Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible acceptable?
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 31 of 111 (457878)
02-26-2008 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
02-25-2008 5:56 PM


PaulK writes:
Evolution IS science.
Creation is a science just as much as evolution is a science.
People who doubt take the time to check - they do the work, to try to get it right. That's what Darwin did.
Well Darwin didn't really start to doubt until after he took the time to check.
People who have huge faith in their own ideas - like many creationists - don't bother to check and often get things very badly wrong.
Things are not necessarily wrong because they are not checked (I'm not advocating not checking things). But for the creationist, their faith is not in their own ideas, but God. They recognize that faith in God is far superior to their own ability to make sense of the world around them. That shows humility. They doubt in their own ideas just as much as evolutionists do theirs. The difference being that creationists do not pursue their doubts, but have faith in God.
You doubt in evolution... You also doubt in creation... but for some reason you choose to only pursue evolution.
Back to my original point, the Bible is just as valid to science in explaining creationism as a scientific theory, as Darwin is to explaining evolutionary theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2008 5:56 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2008 1:55 AM graft2vine has not replied
 Message 33 by Granny Magda, posted 02-26-2008 10:29 AM graft2vine has not replied
 Message 34 by ramoss, posted 02-26-2008 12:53 PM graft2vine has not replied
 Message 35 by Larni, posted 02-26-2008 2:40 PM graft2vine has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 111 (457882)
02-26-2008 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by graft2vine
02-26-2008 1:29 AM


quote:
Creation is a science just as much as evolution is a science.
No, it's not. It's pretty obvious that creationism is a religious position.
quote:
Well Darwin didn't really start to doubt until after he took the time to check.
Can you produce any evidence for this ? I doubt it. Darwin had doubts from the start, that's why he did the huge amount of work he did.
quote:
Things are not necessarily wrong because they are not checked (I'm not advocating not checking things).
Of course I am not saying that. What I am saying is that if you don't bother to find out the facts you will often be wrong. Creationists place a good deal of unwarranted faith in themselves.
quote:
But for the creationist, their faith is not in their own ideas, but God. They recognize that faith in God is far superior to their own ability to make sense of the world around them. That shows humility.
By which you mean that they have the "humility" to say that God must do as they say He did. They don't allow for the possibility that their beliefs about God might be wrong.
quote:
They doubt in their own ideas just as much as evolutionists do theirs. The difference being that creationists do not pursue their doubts, but have faith in God.
In my experience that simply isn't true. Firstly many of their errors aren't even directly based on their religious belief (for example the creationist who claimed that the Scopes trial was about getting a special place for evolution, before it was accepted by the scientific community). Then there are their errors about what the Bible says. Then there are all the differing views within creationism - are we to take it that God can't make up his mind on what happened or is it that creationists are following their own ideas even there ?
quote:
You doubt in evolution... You also doubt in creation... but for some reason you choose to only pursue evolution.
I choose to follow the truth - or as close as we can get. Science is a good guide to that. Discredited religions are not - and nor is the self-worship that underlies creationism.
quote:
Back to my original point, the Bible is just as valid to science in explaining creationism as a scientific theory, as Darwin is to explaining evolutionary theory.
Your point is obviously wrong. The Bible is not a work of science. The Origin of Species is. It may be old and in many respects outdated - the mere fact that that is recognised shows that your arguments about faith in Darwin are inaccurate - but it still is a work of science. And it is useful for describing the theory of evolution because it is a landmark work in that field (not because of the author). It is not myth and legend as the sections of the Bible creationists insist on taking more or less literally are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by graft2vine, posted 02-26-2008 1:29 AM graft2vine has not replied

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


Message 33 of 111 (457915)
02-26-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by graft2vine
02-26-2008 1:29 AM


