on what the scientists think the creature looks like.
Have there not been numerous frauds and cases of mistake identity? Like when a single tooth was found and it was lifted up as proof of human evolution! They designed a whole creature and what it would've looked like from that single tooth. It was later found out that the tooth belonged to an extinct type of pig.
Yet, someone from the science community would've called me an idiot for questioning almighty science. It was put into textbooks as proof of evolution and it turned out it wasn't.
They need to clean their own house. The March of Progress page of the Big Daddy Chick tract is still being spread around in 2018 and it's full of lies.Generally there are two that creationists constantly bring up. Piltdown Man, which was a deliberate fraud, and was not without controversy among scientists even prior to the fraud being uncovered.
And Nebraska Man which you mentioned. Which was a mistake identification more owing to an errant newspaper article than any scientific publication.
Both of these happened around a hundred years ago. It's time to let them go as they really don't help the case for creationists at this stage. Especially when weighed against the sheer volume of non controversial fossil finds.
I started a whole thread brimming with evidence for evolution (specifically for them) that was ignored by them.Exactly. So we're done here. You've chosen to bury your head in the sand, and there is nothing I or anyone else can do to change your mind.
I honestly don't care if you accept it or not. And you've already decided you won't so what does it matter what I present or don't present.
I gave you sources to look at. You refuse to look. That's on you.
It does however reinforce that your "ask" is not honest.
I'm sure that site is completely unbiased.Secular scientist generally do not come from religious schools such as you. There are usually exceptions to the rule, of which you seem to be one. Secular scientists in general follow the religion of humanism, not of the doctrines of specific churches like the Catholic Church, let alone those taught in God's Word, the Bible. Check out the following URL.
Secular Science
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?