|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:54:47 AM | "it doesn't just boil down to literal and metaphorical interpretation. There are many degrees of both types, and a combination of the two."
I realize that. That's why I said:
"...as metaphorical in many places"
The bible is a blend of historical accounts (many which were passed down first by word of mouth and so the "game of telephone" has to be considered as a factor in their accuracy), parables, genealogical lineages, legends, moral codes, philosophical homilies and poetry. Whether or not one feels these were divinely inspired is irrelevant to the fact that it is a menagerie of various literature compiled and translated under the direction of specific interpretations. Contrary interpretations have been excised or left out entirely in the Bible's history. Assuming it is divinely inspired, I wonder why people are content to stop there. Is it not also possible that God has spoken through many others throughout history? It brings to mind Dharma's posts (who I haven't seen here in a while.) She was fond of posting song lyrics, her point being that God speaks through people all the time. This is an objective perspective, as I am not a spiritual believer, but it seems to me an affront to God to lock onto one narrow interpretation of his divine word, and ignore everything else he chooses to reveal.
As for the origin of homo sapiens, even if one doesn't accept Evolution, you still have to accept the relationship that homo sapiens shares with the rest of life. We are made of the same stuff. This is a fact. Genetics has conclusively proved that fact. We even share long strands of DNA in common, genes that serve related functions in homo sapiens as they do in other species. The evidence that not all life was created simultaneously is equally compelling, so evolution logically follows. That's not even to invoke the wealth of independent evidence that Evolution is a powerfully explanatory theory. The statistics on that website are indicative to me of the sorry state of education in this culture. Children are not taught critical thinking. No specific emphasis is placed on it, but the children are expected to pick it up through osmosis by studying the disciplines to which it relates (which is just about everything.) They need a mandatory class, early in either junior high or high school, specifically for critical thinking and logic. They make the mistake of teaching children "what to think," and not "how to think." | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 12:01:51 PM | as man seeks to ruin, god seeks to perfect mans mistakes.
being adaptable is more a sign of god then anything darwin has further proceeded. if we did not adapt, we would not exist this far, nor would the animals. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 12:52:56 PM | They need a mandatory class, early in either junior high or high school, specifically for critical thinking and logic. They make the mistake of teaching children "what to think," and not "how to think."
You are so very right. I can personally testify that the problem can continue on into college as well. Sure, you can think critically, but if you choose to disagree with the prof, then you also choose to take on the entire burden of proof and risk a harsher grade.
The problem is: who can truly teach critical thinking (at the high school level)? Many educators just teach out of the book. If the book is flawed, so is the teaching. "The Simpsons" has parodied this sad truth. Frank Abagnale (from "Catch Me If You Can" fame) claimed that pretending to be a teacher was easy. He merely needed to be one chapter ahead of the class. I don't mean to belittle the teaching profession, but I am cynical about how two dimensional "education" can get. I believe that a library card is more valuable to educating oneself than a diploma.
When you have mentioned in past posts using logic that should have been covered in high school, my thought has been "you must have gone to a really good high school." Mine ranked pretty well, but it still never covered logical thought and logical fallacies. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 1:34:40 PM | ""The Simpsons" has parodied this sad truth."
I love The Simpsons. Are you refering to the episode where Marge says she will pay for Lisa's college education by giving piano lessons, and Lisa responds, "but you don't play piano." Then marge says "I only need to stay one lesson ahead." If I'm not mistaken that's the spelling bee episode with George Plimpton- "and a hot plate!"
"I believe that a library card is more valuable to educating oneself than a diploma."
Speaking from personal experience I agree, but I must also bear in mind that people learn differently. I prefer learning on my own; I find it more productive, but some people respond better to the imposed structure of academia, just like some people respond very well to the structure of the military and others don't. Either way it often boils down to an individuals level of curiosity as to what they get out of an education, whether formal or autodidactic.
"Sure, you can think critically, but if you choose to disagree with the prof, then you also choose to take on the entire burden of proof and risk a harsher grade."
