The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Danno

Dear Mods and fellow Boards Members.

I wish to open this thread to discuss the Bible and Creationism, and to hear peoples opinions on what can be viewed as the most fundamental part of the origins of man, and also to tease out what prophecy has to offer in where we came from and where we are going.

I hope that with enough interest that this thread becomes a sticky.

I also wish to ask everyone who posts here not to personally attack any person contributing. I look forward to a good debate...

robindch

> to hear peoples opinions on what can be viewed as
> the most fundamental part of the origins of man

If you'd like to hear people's opinions, then I suggest that you look back over the threads you started earlier in the year, which are still available at the following URL's:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=238918
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=235658
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=235811
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=224944 (me started )

BTW, just in the news last week, Michael Behe, a prominent creationist and member of the aggressively fundamentalist 'Discovery Institute', was in the dock in Dover last week for the "Scopes II" trial during which he claimed that, by redefining 'science' himself so that it could include his own creationism, that astrology becomes a "science" too:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

It wasn't the first time that Behe stuck his foot in it that week, either:

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/90481/

Different month, same old nonsense.

Dades

I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism.

IMO prophesy has nothing to offer, as curiously it's meaning is always vague until after the event that was "prophesized".

Why are you posting for others' opinions without giving your own?

Playboy

Not this again :rolleyes:

J C

Quote Robin
BTW, just in the news last week, Michael Behe, a prominent creationist and member of the aggressively fundamentalist 'Discovery Institute', was in the dock in Dover last week for the "Scopes II" trial during which he claimed that, by redefining 'science' himself so that it could include his own creationism, that astrology becomes a "science" too:

Could I gently point out that Michael Behe is a believer in Intelligent Design i.e. the design of life by forces unknown over an undefined period of time.
He is therefore certainly neither a “creationist“ nor a Creation Scientist.
In fact, the Intelligent Design Movement is a breakaway EVOLUTIONIST GROUP that is somewhere on the faith spectrum between atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists.
I actually admire the efforts of the Intelligent Design proponents to give some logical and intellectual credibility to evolution by at least recognising that the complexity of life and the extreme specificity of it’s design is such that it’s production cannot be accounted for by undirected physical processes.

It is quite ironic that the current Dover School court case in Harrisburg PA is being billed as a ‘contest between Creation and Evolution’ – when in fact it is merely a dispute among two different types of evolutionists – the ‘Moronic Design’ proponents who believe that muck just happened to evolve into Man and the ‘Intelligent Design’ proponents who believe that (an undefined) intelligence played some (undefined) part in the process.

According to the New Scientist article on the Dover School Case, the US National Academy of Sciences defines a scientific theory as “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the Natural World that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses.”
This very limited definition fails to add that it must also be precisely defined and repeatably testable using objectively verifiable means – otherwise nobody will know what they are talking about and whatever they may think they are talking about can never be proven.

However, if we use the above very limited definition of a scientific theory, evolution still fails miserably when compared even with it!!!!!

For example, what “facts, laws, inferences or tested hypotheses” indicate that muck could EVER evolve into Man.

Equally, what “facts, laws, inferences or tested hypotheses” can satisfactory answer any of the following valid scientific questions in relation to evolution?

1. Have we observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true?
2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?
3. If the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, evolutioists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do evolutionists not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligence AKA God?
4. If evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures. Why has not even ONE continuum ever been observed among either living or fossil creatures for a functioning useful structure?
5. Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman?
6. Why do our Y-chromosome sequences (which are inherited in the male line i.e. 100% from our fathers) show that all men are originally descended from ONE man?
7. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind?
8. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design of the observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are multiple orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems?
9. Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an ”accident of nature” – while they know that the super computers and gene sequencers that they had to use to decode it, were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design?
10. Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual?
11. Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time?
12. Any putative ‘evolving organism’ is statistically just as likely to be taking two “critical amino acid sequence” steps backwards for every one step forwards, as it is to be going the other way around. If ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage – how can a population “work up” to the correct critical amino acid sequence through “genetic drift” or Natural Selection ?
13. Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true?
14. How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”?
15. Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if “upwards and onwards” Evolution is in action out there?
16. With odds in excess of 10 to the power of 1,800,000,000 against the production of the nucleic acid sequence of the Human Genome by accident – how do you explain it’s existence using random chance Evolution when the number of electrons in the known universe are only 10 to the power of 82?
17. Why is it claimed that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a scientific mystery?
18. What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
19. Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
20. Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
21. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?


Quote The Atheist
I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism.

This is your LUCKY DAY!!!

I'm amazed that you haven’t met at least one Creation Scientist (on or offline) – there are many out there!!!!

Michael Behe certainly isn’t one – BUT I AM!!!

BTW did you know that God doesn’t BELIEVE in Atheists?!!!!

In fact, Jesus Christ died so that YOU TOO could spend eternity with Him in Heaven. All you need to do is to stop believing in the plainly ridiculous idea that people are ultimately descended from muck, repent of your sins and believe on the ONLY person who can save you, Jesus Christ.

I too used be an evolutionist.
I was lost, but now I have found Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savour.

Over and Out!!

robindch

> This is your LUCK DAY!!!

Hey, JC, my man, long time and you never write or call! Anyhow, while I'd be talking through my straw hat to say that it's good to see you, it's hardly surprising you've turned up now that I've dropped it!! I'm delighted to see as well that the exclamation key on your keyboard hasn't fallen off yet!!! Actually, if it does, you can get a new one like this:

http://www.fotosearch.com/IST198/v3059005/

Hope this might help you with your online evangelism!!!!

Actually, why don't you try over in the biology forum, since I suppose, strictly speaking, biology is a biological matter:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=392

Enjoy!!!1111 <darn shift-key's gone broke1>

athena 2000

J C wrote:

In fact, Jesus Christ died so that YOU TOO could spend eternity with Him in Heaven. All you need to do is to stop believing in the plainly ridiculous idea that people are ultimately descended from muck, repent of your sins and believe on the ONLY person who can save you, Jesus Christ.

I don't recall having to give up mucky evolutionary ideas had anything to do with Christian repentance and salvation. :cool:

Danno

I don't recall having to give up mucky evolutionary ideas had anything to do with Christian repentance and salvation.

The Bible clearly states what Jesus says in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."

Now, what does this have to say about Evolution?

Basically, Genesis starts with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." as we all know, (or should know ). Genesis, being the FIRST page of the Bible, must be very important, being the first page and all!!! Now, The Bible is Jesus book, right? And if you choose to believe in Evolution, sure you are contradicting that very first passage, eh? That renders you not fully accepting the truth of Jesus.

Sounds harsh, doesn't it. Well it is. It is tough cookies. Jesus made the rules - not me, not you. So to believe in Jesus Christ - you gotta believe in his every word, and that every word can be found in The Bible.

For here is something else that Jesus had to say: "You can enter God's Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose the easy way" (Matthew 7:13). Now for me, that empowers me to think deeply - it is easy to cherrypick from ideas of evolution and The Bible, but look at what that statement says about the consequences of it.

Food for thought.

jtsuited

you guys are so off the mark with your fairly reasonable scientific argument then followed up by your 'jesus is your salvation' nonsense. Funny!

Asiaprod

Sounds harsh, doesn't it. Well it is. It is tough cookies. Jesus made the rules - not me, not you. So to believe in Jesus Christ - you gotta believe in his every word, and that every word can be found in The Bible.

Danno, he did not write the Bible, you can attribute the concepts and laws to him, but the bible was written by ordinary people.

I am an editor, people often misunderstand the meaning and write the wrong word down, not to mention the translation problems faced when putting this great work together. I think you need to give a little leeway to the idea that the bible is correctly written down word for word. We have a saying in my industry, unless the author signs off on the final product, it ain`t the final product. I don`t see God`s signature. I believe you should have a lot more flexibility when it comes to interpreting your good book on a word for word basis. I am also not sure where the cookies enter the equation:)

GreenHell

Danno wrote:

all!!! Now, The Bible is Jesus book, right? And if you choose to believe in Evolution, sure you are contradicting that very first passage, eh? That renders you not fully accepting the truth of Jesus.

Bible - Author Jesus? The bible is a selection of texts by people who are/were the power that be in christianity, so its not really the word of God, more the words of God as selected by man. Not the worlds best catholic here but it always strikes me as weird when people try to apply a book as old as the bible to modern day science.

Dades

J C wrote:

This is your LUCKY DAY!!!

Whoo hoo!

You're not wrong - just check out the spirituality and humanities forum today - it's like all my secular Christmases' have come at once!

J C wrote:

BTW did you know that God doesn’t BELIEVE in Atheists?!!!!

I wouldn't blame him - if I can't see him - he can't see me!

I'm quite impressed with some of those intelligent design arguments. Some I've come across before, some are new. Food for thought without a doubt. My problem is the leap from accepting Intelligent Design, to defining that designer in our comfortable human terms.

If I wander down the street and find a cheesecake lying on the ground, will I say: "my wife makes cheesecake - she MUST have made this!" Or do I say: "Okay, I know that somebody made this but I have no way of knowing who - especially as there are many people who claim to make cheesecake".

I'm content in the ignorance. On the contrary a solution that I feel has been reached by jumping to conclusions gives me no satisfaction whatsoever.

J C

Quote Robin
Actually, why don't you try over in the biology forum, since I suppose, strictly speaking, biology is a biological matter:

In actual fact, my comments about evolution were in response to YOUR statement in relation to Dr Michael Behe that he was a creationist.

In any event, this thread is in part a discussion about ‘origins’ – which by definition touches upon both faith (in the case of evolution) and science (in the case of Creation Science). Both the Christianity Forum and the Biology Forum are therefore equally suitable sites to host this debate.

ALL discussion of evolution has been banned on the sceptics forum (amazing stuff for an outfit that supposedly prides themselves on questioning EVERYTHING) – but biologists are quite free to ‘teleport’ themselves and their viewpoints onto this thread if they so wish.


Quote athena 2000
I don't recall having to give up mucky evolutionary ideas had anything to do with Christian repentance and salvation

You are correct that strictly speaking (as St. Paul confirmed to his jailer in Acts16:31) all that you need to do is “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (NIV).

However, I would classify the repudiation of a belief in ‘muck to Man evolution’ and the acceptance of II Tim 3:16 that “All Scripture (including Genesis 1 & 2) is God-breathed” as being reasonable manifestations (even if they are not actual causes) of a person’s Christianity.


Quote Asiaprod
He (God) did not write the Bible, you can attribute the concepts and laws to him, but the bible was written by ordinary people.
I am an editor, people often misunderstand the meaning and write the wrong word down, not to mention the translation problems faced when putting this great work together. I think you need to give a little leeway to the idea that the bible is correctly written down word for word.

Jesus Christ confirmed both the veracity and the importance of EVERY WORD in the Bible in Mt 4:4 when He said “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God.” (NIV)
The fact that ALL SCRIPTURE (i.e. the entire Bible) is “God breathed” is also confirmed in II Tim 3:16.

The Creator God of the Universe is quite capable of ensuring that “the bible was correctly written down word for word” (by ordinary people) – and He has PERSONALLY assured us that this is the case in Mt 4:4 above.

