Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 11:44 AM
38 online now:
Diomedes, Faith, JoeT, ooh-child, RAZD, ringo, Tanypteryx (7 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,197 Year: 5,234/19,786 Month: 1,356/873 Week: 252/460 Day: 4/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Looking for Former Evolutionists who are now Creationists
nator
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 38 (23679)
11-22-2002 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tranquility Base
11-22-2002 5:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I think it was the basic goings on in the cell. He used to talk a lot about mitochondria. I'll ask him. I strongly suspect it was the 'big picture' (no pun intended) that he saw that dawned on him.

So maybe he can answer the question I have been asking for years and have never gotten an answer to. TB, can you ask him for me?

How do we tell the difference between an ID system and a natural one which we;

1) don't understand yet, or

2) don't have the ability to understand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-22-2002 5:53 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-22-2002 5:16 PM nator has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 25 of 38 (23683)
11-22-2002 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Admin
11-22-2002 8:21 AM


I think what happens, is that when one trys to post a message, and the other end does not seem to respond, one clicks on the "Submit Reply" button again.

Multiple clickings of the "Submit Reply" button results in multiple postings of the same message.

Moral of the story: One must be patient for things to happen, and not click "Submit Reply" more than once.

Adminnemooseus

------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Admin, posted 11-22-2002 8:21 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 38 (23774)
11-22-2002 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by nator
11-22-2002 8:58 AM


Schraf

It's not a black and white answer. As a scientist of course I understand that life works mechanistically. I know that there is no law of physics broken when a gene duplicates and drifts. Evolution is possible.

But the life on this planet is incredible. The most likely amnswer is creation. Since that realization God has witnesseed that to my heart in numerous ways. Thre is no proof.

Your point is a valid one. But I still believe God would tell you that you are kidding yourself when you doubt the validity of the design arguement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 11-22-2002 8:58 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 5:55 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 31 by nator, posted 11-27-2002 9:42 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4586 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 27 of 38 (23786)
11-22-2002 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
11-22-2002 5:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Schraf

It's not a black and white answer. As a scientist of course I understand that life works mechanistically. I know that there is no law of physics broken when a gene duplicates and drifts. Evolution is possible.

But the life on this planet is incredible. The most likely amnswer is creation. Since that realization God has witnesseed that to my heart in numerous ways. Thre is no proof.

Your point is a valid one. But I still believe God would tell you that you are kidding yourself when you doubt the validity of the design arguement.


++++++++++++++++++

Hi TB,
Don't mean to butt in here between you and schrafinator but I have a question for you. You admitted you have no proof...so what prevents you from believing that god works via evolution..even macroevolution?

cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-22-2002 5:16 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-26-2002 6:23 PM Mammuthus has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 38 (24486)
11-26-2002 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Mammuthus
11-22-2002 5:55 PM


Mammuthus

I started out believing the entire Scriptures out of pure trust. Here and there over time occasional doubts creep in despite the fact that one holds strongly to the central tenents. But over the last 10 years I have seen numerous evidences that the Bible is incredibly trustworthy in every respect. But I can't prove it to you. I recommend the journey but it would be your journey.

The Bible is not consistent with God using macroevolution. We were created in God's image. Even if by some bizaree contortions you get God using evolution it would rip the 'blind watchmaker' heart out of evolution. Death came by one man's sin just as life came bu one man. And if there was a truly global flood then that can potentially explain the fossil record so we simply don't need evolution to explain the prehistory of life or this planet.

The Apostle Peter clearly explains, almost mentioning Darwin and Lyell by name (), that it would be the concept of 'everything goes on as it has before' that would led those scoffers of creaiton and the flood from the truth:

quote:
2 Pet 3:1Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. 3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

For YECs the literalness of the flood and creation are no less literal than the 2nd coming. They are sealed 'by the same word'. Studying rocks and organisms and proclaiming them to have arrived gradually is an incredible fulfilment of this prophecy of Scipture. The events of creation and the flood were nothing like the intervenning gradual processes.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-26-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 5:55 PM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Mammuthus, posted 11-27-2002 8:06 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 38 (24545)
11-27-2002 3:27 AM


It's a bit of a stretch to say that's about Darwin and Lyell! In context, it's about people saying "This Jesus of yours really ought to have turned up by now, shouldn't he?". Aren't there enough of those around without trying to apply the passage to Darwin and Lyell?