I agree this happens, and it is the mark of a substandard teacher, but the converse is also true. Many students are simply afraid to be wrong, so they won't ask questions. What is important is not being right or wrong, but learning the process of analytical reasoning. Often being wrong is the best learning experience of all. I have no complaint with people who have the attitude of wanting to learn, even if they ask questions that seem juvenile to someone familiar with the subject. Sometimes that's how our understanding grows, by asking stupid questions. Being corrected in ones flawed reasoning can really turn the light bulb on at times. Also, sometimes a question is not so stupid, and can actually inspire the professor to re-think an issue. It may force him to better formalize his position, modify it, or drop it altogether. If the professor is truly passionate about his subject, he should welcome such inquiry. I have no problem with people who are not schooled in a topic. What I detest is people stomping their feet and railing against something they don't understand. That's what I can't get across to some of these people. They think I'm being snide because of their lack of knowledge on the subject. That's not the reason at all. I'm being snide at the arrogance of denouncing something they don't understand. That being said, I don't accept lack of educational opportunity as an excuse. Like you said, the local library provides more information than one person could process in a lifetime. Those who live in western culture and lack an education, do not lack the opportunity. They lack the wherewithal.
"When you have mentioned in past posts using logic that should have been covered in high school, my thought has been "you must have gone to a really good high school.""
I did attend a pretty good high school, but like yours they never specifically addressed critical thinking. Truthfully most of my knowledge was gained through a personal obsession with learning, and not through formal education. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 1:40:46 PM | Edit: arguably he could be an agnostic. But, it's sketchy for sure.
Back in those days scientists had to be extremely careful about what they said concerning religion. This is why Einstien chose an ambiguous stance concerning religion in many of his correspondances.
However, he was a philosophical mind as well as a scientific one, so the ethical issues that Spinoza espoused did appeal to him.
Have you ever read The Ethics of Spinoza, LZ? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 2:12:40 PM | Wonka, the episode you mention fits my point even closer than the one I was thinking about! I meant the episode where Lisa, in a rebellion phase, steals the teacher's edition of every text in school. The teachers all panic and admit that their only source of intellectual superiority is lost! 
You're correct about the benefits of formal education-- I can't picture a youth writing essays on a subject on their own motivation. But I found that in college, a student really has to be choosy when it comes to professors, if they have that luxury; a PhD does not a good teacher make! Even at its best, though, formal education does not stress the need to continue learning. In flight training there is a saying that a pilot's license is "a license to learn." In the same way, a formal education should emphasize that it is just establishing a foundation for people to continue learning on their own.
To keep the spirit of the topic alive, I'll say that my church environment did a better job convincing me that the study of evolution was a Dept. of Education anti-Christian agenda than school did teaching me scientific methodology. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 2:55:26 PM | "Lisa, in a rebellion phase, steals the teacher's edition of every text in school. The teachers all panic and admit that their only source of intellectual superiority is lost!"
That's a great episode too. Doesn't Bart take the wrap for her? I think that's the one where he takes the wrap, because she's the only one in the family with the chance of making something of herself, and "when you do, I'll be there to mooch off you," or something like that.
"In flight training there is a saying that a pilot's license is "a license to learn." In the same way, a formal education should emphasize that it is just establishing a foundation for people to continue learning on their own."
Good analogy. It's true with anything really. No matter the topic, or in relation to knowledge in general, one should never be finished learning. That is the mark of cognitive sloth.
cave ab homine unius libri- beware the man of one book.
Anonymous Latin maxim
"my church environment did a better job convincing me that the study of evolution was a Dept. of Education anti-Christian agenda than school did teaching me scientific methodology."