God is also more than capable of ensuring that His Word isn’t subsequently corrupted by sinful Mankind and this is confirmed in Prov 30:5-6 which states that “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you AND PROVE YOU A LIAR”.


Quote Asiaprod
We have a saying in my industry, unless the author signs off on the final product, it ain`t the final product. I don`t see God`s signature.

If you are a Christian (i.e. a person saved by faith in Jesus Christ) you will have already committed yourself to believing everything that Jesus has said – including the fact that He is God and that He ‘signed off’ on the veracity of the Bible – see Mt 4:4 above.


Quote Asiaprod
I am an editor, people often misunderstand the meaning and write the wrong word down

The fact that we cannot believe everything that we read in newspapers, is certainly no reason to doubt the infallible Word of God in the Bible!!!!


Quote Green Hell
Bible - Author Jesus? The bible is a selection of texts by people who are/were the power that be in christianity, so its not really the word of God, more the words of God as selected by man.

See my answers to Asiaprod above.

Quote Green Hell
Not the worlds best catholic here but it always strikes me as weird when people try to apply a book as old as the bible to modern day science.

God and His Word are ETERNAL and INFALLIBLE – “modern day science” is neither!!!


Quote jtsuited
you guys are so off the mark with your fairly reasonable scientific argument then followed up by your 'jesus is your salvation' nonsense. Funny!

I am glad that I brought a smile to your face!!!

I am a man of both faith and science.

Robin raised a scientific issue and I gave a scientific answer.

The Atheist proclaimed a belief in the non-existence of God – and indeed Creation Scientists. I made a faith-based response in reply to these proclamations.

robindch

> Michael Behe is [...] neither a "creationist" nor a Creation Scientist.

Ah, JC, you're such a dote!

Anyhow, just to put you right on this minor point of fact -- do feel free to check out Michael Behe's profile over in the Discovery Institute. You'll remember that this institution produced, then unfortunately leaked, its famous Wedge Document, which outlines the strategy by which they hope to force creationism, aka Intelligent Design, into American classrooms using all means at their considerable disposal. This unpleasant and deceitful tactical plan can be found all over the internet, including on the DI's site itself:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349

Take a look at the second "Governing Goal":

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

While this smells slightly of creationism to me, I'm sure there's a creationist alternative meaning which denies the obvious -- do let us know what it is!

Toodle-pip!

J C

Quote The Atheist
You're not wrong - just check out the spirituality and humanities forum today - it's like all my secular Christmases' have come at once!

Your belief that all of your “secular CHRISTMASES have come at once” reminds me of the story I once heard about an Irish Atheist who blamed God for all of his problems!!!!


Quote The Atheist
Quote J C
BTW did you know that God doesn’t BELIEVE in Atheists?!!!!
I wouldn't blame him - if I can't see him - he can't see me!

God knows ALL about you because He is omnipresent and omniscient.

Just because you don’t see God doesn’t mean that He can’t see you!!!

There are many invisible forces in the Universe (both temporal and spiritual) that we cannot see – but which are nonetheless very real indeed!!!!


Quote The Atheist
I'm quite impressed with some of those intelligent design arguments. Some I've come across before, some are new. Food for thought without a doubt. My problem is the leap from accepting Intelligent Design, to defining that designer in our comfortable human terms.

Are you sure that you are a REAL Atheist – and not just an IRISH one?!!!

I can assure you that the God of the Bible is the only God that I am aware of who ‘fits the bill’ when it comes to creating life and indeed the Universe.

The God of the Bible is the only God that I know of who has claimed to be a transcendent personal God who single-handedly created the Universe and all life therein in six days. He is also the only God that I am aware of who ‘fits’ every one of following proofs for His existence and many more besides:-

1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.
2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.
3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.
4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.
6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God

He also happens to be the only God that I am aware of who loved you and me personally so much that He humbled Himself to take on our Human nature and to suffer the most horrible death imaginable in perfect atonement for ALL of our sins. All that He asks of us is that we turn to Him and repent of our sins – which is literally ‘nothing’ in comparison with what He has done for us.


Quote The Atheist
If I wander down the street and find a cheesecake lying on the ground, will I say: "my wife makes cheesecake - she MUST have made this!" Or do I say: "Okay, I know that somebody made this but I have no way of knowing who - especially as there are many people who claim to make cheesecake".

There is only ONE God who has even claimed to be CAPABLE of making this particular “cheesecake” (the Universe and all life therein)!!!!


Quote The Atheist
I'm content in the ignorance. On the contrary a solution that I feel has been reached by jumping to conclusions gives me no satisfaction whatsoever.

Nobody should be happy in ignorance - as a Creation Scientist I get a great “buzz” from reviewing all of the latest scientific breakthroughs in proving the existence of God and His Special Creation of the Universe and all life therein in six days!!!!


Quote Robin
Ah, JC, you're such a dote!

And you’re also a wonderful Human Being yourself Robin.

Jesus Christ loves you more than anybody else possibly could – and all you need to do is to believe on Him and repent of your sins.

He is standing at your door and knocking!!!

J C

Quote Robin
Take a look at the second "Governing Goal" (of the Discovery Institute):

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

While this smells slightly of creationism to me, I'm sure there's a creationist alternative meaning which denies the obvious -- do let us know what it is

Whatever about your olfactory sensibilities Robin, I can assure you that neither the Discovery Institute nor Dr Behe are creationists.

Their stated objective of replacing “materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God” is fully in line with THEISTIC EVOLUTION.

The treatment meted out to Dr Behe by fellow evolutionists (of the secular variety) is indeed a salutary lesson for any other theistic evolutionists out there who are inclined to “cosy up” to their atheistic evolutionary colleagues.

Indeed a SECULAR EVOLUTIONIST Prof Richard Sternberg of the Smithsonian Institute who merely published a peer reviewed science paper by Dr Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute was almost sacked for doing so. The following extract from an Irish Times report of the incident shows the current state of academic freedom (and it incidentally also proves my point that Intelligent Design is NOT Creation Science):

Prof Richard Sternberg has two Ph.Ds, one in molecular biology and the other in theoretical biology. Until a year or so ago he divided his working time between the prestigious Smithsonian Institution in Washington, and the National Institutes of Health. He took on an unpaid post as editor of a small and somewhat obscure scientific journal. He decided to publish, after normal peer review processes, a paper by Stephen C. Meyer that made the case for "intelligent design".

After the article appeared in August 2004, all hell broke loose. All Richard Sternberg did was publish the paper. He himself is not convinced by intelligent design, but publication in itself was enough to cause mayhem.
Within days of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian were calling him everything from a "crypto-priest" to a "sleeper cell operative for creationists".

Creationists believe that the earth came into being more or less as described in the poetic first lines of the Book of Genesis. They completely discount any evidence for evolution, and many of them believe that the earth is relatively young, perhaps less than 10,000 years old.
It might appear that intelligent design is somewhat of a middle position between the extreme positions of atheistic Darwinists and the creationists.

Not according to the scientists who immediately sought to get Prof Sternberg fired for his temerity in letting "creationism" into a respectable journal.
Given that for years neo-Darwinists had sneered at intelligent-design advocates for their failure to publish in peer-reviewed journals, it is somewhat odd that one of the first editors to accept a paper was immediately targeted for academic annihilation.
And targeted he was, as attested to by the Office for Public Counsel, which is an independent federal investigative agency. It aims to protect federal employees from discrimination on the usual grounds such as race, religion and gender and has a particular role in the protection of whistleblowers from reprisals.
It issued a report that found Prof Sternberg had been systematically smeared and his academic credentials questioned, and that the only thing that appeared to have saved him from being fired outright was the desire not to make him a martyr.
The Office was able to access e-mail sent by many Smithsonian scientists. One senior scientist wrote: " We are evolutionary biologists, and I am sorry to see us made into the laughing stock of the world, even if this kind of rubbish sells well in backwoods USA".
Everything about Prof Sternberg, who is a research assistant at the Smithsonian, was investigated by his colleagues to see if it could provide grounds for dismissal. Some even suggested using the fact that his sympathetic sponsor (supervisor) had died as an excuse to remove him.
Among the black marks against him were that he withdrew an unusual amount of specimens for investigation and held on to them too long. Particularly suspicious, apparently, was the fact that he had withdrawn 50 books from the library.
What might be construed as diligence in another context was now framed as deviance. Gradually, his position was made more and more difficult in the Smithsonian.
The National Center for Science Education, a California think-tank that defends the teaching of evolution, was accused by the special counsel for the Office of orchestrating attacks on the professor, which it denies.
However, the think-tank's executive director was quoted in the Washington Post in defence of the Smithsonian's investigation of Prof Sternberg's religious beliefs. Eugenie Scott said: "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist. Sternberg denies it, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it argues for zealotry."
Unfortunately for Ms Scott, the evidence for zealotry seems to add up rather more strongly for those who opposed Prof Sternberg's decision to publish than it does for the man himself. On his website, the professor explains that his "failure" related to an unstated requirement in his role as an editor of a scientific journal.

The above Irish Times article has said it all and no further comment is necessary!!!

growler

conversely

1. have we observed any direct Godly actions ? If there was a God surely we would see manifestations in line with those in the Bible ?

2. If earth DNA is so complex, then surely the DNA needed to create an omnipotent intelligence would be even more complex ? (and therefore even less likely)
3. if Seti were to pick up anything resembling intelligence, wouldn't that contradict the Biblical interpretation of the universe anyway?

etc. etc.

I think there is a hugely arrogant in the arguments made by creationists when they use current scientific abilities as being the zenith of human technology / learning. Of course science can't demonstrate or disprove the ability for life to spontaneously generate, or accurately measure genetic / evolutionary change in the miniscule timespans humans live for etc. As a species we've only been around for a insignificant time (whether millions or thousands of years) we understand an equally insignicant part of the big picture. Given the speed with which we have developed as a civilization, it may be millions more years before either humans (or our then evolved equivalent).

JC:
6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God

To me that means we just haven't seen it happen yet or wouldn't be able to see / understand it even if we were looking at it.

robindch

> I can assure you that neither the Discovery Institute
> nor Dr Behe are creationists.

Darn, I just knew that I must have misread and misunderstood that incriminating sentence in which they said that they were! Rats, my argument based only upon cheap and tatty observable facts instead of unimpeachable argument-from-authority has just gone up in flames!!

> The treatment meted out to Dr Behe by fellow evolutionists

Jeez, you just can't make this sh*t up, can you? :rolleyes:

Anyhow, as I've now become a creationist, having been swayed by JC's lucid (if slightly unreadable) prose, I'd like to share with everybody my NEW, INCONTROVERTIBLE argument which demonstrates the existence of GOD:

1. Take something heavy in your right hand and drop it onto the floor, and note the angle at which it hits the floor.

2. Lift up the object and repeat the experiment, noting the second angle.

3. Compare the two angles -- they're the SAME!!

This is incredible, because there's an infinity of angles that the object can fall at, but there's only one angle that it ACTUALLY falls at. Since the chances of the same angle happening twice are absolutely ZERO, therefore GOD must have directed the falling object, therefore HE exists!

Ah, it's all clear now! I understand!! Praise the LORD!!1 <damn, gone done and broke my exclamation mark again1111>

Danno

Please folks, none of the personal attacking drivel that will never conclude the argument...

