Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 5:46 PM
23 online now:
edge, PaulK, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, Tangle (5 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,642 Year: 3,679/19,786 Month: 674/1,087 Week: 43/221 Day: 14/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Debate - Ongoing controversy, the EvC question
bkwusa
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 40 (5043)
02-18-2002 11:56 PM


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The ongoing controversy between Creation and Evolution will never be resolved; it can not be resolved, regardless of the well intended efforts of many on either side of the debate, or in between. But, it is a necessary evil which keeps people "shook-up" enough to dig in and really study the matter just to settle the argument in their own hearts. Isn't that why YOU are here reading this? You see, the real issue between evolutionists and creationists is not the existence of God. The real issue is whether all things were created by the Hebrew God of the Holy Bible and according to a designed purpose. The authority of the Bible and the moral issue of personal accountability to God is the root of all contention in that debate.

A true born again Christian, who is also a scientist, cannot be fully objective in a empirical perspective, in dealing with the question of origins. The acceptance of God's word on matters of original sin and supernatural agency hold us accountable to a higher interpretive system; a system which has no place of welcome in the institutional physical sciences of the world. No amount of compromise will be acceptable, to either the naturalists or creationist extremes of each respective school. That being said, please do not misunderstand. A lot of good knowledge emerges from the practice of good science and the scientific method, and there are a lot of good Christians who are scientists. But when it comes to matters of origins and the things of God, natural science (without God) is out of it's depth in providing the full truth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
this is from http://www.kjvbible.org Science and Scripture; Geology and Genesis

thought someone might be interested


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by bkwusa, posted 02-19-2002 12:02 AM bkwusa has not yet responded
 Message 4 by toff, posted 02-20-2002 8:03 AM bkwusa has not yet responded
 Message 8 by coledude, posted 05-13-2004 7:09 AM bkwusa has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-17-2004 8:08 PM bkwusa has not yet responded

  
bkwusa
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 40 (5046)
02-19-2002 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkwusa
02-18-2002 11:56 PM


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the present, it needs to be stressed that everything that has happened on the earth throughout the planet's history can not be explained by only the natural laws. From the beginning of time when the earth was first created (Genesis 1:1), across the geologic ages to the destruction of the ancient world order (Genesis 1:2) and through the regeneration of the heavens and earth in the six-literal days (Genesis 1:3 - 31), there was both natural and supernatural agencies at work, at different times in Earth's history. The possibility of the latter agency, however, is not accepted into the formulation of any secular theory of origins.

Armed with only the observations of current and historical geologic processes and other empirical data, and assuming natural history has been a continuum across billions of years, the present secular paradigms of geological and evolutionary theory are about the best that the carnal mind of man could be expected to conceive from the available physical evidence. Even so, those theories are incomplete and many questions and mysteries remain unresolved, especially in relation to the origins of mankind.

Noah's flood and Divine creative intervention by a Holy God is not factored into the world's accepted origins model, because God can't be observed or quantified in a physical system or seen under a microscope, although the results of His work can be observed and quantified. For these reasons there is an unbridgeable gap between Empirical Science and the Christian faith in respect to both Creation and Noah's flood. Empirical Science is the pursuit of quantifiable facts and repeatable observations and is limited to the physical sphere of reality. From this purely physical perspective the geological evidence appears to indicate that this planet and the life on it are the result of natural processes over time, and that the existence of all life forms and extinctions must be credited to a natural process of random mutations and selection by nature itself. In such a paradigm of interpretation, the researcher's faith is in a theory or synthesis of theories which seems to best fit the observations. But the Bible reveals that life on this planet has not been a continuum, that all life and the ancient world finally perished about 12,000 or so years ago (i.e. at the Younger Dryas paleoclimate marker) Consequently, belief in Creation and faith in the Bible are beyond the secular paradigm, because the truth of the Scriptures provides additional considerations which facilitate a more perfect interpretation of the available geologic evidence.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
forgat the part above it


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 11:56 PM bkwusa has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by lbhandli, posted 02-19-2002 12:07 AM bkwusa has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 02-21-2002 11:14 AM bkwusa has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 40 (5050)
02-19-2002 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by bkwusa
02-19-2002 12:02 AM


You are new here, so don't take this as a strong admonition, but a nice reminder. It is highly preferred that you don't simply paste information from a source with no comment on it.

Thanks,
Larry


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by bkwusa, posted 02-19-2002 12:02 AM bkwusa has not yet responded

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 40 (5148)
02-20-2002 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkwusa
02-18-2002 11:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by bkwusa:

Sorry, I have to disagree...the conflict between evolution and creationism WILL be resolved, just like all the other conflicts between science and religion have been. Eventually, the fanatics who refuse to accept evidence die out or are forced to recant, and science triumphs, often after a considerable period of time and, quite possibly, some bloodshed. It happened to Galileo; something similar is happening/has happened to Darwin. But eventually creationists will either die out or be forced to acknowledge the truth; then, we'll talk about creationists like we now talk about people who refused to acknowledge the heliocentric universe because they thought it contradicted their religious beliefs. In other words, we'll laugh at them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 11:56 PM bkwusa has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-20-2002 12:08 PM toff has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5657 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 5 of 40 (5161)
02-20-2002 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by toff
02-20-2002 8:03 AM


quote:

we'll talk about creationists like we now talk about people who refused to acknowledge the heliocentric universe because they thought it contradicted their religious beliefs. In other words, we'll laugh at them.