That's the problem. People aren't being taught what science actually is (heck, they're barely being taught to read these days), so the willful agenda of a very few is feeding off of that ignorance to cause dissension where there shouldn't be any. Even much of the mainstream populace is being hoodwinked by this shell game. I am confident if the vast majority of those people actually understood the issues, scientifically and philosophically, they would not feel that animosity for the theory. The animosity is being created by the misinformation that this small group of fundamental literalists are perpetrating. I have some degree of confidence in the potential intelligence of people. It's similar to a con game; if you are being fed misinformation, and you have never been trained in critical thinking, you might just buy swampland for development. It's not a lack of intelligence, but a lack of necessary education and practice in analytical reasoning. But, as I said before, much of the onus lies on the individual. There's no excuse really in this country to be academically uninformed. Libraries are free. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 3:52:19 PM | | ^^^ I agree. However, it seems that many atheists buy into the divisiveness of the debate as well, as evidenced by putting the Darwin fish symbols with little feet on their cars to counter the ichthus that Christians have been putting on their cars. Demolition derby, anyone? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 4:47:02 PM | "as evidenced by putting the Darwin fish symbols with little feet on their cars to counter the ichthus that Christians have been putting on their cars"
Oh, that's just a joke. I used to have one of those years ago when it was still novel. That's more of a reaction to this inexplicable need that Christians seem to have to proclaim their beliefs wherever they go. Some people just get tired of hearing it, so they counter with the Darwin fish. I've seen both fishes on the same car before, which is obviously meant to assert that the two are not contradictory. I've seen "gefilte" fish that Jewish people put on their car. Who cares? Did you find it offensive when Homer Simpson, under duress, called out, "I know I don't pray to you much, but please save me superman!" That was a harmless little dig on religion, but it was pretty funny, you have to admit. It's the small percentage of Christians who don't have a sense of humour who give the rest a bad name. We should all laugh at ourselves from time to time. Someone told an anti-evolution joke on this forum a while back, and it made me laugh out loud. It may have been inaccurate in its details, but in that context who cares? It's the joke that matters. Let me ask you a provocative question- does God have a sense of humour? | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3260 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 5:32:32 PM | as man seeks to ruin, god seeks to perfect mans mistakes.
being adaptable is more a sign of god then anything darwin has further proceeded. if we did not adapt, we would not exist this far, nor would the animals.
"If a faithful account was rendered of Man's ideas upon Divinity, he would be obliged to acknowledge, that for the most part the word "gods" has been used to express the concealed, remote, unknown causes of the effects he witnessed; that he applies this term when the spring of the natural, the source of known causes, ceases to be visible: as soon as he loses the thread of these causes, or as soon as his mind can no longer follow the chain, he solves the difficulty, terminates his research, by ascribing it to his gods... When, therefore, he ascribes to his gods the production of some phenomenon... does he, in fact, do any thing more than substitute for the darkness of his own mind, a sound to which he has been accustomed to listen with reverential awe?"
- Holbach c.1770 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 6:30:03 PM | The major crux of the conflict between organized religion and science is that some people are afraid that if they acknowledged certain aspects of science, then the premise of their belief system would be nullified. Credible scientific authority really doesn't seek conflict with religion as far as I can see (not that a minority who happen to be immature people don't do exactly this).
For the 'true believer' it is sort of like, "as long as I believe in this religious text that says that I will live forever, I will". If science produces something that contradicts or undermines my religious text, I would probably treat it as a threat to my life. Its an irrational position, but not an uncommon one. You cannot reason with someone who has taken such a position.
Further, people who exploit 'the true believers' who take such a position can often aquire a great deal of political influence. The people who refuse to believe can easily become convenient scapegoats. The farther back in history you go, the more careful many scientists had to be about approaching the subject or religion and the more ambiguous they had to be in their correspondance should the subject come up. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 6:43:13 PM | Well my dog Fido got up off the floor, and he rolled over
and he looked me straight in the eye
And you know what he said?
Once upon a time, somebody say to me
This is the dog talkin’ now
What is your, conceptual, continuity?
Well I told him right then, fido said
It should be easy to see
The crux of the biscuit
Is the apostrophe
Well you know, the man that was talking to the dog
Looked at the dog, and he said
Sort of staring in disbelief
You can’t say that
He said
It doesn’t, and you can’t, I won’t, and it don’t
It hasn’t, it isn’t, it even ain’t, and it shouldn’t
It couldn’t
He told him, no, no, no
I told him, yes, yes, yes
I said, I do it all the time
Ain’t this boogie a mess?
.. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 6:55:33 PM | | Well, I am glad to see someone took what I had to say seriously. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 7:40:57 PM | Have you ever read The Ethics of Spinoza, LZ?
I've tried to but like the biography said, Spinoza lost a great following
because his explanation of his belief was too mathamatical and difficult
to follow.
But I find it odd that Eienstien would wave a surrender flag and admit
there's a God of some sort but he's not willing to make that one last
step and embrace a personal God. What's with that? To me it
seem's he was spooked.
Comment if you can....hope we're not too off topic here. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 7:45:43 PM | Deagleninja wrote:
Wonderful example. We also hear a lot about the accuracy of Carbon-14 dating being questioned in regards to proto-human bones or dinosaur fossils.
