Question 3

[Oafman]

Some of the greatest ever scientists were Bible believing Christians. Most notable examples include Einstein

No!

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly

Einstein's beliefs get brought up regularly by theists. I guess this is because, unlike most scientists, he was not an atheist, but rather a deist. He talked about a "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe" and a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists."

He absolutely was not a Christian, by any definition, and aligned himself to no organised religion.

Ok, had to pick you up on that, carry on....
​

 

[tonybeer]

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...

Not a single one of those " creation scientists" has ever had a peer reivewed paper published with respect to evolutionary biology.

 

[ianb321red]

Not a single one of those " creation scientists" has ever had a peer reivewed paper published with respect to evolutionary biology.

hmmmm - you appear to have reached that conclusion rather quickly! Are you sure you've checked every single one of those names against some sort of science bibliographical/ citation index or database??

On the subject of peer reviewing itself:

"Despite the advantages, peer review is simply incapable of ensuring that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions. The history of every area of science is a record of one mistake after another. Indeed, virtually every major scientific and medical journal has on numerous occasions published findings that are later discredited.9 Somtimes such mistakes are eventually weeded out in the course of time. However, some often persist for many years.10

Even the most ardent defenders of peer review acknowledge that it does not eliminate mediocre and inferior papers."

 

[tonybeer]

hmmmm - you appear to have reached that conclusion rather quickly! Are you sure you've checked every single one of those names against some sort of science bibliographical/ citation index or database??

On the subject of peer reviewing itself:

"Despite the advantages, peer review is simply incapable of ensuring that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions. The history of every area of science is a record of one mistake after another. Indeed, virtually every major scientific and medical journal has on numerous occasions published findings that are later discredited.9 Somtimes such mistakes are eventually weeded out in the course of time. However, some often persist for many years.10

Even the most ardent defenders of peer review acknowledge that it does not eliminate mediocre and inferior papers."

No I haven't checked. However it would be massive massive science news and both you and I would have heard about it.

The vast majority on the list weren't evolutionary biologists. Also the list criteria wasn't very stringent, and I myself could have claimed to be a creationist and got myself onto the list without any qualifications in biology.

That list would be something like 0.001% of the size of the list of scientists supporting evolution.

Peer review might not be perfect, but it is much much better than not peer reviewing. The very nature of statistics means that the within the normal* confidence range of 95% you'd expect 5% of papers to come out with a false positive/false negative result. Sadly this is the nature of the universe we live in.

Peer review has been extremely effective and will continue to be.

* Not always the case and much higher may be required. Discovery of a new particle for example needs 5 std deviations i.e. 1 in a 3.5 million chance that the effect seen is due to randomness

 

[ianb321red]

However it would be massive massive science news and both you and I would have heard about it.

Like this one (published last year in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology):

Creationist Paper Published in Peer-Reviewed Biology Journal, UD Author Cited — Origins 2012 Conference | Uncommon Descent

 

[tonybeer]

Ok fair enough you've found one. As we were discussing the peer review process isn't perfect!

The paper is discussed here. Turnabout is fair play - The Panda's Thumb

What seems to have happened is a biologist treated a creationist idea as science and used it, with the result being more evolution. The paper you cite is a rebuttal to this.

I'm still not quite sure why it was published...

I don't think it has changed all the laws of biology.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Like this one (published last year in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology):

Creationist Paper Published in Peer-Reviewed Biology Journal, UD Author Cited — Origins 2012 Conference | Uncommon Descent

Dr Todd Wood is not included in the list of creationist scientists Danny linked to. The reason is probably that Dr Wood disagrees with the anti-evolution position of answersingenesis. This is a man who wholly accepts evolution and is trying to find a way to accommodate that with his creationist beliefs.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ok fair enough you've found one. As we were discussing the peer review process isn't perfect!

The paper is discussed here. Turnabout is fair play - The Panda's Thumb

What seems to have happened is a biologist treated a creationist idea as science and used it, with the result being more evolution. The paper you cite is a rebuttal to this.

I'm still not quite sure why it was published...

I don't think it has changed all the laws of biology.

That's a different paper, but it's an amusing read anyway.

 

[lismore]

Do all Christians believe the world started as described in Genesis?

Yes!

 

[ianb321red]

Going back again to the original question "Do all Christians believe that the world started as described in Genesis", this is actually an impossible question to answer.