I'm surprised, TB, that you've raised the "created in God's image" line against evolution - I thought better of you than that. Do you suppose that that means that God has a physical body just like ours? I'm sure you don't. There's lots to explore about Imago Dei, but none of it has anything to say about evolution. Imago Dei is a spiritual description of us; it's quite clear, from the genetic evidence alone, that physically we are mostly Imago Simiae.

You are right that the Bible doesn't say God used evolution. Nor does it say He didn't. It doesn't say much about embryology either, although it does say that "He knit me together in my mother's womb". By this reasoning, we must say that embryology is also contrary to Scripture.

We can argue the "death by sin" point as long as we like. I notice that, if physical death is the result of the fall, God lied. He said to Adam that he would die the same day. What did happen the same day was that he was expelled from Eden - became estranged from God. This is the death to which God referred, and which came through the fall. It makes sense - Christ's work, as the second Adam, is to heal that estrangement. But we're really in the wrong forum for theology.

Nor does suggesting that evolution is the creative outworking of God mess up the genuine contingency and random element of evolution. Your God is too small if He cannot work through what are, from any scientific frame of reference, truly random events and purely natural laws. Nor can it be that "bizarre" a concept, given that it is the position of the majority of Christians, and of the majority of Christian denominations.

[This message has been edited by Karl, 11-27-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-28-2002 12:57 AM Karl has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4586 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 30 of 38 (24567)
11-27-2002 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tranquility Base
11-26-2002 6:23 PM


Hi TB
Thanks for your answer. But it leads me to more questions. How do you feel about the many Christians who do accept evolution? Is your belief in a literal intepretation of Genesis based on your own readings or from something you were taught i.e. from an authority in your church? As Karl pointed out, the bible does not have much to say about a lot of subjects in science yet evolution is the one (well, if you discount the flat earthers) discipline that generates the most conflict between science and religion.

cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-26-2002 6:23 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-28-2002 1:07 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 31 of 38 (24577)
11-27-2002 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
11-22-2002 5:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Schraf

It's not a black and white answer. As a scientist of course I understand that life works mechanistically. I know that there is no law of physics broken when a gene duplicates and drifts. Evolution is possible.


Indeed, it is the only conclusion one can make if one is actually working from the evidence.

quote:
But the life on this planet is incredible.

Agreed. Why does our perception of "incredible" indicate God?

We used to think it "incredible" that the sun moved across the sky every day, and thought that a god pulled it in his firey chariot.

Being amazed and awed by nature is a poor reason, IMO, to deny science in favor of unsupported dogma.

quote:
The most likely amnswer is creation.

Most likely why? Just because you are amazed, Biblical Creation is likely?

quote:
Since that realization God has witnesseed that to my heart in numerous ways. Thre is no proof.

Exactly. There is no proof. There is only your faith and your assertions.

Then why do you insist that science indicates Biblical Creation if "there is no proof"?

If we cannot tell the difference between that which has been Intelligently Designed and that which is natural but which we don't understand, then there can be no claim of ID, ever.

No scientific one, anyway.

quote:
Your point is a valid one. But I still believe God would tell you that you are kidding yourself when you doubt the validity of the design arguement.

But if you can't tell the difference between ID and not-understood natural, then there is no argument. There is only assertion without evidence. It is only God of the Gaps philosophy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-22-2002 5:16 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-28-2002 1:15 AM nator has responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 38 (24731)
11-28-2002 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Karl
11-27-2002 3:27 AM


Karl

That Scripture is in the context of creation, the flood and the 2nd coming. 'Everything goes on as it has since creation' is an extremly good match for uniformitarianisms 'The present is the key to the past'.

