Creation V Evolution Debate

robindch

> When have Boyle's LAWS had to be overhauled or when have
> the theories of the particulate and wave nature of Light had
> to be reviewed? When did the Laws of Gravity have to be
> “moulded to fit the data”.

I should have added to the above, the simple observation that it seems to be a peculiarly religious worldview which instructs people that what was true for the previous generation, should be good enough for this one too.

Some things move on with the pale light of study, and some don't

- robin.

J C

Quote Zod
In other words we need the video tape - about 10 billion years should do it. In the absence of that there is only the creator theory - which needs no scientific evidence.

No we don’t need the “video tape” – only some supporting repeatably observable EVIDENCE that ‘fits’ Evolution better than Direct Creation – if you wish to claim scientific validity for any of your Evolutionary hypotheses!!!

Creation Science has found hundreds of repeatably observable phenomena that support Special Creation.
For example, the discovery of critical amino acid sequences in proteins, by Molecular Biologists, supports the hypothesis that the evolution of life through “undirected natural mechanisms” is a mathematical impossibility.


Quote Robin
For the benefit of any readers not in possession of a scientific education, I'd like to point out that the above three points (Boyles Law, The Wave and Particulate Nature of Light & The Laws of Gravity) are amongst the most basic things you'll learn in a science education, no doubt in the first term or so. In fact, casting my mind way back, I believe that all of them are on the leaving cert syllabus, too!

Yes, Robin these are indeed “basic things” – and these scientific principles have remained UNCHANGED down the years because all OBSERVATIONS continue to verify them. There is no dispute among scientists about their validity and they are proven every day in millions of practical OBSERVATIONS around the world.

Evolution is also a “basic thing” as it purports to explain the origins of life. However Evolution, remains as a floundering series of, ever-changing unfounded speculations about what may or may not have happened over supposed millions of years – and therefore it has little scientific validity.


Quote Robin
Well, when something proclaiming to be a duck says things that no duck would say, when it doesn't understand much about other ducks or what they do, when it refuses to read the work of other ducks and when it is blithely unaware of things that even a first-year student duck knows, I think one should seriously consider the accuracy of any claims to "duckness in good standing" emanating from the same self-proclaimed duck.

Quack!

Quack, indeed!!
EVOLUTION is a DEAD DUCK aka a DODO – and no amount of QUACKING will save it from scientific extinction!!!

You have proclaimed evolutionists to be scientific DUCKS – I think that they may be misguided perhaps, but they are surely not ‘bird-brained’ DUCKS???

You accuse Creation Scientists of saying “things that no duck would say” – I thank you for the compliment!!!

As for reading “the work of other ducks” (to use your own words) – I will leave that undoubted “pleasure” – to your good self !!!

Please answer my previous questions about Evolution – and stop avoiding the issue.

Quote Robin
I should have added to the above, the simple observation that it seems to be a peculiarly religious worldview, which instructs people that what was true for the previous generation, should be good enough for this one too.

Quote Zod
In the absence of that (a video tape proving evolution) there is only the creator theory - which needs no scientific evidence.
But which one should you pick though ? heres a few : http://www.mythinglinks.org/ct~creation.html - on second thoughts forget that - just choose the one your Parents were taught its bound to be the right one!

Touché – all Evolutionists out there – who are instructing each succeeding generation in a faith-based ‘religious worldview’ first invented by the Ancient Greeks to bolster their atheistic nihilism.
Evolutionists are largely the ones choosing to believe the ideas of their parents – most Creation Scientists, are former evolutionists who have actually CHOSEN to REJECT their parents’ belief in evolution!!!

The real counter-culturalists these days, are Creation Scientists – in general, evolutionists are the ones who are happy to go along with the theory that they were taught in the belief that it is “bound to be the right one!”

Evolutionists are quite entitled to BELIEVE that they are a ‘monkey’s cousin’, or that people are ‘an accident of nature’, ultimately descended from a ‘slimeball’. However, these ‘strange’ unfounded beliefs are not based on either logic or observable reality and are therefore not “SCIENTIFIC” in any meaningful sense of the word!!!!