Danno

Now RobinDCH, you have pointed out three very interesting observations, listed 1-2-3 above.

Onething that strikes me is the predictibility of the result - the same angle. Now for behaviour to exist, it must have rules to obey - otherwise chaos. Right?

Now, who would you say made the rules for gravity???

PS: "This is incredible, because there's an infinity of angles that the object can fall at, but there's only one angle that it ACTUALLY falls at. Since the chances of the same angle happening twice are absolutely ZERO, therefore GOD must have directed the falling object, therefore HE exists!"

The statement you made is pure drivel - read it word for word again! Clues: Chances and Twice

robindch

> Now for behaviour to exist, it must have rules to obey - otherwise chaos.

Good, now we're getting somewhere.

You seem to be happy that there is a not-immediately-visible something (which we'll call gravity 'gravity') which causes a physical process to choose one outcome over another one.

Same with what we'll call evolution -- things which are able to reproduce more successfully than others will spread faster throughout the environment, and possibly ultimately displace, other less-successful replicators. This is the not-immediately-visible, but in hindsight, quite obvious, something which governs the physical processes which give rise to life.

Creationists such as JC, Behe, Dembski and no doubt yourself, will happily deny this and insist (see JC's posting above), that evolution is 'random', when it is anything but random, instead being precisely directed.

> never conclude the argument...

The argument will never conclude because (for reasons I'd prefer not to speculate on) creationists are forced, by their selective reading and black'n'white fundamentalist interpretation, of certain bits of an ancient Sumerian legend, to support the belief that life and its diversity arose over the course of a week at the behest of an elderly man with a beard, and a ready line in smiting, who lives in the sky somewhere. They're simply not interested in any listening to any fact which dispose of this naive view, as the last round of creationism/evolution quite adequately showed.

Dades

J C wrote:

Are you sure that you are a REAL Atheist – and not just an IRISH one?!!!

I'm dying to know - what's an Irish Atheist?

J C wrote:

I can assure you that the God of the Bible is the only God that I am aware of who ‘fits the bill’ when it comes to creating life and indeed the Universe.

Herein lies my pickle.

If we (for the sake of argument) assume that life on earth could be nothing but intelligent design, what happens now? We look for the designer. You say only the God of the bible "fits the bill". I say - why are we limited to ticking a box on the list of world religions? Is it not as likely a supremely intelligent race passed through our solar system and planted the seeds of life? It's no less of a leap.

Belief in Intelligent Design and believe in the biblical God are exclusive beliefs. Both require different "proofs". It possible to believe in one while but not believing in the other. Proof of intelligent design is only proof of Intelligent Design. Trying to name your favorite god The Designer ultimately just shows your colours.

Heck we need a disbelievers forum NOW!!

robindch

> Intelligent Design

I think it's probably worth summarizing the Intelligent Design/Creationist fallacy at this point:

1. Religious person looks at the world and can't understand how complexity arises.
   
2. Religious person ignores general explanation based upon repeated observation and simple, general underlying principle, declaring that neither exist (well, they certainly don't in the text of the bible)
   
3. Religious person declares that complexity was produced by bearded chap in sky.

And I think that's about it.

This isn't to say, though, that ID is the dead end that it so often appears, or that it's failed to produce hot new research, which is an accusation unfairly levelled against both the ICR and the DI, both of whom employ PR outfits, but, strangely, have yet to publish any results in any scientific journals.

An unemployed physicist in the US, one Bobby Henderson, has produced a fascinating new speculative theory, fully in line with the stringent levels of proof that Intelligent Design requires and which has had quite a lot of coverage in the media recently. It's the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, with worldwide headquarters at:

http://www.venganza.org/

and I solemnly suggest that everybody reach out their hands to touch His Noodly Appendage. They're evangelists too:

http://www.venganza.org/spread/springfield.htm

Praise the Monster! Make ye known His Name amongst the Heathen!

> Heck we need a disbelievers forum NOW!!

http://www.venganza.org/forum/index.php

Glad to help!

Dades

robindch wrote:

> Heck we need a disbelievers forum NOW!!

http://www.venganza.org/forum/index.php

Glad to help!

Nooo. I mean one under the comforting umbrella of Boards.ie.

robindch

> under the comforting umbrella of Boards.ie.

In that case, the closest is probably the skeptics forum at:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=422

...though I'd imagine there should be enough people around to make creating an atheist/agnostic/heathen forum an idea worth considering...

Danno

I think it's probably worth summarizing the Intelligent Design/Creationist fallacy at this point:

1. Religious person looks at the world and can't understand how complexity arises.

2. Religious person ignores general explanation based upon repeated observation and simple, general underlying principle, declaring that neither exist (well, they certainly don't in the text of the bible)

3. Religious person declares that complexity was produced by bearded chap in sky.

1 - Religious person looks at complexity in the world and understands that ONLY a great designer could have designed it - not something that happened by chance.

2 - Religious person accepts the general explanation given in the Bible - yet there is NO general explanation based upon repeated observation offered by evolution.

3 - That "bearded chap" is God.

Excelsior

This will never become a sticky under my watch.

Even if it wasn't littered with such a preposterous number of exclamation marks that the government should consider taxing them, these issues are nowhere near the core of Christianity. They are utterly tangential and their continuing re-occurance, started on this forum by Christians, is a testament to the fact that if Satan can't be bothered setting us off on active evil (something history testifies we don't need much encouragement for) he is content to make us passionate about things that amount to nothing.

"Debate" between Creation "scientists" and evolutionists is just one such area of passion.

A Brief Introduction
The Bible is a collection of 66 books split into 2 sections of 39 Hebrew Scriptures and 27 Greek texts. The Hebrew Scriptures recount what Christians call the Old Testament. It is a partial revelation, we believe, of the Covenant God has made with humanity. The second, much shorter section is the New Testament which describes the birth, life, ministry, and death of a carpenter called Jesus of Nazareth. It is mostly concerned with the very strange events 3 days after his death by crucifixtion that have (for better or worse) changed history.

The first book of the Bible is Genesis. It opens poetically with the famous words, "In the beginning...." Today, Christians approach this first chapter in three different ways.

1) Theistic Evolution.
The theistic evolutionist reads the chapter as a poetic allegory. Historical analysis lends great weight to this approach as many contemporaries of Jesus in 2nd Temple Judaism understood it in this way. Early Christians did too. (That is as a poetic allegory. They were not aware of the scientific theory of evolution).

They see no contradiction between the words being true in a poetic sense just as these words express truth far better than a technical explanation, but they were never meant to be taken literally and modern evolution theory.

Like the vast majority of Christians of all denominations and background I know in Ireland, I am a theistic evolutionist.

2) Creation Science
Danno and JC are Creation Scientists. The science word could justifiably be put in inverted commas since they can never propose any empirical, testable, falsifiable experiments to back up any of their direct or indirect claims.

Creation Scientists are a product of the 1900's and reached their zenith with the Scopes Trial. They find their roots in the controversial sect, The Seventh Day Adventists. They take the first chapter of Genesis to be a literal account of Creation. They are often very defensive and divisive. They don't seem to like me and have been known to threaten to ask my employer to reconsider my pay cheque.

3) Proper Creationists (or the Lazy Faithful)
I have met a handful of noble people (including a quite accomplished archeologist) who have seen the nature of this argument at first hand. They see it produces a whole lot of heat and no light. They see that it is always acrimonious. And they think to themselves, "This doesn't affect my life at all".

As a result of all this and their personality type, they embrace the poetry of Genesis 1 and disregard efforts to bolster God's Word with a "science" it didn't need for its first few thousand years. They do not embrace this Creation Science even though they hold to Genesis 1 as their explanation. They take a poetic answer to Creation and leave literalism for the literalists. It isn't that they disregard or dismiss modern evolution theory, but they are honest and say that their day to day life is not intruded upon in any way by the investigations of Stephen Jay Gould into molluscs.

robindch

> > [robindch] Creationists [...] insist [...] that evolution is 'random' when it is anything but random
> [danno] the world [...] happened by chance.

The wheels on the bus go round and round,
round and round,
round and round.
<et seq...>

> such a preposterous number of exclamation marks that
> the government should consider taxing them

<grin> consider this one beer to you

> things that amount to nothing

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/pr/11.html#29

g'night all.

J C

Quote growler
1. have we observed any direct Godly actions ? If there was a God surely we would see manifestations in line with those in the Bible ?

2. If earth DNA is so complex, then surely the DNA needed to create an omnipotent intelligence would be even more complex ? (and therefore even less likely)

3. if Seti were to pick up anything resembling intelligence, wouldn't that contradict the Biblical interpretation of the universe anyway?

1. God’s actions in the World are miracles – usually performed by His angels. We are currently enjoying the period of God’s grace before He decides to move in judgement upon the World and it’s inhabitants. He is therefore only INDIRECTLY manifesting His presence in the World at the moment. Whenever He does decide to DIRECTLY manifest His presence in the World, we will ALL know about it!!!

2. DNA is NOT a necessary pre-requisite for intelligent life. Demons and angels of great intelligence populate the spiritual realm and neither entities contain DNA.
The transcendent Creator God of the Universe logically HAD to work outside of the currently observed Laws of the Universe to create it in the first place and therefore His ‘origin’ is scientifically inaccessible – and that is where faith must of necessity take over.
Evolutionists have faith in the unfounded belief that NOTHING blew up in the Big Bang.
Creation Scientists believe that a supremely intelligent pre-existing God created it all.

3. ET intelligence is already indicated by the Bible – demons and angels are both forms of extraterrestrial life.


Quote growler
Of course science can't demonstrate or disprove the ability for life to spontaneously generate, or accurately measure genetic / evolutionary change in the miniscule timespans humans live for etc. As a species we've only been around for a insignificant time (whether millions or thousands of years) we understand an equally insignificant part of the big picture. Given the speed with which we have developed as a civilization, it may be millions more years before either humans (or our then evolved equivalent).

I agree with most of your sentiments and Creation Scientists also share your belief that the more that one knows, the more one is humbled by the realisation that we actually know very little.
However, this shouldn’t stop us trying to find out more – and that is what science is all about.
Science however, doesn’t have a monopoly on wisdom or indeed knowledge and that is where philosophy and indeed Divine Revelation also comes in.


Quote Robin
I just knew that I must have misread and misunderstood that incriminating sentence in which they (the Discovery Institute) said that they were (creationists)!

Let’s examine the so-called “incriminating sentence” again Robin.

“To replace materialistic explanations with the THEISTIC understanding that nature and human beings are CREATED by God.”

Please note the presence of the word THEISTIC as in THEISTIC evolution. Please also note that theistic evolutionists routinely use the words “CREATION BY GOD” and what they mean is that evolution was how this “CREATION BY GOD” was achieved.

In general, theistic evolutionists are Christians or other monotheists who interpret Genesis as a description of how life supposedly evolved on Earth – and so they occupy the farthest point away from neo-Darwinian evolutionists on the evolutionary ‘faith spectrum’ so to speak.

