The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If you listen to evolutionists Hitchslap, they will make a monkey out of you.

No no, only an ape.

 

[As I was saying]

Nothing about having a degree, or what you have posted indicates you are competent in theology, or biblical studies.

And your try at sounding as though you know what you are talking about does not mean that you do.

 

[As I was saying]

If you listen to evolutionists Hitchslap, they will make a monkey out of you.

Good one KluteDavid. More levity please, more.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And your try at sounding as though you know what you are talking about does not mean that you do.

I reccommend evidence and logic. That's what makes it sound as if you know what you are talking about. For example, every human being has muscles that, if they only worked, would wiggle the ears. Evidence of descent from a previous species that could actually move its ears to good effect. Us apes have evolved a sophisticated phase analysis system that requires our ears NOT move to work well . . . giving us instant knowledge of the direction a sound comes from as soon as we hear it. But we still have those vestigial ear wiggling muscles.

There. Evidence. See how that's done?

 

[As I was saying]

All we can do is keep pointing to the scientific evidence that you still refuse to address. Astrophile wrote a great post that you seem to be avoiding.

According to Wikipedia https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe , 'NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)' estimated the age of the universe to be (13.772±0.059)×10E9 years (13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years).'
'The age of the universe based on the best fit to Planck 2013 data alone is 13.813±0.058 billion years'.
'By combining the Planck data with previous missions, the best combined estimate of the age of the universe is (13.798±0.037)×10E9 years old.'
'The ... space probes WMAP, launched in 2001, and Planck, launched in 2009, produced data that determines the Hubble constant and the age of the universe independent of galaxy distances, removing the largest source of error.'
Also, the age of about 13.7 billion years from WMAP has stood since 2004, and Sandage, in 1958, gave an age of 13 billion years, with a possible uncertainty of a factor of two -
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ApJ...127..513S

Astrophile​

Well the best thing you can do is clean up all those atheists who keep saying that the earth is this old or that old. If they don't know what they are talking about why say that they do? I do not subscribe to their fantasies but one had to bear in mind that we have been told that one atheist does not speak for another so any atheist can say what they like, believe it is true and cannot be contradicted on what he has said. If he can, then the fact that one atheist does not speak for another is not true which would not surprise me an my experience is that atheists cannot handle the truth because if they could they would not believe in evolution.

I cannot say too much more because some atheists get very upset if you point out the holes in their arguments so I will leave it at that.

 

[As I was saying]

I reccommend evidence and logic. That's what makes it sound as if you know what you are talking about. For example, every human being has muscles that, if they only worked, would wiggle the ears. Evidence of descent from a previous species that could actually move its ears to good effect. Us apes have evolved a sophisticated phase analysis system that requires our ears NOT move to work well . . . giving us instant knowledge of the direction a sound comes from as soon as we hear it. But we still have those vestigial ear wiggling muscles. There. Evidence. See how that's done?

And how does that prove that God did not create everything after its own kind? With all your knowledge you should be able to tell me how life began. if you do, you will be the first atheist who has.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Dr. Ian Hutchinson, who is a member of the American Scietific Affiliation, and professor of nuclear engineering at MIT and fellow of the American Physical Society and of the Institute of Physics and whose work is primarily magnetic confinement of plasma and head of the Alcator Project,

etcetera ...

He also wrote some 13 years ago, "But science says, insofar as the world is governed by repeatable events accessible to consensual observation, it appears the earth is spherical, in orbit around the sun, and roughly 3 billion years old. It would be possible for a perverse theology to say, fine, but the reason is that God created the world in such a way that it just appears this way, whereas the reality is that Genesis is a literal description of nature. However, such a position, while not logically untenable, is theologically untenable, making God into a trickster."

 

[AnotherAtheist]

My use of the word theology is correct as I have a degree in theology.

I have never said that science and theology are the same.

Whether what you write is correct or wrong depends on the truth value of what you write. Having a degree in theology does not in any way prove that what you write is correct.

Dr. Ian Hutchinson, who is a member of the American Scietific Affiliation, and professor of nuclear engineering at MIT and fellow of the American Physical Society and of the Institute of Physics and whose work is primarily magnetic confinement of plasma and head of the Alcator Project, the largest university based fusion research team in the nation believes that faith informs science by encouraging integrity and professional discipline, and by the knowledge that the laws governing the physical world were established by God and can be discovered through science.