I BELIEVE that I was called into this life by an all powerful sovereign God who created the entire universe and all life therein.
I BELIEVE that he created me with a special purpose in this world and to be his PERSONAL friend in the next life.
He also invites YOU to enter into a personal friendship with Him – Jesus says in Rev 3:20 “I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me” (NIV).
The decision to become a personal friend of Jesus Christ is entirely up to you – He has unconditional love for you – and He patiently awaits your decision.
I don’t claim that my BELIEFS are scientific – but they are based on very strong observable evidence in the real world.
Rom 1:19-20 also highlights this fact ”Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God made it plain to them. For since the CREATION of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (NIV).

Creation SCIENCE, involves REPEATABLE OBSERVATIONS, which are capable of supporting valid SCIENTIFIC hypotheses and valid SCIENTIFIC theories.
For example, Creation Science has found that micro layers can be laid down very rapidly in sedimentary rocks. Hundreds of thousands of micro layers were observed being laid down in a matter of hours during the Mount St Helens eruption.
This invalidates the geological theory, which postulated that each micro layer in sedimentary rocks represents an annual cycle of deposition – thereby attributing great ages to the deep sedimentary rock layers in, for example, the Grand Canyon. The presence of polystrate fossils also disproves the great ages attributed to sedimentary rock layers.
The so-called ‘Geological Column’ is patently not a record of the evolution of life but it does show the expected order of burial in a flood catastrophe i.e. smaller sea floor creatures on the bottom ranging up to larger land-based animals (who were able to flee to higher ground) on the top.

Creation Scientists regularly make major breakthroughs in our understanding of living systems and of the world around us. Their observations are repeatable and their conclusions are precise – and so their theories are fully in conformity with the Scientific Method.

Quote Robin
Some things move on with the pale light of study, and some don't.

And some things, like Evolution, completely fall apart under close objective study!!!!

Excelsior

If the use of caps-lock is meant to indicate SHOUTING then maybe the MODERATOR should come in and censor your loudness JC?

Once again guys, generally just chill. Your debate will be more fruitful if you take a deep breath instead of letting go of control on the Shift key.

J C

Excelsior wrote:

If the use of caps-lock is meant to indicate SHOUTING then maybe the MODERATOR should come in and censor your loudness JC?

Once again guys, generally just chill. Your debate will be more fruitful if you take a deep breath instead of letting go of control on the Shift key.

My use of capital letters was to increase clarity and indicate emphasis of certain words.
I was certainly not shouting - which is an impossibility in a written medium !!!

As for your decision to CENSOR me - if I have said something wrong or factually incorrect - please point it out to me.

Poisonwood

Evolution is also a “basic thing” as it purports to explain the origins of life.

Factually incorrect. Evolution purports to explain the diversity of life on the planet and has nothing to say about origins of life. I know this has been pointed out you before.

J C

Quote Poisonwood
Evolution purports to explain the diversity of life on the planet and has nothing to say about origins of life. I know this has been pointed out you before.

Yes, it probably was pointed out to me before – but there’s the thing, other evolutionists have claimed that Evolution is an ALL-ENCOMPASSING phenomenon found operating in everything from the supposed “Big Bang” and it’s aftermath to chemical reactions and the origins of life.
You claim that it is confined to the development of the diversity of life on this planet. Who am I to believe?

Not only are there a myriad of different Evolutionary “theories” attempting to explain the diversity of life – there are also many different views on the actual SCOPE of Evolution.
Some people, like yourself, believe that it is merely confined to explaining genetic diversity (and I might add, Evolution does a very poor job at explaining even this). Other people believe that it is a phenomenon supposedly explaining everything from the formation of the Universe to the origins of life as well as it’s diversity.

As I have repeatedly stated, the first problem with Evolution is that it has never been precisely defined, which is a pre-requisite for subjecting it to the Scientific Method. Indeed it is also a pre-requisite for having a rational discussion about it.

In any event, the observed scientific evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of Creation that Evolution, (other than it’s natural selection aspects acting on pre-existing diversity), has little scientific validity.

robindch

> Creation Science has found hundreds of repeatably
> observable phenomena that support Special Creation.