Firstly, is any single living person actually capable of knowing what ALL Christians believe (about any Christian theology) at any one single moment in time?

Secondly, is any single living person able to provide THE definitive and unequivocally agreed upon and therefore correct understanding of Genesis?

For #2 to be true, #1 would also need to true to ensure this correct understanding was universally accepted by ALL Christians.

The reality is that we know that #1 and #2 are both false.

Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

So logically the question sequence for a Christian really should be:

-Can you read and understand English/ native language?
-Can you read and understand Genesis 1:1?
-Do you believe Genesis 1:1 is true or not?

The assumption of the above is simply to demonstrate whether you believe that God brought the universe in to existence. The Christian element of it is simply that you've sourced this understanding from the bible (as opposed to another theistic source..)

Of course the Qu'ran also provides us with similar information.
Surah 6:101-102 says "He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have a son when He has had no mate? And He has created everything and He has full knowledge of all things. Such is Allah, your Lord. There is no god but He - the Creator of all things. Serve Him alone - for it is He Who is the guardian of everything."

So this leaves us with 3 questions:

Firstly - is the bible/torah and/or the qu'ran correct in their respective teachings that their god brought the universes in to existence versus non-religious / non-theistic claims. Can the origin of the universe be explained with or without a religious or theistic belief?

Secondly, if however the bible/torah and the qu'ran are correct in their teachings, can they both be correct? Can both of these religions gods both have brought the universe in to existence as a first cause?

Thirdly, following on from #1 and #2 if the bible/torah and the qu'ran are correct in a belief in god of some description as a first cause, but that it is both logically AND theologically impossible that both gods exist at the same time, then how we critically assess whether either the respective religions claims are accurate or not (being mindful of the fact that there is of course the possibility that neither are true ..)?

Of course, for some clearly this may be a moot discussion since to progress from #1 to #2 and #3 we need to agree on at least the possibility of a supernatural first cause of some description....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Going back again to the original question "Do all Christians believe that the world started as described in Genesis", this is actually an impossible question to answer.

It's actually very easy to answer. I can categorically state that not all Christians believe that the world started as described in Genesis for the simple reason that Christians do not agree how the world started and believe a variety of differing hypotheses which cannot all be supported simultaneously. Prime example - evolution of all living things from a single cell cannot also be creation of all living things in their final state and no evolution.

Your faulty assumption is that the only statement that matters is "God created the heavens and the earth". That doesn't actually describe how the world started, it simply says that God created it. Try reading the verses that follow - there's the description of how it is supposed to have happened

 

[tonybeer]

Ian - reading your post you compare parts of the Koran to the bible. I know it is slightly OT but why do you think the Muslim Faith exists? Do you think they are just mis-guided, or have got something slightly wrong, or just followed the wrong person, or a.n.other?



"Can the origin of the universe be explained with or without a religious or theistic belief?" Not until we have sufficient evidence to support a theistic or non theistic theory. It may forever be unknown. If we do find out it will most likely come about after having gained far more knowledge than we currently have. The answer may not require causality either.

I can come up with "logical" explanations for anything if I'm allowed to make one assumption. No explanation is valid without evidence to back it up.

If we are both being honest we cannot know for certain at this moment in time what caused the big bang, nor even if it required a cause.

 

[ianb321red]

It's actually very easy to answer. I can categorically state that not all Christians believe that the world started as described in Genesis for the simple reason that Christians do not agree how the world started and believe a variety of differing hypotheses which cannot all be supported simultaneously. Prime example - evolution of all living things from a single cell cannot also be creation of all living things in their final state and no evolution.

Your faulty assumption is that the only statement that matters is "God created the heavens and the earth". That doesn't actually describe how the world started, it simply says that God created it. Try reading the verses that follow - there's the description of how it is supposed to have happened

The key here is to understand and answer the question correctly.

The usage of the past participle 'started' simply means "come in to being". This is a crude online dictionary definition, but actually it is very apt for what we are discussing here..

Come in to being or come in to existence is what the original question is asking whether all Christians believe as described in Genesis. As I said before, Genesis 1:1 tells us this clearly; it sets the tone for the entire bible!

We're not talking about evolution - evolution is not a process of coming in to being. Something has to have come in to being to begin with for evolution to evolve from - if you catch my drift!