If I may but in with my two cents worth...
Hi there, graft2vine and may I say that those grapes look superb! I only wish they grew that well around my neck of the woods.
PaulK has already answered you fairly thoroughly, but I would like to comment on the last two lines of your post.
You doubt in evolution... You also doubt in creation... but for some reason you choose to only pursue evolution.
Sorry, but that just isn't true. Scientists pursued creationism from the birth of science to the late nineteenth century, only to find it lacking.
Many creationists have come in here with their pet theories of why creation is true or why evolution is impossible. Every time one of the more plausible of the these theories is posted I get a little twinge of doubt. Could it be right? Often, they sound superficially quite convincing to a layman such as myself. So I go and check it out. I check the evidence, read the sources and compare the theory to alternative explanations. I'm not the only one of course, many people on this board have been doing this for years.
So, how many of these creationist arguments stand up to scrutiny? None. Not one. Nada, nil, zilch, zero.
If you would like to challenge this idea with your own favourite piece of evidence, go ahead, start a thread on it. I promise to approach it with as open a mind as I can muster.
Back to my original point, the Bible is just as valid to science in explaining creationism as a scientific theory, as Darwin is to explaining evolutionary theory.
I kind of agree with that. The Bible is relevant to creationism, just not biology.
Consideration of the Bible is essential to understanding why so many people are willing to cast aside rationality and embrace superstition.
What the Bible is very bad at is explaining what is observed in the field by biologists. Who would you trust more as an authority on bats? A biologist who has spent years studying bats, making thousands of observations about their behaviour and anatomy, who has tagged them, tracked them, caught them, recorded them, weighed them and surveyed them, or the Bible, which implies that a bat is a bird?

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by graft2vine, posted 02-26-2008 1:29 AM graft2vine has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 34 of 111 (457938)
02-26-2008 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by graft2vine
02-26-2008 1:29 AM


quote:
Creation is a science just as much as evolution is a science.
And how is that? What kind of predictions can 'Creation' make? What kind of information would falsifiy 'creation'. How can Creation be 'tested'?
What does 'creation' explain at all?
As a book about "Creation" , taking Genesis as literal, 'Creation' has been falsified. The world was not formed in 6 days. There was not 'Adam and Eve' , and the idea there was a world wide flood is falsified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by graft2vine, posted 02-26-2008 1:29 AM graft2vine has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 35 of 111 (457955)
02-26-2008 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by graft2vine
02-26-2008 1:29 AM


graft2vine writes:
Creation is a science just as much as evolution is a science.
graft2vine writes:
the Bible is just as valid to science in explaining creationism as a scientific theory
This is rubbish.
Show how creation and the bible is science or retract your woefully foolish assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by graft2vine, posted 02-26-2008 1:29 AM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by graft2vine, posted 02-27-2008 12:07 AM Larni has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 36 of 111 (458057)
02-27-2008 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Larni
02-26-2008 2:40 PM


Larni writes:
Show how creation and the bible is science or retract your woefully foolish assertion.
Being confronted by a satanic looking dude and the barrel of a gun, I will most certainly retract my foolishness.
Seriously though. Within the Bible there are both supernatural and natural elements. Creation in itself is supernatural, so science which studies only the natural can have nothing to say about it. But other elements within the creation model are natural, such as "kind after kind" which can be proven through science.
Any time you make an observation or statement about the natural world, it can be looked at scientifically. The natural elements within the creation model are studied as creation science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Larni, posted 02-26-2008 2:40 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 02-27-2008 1:29 AM graft2vine has not replied
 Message 38 by Larni, posted 02-27-2008 4:55 AM graft2vine has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 37 of 111 (458061)
02-27-2008 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by graft2vine
02-27-2008 12:07 AM


quote:
Any time you make an observation or statement about the natural world, it can be looked at scientifically. The natural elements within the creation model are studied as creation science.
Looking at them scientifically would not include assuming that they are unquestionably true - no matter what the evidence shows or assuming that they mean what you want them to mean). In fact it would require rejecting both approaches
For instance the "kind after kind" in the BIble quite likely refers to the folk-concept of species - that there are different types of animals and that they breed true. There's no evidence that it refers to significantly larger taxonomic divisions which humans would be expected to make or that it refers to a limit on evolution (indeed, the actual statement is quite compatible with evolutionary theory since if it ruled out all differences between parent and offspring it would be false). Indeed creationists have not even come up with a scientific way of identifying one of their invented "kinds".
Creationists therefore have invented their own idea - which is not in the Bible and is not supported by science. Thank you for choosing an example which so clearly shows that crreationism is not only not science. It also shows how creationists "humbly" put their "faith" in God - by putting their words in His mouth in an attempt to convince the gullible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by graft2vine, posted 02-27-2008 12:07 AM graft2vine has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 38 of 111 (458076)
02-27-2008 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by graft2vine
02-27-2008 12:07 AM