Between these two extremes of evolutionary thought are the ‘Intelligent Design’ proponents. In general they believe in evolution but they do not define what ‘intelligence’ did the designing (unlike the theistic evolutionists who generally claim that it was the God of the Bible that did it). Because they don’t claim that the God of the Bible did the designing, the Intelligent Designers are therefore closer to the agnostic evolutionists than they are to the Christian theistic evolutionists.

The ‘origins’ Faith Spectrum is as follows:
Atheistic evolutionists, agnostic evolutionists, intelligent designers, theistic evolutionists and creationists.

The “fuss” at the Smithsonian was caused by the challenge of ‘Intelligent Design’ to Atheistic Evolutionists and their dogmatic faith in atheism i.e. their deeply held belief that there is no transcendent God or indeed any other “intelligence” involved in the evolution of the Universe.

The ‘over-the-top’ reaction of the “High Priests” of neo-Darwinian evolution proves that they are quite irrational creatures when their blind faith in atheism is rationally challenged even by one of their own (Prof Richard Sternberg). I shudder to think what they would do with a Creation Scientist if they got their hands on him/her!!!!

In any event, such suppression of academic freedom is quite reprehensible.

I don’t personally share any of Prof Richard Steinberg’s philosophical opinions and indeed I also differ quite sharply with Dr Stephen C. Meyer on many issues, but I respect them both as “world class” scientists WHO SHOULD NOT BE TREATED LIKE THIS.
Any scientist worthy of the name, should declare their opposition to this travesty and Prof Richard Steinberg should immediately be given a chair for his proven academic rigour and progressive tolerance of alternative views – which is after all HOW science actually makes progress!!!!.

Quote Robin
Anyhow, as I've now become a creationist, having been swayed by JC's lucid (if slightly unreadable) prose

Welcome aboard Robin, I knew that the ‘penny would eventually drop’ and being an engineer yourself, you would logically conclude that muck could NEVER evolve into Man – just like it doesn’t spontaneously ‘morph’ into cars, aeroplanes or even buildings – because it simply doesn’t have the POTENTIAL to do so.

When I lost my faith in evolution, I stopped telling people that I was descended from a Slimeball, and amazingly their opinion of me greatly improved.

Quote Robin
Take something heavy in your right hand and drop it onto the floor, and note the angle at which it hits the floor.

Robin, I appreciate that you have the “enthusiasm of a convert” but this experiment of yours can only test the Laws of Gravity or badly injure your big toe!!!!!

I hate to hold back your obvious zeal to go forth and convert the masses, but I feel that I must point out that your proposed experiment isn’t incontrovertible proof for the existence of God!!!!!

However, sensible physical LAWS that work together in a purposeful coordinated manner to achieve definite and predictable results (as the Laws of the Universe do) indicates that a sensible ‘intelligence’ devised them – and this ‘intelligence’ as well as His Laws are working on such a universal scale that it can only be God.

P.S. You have taken a very good first step by becoming a Creationist, Robin. However, to be saved you must repent of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Excelsior

I have laid out the three kinds of opinion I have come across people holding in my life and my work. But now I am about to take the deep breath and plunge into engaging with the comments written by some other Christians on this thread already.

I have no doubt from interaction with Danno and JC that they are passionate Christians and I would love to meet both of them. But I disagree with their interpretations of the Bible and more importantly, I am offended by how they communicate their interpretation. I do not wish to start a pitched battle between me as the wussy intellectual Christian selling the Gospel out for a few half assed attempts at philosophy by Richard Dawkins versus the staunch, immovable narrow-mindedness of literalist fundamentalists keen to protect their sacred cows even at the cost of becoming clanging cymbals but instead I envisage and relish a wholesome, respectful, God-honouring debate amongst brothers.

How I Read Genesis 1
Firstly, I remember that the Biblical texts were not written with chapters and verse in place. They are a late addition to the text and while they greatly ease discussion and reference, they have unforseen negative consequences. They are not God inspired. They truncate movements within the books to give a distorted view at times. Verses themselves allow passages to more easily be taken completely out of context. I'm always ragging on Robindch for doing that.

So the first thing I have to admit is that I don't even read Genesis 1. I couldn't see the point in doing that! Why? Because Genesis 1 is just part of coherent whole formed by Genesis 1-3. In the text, as even a cursory examination will demonstrate, what we call Genesis Chapter 1 is actually a passage all dressed up as a chapter. The opening scene of the Bible ends with the line:

After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. (Gen 3:24)

When Moses wrote Genesis, inspired by God (but written by man, for we Christians are not Muslims ) he wrote it so that it began with a story far more important than the mechanism of how God created the ins and outs of the Cosmos. It is a myth of Enlightenment modernity that Creation Scientists buy into that says that how things work is the most important thing about them. The meaning of things is found in why things are, not how.

God is described in very general, non-specific terms as the intentional Creator, who deems His own efforts "Good" (Ricky Gervais has that great line about "Would that we were all our own critics...."). Even in my solid old leather bound KJV, humanity is the culmination of this creative effort. Male and female he created them and their defining, over-riding characteristic that differentiates them from all that has gone before is that they are made in his own image. They too are good. And with them made, God rests.

The main point of Genesis Chapter 1, I argue, is not the ins and outs of how the universe came to be (for that is not discussed beyond the fact that God called them into being) but why they came to be. They came because the trinitarian God felt that that would be good. And the peak of all of this Creation is found in you and me, both made uniquely to somehow bear an image of God within us.

But Genesis Capter 1, as we know it today, is only the introduction of the story dealt with in Genesis 1-3. We see that the image bearing humanity lived initially in a state of idyll with God. Again, Eden is not the focus of the author's attention but the special relationship between the man and God. Adam has tasks assigned to him by God and a friendship with God. God takes pleasure in Adam's pleasure.

As I understand it, the real point of the opening of the Bible comes when this natural state of things is disrupted with the serpent's entrance. Again, Moses does not intend to explain the biological make-up of the Fall (for example, from where did the serpent come and how did he arrive are unasked, nevermind unanswered). What Moses clearly wants us to see is that by their own free will, Adam and Eve chose to disobey the warnings of God, their Creator, guide, provider and most importantly, friend. Genesis 1 exists to explain how Genesis 3 can happen.

Humanity falls. Sin enters the world. All of the cosmos is disrupted. God and man can no longer be friends. And even as God is explaining the consequences of their decision to Adam and Eve, he tells them of the coming Christ.

For me, Genesis 1-3 is not about the double helix of DNA, the 23 chromosomes, the random mutation of genes by solar radiation or the likelihood of a jumbo jet being assembled by a gust of wind. It is about the miracle of God making us in our image to share in his glory and our decision to go another way. For me, a far more pressing area for thought, contemplation and devotion for the Christian than even the vast expanses of space is the fact that the Bible begins with a tree from which disease enters the world and ends with a tree who's leaves will heal the nations.

For me, the issue is not so much did Genesis happen as the fact that Genesis is happening, today, in our lives, as we continually establish ourselves as lords over and above God. We de-god God in our lives today without a tree of knowledge to focus on. It tells the deepest truth of all:
Man is in rebellion against God. All of Creation is suffering. But God is putting things right.


The issue is not so much did Genesis happen, but rather that Genesis is happening.

Excelsior

The God-Breath in Scripture

When Creation Scientists argue for a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, they always use this quote from the second letter Paul wrote to his student Timothy.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16)

The Bible never says that it is to be take literally. Bibical literalists will never cede to this point but you must intepret even 2 Tim 3:16, their proof text, to get to the position that Scripture doesn't require interpretation.

But I want to make a few short comment on the interpretation of this text. "God-breated" is an interesting phrase. I would have thought that had St. Paul intended to write "All Scripture is to be taken literally" he might have written something like "Don't interpret any Scripture". Instead he uses this God-breated phrase.

I would argue that what he is alluding to (poetically) is that the Word of God is spoken in some miraculous way through the stylus of his assistant to whom he dictates his words, as it does for his fellow apostle Peter or indeed for Moses. Air must flow over the larynx to make a word. I argue that this verse does not mean that Scripture needs always to be taken literally but that God speaks through Scripture.

Speech is a combination of the breathing over the larynx and the words that need to be communicated. In the opening line of John's Gospel we hear that Jesus can be described in this way:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made...."

That is how a Gospel begins and we can see that the whole Bible begins in the very same way:

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light...." (Gen 1:3)

I think in 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul is making reference to the fact that in Scripture, God creates with his voice. Paul is saying that Scripture has the authority and power of God. He is not arguing for a literalist methodology in the reading of this Word.

(As a digression, Paul is touching here on his primary theme of the inaugurated eschatology that is brought about through the Easter events and the coming of the Gospel but that is for another, more profitable discussion...)

The reason this is important is that Creation Science rests on the faulty assumption that the truth of God is somehow sold out if we take a moment to investigate how it is meant to be interpreted. Interpretation takes the form of:

1) Trying to understand what the original recipients of the text got from it
2) Trying to understand how the text applies to our society today
3) Trying to understand how the text applies to us, as individuals, today.

This is meant to be a prayerful and worshipful endeavour on one hand while simultaneously being a rigorous and honest engagement of our critical faculties. These two demands feedback into each other to make an ever more praise-demanding endeavour and when this happens, theology at its best is the result. Interpreting the Bible is not making it say whatever suits us. The Gospels are clearly intended to be taken literally. But when 2nd Temple Jews, Jesus' contemporaries read from Daniel that the skies would darken and that the Son of Man would descend on clouds from heaven, they did not expect that the next line would read "And the rest of the country will be mostly dry with scattered showers". Understanding the difference in intention between Genesis 1-3, Daniel 7 and John 19 is crucial for understanding and communicating God's liberating message.

My final word on the invalidity of the literalist approach is that Jesus was a Rabbi. Rabbis trained their whole lives to interpret the Scriptures. Jesus interpreted the Scriptures. He astonished his hearers on the words he spoke on his own authority. He often begins sentences with, "You have heard it said, but I tell you this...." He is reinterpreting the Scriptures. Jesus didn't think literalism applied across the board. Nor do I. I think you do a dis-service to God and you challenge the approaches of Jesus in his teaching when you argue that reading Genesis 1 thougtfully equals selling out the truth of God's Word.

Danno, you argue that the first page is somehow more important in the Bible. But surely all Scripture is God-breathed (whatever that turns out to mean) so no paragraph is less or more important than any other?

Fundamentally guys, I disagree with your 6-day Creation theory because days didn't actually exist until the 4th day. As you well know, the Hebrew word used can apply just as easily to the term "eon" as it does to "day". For a day to exist, the sun must exist. Therefore, according to you, God made days on the 4th day. Therefore, according to you, God is illogical. That directly contradicts Scripture. Reducto ad infinitum or the VIR rule or whatever logical trap I've set demonstrates clearly that the early Christian leaders must have been on to something when they mocked the idea of a literal Creation account.

Excelsior

There is nothing contradictory in holding a firm acceptance of modern evolution theory and having a firm faith in Jesus as Lord. There is no contradiction even, between holding the Bible to be the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct of Christian life and to have been divinely inspired and in some way infallible and simultaneously being an evolutionist.

You can believe that God intentionally and personally created all that is, including the idea of "is" in the first place and believe in the theory of evolution.

They do no contradict unless you reach too far with the science into philosophy and meta-physics or unless you bring philosophical or ideological assumptions with you about what God must be like to the text.