<grin> I think what you *mean* to say is that creationists have looked at hundreds of things and said to each other, nodding to each other slowly, tugging forelocks, sucking air through pursed lips, "Darn it, but you know that I can't THINK of a SINGLE way that this might have happened! And you know, that means that it didn't happen AT ALL and it's all magic and so this means that the HOLY BOOK that I believe in is complete validated -- HALLELUJAH!".

> scientific principles have remained UNCHANGED down
> the years because all OBSERVATIONS continue to verify
> them

<laughter> Even after I point out the total falsity of the above, with simple examples from the leaving cert syllabus, JC still comes back denying it -- yiz have got to admire the tenacious grip on non-reality here

> My use of capital letters was to increase clarity and
> indicate emphasis of certain words. I was certainly
> not shouting - which is an impossibility in a written
> medium !!!

Good heavens. How long have you been using the internet for?

- robin.

Poisonwood

J C wrote:

Yes, it probably was pointed out to me before – but there’s the thing, other evolutionists have claimed that Evolution is an ALL-ENCOMPASSING phenomenon found operating in everything from the supposed “Big Bang” and it’s aftermath to chemical reactions and the origins of life.
You claim that it is confined to the development of the diversity of life on this planet. Who am I to believe?

Not only are there a myriad of different Evolutionary “theories” attempting to explain the diversity of life – there are also many different views on the actual SCOPE of Evolution.
Some people, like yourself, believe that it is merely confined to explaining genetic diversity (and I might add, Evolution does a very poor job at explaining even this). Other people believe that it is a phenomenon supposedly explaining everything from the formation of the Universe to the origins of life as well as it’s diversity.

Bunkum. Pure and Simple Bunkum. What we are speaking of here is Evolution as a biological theory to explain the diversity of life. You can misundertand it to mean anything you damn well please, just don't pretend that scientists misunderstand in the same brain-ossifying way as you. Of course, the word evolution is used in other sciences like physics and cosmology to talk about the physical evolution of the universe but I think you'd need to be in kindergarten to confuse the two. You're not in kindergarten JC are you?

Danno

So why would God go to all the trouble of giving us the writings of the Bible then? Genesis is a quite detailed book which starts with "In the Beginning God Created..."

Not "In the beginning an ape climbed down from a tree and gradually over loads of time began to resemble man..."

This is the basis for the Evolution V Creation debate.

And please cut out the snivelling personal attacks. It amuses me that JC does not and has not personally attacked anyone on this debate, yet just about everyone who argues against him has heaped abuse at the man.

Kinda reminds me of this:

Matthew 5:10-12 :

"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

robindch

> Bunkum. Pure and Simple Bunkum.

Funny you should use the word 'bunkum' which has an interesting history, starting off as 'buncombe', and morphing into 'bunkum', whence our more common 'debunk'. Before being rightly shot for delivering an off-topic + late-evening rambling, the original word 'buncombe' was a favourite of one of my own favourite reporters, HL Mencken, who was certainly the most outspoken and hilarious of those who covered the Scopes 'Monkey Trial' in 1925. Should anyone not have come across this trial before, the brief facts are that a biology teacher, named John T Scopes, was had up in court in 1925 for daring to defy the very powerful and intensely political creationist lobby in the USA through his teaching of modern, rather than dogmatic biblical, biology. The superb film Inherit the Wind is based largely upon trial transcripts and Mencken's own reporting of the trial which itself can be found in its entirety here, from which, if folks are short of time, I'd recommend that you at least take a look at the first article, Homo Neanderthalensis which is as true and relevant, not to add side-splittingly funny, now, as it was when Mecken wrote it over 80 years ago. 'Inherit the Wind' is available on DVD from the Laser video shops around Dublin.

- robin, apologising to those who've seen me refer to the above before, in the creationist thread on the skeptics board

robindch

> So why would God go to all the trouble of giving us
> the writings of the Bible then?

Many people would contend that the bible was written by a long series of Middle-Eastern holymen.

> Genesis is a quite detailed book which starts with
> "In the Beginning God Created..."