I do hope you will not laugh at all those who refused to acknowledge the heliocentric universe. Galileo, like Darwin, has indeed been vindicated by subsequent observation and a tenable theoretical base - but do remember that in his day Galileo was making observations with rare, expensive equipment with known flaws at the cutting edge of technology. There were sound reasons to doubt his observations - after all, his observations of Saturn turned out to be wrong. In addition the observations took time to duplicate and the equipment available made even confirmations unreliable.

But you're right - it is a satisfying irony that creationism will eventually fade or evolve into another more tenable position. Rather like that other irony of this debate: that the text of The Origin of Species is a work of special creation and the text of Bible the result of evolution.

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-20-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by toff, posted 02-20-2002 8:03 AM toff has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by joz, posted 02-20-2002 12:13 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 40 (5163)
02-20-2002 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mister Pamboli
02-20-2002 12:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Rather like that other irony of this debate: that the text of The Origin of Species is a work of special creation and the text of Bible the result of evolution.

LOL

But wasn`t the bible IDed? After all it contains complex specified information and Dembskis filter says that all CSI is designed...... *wink*

(Just exercising my sarcastic muscle Mr P.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-20-2002 12:08 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 40 (5220)
02-21-2002 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by bkwusa
02-19-2002 12:02 AM


It seems to me that the only "issue" that can be debated, meaning that a outcome final one way or the other and not a polemic is the resultant is if someone is going to offer the world a new statistical theory that can move the equilibrium than the one currently under research by evolutionists. But this organization is too loose in the details to give the blue print back of one cell that it would have to be moving in a line that Newton considered to require the "divine Arm". This can be simply denied by evolutionists from a philosophy but as such is no bulwork to pragmatism found.

If one means that there will always be "two" sides I do not understand what this means for I enter the debate as a debate and not as the tension that results during debate. That people will not be forced into believe in GOD by nations seems the norm now rather than the rarities from which the statistical distribution was formed but to say one has all the theology on this seems infinitely premature (hence authority of Catholic CHURCH) as no one philosphically has expressed Cantors Math in a statistical deviation or miracle of providence this Arm of science Could supply the economy should the inifity transverse wise be clearly differentiated from light which It in truth might not.

But even with respect to the light, there is possible progress in giving more time to the use of mendelian "mechanism" in expts with living things by logic but again that would not say how the origin is/was and will only give a better predicative capability (if that) admitted in the small and the large that may be an Other line than Newton considered out set theory but most secular workers are not sensitive enough to make much progress in this Sholium (not Treatise)than seeking a compatiblilty with the Church in the sitting in good behavior also needed should the debate itself rest. May God save us.

That there can be peace in this world I do believe and that any threats can be adjudicated in time we all hold in common (1925 trial envirnoment need not be this "common") I can only hope.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by bkwusa, posted 02-19-2002 12:02 AM bkwusa has not yet responded

    
coledude
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 40 (107841)
05-13-2004 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkwusa
02-18-2002 11:56 PM


I am new to posting on this forum, but I have been reading it for a couple of weeks. Some of you are right, this debate will eventually be ended but not how you seem to think. It will not end with evolution triumphing, but with God triumphing. Anyone who says that Christians can't be objective scientists doesn't know what science is. Science depends upon certain things being true. If nothing is true, then science is meaningless because nothing can be measured, and even if it could be measured, the measurements would have no meaning. The only way science can work is with God creating everything. Many of the great scientists were either Christians or came to the conclusion that God must exist (Newton, Galileo, Einstein etc.). Also the Catholic Church hasn't really fit the Biblical definition of Christianity since the council of Nicaea so using Galileo as an example of Christians fighting science doesn't work.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 11:56 PM bkwusa has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 05-13-2004 8:48 AM coledude has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Sylas, posted 05-13-2004 10:38 AM coledude has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 05-13-2004 12:24 PM coledude has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 40 (107853)
05-13-2004 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by coledude
05-13-2004 7:09 AM


This is terribly OT for a Great Debate topic, but what the hell?

Anyone who says that Christians can't be objective scientists doesn't know what science is.

Nobody that I'm aware of says Christians can't do science. Persons of all faiths or none are welcome in the scientific brother/sisterhood.

