• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

Garnett

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2006
802
14
✟23,610.00
Faith
Agnostic
Except its the same kind of bunk science Hovind promotes, and Hovind still promotes creationism being scientific. Theres no difference.,

Except Hovind's dishonesty got him caught.

"Disown him! Disown him!"

(At least until enough time has passed for him to make his "Ted Haggard" redemption plea, and the dishonesty can continue...)
 
Upvote 0

timeout

Active Member
Apr 27, 2007
108
2
✟22,749.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Everyone has access to the same facts, but our interpretations will be different. .

The facts of Evolution are not interpreted, they are facts! It's like saying 2 + 2 = 4 can be interpreted different ways...it can't.

Now, if you see the words of the Bible as fact, you are wrong - they are just hyperbole. Many of the 'facts' in the Bible have been misproven.

For Instance:

Genesis 1.6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Genesis 1.7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis 1.8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day

These passages from the 1st creation story claim that there is a firmament above the earth and above the firmament is water, we know this is not a fact.

Also the first story of Creation has man and women being created together. It is not until the second story that Adam and Eve were created.

Genesis 1.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them together.

But then after the 7th day, there is still not a man according to the 2nd Creation story:


Genesis 2.3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Genesis 2.4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2.5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.


There are many many more contraditions in the Genesis stories in the Bible, if you care to examine them, I wil.
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
The facts of Evolution are not interpreted, they are facts!

Please calm down. What facts are you speaking of that exist apart from interpretation?

There are many many more contraditions in the Genesis stories in the Bible, if you care to examine them, I wil.
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.
http://www.carm.org/diff/Gen_1.htm
 
Upvote 0

timeout

Active Member
Apr 27, 2007
108
2
✟22,749.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Please calm down. What facts are you speaking of that exist apart from interpretation?

Please calm down. What facts are you speaking of that exist apart from interpretation?

Punchy, sorry if you think my style of communication means I am not calm...this is just my style of writing!

Please read this article:

(sorry, link didn't post???)

Also, I think if you read Genesis again you will notice that the two stories of creation are indeed two stories - plants and animals being created at different times, lights handled differently, etc.

If you do some research on who wrote the bible you will find out that the two stories were indeed written by two different people. The first writer references God as Yahweh as the people of Judah did. The second story references God as Elohim as the people in the north (Israel) did. Some portions of the Bible were written in Judah, the others in Israel.

Now can you see why the two stories are completely different?

<smile>
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
Now can you see why the two stories are completely different?

Did you even read this? -

There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.
http://www.carm.org/diff/Gen_1.htm

Furthermore, it's not surprising that Genesis is the work of several authors that was later edited and compiled by Moses. Genesis 1 appears to be given directly by God, since He was the only witness to the events described, while Genesis 2 was written by Adam himself.

During his tour of duty in Mesopotamia, where much of the earliest Bible activity took place, Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman became interested in the archaeology of that area, and especially in the many ancient clay tablets that had been dated to long before the time of Abraham. He recognized that they held the key to the original writings of the early Bible, and especially to the Book of Genesis. He published his book in 1936. More recently his son, Professor of Assyriology D.J. Wiseman, updated and revised his father&#8217;s book: P.J. Wiseman, &#8220;Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis&#8221; (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1985)

He found that most of the old clay tablets had &#8220;colophon phrases&#8221; at the end; these named the writer or owner of the tablet; they had words to identify the subject, and often some sort of dating phrase. If multiple tablets were involved, there were also &#8220;catch-lines&#8221; to connect a tablet to its next in sequence. Many of these old records related to family histories and origins, which were evidently highly important to those ancient people. Wiseman noticed the similarity of many of these to the sections of the book of Genesis.

Many scholars have noticed that Genesis is divided into sections, separated by phrases that are translated &#8220;These are the generations of ... &#8221; The Hebrew word used for &#8220;generation&#8221; is toledoth, which means &#8220;history, especially family history ... the story of their origin.&#8221; Wiseman, op.cit., pg.62. Wiseman took this quotation from the pioneer Hebrew lexicographer Gesenius. Most scholars have recognized that these &#8220;toledoth phrases&#8221; must be important, but they have been misled by assuming incorrectly that these are the introduction to the text that follows. (Several modern translations have even garbled these phrases.) This has led to serious questions, because in several cases they don&#8217;t seem to fit. For example, Genesis 37:2 begins, &#8220;These are the generations of Jacob. ...&#8221; But from that spot on, the text describes Joseph and his brothers, and almost nothing about Jacob, who was the central character in the previous section...
http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

timeout

Active Member
Apr 27, 2007
108
2
✟22,749.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Did you even read this? -

Peace.

Yup, I read it. It's just not my interpretation of the Bible. The first story of Creation clearly says man and women were created together - not Adam first. I believe that there were many men and women on earth before Adam (after all, who did Adam's son marry if there weren't other people?)

And I don't know how Adam had time to designate all of the animals with a purpose, all of them? Wasn't this God's job?

You may choose to believe your interpretation. I will believe the facts of Evolution.

:p
 
Upvote 0

CACTUSJACKmankin

Scientist
Jan 25, 2007
3,484
128
✟26,817.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Facts alone are useless. It is only when they are interpereted and pooled together with other facts that they have meaning. Scientists have to be careful about how they interperate, that's why science has to be so plastic, new interperetation of existing facts may come along. When Einstein proposed his theories, Newton's observations didn't go away, they were included in this new interperetation. Evolution as an interperetation is one of the most concrete in all of science. Creationism doesn't even agree with most of science. What's more likely, evolution and most of science is wrong or creationism is wrong?
 