...and, following a rather pretty ~500 word retelling of an older Sumerian legend, we reach Gen.1:25-27 where we learn that humans were created after the animals. A very short while later, Gen.2:18-19 tells us that it *actually* happened the other way around.

Gen.1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image."

Gen.2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.) "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

Avidly awaiting any revelations...

- robin.

Call_Me,Stan

You'll notice that the first reference contains time keeping words like "after" which show us the order.

The second reference contains no such words, so there's no reason to believe it happened in the order it was written.

Remember, we believe that is God is all knowing and that he plans our lives before we were born.
Likewise, God planned the world for man and created animals beforehand for the reasons stated above.

Hope this helps.

robindch

> You'll notice that the first reference contains time keeping
> words like "after" which show us the order.

Er, if you read the text a bit more closely, you'll find that 'after' means 'in the style of'. See a short definition of the word 'after'.

> Hope this helps.

Nope, it doesn't, but I am willing to hang around for some further shots at it

- robin.

Call_Me,Stan

Sorry, misread it.

Still applies though.

Danno

I am sorry robindch to dissapoint you:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202;&version=31;

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

One little word makes all the difference!

robindch

> I am sorry robindch to dissapoint you:

Nice try, but you're quite wrong. Please read the texts carefully!

Two obvious mistakes in your logic:

1. God said in the previous sentence that "It is not good for the man to be alone", and, noticing this, god was going to go away and create some help for him, which he then did, in the form of animals, birds + the rest. This means that Adam was there first, because he was "alone", then, according to the story, the fauna turned up. Nice and easy!

2. Of the 19 entertaingly diverse translations listed in the website you quoted to me, only two insert the word 'had', while the rest leave the text as in my quotation (from the KJV). In any case, even if the pluperfect is the correct translation, the verb still refers to the action of following sentence, to imply, rather tautologously, that the fauna had been created by the time that they'd been brought to Adam.

Try again anyone?

- robin.

robindch

> Sorry, misread it. Still applies though.

Um, sorry?

- robin.

Danno

And yet again Robindch, you fail to take the passages in context, for if you read the following passages you will see the relevance of 18 and 19:

20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,



"This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called 'woman, [k] '

for she was taken out of man."



24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.


Hope this is of help to you.

robindch

> you fail to take the passages in context

I don't see the relevance of the surrounding material -- I am asking anybody here to explain the clear contradiction between two separate bits of Genesis, Gen.1:25-27 and Gen.2:18-19.

> Hope this is of help to you.

Again, this doesn't help, because it doesn't address the question I've asked.

- robin.

KCF

robindch wrote:

> you fail to take the passages in context

I don't see the relevance of the surrounding material -- I am asking anybody here to explain the clear contradiction between two separate bits of Genesis, Gen.1:25-27 and Gen.2:18-19.

The big man is testing our faith. Obviously :rolleyes:

robindch

Danno, CallMe_Stan, anybody else -

Good heavens! Is nobody going to defend the bible in the Christians' forum?

- robin.

J C

Quote Robin
I think what you *mean* to say is that creationists have looked at hundreds of things and said to each other, nodding to each other slowly, tugging forelocks, sucking air through pursed lips, "Darn it, but you know that I can't THINK of a SINGLE way that this might have happened!

As scientists it ultimately comes down to what we OBSERVE, not what we THINK.

I always say what I mean and mean what I say – Creation Scientists are in fact well able to explain how the real world works – they can directly observe it and they also have the Word of the actual Creator Himself to help them in their endeavours!!
Evolutionary Scientists continue to labour under the very significant handicap, of trying to objectively prove something that isn’t true – which is actually an impossibility!!

Nobody has answered my basic questions on Evolution on this thread and on two other threads. You haven’t produced any repeatably observable evidence showing how Evolution happened.
I haven’t observed such evidence myself either – and that is WHY I’m no longer an Evolutionist!!

As for “nodding to each other slowly, tugging forelocks, sucking air through pursed lips” – I never knew that Evolutionary Scientists engaged in such rituals when confronted by something that they cannot explain – which must happen a lot given the inability of Evolution to explain anything other than Natural Selection.
Creation Scientists certainly don’t engage in such rituals – so I can only assume that you are extrapolating your personal experience of the behaviour of Evolutionary scientists – you cannot possibly know how Creation Scientists behave, in view of the fact that you claim that you don’t know any creation scientists.

