|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christ making statements about Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4463 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
It seems that Jesus could be saying that if they believed in Moses then they should believe in him and if they don't then they won't.
I don't think you answered my question. why do you think that it was important to jesus that they believe moses?
ok, so why do you think that it was important to jesus that they believe moses? It seems like Jesus was saying that if they couldn't believe Moses, then they wouldn't be able to believe Him.
Jesus used "fictional work" a lot, aka parables, so yeah... fictional works are capable of giving us commands that we should believe in.
parables can give illustrate commands that exist anyway but the commands don't originate because of the story. Perhaps "doctrines" would be a better word to substitute in for "commands".
So that one can be both Christian and evolutionist, or lessly "not-Creationist". Again, I'm not saying that a person is a christian because they believe in evolution, but i do think it is a dangerous position and is no longer "biblical-woldview"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Except that the evidence confirms that most of the Bible is fantasy. I know that you have been told otherwise, but I think you'll find that upon a sober analysis of the text, there is little reason to believe that the Old Testament history has any validity. Granny I would like to break this criticism down to one chapter. In my English version of the Bible there are 31 numbered verses in Genesis chapter one. Could you tell me what undisputed and universally known scientific fact makes which one of those 31 verses or group of verses a untrue fantasy ? Perhaps you could list the known fact and the specific verse or verses from the 31, which are rendered totally untrue and historically incorrect fantasy because of this known science fact. And I would emphasize that this should be a nearly universally undisputed scientific and historical fact. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Hi Jaywill,
You are playing games with me.
Could you tell me what undisputed and universally known scientific fact makes which one of those 31 verses or group of verses a untrue fantasy And I would emphasize that this should be a nearly universally undisputed scientific and historical fact. And what is your definition of a "nearly universally undisputed scientific and historical fact"? I would say that evolution is a "nearly universally undisputed scientific and historical fact", but no doubt you would dispute that. I would say that the age of the earth being around the 4.5 billion years mark is a "nearly universally undisputed scientific and historical fact", bit doubtless you would dispute that. Thee are many facts that refute Genesis 1, but if you're going to insist that as long as a tiny minority of fundamentalists dispute them they are not "undisputed scientific and historical fact" then we are wasting our time. It is not up to me to prove Genesis wrong. It is up to those (such as Arphy) who claim that Genesis is backed up by evidence to produce their evidence. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : dB Codes "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Granny,
You said a textural examination renders the realization that the Bible contains mostly fantasy. Now without looking up your post, I think that was the jist of it. Also by way of recall and not re-reading, I got the strong impression that modern science aids in this realization of the fantasy peddling of the Bible. I need to see your FACT and then the verse that it exposes as fantasy. Do you know scientifically that God did not create the heavens and the earth in the beginning ? Do you know that the earth did not become waste and empty? Or that it was not in that condition as a pre-condition to light and dry ground appearing? Do you know scientifically that there was not evening and morning and one day, evening and morning and a second day in which some major developments were accomplished ? Where is your generally recognized science fact and where in the 31 verses is the fantasy that it exposes ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
And what is your definition of a "nearly universally undisputed scientific and historical fact"? I would say that evolution is a "nearly universally undisputed scientific and historical fact", but no doubt you would dispute that. I would say that the age of the earth being around the 4.5 billion years mark is a "nearly universally undisputed scientific and historical fact", bit doubtless you would dispute that. That's close enough. The generally agreed upon concept of a rather several billion year old planet. Where in the 31 verses is the statement that the earth has not been around for 4.5 billion years ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4089 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Arphy writes: I don't know why i should take the opinion of macDonald above the plain meaning of the biblical text. You missed my point. You commented on C.S. Lewis, and you were suggesting that had he seen creation science, by which I now see you mean Henry Morris and friends. I was commenting on Lewis in return, NOT on creation science in general (at least in that comment). I was pointing out that Lewis would have had nothing to do with the type of Christianity creation science espouses, no matter what era he lived in.
If evolution is true then no, nature does not testify about God. Well, take it that way if you want.