I think Intelligent Design advocates do just that. They feel a need to defend God's Word, but like a hapless school friend who picks fights in the yard at breaktime with anyone who makes fun of you, all in an effort to defend your honour, God's Word can (and has) taken care of itself.

I came in from a long journey this evening and decided to make myself a cup of tea. I filled up the kettle and switched it on. The water boiled. I made tea. There are 2 ways of understanding that event. One is scientific and it describes the heating of the water through the electical processes that drive my kettle and the convection currents that heat the water. The other is a wider, but not at all scientific explanation that talks about my desire for a nice cup of tea at returning home, like any self respecting Irish person would.

Whether you choose to describe it in terms of how (the science of boiling water) or why (the tastes of a young man upon returning home), the fact remains that the tea is made and the drinking of it is where the pleasure is. I would love for this to be the case with the Creation-Evolution debate. I doubt that will happen.

It would be a ludicrous fool, or at least someone you wouldn't want to invite to a party, who would try to warp my desire for a cup of tea into some convoluted explanation of convection currents. This is what the Intelligent Design people are doing. Science asks how. That is too small a question to get at God. It is a terrific, productive and important question to ask of evertyhing, but it isn't the only question available to us. To demand that it is, you run the risk of looking like the Soviets who declared that there was no God since they had travelled to space and hadn't found him there. Intelligent Design is an adventure in missing the point.

It also is a strange attempt at defending God's Word because in its effort to force itself into a Science-shaped hole, it has removed any potential of referencing Scripture. It also aligns Christianity with Islam, some Buddhisms and weirdly enough, the Raelians. These are not belief systems that I would have thought congruent with serious Christianity...

Robin, I think you'll have seen this but it is worth sharing with the others:

(From theOnion.com): Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With "Intelligent Falling" Theory.

Final new point is this: That "Prophecy" has nothing to do with the issue of Creation.

To sum up this post: Christianity and Science only come into conflict when someone or some group manipulates them there for their own benefit. God and Evolution do not clash.

J C

An Evangelical Christian Responds By Excelsior

Could I start by saying that I found about 90% of what you wrote to be perfectly consistent with my own worldview as a Christian.

As you have written a very comprehensive and quite long four-part reply, I therefore will confine my reply to the points that you made with which I take issue.

Quote Excelsior
This will never become a sticky under my watch.

And why not?

There are plenty of other “stickies” on the Boards, debating far less substantive issues than the Origins of Mankind and the proofs for God. In fact these are two of the most important issues for Christians – only exceeded in importance by the need to actually be saved in the first place by believing on Jesus Christ and His Word, The Bible.


Quote Excelsior
the New Testament which describes the birth, life, ministry, and death of a carpenter called Jesus of Nazareth. It is mostly concerned with the very strange events 3 days after his death by crucifixtion that have (for better or worse) changed history.

As a self-proclaimed "Evangelical Christian" why do you leave open the question whether Jesus changed history for the better?

For somebody who accuses me of completely ignoring the ‘core issues’ of the Christian Faith your above description of Jesus Christ and His Earthly Ministry strikes me as being quite 'sketchy' indeed. You do not mention any of the following ‘core issues’ in relation to Jesus Christ which differentiates Him COMPLETELY from all other people since or before:

1. That He was God incarnate, born of a Virgin.
2. That He proved that He was God by various miracles, but in particular by raising a number of people from the dead as well as more than matching the combined wisdom of the Sanhedrin at only 12 years old.
3. That His perfect sacrifice as God AND Man was the ONLY sacrifice acceptable to God for the remission of sins.
4. That He died on a cross so that all who believe on Him might be saved and be able to have life everlasting with Him in Heaven.
5. That He resurrected BODILY on the third day as witnessed by over 500 people and as proof that He had in fact conquered death, as He said He would.
6. That He ascended BODILY into Heaven whilst assuring us that He would send His Holy Spirit to guide all Christians and would return some day in glory for His elect and to judge the rest of non-repentant Humanity and to restrain the demonic host.

Quote Excelsior
Danno and JC are Creation Scientists. The science word could justifiably be put in inverted commas since they can never propose any empirical, testable, falsifiable experiments to back up any of their direct or indirect claims.

I don’t personally know Danno, but my understanding from his previous posts is that he is NOT a Creation Scientist – but I certainly am.

Creation Science is a VERY OLD SCIENCE and numbers among it’s ranks some of the best scientific brains to have ever lived including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal.

Creation Science currently employs the best scientific brains available to carry out experiments at the very ‘cutting edge’ of 21st century science. Hundreds of peer reviewed papers deny your second point in relation to the numerous valid Creation Science experiments conducted and observation made each year.


Quote Excelsior
Creation Scientists are a product of the 1900's and reached their zenith with the Scopes Trial. They find their roots in the controversial sect, The Seventh Day Adventists.

Creation Science is at least several hundred years old as I have already pointed out and contains within it’s ranks people from all Christian denominations, other mono-theists and people with no particular religious conviction.

Could I also gently point out that the Scopes Trial was ‘WON’ by the State of Tennessee on a point of state law that prohibited Science teachers from teaching evolution in state schools. The case DIDN’T rest on the merits or otherwise of EITHER evolution or creation, but was merely a normal prosecution for a breach of State Law.
It was indeed a pyrrhic victory (for the State of Tennessee) as the case highlighted the obvious injustice of REQUIRING science teachers to avoid mention of current science controversies such as evolution in school. This led to the repeal of the law under which Scopes was convicted.

Creation Scientists hold that science progresses on the free criticism and the free development of scientific ideas and so they welcome robust debate of their ideas as long as the opposing ideas (such as evolution, intelligent design, etc) are ALSO accessible to questioning using objective means.

I am NOT a Seventh Day Adventist and I know nothing about Seventh Day Adventists.

I am a Christian who BELIEVES on the Lord Jesus Christ and a Creation Scientist who KNOWS that ‘muck didn’t evolve into MAN’.


Quote Excelsior
My final word on the invalidity of the literalist approach is that Jesus was a Rabbi. Rabbis trained their whole lives to interpret the Scriptures. Jesus interpreted the Scriptures. He astonished his hearers on the words he spoke on his own authority. He often begins sentences with, "You have heard it said, but I tell you this...." He is reinterpreting the Scriptures. Jesus didn't think literalism applied across the board.

The above statements by Jesus Christ were actually an admonishment from Him against the Pharisees for their incorrect interpretations of His clear Word.

Could I also say that I share your belief that every word of Scripture must NOT be taken LITERALLY. Many words are clearly METAPHORICAL, such a Jesus Christ’s parables, and the poetry of the Psalms, for example.
However, it is always clear, at least to Christians indwelt with the Holy Spirit, when God is providing LITERAL information or admonitions and when He is not.
In Genesis He CLEARLY tells us that He Directly Created the Universe and all life therein RAPIDLY AND RECENTLY. He also tells us why we are currently living in a fallen world and what we must do to be saved out of it.
These issues are much too serious (because they directly affect our eternal destinies) for a loving God to confuse us with allegories or other such obfuscations.
However, I will give you two guesses WHO might actually benefit from such confusion!!!


Quote Excelsior
Fundamentally guys, I disagree with your 6-day Creation theory because days didn't actually exist until the 4th day. As you well know, the Hebrew word used can apply just as easily to the term "eon" as it does to "day". For a day to exist, the sun must exist. Therefore, according to you, God made days on the 4th day. Therefore, according to you, God is illogical.

God is certainly NOT illogical - and this is NOT my "6-day Creation theory". God tell us in Ex 20:11 “For in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh DAY” (NIV).

The Hebrew word for Day is “Yom” and when it is accompanied by a number (as in first, second, etc.) it is ALWAYS a literal day everywhere else in the Bible.

A DAY is a 24 hour period. Genesis 1 refers to ‘evening and morning’ in relation to ALL SIX DAYS of creation – again indicating that they were real 24 HOUR days.

For a DAY to exist a Sun is NOT required. All that is required is a rotating planet and a source of light (probably God Himself for the first three Days of Creation). The Sun from the Fourth Day of Creation onwards marked times and seasons including days on Earth!!!

God determined that DAYS would be created on the First Day of Creation – AND SO IT WAS, even BEFORE the Sun was created – is that an amazing majestic God or what?.


Quote Excelsior
There is nothing contradictory in holding a firm acceptance of modern evolution theory and having a firm faith in Jesus as Lord.

To that I will merely ask where in The Bible did Jesus Christ say that He created Mankind by a process of evolution.

Secondly could I gently point out that the multiple ‘Theories of Evolution’ have no SCIENTIFIC validity – and the failure of all evolutionists on this thread to provide ANY valid answers to over twenty straightforward questions on evolution also proves this contention.

As I have said before, if you accept the ‘modern evolution theory’ then this acceptance can only be on the basis of FAITH and faith alone, as there is NO SCIENTIFIC i.e. repeatably observable basis for macro evolution and indeed many serious unanswered questions ‘hanging over’ it.

J C

Quote Excelsior
I think Intelligent Design advocates do just that. They feel a need to defend God's Word, but like a hapless school friend who picks fights in the yard at breaktime with anyone who makes fun of you, all in an effort to defend your honour, God's Word can (and has) taken care of itself.

An important task for all Christians is actually the promotion and defence of God’s Word – otherwise they will not be living up to the Great Commission to 'go forth and teach all nations.'

I share your assessment of the hapless predicament that Intelligent Design advocates find themselves in as they try to negotiate a coherent rationale for an intelligent basis for evolution (without defining the source of the intelligence). However, the fact that Intelligent Designers don’t define the source of the intelligence means that they neatly avoid any need to defend God’s Word.

However, could I gently point out that theistic evolutionists (presumably) DO try to defend God’s Word by defining the intelligence supposedly behind evolution as Jesus Christ. If they don’t, I suppose they should be classed as agnostic evolutionists or even Intelligent Designers!!.


Quote Excelsior
(From theOnion.com): EVANGELICAL SCIENTISTS REFUTE GRAVITY WITH "INTELLIGENT FALLING" THEORY.

On a previous thread Robin advocated that I should visit a ‘spoof’ Creation Science site.
Quite frankly, I didn’t expect that you Excelsior, would be promoting a ‘spoof' Evangelical Intelligent Design 'report'.

Could I repeat what I said to Robin in relation to the Laws of Gravity?
Sensible physical LAWS that work together in a purposeful coordinated manner to achieve definite and predictable results (as the Laws of the Universe do) indicates that a sensible ‘intelligence’ devised them – and this ‘intelligence’ as well as His Laws are working on such an astronomical scale that this ‘intelligence’ can only be God.


Quote Excelsior
Christianity and Science only come into conflict when someone or some group manipulates them there for their own benefit. God and Evolution do not clash.

There is NO conflict between Christianity and (real) Science.

God and evolution don’t clash – God EXISTS – and evolution DOESN’T – except in the minds of some wishful thinkers – who have great FAITH indeed!!

Danno

Excellent posts by both of you lads. I think that it is very well summed up indeed.

Now, I would like to hear opinions on prophecy and where we are all going...

Asiaprod

Danno wrote:

Now, I would like to hear opinions on prophecy and where we are all going...