Well, C-14 dating wouldn't be used to date fossil hominids or dinosaurs, it only is good to maybe 75,000 years ago... you use other elements (Rb/Sr, K/Ar, etc. IIRC) for older stuff. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and most 'interesting' homind fossils are hundreds of thousands to a few million years old. So C-14's no use...
Radiometric dating is solid, if you do it carefully and check for possible issues with your samples. It's really only a 'problem' for people whose ideology/theology insists that the Earth is a few thousand years old.
When your religious beliefs entail discarding chemistry, physics and geology, I don't hold much hope out for your particular beliefs being true. But you're welcome to hold them. Just don't foist them on the rest of us.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 7:58:49 PM | "But I find it odd that Eienstien would wave a surrender flag and admit
there's a God of some sort but he's not willing to make that one last
step and embrace a personal God."
That's a valid question. The difference here is that you are not demeaning something without requisite knowledge of what it is you're demeaning. This is a respectable post. I'm just not sure what you mean by not accepting a "personal God." Isn't everyone's definition of God personal, even within the same denomination? What God represents for you is not necessarily what he represents for another. You seem to be implying that Einstein was being wishy washy. I think he simply had his own definition of God, which was essentially that the universe and its governing principles IS God. He always referred to God as "The Ancient One," which he seemed to use more as a semantic convenience than a reference to any conventional view of a supreme being with a long white beard, robe and sandals. From what I've read of Einstein's work, his view of God seemed to be more of a reverence for the wonders of the universe. The whole point is that it is an unanswerable question, so, by its very nature, ones view of God is personal. It's not something you can quantify or define. Does it really matter how someone wants to express their awe at the majesty of existence? Chrisitan, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, Muslim, Atheist, Pantheist, Deist, Sub-Genius- the one thing most of us share in common is our awe at the majesty of existence. It's all of us against those damn Nihilists- just kidding. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:01:07 PM |
When your religious beliefs entail discarding chemistry, physics and geology, I don't hold much hope out for your particular beliefs being true. But you're welcome to hold them. Just don't foist them on the rest of us.
I don't try to foist on anybody. You can travel any road you want and I'm not
gonna try to change your beliefs either. But, I'm all ear's when it comes to
science. I enjoy it. Like many here, I too hate being thumped on the head
by the bible despite my faith in it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:28:26 PM |
Oh, that's just a joke.
That's fine by me. However, many Christians see it as an affront (as I used to). It also supports the misconception that Darwin's theory is diametrically opposed to Christian beliefs.
Many Christians, I imagine, also find "The Simpsons" offensive as well, but that is not an important debate... | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3269 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:38:54 PM | | The Simpsons is a mirror. The person looking in the mirror ows science for his cell phone, microwave and plasma screen and asks God "what have you done for me lately?" | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:54:26 PM | Hiya, kiddies. It's play-time. Oh, yeah.
Not replying to any one post in particular, but to the over-arching question of which is true: creation or evolution.
Neither is true. Thank you, thank you. It's all good. *takes a bow* (Okay, neither is necessarily true. Neither is provable as true. Happy?)
I could easily go on for 1000 pages as to why evolution is a ludicrously wrong belief system - which it is. It is a false religion that is founded upon pseudo-science.
Now, while plenty of others may or may not jump on this as the strawman logical fallacy that it appears to be, I would like to know on what logical basis this assertion is made. Please.
When one views a pencil lying upon a table, one KNOWS that both the pencil and the table had to have been created, correct?
When one who has a previous experience of constructed objects and knows pencils and tables to be such, certainly one might conclude that they are constructed objects. What organic beings do we know to have been created, such that we can apply this logic to the assertion that living beings must have been created? I'm under the impression that the argument by analogy is probably a little skewed, in that, suggesting that one thing has been created, therefore all other things must also have been. Am I reading that right?
Evolution is a religion, while creationism will always be borne out by science...
Again, logic on the "evolution is a religion" assertion please. As for creationism being scientifically borne out, please explain.
In fact, there are many scientists who are scientifically convinced (based upon scientific observation) that Creationism is the true science, while Evolutionism is the false religion / false science.
Cite, please. I'd like to learn more.
Natural selection / mutation could NEVER EVEN BEGIN TO EXPLAIN the "evolution" of, say, the eye, for example.
