Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christ making statements about Creation
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 27 of 83 (522593)
09-04-2009 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Arphy
09-04-2009 7:27 AM


Faith and Literalism
Hi Arphy,
quote:
People lose their faith because of being taught evolution.
People also lose their faith after being told the Bible is inerrant and then subsequently getting a wake-up call that shows them it is not.
People also lose their faith after being fed falsehoods by "creation science" and subsequently realising that they were being duped.
Perhaps if you are concerned about loss of faith, people should not base their faith upon such shaky foundations.
quote:
You are also promoting an anti-biblical philosophy. You are saying that you believe man's word above God's (which is reminiscent of the Fall). And that God is a liar.
Of course, this is not what evolutionist-Christians believe.
The problem only exists at all if you insist upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. Millions of Christians, from St. Augustine onwards, have rejected the idea that Genesis was intended to taken literally. They view it as poetic and symbolic. That is not the same as saying that "God is a liar". The quotation from John you cite makes no statement on literal interpretation. It simply suggests that Jesus (or whoever wrote his lines) believed in the Old Testament. He may have believed in it, but that does not mean that he believed it in a literal sense. He may have been referring to a belief in its overall message. Only your interpretation makes this a comment on literalism or inerrantism.
You are creating a false dichotomy, man's word versus God's. In truth, there is no such conflict; the Bible may or may not be inspired by your god, but indisputably, it was written by men. The natural world on the other hand, was not and it continues to display the process of biological evolution.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 7:27 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 8:45 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 30 of 83 (522617)
09-04-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Arphy
09-04-2009 8:45 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Okay Arphy, here is your problem as I see it;
1.they believe that the bible is inerrrant which is a lie.
So you believe that the Bible does contain errors? Interesting.
As long as they act like the Beareans...
You believe that Christians should test the Bible to see if it is true? Even more interesting.
With these two ideas under your philosophical belt, I can see absolutely no reason to believe Genesis to be literal. You agree that it could be errant. You also agree that it should be put to the test. Well I've got news for you bud; it has been tested and it flunked big time.
Back in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, the primary explanation for the Earth and for life (amongst Western scholars at least) was Biblical. Theirs was the dominant idea. You know what? It fell apart under the sheer weight of contradictory evidence. There was no ideological war against religion. In fact almost all of the first real geologists and biologists were Christian. Genesis has been tested and failed.
What use is it if you claim to be willing to put scripture to the test if you ignore the results when they don't suit you?
2.They are "duped" by "evolutionary science".
If you are able to cite an example of the supposed errors in modern evolutionary science (that have eluded the world's most expert biologists), feel free to start a thread or take it to a thread where it is relevant. This might be a good bet; Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes . If you have any evidence of evolutionists "duping" people, I suggest you take it there (it's mostly creationist hoaxes so far...).
Do you believe that God gave Moses the ten commandments? Is this symbolic as well? What isn't symbolic then? What about the red sea? Jericho? Did any of this happen?
You are asking the wrong person. I am not and have never been a Christian.
2Ti 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God... blah, blah, blah...
a) Please don't just quote the Bible at me. It is no substitute for having a conversation.
b) You yourself just said that you do not believe the Bible to be inerrant. Then you quote Timothy and Peter apparently claiming the opposite. How are these statements anything other than incompatible?
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Added link.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 8:45 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 7:23 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 34 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 10:21 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 35 of 83 (522835)
09-05-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Arphy
09-04-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Hi Arphy,
Well that certainly was a confusing typo! Never mind, these things happen.
I'm not sure where to go with this, since you don't touch upon the topic at hand at all in your last messages.
First you list a tiny handful of scientists who did not accept evolution. Of course you are reduced to including individuals like Owen, who abused the scientific method and plagiarised the work of others; I can't say that I really care what the opinion of a dishonest slime-ball like Owen was.
Other than that, most of the individuals you cite were very much Old Earth, so I fail to see how you can use them to back up your argument; they disagreed you Arphy. They also died before compelling evidence for evolution, such as the discovery of genetics, came to light.
You have cited a tiny handful of long-dead voices raised against the overwhelming majority of scientists. I don't find that very impressive. When more than 99% of relevant (and, y'know, living) experts are against your pet theory, that should probably be taken as a hint that you're not on the right tracks.
These people opposed evolution because there was no evidence for it even though it became popular to believe in evolution.
