The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Festus · 06-04-2012 03:23PM

Wh1stler wrote: »

So where the Bible talks about the creation of 'man', it was not 'humanity' that was being considered but rather a paticular genus?

Species. Science views Neaderthals as human. Theology views Adam as homo sapiens.

Wh1stler wrote: »

Did neanderthals have souls?

Don't know.

Wh1stler wrote: »

And why are 'man-like' creatures, whom you consider as human, not referred to directly in the Bible as being created before Adam?

If they are considered animals they are.

As I said, it is science that considers neaderthals to be human. Science could be wrong.

Zombrex · 06-04-2012 03:27PM

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: You might want it to be true, but I've seen little to no evidence of people accepting beliefs uncritically as they get older in life.

That is beside the point though, since that isn't the claim. The claim is that people, in general, accept the religious beliefs they are brought up in. Even you were brought up in a Christian society and you are a Christian. This is the case for the vast majority of people on Earth, they accept the religion they are exposed to first or have the most exposure to.

Does it hold for everyone? No of course not, nothing hold for everyone except taxes and death. A small minority of people convert to religions that they previously had little exposure to, just like some people learn French and decide it is their favorite language and they much rather speak French than English.

philologos wrote: »

This argument is irrelevant in the discussion as to whether or not Christianity is actually truth or fiction, which is the discussion we should be having.

The argument is relevant to the argument that Christianity must have some truth behind it because there are so many Christians, or because it "makes sense" to so many people.

Festus · 06-04-2012 03:29PM

Wh1stler wrote: »

By not waiting for God.

That doesn't answer the question.

However, given that the laws of physics breakdown at the quantum level and a singularity is very small it is highly unlikely that physics existed to do anything.

Wh1stler · 06-04-2012 03:36PM

Festus wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question.

Yes it does.

Festus wrote: »

However, given that the laws of physics breakdown at the quantum level and a singularity is very small it is highly unlikely that physics existed to do anything.

You understand less about physics than you do about God.

And are you now saying that neanderthals were not human?

Festus · 06-04-2012 03:38PM

Wh1stler wrote: »

And are you now saying that neanderthals were not human?

No I am saying that neanderthals are human sub-species according to scientific classification.

Festus · 06-04-2012 03:39PM

Back in a week. Knock yourselves out

philologos · 06-04-2012 04:09PM

Zombrex wrote: »

The argument is relevant to the argument that Christianity must have some truth behind it because there are so many Christians, or because it "makes sense" to so many people.

I've not seen that argument presented in this forum much. It could be because it's a ridiculous ad-populum fallacy. I wouldn't even endorse that argument, and I would advise Christians to not use it, because it's woeful.

Wh1stler · 06-04-2012 06:17PM

Festus wrote: »

Back in a week. Knock yourselves out

Well don't rush.

Monty Burnz · 06-04-2012 09:31PM

Festus wrote: »

You're inclusion of the Jews in that list negates your argument and shows up your ignorance. The Jews believe in God the Father. However, they rejected God the Son, and so the Holy Spirit is not available to them. One day they will come in to the light. As for the rest, I pray they too along with you will find the Truth.

Um...it doesn't negate my argument at all, although I can see how it would be convenient for you to continue to ignore it. Jews clearly believe in a different religion to you - why would the same God issue different sets of rules? I could insult you in turn by pointing out your 'ignorance' in not also claiming that Allah is also the 'same' god as the Christian god, but I don't think that insulting someone you are trying to have a discussion with is a fruitful approach.

You seem determined to approach this in an antagonistic fashion - I don't understand why. Surely you should be loving your neighbour here as your faith requires?

I try to be civil even if I do also try to ask difficult questions.

Regarding the snippet of your post that I quoted above - my point remains that devotees of other religions are just as certain that theirs is the true faith, and they hope that you will realise your mistake and learn their truth in time to come. How can you reconcile that with your position? There are hundreds or thousands of religions, and only one (at most) can be correct. Each has devotees certain that their faith is the 'true faith'. Does it ever worry you that you are 'backing the wrong horse', to use a crude metaphor? Are you concerned that one of the other major or one of the many, many minor religions that you have not investigated (or even heard of) is the true faith?

As I said before, you are a theist with regard to one religion and an atheist towards thousands. I am agnostic towards them all - which I reckon makes you 'more atheist' than I am.

Monty Burnz · 06-04-2012 09:34PM

Festus wrote: »

The thread has evolved. I have never seen evolution go backwards. Have you?

Yes, flightless birds for example.

But of course there is no true forwards or backwards in evolution.

Wh1stler · 07-04-2012 03:18AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, flightless birds for example.

But of course there is no true forwards or backwards in evolution.

That's right; just gradual change in accordance with physics. A lot like everything in the Universe actually.

Barr125 · 07-04-2012 05:59AM

Festus wrote: »

The thread has evolved. I have never seen evolution go backwards. Have you?

Evolution isn't ''simple to complex'', it's simply adaption to the organisms surrounding environment. There is no real ''forward'' or ''backward''.

wolfsbane · 07-04-2012 06:12PM

doctoremma wrote: »

This 'kind' thing, where organisms can change within boundaries but not across boundaries....

