The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

Scientists do not say the universe began ex nihilo. When they say nothing, they mean a topology of 0 space and time, and 0 energy and matter. There is still a quantum structure, expressed mathematically as a Hilbert space of topologies, whose excitation is the universe. This structure transcends space and time (It actually generates space and time), and is atemporal.

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v28/i12/p2960_1

Morbert, the only thing that could generate temporal space and time is the existence of 'matter'? Well as far as our field study of the universe is concerned anyways... :-)

( Sorry, I only have a lay interest in theoretical physics, but I think it's exciting nonetheless, so bare with my puny understanding - I understand 4 dimensions and general relativity and can kind of think in a geometric way about the logic of the cosmos in this regard as far as gravity etc. is concerned) take away a 4th dimension like time and things get tricky.

Is the Hilbert Space, basically a vacuum without matter? Nothing, but something - is this in relation to the Higgs field? I love this stuff, but it's very seldom that you meet a mathematician or physicist who can put words or some kind of geometric image across to explain what is really mathematics taken into something more abstract - I'd love a link to a good visual representation or talk somwhere abouts for a learner if you know of one?

Wh1stler

Festus wrote: »

Are you asking this as a theological question or as a scientific question.

Would you evade one less than the other? It doesn't matter: if you think that Adam was the first human and that neanderthals were humans, then either Adam was a neanderthal or neanderthals came later than Adam-like humans.

Check mate I think on this issue.

Morbert

lmaopml wrote: »

Morbert, the only thing that could generate temporal space and time is the existence of 'matter'? Well as far as our field study of the universe is concerned anyways... :-)

( Sorry, I only have a lay interest in theoretical physics, but I think it's exciting nonetheless, so bare with my puny understanding - I understand 4 dimensions and general relativity and can kind of think in a geometric way about the logic of the cosmos in this regard as far as gravity etc. is concerned) take away a 4th dimension like time and things get tricky.

Is the Hilbert Space, basically a vacuum without matter? Nothing, but something - is this in relation to the Higgs field? I love this stuff, but it's very seldom that you meet a mathematician or physicist who can put words or some kind of geometric image across to explain what is really mathematics taken into something more abstract - I'd love a link to a good visual representation or talk somwhere abouts for a learner if you know of one?

A Hilbert space in the context of quantum mechanics is an abstract space, where directions represent states a system can be in. To take the classic example of Schrodinger's cat: There are two states, classically speaking, that the cat can be in. |alive> or |dead>. These two states would be directions in the Hilbert space of the cat. The cat can be |alive> or it can be |dead>, or it can be in a combination (|alive> + |dead>). In classical mechanics, such a combination is absurd, but in quantum mechanics, it is no less absurd that the direction south-east (|south> + |east>).

Anyway, I will try and describe simply what Hawking's paper says.

In classical mechanics, configuration space is the mathematical space of all configurations a system can be in. To see how the system evolves with time, we look find the path through configuration space (i.e. A set of configurations parametrised by time) that minimises (or, more correctly, "extremises") the "action" of the system. I.e. We look at all possible ways the system could evolve and pick out the one satisfying the principle of least action.

In quantum mechanics, the same basic set-up remains, except this time we say the system takes all possible paths through configuration space, instead of just one, and we add up the contribution of each path or "history" to determine the state of the system.

What Hawking has done is defined the system in question as space itself, and considered a "superspace" of all possible geometries as the configuration space. I.e. To find the probability of some space geometry (3-geometry) evolving from some other space geometry, he sums over all spacetime geometries (4-geometries) connecting those two space geometries. He then shows that, instead of taking two known states and summing over all 4-geometries, you can take one known state and sum over all geometries, producing the probability of the universe emerging from "nothing".

"One can interpret the functional integral over all compact four-geometries bounded by a given three-geometry as giving the amplitude for that three geometry to arise from a zero three-geometry, i.e., a single point. In other words, the ground state is the amplitude for the Universe to appear from nothing."