Actually, this one's been touched on several times previously and been shown to be an inadequate argument. In that it is spurious, based on faulty logic, bad science or lack of any science at all, and contradicts several studies. You might want to find a different example.
Any one of those sub-components would have been "selected out" as an unsuccessful mutation in the Evolutionist Belief System.
This is absolutely true. I entirely agree that, in the case of the strawman religion crafted as an opposition for creationism, the expectation based on faith would go contrary to what real science predicts, which is that a complex organ can evolve. The fact that there is plenty of evidence of this having occured does support the actual science and does indeed refute the claims of the "religion" claimed by creationists to exist.
good science and faith are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This is absolutely true. Amen. Now, let's get back to the actual debate about whether or not evolution counts as science or the OP, which asks why ID is science. Please, if you're not an expert, that's fine, just expound on your logic. No need to argue from authority.
And after all, which takes more FAITH: the belief that an Almighty Creator of infinite intelligence and power has designed this entire creation, or the belief that the elements themselves are responsible for it all?
I would contend that they both take an equal amount of faith, in that neither of these is observable, much less testable. My only question on the argument here is, how do these two philosophical positions even begin to relate to the theory of evolution?
Evolutionism is a false religion that is founded upon pseudo-science, while creationism is fact that is borne out by tome after tome filled with scientific proofs.
So, as soon as you're done with the partisan rhetoric, can we be privy to these references?
Here are some links:
I'm almost ashamed to admit that I applauded like a child when I saw the list. Mansion, I just got through explaining why it makes sense that not everyone would desire to go through the entire thread and read all of the posts regarding the subject. In your case, do so. Pay particular attention to everything said from a position of logic regarding these websites. Go to them, read them, think critically, come back. Carry on.
Msg 3264
Lazyboyz, the point behind the debate is not whether or not there is a purpose, but whether or not science can prove a purpose for existence or life. Hasn't happened yet, and at present, the system is not oriented that way. Creation works for making a metaphysical point to that effect. The Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest and the theory of evolution that has grown from it make no such claims.
In the end, many of us creationists, admittedly, are riding on the coat-tails of those who are in possession of greater intellect than we are. But the same can be said to those who don't believe and are evolutionists.
A very good point, Lazyboyz. This is why I was propounding more and better education, myself. Trouble with that is that both the schools and many of the scientists rely on the government for money. Which is ironic, since much of the money going to the government is in the form of religious lobbies... Huh, interesting...
He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning.
Not to jump in on someone else's gig, particularly when it's only vaguely related to the topic, but this seems to be a common thing. Did anyone actually hear Einstein say that was his intent, or is this speculative interpretation? Like I said, I see a lot of this when folks quote scientists, especially when they want to try and say that scientists are atheists out to destroy religion or set up science as an alternative. Interesting, but I'd say it's probably not particularly relevant.
Please entertain me with your speculation of the causation....now, no cheating you must be vivid and if it helps, use the power-point to wow us. But, seriously, give it a shot. Use all the resources of google if you have to and find a single speculation.
Speculation? Unnecessary. I was responding to an assertion that humanity "can never know" the source of the Big Bang. As far as experience-based belief, I was pointing out my acceptance of all things as possible. The simple fact is that I'm not going to make grand, sweeping absolute statements, and I rather disagree with those who do. If you are asking me to back up my disagreement with your assertion, I would likewise insist that you provide ample evidence that humanity lacks the potential capacity to understand.
Ummm.....nobody can define what is beyond finite as we know it.
As for this, there isn't necessarily any evidence that we're even dealing with infinity, here.
You said absolutely nothing there. You said you have a belief is all and that
belief will see you to the truth.
I disagree again. I stated a personal belief that anything is possible. If you disagree, that's your prerogative. Whether or not it's relevant to your assertion is the point, and it is. In my opinion, there is a possibility that humanity may eventually learn the facts of the history of our universe. Thank you for asking me to clarify, rather than being sarcastic. That probably would have been rude. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:57:13 PM | Sorry if this is a double post, but this one deserves its own special mention:
Get some sleep, Feral. I can give Wonka some credit for not attempting
the impossible. You, Brainiac, tried....that's what I like about you. Can you
now bring out the dancing elephants?
