Question 3

[tonybeer]

Robban - here's one.

 

[Danny777]

I'm referring to the school cases in America where creationists try to teach ID in schools as science. It is not science and is dishonest.

I won't go through all of Genesis but one to start with: God makes the Earth before the stars.

The Earth is 4.5ish billion years old. Our sun slightly older. [astro-ph/0204331] The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS

There are some stars that are much much older.

A nearby star has been measured at 13.2 billion years old. [astro-ph/0703414] Discovery of HE 1523-0901, a Strongly r-Process Enhanced Metal-Poor Star with Detected Uranium

Lots of the orders of animals/plants etc is wrong too, and this is measured using different types of radioactive dating methods.

You may argue that proponents of ID are dishonest and brain wash their children. The very same accusation could be pointed towards evolutionists. Many evolutionists teach their children that they are descendants of apes despite the problem of "missing" links. It is well documented that there have been numerous attempts to deceitfully allege missing links have been found only for them to turn out to be hoaxes.
If there was an evolutionary connection between apes and humans there would be an array of evidence of transitional forms littering the planet as clear evidence. In fact, there would be more transitional or "in-between" forms than 100% human or ape. What we have instead is a desperate search for these missing links and whenever one is "found" it usually turns out to be a hoax. We are left with a handful of debatable skeletons - there should be and millions and millions...instead we are offered artists impressions as evidence!

Instead of re-examining the theory that human evolved from apes, many teach it to their children despite the absence of evidence. This is precisely the same dishonesty that you accuse the ID brigade of! Why is it only the creationists that get accused of dishonesty when they cannot prove a theory? Proponents of evolution have also been shown to be dishonest when it suits them...

You have linked to articles re. dating of the sun and earth as "proof" that Genesis is wrong. When discussing the estimates of dating, especially when talking about the billions of years involved, the dating processes are highly speculative and opinions frequently change. All dating requires "assumptions" that conditions remained the same for the dating process to be accurate and I know that you don't like assumptions as they are not scientific. When discussing the possibilities of miracles on a different post, you repeatedly accused me of "assumption" - any dating method relies on "assumption" and therefore cannot be trusted, for the very same reason you would not accept this is evidence for miracles!

Any search on google re. the accuracy of dating will be sufficient to reveal there are many reasons why the current estimate of dates could be wrong - suffice to say, this is not "proof" that Genesis is incorrect...

I teach my children that the world was created by a loving God and to follow the example of Jesus Christ. How is this barbaric? Is it better to teach them they evolved from apes, watch them act like animals (as they are animals!) with no moral role-model? I don't understand how following the life of Christ could be a bad example - have you read about Him in the New Testament?

 

[Robban]

Robban - here's one.

Not exactly what I was thinking of.
Though that is one way to decieve.
Actually it goes much deeper than internet silliness.

 

[tonybeer]

You may argue that proponents of ID are dishonest and brain wash their children. The very same accusation could be pointed towards evolutionists. Many evolutionists teach their children that they are descendants of apes despite the problem of "missing" links. It is well documented that there have been numerous attempts to deceitfully allege missing links have been found only for them to turn out to be hoaxes.
If there was an evolutionary connection between apes and humans there would be an array of evidence of transitional forms littering the planet as clear evidence. In fact, there would be more transitional or "in-between" forms than 100% human or ape. What we have instead is a desperate search for these missing links and whenever one is "found" it usually turns out to be a hoax. We are left with a handful of debatable skeletons - there should be and millions and millions...instead we are offered artists impressions as evidence!

Instead of re-examining the theory that human evolved from apes, many teach it to their children despite the absence of evidence. This is precisely the same dishonesty that you accuse the ID brigade of! Why is it only the creationists that get accused of dishonesty when they cannot prove a theory? Proponents of evolution have also been shown to be dishonest when it suits them...

You have linked to articles re. dating of the sun and earth as "proof" that Genesis is wrong. When discussing the estimates of dating, especially when talking about the billions of years involved, the dating processes are highly speculative and opinions frequently change. All dating requires "assumptions" that conditions remained the same for the dating process to be accurate and I know that you don't like assumptions as they are not scientific. When discussing the possibilities of miracles on a different post, you repeatedly accused me of "assumption" - any dating method relies on "assumption" and therefore cannot be trusted, for the very same reason you would not accept this is evidence for miracles!

