Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical!

[Maccie]

Without our written history you simply would not know

And I'm saying you would. Did the Stone Ages, Bronze Age, Iron Age have written history? No. But we know a great deal about them.

Or are you talking about somethin else entirely that I haven't got yet??

 

[grmorton]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

this has got to be the single most waste of time website i've ever read.

why pose problems that no one can understand?

I love this. Just because you are not up to the task of understanding something, you think others can't either. How sad.

 

[kofh2u]

No. Some is "mystery" writing, but that was a generally recognised form of writing when it was written. Much is history, poetry, letters or straightforward accounts. None of it is intended to "go over the heads of the profane". To think that is gnosticism. When the Bible was put together, it was intended that all should be able to understand it. It may be difficult for some of us in the 21st century to get hold of the nuances of the 1st century, or earlier, writers, but a bit of study will soon reveal the meaning. And I don't mean years of study, under Professors of "mystery" writing. I mean ordinary thought by ordinary people.

I agree that some books, like Daniel or Zechariah can be difficult to understand, but we have to remember, like gluadys said, they were written at a particular time to a particular people to encourage, or warn them. But that doesn't mean that we cannot take meaning from them for ourselves today.

But none of this has to do with what Theistic Evolutionists believe.

I really can't follow your arguments.

OK with me.
"I agree that some books, like Daniel or Zechariah can be difficult to understand,"...

Glauds was limiting speculation on just what we might propose about those " difficult to understand" passages.

He was proposing an axiom, that God had totally explained these things to those ancient Jews.

Glaudy was restricting what God meant to what scripture said AS UNDERSTOOD by that Iron Age audience. These were the profane to whom I referred, and we KNOW they didn't get it.

DIRECT THEOLOGICAL SUPPORT:

1) ..."and the Word WAS God"...

2) ...the MYSTERY of God, (the hidden manna: [Rev 2:17]), should be finished, as he hath informed his servants the prophets


Rev. 10:7 But in the days of (Christian Humanitarism: Rev 3:14) the voice of the seventh angel, (the spirit of human Harmony), when he, (that awakening subconscious apparatus of mind), shall begin to sound (consciously in the thoughts of men), the MYSTERY of God, (the hidden manna: [Rev 2:17]), should be finished, as he hath informed his servants the prophets (as recorded in scripture: [Dan 12:4).

 

[kofh2u]

I love this. Just because you are not up to the task of understanding something, you think others can't either. How sad.

Hahaaa.
I know how frustrated you must get. Certainly, your religious inclinations demand that you suffer while making every effort to share... a proverbial voice in the wilderness.

Well, keep up the god work.

Thes last couple of posts reminded md of your intersting story about the unacclaimed, unrecognized, ridiculed scientist who earlyon had proposed the Kinetic Theory.

I thought how germane that commentary was with this statement, from the religious perspective, mocking people who raise "useless" and unanswered/answerable questions.

Science asks unanswered questions.

Religion answers unquestionably.

Some people, like Einstein, recognize paradox as the bredding ground for genius.

His "Twin Paradox" was a question like that. How many more intolerable questions do we hope for with such reward awaiting?

Dan. 12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the
firmament;

 

[Maccie]

Science asks unanswered questions.

Religion answers unquestionably.

Well, no. Science asks questions and then finds the answers. If it doesn't, then it keeps on looking. That's what science does.

Religion answers what unquestionably? The questions science asks? Well, no, it doesn't. And what do you mean by "unquestionably"? Do you mean that we can't ask questions of 'religion', whatever you mean by that? There are lots of 'religions' you know? And most would come up with different answers to the same question.

You do not make yourself very clear.

 

[kofh2u]

how about this one, i want to know what your interpretation is:

Ro. 8:16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.
Ro. 8:17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs — heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Ro. 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.
Ro. 8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
Ro. 8:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
Ro. 8:21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Ro. 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
Ro. 8:23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Ro. 8:24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?
Ro. 8:25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

One problem is that you took those few verses out of the context of the actual Chapter.

 

[shernren]

Biliskner:

about your noah's ark website, in all probability it is not operating from a strictly uniformitarian view. I may be wrong, but uniformitarianism is mainly used in interpreting geological data. Anyway it's not really around anymore: proposing that a meteor strike caused mass extinctions is quite anti-uniformitarian by definition.

But:

the whole assumption is that today's observation is the same as Noah's day. how is that good science?

So let me ask you: what could have been different in Noah's day, which would have made the Ark feasible, and have the world of Noah be the same as the world of today? For example: you could propose (to solve the problem of the diet of carnivores) that there were no carnivores before the flood. But that doesn't sound right, does it?

