Into The Fray

[Cardinal_James]

Greetings Fellow Infidels,

To be quite honest, i'm still trying to decide for myself what is truth and what is fiction, so i figure, hey, i'll post a message and let both sides argue their points. So, here it goes . . .

Pro-Creationist Question: I was taught in Debate class that if your argument is built upon an infallible source, than you son't have to worry about the outcome of a thousand debates, you'll always win. So, the question is, how can you attack Darwin's Origins of the Species as a false reality if your own book is full of inconsistancies?

Pro-Evolutionist Question: Why are you so bent on toppling Creationism? Darwin himself was a very religious man and wrote many theology texts in addition to Origin of the Species. Do you really think he would want you all attacking his fellow Chrisitians just to prove his theroies? And how do you substantiate his work when it is just a theory, which means it hasn't been proven

Proceed

 

 

[MartinM]

Today at 09:50 PM Cardinal_James said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=651481#post651481)

Pro-Evolutionist Question: Why are you so bent on toppling Creationism?

First, it's important to note that science in no way denies the possibility of God (or Gods). The form of creation science deals with is the narrow 'God created everything in 6 days 6000 years ago' type, and those like it.

Darwin himself was a very religious man and wrote many theology texts in addition to Origin of the Species. Do you really think he would want you all attacking his fellow Chrisitians just to prove his theroies?

Science doesn't attack Christians or Christianity. Merely a narrow literal interpretation which can be proven to be false.

And how do you substantiate his work when it is just a theory, which means it hasn't been proven

Nothing in science can be proven true absolutely. Science works with probabilistic knowledge. There isa very good reason to use this knowledge - it works. The fact that you can post to this forum is proof enough of that. In Science 'theory' is the best there is. The theory of evolution is on the same level as the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity and germ theory.

Welcome to the forum

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 04:50 PM Cardinal_James said this in Post #1

Pro-Evolutionist Question: Why are you so bent on toppling Creationism? Darwin himself was a very religious man and wrote many theology texts in addition to Origin of the Species. Do you really think he would want you all attacking his fellow Chrisitians just to prove his theroies? And how do you substantiate his work when it is just a theory, which means it hasn't been proven  

Because creationism isn't Christianity, any more that evolution is atheism.  Creationism is a scientific theory that was falsified before Darwin wrote Origin of the Species  (see thread Another way to be a creationist).   You seem to be confusing creationism with creation.

Do you have no idea what a scientific theory is? Go to the thread Early Man and look in the last couple of days on my posts to Dnitrich on what theories are and how science works.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 04:56 PM MartinM said this in Post #2

Nothing in science can be proven true absolutely. Science works with probabilistic knowledge. There isa very good reason to use this knowledge - it works. The fact that you can post to this forum is proof enough of that. In Science 'theory' is the best there is. The theory of evolution is on the same level as the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity and germ theory.

You are going to get yourself in trouble here.  Science works by falsification.  Yes, some statements in science can be proven true absolutely -- the negative ones.  We have absolutely proved that the earth is not flat.  We has also proved absolutely that the earth is not less than 20,000 years old and that species are not formed instantaneously in their present form.  It's called falsification.

Now, theories in science are broad statements about the physical universe. They include supported hypotheses, laws, facts, and inferences.  http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html

Theories are either considered provisionally true or falsified. Evolution is considered provisionally true like the theory of gravity, relativity, and germ theory.  Creationism is a falsified theory like geocentrism, the aether, and proteins as hereditary material.

What we object to is the basic dishonesty of trying to portray a falsified theory as a valid one.

 

[MartinM]

Today at 10:06 PM lucaspa said this in Post #4 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=651516#post651516)

You are going to get yourself in trouble here.  Science works by falsification.  Yes, some statements in science can be proven true absolutely -- the negative ones. 

Quite right - I oversimplified. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Cardinal_James]

Creationism is a scientific theory that was falsified <B>before</B> Darwin wrote<B> </B><I>Origin of the Species</I>&nbsp; (see thread Another way to be a creationist).&nbsp;&nbsp; You seem to be confusing creationism with creation.

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that Creationism is a scientific theory? I always thought that Creationism was the belief that god created all manner of living things, hence, biodiversity and different species are a result of god's action

Evolution on the other had, is the belief that biodiversity is the result of a gradual change as organisums attempt to adapt to their enviroment.