Any search on google re. the accuracy of dating will be sufficient to reveal there are many reasons why the current estimate of dates could be wrong - suffice to say, this is not "proof" that Genesis is incorrect...

I teach my children that the world was created by a loving God and to follow the example of Jesus Christ. How is this barbaric? Is it better to teach them they evolved from apes, watch them act like animals (as they are animals!) with no moral role-model? I don't understand how following the life of Christ could be a bad example - have you read about Him in the New Testament?

There are plenty of so called "missing links". Wikipedia has a list of a few if you are interested.List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution is a fact.

You are really misrepresenting how these dating methods work and the levels of error involved. Any assumption is negated by the fact that many different types of dating methods are used to test the dating process.

Do you really think scientists just make stuff up? There's no point me pointing you towards scientific papers in this case.

Knowing about the facts of evolution doesn't change your behaviour.

I imagine your children probably have you as a moral role model. You don't need a historical character in order to provide them with morality.

Are you really saying if you teach someone about evolution they start acting like an ape? When we were at school I don't remember kids climbing up the walls during the lesson on evolutionary biology.

You and I are both animals and from an evolutionary perspective no more special than any other animal on the planet.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There are plenty of so called "missing links". Wikipedia has a list of a few if you are interested.List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution is a fact.

I love the creationist argument that we should have examples of every single organism that has ever lived. It's very convenient for them that fossilisation is such a rare event - we have zero chance of ever finding every transitional fossil, and I suspect even that wouldn't be enough to convince them. Present them with a transitional fossil and they ignore it and just demand another that comes further along the line. Present evidence from DNA and they just claim common building blocks. Demonstrate nested hierarchies and they say "so what?"

They insist that we should re-evaluate the evidence for evolution (something scientists do on a continuous basis with each new discovery) yet quite happily sit there stagnating in their entrenched position refusing to do the same for their own view. Weird, really!

I teach my children that the world was created by a loving God and to follow the example of Jesus Christ. How is this barbaric? Is it better to teach them they evolved from apes, watch them act like animals (as they are animals!) with no moral role-model? I don't understand how following the life of Christ could be a bad example - have you read about Him in the New Testament?

Moving the goalposts again? Why would you need to do that if your position is so strong?

 

[MikeBigg]

They insist that we should re-evaluate the evidence for evolution (something scientists do on a continuous basis with each new discovery) yet quite happily sit there stagnating in their entrenched position refusing to do the same for their own view. Weird, really!

Not all Christians. I have changed my view based on both the changes in knowledge that modern science has brought and the changes in our understanding of what the Bible's original texts are most likely to have meant.

I'm not the only one. Many friends have the same view, but more importantly, there are many Christian scholars that I have met recently hold this view too.

It must be said that I have allowed others to inform me - I certainly don't have the knowledge of historical Hebrew that is necessary, but I guess we're all in that boat.

Whether Christianity as a whole, and in particular some denominations that are entrenched in a particular view can change is another matter.

Mike

 

[Danny777]

Evolution is a fact.

Evolution is a theory. I am led to believe that true science requires theories to be testable, repeatable and observable before they can be declared a fact.

Evolution (in particular the "big bang") is often referred to as a "miracle" or "miraculous" by evolutionists! There are many quotes along these lines - the following quote from evolutionist Francis Crick is one of many honest quotes,

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."

I admit creation is also a miracle - it cannot be proven in a lab. However, evolution is also a miracle as it cannot be proven, tested, observed etc etc

On many occasions you have told me you do NOT accept evidence that requires "assumption". The theory of evolution hinges on many such assumptions - yet you accept it as a fact!

You display amazing double standards when mocking ridiculing the Biblical accounts of the miraculous whilst wholeheartedly accepting evolution which many evolutionists admit is also miraculous!

Regarding role models - I try to be a role model for my kids, but often make mistakes. As a result, I always point them to Jesus Christ as the perfect role model...I can't see the harm in that...

 

[ianb321red]

Evolution is a fact.

I hear the same style of arguing for "Evolution is not just a theory" as I do for "Christianity is not just a religion".....

 

[Oafman]

Evolution (in particular the "big bang")

Hang on, these are two totally different things. Evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life on Earth, and the Big Bang describes the origin of the universe. We know way more about the former than the latter.

is often referred to as a "miracle" or "miraculous" by evolutionists!