Also, a rock showing signs of undergoing 6 million years of radioactive decay is reasonable evidence that it has existed for 6 million years. It doesn't have to write an autobiography. And I haven't seen any creationists answer me with a technical reinterpretation for isochron data that would allow a rock 6 thousand years old to exhibit radioactive decay evidence of 6 million years of age.

the roots of deceptive philosophy spread far and wide. don't stop it now, and your grandchildren's grandchildren will suffer the consequences. and that is a promise.

and if you take evolution and old-earth geology out of the textbooks, whatever you substitute it with, I can say with confidence that within 60 years there won't be a hundred scientifically useful biologists or geologists in the USA.

 

[gluadys]

Biliskner:

about your noah's ark website, in all probability it is not operating from a strictly uniformitarian view. I may be wrong, but uniformitarianism is mainly used in interpreting geological data. Anyway it's not really around anymore: proposing that a meteor strike caused mass extinctions is quite anti-uniformitarian by definition.

Actually, it is not anti-uniformitarian at all. There is a very common confusion between “uniformitarian” and “gradualism”. “Gradualism” is the understanding that natural events happen gradually. And many do: formation of limestone, tectonic plate movement, etc. In the past, this was carried to an extreme to suggest that all things happened gradually so that, for example, no sediment could be laid down rapidly.

But as we know, in certain conditions, (e.g. Mount St. Helen's volcanic ash) sediments can be laid down rapidly.

“Uniformitarian” is not gradualism per se. It does not imply that everything must happen gradually. Rather, it suggests that the natural principles which govern the rates at which things happen are constant. So, if a process is normally gradual today, we can assume it was normally gradual in the past. But if a process is normally catastrophic today, we can assume a similar event (earthquake, volcanic eruption, meteor strike) was normally catastrophic in the past. Sudden, catastrophic events, therefore do not lie outside of a uniformitarian understanding of nature, provided that is the nature of the event.

 

[invisible trousers]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

this has got to be the single most waste of time website i've ever read.

why pose problems that no one can understand?

the whole assumption is that today's observation is the same as Noah's day. how is that good science?

It's good science because things like that don't change. The permeability of free space does not change. Planck's constant does not change. An electron rest mass does not change. For your statement to hold true, they and other natural constants would have to change. That doesn't quite make sense though, since if constants changed then the whole universe would completely fall apart.

When you call the talk origins webpage a "waste of time" do you mean "it destroys every argument I have"? Because if it does, then it is definitely a waste of time website.

Do you have any scientific and testible evidence to support your theory? I mean really, every time this question is asked to a YEC, they try switching the topic or do the classic straw man misrepresentation of evolution--which you and others have done numerous times in this thread.

 

[kofh2u]

Biliskner:

about your noah's ark website, in all probability it is not operating from a strictly uniformitarian view. I may be wrong, but uniformitarianism is mainly used in interpreting geological data. Anyway it's not really around anymore: proposing that a meteor strike caused mass extinctions is quite anti-uniformitarian by definition.

But:


So let me ask you: what could have been different in Noah's day, which would have made the Ark feasible, and have the world of Noah be the same as the world of today? For example: you could propose (to solve the problem of the diet of carnivores) that there were no carnivores before the flood. But that doesn't sound right, does it?

Also, a rock showing signs of undergoing 6 million years of radioactive decay is reasonable evidence that it has existed for 6 million years. It doesn't have to write an autobiography. And I haven't seen any creationists answer me with a technical reinterpretation for isochron data that would allow a rock 6 thousand years old to exhibit radioactive decay evidence of 6 million years of age.



and if you take evolution and old-earth geology out of the textbooks, whatever you substitute it with, I can say with confidence that within 60 years there won't be a hundred scientifically useful biologists or geologists in the USA.

Oh, he has a w bsite!

So, he has a vested interest in maintaining his point of view.
Serving one's own "mammon-like" ego will negate o en minded reflection.

And, Jesus said EVERYTHING will be the same, even as in the day of Noah, when He returns.

So, anything bellsey says about a "different" world environment or material structure IS unbiblical.
True?

 

[shernren]

Thanks gluadys. I wasn't too sure actually about that uniformitarianism thing.

 

[Biliskner]

And I'm saying you would. Did the Stone Ages, Bronze Age, Iron Age have written history? No. But we know a great deal about them.

Or are you talking about somethin else entirely that I haven't got yet??

how do we know about these ages?

nope you've got it.