Hatred, fables and lies? I all ready know that you think i am wrong, so is this sort of comment really necessary. Possibly not, but here's why I said it anyway. The thing that restrains me is knowing Kenneth Miller's reaction to a meeting with Ken Ham. Ken Ham is not even trying to speak truth. He's just trying to defend Genesis, and he's really not very worried how ludicrous he has to be to do so. (Example, "What would a flood produce? Billions of death things all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead things all over the earth?") However, because creation science has to distort, manufacture fables, and lie, it attracts a lot of people who are desperate. They're desperate because they believe that their whole religion will collapse if they are wrong. But they are wrong, hands down, no doubt about it. In a forum where all the evidence can be presented, arguing with a young earth creationist is like arguing with a two-year-old. They don't listen, but it's obvious to any adult observer that they don't know what they're talking about. So, in order to defend themselves they result to telling lies about others. For example, my introduction to the lies of creation science was Dr. Bob Gentry slandering Dr. Donald Johansen, who found Lucy. I was shocked when I found out Gentry was repeating a 15-year-old false story on a TV show that supposedly was defending Jesus, who is "the Truth." I now know that's simply standard operating procedure for "creation science." To anyone outside the movement, that looks like hatred and lies (because it is) from a group of people that claim to represent truth and love. So I brought it up and said it because you were saying that people don't believe in Christ because of evolution. Really, there's nothing true about that. Eliminate hatred and lies and present a people that walks in real love and power with God, and you'll find evolution is absolutely no deterrent to faith. I know that in general Bible literalists don't care what the Bible says unless they already agree with it, but let me hope you may be an exception: Jesus said that his testimony to the world was the love and unity of his disciples (John 13:34-35; 17:20-23). Paul talked about a demonstration of the Spirit, power, love, and faith. There's nothing in the Bible about offering scientific evidence to the world of God. The fact is, creation--which is evolved whether we like it or agree with it or not--still testifies to the heart the power and nature of God. Those who spend time outside of a city and in nature are still moved with a sense of awe toward the creator--even Charles Darwin, who doubted the existence of one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
*sigh*
I notice that you didn't provide me with any help as to what you are willing to accept as "nearly universally undisputed scientific and historical fact". Thanks for that. Added by Edit; I see that in your second message, you seem willing to accept the broad outlines of the geological record. That makes things a little easier. Birds, Jaywill. Gen 1 has "fowl that may fly above the earth" being created on the fifth day. Now leaving aside the absurdity of birds being created in a day, this is problematic because land animals and "every thing that creepeth upon the earth" are only created on day six. That's wrong. The first birds appear in the fossil record only 150 mya (approx). There were animals on the land long before that. Okay? It's just wrong. Now you can claim that this isn't how it went down if you like, but the fact remains that the evidence places birds well after the first land animals, not before. The evidence disagrees with the Genesis model. My advice is that you learn to live with it. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Birds, Jaywill. Gen 1 has "fowl that may fly above the earth" being created on the fifth day. What I read in my English translation of Genesis about the Fifth it reads as follows:
"And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living animals, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven. (v.20) And God created the great sea creatures and every living animal that moves, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind; and God saw that it was good. (v.21) And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth. (v.22) And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day." (v.23) You inform me:
Now leaving aside the absurdity of birds being created in a day, this is problematic because land animals and "every thing that creepeth upon the earth" are only created on day six. That's wrong. The first birds appear in the fossil record only 150 mya (approx). There were animals on the land long before that. Is it possible that some birds could exist before 150 mya which for some reason did not appear in the fossil record ? I don't think when the we see birds in the fossil record necessarily proves a fact that no birds could have existed before then. Maybe they did not appear in the fossil record. So I am hesitant to receive this as a known science FACT which contradicts Genesis 1:20-23. I may admit it as possible evidence suggesting that birds may have developed after land animals. But I think sometimes they turn up fossils of animals which cause revisions of speculations about dates of the first their existence.
Okay? It's just wrong. Now you can claim that this isn't how it went down if you like, but the fact remains that the evidence places birds well after the first land animals, not before. The evidence disagrees with the Genesis model. My advice is that you learn to live with it. Listen to what you wrote - "the fact remains that the evidence places birds well after the first land animals". That is a fact about the available evidence. That is not a known fact about when birds actually appeared on the earth. Can you see the difference? No one was actually there. So we don't know when the birds appeared. We can make statments about the factual state of the present evidence only. I think you are still dealing with a theory that has not been proved, ie. birds came into existence only after non-bird land animals did. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Okay. You mention translation; I happen to like the KJV because it gives the Bible a lovely "Olde Worlde" feel. Regardless of translation, birds are created on day four, land animals on day five.