Folks, for everyone playing the "let's define logic" games out there, this is an ad hominem. Thank you. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:35:59 PM | Mmmmmm.....drinking tequila and debating with you - NOTHIN' BUT THE BEST!
I doubt anybody else take's all of my quote's as seriously as you - sometimes
you can't help it but just walk into it, Feral. :pat on head:
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:19:21 PM | Hello Forum,
Regarding a couple of points Rake made:
Regarding entropy, if anyone can enlighten me as to the net increase in entropic state that occurred when the first living material was formed, I'd like to hear of it.
Regarding star formation, many Evolutionists lay claim to this phenomenon as evidence lending credence to their belief system, but the Opposite is true (Opposite of truth is a common theme in our day). In fact, the organizing force acting upon the elements that constititute stars is the same organizing force that is responsible for all of creation: The Creator, God, who remains active in this universe and who will continue to be until He destroys it and replaces it with an eternal, spiritual universe (which the mind of man will never be able to fully fathom until it is done).
Regarding comments recently posted in this thread re: Biblical interpretation, Wonkavision is right (in fact he has mentioned something that almost all of the seminaries of our day have lost sight of): the Bible was written in parable. Many verses speak to this; I'll only include a couple here (more available upon request).
______________________________________________________________________________
Matthew 13:13 -14: Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
______________________________________________________________________________
Tragically, the seminaries of our day have almost all adopted the "Historical / Grammatical" hermeneutic, which states that unless a verse of the Bible explicitly asserts itself to be a parable we are only to understand it on its "face-value" (historical / grammatical) level. This is the Opposite of truth, as every verse of the Bible contains a deeper spiritual dimension.
However, this is Not to say that many verses of the Bible are not Also literally true. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. In other words, a Bible verse can speak of a factual historical event while also imparting spiritual lessons about the Gospel. (In fact, every verse of the Bible can impart spiritual truth, as II Timothy 3:16 proclaims.)
Regarding Noah's Ark, this is an example of an actual historical event. I know that many scoff at this notion. It seems improbable. But then again, so does the existence of life itself. In fact, these have a common explanation: God.
* Was Noah the one who managed to herd all of these animals onto the Ark? The Bible makes no such claim. In fact, only the power of the same God who created all life could have herded all of those animals onto the Ark.
* Are we to assume that every beast on the Ark was fully grown? The Bible makes no such claim. In fact, given the Bible's specs for the Ark (450' long by 75' wide by 45' tall) we can be fairly certain that a great many of the beasts on the Ark were younglings.
* Would it have been possible for God to have pacified the carnivores so as to allow for safe passage of potential prey animals? Of course Almighty God could manage this.
* Was each and every type of animal that we see today represented on the Ark? Probably not, although the Bible does not clearly state this. In other words, rather than dogs and wolves, there may only have been one kind of canine from which these have been derived, with similar scenarios being the case for various other animals belonging to the same kind.
* However, there definitely were more animals on that Ark than have ever been gathered together in one man-made place before or since, with many species there represented that have since become extinct.
(Many have a terrible problem accepting this possibility - even knowing how enormous this Ark was. By way of illustration, the Earth is said to be "overpopulated" with humanity. 6 Billion of us and growing. Yet every human on Earth could fit in the state of Texas - each with more living space than the average American has today. If we wanted to cram, we could fit everyone in Rhode Island. Surely we could fit a few million animals - many, if not all of them younglings - into an Ark the size of a luxury liner.)
What I wish to impart about the Ark account (and about the Bible as a whole, and about life as a whole) is that there is a spiritual dimension and a physical dimension to it. God divinely intervened in order to accomplish His part in this; and yet Noah toiled for over 120 years on this Ark and every beast of the Earth was physically present on it, from the microscopic on up.
Which brings us back to Evolutionism and the Bible. The Word of God is spiritual. In its original God-breathed autographs (the original Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament and the original Greek of the New Testament), it is the perfect transcription of God's Word.
______________________________________________________________________________
II Peter 1 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Spirit.
______________________________________________________________________________
Evolutionism is spiritual. It has never been proven and cannot be proven (because it is false). As an example, no one has been able to explain how the first elements managed to form the first life.
What precise conditions were present at that supposed moment?
Can we duplicate?
No?