I've not heard that, but if any do describe either evolution or the Big Bang as a 'miracle', then they are simply wrong to do so. A miracle is something that is 'not explicable by natural or scientific laws'. Evolution is explained, in great detail and with mountains of supporting evidence, by natural and scientific laws. What we have already worked out about the Big Bang is also explicable by natural laws, and I'm pretty confident that everything we subsequently work out will also be explicable by physics.

But here's the great thing about science. If, for the sake of argument, something about Big Bang theory becomes impossible to explain by physics, or more accurately, runs contrary to the laws of physics, then the theory will be questioned, and possibly changed. It's not set in stone, never to be questioned. It must be questioned, constantly, until the point where it is totally irrefutable. Then it will be questioned some more.

In contrast, what would it take for you to doubt or even reject your theory of creation? If you believe something regardless of the available evidence, then on what basis can you question that belief?

There are many quotes along these lines - the following quote from evolutionist Francis Crick is one of many honest quotes,

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.")

Crick has his beliefs, but he is in the minority. The National Academy of Sciences study found that 7% of scientist believe in a personal god, and that falls to 5% when you ask biologists. Also, it's worth pointing out, Crick would not for a second support your denial of evolution. He's responsible for discovering the most compelling evidence for it. He knows we descended from primates, and before that, from a single celled organism. His believe is that god had a hand in creating that organism.

I admit creation is also a miracle - it cannot be proven in a lab. However, evolution is also a miracle as it cannot be proven, tested, observed etc etc

Micro evolution can be observed in very short timescales. But I believe you're referring to macro evolution, when you state that it can't be replicated in a lab.

However, you're also wrong about this. Macro evolution is, by definition, a process which takes millions of years. Therefore, to replicate it in a lab would take millions of years. If you conducted a controlled test of macro evolution over this kind of timescale, there is absolutely no doubt that it could be replicated.

You display amazing double standards when mocking ridiculing the Biblical accounts of the miraculous whilst wholeheartedly accepting evolution which many evolutionists admit is also miraculous!

You appear to be comparing our response to the work of modern day experts, who have spent their lives studying this field, to our response to a book written by bronze age tribes who understood almost nothing about the natural world.

Regarding role models - I try to be a role model for my kids, but often make mistakes.

I'm not about to tell you how to be a parent, and I'm sure you are a good and moral role model for your kids. But I don't believe it's responsible to encourage your kids to believe in dogmatism over evidence. Teach them to always doubt, and to always question. Because, if it wasn't for the human capacity to doubt and question, we would still be in the stone age.

 

[ianb321red]

I don't see why the bible gets elevated above any other historical document. It should be treated the same way any other ancient text is. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean it should be treated as such.

Most critical scholars require that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Even a very basic reading of Christian texts reveals that it is conveying something a little bit different to other ancient texts.

But regardless of other texts, in terms of how the text is treated in itself, the biblical texts do stand up to historical investigation in terms of higher and lower textual criticism :

-When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
-Where was it produced (localization)?
-By whom was it produced (authorship)?
-From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
-In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
-What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

Anyone who tries to take this line of argument seriously really needs to do their homework first, and a good starting point would be to read How We Got the Bible - Neil R. Lightfoot - Google Books

No Christian scientist has ever found any scientific evidence that shows there is a God. They would have real incentive to as 1. They'd get a Nobel prize and become very rich and famous and 2. It would vindicate their beliefs.

Yep. I agree with that. Doesn't answer my question though does it?

Yes children should be taught to understand how to deal with evidence and how to decide what is true or not. However children do not always have the ability to do this. I know that when I was say 8 years old I would have believed anything a teacher told me. Thankfully as an adult I know how to determine if something is real or not. Many, many adults cannot do this however. Look at the numbers that believe in astrology/mediums/ghosts/Aliens/Moon landing conspiracy etc.

You're still missing the point though, and you've made a category error here with the examples you've listed..

The bible doesn't make any sense! If the idea of the bible is God giving man instructions as to how to live their lives it was an incredibly poor way of doing it. If I read the bible literally I'm misunderstanding it? There's definitely a talking snake in there. Who decides whether I'm misunderstanding it or not?

The bible's main purpose isn't an instruction book.
It is a message of salvation - God describing His answer to His problem. It is a book containing the message of good news and really that salvation in Jesus Christ is the fundamental message of the Scripture.