Do you really believe that fantasy? Do you honestly imagine that an entire scientific discipline was convinced of the correctness of an idea by FASHION!? Science is not a popularity contest you know. What do you imagine all those geologists and biologists do all day?
Genesis has been tested to see if the evidence fits, and it does!
I like you! You're funny!
Please start a thread with that title, I'm begging you...
But anyway the verse I used asks us to search the scriptures to see if teachings by people are in agreement with scripture. Evolution clearly is not in agreement so I don't know how people can believe in both.
Quite easily. They believe that Genesis was not intended as an all-knowing, historically and scientifically accurate account of creation. Rather, they see it as an allegorical and poetic account. That leaves no real conflict to trouble them. Now that may not work for me and it may not work for you, but millions of Christian believers find it perfectly satisfying and they have a long tradition of non-literal interpretation on their side.
In addition, many people are quite all right with the idea that the Bible contains errors. This is because... it contains errors. Lots of them. big ones, little ones, important ones, trivial ones... To escape from this problem the Christian is left with two basic choices;
a) Engage in endless and torturous interpretations and re-interpretations of Bible passages, explaining that when the authors said that, they didn't really mean it, they meant something else...
b) Simply accept that whilst the Bible may have been inspired by God, it was written by men, fallible men who make mistakes. They wrote of the world in a way that was easy for them to understand. Unfortunately, since they knew nothing of science, they understood very little of the world. Non-literalist Christians are fine with this. They regard the important message of the Bible as being spiritual, not a science primer.
There is also the dilemma of whether to believe the Bible or to believe the evidence in front of one's own eyes. Most people find it difficult to believe a millennia-old book above reality and quite right too. I have no idea why anyone would even want to.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 10:21 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Arphy, posted 09-06-2009 5:53 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 45 of 83 (522892)
09-06-2009 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Arphy
09-06-2009 5:53 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Hey,
These guys ...
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.
This has often happened in the history of science and often the minority view was found to be correct after all.
But yours was the majority view. Evolution and an old Earth both started out as minority views. Give me just one example of the widespread majority view dwindling into obscurity only to rise once more to prominence after a century or more. Just one...
Maybe, but interpretive philosophies can be.
Except that the ToE is a scientific theory, with all the weight of evidence that implies. You can pretend that it is an "interpretive philosophy" if you find that comforting, but it won't make it true.
I'm not saying that scientist don't carry out experiments, take measurements, etc in an honest fashion. I just have a problem with many interpretations of the finds that they make.
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 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.
However, if evidence supports that this book is not myth but divinely inspired by the creator of the universe. Then yes, I'd rather be on the side of somebody who was there when the world was made, rather than rely on people interpreting the past based on what they can see in the here and now.
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.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Arphy, posted 09-06-2009 5:53 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 7:53 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 59 by Arphy, posted 09-07-2009 7:20 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 48 of 83 (522898)
09-06-2009 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by jaywill
09-06-2009 7:53 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 7:53 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 9:01 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 50 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 9:08 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 52 of 83 (522908)
09-06-2009 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by jaywill
09-06-2009 9:01 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
*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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 9:01 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 5:47 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 54 of 83 (522945)
09-06-2009 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by jaywill
09-06-2009 5:47 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 5:47 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 10:43 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 63 of 83 (522985)
09-07-2009 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by jaywill
09-06-2009 10:43 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Oh dear. I had hoped, in the face of previous experience to the contrary, that there was a possibility of a sensible dialogue with you. I can see now that I was over optimistic.
You know full well what the facts are; I have already presented them. Now if you dispute those facts, please, by all means, pull up a thread and dispute them. You will be, in effect, disputing the entirety of the geologic record, but feel free.
What I am not willing to do is play silly and childish games with you. You have had your facts. Now dispute them properly or withdraw gracefully.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 10:43 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 64 of 83 (522987)
09-07-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Arphy
09-07-2009 7:20 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
No it wasn't a comprehensive list.
No, but why bother with lists anyway? As you are aware, there are only a vanishingly tiny handful of young Earth geologists out there. Science does not depend on appeals to authority, so I see little point in lists like yours.
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.
Great. That's something we can get our teeth into. What concerns? When were they voiced and by who? What evidence can you present to show that they were in fact right?
This would make a great thread in itself, where we could discuss it to our hearts content, without being as off-topic as we are here.
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.