Are dogs and cats different 'kinds'? What defines the 'dog kind' as different to the 'cat kind'? Which features are undeniably 'dog', not 'cat' (and vice versa)? Are 'kinds' differentiated on phenotype or genotype? If we could breed a dog that looked like a cat, would that provided evidence that changes between 'kinds' was accepted? Or would dog and cat simply be redescribed as the same 'kind'? Lots of animals have been misclassified in the past - have a look at these two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armidillidium.vs.glomeris.jpg
Would they be classed as the same 'kind' or do you use genetic information to distinguish them?

Yes, classifications are merely attempts to see relationships. The relationship might be real; it might be imagined. The classification, or our attempts to classify, is no proof of the reality.

So I don't know any way to prove the reality of any 'kind'. The best Biblical criteria seems to be the ability to breed. If a cat and a dog could breed together, then it would suggest they are a 'kind'. They can't of course, and that suggests they are not. IF they could be shown to interbreed, YES, that would be evidence that changes between 'kinds' was accepted

Am I right in thinking evolutionists also regard the ability to breed as proof of immediate relationship?

******************************************************************
Genesis 1:24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

wolfsbane · 07-04-2012 06:59PM

Zombrex said:

You are bad mouthing scientists.

You are suggesting that millions of scientists across history and currently working, are either purposefully lying or willingly promoting false hoods out of fear in order to maintain in public consciousness a group of false scientific theories, theories that strangely enough only have one thing in common, they contradict your interpretation of your holy book's creation story.

I'm not saying they are all - or even mostly - lying or insincere. They have presuppositions on materialism that fit best with evolution, and a plausible theory of evolution has been developed for them to live with. It is a complex subject, dependant on many specialised fields for 'proof' of its reality, and that provides the cover where sincere people can miss the big picture while having a plausible theory for their own bit.

Contrast that with the alternative.

Out of millions of scientists there are a few hundred deeply religious and very vocal people who object to these particular theories because they believe they contradict their specific religious texts.

The ratio of evolutionist to non-evolutionist is likely to be a fair bit less, given the fear dissenters have of identifying themselves as non-evolutionists.

But the great majority is certainly evolutionist. How much that is due to their scientific knowledge and how much to their presuppositions is another matter.

Despite trying with the religious certainty that they must be correct, they have been unable to demonstrate to the necessary scientific standards the inaccuracy of these theories or the accuracy of alternatives that are compatible with their religious books.

That is the debate - they say they have demonstrated to the necessary scientific standards the inaccuracy of these theories or the accuracy of alternatives that are compatible with their religious books.

They rationalize the unwillingness of the others (of multiple religions and cultures, in multiple, disciplines with multiple backgrounds, multiple funding routes, multiple associations) to accept their religiously compatible ideas not as a failing on their part and their science, but instead as the product of a massive systematic conspiracy of ignorance on the part of all significant scientific bodies and associations who all for some reason wish to promote a set of false theories, theories that just happen to align exactly with the theories these religious people believe contradict their particular interpretation of their holy book.

Scientists are just sinners like the rest of us. They are not free from presuppositions or prejudice. And when they form as an academy, the power of the elite has free rein.

That it contradicts my holy book is no coincidence. If God had used evolution, I'm certain the scientific establishment would be promoting and anti-evolutionary dogma. Mankind is in the power of Satan, the great deceiver.

Now honestly Wolfsbane, which do you really think is more likely. A massive systematic organized conspiracy operating for over 150 years taking in significant branches of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, effecting industries with billions of dollars at stake, involving people of multiple religions and creeds from different countries and different backgrounds.

Or a small group of devoutly religious people for whom if these scientific theories were true they believe would contradict their holy books and thus destroy their religion, who used the Internet to become very vocal about their opposition to this and the truth that these theories must not be true.

Or to put it another way, why to Young Earth Creationists only think this massive scientific conspiracy effects the specific theories they believe contradict the Bible? Surely if such a conspiracy was happening it should effect far more, huge portions of scientific knowledge should be false.

Why would Satan be interested in denying, say, the Maximum Power Transfer Theorem? If it does not undermine the Bible, there is no need to tamper with it. The Bible is the target, not science as such.

Or is it the case that the only theories scientists have any interest in falsifying are the ones that specific relate to the YEC interpretation of the Bible? Again, what are the odds. What do you honestly think is more likely.

(remember we are not just talking about Darwinian evolution here, YEC contradicts a whole host of scientific theories in physics and geology).

YEC contradicts a lot of theories - but no Laws. For example, the theories of how long and how sediments have been laid down are not facts, just theories trying to explain the facts.

The odds on YEC being the object of the assault by the scientific consensus are pretty sure. The attack was not initiated by scientific concern, but by Satan moving men to think up an alternative to the Biblical account. The run-of-the-mill scientist today just co-operates with that agenda, knowingly or not.