So it's a simple question but impossible to answer! Do all claimed Christians believe in Genesis 1:1? We would logically expect so, and quite frankly a Christian faith built upon a rejection of this fundamental core belief is tricky to take seriously.

But how could it actually be demonstrated? I guess it could be implied logically at best, but then what do you conclude from it? Can you conclude that all people who attend church are Christians?

I still maintain it is impossible to answer this question..

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The key here is to understand and answer the question correctly.

Something you, unfortunately, are failing to do. You are answering a different question.....

The usage of the past participle 'started' simply means "come in to being". This is a crude online dictionary definition, but actually it is very apt for what we are discussing here..

Come in to being or come in to existence is what the original question is asking whether all Christians believe as described in Genesis. As I said before, Genesis 1:1 tells us this clearly; it sets the tone for the entire bible!

Notice the word I highlighted? That's the bit you need to address.....

We're not talking about evolution - evolution is not a process of coming in to being. Something has to have come in to being to begin with for evolution to evolve from - if you catch my drift!

You missed what I actually said. Evolution FROM A SINGLE CELL cannot be the same as creation in final form.

So it's a simple question but impossible to answer!

No, it's a simple question with a simple answer.

Do all claimed Christians believe in Genesis 1:1? We would logically expect so, and quite frankly a Christian faith built upon a rejection of this fundamental core belief is tricky to take seriously.

You're doing it again. Are you listening this time? Genesis 1:1 does NOT describe how the world began. Verses 3ff provide that description.

 

[ianb321red]

Something you, unfortunately, are failing to do. You are answering a different question.....

Bungle - please wake up mate...
Copy and paste the original question from post #1 in this thread in your next reply.
Then we'll take it from there...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Bungle - please wake up mate...
Copy and paste the original question from post #1 in this thread in your next reply.
Then we'll take it from there...

"Do all Christians believe the world started as described in Genesis?"

The key phrase here is "described in Genesis". The question is not "Do all Christians believe the world started?" The OP is asking about the description in Genesis. Got it yet? Described. Described

One last time - Genesis 1:1 is not a description of how the world started, verses 3ff provide the description.

 

[ianb321red]

Ian - reading your post you compare parts of the Koran to the bible. I know it is slightly OT but why do you think the Muslim Faith exists? Do you think they are just mis-guided, or have got something slightly wrong, or just followed the wrong person, or a.n.other?

This is a huge question and can be answered from several angles.
To begin with,for me, the sad thing is that I personally know several Muslims either through work or through friends and they are some of the nicest people I have ever met. But ultimately we all have to make a choice on our beliefs to the best of our abilities and let God judge us according to what we actually understood.

All religions in the world come from one of 3 sources:

1) Divine inspiration
2) Human imagination
3) Satanic imitation

Unfortunately though I do think Islam is false teaching and a satanic imitation. It is not completely false i.e. it contains some truth (but then, so do many other religions) but Islam also clearly contains fundamental errors; errors which are significant enough to honestly that it does not offer me a god that even exists.

Why would I reach this conclusion?
If Allah has no son (as the qu'ran states) then Jesus was just a man and a prophet and no more. If Jesus was not crucified (as the qu'ran again states) then everything Christians believe about the sacrificial atonement is rendered meaningless. The big problem for Islam is that nothing that they claim about Jesus can be supported in any way at all outside of the qu'ran. There is not one shred of evidence for the Islamic version of the historical Jesus. In fact the Islamic historical Jesus is furthermore not supported by any non-Christian (pagan, Jewish, Roman, Greek) historical evidence. Some qu'ranic scholars tend to cite the gospel of barnabas to support the Islamic version of Jesus, but this almost universally accepted as a proven fraud (see The Gospel of Barnabas: Why Muslims cling to a proven forgery)

The qu'ran contains a number of basic errors; errors which would arise if you were given shoddy information to work from and thus suggests it was simply a human compendium rather than the divinely inspired word of god. This might explain some of the inconsistencies it has with the Bible. For example, the qu’ran states that Abraham only had 2 sons, 1 of Noah’s sons drowned in the great flood, Noah made a pilgrimage to Mecca, Nimrod threw Abraham in to the fire (even though they lived centuries apart).Mary (Jesus’s mother) and Aaron (Moses brother) were contemporaries according to the qu’ran, and Jesus was born under a palm tree not in a stable.The qu'ran also states that Adam (as in Adam and Eve) stood 90ft tall (60 cubits) so if you struggle with Christian creation account, then you're really going to struggle with the Islamic one!