So you are saying that the bible is acceptable as science because of the concept of 'kinds'?
100 virtual if you can define 'kinds' for me in a way that matches observed reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by graft2vine, posted 02-27-2008 12:07 AM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by autumnman, posted 02-27-2008 10:35 AM Larni has replied
 Message 40 by graft2vine, posted 02-27-2008 11:31 AM Larni has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 39 of 111 (458113)
02-27-2008 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Larni
02-27-2008 4:55 AM


No disbelief; No power of reason
Dear Creationists; let's resolve these issues:
When a human being suspends disbelief and abandons the mental faculty of reason, for that person anything is possible. It is very difficult to have a rational discussion with such an individual.
The English Holy Bible and the two very different creation accounts found at the beginning of that Scripture comprise the only source of the Creationist’s concept of life originating on planet earth.
Based on the second creation account of the English Bible the Creationist believes that human beings originated from one immortal, androgynous, human-like being {orthodox: Adam). An individual “woman” {orthodox: Eve} was supposedly built from “Adam.” A talking serpent then supposedly tricked “Eve” into partaking of the knowledge of good and evil, which she gives also to “Adam,” thus breaking God’s command. This causes God to expel “Adam & Eve” from the Garden of Eden, an act {orthodox: The Fall} that causes mortality, i.e. death, to enter the world. Pauline Christianity is founded upon this second myth-like creation account (see, Romans 5:12”14).
The Hebrew version of this second creation account, however, does not support the Greek & English translations of the Heb. Tanakh {Old Testament).
Furthermore, this myth-like version of the second creation account does not correspond with the first creation account. Whereas the second creation account expressed in the English Holy Bible asserts that “Adam”, i.e. a man, created mortal existence on planet earth by disobeying God’s command, the first creation account states that God created mortal existence on planet earth, blessed it, and said to it, “Go forth and multiply” {see, Gen. 1:22 & 28). In the first creation account the plants and trees are brought into being on the third day of creation, and humanity is brought into being on the sixth day of creation. According to the second creation account, however, the plants, herbs, and tree come into being at the same time the human archetype.
For those Creationists who have indeed suspended their disbelief and abandoned their mental power of reason, we really need to resolve these issues in your Holy Bible before we begin discussing the scientific merits of the Bible or attempt to teach Creationism to our children.
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Larni, posted 02-27-2008 4:55 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Larni, posted 02-27-2008 12:41 PM autumnman has not replied
 Message 43 by graft2vine, posted 02-27-2008 12:43 PM autumnman has not replied
 Message 45 by iano, posted 02-27-2008 12:52 PM autumnman has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 40 of 111 (458116)
02-27-2008 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Larni
02-27-2008 4:55 AM


Larni writes:
100 virtual if you can define 'kinds' for me in a way that matches observed reality.
The definition for kind is very simple. Here is how Blue Letter Bible defines it:
quote:
Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved”not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".
In other words, a parent and their offspring are the same kind. This is what I have always thought of species as, but species does not make that distinction about ancestrial gene pool, just if they can produce furtile offspring.
So It depends on your evolutionary view. If you believe everything evolved from the same single celled organism, then all life is the same kind. If you believe in creation though, then kind is the same as species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Larni, posted 02-27-2008 4:55 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by autumnman, posted 02-27-2008 11:50 AM graft2vine has replied
 Message 44 by Larni, posted 02-27-2008 12:46 PM graft2vine has replied
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 02-27-2008 2:20 PM graft2vine has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 41 of 111 (458121)
02-27-2008 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by graft2vine
02-27-2008 11:31 AM


I have a couple questions:
Were these biblical "kinds" mortal or immortal creatures when God told the waters, heavens, and earth to bring them forth (Gen. 1:20 & 24)?
How does this first creation account correspond to the second creation account?
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by graft2vine, posted 02-27-2008 11:31 AM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by graft2vine, posted 02-27-2008 1:13 PM autumnman has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 42 of 111 (458126)
02-27-2008 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by autumnman
02-27-2008 10:35 AM


Re: No disbelief; No power of reason
Did you mean to reply specifically to me?
If not you can use the General Reply button on the lower left at the end of the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by autumnman, posted 02-27-2008 10:35 AM autumnman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by graft2vine, posted 02-27-2008 12:53 PM Larni has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 43 of 111 (458128)
02-27-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by autumnman
02-27-2008 10:35 AM