No offense intended, i'm just making sure what my Sunday school teacher and my biology teacher taught me is accurate.

Oh and MartinM, thanks for the welcome

&nbsp;


&nbsp;

 

[judge]

Yesterday at 09:50 PM Cardinal_James said this in Post #1

Greetings Fellow Infidels,

To be quite honest, i'm still trying to decide for myself what is truth and what is fiction, so i figure, hey, i'll post a message and let both sides argue their points. So, here it goes . . .

Pro-Creationist Question: I was taught in Debate class that if your argument is built upon an infallible source, than you son't have to worry about the outcome of a thousand debates, you'll always win. So, the question is, how can you attack&nbsp;Darwin's Origins of&nbsp;the Species&nbsp;as a false reality if your own book is full of inconsistancies? [



Proceed

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Hiya...the question for me is this..."Is the message delivered by the prophets and revealed in the New Era (testament) reliable?

I honestly believe it is, and&nbsp;I honestly believe that understanding that man was created and that we are all descended from Adam is indispensible to Christian theology.

Therefore I am think that current scientific ideas are plain wrong about common descent.

&nbsp;

I believe that methodological naturalism (present day scientific methodology) is wrong because it seeks to explain our origins as far as possible without reference to the supernatural, and whilst this approach is very good at times it ends up being nonsense when applied to our origins

 

[Cardinal_James]

"I believe that methodological naturalism (present day scientific methodology) is wrong because it seeks to explain our origins as far as possible without reference to the supernatural, and whilst this approach is very good at times it ends up being nonsense when applied to our origins"

So then you believe the following two statements are true?

1. Adam was the first human created by God in his own image and he had two sons by Eve, Kain and Able, and that is the beginning of the human race.

2. The supernatural is fact. Ghosts, Spirits, Ouija Boards and Hauntings are also fact.

Am i right?

&nbsp;

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 05:50 AM Cardinal_James said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=651481#post651481)

Greetings Fellow Infidels,

To be quite honest, i'm still trying to decide for myself what is truth and what is fiction, so i figure, hey, i'll post a message and let both sides argue their points. So, here it goes . . .

Pro-Creationist Question: I was taught in Debate class that if your argument is built upon an infallible source, than you son't have to worry about the outcome of a thousand debates, you'll always win. So, the question is, how can you attack&nbsp;Darwin's Origins of&nbsp;the Species&nbsp;as a false reality if your own book is full of inconsistancies?

Pro-Evolutionist Question: Why are you so bent on toppling Creationism? Darwin himself was a very religious man and wrote many theology texts in addition to Origin of the Species. Do you really think he would want you all attacking his fellow Chrisitians just to prove his theroies? And how do you substantiate his work when it is just a theory, which means it hasn't been proven

Proceed

&nbsp;

Perhaps you could give a comprehensive list of all the inconsistencies you assert exist in the Bible. I know of none.

For someone who claims to be on a spiritual search, you are starting with a big handicap if you think that the Scriptures are so unreliable!

 

[Cardinal_James]

Well, these are just the ones that i can think of offhand, but if you want i can make a more comprehensive list;

1. There are two creation stories; one says animals were created before
men, and the other has Adam naming the animals as they were created.
2. The Bible says that Moses is the author of the Torah, yet if that
were so, then he would have to have written of the circumstances of his
own death.
3. Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees, but Ur wasn't dominated by the
Chaldeans until several hundred years after Abraham.
4. Who did Cain marry if his parents were the first two humans?
5. The year and the season that Jesus was born can't be right. It has
to do with the reigns of Harod the Great and Caesar Augustus. He'd have
to have been born in 4BC to work out. Also, if shepherds were with their
flocks by night, that only happens at lambing season which is spring,
but oh no, we can't have birth and resurrection in the spring or the Sun
worshipers (Greeks and Romans) won't sign on.
6. The crucifiction story has the Sanhedron meeting to consider Jesus'
fate on a high holy day of passover - never happened it was probably a
fiction invented after the fact to blame the Jews and get the Romans off
the hook.
7. And you know, earlier sources abound with flood stories, similar
creation myths, virgin births, and reserections (Tamuz.) There is even a
story of Argon of Akad in a reed basket on the Euphrates river.
My guess is that in the ancient world, that meant a sign of future
leadership.

Will that do Micaiah? Oh, and about my personal search for faith, i know i don't know much, but i was pretty sure that judgement was reserved for God alone, isn't that right?

