|
|
|
|
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 51 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 6:43:53 PM | the human did not come from a monkey
Who said humans came "from a monkey"? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 6:48:49 PM | | Late, a few million year's after the fall of the Dinosuar's there was a monkey, that it is beleived man is releated to, I forget the name but it looked kinda like a howler monkey. | |
|
Nibe
|
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 53 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 6:56:47 PM | I beleive for one, angels still create species of lifeforms on earth, and this would account for that problem. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 7:27:54 PM | Peter, how extensive is your knowledge and experience of Christianity, both from your experiences within the church, and from your knowledge of the bible?
I am very knowledgable of my own faith. Ive gone to church since i was born. I also know a fair amount of scripture.
You applied the term of "religion" to evolutionary theory. This is interesting, because in so doing you imply that religion is LESSER than science. You confirm this by your above statement, in that you say that many Christians are ignorant about the issue of evolution (and perhaps of other things as well), but YOU are not.
Lesser than science? I suppose you could take it that way, but that was not what i meant at all. On christians being ignorant, i was simply acknowledging that there are many who are, just as many evolutionists are as well. Both sides have people who are very misinformed on the issues and make bad arguements. I feel i am fairly well informed.
Yes, I am aware that some believers do not wish to call their belief system a "religion", because they feel that the term is somehow lacking. However, in practical terms, the reason for your perspective is that you personally feel that religion is all about believing and not about empirical evidence or intellectualism. If that is your perspective, fine.
I dont believe the bible or christianity has any problems with the vast majority of modern science. God didnt give us a mind for no reason. Logic and reason are complimentary to christianity (just as science is, or should be), not opposed to it. Yes, it ultimately comes down to faith, but one would expect the God of the universe to know about his own creation so the bible should go along with science. logically every perspective has to be evaluated. christianity could indeed be wrong and science could show that to be the case. however, i believe science and the bible do not necessarily oppose each other. theoretically science could show the bible to be wrong, but in my opinion it has yet to do so in any case whatsoever, this is not including the instances where God stepped in (miracles, etc. part of noahs ark was supernatural, the animals coming to the ark, part of it can be explained by naturalistic terms, the size of the ark, how the animals fit on it, etc. this was not supernatural.)
However, given that it is very well-established from a strictly theological perspective that faith is the foundation upon which your relationship with God is established, why then do you make yourself out to be superior to your fellow believers who believe without knowledge of science? In other words, are you telling us that nearly 2 millenia of Christian theology is now suddenly wrong, in that you are concluding that you are choosing the correct path to God by placing science either above or at the same level as shear faith?
Yes, God wants us to have faith, but he never intended it to be blind. In accepting the bible to we through out logic and reason? by no means. God is logical, and reasonable, and if we were created in his image you would expect us also to be. To many christians these days dont even believe the bible to be true. you either take the bible as it is, or not at all. you cannot pick and choose and modernize it. at that point in my opinion youre pretty much admitting the bible is wrong. i believe the bible to be the inspired word of God.
Sometimes it's easy to allow your desire to be respected by intellectuals and scientists to keep your from noticing that, at all levels, the Bible in no way suggests that faith is inferior to any form of belief, nor does it call wise those who hesitate to believe. What do you think Paul was addressing when he referred to the "foolishness" of the present world? Was he not referring to the very students of philosophy who's teacher's principles would ultimately become the catalyst for the development of modern science?
i never said faith is inferior to other forms of belief. science is a perfectly valid way of arriving at knowledge, but i would argue not the only way. and i dont believe Paul was referring to that at all. he was referring to the refusal of people to believe in God, people in their sin, etc.
I really must emphasize that you are going so far as to make Christianity a kind of science, or making science the foundation upon which your faith is built. How could this be? The faith which you believe in was never built upon science at all, but belief. You were introduced to Christianity long after hundreds of thousands of believers were matyred for their faith. You were introduced to Christianity during a time when bibles are available at nearly every bookstore, whereas their faith endured through times of vast intellectual, theological, and spiritual darkness. What did they know about the earth? What did they know of science? They knew practically nothing, and yet they still believed. Are they not the very ideal that Christians are called by the bible itself to strive for?
I am not making christianity to be a kind of science, my faith is just that, a faith. That is why our foundation is the bible, and why we expect science to find that which would complement what the bible says. God would not lie to us nor make mistakes in what he told us.
What? Was Jesus a scientist, or an intellectual? Far from it. He believed His Father, period.
The disciples left everything the moment Jesus called them. Why should they have believed him before anything had been revealed to them (i.e., miracles, etc.)? Obviously, they possessed the ideal (biblically), but you are placing their resolve to take Jesus at his word only below that of those who seek to establish their "faith" upon scientific evidence. Obviously, the Holy Spirit is presented as being the source of the conviction of truth, not human wisdom, not human intelligence. No, the Holy Spirit is the one who leads all mankind to Christ, not by your mind, by in your spirit, in your heart.