Cough!!


Quote Robin
Good heavens. How long have you been using the internet for?

Well fiddly dee – here you go again Robin, shooting yourself in the foot!!
I was involved in developing ONE OF THE FIRST INTRANETS in Ireland in the early 1980’s – how long have YOU been using the INTERNET?

And now that we have compared the ‘size of our internet shoes’ so to speak – can we get back to your explanation of Biological Evolution. Answering the four basic questions posed in my posting on page 3 of this thread on 31/03/05 @ 21.20 would be a good start.


Quote Poisonwood
Bunkum. Pure and Simple Bunkum. What we are speaking of here is Evolution as a biological theory to explain the diversity of life.

Using the words “Bunkum” and “Evolution” in close proximity is very appropriate!!!
Using the words “Pure and Simple Bunkum” is even more appropriate!!!

The current scientifically valid Law of Biogenesis rules out the spontaneous generation of life – so maybe that is why you have pedantically avoided providing any scientific explanation for the origins of life.

Quote Poisonwood
You can misunderstand it (Evolution) to mean anything you damn well please, just don't pretend that scientists misunderstand in the same brain-ossifying way as you.

The only people who CLAIM to have brains that have been generated by un-directed processes are Evolutionists – and ossification or worse is a distinct probability under this assumption!!!

I BELIEVE that my brain was “fearfully and wonderfully made” by an ever-loving God – who also created the entire Universe!!!

I am a qualified professional scientist with a fully functional brain and my UNDERSTANDING is that NO scientifically valid explanation currently exists for the origins of life – and a ‘Creation Model’ fits all observed reality in relation to living organisms.

The ‘bottom line’ in all of this is neatly summarised in your previous posting where you stated that “Evolution purports to explain the diversity of life on the planet and has nothing to say about origins of life.”

Certainly, the ‘ordinary person in the street’ has been led to believe that Biological Evolution is an ‘all-encompassing’ scientific theory that explains all aspects of life from “muck to man”. Your admission that Evolution “HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT (the) ORIGINS OF LIFE”, certainly deserves a to be communicated to the wider public – and indeed to many practicing scientists as well!!

Quote Robin
Danno, CallMe_Stan, anybody else -

Good heavens! Is nobody going to defend the bible in the Christians' forum?

Robin .............You forgot to ask ME!!!

J C!!!!

Quote Robin
Gen.1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image."

Gen.2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.) "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

Avidly awaiting any revelations...

Robin – I didn’t realise that you were ‘into’ divine revelation or that you had such an avid interest in Holy Scripture.
Does this indicate that you are ready to put your trust in the saving power of Jesus Christ? It would be a great honour to lead you to Jesus should you decide to do so.
I can tell you that Jesus Christ loves you and wants you to share eternity with Him in Heaven – if you decide to freely accept his gift of eternal salvation.

Anyway, to answer your question – there is NO contradiction between Gen 1:25-27 and Gen 2:18-19.

Gen 1:25-27 DESCRIBES the events on the SIXTH DAY of Creation – events that occurred in very close time proximity to each other. As you have correctly pointed out, it is clear from Gen 1:25-27 that land animals WERE created before mankind – even though it was only by a metaphorical ‘whisker’ as both land-based creatures and mankind were all created on the same day.

Gen 2:18-19 ELABORATES on WHY women were created (for partnership and friendship with men) and HOW all land-based creatures and birds were created (out of the ground) and HOW all living creatures were named (by Adam). Please note that it doesn’t state that all of this occurred on the Sixth Day – in fact, there is no reference to timing at all in this passage of scripture - and birds were actually created on the FIFTH DAY.

In plain language, Genesis Chapter 1 describes the act of Creation in ‘chronological order’ – while Genesis Chapter 2 elaborates on various aspects of creation in ‘subject order’ starting with the divinely sanctioned basis for the 7 day week (so on the seventh day God rested) and ending with the divinely ordained basis for all marriage (a man shall leave his parents and shall be united to his wife and they shall become one flesh).

robindch

> You forgot to ask ME!!!

