|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Design evidence # 177: male & female | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:Thanks, I appreaciate that. FYI, I was not insulting anyone (at least not intending to) by my "before God" question. I sincerely am curious as to the position each person has in this regard. I will also do my best to avoid insulting remarks, my apologies for any previous statements that weren't respectful. My interpretation of the bible is not hinging on miraculous. I take it on its word. Therefore if God said He created the cosmos and man, then I have no reason to doubt that.The story you presented is one I have heard before, and one that I agree with. If anything, it shows that we may not always get the answer the way we want it, because God's ways are higher than our ways. We cannot know the mind of God. Compared with Him we are like nothing, yet to Him we are worth dying for. You mention the bible being just a book, suggesting perhaps copying errors. Yet, I could easily find references to prove how incredibly accurate todays copies are, to the originals. I'm sure you know that as well. You speak of your pastor. Are you still attending church? There is another point I wish to illuminate. Repeatedly you have mentioned ID in relation to IC, however, I never made the assertion that my design examples were or were not in accordance with IC.It is my contention that regardless of IC, the complexity and functionality were in and of themselves, at the very least, an inference of design, based on logical conclusions from everyday life, where we infer design in many observed instances. This is obviously a debate forum, and as such, anything anyone says is going to be controverted by the opposing side. That said, I mentioned that I take God's word for what it says, and I do. The obvious response is that "science" doesn't agree with the age, for instance. And, within the christian community this is hotly debated.I have been on both sides of the fence, but when I dug deeper it became clear to me that an old world just doesn't fit with the evidence out there. That is just one example. My point is (whether it's clear or not, I don't know) that there's a conflict of interest with perhaps all parties involved. Evolutionary science depends on old ages, uniformitarionism, and arguably, a God-less universe. Therefore, any evidence "science" gathers that isn't in line with this paradigm, must get discarded or overlooked. So you can't tell me to "open my eyes to the fruits of science" (sorry I can't find your exact quote) because in a lot of areas in science, the bias towards to current paradigm does not allow for veracious investigation. It therefore comes down to one thing, in ALL our lives, and that is faith. We must all decide on which side of the fence we want to be. Because, no one can say for 100% certainty that they have all the facts, or that they know everything. The evidence that two scientists examine, can usually fit two different paradigms, depending on what assumptions you begin with. I have often said that evolutionists possess much greater faith than the creationist. Because you believe in spite of the unfathomable odds, and the evidence you see. We all have choices to make, I guess that's why I was curious what you would say on that final day. Hope this made some sense, it's getting late. Regards,S ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:Hi, and sorry about the delay. The bible teaches a lot of things, and one of them is the account of God's creation. This is then verified in other books of the bible, in both the old and new testament. eg. the Psalms, the book of Job and 2 Peter. Does that answer your question? (I better get my butt to bed so I'm not late for work ) Regards,S ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:The whole bible is the Word of God. God has communicated His message to all humans who read His word (the bible). The problem is not with God, but rather with the recipient of His message, as in those that reject it. "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31)
quote: "Creationists are often accused of trying to oppose science on purely theological terms. The argument usually contains a strong warning to remember the persecution of Galileo by the theologians of his own time. It continues, "History has proven that Galileo was correct and that the dogmatic religious authorities who opposed him were wrong." With one simple illustration, scientists warn that any interference in scientific ideas by religious people is tantamount to religious persecution."... "Ironically, the traditional beliefs that Galileo opposed ultimately belonged to Aristotle, not to biblical exegesis. Pagan philosophy had become interwoven with traditional Catholic teachings during the time of Augustine. Therefore, the Church's dogmatic retention of tradition was the major seat of controversy, not the Bible. It may also be noted that Pope Urban VIII was himself sympathetic to Galileo but was not willing to stand against the tide of controversy. In reality, the majority of persecution seemed to come from intellectual scientists whose monopoly of educational authority had been threatened. During Galileo's time, education was primarily dominated by Jesuit and Dominican priests."... "The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed Greek philosophy to influence its theology and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. We must hold strongly to Biblical doctrine which has been achieved through sure methods of exegesis. We must never be satisfied with dogmas built upon philosophic traditions."GALILEO - What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo? - ChristianAnswers.Net There are always two sides to every story.
quote:Where is this accusation coming from? ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
S:There are always two sides to every story.