If faith informs science, then why is 'creation science' so poor and the pronouncements of creationists so unscientific?

 

[As I was saying]

First, unless you can provide sources for these statements about the age of the Earth, I shall assume that your memory is at fault or that you have misunderstood your sources and that they didn't actually say anything of the sort.

Second, if you have a personal library of more than a thousand books and if you also have a degree in theology and can read the Bible in its original languages, you are intelligent enough to read some geology books and to find out for yourself how scientists have measured the age of the Earth and established the geological time scale. I recommend The Age of the Earth and Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies by G. Brent Dalrymple.

Dear oh dear, why is it you cannot understand the import of what has been said? Could it be that you are blinded by an ideology that considers all others to be irrelevant, suggesting a closed mind. Or is it a case of don't bother me with the truth, I am happy in my ignorance?

The problem is that my memory is NOT at fault as I have said I am a high end autistic person and unlike atheists, I do not need to write down every jot and tittle because I remember what is important for YEARS. To me/us the source is NOT important or even who said it. What is important is what was said.

I know atheists cannot consider life outside of facts, figures and every minute detail of every minute detail but, sorry to say not everyone lives like you do as a prisoner to words. We get out there and enjoy life to the full as Jesus said he would give us abundant life. That means we don't grow up as cynics calling everyone a liar if they don't measure up to our way of thinking and understanding of life.

As a believer in Christ, I don't have to worry about a thing because he takes care of everything as he said he would and if I screw up he well able to work it together for my good. I am not going to lose my salvation just because I don't believe in evolution, preferring God's model of being created after our own kind. I don't lose any sleep over the fact that I don't know everything and it doesn't bother me that I was told that atheists know everything in another forum.

When you know God you don't need to know anyone else or anything else. I have absolute and total faith in Him so trying to convince me that you are right and I am wrong is to say the least a lost cause. Why don't you go onto your own forums and bolster the faith of other atheists as I am sure your time would be better spent doing that as judging by what I read here and other christian forums I have been involved in and which have been invaded by atheists, so far you haven't convinced one single believer to ditch his faith for the religion of nothing which is what atheism is.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

And your try at sounding as though you know what you are talking about does not mean that you do.

There are actually serious theologians that expose you as a pretender. You deny easily demonstrated scientific truth. Your denials are void of demonstrated facts. Your denials are merely your projection of your false theology. This was warned against many times by wiser Christians. They recognized the harm people like you could cause.

For some of my favorite examples, working backwards in time;

The first revelation of the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible, demands that the physical universe is co-equal with the textural revelation. The second revelation, the New Testament, generally affirms the old revelation regarding the revelation of nature (eg. Romans 1:20) with the added bit that “Jewish fables and genealogies” are expressly to be ignored as they are “unprofitable and worthless,” (Titus 3: 9). That pretty much finished the YEC cult “revelation” right there.

But, this was not my original insight.

There is a strong recent effort to salvage Christian theology from the YEC cult in the Christian Clergy Letter Project, which states,
“Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Over 13,013 Christian clergy as of 09/24/15 have affirmed this statement. But of course, the anonymous "AsIwassaying" is far more pious, Christ-like, and educated than any of these thousands of clergy.

But these are not new efforts to save Christianity from derision and irrelevance. For example, consider the following:
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." (Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437).

That was a fairly recent admission occasioned by the scientific discoveries, not of Darwin, but of geology. It was in turn anticipated by,
“Tis a dangerous thing to engage the authority of scripture in disputes about the natural world in opposition to reason; lest time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which we had made scripture assert.” Telluris theoria sacra (1684 English edition, “The Sacred Theory of the Earth” Preface, pg. 10), Reverend Thomas Burnett (1635?-1715).

But that is recent still as we have the testimony of Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." This was cited by Galileo, not that it did him any good.

Still earlier we have John Calvin (1509 – 1564) writing on Genesis,

"For to my mind this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and the other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.” And later he stated, “It must be remembered, that Moses does not speak with philosophical acuteness on occult mysteries, but states those things which are everywhere observed, even by the uncultivated, and which are in common use. (Genesis, I, 79 & 84 (1554).”

