I am very certain about the authorship of the Bible
Thats fantastic! Could you be so kind as to share this bibliography with the rest of us? Please site all the authors and references so that I may verify them. "One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
No offense meant there, but it really is enforced in schools like nothing else.
I imagine it is, just like gravity, or Boyle's Law, or that George Washington was the first president of the US.
In other words it's "enforced" in schools because it's true (in that it's an accurate description of the history of life on earth) and schools are there to teach things that are true.
When I came to realize that old earth was theory and not fact I suddenly God came alive to me.
Evolution is both theory and fact. That evolution happened is a fact. The model we use to describe it is the theory. Just like gravity is both fact and theory - that gravity exists is fact. The math (the model) we use to make calculations about it is a theory.
I submit that this is because this evo god was to weak to capture your heart.
No, it's because there's no such things as gods, but that's neither here nor there. We're talking about evolution, not religion.
I did, however, qualify that by saying that my desires do not come before his plan.
Fine. So look at the world and see his plan - evolution through natural selection and random mutation. What's so hard about that? You keep saying that you won't let your desires about God dictate terms to him, but you won't put that into action. Why is that?
I am very certain about the authorship of the Bible.
As a matter of faith, or as evidence? If you take the authorship of the Bible on faith then we have nothing to talk about. If you take it from evidence then there's a number of people here who beg to differ. (I'm not qualified to debate the authroship of the bible, and after all, to me it doesn't matter - it can't be the word of God because there's no such thing as God.)
The fact that the authors of the Gospels and Epistles all (excepting John) eventually died horrible deaths in the defense of their stories is also overwhelming.
Not a fact. Not only are a number of the bible authors unknown, but the stories of their martyrdom are merely legend. Anyway, what would it matter? Every religion has martyrs. Why should I accept your martyrs as any more evidence for your beliefs than you accept other martyrs for other faiths'?
As a matter of fact I do believe that creation is a powerful revelation, but it is general revelation and can only reveal so much. The scriptures are specific revelation and God through our languages conveys much more specific ideas about himself.
So, you don't so much worship God as you worship the Bible. Isn't there a commandment against that? Idols, etc?
In truth evolution falls into this category because it cannot be categorically disproven.
To the contrary. There are a number of potential falsifications of evolutionary theory. For instance, if organisms did not inherit DNA from their parents, evolution would not be true. If cladograms inferred from genetic similarity had absolutely no correlation with fossil record stratiography, evolution would not be true. If natural selection never altered allele frequencies, evolution would not be true.
There's a number of conditions in which evolution would not be true. It's just that none of those conditions is true, so while evolution is falsifiable, it hasn't been falsified yet.
For this reason Origins is and always will be a pseudoscience
Origins is not evolution. Don't change the subject, please.
On biologists I still maintain that there are many brilliant scientists who believe in creation.
Show me some who have testable theories of creation. Show me some who have published peer-reviewed research involving models of creation.
There may be brilliant people involved in creation. Honestly the skill involved in many creationist deceptions demonstrates that. But the minute they leave the realms of falsifiable models, they've ceased to be scientists.
For the same reasons it can never be fully disproven.
I've given you several falsifications of evolution. I imagine that if you thought hard enough you could come up with more, yourself.
You're absurd response does not detract from the fact entire races have claimed to view him in the dead of day. It only distracts from the point.
No, it is the point. When people see God, they don't tend to see the same thing - or else they could agree on how many beards he has, for instance.
Whatever they're seeing, it's not God, because if it was, their accounts would be more similar.
If they can't answer basic questions about God, then how can they claim to have seen him?
Where we differ is that I believe that natural causes flow from God.
That's still true for the theistic evolutionist.
My whole point was that the church of the "Dark Ages" was not representative of the church.
No. But sociologically it's representative of what happens to science when you start thinking that the solution to every unsolved problem is God. Why solve any problem if the answer can always be God?
It claims to be the work of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter) through around 50 men over 1500 years. Quite the conspiracy, eh?
Claims of the Bible cannot be used to substantiate claims of the Bible. That's fallacious circular reasoning. After all I can write a hundred books that claim to be written by God or the Holy Spirit or Santa Claus, and support them the same way you support the Bible.
If you want to substantiate the Bible, you can't use the Bible to do it. Is that the sort of reasoning you think is going to get you far in the sciences?
I will continue to vouch for the moral integrity of my professors.
Fine, you can continue to vouch for the moral integrity for your professors as long as you’d like, but I wasn’t aware that I had attacked their moral integrity. However, I was at the presentation and will tell you flat out that the implication was made that evolutionary biologists are both atheists and proponents of abortion.
If you will not concede that you hold no biases on ToE I will respectfully diagree and not push the point any further.
I did not say that I have no bias towards the Theory of Evolution. What I said was that when scientists design and conduct experiments to test hypotheses, they show no bias towards reaching desired results. We don’t go into a project with preconceived conclusions. Can you make the same claim?