On your last point, the problem is the books claim something different to evolution. If they said no one knows that would be fine and honest. However it talks about man being made from dirt etc etc.

Tony - the bible doesn't specifically mention anything about evolution. That's a plain fact, so let's stick to the facts and not eisegete about evolution..

On the subject of evolution itself, I've got at least half-a-dozen books on my bookshelf written by scientists who are Christians and who embrace evolution. Here's one for example:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Creation-Evolution-Do-Have-Choose/dp/1854247468

..and here's a review of it:

http://www.iscast.org/journal/book_reviews/Marlow_D_2009-06_Alexander_Review.pdf

The author here is in opposition to both intelligent design and young earth creationism. His motive for writing this book? Through a concern that the Christian witness has been greatly diminished by fellow believers 'talking nonsense on these topic's'........

 

[tonybeer]

I hear the style of arguing for "Evolution is not just a theory" as I do for "Christianity is not just a religion".....

Ah but do either of you know what a scientfic theory actually is?

To quote wikipedia: A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Note that for something to be considered a scientific theory it must have been repeatedly tested and confirmed.

It must also make useful predictions that are testable. The theory of evolution makes predictions about what any new fossils should look like and what we would expect in any new DNA evidence. Every time a new piece of evidence is found it fits in with the theory of evolution. If it did not then the theory would have to be re-written.

Observation doesn't mean that I have to see it happening. Having many fossils dated at various ages is observation.

Anyone who says something is "just a theory" is mis-using the definition of a scientific theory.

Sadly in the english language the word "theory" is used a lot where the actual word should be hypothesis.

Danny - Evolution and the Big Bang are different theories, studied by completely different types of scientists. They have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Talking about creation in a lab - I'd suggest you take a look at abiogenesis experiments. No-one really knows what actually happened, however creating organic material from inorganic with similar types of conditions as those in the early Earth has been demonstrated in the lab. There is still nowhere near a firm theory of abiogenesis, with many different hypotheses.

Also what assumptions is the theory of evolution making?

 

[ianb321red]

I don't know what other people think, but would the mechanism and process of evolution point more towards there being a God, then there not being a God?

If you're saying evolution suggests there NOT being a God, then why not?
If you're saying evolution suggests there IS a God, then why?

 

[ianb321red]

Ah but do either of you know what a scientfic theory actually is?

Yeah, I do - but thanks for checking though

 

[ianb321red]

Every time a new piece of evidence is found it fits in with the theory of evolution. If it did not then the theory would have to be re-written.

That's quite an interesting point.
Do you envisage a time at some point in the future where (potentially) the theory of evolution would be drastically different to how we understand it today?
That is a possibility is it not?

For example, the theory of spontaneous generation was disproven by Louis Pasteur in 1859 and is now considered to be obsolete:

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, is it technically possible that the theory of evolution could at some point become superseded by something else?

 

[tonybeer]

Ok 3 responses.

1: No, evolution doesn't disprove a God. It makes no statement about a God at all.

You could go down the Simon Conway Morris (famous Paleobiologist/devout Christian) point of view that evolution tends to produce certain traits, such as intelligence, because God set up the laws of the universe that way.

2. Good! Danny clearly didn't know the difference as he was saying evolution is "just a theory".

3. I don't think it would be drastically different, however there are still disagreements about things such as Dawkins Gene centred evolution and theories of punctuated equilibrium.

It is technically possible and the only way science can learn new things is that it is a possibility. In all likelihood there is so so much supporting data for evolution it is the actual mechanisms (such as those I mentioned above) that are likely to be invalidated, rather than whether actually we evolved from "simpler" organisms.

Going back to physics which I know more about, if say we look at special relativity for example. Newtons original laws of motion were not wrong exactly, however they are invalid for high speed particles. Special relativity approximates to Newtons laws at low speeds.

Speed* still approx equals distance*/time* in all frames when you are driving along in your car, even though this is not really the case. If you tried to tell a policeman that he needed to apply a lorentz transformation to his figures before issuing a speeding fine you'd probably not have a lot of success.

* Depending on the frame of reference.

Equally discovering a theory of quantum gravity wouldn't mean the Earth suddenly spiralled into the Sun.

 

[ianb321red]

1: No, evolution doesn't disprove a God. It makes no statement about a God at all.