I'm not necessarily saying we 'look' like God. But our deepest biological and mental attributes do match His acording to Scripture. So my point is rather that God had a desired endpoint and he would have had to prod evolution to get it there. You may think that God could have embedded us in asexual sentient worms but the Scriptures link the (temporal) genders to eternal concepts of Christ and the Church.

Death by sin. I personally suspect that Adam's death occurred within a thousand year 'day'. Sounds like a cop out but it explains a lot. All of the long lived ones died before 1000 years old. How does Scripture end? In revelation we see that man lives for 1000 years on Earth (the millenium) and Satan is loosed for a season to see that the curse is broken. Then he is sent to the pit forever. Of course there are multiple addiitoonal incredible reasons to go for 1000 year 'days' (Heb 4, 2 Pet 3, Ps). I agree that spirutal death occurred immediately for Adam. Christs work will heal both spiritual and mortal death. This age is a temporary one. I love life but it is not the main event.

Theistic evoltuion is a must if evolution occurred. I agree. However, if we take God at his word, that there was a global flood, then there is no reason to believe in evoltuion and so we can allow God to do it however he did it. The straight forward reading is that he created. You can beleiv in evoltuion and long ages if you want but you are completely ignoring the declaration of the global flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Karl, posted 11-27-2002 3:27 AM Karl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Karl, posted 11-28-2002 3:35 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 38 (24733)
11-28-2002 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Mammuthus
11-27-2002 8:06 AM


Mammuthus

Christianity is not really so much about belief as it is about responses and attitude.

I have no a priori problem with Christians who beleive in evolution. But what is behind that belief? Is it becasue there is that fight against conscience that if the Bible is true to that extent then maybe it is true about the things that are even more distasteful ('take up your cross' etc)? In that case they are disobeying their conscience. So I wont make a blanket statement.

Empirically I have noticed a very large correlation (R ~ 0.8 ) between belief in creation and many of the other finer points of Christianity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Mammuthus, posted 11-27-2002 8:06 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 38 (24734)
11-28-2002 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by nator
11-27-2002 9:42 AM


Schraf

I can't prove it to you. But I have numerous proofs of God in my life including a handful of undeniable miracles and so I beleive him about creation and the flood. I can only recommend the journey.

Science is simply compatible with creaton and the flood.

I never said there is no differnece between ID and non-ID. You can try and quantify the significance of ID. I still think God would say 'Sorry Schraf, but it was intuitively obvious. You went thorugh incredible contortions to conjour me away but I'm still here and I did it just like I said I did'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 11-27-2002 9:42 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 11-28-2002 10:20 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 38 (24739)
11-28-2002 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tranquility Base
11-28-2002 12:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Karl

That Scripture is in the context of creation, the flood and the 2nd coming. 'Everything goes on as it has since creation' is an extremly good match for uniformitarianisms 'The present is the key to the past'.


Point being? Seriously missed this.

quote:
I'm not necessarily saying we 'look' like God. But our deepest biological and mental attributes do match His acording to Scripture.

Where in Scripture does it say that?

quote:
So my point is rather that God had a desired endpoint and he would have had to prod evolution to get it there. You may think that God could have embedded us in asexual sentient worms but the Scriptures link the (temporal) genders to eternal concepts of Christ and the Church.

Scripture uses lots of metaphors to get points across. I'm sure that had we been asexual worms, we would have found the parallels.

quote:
Death by sin. I personally suspect that Adam's death occurred within a thousand year 'day'. Sounds like a cop out but it explains a lot.

Hold the "cop out" bit. When God said to Adam "you will die the same day", could Adam really have interpreted that as "within the next thousand years". Why is a day suddenly a 1,000 years here but literal two chapters ealier?

quote:
All of the long lived ones died before 1000 years old. How does Scripture end? In revelation we see that man lives for 1000 years on Earth (the millenium) and Satan is loosed for a season to see that the curse is broken. Then he is sent to the pit forever.

And I see that you're interpreting apocalyptic literature as if it were literal.

quote:
Of course there are multiple addiitoonal incredible reasons to go for 1000 year 'days' (Heb 4, 2 Pet 3, Ps).