But like all scientists, they must cling to scientific methodologies. That stipulates:

1) that theories be falsifiable
2) that all relevant evidence be considered
3) that findings be submitted to peer review

among other things. Creationists, on the other hand, promote "theories" that are universally unfalsifiable, reject evidence that conflicts with their a priori conclusion (that the Bible is inerrant), and never submit to the peer review process.

Christians can be scientists, but creationists aren't scientists because creationism isn't science, it's dogma.

Many of the great scientists were either Christians or came to the conclusion that God must exist

And those very same scientists, to a man, rejected the idea that the Bible was inerrant and literally true. Why do you suppose that was?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by coledude, posted 05-13-2004 7:09 AM coledude has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 05-13-2004 11:50 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 15 by almeyda, posted 05-13-2004 12:42 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 3340 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 10 of 40 (107882)
05-13-2004 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by coledude
05-13-2004 7:09 AM


Einstein's beliefs
Dreadfully off-topic and wrong forum and all that. Ah well.

coledude writes:


Many of the great scientists were either Christians or came to the conclusion that God must exist (Newton, Galileo, Einstein etc.).

Newton and Galileo were certainly Christians, but Einstein was agnostic... and atheistic with respect to a personal God.

Einstein had quite a lot to say on religion, and a great source of information is Arnold Lesikar's pages on Some of Einstein's Writings on Science and Religion.

Some of the brief quotes in the Short Quotations page give a flavour of his views. Quotes on this page are apparently taken from The Quotable Einstein, edited by Alice Calaprice.


Why do you write to me "God should punish the English"? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him. (1915)

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man.... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. (1936)

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment. (1950)

My feeling is religious insofar as I am imbued with tile consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand more deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature." (1952)

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion. (1954)

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God. (quoted in his obituary, 1955)

(Edit to add a subtopic title.)

This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-13-2004 09:42 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by coledude, posted 05-13-2004 7:09 AM coledude has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dr Jack, posted 05-13-2004 11:49 AM Sylas has not yet responded

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 11 of 40 (107886)
05-13-2004 10:50 AM


Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.

{I moved this topic to a better forum and added "Ongoing controvery, the EvC question" to the title.

Sylas was there a problem with your post above? (never mind, after I moved the thread your post showed as blank but with no edit message. After I edited this message and went back to the thread your post was fine again)- The Queen}

This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 05-13-2004 09:56 AM


AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 12 of 40 (107913)
05-13-2004 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Sylas
05-13-2004 10:38 AM


Re: Einstein's beliefs
Newton and Galileo were certainly Christians, but Einstein was agnostic... and atheistic with respect to a personal God.

Newton was a unitarian - he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. I'd argue that pretty much makes him not a Christian - it certainly makes him fundamentally opossed to the views of nearly all living Christians.

(and still off topic)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Sylas, posted 05-13-2004 10:38 AM Sylas has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 13 of 40 (107914)
05-13-2004 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
05-13-2004 8:48 AM


Christians can be scientists, but creationists aren't scientists because creationism isn't science, it's dogma.

Creationists can be scientists, there have been some very fine scientists who are creationists - although none in biology. What there cannot be is creation science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 05-13-2004 8:48 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 14 of 40 (107931)
05-13-2004 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by coledude
05-13-2004 7:09 AM


quote:
It will not end with evolution triumphing, but with God triumphing.

Hello, coledude. Welcome to EvC.

You may be right, here. I would not be surprised to see a totalitarian theocracy take power in here in the USA and then mercilessly liquidate those who don't accept their narrow dogma.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by coledude, posted 05-13-2004 7:09 AM coledude has not yet responded

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 40 (107941)
05-13-2004 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
05-13-2004 8:48 AM


Thats very interesting Crashfrog, Those rules seem to beonly for creationists to obey. Sounds like the rules of evolution & the rules of the game. Lets see.

1. Creation is very falsifiable. evolutionists point to there problems with it etc

2. Its a funny thing when Evolutionists discard evidence against evolution. Not because there is no evidence. But because it does not fit the evolutionary framework

3. Well unfortunately evolution has indoctrinated most scientific communities,schools,universities. So creationism is not accepted by the mainstream. Not because its not science but because they say its not science ohh and who could forget those great quotes from the book "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science" -

"There is no debate between the scientific community over wheather evolution occured, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occured" page 4

"Creation science is the idea that scienctific evidence can support a literal interpretation of Genesis..scientist have looked at the arguments and found they are not supported by verifiable data" page 9

Actually its because the evidence does not fit the framwork at all. You say creationists arent scientist because they reject all that is in conflict with theres well evolutionists do the exact damm thing!. Its just your bias that stops you from accepting there evidence and accepting evolutions theory. Nothing more nothing less!.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 05-13-2004 8:48 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 05-13-2004 12:50 PM almeyda has not yet responded
 Message 17 by MrHambre, posted 05-13-2004 1:16 PM almeyda has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Asgara, posted 05-13-2004 3:38 PM almeyda has not yet responded
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 05-13-2004 9:38 PM almeyda has not yet responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019