I do not like his use of the word "nothing" here, because the singular point is still something. It is still a topology. But the salient point in the context of this thread is there is no place where the laws of physics break down, and the atemporal structure of the universe described by the mathematical "superspace" is responsible for generating space and time.

Monty Burnz

Festus wrote: »

You're the one making the fact that the universe had a beginning an assumption. So if you disagree that the universe had a beginning and are open to the possibility the universe had no beginning then you should present your case.

I could present such a case very easily, but I think you would be dissatisfied if I stated that it was 'part of my faith'.

On the other hand, I'm just showing you the inconsistency of stating that nothing begins without a cause, and then citing a God who does just that. This clearly means that you allow the possibility that certain things/phenomena/whatever can begin without a cause, negating your own claim.

Monty Burnz

Festus wrote: »

Are you asking this as a theological question or as a scientific question.

The fact that you can make a distinction here speaks volumes about the problems you encounter taking a literal interpretation of the Bible, and the folly of trying to learn your science from the bible.

Wh1stler

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The fact that you can make a distinction here speaks volumes about the problems you encounter taking a literal interpretation of the Bible, and the folly of trying to learn your science from the bible.

And in any case, the whereabouts of God would have no bearing on how the Universe develops.

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

A Hilbert space in the context of quantum mechanics is an abstract space, where directions represent states a system can be in. To take the classic example of Schrodinger's cat: There are two states, classically speaking, that the cat can be in. |alive> or |dead>. These two states would be directions in the Hilbert space of the cat. The cat can be |alive> or it can be |dead>, or it can be in a combination (|alive> + |dead>). In classical mechanics, such a combination is absurd, but in quantum mechanics, it is no less absurd that the direction south-east (|south> + |east>).

Anyway, I will try and describe simply what Hawking's paper says.

In classical mechanics, configuration space is the mathematical space of all configurations a system can be in. To see how the system evolves with time, we look find the path through configuration space (i.e. A set of configurations parametrised by time) that minimises (or, more correctly, "extremises") the "action" of the system. I.e. We look at all possible ways the system could evolve and pick out the one satisfying the principle of least action.

In quantum mechanics, the same basic set-up remains, except this time we say the system takes all possible paths through configuration space, instead of just one, and we add up the contribution of each path or "history" to determine the state of the system.

What Hawking has done is defined the system in question as space itself, and considered a "superspace" of all possible geometries as the configuration space. I.e. To find the probability of some space geometry (3-geometry) evolving from some other space geometry, he sums over all spacetime geometries (4-geometries) connecting those two space geometries. He then shows that, instead of taking two known states and summing over all 4-geometries, you can take one known state and sum over all geometries, producing the probability of the universe emerging from "nothing".

"One can interpret the functional integral over all compact four-geometries bounded by a given three-geometry as giving the amplitude for that three geometry to arise from a zero three-geometry, i.e., a single point. In other words, the ground state is the amplitude for the Universe to appear from nothing."

I do not like his use of the word "nothing" here, because the singular point is still something. It is still a topology. But the salient point in the context of this thread is there is no place where the laws of physics break down, and the atemporal structure of the universe described by the mathematical "superspace" is responsible for generating space and time.

Thanks Morbert. Would I be right in saying that this is in relation to inflation theory and how that ties in with dark energy in string theory? Like a baby pocket universe in multiple pocket universes that absolutely have a beginning, but stretch on and on - perhaps even with their own laws of physics? There are competing theories here too that the math works, they all seem to depend on quantising gravity no doubt because of classical physics and observational conclusions and energy holes..

It's amazing to think about how Sci Fi adventures like Star Trek etc. grabbed onto these looking towards finding the truth ideas and made them something truely magical but could last the test of time, and no doubt will too. Truth is always a worthwhile endeavor.

To be honest I do find the whole concept wonderful, it makes me think about so many many things, including how small we are, and also not in the least how totally lucky we are too, that we 'woke up' if you don't mind me saying in order to explore the cosmos and dream of beyond it...

I recently heard a talk about billions of years into the future that to 'physicists' (if they exist at that stage ) the universe will only look 'eternal' because of the speed of inflation and the horizon - makes you wonder really...