Re: No disbelief; No power of reason
autumnman writes:
In the first creation account the plants and trees are brought into being on the third day of creation, and humanity is brought into being on the sixth day of creation. According to the second creation account, however, the plants, herbs, and tree come into being at the same time the human archetype.
I think you will enjoy this thread: http://EvC Forum: Adam was created on the 3rd day -->EvC Forum: Adam was created on the 3rd day
Toward the end we kind of reach an impass, not much more to add, but I'd be interested in any fresh thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by autumnman, posted 02-27-2008 10:35 AM autumnman has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 44 of 111 (458129)
02-27-2008 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by graft2vine
02-27-2008 11:31 AM


So you could point to an 'ancesteral gene pool' and say this kind is distinct from that kind?
Where for art thou, distinct ancesteral gene pools?
So to claim you 100 virtual you need to identify these hypothesised distinct ancesteral gene pools aloowing us to identify kinds in a systematic way.
The clock starts now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by graft2vine, posted 02-27-2008 11:31 AM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by graft2vine, posted 02-27-2008 1:02 PM Larni has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 45 of 111 (458131)
02-27-2008 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by autumnman
02-27-2008 10:35 AM


Re: No disbelief; No power of reason
autumnman writes:
When a human being suspends disbelief and abandons the mental faculty of reason, for that person anything is possible. It is very difficult to have a rational discussion with such an individual.
Agreed.
-
Based on the second creation account of the English Bible the Creationist believes that human beings originated from one immortal, androgynous, human-like being {orthodox: Adam). An individual “woman” {orthodox: Eve} was supposedly built from “Adam.” A talking serpent then supposedly tricked “Eve” into partaking of the knowledge of good and evil, which she gives also to “Adam,” thus breaking God’s command. This causes God to expel “Adam & Eve” from the Garden of Eden, an act {orthodox: The Fall} that causes mortality, i.e. death, to enter the world. Pauline Christianity is founded upon this second myth-like creation account (see, Romans 5:12”14).
We could quibble over details but thats a good enough summary. Given a belief in God none of this should cause a person to stumble.
-
Furthermore, this myth-like version of the second creation account does not correspond with the first creation account. Whereas the second creation account expressed in the English Holy Bible asserts that “Adam”, i.e. a man, created mortal existence on planet earth by disobeying God’s command, the first creation account states that God created mortal existence on planet earth, blessed it, and said to it, “Go forth and multiply” {see, Gen. 1:22 & 28).
I'm not sure I understand. Mortality involves dying. Death coming in through disobedience is not the same as life coming in through reproduction. Man bringing about one through sin and the other through sex is not a contradiction.
-
In the first creation account the plants and trees are brought into being on the third day of creation, and humanity is brought into being on the sixth day of creation. According to the second creation account, however, the plants, herbs, and tree come into being at the same time the human archetype.
From apologeticspress
quote:
Genesis 1 and 2 are said to contradict each other in the relative creation-order of plants and man. In chapter 1, it is argued, plants were created on the third day of the initial week (11-12), and man was made on the sixth day (26ff.), whereas in chapter 2, plants and herbs seem not to appear until after the formation of man (5ff.). The real problem exists only in the mind of the critic. There are possible means by which to resolve the alleged difficulty.
Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? - Apologetics Press
-
A couple of possibilities are examined in the article pertaining to this "contradiction". Here's one.
quote:
In Genesis 1:11-12 vegetation in general is under consideration, but in Genesis 2:5ff. the writer is discussing the specific sort of vegetation that requires human cultivation. It has been observed “that the words rendered plant, field, and grew, never occur in the first chapter; they are terms expressive of the produce of labour and cultivation; so that the historian evidently means that no cultivated land and no vegetables fit for the use of man were yet in existence on the earth” (Browne, 1981, 1:39, emp. in orig.).
-
For those Creationists who have indeed suspended their disbelief and abandoned their mental power of reason, we really need to resolve these issues in your Holy Bible before we begin discussing the scientific merits of the Bible or attempt to teach Creationism to our children.
Hopefully you will begin to see that it is the application of reason that permits a person to render the creation accounts harmonious. And that a talking snake should be no more difficult for God to bring about than a talking human.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : change morality to mortality

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by autumnman, posted 02-27-2008 10:35 AM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by autumnman, posted 02-27-2008 1:47 PM iano has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024