Upvote 0

timeout

Active Member
Apr 27, 2007
108
2
✟22,749.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Valkhorn

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist
Jun 15, 2004
3,009
198
44
Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟26,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I bet I can sum up all 50 reasons:
  1. Religion
  2. Religion
  3. Religion
  4. Religion
  5. Religion
  6. Religion
  7. Religion
  8. Religion
  9. Religion
  10. Religion
  11. Religion
  12. Religion
  13. Religion
  14. Religion
  15. Religion
  16. Religion
  17. Religion
  18. Religion
  19. Religion
  20. Religion
  21. Religion
  22. Religion
  23. Religion
  24. Religion
  25. Religion
  26. Religion
  27. Religion
  28. Religion
  29. Religion
  30. Religion
  31. Religion
  32. Religion
  33. Religion
  34. Religion
  35. Religion
  36. Religion
  37. Religion
  38. Religion
  39. Religion
  40. Religion
  41. Religion
  42. Religion
  43. Religion
  44. Religion
  45. Religion
  46. Religion
  47. Religion
  48. Religion
  49. Religion
  50. Religion
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Below is a review of the book by Dr. Colin Groves written for The Skeptic.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_in_six_days.htm

As expected, biologists and geologists are underrepresented. Included in the book are our creationist faves, such as evolution violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. An small section from the review states:

And what is the evidence which they deem crucial, either in maintaining their creationist views, or having converted them in the first place? 24 cite "irreducible complexity", which they take as evidence for design; seven mention thermodynamics (two cite both thermodynamics and complexity); three cite problems with the Big Bang and the evolution of the early universe, and one with radiometric dating; one cites a lack of rigour among "evolutionists"; one says he was converted by reading creationist writings, and others imply this, as they list all kinds of spurious "evidences" which could only have come from such sources (moon dust, helium in the atmosphere, sediment on the sea floor, that sort of thing). Eleven, almost certainly more honest than the rest, admit in so many words that they simply wanted or needed to believe.

IOW, more creationist claptrap.

The only beam of light in the entire book appears to be, once again, Kurt Wise's honesty. For those who don't know, Kurt Wise studied under the prominent biologist Stephen Jay Gould of punctuated equilibria fame. Again, from the review:

The chapter by Kurt Wise, despite that author's almost uniquely favourable reputation among his "evolutionist" opponents, is a disappointment. No Clausen- or Kennedy-like warnings for his weaker-brained creationist colleagues. He says merely that when he saw how much of the Bible he would have to throw away if he became a professional scientist, he turned away in sorrow from the career which he had so ardently desired.

AV, are you reading this?
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
Evolution, apart from its underlying assumptions, is unproven and unprovable.

Evolution's an applied science. While there are certainly gaps in knowledge with respect to evolution (like everything in science), scientists are able to actually apply what they know to accomplish things in various fields (i.e. medical research, agriculture).

This is something that the creationist side NEVER acknowledges. They seem to envision evolutionary biology the way it was 100 years ago. Time to catch up to the 21st century.
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
Given that internet forums are inherently unproductive, I'm recommending this book. Its authors are more qualified to understand and articulate their position than the members of an internet forum. One may object outright, given that it contradicts your worldview. But intellectual fluidity should at least allow you to learn what the opposing side has to offer.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
And what is the evidence which they deem crucial, either in maintaining their creationist views, or having converted them in the first place? 24 cite "irreducible complexity", which they take as evidence for design; seven mention thermodynamics (two cite both thermodynamics and complexity); three cite problems with the Big Bang and the evolution of the early universe, and one with radiometric dating; one cites a lack of rigour among "evolutionists"; one says he was converted by reading creationist writings, and others imply this, as they list all kinds of spurious "evidences" which could only have come from such sources (moon dust, helium in the atmosphere, sediment on the sea floor, that sort of thing). Eleven, almost certainly more honest than the rest, admit in so many words that they simply wanted or needed to believe.

IOW, more creationist claptrap.

If that's all true, then it definitely is just a rehash of the same tired creationist arguments. The same tired creationists arguments that have been getting rehashed for decades--except maybe IC, although that is really just Paley's argument with a new name.

It all comes back to the simple fact that creationism is a religious belief and not science. If it was science, you'd have more people subscribing to it independent of any faith.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
Given that internet forums are inherently unproductive, I'm recommending this book. Its authors are more qualified to understand and articulate their position than the members of an internet forum. One may object outright, given that it contradicts your worldview. But intellectual fluidity should at least allow you to learn what the opposing side has to offer.
But is there anything new? From what I'm hearing about it, it sounds like a rehash of the usual PRATTs.

I've read a number of ID and creationist books, not to mention countless articles on the 'net. Unless there is something new in that book, then I don't see a point in reading it.
 
Upvote 0

flatworm

Veteran
Dec 13, 2006
1,394
153
✟24,922.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Given that internet forums are inherently unproductive, I'm recommending this book. Its authors are more qualified to understand and articulate their position than the members of an internet forum. One may object outright, given that it contradicts your worldview. But intellectual fluidity should at least allow you to learn what the opposing side has to offer.

Before I invest any time in this, could you at least answer whether the book includes even one scientist who accepts a 6-day creation in spite of their religious beliefs or at least in the absence of religious beliefs that include a 6-day creation?
 
Upvote 0

CACTUSJACKmankin

Scientist
Jan 25, 2007
3,484
128
✟26,817.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Given that internet forums are inherently unproductive, I'm recommending this book. Its authors are more qualified to understand and articulate their position than the members of an internet forum. One may object outright, given that it contradicts your worldview. But intellectual fluidity should at least allow you to learn what the opposing side has to offer.
That would be the argument from authority. If you are going to use authority, use the authority of 99.9% of relevant field scientists. They are more qualified than any random assemblage of creationists who happen to have PhDs.
 
Upvote 0