I asked you in my previous thread to explain how the students and professors at Cornerstone University define “Science” and also to do the same with the “Scientific Method”. So I repeat the question here…please, give us your definitions. In your reply to Crashfrog you put forth an argument that we have read at this forum many, many times. That being that ToE is like creationism because it too cannot be falsified. Crashfrog explained the absurdity of that argument already, so I won’t get into that. However, I’m thinking that once we read your definition of science and the scientific method, maybe we can see why you would make such a claim. So please, for once, don’t behave like so many of the other creationists at this site by avoiding answering some basic questions.
I am still not sure if i ascribe to the vapor canopy theory, i do not know enough about it, and it is after all just a theory.
No, Kodiak, the vapor canopy idea is not “just a theory”. There is NO vapor canopy theory! None. It is not a theory at all, Kodiak. I asked for your definition of science because as I continue to read your reply it is becoming evident to me that you really don’t know when something is scientific and when something is just a story.
...but then again I dont think ToE theories into things we cannot observe are empirical either.
You really need to go take a science class.
About Mt. Everest I have my own theories. After looking around I see that this theory is proposed by others as well.
As for Mt Everest and the flood…again, Kodiak, you have NO theories to explain how it may have become covered in water. Do you know what it takes before we in science refer to something as a theory? Apparently not. What you have are some ideas (not even hypotheses) as to what you (and maybe some others) think happened to explain a global flood.
As you know the flood would have been accompanied by a massive upheaval in the Earth's geology. The bible only describes hills before the Flood and it is plausible to believe that there were no mountains. If we could theoretically take a giant bulldozer and smooth out the Earth's crust, that would be sufficient to cover all the land with water. It is therefore a plausible theory that there were no mountains before the Flood and they were in fact a result of this massive change in the world's topography.
It is not at all plausible to propose that there were no mountains 4,000 years ago. It’s ridiculous and borders on the absurd (go talk to a practicing geologist about how mountains are formed). What is plausible is that the Bible does not mention mountains because the writers knew nothing of the Himalayas or any of the other large mountain chains throughout the World. But hey, it’s your fairly tale not mine. I will ask this of you however. Support it. Show me some scientific evidence that supports this claim. You cannot just claim that something is plausable and let it go at that. You need to support a claim as complex as the spontaneous formation of mountains with some sort of verifiable, scientific evidence.
You later state that no other culture speaks of a worldwide flood. This is the beautiful thing about he Flood account. It is substantiated by other cultures worldwide. While it has taken many forms they all obviously point to a worldwide flood.
No, Kodiak, your flood story is not supported by other cultures worldwide. Yes, other cultures also have flood stories, but many are vastly different from yours. Additionally, if your story is correct, then their stories cannot be correct. And if their stories are not correct then they cannot be used to corroborate your story. Can’t you see this? For example, how did all these other cultures write about the global flood if they themselves were (by your own account) killed in the flood? Do you not see the corner you have painted yourself into? You claim that your interpretation of your Bible is the correct interpretation. So isn’t it then also your claim that only Noah, his family, and 1500 animals (I’m still stunned by that number) survived the flood? So who is the Gilgamesh dude? Was he a stowaway on the ark? And did Chief Marerewana and his family tie their canoe along side Noah and his ark? Also, do the dates for these other floods coincide with the date for your flood? In order for you to use these as examples of evidence to support your flood, they would have had to occur at the same time. That is to say, they would all have to be telling a tale of the SAME flood. Wait…let me guess…your going tell me that these are all stories of the same global flood, but they are incorrect in that while it is true that the flood did occur, the portions of their stories about there being survivors are not true (other than the previous mentioned Noah et. al.). If this is anywhere near what you believe, then how did their stories get passed on? If the Arawak peoples of South America were wiped out in the global flood, who was left to pass on the myth? And if Marerewana and his family survived, then your flood story is wrong. Help me out here, which is true? I absolutely cannot wait to read your explanation for this one…but at the same time, I do not doubt for a second that you will have one.
I only have the time and energy to reply to one of your posts, because I am a fulltime student with a parttime job and I do happen to be taking science classes. All of them happen to be math science classes at this point. To FliesOnly: You are right, I do have an answer to you, but then again if I had a problem for you I am sure you would be quick to fix it as well. If you take the time to look you will realize that there are 100's of flood stories from hundreds of cultures. If this is not enough evidence for a flood for you then there never will be. You said that the stories conflict. For an answer to this you will have to go back to the Genesis account. What I am referencing is the tower of Babel. God gave men a mandate to go out into all the lands but they failed to do this. Instead they all stayed in one place and built a monument to themselves. This is known as the Tower of Babel. Because of this God gave them different langauges and sent them there own ways. This is why we have so many different cultures and languages to this day. Each person walked away knowning the story of Noah their ancestor. Each story was influenced by the culture subsequently developed. The stories do support each other. The real question is which one is most accurate. This is where faith comes into the picture. I believe that the history of the Bible was faithfully transmitted by the Holy Spirit.
I realize I am not going to change your mind. You won't change mine. So after this post I think I am done here. Thank you all for your input. Its been awhile since I've debated on the subject and you've all encouraged me to study harder, which I am going to do now. God Bless, Cody Knuppenburg