Then I refer you back to my earlier point. Why literal days in Gen 1?

quote:
I agree that spirutal death occurred immediately for Adam. Christs work will heal both spiritual and mortal death. This age is a temporary one. I love life but it is not the main event.

I pretty much agree here. There's a lot to unpack in "temporary one" but I'd prefer to do that on a religious debate board, such as that at ship-of-fools.com (sorry - the BB software does something strange to this URL; I don't know why, so I've removed the http bit.)

quote:
Theistic evoltuion is a must if evolution occurred. I agree. However, if we take God at his word, that there was a global flood, then there is no reason to believe in evoltuion and so we can allow God to do it however he did it.

There is every reason to accept evolution - the mounds of evidence we keep presenting and the creationists keep sidestepping.

quote:
The straight forward reading is that he created.

I believe God created too. How about that?

quote:
You can beleiv in evoltuion and long ages if you want but you are completely ignoring the declaration of the global flood.

Not at all. I just don't take it as literal history. Actually, I don't believe that the Genesis 1 days are long ages. I think they are a poetic device illustrating God's purpose.

Moving on - I notice in another post you point out that there is a correlation between creationism and other "fine points of Christianity". What you probably mean is the rather dull observation that folk who take a fundamentalist approach to Creation take a fundamentalist approach to other aspects of Christianity. Care to give examples so that we can test this hypothesis?

[This message has been edited by Karl, 11-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-28-2002 12:57 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 36 of 38 (24779)
11-28-2002 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by sld
11-21-2002 11:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sld:
Well, I'm getting some interesting responses, but not what I was actually hoping for. It does appear that once one studies evolution and understands it that few if any go back to creationism. Perhaps I should post this question on BaptistBoard.com and get some real responses.

Just an attempt to guide things back on topic.

Adminnemooseus

------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by sld, posted 11-21-2002 11:27 PM sld has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 38 (24781)
11-28-2002 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tranquility Base
11-28-2002 1:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Schraf

I can't prove it to you. But I have numerous proofs of God in my life including a handful of undeniable miracles and so I beleive him about creation and the flood. I can only recommend the journey.


I could say that I have numerous proofs that the Galactic Goat has performed "a handful of undeniable miracles" in my life, and so I believe that the GG belched forth the universe, etc.

Believe me? No?? Why not? I might have just as strong a belief in my Goat God, maybe even a stronger belief, than you do in your Judeo/Christian God.

quote:
Science is simply compatible with creaton and the flood.

So sez you.

If you mean the Bible stories, you are simply wrong, unless you twist and ignore evidence.

quote:
I never said there is no differnece between ID and non-ID.

Neither did you show that there is a difference, or at least evidence, which is what you would need to show if you say that ID is scientifically-supported.

quote:
You can try and quantify the significance of ID.

Without knowing how to tell if something is ID or not, how can this be done?

quote:
I still think God would say 'Sorry Schraf, but it was intuitively obvious. You went thorugh incredible contortions to conjour me away but I'm still here and I did it just like I said I did'.

That's nice.

It has no affect on my argument, though.

"Intuitively obvious?" It is intuitively obvious that the Earth is flat. It is intuitively obvious that the sun moves around the earth.

But both of these are false, so our intuition fails.

Science is so very powerful a tool for discovery in large part because it removes a great deal of the deeply flawed human intuition from the process of explaining the natural world.

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-28-2002 1:15 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 38 (25362)
12-03-2002 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by John
11-22-2002 12:37 AM


I had breakfast with my parents this morning as I do each Wednesday when I drop the kids off for a visit.

Dad said it was the structure-function relationships in mitochondria and chloroplasts evident under the electron microscope that struck him as more likely to have been designed than evolved. In particular, the ATPase 'knobs' that appear in the membranes of both of these organelles protrude one way in mitochondria and the other way in chloroplasts to achieve funciton. As with all of the thousands of protein types in a cell they funciton mechanistically via structure. ATPases are reverse proton pumps that catalytically construct ATP.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by John, posted 11-22-2002 12:37 AM John has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019