Good. So in reality we agree in principle that evolution and God/ the bible are not intrinsically linked (You've said "It (evolution) makes no statement about a God at all" and I've said "the bible doesn't specifically mention anything about evolution")

So how did we get on to this discussion again????
The original question was "Do all Christians believe the world started as described in Genesis?"

So this question was really addressing the "starting" of the world which appears to me to be more of a big bang type discussion that a "changing" of the world which is more of an evolution type discussion.....

 

[tonybeer]

The theory of evolution may say nothing about a God, however the reverse is not true in that bible does make statements about the sequence of events in both a cosmological and biological context, most to all of which are wrong.

You can be a deist and that is not a problem at all. The problem comes when someone claims that genesis is a literal account. I realise most Christians don't believe Genesis to be a literal account, certainly not here in the UK, but some do.

 

[Danny777]

The theory of evolution may say nothing about a God, however the reverse is not true in that bible does make statements about the sequence of events in both a cosmological and biological context, most to all of which are wrong.

You can be a deist and that is not a problem at all. The problem comes when someone claims that genesis is a literal account. I realise most Christians don't believe Genesis to be a literal account, certainly not here in the UK, but some do.

Tony,

I am one of the few that believes the writer of Genesis intended readers to believe it was literal. This to me is obvious from the text. I admit its possible I may have it all wrong (we will all find out one day), but when we are talking about the big bang and the origin of our universe, surely we all engaging in guesswork...none of were there and none of us can prove a hypothesis.

When discussing evolution many misunderstandings are often down to definitions. You have already quoted timescales of 13.2 billions of years and 4.5 billions of years as fact. These estimates will probably changes over coming years (as they have changed during previous years) and then you will use the new dates for origins and claim those as fact!

Many atheists scientists themselves disagree over timescales and order of events as far as I can tell.
Why is it a "problem" to take the text of Genesis literally? What harm is done?

 

[tonybeer]

Why do you have to "be there" to prove a hypothesis?

You also say "we will all find out one day". How does that tie in to your previous logic that we can only guess? I imagine you mean that God will tell us, but that still doesn't fall under your previous statement that we can only know if we are actually there!

The estimates may change by say 1%, as they do have an associated estimated error to them. e.g. age of the Earth 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years. They are not going to go from 4.5bilion years to 6000. Rather, for example, a new improved method gives as age of 4.56 ± 0.01 that will probably fulfil the previous criteria (95% likelihood).

Humanity can't learn more about the universe if humans claim to already know the answers. You can be quite happy believing what you want to, however we will never advance as a civilisation unless we question what we think we know.

 

[Danny777]

Why do you have to "be there" to prove a hypothesis?

You also say "we will all find out one day". How does that tie in to your previous logic that we can only guess? I imagine you mean that God will tell us, but that still doesn't fall under your previous statement that we can only know if we are actually there!

The estimates may change by say 1%, as they do have an associated estimated error to them. e.g. age of the Earth 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years. They are not going to go from 4.5bilion years to 6000. Rather, for example, a new improved method gives as age of 4.56 ± 0.01 that will probably fulfil the previous criteria (95% likelihood).

Humanity can't learn more about the universe if humans claim to already know the answers. You can be quite happy believing what you want to, however we will never advance as a civilisation unless we question what we think we know.

OK...

When I was talking about "finding" out one day I was actually referring to after this life (which I imagine you don't believe in)...I didn't explain it very well...

I don't claim we have all the answers and neither do I claim that we should not continue exploring.

Some of the greatest ever scientists were Bible believing Christians. Most notable examples include Einstein, Kelvin, Planck, Faraday, Newton (list could go on and on...)
How did their belief in Genesis prevent advancement? Some of the greatest life-changing discoveries have come from "creationist" scientists! Did they claim to know all the answers? Of course not...

Believing in Genesis does not equal no advancement in science - quite the opposite is true...this is a typical stereotype that is thrown at Christians when history to proven to opposite to be true in the sphere of science.

I have attached a link of a list of scientists who believe in Genesis - there are hundreds of them in different areas of science. I presume they all believe we have all the answers and are not interested in advancement?!

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

I assume they will have a different explanation for the same facts that evolutionists have. I would imagine the noble arena of science would welcome different explanations for the observable data we find in the world around us...