 

[Biliskner]

I love this. Just because you are not up to the task of understanding something, you think others can't either. How sad.

ok let me rephrase (FYI, my self-imposed restriction of "only 30 minutes on this forum is being sacrificed - for the sake of rebuking your "you're not up to the task of understanding something, you think others can't either.""); predictable, as usual.


"why pose questions that no one can possibly refute?"

example(s)/s:

Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

Could animals have all lived near Noah? Some creationists suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.

How was the Ark loaded?
Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical.

wow. i can see how those questions are HIGHLY scientific.

What is a kind? Creationists themselves can't decide on an answer to this question; they propose criteria ranging from species to order, and I have even seen an entire kingdom (bacteria) suggested as a single kind. Woodmorappe (p. 5-7) compromises by using genus as a kind. However, on the ark "kind" must have meant something closer to species for three reasons:

What kinds were aboard the ark? Woodmorappe and Whitcomb & Morris arbitrarily exclude all animals except mammals, birds, and reptiles. However, many other animals, particularly land arthropods, must also have been on the ark for two reasons:

Were dinosaurs and other extinct animals on the ark? According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.

Were the animals aboard the ark mature? Woodmorappe gets his animals to fit only by taking juvenile pairs of everything weighing more than 22 lbs. as an adult. However, it is more likely that Noah would have brought adults aboard:

How many clean animals were on the ark? The Bible says either seven or fourteen (it's ambiguous) of each kind of clean animal was aboard.

So, could they all fit? It is important to take the size of animals into account when considering how much space they would occupy because the greatest number of species occurs in the smallest animals.

Authority?
This word: "Woodmorappe" keeps popping up. How about the word: GOD?
"The Bible is ambiguous?" Yeh nice. Could they all fit? Can what all fit? Can they fit in what? I might just point out FYI that the Bible tells us of the specs. of Noah's boat. You guys (sorry, TALKORIGINS) take that literally. But then "the Bible says either seven or fourteen but is ambiguous on this issue". Shouldn't the question be: "Can all the animals WE SEE TODAY fit?" An assumption is made here that today's environment is EXACTLY the same as Noah's day. Tell me how that is NOT dogmatic?

Another HIGHLY scientific article.

How can a literal interpretation be appropriate if the text is self-contradictory? Genesis 6:20 and 7:14-15 say there were two of each kind of fowl and clean beasts, yet Genesis 7:2-3,5 says they came in sevens.

How can a literal interpretation be consistent with reality? How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites? And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive?

Why stop with the Flood story? If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and stationary earth? [Dan. 4:10-11, Matt. 4:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psalms 93:1, ...]

In fact, is there any reason at all why the Flood story should be taken literally? Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?

Does a global flood make the whole Bible less credible?

Short of pasting THE WHOLE THING HERE, I think I'll just paste the Scriptures here (which by the way, are Ambiguous).

Col. 2:8 See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

translation:

Col. 2:8 See to it that no-one (*cough* Woodmorappe/TalkOrigins) takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy (*cough* employ today's data into Noah's world), which depends on human tradition (*cough* logic of assumptions and human thinking/what is possible/what is not possible) and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

(here is the kicker: that 3rd copied and pasted section has got to be deceptive - "Why stop with the Flood story?" errrrrrrrrr!!!!
Why stop at the supernatural events? Christ's resurrection? Did it REALLY happen? Maybe science has to PROVE IT)


So maybe the text:

Mt. 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Mt. 19:25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Mt. 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

IS Ambiguous too.

(wow, funny how the death of a Man on a Cross can guarantee me a one way ticket to the Pearly Gates of Heaven; damn i hate for that to be ambiguous.)

Like I said, the article is a waste of time.

 

[Maccie]

And I'm saying you would. Did the Stone Ages, Bronze Age, Iron Age have written history? No. But we know a great deal about them.

how do we know about these ages?

By archeology. Excavations have revealed artefacts, skeletons, the remains of buildings for the Iron Age, which was flourishing by the time the Romans came to Britain. The Romans, being literate, also wrote about the people that lived here, they formed treaties with client kings, and set about Romanising the native Brits.

Not so much has been found of earlier ages, though the Bronze Age Hill forts are still easily visible, and many have been excavated. There are many artifacts which have been found, many of them showing exquisite workmanship. Dating can be done by referring to known historic data (see above) and going backwards through layers of earth. Samples of earth will give information about what trees and plants were growing there, by studying the pollen, i.e. pollen of cultivated grains indicate farming. Tree rings (dendrochronology) will give dates of felling of any bits of wood that have been used in houses or boats that may survive.

