Literalism and Biblical Contradictions

[PotLuck]

LOL. Love that!

So, basically your experience in engineering taught you that facts--especially statistical facts---are malleable, and you can get pretty much any result you want with them.

And you assumed the same was true in biology---especially in evolution, where one is dealing most of the time with population statistics, right?

Now, I know nothing about engineering, but it does seem to me that something in engineering must be fundamentally true.

Once, someone told me that the most important thing to remember in engineering is that you can't push on a rope. It is absolutely the only thing I have ever learned about it. Is that a fact? Or can you work around it by choosing your data?

So, I am still wondering if you ever looked into biology deeply enough to see if there were fundamentals that are not manipulable statistics. Because even with my limited understanding of biology, I just cannot see the facts saying anything other than that evolution happens.

Some within the sciences have become glorified investigators, masters of forensics and talented orators to present their case in a court of public opinion before a judge tolerant to those who can scream the loudest. Since when has science been given the power to dictate the beliefs of the people who are asking guestions that can not be reproduced in the laboratory such as is there a God, why am I here and what's the purpose of all this.
Science can endeavor to follow a theory through observation and conjecture of the physical. Science is there as a gift from God, a gift to humanity to be used to glorify the Creator in his works and not our own. Science can be used as a tool to see His Creation, bolster the belief that there must be a God and stand in ever-increasing awe of the power of the Almighty.
But some have made it their God, the gift working against the intentions of God to bring to Him an unbelieving people. But when the knowledge gained leads down another path since it's believed the true light is from what has been revealed, the knowledge gotten thereof and the conclusions drawn by the minds of men with no motivation other than to prove an idea that limits the power of God, to trust only in ourselves and what we see then I think the scope of scientific influence may have over-stepped it's bounds. For they see with their eyes the creation of God and are without excuse. The knowledge of man dilutes the purity of His Word and like sheep they are led to the slaughter through conceit, deception and self-omnipotence.

Now, someone pass me a helmet and direct me to the nearest bunker.

 

[gluadys]

Since when has science been given the power to dictate the beliefs of the people who are asking guestions that can not be reproduced in the laboratory such as is there a God, why am I here and what's the purpose of all this.

Never. And any time science attempts to do so, it is rightfully rebuked by both scientists and believers (groups which overlap considerably).

Science can endeavor to follow a theory through observation and conjecture of the physical. Science is there as a gift from God, a gift to humanity to be used to glorify the Creator in his works and not our own. Science can be used as a tool to see His Creation, bolster the belief that there must be a God and stand in ever-increasing awe of the power of the Almighty.

Agreed. In fact, one of the reasons I find the theory of evolution attractive is because it seems to me to glorify God. Not that that in itself would make it true.

But some have made it their God,

So? Has no bearing on whether or not the science is valid.

Now, someone pass me a helmet and direct me to the nearest bunker.

Yeah, I 'm a real tough pussycat.

 

[PotLuck]

Yeah, I 'm a real tough pussycat.

 

[herev]

Yeah, I 'm a real tough pussycat.

Like this

or like this

Big difference, huh?

 

[PotLuck]

Like this

or like this

Big difference, huh?

LOL @ Herev

I prefer to believe the latter.
But then, Daniel wasn't thrown to the kittens either.

Now I'm getting silly.

 

[Micaiah]

Agreed. In fact, one of the reasons I find the theory of evolution attractive is because it seems to me to glorify God. Not that that in itself would make it true.

Consider the design of the aeroplane developed over the last century. During that time many prototypes were made and destroyed. Man had toyed with the notion of flight for many centuries before that. Now supposing a person developed the design for a jet liner and made it single handedly from scratch, including the development of all the various material specifications, and manufacturing processes. Suppose that jet liner was flawless, the first time. Which story shows the superior intelligence. Our own bodies are far more complex than the jet liner.

To say that God used evolution is to denigrate God's creative work. It assumes God is constrained by the stupid theories whose greatest supporters are those who deny His existence.

Just shows how deceived you can be. None so blind as those who refuse to see.

 

[Vance]

Your analogy assumes that the process of evolution must be viewed as a series of failures, rather than simply a wonderfully complex and intricate web of life flowing and developing over time. You seem to be saying that earlier species were failed attempts to create something that had to be scrapped and then "back to the drawing board". No, we have species that go extinct all the time, and always have and new ones develop. This is not failure, it is simply a process.

Evolution does not constrain God, it is simply a means by which God allows nature to work. Does the theory of gravity constrain God? Does the process of photosynthesis mean that God is somehow lessened? That is silly. God creates many rules by which His Creation works. Evolution is simply one of them.

You seem to be constraining God by saying that the only way He could have created is by "special creation", all at once. I, on the other hand, believe that He *could* have created all all the variety of life we see either by special creation, by evolution, or by any other means He chose. So, you see, I am less constraining of God's ability than you are.

 

[herev]

Consider the design of the aeroplane developed over the last century. During that time many prototypes were made and destroyed. Man had toyed with the notion of flight for many centuries before that. Now supposing a person developed the design for a jet liner and made it single handedly from scratch, including the development of all the various material specifications, and manufacturing processes. Suppose that jet liner was flawless, the first time. Which story shows the superior intelligence. Our own bodies are far more complex than the jet liner.

And yet, what we believe is that the designer did just what you said--he "made it single handedly from scratch, including the development of all the various material specifications, and manufacturing processes." We just believe he mixed all the right ingredients together, with just the right amount of each, and set the whole thing in motion with no more than a whisper so that after millions of changes and advances--and billions of years later, it developed into just exactly what he planned it to be--exactly what he intended from the beginning. A designer who made the individual atoms of the plane that would put themselves together perfectly. Impressive, too, huh? We really need to quit trying to "out-impress" each other. Let's just agree God is impressive--has to be to be responsible for the creation that we see all around us.

 

[gluadys]

Consider the design of the aeroplane developed over the last century. During that time many prototypes were made and destroyed. Man had toyed with the notion of flight for many centuries before that. Now supposing a person developed the design for a jet liner and made it single handedly from scratch, including the development of all the various material specifications, and manufacturing processes. Suppose that jet liner was flawless, the first time. Which story shows the superior intelligence. Our own bodies are far more complex than the jet liner.

To say that God used evolution is to denigrate God's creative work. It assumes God is constrained by the stupid theories whose greatest supporters are those who deny His existence.

Just shows how deceived you can be. None so blind as those who refuse to see.

Is disagreeing with your conception of creation being deceived or is it just having a different conception of how God created. I don't see much "flawless" creation around, so from my perspective, special creation denigrates God because it makes God the author of many imperfections and sub-optimal designs.

Why, for example, does an intelligent designer like God, capable of flawless design, copy exactly the same pathway for the laryngeal nerve (which connects the brain to the larynx in the throat) for the giraffe as for a mouse, even though it means growing an additional 10 to 15 feet of nervous tissue, instead of simply creating a new and shorter pathway?

http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#recurrentlaryngeal

This sort of thing is the only way evolution can copy a system from a short-necked ancestor to a long-necked descendant. It's not perfection, but it is a marvellous system for generating new and adaptive forms for an ever-changing, dynamic environment.

To me, it shows marvellous foresight and wisdom on God's part to provide all species with a way to change themselves over time. And then to use that system to fulfill his purposes for humanity.