"The belief in oracles [prophets] can be traced to the desire to know the future. There are literally dozens of strange techniques humans have developed in an effort to divine events before they occur. Unfortunately, the only sure guide to the future is the past, and even that isn't always reliable."

That just about encapsulates my personal take on prophecy, the only acception I make is Nostradamus, I can`t help but feel that in his case there is something unusual.

Excelsior

Thanks for responding in such a tone of respect and dealing with the issues at hand. I'm going to follow your lead and just deal with the major points that I feel need to be clarified.

The stickies on this forum are for Christian churches (which you will be glad to see I edit if psuedo-Christian, trinity denying churches are proposed ) and the charter. We are hosted here under the principle that prosyltising won't happen here. There is no need for a sticky on how to get yourself saved*, how creation scientists view the world or how Rapture will happen.

* In the unlikely event that Robin and Croc decide today is the day, just drop me a pm.

JC wrote:

For somebody who accuses me of completely ignoring the ‘core issues’ of the Christian Faith your above description of Jesus Christ and His Earthly Ministry strikes me as being quite 'sketchy' indeed. You do not mention any of the following ‘core issues’ in relation to Jesus Christ which differentiates Him COMPLETELY from all other people since or before:

1. That He was God incarnate, born of a Virgin.
2. That He proved that He was God by various miracles, but in particular by raising a number of people from the dead as well as more than matching the combined wisdom of the Sanhedrin at only 12 years old.
3. That His perfect sacrifice as God AND Man was the ONLY sacrifice acceptable to God for the remission of sins.
4. That He died on a cross so that all who believe on Him might be saved and be able to have life everlasting with Him in Heaven.
5. That He resurrected BODILY on the third day as witnessed by over 500 people and as proof that He had in fact conquered death, as He said He would.
6. That He ascended BODILY into Heaven whilst assuring us that He would send His Holy Spirit to guide all Christians and would return some day in glory for His elect and to judge the rest of non-repentant Humanity and to restrain the demonic host.

I didn't mention any of those things but then again, I felt I alluded to them. Most of the people I am talking with here don't accept Jesus in the way you do. I feel it would be simply rude to continue to talk loudly about what I believe when what I want to do is listen to people, not tell them what to do.

You left out that the whole of the Hebrew Bible, including Genesis 1-3, looks towards his coming. But then again, I don't resent that because JC, if you try to list the work of Jesus you fall into the trap John the Beloved warned us of. He did so much that all the pages of all the books in the world couldn't contain his adventure.

So when I summed things up into one "sketchy" sentence it was out of respect for most people on this board and out of a sense that encapsulating Jesus in a sentence is wiser choice than missing him in a paragraph.

JC wrote:

Creation Science is a VERY OLD SCIENCE and numbers among it’s ranks some of the best scientific brains to have ever lived including Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal.

The vast majority of these men existed before Darwin. Claiming Newton as a Creation Scientist is bizarre. Deism is not Creation Science. I don't think listing vaguely Christian scientists from pre-Darwin days and deeming them your supporters is going to win many arguments. Pythagoras and Augustine were Man City supporters.

Creation Science really got going with the work of George McCready Pierce that was re-popularized in the 60s when a subset of evangelical Christianity in the USA found the cultural shifts far too distressing to stay involved. If anyone wants a brilliant theology PhD topic, study the relationship between the southern USA churches who were caught up by Creation Science and their relationship to the overall revolution being led by the wider Christian church in their states, figure-headed by Martin Luther King.

JC wrote:

However, it is always clear, at least to Christians indwelt with the Holy Spirit, when God is providing LITERAL information or admonitions and when He is not.

That is a deeply offensive dig. I just don't want to take up such low tactics.

JC wrote:

In Genesis He CLEARLY tells us that He Directly Created the Universe and all life therein...

I agree with you entirely here.

JC wrote:

...RAPIDLY AND RECENTLY.

I think this is a modern fantasy.

JC wrote:

He also tells us why we are currently living in a fallen world and what we must do to be saved out of it.

And I diagnose the root of the fantasy here. He doesn't just ALSO tell us why the world is the way it is. That is the main point of the story. He doesn't say anything at all about the nature and mechanics of salvation in Genesis 1-3 but instead alludes prophetically to a coming solution. The Bible matters and if you mangle it to win an argument that seems relevant in 1926, you find yourself on the eve of 2006 trying to support a fantasy that drives people away from discovering more about God.

JC wrote:

These issues are much too serious (because they directly affect our eternal destinies) for a loving God to confuse us with allegories or other such obfuscations.

How strange a disrespect you have for poetry when you are a son of Yahweh. No one ever mis-interprets the poems, allegories and metaphors of the Psalms. They do however get confused by the legal arguments of Paul. On what basis do you deem allegory confusing. I propose again, you have swallowed the myth of modernity.

JC wrote:

However, I will give you two guesses WHO might actually benefit from such confusion!!!

I have no doubt that Satan benefits from pointless discussions of the kind I am foolishly engaging with here.

Excelsior wrote:

There is nothing contradictory in holding a firm acceptance of modern evolution theory and having a firm faith in Jesus as Lord.

JC wrote:

To that I will merely ask where in The Bible did Jesus Christ say that He created Mankind by a process of evolution.

The Bible is not a legal document or a manual for life. The Bible says that all that was created was created by God and it was initially good. The Bible says that the natural world is God's 2nd revelation. The Bible says that we should love God with all our mind. The list of magically Creation Scientist Christians above all did this in their studies. Honestly investigating the universe shows us that species evolve. The Bible does not say they don't.

Equally, honestly investigating the universe shows that at a subatomic level, things get a little bit cheeky. The Bible describes a world of order. Fundamentalist Christians don't deny the last 100 years of physics? Why not? Who knows. But they are happy to say that order exists out of chaos and God's Son is sustaining it all. Why can't they make the same honest assessment with modern evolution theory as they do with modern subatomic physics?

JC wrote:

and the failure of all evolutionists on this thread to provide ANY valid answers to over twenty straightforward questions on evolution also proves this contention.

I do hope that the folk I discuss with don't discard my testimony of Jesus on the basis of a lack of straightforward answers.

JC, I feel you have skipped over a lot of what I have said about the Bible, namely Genesis 1-3. But that is ok. I do have one question for you though:

Do you think that theistic evolutionists can be CHRISTIANS!?

Danno- prophecy has no relation to origins. Start a new thread.

robindch

> Fundamentalist Christians don't deny the last 100
> years of physics? Why not? Who knows.

That's an interesting, and interestingly unanswered, question that I posed some while back, afair, on this forum.

My own suspicion is that modern physics is something which:

1. nobody cares about because what it describes is sufficiently remote that it can be ignored (who wants to think of themselves as a bunch of quarks? much easier and nicer to think of oneself as "specially created", imbued with undefinable attributes absent from the rest of the physical world, and which set one apart from it -- very platonic )
2. is sufficiently abstruse that nobody who's not already interested in physics is going to go to the effort of understanding any of it
3. is completely ignored by the bible, for the obvious reason that its authors knew as much about it, as they did about modern evolutionary theory.
4. can be completely ignored by fundamentalists, because it makes no claims which contradict the bits of the bible which the fundamentalists are most familiar with (ie, the first half-page or so).

...or, in short, they don't deny it because they don't know about it and don't care about it. Is this a reasonable explanation?

robindch

> Creation Science currently employs the best scientific brains

False.

Creationists employ almost nobody qualified in biology, and those that they do, are emphatically clueless. See again the link which I included above:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

where the world's most prominent biologically-qualified creationist was forced to admit in court that creationism is logically equivalent to astrology.

> Hundreds of peer reviewed papers deny your second point in
> relation to the numerous valid Creation [...] experiments
> conducted and observation made each year.

Creationists regularly report successes in their own fundamentalist literature. However, they do not contribute to peer-reviewed mainstream biology, so, JC, please don't imply that they do -- it's dishonest.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

btw, this article's quite appropriate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/

Enjoy!

Excelsior

How can one claim that the world's finest minds are set to the task of Creation Science when:

a) You must be a Christian or a Jew to be a Creation Scientist, therefore excluding 80% of the population of Earth

b) Boards.ie user JustHalf is not a Creation Scientist.

robindch

> You must be a Christian or a Jew to be a Creation Scientist

FYI - sorry to have to reiterate a comment from some months back, but in its continuous desire to insult and demean the work of real scientists who make real contributions to humanity, the conceited sterility of creationism is diametrically opposed to the aims of science and so the phrase "creation scientist" is a contradiction in terms.

"Creationist" on its own is ok, and "evolutionary scientist" is fine too, but do be careful about mixing them up

Son Goku

J C wrote:

2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?

Explain this one to me.
And I mean, actually explain how it is a mathematical impossibility that is not covered by statistical mechanics.

J C wrote:

Evolutionists have faith in the unfounded belief that NOTHING blew up in the Big Bang.

Nothing didn't "blow up".
The phrase "blow up" isn't even applicable.
The Big Bang is a point on the 4-D surface that is the universe.
What makes it special is the fact that it is the only high-energy limit environment to be found on the 4-D surface.
To humans, who percieve a dynamic 3-D environment, it looks like an origin event, but it isn't.

If you want to see what I mean, I made an attempt to explain it here.

The Recliner

J C wrote:

An Evangelical Christian Responds By Excelsior

To that I will merely ask where in The Bible did Jesus Christ say that He created Mankind by a process of evolution.

Where in The Bible did he say he didn't create Mankind by a process of evolution

No offence as I am neither a scientist or theologion and know far less about this topic than all of the posters here but that really is the worst arguement against the theory of evolution I have ever seen

Because he didn't specifically say it means it didn't happen

I am fairly apathetic about Evolution and Creationism but have a passing interest in both arguements just like I have an interest in Physics and science in general

Personally I don't see why people get so worked up about different theories be they Evolution or Intelligent Design.

I don't think Evolution or any theory is an attempt to destroy God, more like an attempt to understand what we see around ourselves

In my mind believing in God comes down to faith, if you have faith then I don't see how any of these theories are a threat to that.

Also I believe that people take the bible too literally and this is what makes them get so upset when they see something that challanges something that they hold dear

By all means believe in God and believe in his words in the Bible but I don't think that the exist in a world seperate to science, I believe that the two can co-exist and that efforts to explain what we do not understand are not efforts at undermiining God but efforts at understanding the universe that was (delete as required) created/spontaniously came into existance

robindch

> Explain this one to me.

You can find several versions of JC's creationist explanation for this on the thread links which I posted at the top of this thread.

In short, it amounts to JC multiplying some very big numbers together, producing an absolutely enormous one (actually several different ginormous ones, as a quick scope through the previous threads will indicate), and then concluding from this, with his virtual finger raised and wagging, that life shouldn't exist. That's about the height of it really (this silly argument is satirized here).

J C

Quote Excelsior
The stickies on this forum are for Christian churches………………There is no need for a sticky on how to get yourself saved*.

Given the fact that being saved determines our eternal destiny – it is ultimately the most important issue for every person on Earth.
I cannot think of ANY more important reason for a sticky on a Christian Site.

The publication of 'housekeeping' details of individual churches certainly "doesn't rank" in comparative importance.