They didnt throw their brains out the window either though.
Is this principle unfamiliar to you?
No, i realize you need the holy spirit in order for the bible to make any sense.
You have committed an enormous theological error. You are not allowing the biblical text to speak for itself, but instead, you are assuming that you are somehow choosing a better approach.
I am using the same approach they did, i trust God at his word which is why I believe science would confirm what he has told us to be the case.
What is your goal then? Are you determined to prove others wrong, to win debates? Or are you determined to believe and trust the bible all the more? The latter is not achieved through the means which you are now pursuing. There are countless writings from Christian scholars and theologians on this subject matter, and I would advise you to take the time to read about the topic of faith from a strictly theological/biblical perspective. Philosophy and science are not partners with faith. Faith is not confidence. Scientists have confidence in science, but the kind of faith which the bible refers to is not confidence, but merely a choice. Yo decide to believe or not. God rewards those who believe, but condemns those who do not. Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but if you study the topic of faith within its biblical context, I am certain that you will ultimately realize the science and philosophy are not compatible with biblical faith.
Hardly. Science and philosophy are very compatible with biblical faith. Faith is being sure of what we hope for, the evidence of things unseen... (Hebrews 11:1-3) Enlightening passage.
Do yourself a favor and STUDY your own faith more carefully, not to prove it better than this or that, but to determine what it really is all about. This you clearly have not done.
You clearly misunderstand me on a great deal of issues. I have a great respect for the fact that youve at least listened to my arguements but i seems we are not getting things thru to each other. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 7:34:45 PM | I'm finding this difficult to word exactly, but basically, you are describing the flood as being valid from a naturalistic perspective (the ark could have been built, animals could have had enough food to eat WITHOUT need of a miracle), but then you include God at some points when (apparently) you do not see any practical means to explain the account except by including God.
I only include God at the points where the bible explicitly says God stepped in. Not just where i cant explain something. You are correct in that, if i did just that, i would not be making any sense. However, in my opinion the various findings across the planet do point towards there have been a global flood. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 7:39:16 PM | | mistyped a few things in previous posts but u get what i mean. (example: to we through out, lol. = do we throw out* | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 57 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 7:48:35 PM | | Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 7:49:02 PM |
I only include God at the points where the bible explicitly says God stepped in.
...which does not include what in the Bible? Really, that's not an accurate statement. Read your own words in your reply(s) regarding the Ark. I'd like to know what you mean by "explicit" statements. This would clarify much of your position here. However, my point still remains. Divine intervention is within the realm of the supernatural, and therefore is not subject to scientific study. As such, it isn't appropriate to seek to validate a biblical account of something which included an unknown degree of divine intervention, by means of scientific explanation. You haven't established the points at which divine intervention took over. You have not established a reason to believe or not to believe that God intervened in any part of the flood other than bringing the animals to the ark. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 7:57:06 PM | | That is the only part that i maintain God helped in doing, bringing the animals to the ark and keeping them under control. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 61 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 8:04:55 PM | If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles?
BTW, did you notice that most of the cites for the M.J. Oard article were, .....M.J. Oard? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/15/2005 8:50:10 PM |
answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0730ngrip.asp
Right, I got that already.
What I was getting at is this: there is a logical fallacy for attempting to explain something naturally when the premise was to establish it's validity from a purely scientific basis. You would have to lay your beliefs aside, which you already implied that you had. However, with this particular issue, we can perceive a much larger issue, that is, the reality that divine intervention plays a major role in biblical account. In other words, seeking to establish the scientific feasibility of the flood account isn't necessary at all, and it is counterproductive.
Even biblically, you must admit that there is not suggestion that the Ark should have been able to work at all. Noah did as he was told. It made no sense. It was foolishness (according to the bible's account of how noah was perceived). But, he did it anyhow. He built what God had commanded him to build, and the rest was in God's hands. The Ark was intended to be a story of faith. If you reduce it to mostly naturalism, it will never have the effect intended. This isn't to argue that it never happened. Instead, I am making the point that the premises for seeking to explain events such as these in a mostly naturalistic sense isn't biblically correct. Going along with this, remember that God has the power (by definition if nothing else) to arrange events any way He desires. Remember the story of Abraham and Isaac? Remember that Isaac was to be sacrificed. Now, except that Abraham believed that God would somehow intervene (to fulfill the promise), what reason would he have had to think that he would ever have grandchildren and greatgrandchildren through Isaac?