Ip:Bull excrement.-------------------- There are not two sides to every story? Please show how this is bull excrement. Thanks,S ------------------Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:The answer to that is in that same article, today Evolutionism has become the "greek ideology", and dominates the system, see below: "In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles. In the sixteenth century, Christian theism was the prevailing philosophy and the Catholic Church dominated the educational system. Those, like Galileo, who dedicated themselves to diligently search for truth found themselves at the unmerciful hands of the authorities whose theories they threatened. In the twentieth century, however, the philosophy of naturalism has become dominant, and science occupies the position of influence. Again, we note that the majority (regardless of whether it is right or wrong) will persecute those who dare to dispute their "traditional" theories; today the questionable theory of evolution is being challenged."GALILEO - What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo? - ChristianAnswers.Net I think you would be wise to re-think your position. Incidentally, I'm curious about your motives behind studying IC and ID, you seem to have read alot of Demski and Behe, what is your goal? Regards,S ------------------Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:Could it be that believing in evolution leads a person to everlasting judgement in Hell, and thus the creationist, whose purpose it is to lead people to Christ, is doing everything they can to prevent more people from being misled by the greatest lie ever told? YES, I think so! ------------------------- Lvtrup, Sren, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), 469 pp. p. 422 I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary‘adaptation,’ ‘selection pressure,’ ‘natural selection,’ etc.thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we shall be able to make real progress in our understanding of evolution. I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
And then Sonnike will have to go answer to God for how he wasted his God-given intelligence by worshipping the simplistic interpretation of one of God's holy books instead of being observant of the world around him.
Ironically you are going to have to answer to God *why* you *didn't* see Him, in the "world around" you. S.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
Just to get back to the topic...
According to the Creation model God created male and female (humans & animals) and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Is that what we observe? yes.According to Creation there were two sexes created, is that what we observe? yes. According to Creation male and female were made to compliment each other and be attracted to each other, is that what we observe? yes. According to ToE there was one common ancestor and no specification as to how many sexes, why are there only two?According to ToE even *if* two sexes had evolved simultaneously, which is impossible, but for the sake of argument, assuming they "fit" and that their reproductive systems complimented each other (the details of which are so complex that that alone would blow the theory out of the water), they would have to *acquire* a desire for each other which is not a heritable trait and thus doesn't explain why men and women are attracted to each other. The observable facts *clearly* shout Creation Creation Creation. ------------------"We arrive at the truth, not by the reason only, but also by the heart." Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
"Olive trees produce olives.
you aren't saying the same thing. If you said "the bible says God made the olive tree. We see olive trees. This confirms that if God really did make the olive tree then our observation verifies that." That would be correct. Conversely, if the bible said that God made the olive tree, and we saw *no* olive trees, then we could very skeptical about the statements in the bible.The Bible says that olive trees produce olives. Therefore the Biblical model is correct." Can you smell the meaninglessness?Thus, when God said He made male and female, if we saw males, females, plus some *other* unknown sexual creature, plus yet some other unknown sexual creature, then we could be skeptical, but since we only see male and female, it confirms the biblical account. S. ------------------"We arrive at the truth, not by the reason only, but also by the heart." Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
Unfortunately for your "goddidit" assertion it's *not* "Goddidit", see post 95.Secondly, asexual reproduction makes perfect sense for certain scenarios and doesn't disprove anything about the biblical model. The problem would be if there were three or four different sexes, but there aren't. S. p.s. I've searched extensively and can't find anything on asexual vertebrate reproduction (ie. explanations), do you have any links handy?------------------ "We arrive at the truth, not by the reason only, but also by the heart." Blaise Pascal [This message has been edited by sonnikke, 03-19-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024