Why can’t your ignorant YECs follow the logic of Calvin when he observed,
“ Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage.” Calvin J., Genesis, Vol. I, Part 3 (1554).

I should hope that all you YEC cultists give serious attention to Thomas Aquinas on science and faith, who wrote,
"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1. (1273).

Aquinas refers to the Christian father, Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) who advised Christians trying to interpret Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge in his work “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). The following translation is by J. H. Taylor in "Ancient Christian Writers," Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. {Augustine here has referred to 1 Timothy 1.7}”

Here we enter back into the Revelation that nitwit creationists want to vouchsafe over the work of science. But, as before we find that this revelation rejects them and their YEC cult. Why did Aquinas, and Augustine warn against making “obstacles be placed to their believing?” They were warning any Christian who would try to enforce a denial of the physical revelation to support a false biblical interpretation. They were making a direct reference to Luke 17:1. (Jesus) said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! 2. "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.” Also, Matthew 18:7. "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!” Or, as the Apostle Paul wrote, "determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way" (Romans 14:13).

I hope you creationists will read Scripture in their broader meaning and then give full consideration of my current favorite verse;

James 3:1. Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

Personally I feel fine about this. If I were you, I would soil my pants with terror because you are preaching lies. But, I don’t think you really believe any of this at all.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

And how does that prove that God did not create everything after its own kind? With all your knowledge you should be able to tell me how life began. if you do, you will be the first atheist who has.

This completely fails to address the point of why humans (and other creatures) have vestigal organs, and attempts to derail the conversation in a random direction.

 

[As I was saying]

All we can do is keep pointing to the scientific evidence that you still refuse to address. Astrophile wrote a great post that you seem to be avoiding.

According to Wikipedia https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe , 'NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)' estimated the age of the universe to be (13.772±0.059)×10E9 years (13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years).'
'The age of the universe based on the best fit to Planck 2013 data alone is 13.813±0.058 billion years'.
'By combining the Planck data with previous missions, the best combined estimate of the age of the universe is (13.798±0.037)×10E9 years old.'
'The ... space probes WMAP, launched in 2001, and Planck, launched in 2009, produced data that determines the Hubble constant and the age of the universe independent of galaxy distances, removing the largest source of error.'
Also, the age of about 13.7 billion years from WMAP has stood since 2004, and Sandage, in 1958, gave an age of 13 billion years, with a possible uncertainty of a factor of two -
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ApJ...127..513S Astrophile​

Dr. Richard Bube, a former professor in the Dept of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University said that the biblical doctrine of creation is one of the richest doctrines revealed to us by God. It reveals to us that the God who loves us is also the God who created us and all things; at once it establishes the relationship between God and religious faith and the God of physical reality...It is because of creation that we trust in the reality of a physical and moral structure to the universe, which we can explore as scientists and experience as persons. It is because of creation that we know that the universe and everything in it depends moment-by-moment upon the sustaining power and activity of God. Richard H. Bube, "We Believe in Creation," in Origins and Change: Selected Readings from the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (1978)iii-iv, 1978​

 

[As I was saying]

This completely fails to address the point of why humans (and other creatures) have vestigal organs, and attempts to derail the conversation in a random direction.

As you have not answered my question I assume that you don't know how life began.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

As you have not answered my question I assume that you don't know how life began.

Thread diversion: fail. Go see other threads where this is discussed. This is a thread on evolution.

Why do humans and other organisms have vestigal organs?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

,

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Dr. Richard Bube,

Born August 10, 1927. A Physicist totally innocent of the least knowledge of biology is the holy source of truth for "AsIWasSaying." Prof. Bube is actually a "theistic evolutionist." The Earth is ancient, and evolution is how God proceeded to elaborate life.

Why say anything more?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I assume that you don't know how life began.

How life originated on Earth is a very interesting question. For a fairly recent review of current understanding, I recommend;

Deamer, David W.
2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press

I don't expect you to actually read it. I don't expect you are able to read it. Since Deamer's book has been published there has been a flood of new results, and I hope he is planning a new edition.

 

[VirOptimus]

My use of the word theology is correct as I have a degree in theology.