Trade with other regions on the continent and further afield can be deduced from foreign goods excavated. For example, amber was highly prized as an ornament, and it can be discovered where it came from - mostly the baltic region. Amber is, as you know, the fossilized resin of confier trees.

I'm ashamed to say I know very little of the pre-history of the USA but the methodology would be the same. As far as I am aware, there is considerable history now known about the native Americans, their tribes and the locations they lived in.

The study of archaeology includes a whole variety of sciences, including physics, medicine, organic chemistry, biology and the many subdivisions of these sciences. But archaeology is, I think, unique in that is argues from the known to the unknown. If a shard of pottery is found in undisturbed soil below that of a second piece of pottery, then the first is concluded to be earlier. Pottery has styles in exactly the same way as any artifact, and therefore an undated piece from elsewhere can be compared with that already found.

Dendrochronologists too have data which can trace the ages of trees back over thousands of years, by linking growth rings.

I could go on and on, but I have tried to keep it short and fairly simple.

 

[Biliskner]

It's good science because things like that don't change. The permeability of free space does not change. Planck's constant does not change. An electron rest mass does not change.

It does not change is an assumption, and while yes the scientists do work and assume they don't change, that doesn't mean they don't. (FYI, no I don't think the fundamental laws of physics changes)
And how can you stretch the unchangability of an electron's mass to the unchangability of the species existant on earth? IE: today and Noah?
that thought is absurd at best.

With your reasoning, miracles cannot happen. Philip in Acts cannot be "teleported" from the eunuch, Paul cannot have scales fall off his eyes, Paul cannot hear Jesus say to him "Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me?", Balaam's Ass cannot talk to him nor see the Angel with the Sword in his hand, Balaam cannot hear God speak, The Israelites cannot see God by "pillar of fire by night and pillar of cloud by day", Moses did not talk to God FACE TO FACE (literal? or allegorical?), The Red Sea did not part, King David did not kill Goliath, Samson did not have "infinite" strength because of his damn hair, Daniel and "his mates" did not survive the fire, God did not answer Job out of a whirlwind.

The Bible is practically littered with unreasonable "sciences" yet I assume you accept it because you are a Christian.

The Talkorigins website on NOAH is asking a question like:
"Oh, how in the world can Philip be "teleported" from the eunech instantly? Oh, it must be allegorical or it can't have happened or <insert man's logic here>."



What can I say? But:

"Tread lightly brother."

Do you have any scientific and testible evidence to support your theory? I mean really, every time this question is asked to a YEC, they try switching the topic or do the classic straw man misrepresentation of evolution

Nope.

(everyone see that? that's a: NO)

--which you and others have done numerous times in this thread.

Show me where I've done that.

This thread is ABOUT TE being unbiblical, some "person" posted that talkorigins site.

 

[Biliskner]

Religion answers unquestionably.

 

[Biliskner]

One problem is that you took those few verses out of the context of the actual Chapter.

oh that made a hell of a lot of sense.

thank you.

 

[Biliskner]

And, Jesus said EVERYTHING will be the same, even as in the day of Noah, when He returns.

You've just debunked evolution.

 

[Biliskner]

By archeology. Excavations have revealed artefacts, skeletons, the remains of buildings for the Iron Age, which was flourishing by the time the Romans came to Britain. The Romans, being literate, also wrote about the people that lived here, they formed treaties with client kings, and set about Romanising the native Brits.

But archaeology is, I think, unique in that is argues from the known to the unknown. If a shard of pottery is found in undisturbed soil below that of a second piece of pottery, then the first is concluded to be earlier. Pottery has styles in exactly the same way as any artifact, and therefore an undated piece from elsewhere can be compared with that already found.

Dendrochronologists too have data which can trace the ages of trees back over thousands of years, by linking growth rings.

I have no problem with people wanting to dig up durable rubbish, and I might even find some of this stuff interesting.

Would you agree in what you have said that when you dig up something, you have to interpret it in a relative framework? That this framework is biased according to the viewer? That it isn't clear cut and paste, black and white?

What you've shown me is 'stuff' dug from the ground. What it hasn't shown is how they know how old this stuff is. Sure I agree that it is not purely speculation, but neither is it 100% irrefutable grounded fact. Is it?

 

[Maccie]

but neither is it 100% irrefutable grounded fact. Is it?

Some coinage is, for instance. We know when the Roman Emporers lived. If a coin of known date is found with something else, then that something else can be dated to "round about" the same time as the coin. A few years either way is precise in archaeological terms!

And, like I said, similar things can be dated by comparison with definitely dated objects.

And dendrochronology is exceedingly exact for various places. Periods of drought, for example can be placed exactly in the time span for a particular area, even if it is pre-history.