 

[Arikay]

To add to a few that you touched on.

6. (not sure if this is truly mentioned in the bible, but many people get it wrong). Jesus (and everyone else) would have been crucified with nails through his lower forearm, not his hands.

7. Many recent discussions seem to show that a Global flood never happend.

Today at 12:43 AM Cardinal_James said this in Post #10 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=652563#post652563)

Well, these are just the ones that i can think of offhand, but if you want i can make a more comprehensive list;

1. There are two creation stories; one says animals were created before
men, and the other has Adam naming the animals as they were created.
2. The Bible says that Moses is the author of the Torah, yet if that
were so, then he would have to have written of the circumstances of his
own death.
3. Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees, but Ur wasn't dominated by the
Chaldeans until several hundred years after Abraham.
4. Who did Cain marry if his parents were the first two humans?
5. The year and the season that Jesus was born can't be right. It has
to do with the reigns of Harod the Great and Caesar Augustus. He'd have
to have been born in 4BC to work out. Also, if shepherds were with their
flocks by night, that only happens at lambing season which is spring,
but oh no, we can't have birth and resurrection in the spring or the Sun
worshipers (Greeks and Romans) won't sign on.
6. The crucifiction story has the Sanhedron meeting to consider Jesus'
fate on a high holy day of passover - never happened it was probably a
fiction invented after the fact to blame the Jews and get the Romans off
the hook.
7. And you know, earlier sources abound with flood stories, similar
creation myths, virgin births, and reserections (Tamuz.) There is even a
story of Argon of Akad in a reed basket on the Euphrates river.
My guess is that in the ancient world, that meant a sign of future
leadership.

Will that do Micaiah? Oh, and about my personal search for faith, i know i don't know much, but i was pretty sure that judgement was reserved for God alone, isn't that right?

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 09:26 PM Cardinal_James said this in Post #6

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that Creationism is a scientific theory? I always thought that Creationism was the belief that god created all manner of living things, hence, biodiversity and different species are a result of god's action

&nbsp; Yes, you are confused.&nbsp; But it's a common confusion.&nbsp; Creation is the belief that god created all manner of living things.&nbsp; Creationism is a particular how that God created.&nbsp; That is, God instantaneously&nbsp;manufactured the living things in their present form and placed them on the planet.&nbsp; As a subsidiary to that, ceationism also states that species do not change.&nbsp; Since creationism is a how, a mechanism, it is a scientific theory.

Evolution on the other had, is the belief that biodiversity is the result of a gradual change as organisums attempt to adapt to their enviroment.

Correct. However, this is also a how of creation.&nbsp; Both creationism and evolution are mechanisms by which species arise.&nbsp; Darwin (and most of Christianity) thought that evolution is the mechanism God used to create instead of manufacturing each species individually.

No offense intended, i'm just making sure what my Sunday school teacher and my biology teacher taught me is accurate

None taken.&nbsp; It is your Sunday school teacher that was inaccurate.&nbsp; Of course, if your biology teacher explicitly said that evolution meant that there was no God and God did not create species, then the biology teacher was also inaccurate. But most biology teachers don't, correctly,&nbsp;mention God at all.

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."&nbsp; Origin of the Species pg. 449.

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."&nbsp; James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 11:46 PM judge said this in Post #7&nbsp;

I honestly believe it is, and&nbsp;I honestly believe that understanding that man was created and that we are all descended from Adam is indispensible to Christian theology.

Why?&nbsp; Doesn't Jesus save you from your sins, not Adam's?&nbsp; Don't you choose to commit sin, not commit them simply because Adam did?&nbsp;&nbsp; I obviously don't see how a literal Adam is at all essential to Christian theology.

Therefore I am think that current scientific ideas are plain wrong about common descent.

You set up a literal Adam as essential to Christian theology.&nbsp;&nbsp;Science says there is no literal&nbsp;Adam.&nbsp; You&nbsp;reject science.&nbsp; Couldn't you equally reject Christian theology?