Quote Excelsior
The vast majority of these men existed before Darwin. Claiming Newton as a Creation Scientist is bizarre. Deism is not Creation Science. I don't think listing vaguely Christian scientists from pre-Darwin days and deeming them your supporters is going to win many arguments.

Evolutionary ideas obviously didn’t start with Darwin (either Erasmus or Charles). Evolution is as old as the Ancient Greeks – and the Creation versus Evolution debate has been ongoing ever since.

As the leading scientists of their time, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal were all fully aware of this debate and chose the rational, evidentially-supported concept of Divine Special Creation.

Their writings clearly show that they were godly men who devoted their lives to trying to describe and scientifically understand different aspects of God’s Creation and so they are ‘fully paid up members’ of the Creation Science community.



Quote Excelsior
Honestly investigating the universe shows us that species evolve. The Bible does not say they don't.

As a Creation Scientist I fully AGREE.

Species DO ‘evolve’ and indeed new sub-species and species do arise very rapidly from time to time.
However, all of this ‘evolution’ and speciation is OBSERVED to utilise EXISTING genetic diversity and to be confined within Created Kinds (which approximates to the Genus level of taxonomic nomenclature).

The critical scientific problem ISN’T explaining the shuffling of existing genes through sexual reproduction or their isolation through natural selection and speciation. The real issue is answering the question of HOW and WHEN all of this genetic information arose in the first place.


Quote Excelsior
Fundamentalist Christians don't deny the last 100 years of physics? Why not? Who knows. But they are happy to say that order exists out of chaos and God's Son is sustaining it all. Why can't they make the same honest assessment with modern evolution theory as they do with modern subatomic physics?

Quantum mechanics is highly speculative and Creation Scientists accept it for the SPECULATIVE scientific endeavour that it is.
The Bible is silent on sub-atomic particles – but it is certainly NOT silent about HOW and WHY Man was made.
The so-called ‘modern evolution theory’ is neither modern NOR scientific – and it is now so completely untenable that even the atheists and agnostics are abandoning it!!


Quote Excelsior
Quote:
Originally Posted by JC
and the failure of all evolutionists on this thread to provide valid answers to over twenty straightforward questions on evolution also proves this contention.
I do hope that the folk I discuss with don't discard my testimony of Jesus on the basis of a lack of straightforward answers.

I think that they just might discard your testimony, if you cannot give straightforward answers to their questions about Jesus.

The Christian Faith is FOUNDED on the Great Commission and the words of Jesus Christ Himself to “go forth and teach all nations”. This implies that Christians must ALWAYS be ready, willing and able to teach others about all aspects of the Christian Faith. This is also confirmed in 1Pet 3:15 where Christians are told to “always be prepared to give an ANSWER to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”.(NIV)

Science is ALL ABOUT providing answers to our questions about how the WORLD works.
The fact that over 20 questions, which completely demolish the SCIENTIFIC basis of evolution, remain unanswered on this thread is a (SILENT) testimony to the invalidity of evolution.

Quote Excelsior
How can one claim that the world's finest minds are set to the task of Creation Science when:

a) You must be a Christian or a Jew to be a Creation Scientist, therefore excluding 80% of the population of Earth

You don’t HAVE to be a monotheist to become a Creation Scientist – ALL that you need to be is a qualified scientist that wishes to study Creation.

I can confirm that being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (i.e. God) does significantly improve your reasoning abilities.
Therefore with the FINEST MIND in the UNIVERSE collaborating on many Creation Science projects – it is no surprise that so many breakthroughs are being achieved.


Quote Robin.
Creationists regularly report successes in their own fundamentalist literature. However, they do not contribute to peer-reviewed mainstream biology, so, JC, please don't imply that they do -- it's dishonest.

Robin please don’t imply that Creation Scientists are ALLOWED to contribute to evolutionary biology journals – they are not.
It is a Catch 22 to prevent somebody from doing something and then to criticise them for not doing it.

In any event, Creation Scientists are far too busy pursuing REAL science to waste their time consulting evolutionists who are ‘yesterdays men’ when it comes to the ‘origins issue’.

Creation Scientists are amongst the best-qualified scientists in the World.
Nearly ALL of them are former evolutionists who continue working at the top of their professions in conventional science as well as devoting some of their spare time to Creation Science projects.

Full-time Creation Scientists carry out most of the ongoing research and they have their own VALID peer-review processes.

J C

Quote Son Goku
Originally Posted by J C
2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?
Explain this one to me.
And I mean, actually explain how it is a mathematical impossibility that is not covered by statistical mechanics.

The areas of mathematics involved are Probability Theory and the Law of Big Numbers.

Sir Fred Hoyle, former Astronomer Royal, calculated the probability of the amino acid sequences of the bio-molecules in an Amoeba being produced by undirected chemical processes to be 10^-40,000.

Equally, it is observed that there are 20 common amino acids used in protein synthesis. If such synthesis was achieved using undirected processes then such a ‘blind’ system would have to ‘try’ every possible combination of amino acid to produce a useful protein eventually. It is also observed that you cannot ‘work up’ to a critical amino acid sequence – the exact sequence works, and any other sequence doesn’t work. In addition, there are very limited numbers of useful proteins observed in nature (of the order of thousands).

The chance of producing a specific useful protein containing a 100 chain critical amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on the chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 ………100 times. This number turns out to be 10^ 130.
This is a number significantly greater than the number of seconds required for a snail to transport all of the matter in the known Universe bringing ONE ELECTRON at a time from one side of the universe to the other side (as measured by the Cosmic Event Horizon) and back again. If, a putative snail made a 40,000,000,000 light year ‘round trip with EACH of the 10^82 electrons in the known Universe, going at a very slow ‘snails pace' of 1 centimetre per hour it would only take 10^114 SECONDS to perform such a feat!!!!

I am therefore at a complete loss to describe what size of number 10^130 is. All that I can say is that it is so large as to be a mathematical impossibility even if all of the matter and time in the Universe were to be utilised in the process.

As for Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculation for the undirected production of the bio-molecular sequences found in an Amoeba of 10^40,000 – there is absolutely nothing that I can even begin to imagine that would remotely describe this massive number!!!!

Chemistry Laws cannot assist in the process either, because it is observed that many of the bonds in protein chains can only be achieved by the use of amazingly specialised enzymes whose use is synchronised in nano-seconds with exact sequential cascades of reactions by other equally complex and specific enzymes. That is why protein molecules that are split into short chains of amino acids are NEVER observed to spontaneously re-form into useful proteins using the (supposedly) "well known attraction of Carbon” as a previous participant on another thread has characterised it. It is also one of the reasons why death is an irreversible physical process and why the spontaneous generation of life is never observed.

The really devastating thing about the above ‘Universe Defeating’ problem is that a 10 year old child of normal intelligence would take less than 20 minutes to arrange ANY specified sequence of 100 bricks representing a specific useful amino acid sequence choosing from a box of mixed bricks representing all 20 amino acids. What would clearly defeat every electron in the known universe randomly producing 100 amino acid sequences for an effective eternity of time could be accomplished by a 10 year old in 20 minutes – such is the importance of APPLIED INTELLIGENCE to the creation of a simple protein sequence.

Quote Son Goku
Nothing didn't "blow up".
The phrase "blow up" isn't even applicable.
The Big Bang is a point on the 4-D surface that is the universe.
What makes it special is the fact that it is the only high-energy limit environment to be found on the 4-D surface.
To humans, who perceive a dynamic 3-D environment, it looks like an origin event, but it isn't.

Apologies, I should have said that first there was a “SINGULARITY” and then IT blew up.

A Nobel Prize awaits those among you who can explain any substantive difference between “NOTHING” and a “SINGULARITY” or indeed “a POINT on the 4-D surface that is the universe.”

The so called 4-D Universe is still all around us but I don’t see it “Big Banging” anywhere at present – so the “Big Bang” remains in the realm of conjecture and not science.

While matter and energy are interchangeable I am unaware of any postulated transmutation of time with either matter or energy and therefore the origins of EVERYTHING in the Universe is still a scientific mystery.

The Universe could NOT create itself – nothing is capable of self actualisation without the use of pre-existing time, matter, energy and information – which by definition DIDN’T exist before the Universe was created.

The 'Big Bang' attempts to explain this conundrum but fails to explain anything in a logical coherent manner.

The Genesis account of Creation does so in a comprehensive and coherent manner that continues to remain scientifically (i.e. observationally) valid.

Son Goku

Quantum mechanics is highly speculative and Creation Scientists accept it for the SPECULATIVE scientific endeavour that it is.

Speculative?
I think it stopped been speculative when it gave us modern computers, electronics, semi-conductors........

However ignoring that, it has the greatest amount of evidence of any physical theory.
(Yes, even more than Newtonian Gravity)

It is the least speculative area of physics. The machine you used to make that statement is built using quantum mechanical princibles.

In short, it is patently not speculative.

The part about the chances of amino acids forming

Sub-atomic particles obey either the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution or the Fermi-Dirac distribution, not standard "discrete event" probability, you have to use a distribution.

Apologies, I should have said that first there was a “SINGULARITY” and then IT blew up.

The terms you use are dynamical 3-D terms, not static 4-D, which is needed when discussing the Big Bang.
A singularity did not "blow up", merely the neighbourhood of the highest energy point on the spacetime manifold contains progressively lower energy environs and decreasing Riemannian Tensor values if one follows the spatial metric (on its own) along increasing values of τ.

The so called 4-D Universe is still all around us but I don’t see it “Big Banging” anywhere at present – so the “Big Bang” remains in the realm of conjecture and not science.

Again, dynamic 3-D terms.
The Universe didn't "Big Bang" into existence, the Big Bang is just an area of extreme Weyl curvature.
Weyl curvature is attached to measurements of local proper time, meaning a lot of timelines will place their τ = 0 point here, but not all.
Where your τ = 0 point is, is what you call the beggining of the universe if you are a dynamic 3-D observer, where τ = end value is what you'd call the end of the universe.
It's a purely relative term.

A Nobel Prize awaits those among you who can explain any substantive difference between “NOTHING” and a “SINGULARITY” or indeed “a POINT on the 4-D surface that is the universe.”

Nothing = no things.(loose, but anyway)
Singularity = an area of extreme Ricci curvature
A point on the 4-D surface that is the universe. = a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime.

While matter and energy are interchangeable I am unaware of any postulated transmutation of time with either matter or energy and therefore the origins of EVERYTHING in the Universe is still a scientific mystery.

The Universe could NOT create itself – nothing is capable of self actualisation without the use of pre-existing time, matter, energy and information – which by definition DIDN’T exist before the Universe was created.

The 'Big Bang' attempts to explain this conundrum but fails to explain anything in a logical coherent manner.

Eh, no.
The Big Bang is a statement about global spatio-temporal topology, supported by a lot of evidence.

I've put that sentence in bold for a reason.
Your sentence is equivalent to:
"The point south of the surface of the earth".

South only applies when comparing two points on Earth and is not a statement about Earth.
Similarly "before" only applies when comparing two points on the Universe and cannot be used to make a statement about the universe itself.

robindch

> Robin please don’t imply that Creation Scientists are ALLOWED
> to contribute to evolutionary biology journals – they are not.