It's just that in many instances they will interpret evidence in the light of their worldview.
Great. Again, this is something we can get stuck into.
What evidence has been misinterpreted? How so? How was it affected by the researchers worldviews? What evidence do you have that contradicts the mainstream interpretation?
It is all very well saying "They misinterpret the data!". What you must do in order to be taken seriously is demonstrate to us exactly where these errors occur.
However their extrapolations are often very fanciful.
Fanciful;
Not Fanciful;
Joking aside, how much science experience do you have Arphy? Exactly how well placed do you think you are to sit in judgement over entire fields of study? Do you hold any expertise in geology at all? I kinda doubt it...
Nonetheless, you seem to imagine that you understand scientific pursuits about which you know nothing, better than those who have studied for years to gain a high degree of expertise and who actively engage with the science every day of their professional lives.
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.
I'm not saying that, not exactly. But ask yourself this; what is more likely? That an entire profession of extremely intelligent and highly educated scientists is mistaken (and all with the same mistake) or that you, with your no-expertise-at-all are misinformed?
The truth is that you have no basis upon which to criticise something about which you know nothing.
Granny writes:
upon a sober analysis of the text, there is little reason to believe that the Old Testament history has any validity.
Arphy writes:
or so you have been told.
So I have demonstrated above. I have clearly shown that reality differs from what Genesis claims. If you have a valid objection to that, please go ahead and present it. If not, perhaps you might like to give some serious thought to the idea that your precious Bible might not as all-knowing as you were told.
In summary, I would encourage you to take some of your specific objections over scientific claims to the appropriate forum and start a thread to discuss them. Otherwise we are going to be reduced "Is not!"/"Is too!" style waffle. I would start a thread myself, but I'm going to be away over the next few days, looking for fossils. The fossils I'm after are around 37-40 million years old; perhaps you would like to dispute that!
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Arphy, posted 09-07-2009 7:20 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Arphy, posted 09-08-2009 7:13 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 75 of 83 (523665)
09-11-2009 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Arphy
09-08-2009 7:13 AM


Expertise and Opinion
Hi Arphy,
great, so will this stop the "Look i've got more of PhD scientists than you, so you're wrong" game that evolutionists like to play.
Let's be clear, the fact that over 99% of life scientists believe in evolution does not irrefutably demonstrate that evolution is true. But it is highly indicative. For the layman, this should be a wake up call. People with far greater expertise than you or I are sending out a very coherent message. What exactly do you think you have which trumps their expertise?
Although this subject (or at least some of the "errors") probably would have been covered many times on this forum already.
Yes, the usual creationist canards about "misinterpretation of evidence" and the like have been debunked here many times before. We're gluttons for punishment though. I would be interested to see an example of an alleged evolutionist misinterpretation.
Officially my highest science achievement is taking a number of Physics and Maths papers at university.
So in other words, you have no expertise in biology. How can you claim that this is anything other than a very poor basis upon which to stand against the weight of opinion of those with far greater expertise?
What about you?
I have no academic qualifications worth mentioning, but then I'm not the one who's claiming that 99% of scientists are wrong about their own field, whilst I am right.
Well, as with my last post it isn't about Me vs the rest of the world. There are people "who have studied for years to gain a high degree of expertise and who actively engage with the science every day of their professional lives" who believe what I believe. And I feel i know enough to make an informed decision.
But why decide to take the side of those particular scientists? Why side with the minority? After all, if the reasons why the creation minority are correct are so elusive that they have eluded the overwhelming majority of scientists , they must be pretty obscure. What makes you think that you have been able to divine the correct answer, when so many other, ostensibly better qualified people, have failed?
What makes you side with them? I think we all know the answer. It is what you and all the Ph.D. scientists you might like to cite have in common; religion. You have simply chosen to side with the scientists who conform to your own religious dogmas. Science, evidence, alleged misinterpretations, they have nothing to do with it.
just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I know nothing about the subject.
I absolutely agree. My opinion is unimportant.
What is important though is the consensus opinion of a large number of highly educated experts who speak with the weight of a huge body of knowledge. Such an opinion cannot be easily dismissed. I think that if you want to demonstrate that the basis upon which you dismiss it is sound, you need to actively demonstrate what knowledge you do have. I would be very interested to hear some of the specific issues you have with evolutionary science and where you think the experts have got it so wrong.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Arphy, posted 09-08-2009 7:13 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024