Muhammad wrote down the contents of the qu'ran it is claimed that they came in the form of visions and dreams. His wife in fact was the once that convinced him that these were messages from God, and as a result she became the first Muslim and the religion began from there. This appears to be also in part due to a reaction against the rampant polytheism he witnessed in Mecca. However his work does appear to borrow from many different sources : Arabian fables, Jewish stories from the midrash, Zorastrian legends, Hindu myths and also the gnostic gospels (such as the previously mentioned Barnabas)

Ultimately any decent deception in any walk of life mixes truth with error to make it more convincing. I believe that mixing in the truth of Christianity in with Islam is what makes it so dangerous and deceptive. There is enough truth in Islam to convince people enough to follow it and to reject other beliefs of which Christianity is one. This is why evangelism of Muslims is so important for Christians. It is a false religion and Muslims are victims of this deception. I don't think that Mohammad set out initially in direct conflict with Christianity - this happened later on in his life and has continued in this direction ever since.

 

[Robban]

The way I see it without any outside influence, commentaries or opinions is, Gen1-2:7 nothing was, other than the heavens and the earth.

Gen 2:4, These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven



When God announced Himself as the Lord God, 2.4, what was to be was brought into existence.
Man was not formed until v7,
also during the rest of Gen 2, it is the Lord God until, 3:1,
Now the serpent was cunning, more than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made, and it said to the woman, "Did God indeed say",
What is missing here is clearly "Lord"
Gen 1, seems to me that there was a council being held in the heavens.
This is the way I have taken it concerning creation,
I have never had any problem with this.
But we have also been given logic and the ability to reason so as to use it to maximum capacity, but there are times when it is not enough then one has to just believe and trust.
If we could understand God, then God would not be God.
Or so I heard tell.

 

[tonybeer]

Ian - Would you try and evangelise Muslims?

Why do you think it is satanic and not just imagined? Im not sure I even know what you mean by satanic.

Do you think God cares what people believe rather than their actions? Surely a God would realise it's impossible to discern the complete truth of events that happened 2000 years ago?

 

[ianb321red]

Ian - Would you try and evangelise Muslims?

Why do you think it is satanic and not just imagined? Im not sure I even know what you mean by satanic.

Do you think God cares what people believe rather than their actions? Surely a God would realise it's impossible to discern the complete truth of events that happened 2000 years ago?

Hi Tony - good questions these!

1) Yes, Christians would try and evangelise Muslims as much as they would anyone from any other religious or non-religious belief

2) Re. Satanic - because of the mix of truth and error. Islam is the only religion that teaches things which are the opposite of Christianity, but it also teaches things that are 100% in agreement with Christianity (such as the virgin birth, Heaven & Hell, Jesus performing miracles and so on..). Very subtle, but it makes Islam very believable for millions for sincere followers. What better way is there of destroying Christianity and the church than the existence of a religion like this?

3) Re. what we believe. Interesting as what you've described (probably without intending to) the Islamic view of salvation - which is the opposite to the Christian view.
Islam is a religion where your salvation is gained or lost based on works i.e. good and bad deeds. Judgement day in Islam is essentially described as having a large set of scales where the good deeds are put on one side, and the bad deeds on the other and which ever is greater determines your eternal destiny. The only belief required for Muslims is to believe that this is part of Islam; not to believe whether this may or may not be true in a literal sense. This why, in my experience you won't find a huge amount of Islamic scholars or propagandists arguing for the external i.e. non Islamic evidence for what they accept as part of their religion. There are exceptions such as Ahmed Deedat who was an intimidating debator, but on the whole they accept the Islamic beliefs in good faith and as part of being a sincere Muslim.

Contrast this to Christian apologists such as Lane Craig, Zacharias and so on who debate all over the world the truth of Christian beliefs, and frequently draw in a whole range of non-Christian sources to support their arguments. You simply won't find this happening amongst Islamic scholars except for a very small minority.

Finally, Christianity differs massively from Islam in that it is not a works based religion. You cannot earn salvation from doing good deeds. In fact, God finds good deeds offensive as they make people proud of themselves (he actually describes them as sh*t in Phillipians, and something even worse than that in Isaiah 65).

Christian salvation is sola fide in faith alone - faith and belief in the claims and actions of Jesus as Paul describes in Galatians 2:16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."