Then we must take it on faith that it did occur as they tell us, and that perhaps someday we will scientifically understand its origin. In other words, faith. Surely, Evolutionists make many physical observations that they claim to support their belief system, but so do Creationists. However, almost all Creationists will admit that there is an element of faith to their belief system, while Evolutionism is falsely portrayed as being faith-neutral and valid completely independent of faith. Until they can explain its very origin, it is as faith-based as any other belief system of origins.
Evolutionism is a (pseudo) scientific wing of an ancient spiritual movement: rebellion against God:
* God says that He "created every creature after their kind" (Genesis 1:21, 25). So what does mankind do? Create a belief system that claims the Exact Opposite: that all life originated as one common kind.
* God says that man is a spiritual being, a soul within a body of flesh (Genesis 2:7), unique from all other life in this regard (the beasts of the earth do not possess souls). So what does mankind do? Create a belief system that effectively equates mankind with every beast of the Earth. Unless Evolutionism can somehow account for the evolution of the soul, it must indicate that man has no soul.
I imagine that many Evolutionists will state that their belief system does not venture into that area, but it does - and it must. Either man has a soul or we don't. It is either part of our species or it isn't. Whether explicitly or implicitly, a belief system that purports to discern the Origins of the Species will also speak to the Nature of the Species, physically and spiritually - or devoid of spirit, as many now believe we are. (I realize that "Theistic Evolution" purports to "synthesize" thesis and antithesis (God and Evolution in this case) but it is nothing more than thinly veiled creature worship: we either have a Creator / God or we don't; we are either spiritual beings or we aren't.)
This business of worshipping that which is physical / material is nothing new. We are spiritual beings and it has always been in our character to worship. We cannot change that any more than we can sprout antennae or wings. From our beginnings, mankind has worshipped himself, the heavens and the beasts. God wrote about it:
______________________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:20-25:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mankind has often worshipped the creation, making idols of beasts and men to worship. And now we have "evolved" beyond those primitive expressions. We now have Creature-Worship down to a science, imbuing the elements with the power to create and refine life: the highest form of materialism.
I've posed a couple of questions here, regarding my request for as detailed a scientific explanation as possible re:
*The conditions that led to the supposed initial evolutionary formation of life;
*And a more specific question regarding the net entropic increase that supposedly occurred at that time.
I realize that previously attempted answers may appear elsewhere in the thread but if they do - and if one of you is kind enough to "re-respond" here anyway - I'd be grateful. And I promise: when/if anyone asks me a Biblical question, I won't tell them to find it in the Bible. =)
I suppose that some will take offense to my inclusion of verses of Scripture. However, as the forum is Creationism vs. Evolutionism, and as Creationism is founded upon Scripture, the inclusion of Scripture is necessary if we are to have a true open forum on the matter.
However, that isn't to say that Creationism is without its physical arguments, as well. I cited some resources previously, which I'll recite here for anyone with an interest in exploring the almost-never referenced (in the bulk of the media) scientific research and evidence that refutes Evolutionism. While the debate is often cast as one of "science" (evolutionism) vs. "religion" or "faith" (creationism), nothing could be farther from truth. There are elements of faith and scientific inquiry to both. The only question is the same one Pontius Pilate posed: "Where is Truth?"
www.icr.org (Institute for Creation Research)
www.creationmoments.com (Creation Moments)
http://www.answersingenesis.org (Answers in Genesis)
http://abr.christiananswers.net/home.html (Associates for Biblical Research)
I've been written a book that explores the Biblical account of Creation (no big deal, self-published, don't expect big sales). Maybe one of you could hip me up: would it be alright to post info about it on this forum - or would that be considering spamming or the likes?
Blessings,
Dan | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:22:05 PM | | P.S. I don't know how that smiley got in there beside the II Peter 1:21 reference. (I sho' 'nuf didn't include it in my original). <-- (That smiley was intentional.) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:06:38 PM | Bible verses aren't scientific proof.
The Bible is largely not historically accurate, although there is much historical accuracy.
Creationism is a belief system, not Evolution. Evolution is a theory. Any dictionary can show you this.
Scientists don't claim that you will burn in hell if you don't believe that Evolution has any merit, although they might think you were a little dense (generally speaking).
I do respect your faith, although I disagree with your appraisal of a reasonably sound theory. | |
|
|
| Page 131 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