Raising someone from the dead would make forensic inverstigation rather difficult, wouldn't you say? All the evidence would point to Lazarus' death, yet there he stood, alive and well after Jesus told him to come forth. Yes, everyone saw the man buried. Saw that he had been in the tomb for several days. They may even have saw his decomposed body. But you know what? Who's gonna argue if the guy is there standing in front of you alive?
This is why faith is so important if you are a Christian...
Faith is being sure of what we hope for, the evidence of things unseen... (Hebrews 11:1-3) Enlightening passage.
OK, I was expecting this passage to come up. I would comment on the issue of Paul's statements, but this one here is much more important.
If you have ever studied ancient Greek, you will have learned that words can be associated by means of a particular ending. With regard to Heb. 11:1-3, the statement is saying that faith is THE evidence of things unseen. What I take the you were saying is that faith is either
(a) founded UPON the evidence of things unseen
or (b) faith agrees with the evidence of things unseen.
Exegesis of the passage would yield only ONE conclusion: that faith IS the substance, and faith IS the evidence. The evidence IS your faith. Your faith is not built on some other evidence. Rather, faith IS the evidence.
Now, combine this with the fact that the bible teaches that faith IS a gift (not earned, not found, not built, but GIVEN to anyone willing to accept it). The way you grow in faith is by continuing to exercise it. The more you are willing to believe, the more faith will be given to you. It isn't about you working your way up in faith. It's about allowing God to build your faith. You choose. That's all.
I am aware of the prevailance of alternate interpretations of this passage, but I am also aware that there is no other grammatically or theologically correct manner to interpret it other than that faith IS those two things mentioned.
www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/hebrews/hebrews11.htm#foot2
2 [1] Faith is the realization . . . evidence: the author is not attempting a precise definition. There is dispute about the meaning of the Greek words hypostasis and elenchos, here translated realization and evidence, respectively. Hypostasis usually means "substance," "being" (as translated in Hebrews 1:3), or "reality" (as translated in Hebrews 3:14); here it connotes something more subjective, and so realization has been chosen rather than "assurance" (RSV). Elenchos, usually "proof," is used here in an objective sense and so translated evidence rather than the transferred sense of "(inner) conviction" (RSV).
If you notice, what is happening here is that faith is considered to be both subjective and objective. Note the statement about elenchos being used in an objective sense. If you follow through with the logic, this does not render the conclusion that faith is based upon external evidence, but that it IS the evidence. Essentially, faith is the OBJECTIVE proof that you are of God, that you have entered into His righteousness.
"These all died in faith, not having received what was promised, but
having seen it and greeted it from afar" Hebrews (??--forgot exact verse)
Now, what you see here is the clencher of sorts. These people believed despite not receiving what was promised. But, they saw it from afar. How? Through external things? Of course not. Who can know the future but a god? So, they saw if through faith. Faith was the only proof. Nothing besides.
Do you believe in Jesus Christ specifically due to your analysis of science and philosophy? Or do you believe because you accepted His call to believe? That's a serious issue in the Christian faith. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 7:59:31 AM | Peter, a lot to read but, most of your talk/quote/input however has been directed towards disproving science and evolution. And using a lot of misquoted quotes to do so. Like a bully putting the other guy down in an effort to rise himself.
Seems the only thing anyone can come up with is that it is not to be taken literally.
Huggy gives a good example of people missing the intent of the bible and getting hung up on the Words.
Noah did as he was told. It made no sense. It was foolishness (according to the bible's account of how Noah was perceived). But, he did it anyhow. He built what God had commanded him to build, and the rest was in God's hands. The Ark was intended to be a story of faith.
Not a Subject in our schools. But to help you connect with the divine. Like Starwars or Alice in Wonderland, these stories are ment to inspire not to be taken literally. If the Bible is to be taken literally then I quite like QuietJohn's idea:
They could be doing us all a favor by figuring out how to be much more productive, plus blowing evolution away!!!!! Come on, creationists ... what's the hap's here?
Perhaps then the Teaching of Creation in our schools would be useful. But if it is all about Faith? Then it is a personal thing between you and God, Forcing it upon others before they're ready/willing/able to believe would possibly delay/inhibit their path to faith. One persons path is not for all. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 10:50:31 AM | In what instances were my quotes out of context? If they are it is out of ignorance, and i apologize, but im quite certain they are not. however, speaking of misquotes you are also guilty of such...
Ephesians 2:5-8
even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness towards us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
As you can see faith is not the gift but salvation. Yes my faith is evidence that there is a God, but by no means the only. You are dead wrong on that.
Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the turth in unrighteousness, because waht may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
Yes, i personally believe the bible to be the inerrant word of God. and so it is not surprising that i expect science to confirm what the bible tells us. in this way, science could potentially show the bible to be wrong. however, in my opinion it has yet to do so. the bible should agree with science in every way (miracles aside). miracles are exceptions to the rule, acts of God that defy physics etc. On noah's ark the miracle he performed was bringing the animals to the ark and keeping them under control, nothing more. the rest i maintain can be explained by natural means. This is my personal belief, you can disagree with me. But i maintain that the bible and science do not come into conflict, God knows his own creation, and would not lie to us about how the world began. Also, the biblical account of creation cannot coexist with evolution. We did not evolve. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 11:08:33 AM | | I am simply defending my position. How am i forcing my beliefs on others? Is it not evolution that is taught in schools? Do people even consider the fact that 95% of evolutionists just so happen to be atheists? My biology text books still contain the very hoaxes evolutionists say christsians point to as straw men. well if the evolutionists even so readily dismiss them then how come they are still taught in our schools across the country??? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 11:19:39 AM | I dont know if I can swallow the whole world flooding Idea, but I do know they have a valid Idea (at least I think it is correct me if Im wrong), but I've heard on the discovory channel that a meteor could have crashed into the earth, knocked earth into the air and it would have eventually earth would have had to clean herself, by mean's of rain.
LoL you guy's are soooo gonna blow me out of the water on this! I already see hole's in my oppinion, wouldnt a meteor have to be the size of the one that killed the Dino's? If infact it WAS a meteor.... | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 68 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 11:26:25 AM |
Do people even consider the fact that 95% of evolutionists just so happen to be atheists?
cite?
If infact it WAS a meteor....
Comet. It has been proposed that the Flood water came from a comet which broke up and fell on the earth. Again, this has the problem of the heat from the gravitational potential energy. The water would be steam by the time it reached the surface of the earth. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 11:32:01 AM | Look: The suggestiion that Darwin's theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences, for example, quantum electrodynamics, is grotesque. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to 13 unyielding decimal places. Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.
Look: Darwin's theory is open at one end since there is no plausible account for the origins of life.
Look: The astonishing irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, yet alone explained.
Look: A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors and depart for Valhalla leaving no obvious descendants.
Look: Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.
Look: The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is, at bottom, only one living system. But how then to account for the astonishing differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visted a zoo?
But look again: If the differences between orgainisms is scientifically more interesting than their genomic similarities, of what use is Darwin's theory since its otherwise mysterious operations take place by genetic variations?
These are hardly trivial questions. Each suggests a dozen others. There are hardly any circumstances that do much to support the view that there are "no valid criticisms of Darwin's theory," as so many recent editorials suggest.
(milwaukee journal sentinel april 17th, 2005) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 11:41:07 AM | | Well yeah, it's been prooven that the comet was the cause of a "Mass extiction" But however it's never been prooven that it behind the extinction of ALL the Dinosaur's. It's beleived as Im sure you know that many speicies may have evolved int the bird's of today,Archyoptrix being the missing link, or at least one of several, and Pete it's been prooven that most speicies of raptor's had simple feather's, and much of the very same pysic we see in bird's today, which is just one more example of evolution at play in my oppinion... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 11:49:37 AM | | Archyoptrix a missing link? evolutionists dont believe in missing links. They came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain away that one, although some are started to say both happen which just blows my mind. Archyoptrix was a legitamate fossil, however, also fully a bird. had some unusual features, but still nonetheless a bird. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 11:51:07 AM | | punctuated uquilibrium was needed to explain the lack of 'missing links' (a huge gaping hole if you ask me). | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 11:55:34 AM | | Then explain speicies such as Volcia raptor, Dinonicus, and Therazinasaurus, who had simple feather's and almost the same build as the "Raptor's" of today... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 12:01:05 PM | idk about raptors wic, sry. hey least i admit when i dont know stuff.
read this article. yet more evidence for a global flood.
exchangedlife.com/Acrobat/creation/polystrate.pdf | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 6/16/2005 12:22:41 PM | Check out http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/MACPHE2.html for 'transitional forms - plus a correct spelling of Archeopterix - and a contrast between Archeopterix and a bird - weak flight muscles, jaw instead of kitin beak, teeth. Clearly Peter only reads the creationist dogma - they are the only links I could find to the creature he cites.
But what's the point of arguing - there is the 'real' world - physical reality, amenable (maybe) to science and rational description, then there's this 'other' world that Peter describes which isn't subject to physical laws and which is capable of interfering with the 'real' world and changing reality by the introduction of 'miracles'.
So, I need some help here. Where do I, as a scientist make the determination when to attempt to explain the phenomena in the 'real' world - as miraculous as they may seem, and where do I just shrug my shoulders and say 'and then a miracle happened', end of story. I mean, I don't mind saying that, but only if I can point to some rational justification for saying it so that I can persuade my colleagues that they shouldn't be rolling around on the floor laughing at me if I make such a comment. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 156
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