Now is the time. A great time.

Wh1stler

Nor does prophecy effect the development of the Universe.

Only physics can effect the development of the Universe.

Until 'Physics' and 'God' are synonymous, (and therefore 'the laws of physics' would be the same as 'the law of God'), then there is no point at all in trying to understand the Universe as 'God's creation'.

It has to be physics' creation.

tommy2bad

Wh1stler wrote: »

Nor does prophecy effect the development of the Universe.

Only physics can effect the development of the Universe.

Until 'Physics' and 'God' are synonymous, (and therefore 'the laws of physics' would be the same as 'the law of God'), then there is no point at all in trying to understand the Universe as 'God's creation'.

It has to be physics' creation.

Well no. Physics and its 'laws' are not a set of rules that matter obeys. They are descriptions of how matter behaves. Conflating God and physics would be to completely miss the point. If God exists as creator of the universe, knowing how it works gives us a good insight into the mind of God but not any idea of what God is. If God doesn't exist, knowing how the universe works gives us a good idea of how the universe works. It still wouldn't give us any idea of how or what the point of it is. God or no God we are in the same place. Thats why revelation is so important.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

This structure transcends space and time (It actually generates space and time), and is atemporal.

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v28/i12/p2960_1

Hmm. Like God.

***********************************************************************
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think it's pretty unambiguous - it will not be physically moved. A perfectly understandable statement, coming from uneducated farmers in hundreds of years BCE. There's no suggestion of metaphor at all there.

So you think these farmers never experienced an earthquake, never felt the earth move??? Or do you think they put it down to a spell of dizziness shared by the family?

***************************************************************
Amos 1:The words of Amos, who was among the sheepbreeders of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel, two years before the earthquake.

wolfsbane

Wh1stler wrote: »

So how come we don't find rusty skeletons?

Because God said, like bars of iron. That is, used a simile to describe the strength of its ribs.

*******************************************************************
Proverbs 25:11 A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold In settings of silver.

wolfsbane

Wh1stler said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They would be demonic because they can't be material - other material beings not mentioned in Scripture - and only demons (fallen angels) are prophesied as coming to deceive mankind.
MP3 players and Apple Macs aren't mentioned either; are they 'demonic' too?

Only if they are material beings. I take them to mere material objects.

I know when they malfunction they can be a devil to deal with - but metaphorically only.

***********************************************************************
Proverbs 25:11 A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold In settings of silver.

wolfsbane

Wh1stler wrote: »

Did God take the rib of a bull to make a cow or the rib of a cock to make a hen?

The anatomical difference between man and woman is repeated throughout the mammal world.:P

No, He made the rest of creation directly. Only woman is special.

Does that specialness show its self anatomically? I doubt it - making a fully functioning mate from the dust or from flesh would have exactly the same result - a fully functioning mate.

The difference seems to be spiritual, the awareness that she was not made out of dust, but out of himself.

********************************************************************
Genesis 2:23 And Adam said:

“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

wolfsbane

Wh1stler said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The only sentient beings outside of ourselves are the angels. The holy angels will not be appearing as aliens, telling us they are material beings from another world. Holy angels do not lie. But fallen angels do. Fallen angels = demons.
Do you even know what 'sentience' means?

My apologies.

I meant spiritual. Where I got sentient as a synonym of that, I don't know!

**********************************************************************
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

wolfsbane

Wh1stler said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The text does not say God lies. It says He gives men over to delusion, so that they will believe this final, monstrous lie of Satan. As a judgement for not believing the truth He send them in the gospel.
Delusion:

a. The act or process of deluding.
b. The state of being deluded.

Delude:

1. To deceive the mind or judgment of: fraudulent ads that delude consumers into sending in money. See Synonyms at deceive.
2. Obsolete To elude or evade.
3. Obsolete To frustrate the hopes or plans of.

The problem is that you are so used to mis-interpteting the Bible that the actual definitions of words have become lost to you.

This is as a result of self-inflicted 'strong delusion'.