Hey, JC, my man, I was, you know, like, just *so* worried in case you might have been raptured or something and we'd not have any more of yer darn fine and gawd-feeerin' commentaries on that dastardly and ANTI-SCIENTIPHIC Evolution silliness! Good to have you back again, way out there, spreading the Good Word, ministring the Good Minstry against those INFERNAL AFIESTIK PSYENTISTS!!!

> there is NO contradiction between Gen 1:25-27 and Gen 2:18-19.

That's one fine'n'dandy thing to know!!! PTL!!!! And PTMPBUH (just in case!!)!!!! And there was I thinking there was a contradiction because it was written in plain English in the later bit that "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an help meet for him", when the earlier bit said that all the animals and stuff had ALREADY been made so he couldn't have been alone at all at all (and all of it made on the same day too -- that's one busy omnipresent + omniscient deity, this big-white-bearded-man-in-sky and all-round-god-chappie!)

So anyway, just to clear it all up so that I can go to bed and sleep (in pacem dei, si non in saecula saeculorum!), if you get a moment in between all that complucated and ikky SCIENTIPHIC stuff, can you tell us all what the word "alone" might mean if it doesn't mean that he was by himself?

Thanks a Bunch!! And PTL!!! And PTMPBUH (you can't be too careful with these irritable deities!!!!)!!!!!

Toodle pip!

- robin.

Poisonwood

The current scientifically valid Law of Biogenesis rules out the spontaneous generation of life – so maybe that is why you have pedantically avoided providing any scientific explanation for the origins of life.

It's funny ... creationists hang on grimly to whatever little 'laws' they can which may favour their strange world view.

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules. Yours is typical 'god of the gaps' thinking.

I am a qualified professional scientist with a fully functional brain

This seems like a Faith position ... I want proof of this!

The ‘bottom line’ in all of this is neatly summarised in your previous posting where you stated that “Evolution purports to explain the diversity of life on the planet and has nothing to say about origins of life.”

Yes darling, but it is abundantly clear to all of those who passed through kindergarten that this does not mean that origins are not being studied scientifically, it just doesn't fall within the theory of evolution.

Certainly, the ‘ordinary person in the street’ has been led to believe that Biological Evolution is an ‘all-encompassing’ scientific theory that explains all aspects of life from “muck to man”. Your admission that Evolution “HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT (the) ORIGINS OF LIFE”, certainly deserves a to be communicated to the wider public – and indeed to many practicing scientists as well!!

It's just a basic fact that origins and evolution are two different branches of investigation within science. Calm down, you're sweating all over the net.

Excelsior

I will shut this thread down if the temperatures don't drop, seeing as simmering point seems to be turning into boiling point.

You are on the Christianity forum. Be inspired by Christ here. Less condescension. Less mocking. More plain old arguing and discussing.

The problem Robin identifies in Scripture is only a problem if you have a stauch, even shall I dare say Islamic approach to the perfection of Scripture. The clear meaning of the text is that God meant for Adam to have a human companion- as such, the account claims that marriage is a creation of God's and a natural, wholesome and good thing.

The contradiction only enters into the equation when you leave mainstream Christianity (meaning the fullness of mainstream back to the earliest days of the church) and enter into the very modern literalist movement emphasised by many within the independent and non-aligned evangelical Protestant churches.

robindch

> simmering point seems to be turning into boiling point.

Darn -- I'm not sure if you're referring to my post or not, but regardless, I'll stop and be serious now

> The problem Robin identifies in Scripture is only a problem if
> you have a stauch, even shall I dare say Islamic approach
> to the perfection of Scripture.

Hardly. My experience of christians of *all* kinds, from the kindest and most gentle human beings, to the most frightful bigots, is that they cherry-pick from the bible according to their own particular taste; say for example, from the Song of Songs for some pleasant, but faintly racy, verse in the first case, to some of Leviticus' rabid nastiness in the second, each to justify their own view, while ignoring balancing (and equally cherry-picked) quotations from elsewhere in the text of the book.