I believe that methodological naturalism (present day scientific methodology) is wrong because it seeks to explain our origins as far as possible without reference to the supernatural, and whilst this approach is very good at times it ends up being nonsense when applied to our origins

1. Methodological materialism is not a choice for science. It is obligatory and arises from how we do experiments.&nbsp; Since I can't point to a test tube and say "God isn't in that one but is in the other one" I have no way of experimentally testing for supernatural causes.&nbsp; If you don't understand this, we can go into it in more detail.&nbsp; I did do a thread a while back entitled "Methdological Materialism"

2.&nbsp; The origins proposed by creationists -- instantaneous formation of entities in present form -- is a scientific theory.&nbsp; Such a type of formation, because it is a&nbsp; material/natural method, lends itself to scientific study.&nbsp; Creation done that way would leave consequences we can study today.&nbsp; Those consequences aren't present and instead we have consequences that could not be there if creation were done that way.&nbsp; Thus, God simply didn't create humans by forming one man and one woman.&nbsp; God created humans by having them evolve from previous species.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 03:50 AM Arikay said this in Post #11

To add to a few that you touched on.

6. (not sure if this is truly mentioned in the bible, but many people get it wrong). Jesus (and everyone else) would have been crucified with nails through his lower forearm, not his hands.

7. Many recent discussions seem to show that a Global flood never happend.

To add two more:

8. The mustard seed is far from being the smallest seed, even in plants in the Middle East.

9. Rabbits don't chew cud.

 

[Cardinal_James]

I honestly believe it is, and I honestly believe that understanding that man was created and that we are all descended from Adam is indispensible to Christian theology.

Whoa, are you saying that the new testement is just as indespensible as the old? First, chrisitians didn't even write the old testement, and you can still have a chrisitianity without it, you just can't talk about the chosen people as much. The new testement however is a little more hard to do without. It's a little hard to have Christianity without JESUS!

&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 02:49 PM Cardinal_James said this in Post #15

Whoa, are you saying that the new testement is just as indespensible as the old?&nbsp;&nbsp;

What judge is stating is a common theological argument from creationists.&nbsp; In the NT both Jesus and Paul mention Adam as though he was a literal person.&nbsp; Paul's theology is that Jesus died to save people from their sin, but the sin is the "original sin" of Adam. Therefore, the reasoning goes, do away with a literal Adam and you do away with an original sin. Do away with a literal sin and there is no sin for Jesus to die for. Therefore the death and resurrection of Jesus is unnecessary and not tied to salvation of the living individual.

There are several flaws with that chain of logic, but that is the chain.&nbsp;

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3971bad.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3855.asp

 

[Cardinal_James]

I can only assume since Micah hasn't posted a rebuttle, he has conceeded his point about the bible being flawless. Anyone else disagree?

So far, i'd have to say that the evo people are ahead slightly, not because they have the better argument, but because of lack of response from the creationist side. Strange, here we are at a Christian forum, and there arn't any Christians posting.

Wonder why

 

[Arikay]

If your ready for a long read, I asked a question here about if there is evidence (I believe it was "proof for creationism?") for creationism. I never got any evidence. I got some bible verses (which just like any other writting need to be proved before they can be considered evidence) and some false facts and evidence, but nothing that could hold up to even a light internet search for more information on the "facts." Then it seemed to break down into an argument and attempts of attacks at the satanic evolutionists. But after many pages, I have yet to get any substantial evidence.

Today at 06:24 PM Cardinal_James said this in Post #17 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=653894#post653894)

I can only assume since Micah hasn't posted a rebuttle, he has conceeded his point about the bible being flawless. Anyone else disagree?

So far, i'd have to say that the evo people are ahead slightly, not because they have the better argument, but because of lack of response from the creationist side. Strange, here we are at a Christian forum, and there arn't any Christians posting.

Wonder why

 

[Cardinal_James]

I'd have to agree with you on that one. It so ironic that they will fight you tooth and nail when you say the e-word, but when you ask them to defend their faith, they buckle

 

[judge]

13th February 2003 at 10:06 PM lucaspa said this in Post #4

You are going to get yourself in trouble here.&nbsp; Science works by falsification.&nbsp; Yes, some statements in science can be proven true absolutely -- the negative ones.&nbsp; We have absolutely proved that the earth is not flat.&nbsp; We has also proved absolutely that the earth is not less than 20,000 years old and that species are not formed instantaneously in their present form.&nbsp; It's called falsification.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Hi..yes I think we can say that the earth is not flat, after all we can observe that it is not flat.

But we have not absolutely proved that the earth is less than 20 thousand years old. These ideas rest on assumptions that can never be proven.(BTW I don't know how old the earth is)

We have not absolutely proved there are not many separately created genomes either.

All you are saying here is that you think this and many other people think this

In another 50 years men may generally reject current ideas