Is it possible that some birds could exist before 150 mya which for some reason did not appear in the fossil record ? That's a fair question but the answer is no. Here is a picture of the earliest confirmed fossil of a land animal;
It is called Pneumodesmus newmani and it is a species of millipede. It was found in Scotland, in a formation that dates back 428 million years. The earliest confirmed bird fossil on the other hand is, as far as I know, still Archaeopteryx, dating to about 150 mya. Not only is that an awfully big gap to be mysteriously devoid of bird fossils, it simply makes no sense. Birds are descended from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs only appear about 230 mya. Dinosaurs are descended from archosaurs, starting at about 250 mya at the very youngest. The archosaurs were derived from critters like the notorious Tiktaalik (I'm missing out a lot of steps here), which first crawled out of the mud about 375 mya. Now if we look at the geological record, all these groups of organisms line up, forming an orderly progression through the millennia. For the Bible's order of events (bird-->land animal) to be true, there would need to be birds in existence, not only million years earlier than their first known fossils, but also birds existing millions of years before their own ancestors show up in the fossil record. That's a lot of missing fossils. In summary, I just don't see how there could possibly be birds 428 mya. It's just too ridiculous. It's too big a gap and the sequence is all wrong. What we see in the fossil record. what we see is a gradual progression from amphibian to reptile to bird, with no fossils turning up out of sequence.
I may admit it as possible evidence suggesting that birds may have developed after land animals. But I think sometimes they turn up fossils of animals which cause revisions of speculations about dates of the first their existence. Sometimes a fossil is found in an older stratum than expected and its history is pushed back a bit. There has however, never been anything even remotely similar to what you are suggesting. It is equivalent to Haldane's elusive Pre-Cambrian rabbits. It would blow the standard model of natural history out of the water. It's never happened.
Listen to what you wrote - "the fact remains that the evidence places birds well after the first land animals". That is a fact about the available evidence. That is not a known fact about when birds actually appeared on the earth. Can you see the difference? I'm sorry Jay, but you're clutching at straws. The evidence is clear and there are no credible alternative explanations at hand.
I think you are still dealing with a theory that has not been proved, ie. birds came into existence only after non-bird land animals did. It has been demonstrated as surely as anyone could hope. In my opinion, it more than meets your criteria. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3892 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Is it possible that some birds could exist before 150 mya which for some reason did not appear in the fossil record ? I'm not a paleontologist, but - no. You could try to say birds existed further back than 150 mya, but the evolutionary tree of birds is pretty well known - far back enough and you get things-that-aren't-birds-but-sort-of-have-some-bird-traits. Further back than that and you don't get feathers at all. Not to mention the whole "coming out of the seas" evolutionary thing. The scientists are quite clear on that - with a good amount of evidence. oceans, land, air.
No one was actually there. So we don't know when the birds appeared. We can make statments about the factual state of the present evidence only. Oh, well - were you alive 6000 years ago? No? Okay - then it's time to play the evidence game. Oh look - dating techniques which agree, a wealth of fossils (which can be dated using techniques which agree), starlight and the speed of light (which gives us distance, and therefore age and size of the universe), a clear evolutionary track of animals from form to form (with gaps, yes, but pretty small gaps)... and you've got...a book. Written by various people, none of whom were actually alive 6000 years ago, many of whom could neither read nor right. I really don't mean to sound sarcastic, it's just - this is how science works. You look at the evidence, and you come to a conclusion. If you want to pull out Last Thursday-ism, it becomes a pointless exercise. Tell me, how do you know anything about your great-great grandparents? How do you know they were your great-great grandparents? You have a letter or two? a picture or two? ...but you weren't alive then, and you don't have ALL their letters, you don't have ALL their pictures, do you? You don't KNOW anyone who was alive then - so...what do you REALLY know about your great-great grandparents? Or your house was broken into - there was no witnesses! The police are called and they collect some DNA samples - the DNA samples match a guy they caught selling stuff that looks surprisingly like the TV and the video that were stolen from your house. You can't be SURE that they're yours. You can't be REALLY sure, can you? I mean there were no witnesses - the fact that your DNA and fingerprints are on the stuff he's selling, and that his DNA was found in your house are...what...coincidence, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
The evidence is clear and there are no credible alternative explanations at hand. In what you have just discribed to me specify the known FACT. I don't mean the best speculation. I mean the known fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Oh, well - were you alive 6000 years ago? No? Okay - then it's time to play the evidence game. No I was not there either. But I freely admit that I don't know.I don't know. I don't claim to know. I claim to have a belief. I have a faith that God has revealed something to us about creation. Granny said he/she had facts that proved what I am told there in Genesis is fantasy. I am not persuaded that Granny can say that with total and complete confidence. Neither of us may ever know for sure. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3892 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
jaywill writes:
ah, so you weren't there either. No I was not there either. But I freely admit that I don't know. then we'll have to use deductive reasoning - and fashion up a theory that is explained by the facts.