God removing sense from the head of those who love lies is not the same as Him lying to them. He is just causing them to have no defence against the final lie.

He is not telling them Antichrist is the Divine One. He is removing any discernment they have, so that they will believe those who do tell them that. He does so because they refused to believe the truth about God.

*******************************************************************
2 Thessalonians 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

wolfsbane

Wh1stler said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The Bible is not a 'dated' book - it is the word of God. He is not ignorant of all that comes to pass - indeed, He alone permits or prevents anything from happening.
Such as miscarraiges and ectopic pregnancies; such as murder?

Indeed. Nothing comes to pass without His permission.

What effect does this line of thought have on free-will? We are endowed with free-will but can only exercise it when permitted?

Man's free-will is not truly free since the Fall. It is bound to our sinful nature.

Even converts to God have to cope with their old nature struggling against their new nature.

And, Yes, man proposes, God disposes. He is under no obligation to permit anything we choose to do. 'Free-will' is not God. God is sovereign over all things, including our wills.

*********************************************************************
Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

tommy2bad

wolfsbane;
And, Yes, man proposes, God disposes. He is under no obligation to permit anything we choose to do. 'Free-will' is not God. God is sovereign over all things, including our wills.

In what sense? How can God override free will without undoing His creation. He is of course free to do so but to what purpose?

wolfsbane

Wh1stler wrote: »

Even if every word of the Bible is true and Creationists are right; even if the Prophecies are God's plan, so what? There is nothing we can do so mightn't we be as well just sitting back and enjoying the ride?

Or should we do everything we can to ensure that the events depicted in Revelations never come to pass?

There is something we can do. Repent and trust in Christ. That is the whole purpose of God sending us His word, the Bible.

The crucial thing is to make sure what part of the prophecies will apply to you - eternal life with God, or eternal punishment without Him.

******************************************************************
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

In what sense? How can God override free will without undoing His creation. He is of course free to do so but to what purpose?

God 'overrides' our free-will when He gives the wicked man a new heart/nature, a heart that loves God instead of hating Him. Then his free-will freely does what his new nature desires. Just as his free-will freely did what his old nature desired.

Does this mean that God puts evil thoughts into the mind of the wicked? Not absolutely - He just insures that their evil nature focuses on a particular evil thought from among the many it naturally generates. For example: that Hitler chose to attack Russia while still at war elsewhere. The attack on Russia was evil in intent, but it would accomplish God's purpose of bringing Hitler down. He might have had other evil thoughts - another attempt on Britain, for example - but God, I believe, directed his thoughts to his own destruction.

God's purpose is clearly stated:
Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?




********************************************************************
Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35 “Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”
36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

God 'overrides' our free-will when He gives the wicked man a new heart/nature, a heart that loves God instead of hating Him. Then his free-will freely does what his new nature desires. Just as his free-will freely did what his old nature desired.

Does this mean that God puts evil thoughts into the mind of the wicked? Not absolutely - He just insures that their evil nature focuses on a particular evil thought from among the many it naturally generates. For example: that Hitler chose to attack Russia while still at war elsewhere. The attack on Russia was evil in intent, but it would accomplish God's purpose of bringing Hitler down. He might have had other evil thoughts - another attempt on Britain, for example - but God, I believe, directed his thoughts to his own destruction.

First part, OK though I don't see that as overriding freewill more of an explicit intervention.
Thought experiment, heard of the God receptor? a part of the brain evolved to perceive God or spiritual things. Well if it exists would stimulating this part with electrodes be a better way of removing crime that prison? Read a clockwork Orange?

Second part, He would have done better with a well aimed lightning bolt

Morbert

lmaopml wrote: »

Thanks Morbert. Would I be right in saying that this is in relation to inflation theory and how that ties in with dark energy in string theory? Like a baby pocket universe in multiple pocket universes that absolutely have a beginning, but stretch on and on - perhaps even with their own laws of physics? There are competing theories here too that the math works, they all seem to depend on quantising gravity no doubt because of classical physics and observational conclusions and energy holes..