I simply don't understand the workings of the internal process which allows people to discard those bits of the text of the bible which they don't like, while asserting the perfection of those bits that they do, regardless of contradictions (etc) -- and it's this process of aggregation and belief-assertion that I'd like to get to the bottom of.

Anyhow, to summarise the responses to my query about the contradiction so far:

1 Call_Me,Stan says I'm reading it incorrectly. I point out that I'm not. Call_Me,Stan says, yes, he was wrong in his reply, but the text is still right regardless. (um, which *one* is right?)

2 Danno tells me not to worry about the text I've quoted and look elsewhere. Sorry -- I'd like an answer to the question I've asked!

3 JC says that there's no contradiction. Yes, there is -- it's easily seen.

4 Excelsior tells me that I shouldn't really be asking the question I've asked, and instead look at the same text as Danno suggested. Folks, I've asked a *specific* question about two *specific* verses!

Anyhow, what I'd like to know why it's apparently impossible for somebody simply to put their hand up in the air and be honest enough to say in plain English "Yes, you're quite right; there is a contradiction there"?

As soon as it's possible to admit that there's a contradiction, then the debate will be able to move on.

- robin.

Excelsior

I don't see a contradiction in the same text that you see one. You see one because you demand certain things from the text to begin with. You expect it to have certain intentions that it does not have.

As far as vague references to Christians taking from Song of Songs with one hand while leaving Leviticus alone goes, there isn't much for me to come back at. All I can say is that as one of the frightful bigot Christians, while Leviticus talks about sexual morality in some places and Song of Songs is entirely about sexual morality, they are discussing different aspects of the same thing, sex.

Song of Songs is an exultation of the righteous place of sex in the framework of Christianity- the delightful eroticism and satisfaction that should take place in a marriage. It lays out guidelines that are absolutely general, applicable in all Christian marriages, everywhere and forever.

Leviticus is a legal code for a pilgrim people trapped in the desert. Where Song of Songs is positive, Leviticus is negative- it deals with the prohibition of certain sexual conduct instead of the exultation of certain sexual attitudes.

They both deal with sex. But they deal with sex differently. They are both complementary texts. But they are not co-dependent texts.

bounty

Talk show radio deabate between, the head of the creationalist church, and some well informed callers

http://www.infidelguy.com/demo/infidelguy.com_hovind_vs_ig.mp3

This is a free sample from infidel guy, you'll need to right click and save as to listen

Poisonwood

bounty wrote:

Talk show radio deabate between, the head of the creationalist church, and some well informed callers

http://www.infidelguy.com/demo/infidelguy.com_hovind_vs_ig.mp3

This is a free sample from infidel guy, you'll need to right click and save as to listen

Excellent. That guy 'River' is extremely impressive. I think it shows that when creationist claims are examined closely, they completely fall apart. Indeed they show that there is a mischievous (deliberate) misquoting and misrepresentation of scientific studies, taken out of context to support false claims. Hovind is a hoot ... the man lives in a fairytale little world - hilarious really.

Danno

While there are misgivings and bigotism in the creation society, there is equally the same in the evolution society. That should be an easy fact to accept - ok???

I have seen first hand in my experience where a false claim by the creationist side was shot down, but easily, more broadminded creationist study showed me where that claim was explained in a proper and scientifically matter.

I for one am broadminded enough to read the evolution and creation stories and make my mid up on a topic-by-topic basis. I have to say that the creationist proof for God's existance versus the evolutionists proof against the existance of God is kinda like watching Kilkenny playing Leitrim in hurling, probably 9-36 V 0-02, with Kilkenny representing the creationist train of thought (obviously!!!)

RobinDch, while I enjoy engaging in this debate with you and others, I cannot but express my disgust at some of your posts. I am all for an open and honest debate, I try to the best of my ability to put my point across in the best way I can, and refer to context where I can to back up my post, I feel that your tactic to switch to insults and waffle is not doing your side of the debate any good.

I answered your last post as logically as I could, if you have difficulty in appreciating it, I will gladly re-construct my post in order to re-itterate the point, please don't resort to personal mud-shots!!! I have not done it to you - and I don't think that the moderater of this thread appreciates it either.

Can we move on???