I don't know. I don't claim to know.
Oh now, you DO claim to know based on what you've been taught from the bible, otherwise why are you arguing for the position you are? If you HAVEN'T looked at the facts and/or are selectively ignoring them, then shame on you.
I claim to have a belief. I have a faith that God has revealed something to us about creation.
so, you basically believe what somebody else has told you at face value.
Granny said he/she had facts that proved what I am told there in Genesis is fantasy. I am not persuaded that Granny can say that with total and complete confidence.
Maybe if you looked at the facts, you'd disagree. I don't know how old you are, I don't know if you're being homeschooled by somebody who doesn't know the facts or whether you're being sent to a school that is ignoring the facts. If you are, I feel sorry for you. The rest of my paragraph which you so kindly cut tried to give you a viewpoint on why we believe (in the non-theistic use of the word) what we believe - the theory explains all the facts. Please read it if you haven't.
Neither of us may ever know for sure.
Well now you went and pulled out Last Thursday-ism. As I said before, once you pull out that canard, then it's no longer scientific, it's philosophical. This being the "social and religious issues" forum, that's probably fair - but if you want to talk about Granny Magda's facts, it's a different ballgame, surely?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4463 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Those guys are all dead. Only the first four were young Earth. You only name a grand total of ten of them. Weigh that against the current complement of hundreds of thousands of practising geologists and biologists who disagree. Pulling a few names off Answers in Genesis isn't going to impress anybody. As I said, the young-Earth geologists had their chance and they failed. They simply did not have the evidence.
No it wasn't a comprehensive list. Yes most geologists and biologists disagree with my position. Back then however these people that were critical of Uniformatrism or Darwinistic viewpoints had criticisms that were not answered, rather their voices were just drowned out.
You can pretend that it is an "interpretive philosophy" if you find that comforting, but it won't make it true.
I'm not pretending, that's the way I see it. You believe it isn't just an "interpretive philosophy" which isn't necessarily true either.
So in a nutshell, you think that scientists spend their days doing research, getting it completely wrong and not noticing? You think they spend all their time interpreting a philosophy? You think that you know better, despite your lack of expertise? When was the last time you were in a lab or on a field trip?
I wouldn't say completely wrong. However their extrapolations are often very fanciful. They also don't "spend all their time interpreting a philosophy". It's just that in many instances they will interpret evidence in the light of their worldview.
I find this kind of attitude incredibly arrogant. A multitude a extremely clever people have created a vast body of knowledge and you seem to think that you can dismiss it all from your armchair on the basis of your precious Bible and a quick scan through AiG.
Yes they may be very clever people and I'm not saying that they aren't able to carry out complex experiments, etc. However their worldview has given them a bias as to how they interpret the evidence that they find.So you think that because we are not "the view of the masses" that therfore we are wrong. Sorry I just don't see the logic in that. Fine. Except that the evidence confirms that most of the Bible is fantasy. I know that you have been told otherwise, but I think you'll find that upon a sober analysis of the text, there is little reason to believe that the Old Testament history has any validity. or so you have been told.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4463 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Sorry jaywill, will have to jump in here. Are you an OEC?
C'mon bro. You say you take the bible at face value however it just doesn't fit with an old earth view. Firstly the bible says that the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day (i.e. after the earth and even after plants). You'd need to get into some pretty torturous interpretations to get that to fit with old age thinking. In the following chapters it then goes on to geanealogies, complete with ages! So yes, we can approx. (due to some conflict on the reign length of different rulers/kings later on)say that the earth is 6000 years old biblically. Remember (getting back on topic, yah ) that Jesus said "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" Mark 10:6. Meaning that humans were there at the beginning, not a long time later. Don't worry, you won't be "committing intellectual suicide" by believeing in a young earth. Please read some articles by YEC's on this topic (e.g. from CMI, ICR, or TrueOrigins) and see what you think. I know at first it seems very radical however I believe we are on solid biblical and scientific ground. God Bless p.s.Thanks for joining in
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024