It would be in similar territory. String theory exists because treating space-time as something that can bend, curve, and generally exhibit dynamical properties is very hard to do in the quantum regime. The "foam" of emerging universes is largely speculative, as is much of quantum gravity. It is suggested by the precedence set by quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.

It's amazing to think about how Sci Fi adventures like Star Trek etc. grabbed onto these looking towards finding the truth ideas and made them something truely magical but could last the test of time, and no doubt will too. Truth is always a worthwhile endeavor.

To be honest I do find the whole concept wonderful, it makes me think about so many many things, including how small we are, and also not in the least how totally lucky we are too, that we 'woke up' if you don't mind me saying in order to explore the cosmos and dream of beyond it...

I recently heard a talk about billions of years into the future that to 'physicists' (if they exist at that stage ) the universe will only look 'eternal' because of the speed of inflation and the horizon - makes you wonder really...

Now is the time. A great time.

There are some very good books out there. To anyone who is interested, I would strongly recommend a single book: QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman. It uses the simple example of light bouncing off a window to explain the theory that underpins most of physics chemistry and biology. What's great is it is entirely non-speculative, and grounded in well-established quantum theory. It is written for lay people and does not require any heavy mathematics. I recommend it because it gives a solid understanding of the strange "many-worlds" type behaviour of quantum mechanics.

I don't recommend Hawking's newest book. His best book is, and probably will always be, "A Brief History of Time".

tommy2bad

Anything by Feynman is worth reading, he can make the most difficult stuff graspable and his enthusiasm is infectious.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
God 'overrides' our free-will when He gives the wicked man a new heart/nature, a heart that loves God instead of hating Him. Then his free-will freely does what his new nature desires. Just as his free-will freely did what his old nature desired.

Does this mean that God puts evil thoughts into the mind of the wicked? Not absolutely - He just insures that their evil nature focuses on a particular evil thought from among the many it naturally generates. For example: that Hitler chose to attack Russia while still at war elsewhere. The attack on Russia was evil in intent, but it would accomplish God's purpose of bringing Hitler down. He might have had other evil thoughts - another attempt on Britain, for example - but God, I believe, directed his thoughts to his own destruction.
First part, OK though I don't see that as overriding freewill more of an explicit intervention.

OK; it is certainly a intervention. God not only intervenes in man's thought processes, but in direct processes too - sending rain, fire from heaven, an angel to kill, etc.

Thought experiment, heard of the God receptor? a part of the brain evolved to perceive God or spiritual things.

Our conscience; but it was not evolved.

Well if it exists would stimulating this part with electrodes be a better way of removing crime that prison?

I would be hesitant about tampering with the brain to modify behaviour. At best it is likely to have widespread collateral damage. Better to appeal to the conscience. Even the atheists who run the Chinese penal system appreciate the value of that.

Read a clockwork Orange?

No. But I've watched One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.

Second part, He would have done better with a well aimed lightning bolt

Killing Hitler may not have ended Nazism. Himmler or Heydrich might have produced worse.

******************************************************************
Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

tommy2bad

Oh you gota watch a Clockwork Orange, it's pertinent to the idea of morality and freewill.
Anyway this is about creationism and from talking to people who say they believe in creationism and not evolution, they seem to be saying that for all the difference it makes to me I chose creationism because it encapsulates my belief in God better than evolution.
They simply don't care which is true and use creationism as a badge of identification. I'm OK with that and if you want to tell the world that creationism is a better way of expressing your faith than evolution, go right ahead.
When you (general you, not you personally) try to claim that evolution is not true and the creation myth is the literal truth then you cross a line into lying, deceit and fiction.
None of which serve the God you proport to worship.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

Oh you gota watch a Clockwork Orange, it's pertinent to the idea of morality and freewill.
Anyway this is about creationism and from talking to people who say they believe in creationism and not evolution, they seem to be saying that for all the difference it makes to me I chose creationism because it encapsulates my belief in God better than evolution.
They simply don't care which is true and use creationism as a badge of identification. I'm OK with that and if you want to tell the world that creationism is a better way of expressing your faith than evolution, go right ahead.
When you (general you, not you personally) try to claim that evolution is not true and the creation myth is the literal truth then you cross a line into lying, deceit and fiction.
None of which serve the God you proport to worship.