I have never said that science and theology are the same.

I dont care what degrees you hold, you are still incorrect. Educate yourself.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dr. Ian Hutchinson, who is a member of the American Scietific Affiliation, and professor of nuclear engineering at MIT and fellow of the American Physical Society and of the Institute of Physics and whose work is primarily magnetic confinement of plasma and head of the Alcator Project, the largest university based fusion research team in the nation believes that faith informs science by encouraging integrity and professional discipline, and by the knowledge that the laws governing the physical world were established by God and can be discovered through science.

People can believe whatever the hell they want.
Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss believe otherwise.
It doesn't matter. None of their scientific papers mention these beliefs.

He has no doubt that modern science is Christian in nature as it germinated in the work of pioneers like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Newton, Faraday and Maxwell all of whom were committed followers of the Christian Faith.

And none of which mentioned anything biblical in their work. None of their works are dependend on christianity.

They could all be atheist, muslim, hindu... and it wouldn't make any difference to their scientific contributions.

The Enlightenment which brought about atheism, was nothing more than an attempt to sweep aside the religious and christian aspect of science so that it could be replaced by man's own efforts to become god's themselves. And look where it has got us.

Seeing that that was the moment that scientific discovery and progress in engineering boomed like crazy, I'ld think it's safe to say that it got us to a good place.

The bible is so true when it says that the fool has said in his heart there is no God.

Off course it would say that. What else would you expect? That it would say the opposite?

Today we have the modern atheist trying to put religion and christianity to bed, never to rise. It attacks anything that upsets its beliefs and rather than stand on their own two feet, they resort to the courts to do their dirty work for them.

Funny..... are you talking about cases like the Dover trial?
One of the key people in that case opposing the cdesign proponentsists was Ken Miller. Evolutionary biologists and devout catholic.

But why bother with the facts, right?

Rather than let the religion of atheism speak for itself

If atheism is a religion, then....

- "not playing golf" is a sport
- "off" is a TV channel
- "bald" is a hairstyle
- "barefoot" is a type of shoe
- "healthy" is a type of sickness

, they are like the muslims who are not happy unless they are conducting jihad against those they don't like. Rather than get involved in works of charity, they would rather stop those who are involved in works of charity like Samaritan's Purse

You think atheists don't engage in charity?
Hi, I'm an atheist and engage in voluanteer work every other weekend.
Just last week, I went to Brussels to hand out warm soup to the Syrian refugees at the park.

And I'm by no means an exception. What I do pales in comparision to what some atheist filantropists do. Like Mr Bill Gates, for example. Or Richard Dawkins, who also has a foundation that engages in charity frequently. To name just 2 famous people...

, bringing a bit of sunshine to poor kids because it is a christian organisation and of course we know that we can't have christian organisations bringing charitable relief to others in case the others become christians.

What are you talking about?




I notice also that literally NONE of what you said here was actually in response to what you quoted of me.

I responded because I have a problem with leaving obvious nonsense unanswered, but in reality, I shouldn't have. Your post reads like you are replying to a completely different quote.

You are all over the place, except the points I actually brought up.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Dr. Richard Bube, a former professor in the Dept of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University said that the biblical doctrine of creation is one of the richest doctrines revealed to us by God. It reveals to us that the God who loves us is also the God who created us and all things; at once it establishes the relationship between God and religious faith and the God of physical reality...It is because of creation that we trust in the reality of a physical and moral structure to the universe, which we can explore as scientists and experience as persons. It is because of creation that we know that the universe and everything in it depends moment-by-moment upon the sustaining power and activity of God. Richard H. Bube, "We Believe in Creation," in Origins and Change: Selected Readings from the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (1978)iii-iv, 1978​

That quote is 37 years old, and has been audaciously divorced from its context. Dr. Bule has actually vigorously defended theistic evolution throughout his career. He not only accepts evolution as a scientific truth that doesn't conflict with the truths of God but he's criticized the false dichotomy fundamentalists have detrimentally propagated. He taught a popular course about religion and science for many years here, and is still highly respected and discussed even though he retired ages ago. To add - most Christians do believe that God created the universe and all life within it, but are not Creationists per the definition of the word commonly used on this forum, and do accept evolution.