If creationists were able to contribute anything to the net worth of human knowledge or experience - or indeed contribute anything at all *to* anything at all -- then the praises of creationists would quite rightly be sung from the highest vaults of science.

However, their inept witterings contribute nothing, and consequently their tomfoolery is not permitted to dirty the halls of honest science. Though I should point out that the fact that they actually *submit* nothing may have something to do with the lack of any appearances in the literature.

> It is a Catch 22 to prevent somebody from doing something
> and then to criticise them for not doing it.

Creationists are prevented, by the scientific method, from lying about evidence and lying about conclusions. I don't see anything catch-22 about this.

> Creation Scientists are amongst the best-qualified scientists
> in the World. Nearly ALL of them are former evolutionists [...]

In this, as well as a previous threads quoted above, I have adequately shown this to be complete tosh -- almost none of them are scientists, the vast majority of them holding fake qualifications in religious fundamentalism from intricately inter-related diploma mills.

Creationists, as both I and you (JC, though inadvertently) have shown, are monumentally ignorant about science, about the observable world and about reason itself. You yourself have stuck your foot in it and jiggled it about good-o more times that I could be bothered to mention. If anybody's left alive at this stage in the thread, please feel free to take a look at the previous threads where I deconstruct the junk science and third-rate thought behind Ken Ham's bunch of hooray-gurus (the wonderfully-named Ham is the intellectual bicycle-lamp behind http://www.answersingenesis.org).

> Full-time Creation Scientists carry out most of the
> ongoing research and they have their own VALID
> peer-review processes.

The "valid peer-review process" behind creationism is as comical as the rest of the whole sorry edifice, as Michael Behe's <cough> "peer-review" <cough> of his own book Darwin's Black Box rather pointedly indicated, though not that you would have guessed so from his aerobic exposition of his own excellence and honesty. The good and decent folks over at Panda's Thumb did a bit of research on what constitutes "peer-review" for creationists and produced the following:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/behe_blasted_on.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/two_more_of_beh.html

In case anybody's too bored to follow the (amusing) links, let me tell you that creationist "peer-review" involves discussing the book over the phone for less than ten minutes with a "reviewer" interested in whether or not "the book would sell". Meanwhile, another reviewer was selected "because he was the instructor of the editor's wife."

Did anybody, except JC, expect any different?

juddd

Phew!! You folks are blowing my mind with this thread, I have read some of the long posts and I really enjoyed Excelsior's explanation of Genisis as I have recently read it and I just cannot take everything said in it literally and I guess that is the way I mostly take the parts of the bible that I have read, I dwell on the words spoken and and try to find the meaning behind them.

I also think that when genisis was being written, it was being written by a man to the best of his understanding, as a day in genisis could well be 1,000 or 1,000,000 years, but that detail is insignificant in the story of the creation of all we know, because if we were to know every little detail of how everything was created then the bible would be 1,000 times the size it is and the poor man writing it down would most likely suffer a mental breakdown or brain hemorage due to his incapacity to understand what he is being told, therefore the tale has been simplified and condensed into a few pages to give an overview of how we came to be.
I see intelligent design in everything I lay my eyes upon, by that I mean I can see the design in a blade of grass or a leaf or the sun moon and stars etc and how it all works in harmony as if keeping a delicate balance on everything, surely someone is behind all this...is it God....I am leaning towards yes the more I look.
As for prophecy and revelations, tribulations and rapture well... we will just have to see...I can see how people would think the world at the moment is falling apart with it's wars, hurricanes, eartquakes etc. and how the jewish people are returning back to isreal to prepare for the second coming as we speak.....this all can be seen as the end of days....but the problem I have with prophecy is that if it is not true and will never happen and people read and beleive in it then the fear is that they will self fullfill that prophecy themselves.
I also see the book of revelations as a good thing, I do not see it as an end to all we know but as a new begining, a re-birth or a cleansing if you will.

I hope you don't mind me chiming in as I am not as dedicated and as well educated in religion etc as most of you folks here, but I really enjoy these disscussions and just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject(s).

J C

Quote Son Goku
Speculative?
I think it (quantum mechanics) stopped been speculative when it gave us modern computers, electronics, semi-conductors........

The primary breakthrough that gave us modern computers, electronics, semiconductors, etc was the invention of silicon micro-chips !!!

Could I gently point out that CPU’s and micro-chips are distinctly MACRO-ATOMIC entities that certainly don’t rely on quarks for their operation.


Quote Son Goku
The part about the chances of amino acids forming
Sub-atomic particles obey either the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution or the Fermi-Dirac distribution, not standard "discrete event" probability, you have to use a distribution.

Could I again gently point out that amino acids are distinctly MACRO-ATOMIC entities made up of highly specified atomic structures that are statistically impossible to construct using undirected processes.


Quote Son Goku
A singularity did not "blow up", merely the neighbourhood of the highest energy point on the spacetime manifold contains progressively lower energy environs and decreasing Riemannian Tensor values if one follows the spatial metric (on its own) along increasing values of τ.

Could you please explain the above in Plain English and confirm that it is repeatably observable.

I understand that neither is possible, and therefore it remains firmly in the realm of SPECULATION.

I prefer to speculate that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” – because it is altogether more logical and many repeatably observable phenomena attest to it’s credibility.


Quote Son Goku
The Universe didn't "Big Bang" into existence, the Big Bang is just an area of extreme Weyl curvature.
Weyl curvature is attached to measurements of local proper time, meaning a lot of timelines will place their τ = 0 point here, but not all.
Where your τ = 0 point is, is what you call the beginning of the universe if you are a dynamic 3-D observer, where τ = end value is what you'd call the end of the universe.

Sounds great!!
However, as it is not observable it is unfortunately also in the realm of scientific speculation.

The Big Bang therefore has no more scientific status than “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” because neither are repeatably observable.

As “a dynamic 3-D observer” my own speculative timeline places it’s τ = 0 point at approximately 7,000 years ago and it’s τ = end value within the next 80 years for practically everybody on this thread!!


Quote Son Goku
Quote J C
A Nobel Prize awaits those among you who can explain any substantive difference between “NOTHING” and a “SINGULARITY” or indeed “a POINT on the 4-D surface that is the universe.”

Nothing = no things.(loose, but anyway)
Singularity = an area of extreme Ricci curvature
A point on the 4-D surface that is the universe. = a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime.

I’m sorry, but I still don't see any practical difference between “Nothing”, “An Area Of Extreme Ricci Curvature” or indeed “A Unique Coordinate Set Defined On Spacetime”.

The Nobel Prize is still unclaimed!!!

Quote Son Goku

"before" only applies when comparing two points on the Universe and cannot be used to make a statement about the universe itself

It IS correct to use the phrase “before the Universe was created” – because the Universe had a beginning i.e. the creation of the temporal time/space continuum by God – and God as a transcendant entity therefore existed “before the Universe was created”.


Quote Robin
In this, as well as a previous threads quoted above, I have adequately shown this to be complete tosh -- almost none of them (Creation Scientists) are scientists, the vast majority of them holding fake qualifications in religious fundamentalism from intricately inter-related diploma mills.

Robin, such unfounded Ad Hominem stereotyping, of Creation Scientists who are of the HIGHEST POSSIBLE SCIENTIFIC CALIBRE, seriously hurts your credibility in relation to any other claims that you may wish to make in favour of Evolution.

Robin, I must ask you which of these Creation Scientists ‘fits’ your sweeping statement above?

For obvious career security reasons I have only included retired or otherwise tenure-secure individuals in the list – but I can assure you that there are many other active Creation Scientists who are equally well qualified.

Professor Thomas G Barnes, D.Sc., Professor of Physics, University of Texas, El Paso, Texas.

Professor Edward Blick, Ph.D., Professor of Aerospace, Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

Professor David R Boylan, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Professor Larry Butler, Ph.D, Professor of Biochemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Dr. Kenneth B Cummings, Ph.D., Research Biologist, US Fisheries Service, LaCrosse, Wisconsin.

Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.

Professor Donald Hamann, Ph.D., Professor of Food Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Dr. Harold R Henry, Ph.D., Chairman, Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Dr. John R Meyer, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Louisville, Kentucky.

Professor John N Moore, Ed.D, Professor of Natural Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Professor Dean H Kenyon, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California.

Quote Robin
Creationists, as both I and you (JC, though inadvertently) have shown, are monumentally ignorant about science, about the observable world and about reason itself.

Robin, you are obviously an intelligent man - but you are needlessly destroying your credibility in the eyes of objective observers on this thread by making such statements about eminently qualified Creation Scientists such as the people on my list above.

Please answer my 21 questions on the scientific invalidity of evolution and stop procrastinating!!!!.

Your refusal to answer ANY of these questions is an eloquent testimony to the intellectual bankruptcy of evolution.


Quote Robin
The "valid peer-review process" behind creationism is as comical as the rest of the whole sorry edifice, as Michael Behe's <cough> "peer-review" <cough> of his own book Darwin's Black Box rather pointedly indicated, though not that you would have guessed so from his aerobic exposition of his own excellence and honesty.

Robin, I have pointed this out to you before - Dr Michael Behe is an Intelligent Design proponent - and he is therefore NOT a Creation Scientist.

I have read his book entitled "Darwin's Black Box" and I found it to be a devestating critique of the current 'sorry state' of evolution.

Neither Dr Behe himself nor Creation Scientists claim that he is a Creation Scientist - so please accept the FACT that he isn't.

I can assure you that the peer-review processes that are used by Creation Scientists are both rigorous and valid.


Quote Robin
However, their inept witterings contribute nothing, and consequently their tomfoolery is not permitted to dirty the halls of honest science.

As I have said on a previous post, Creation Scientists are amongst the best-qualified scientists in the World.

Nearly ALL of them are former evolutionists who CONTINUE working at the top of their professions in conventional science and they regularly publish conventional science papers that ARE peer-reviewed by themselves and their evolutionist colleagues.
This also means that Creation Scientists working within the biological sciences actually peer-review evolutionists and their work – while evolutionists DON’T obviously peer-review the work of Creation Science.

This is a very satisfactory situation as far as Creation Scientists are concerned – they are in a position to question some of the more outrageous ‘flights of fancy’ of evolutionists – and when it comes to ‘the love that dare not speak its name’ AKA Creation Science, they can continue to make rapid progress without undue hindrance from evolutionists.

robindch

> > (quantum mechanics) stopped been speculative when it
> > gave us modern computers
>
> Could I gently point out that CPU’s and micro-chips are distinctly MACRO
> ATOMIC entities that certainly don’t rely on quarks for their operation.

While nothing currently uses quarks, semiconductors *do* rely on quantum-mechanical effects to work. The following excellent course explains this in some detail:

http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/~schubert/Course-ECSE-6968%20Quantum%20mechanics/

With respect to almost all of the rest of your text, comprehensive answers and references have been provided in the past, all of which you've ignored, so there's not really much point in repeating them

> unfounded Ad Hominem stereotyping, of Creation

This is not ad hominem unpleasantness, but a simple statement of fact backed up by research which you are welcome to verify by checking my previous postings.

Finally, in the paragraph beginning with "In this" in your immediately preceding posting, you have dishonestly inserted the two words "scientists" and "creation" and into some text of mine, making it appear that this is what I have written. They are not my words and I'd like you to remove them.