You friends are very foolish. To hold a belief without caring whether it is true or not is contrary to everything God calls us to. He commands us to seek the truth and cling to it. Truth is crucial, not optional. Sounds like your friends are merely notional Christians. That is, if you have correctly understood their position.

Lying, deceit and fiction are certainly involved in the debate. They are the origin of Evolutionism. But I would not say most evolutionists are consciously lying - they have certain presuppositions and/or fears that lead them to accept the current consensus, and are reluctant to have their peace disturbed. This is how the scientific community works generally, outside the creation/evolution debate. Get on the wrong side of the establishment and your career can take a nosedive.

I'll watch/read Clockwork Orange on your recommendation, at the first opportunity. Thanks.

*******************************************************************
Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

HamletOrHecuba

wolfsbane wrote: »

You friends are very foolish. To hold a belief without caring whether it is true or not is contrary to everything God calls us to. He commands us to seek the truth and cling to it. Truth is crucial, not optional. Sounds like your friends are merely notional Christians. That is, if you have correctly understood their position.

Lying, deceit and fiction are certainly involved in the debate. They are the origin of Evolutionism. But I would not say most evolutionists are consciously lying - they have certain presuppositions and/or fears that lead them to accept the current consensus, and are reluctant to have their peace disturbed. This is how the scientific community works generally, outside the creation/evolution debate. Get on the wrong side of the establishment and your career can take a nosedive.

I'll watch/read Clockwork Orange on your recommendation, at the first opportunity. Thanks.

*******************************************************************
Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Excellent post all around.

Anyone who has experience of acedemia will know that what I have underlined is so true- especially something as idealogically important as evolution.

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

You friends are very foolish. To hold a belief without caring whether it is true or not is contrary to everything God calls us to. He commands us to seek the truth and cling to it. Truth is crucial, not optional. Sounds like your friends are merely notional Christians. That is, if you have correctly understood their position.

Lying, deceit and fiction are certainly involved in the debate. They are the origin of Evolutionism. But I would not say most evolutionists are consciously lying - they have certain presuppositions and/or fears that lead them to accept the current consensus, and are reluctant to have their peace disturbed. This is how the scientific community works generally, outside the creation/evolution debate. Get on the wrong side of the establishment and your career can take a nosedive.

I'll watch/read Clockwork Orange on your recommendation, at the first opportunity. Thanks.

Their not my friends and anyway I was paraphrasing them and it seems from your post crediting them with too much intelligence.
Come on, you don't really think it all a big conspiracy to discredit religion?
Evolutionism! :eek:
Yeah OK theirs a good deal of group think in any human endeavor but try reading the science, it is a working theory with evidence to back it up.
Creationism, -yes I can use the ism because thats what it is, an ideology not a science- explains nothing, has no evidence to back it up and is wholly a faith based position.
We are never going to agree on this because you seem to have drank the Kool aid on this one.

HamletOrHecuba;
Excellent post all around.

No it was rubbish.

Gumbi

Creationism simply isn't scientific. Facts come before a theory, not the other way around. Evolution is proposed because it fits the facts. Creationists attempt to twist the facts to fit their pre-disposed idealogical position. This isn't science.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Lying, deceit and fiction are certainly involved in the debate. They are the origin of Evolutionism. But I would not say most evolutionists are consciously lying - they have certain presuppositions and/or fears that lead them to accept the current consensus, and are reluctant to have their peace disturbed. This is how the scientific community works generally, outside the creation/evolution debate. Get on the wrong side of the establishment and your career can take a nosedive.

:mad:

Please don't bad mouth scientists which you know nothing about Wolfsbane. You can believe what ever supernatural stories you like, and what ever nonsense you read from your Creationist websites, but show some respect to the scientists who work hard and long learning about the biological world and how to help humans survive in it.