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

tommy2bad · 07-04-2012 07:08PM

wolfsbane
The attack was not initiated by scientific concern, but by Satan moving men to think up an alternative to the Biblical account. The run-of-the-mill scientist today just co-operates with that agenda, knowingly or not.

What a crock..
The 'attack' was initiated by scientific concerns regarding the evidence, not by Satan.
Their is no, Il say it again, no evidence to back up YEC theorys. Misquoting, misappropriating and misleading is not evidence.
Again Wolfsbain I'll ask you, is this just being contrary or are you really that stupid?
You dismiss all science and adopt this psudo science because it fits your faith based world view. You have no fact that support a young earth let alone creation as we see it now.

wolfsbane · 07-04-2012 07:13PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Observed change certainly does have its limits, most obviously the time span over which we've been able to observe it. I've come across no biological research that shows that 'change has limits' (assuming we're talking about neutral or beneficial change).

Telomeres are replenished in gametes so there is no accumulated shortening with generations. But appreciate your response - you're outlining some kind of quality control mechanism that can 'measure' accumulated changes in the genome? I can't conceive of a chemical mechanism by which this could happen, although there certainly is a more indirect, phenotype-led approach (e.g. a change that simply causes a cell, or the organism, to die). So, that's essentially a QC checkpoint for detrimental mutations - what about neutral or beneficial ones?

I don't know how the boundaries are set - all I'm saying is that change fruit-fly to non-fruit fly has not been observed. Lack of time can be advanced to explain why not - but it is a supposition. The small changes we do observe cannot be used as evidence for large changes we do not observe. Extrapolation is not a law of science. Indeed, it has been shown to be inapplicable to many processes.

*******************************************************************
Genesis 1:24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

wolfsbane · 07-04-2012 07:28PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

What a crock..
The 'attack' was initiated by scientific concerns regarding the evidence, not by Satan.
Their is no, Il say it again, no evidence to back up YEC theorys. Misquoting, misappropriating and misleading is not evidence.
Again Wolfsbain I'll ask you, is this just being contrary or are you really that stupid?
You dismiss all science and adopt this psudo science because it fits your faith based world view. You have no fact that support a young earth let alone creation as we see it now.

If you refuse to read the creationist research, there's nothing I can offer you. I'm not a scientist or I would debate the details with you. My scientist friends are confident of their facts on the scientific support for creationism. It's no good you just rubbishing them and their scientific work - if you have the scientific grounding, challenge them on it. If you haven't, at least read up on it and listen to the debates between evolutionists and creationists who do know the science.

Just came across an interview between Dr. Michael Shermer, Executive Director of the Skeptics Society and Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and this lady http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=52

The You Tube interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic

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

tommy2bad · 07-04-2012 08:05PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you refuse to read the creationist research, there's nothing I can offer you. I'm not a scientist or I would debate the details with you. My scientist friends are confident of their facts on the scientific support for creationism. It's no good you just rubbishing them and their scientific work - if you have the scientific grounding, challenge them on it. If you haven't, at least read up on it and listen to the debates between evolutionists and creationists who do know the science.

Just came across an interview between Dr. Michael Shermer, Executive Director of the Skeptics Society and Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and this lady http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=52

The You Tube interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic

I have read the creationist research, its twaddle a bunch of nonsense that has been refuted a thousand times. What is it about creationists that they refuse to acept the science? An example;
“Many people believe mutation and natural selection are responsible for the widely varying animal species and races of humans seen on the earth today. They are wrong.”
First off their are no races of humans, thats a notion that doesn't apply to evolution putting it in their shows how little she knows. Just stating that their wrong is pointless, she fails to demonstrate why. The article linked dosnt exist. (a common trick of AiG and other creationist sites)
Google skils however circumvented this; So from the not linked piece;
"Hoekstra contrasts this with the popular evolution mechanism of “small changes accumulated over long periods of time”"
What? Evolution isn't only small changes over time it also covers rapid changes but that wouldn't support the creationist bias so...
"It is unusual to find one mutation that leads directly to a selectable trait in a higher organism (although this does happen commonly in bacteria, as is seen in antibiotic-resistant bacteria)." and then contradict yourself. Quality work all right.
Dear God, but these people are stupid and dangerous.
I'm back from the vigil so now for the youtube video.
This woman admits she never studied or worked on evolution and further she admits that she starts from the presumption that the bible is an actuate account of creation. Then she goes on to claim that this limited knowledge provides enough to dismiss all the work of real experts.
When asked about the age of the universe she drags out the old Mt St Hellenes chestnut.
She has the audacity to claim that her view is the only correct one and thats after telling us that bacteria are a result of original sin.
Why? Why? Why?
as far as I can make out it because of the slippery slope, if this then what next?
I'm never going to change your opinion but I can hope you come to see how foolish this literal genesis is and how damaging promoting creationism even ID is.
Heres some truth for you, theirs a lot of pieces to this lecture but their worth seeing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5YtrqRsAC0&feature=related

Morbert · 08-04-2012 04:04PM

Wolfsbane, do you not see how everything you have said here, you have said before, and has been addressed before. Your scientist friends have not made a single legitimate criticism of evolution. Repeating illegitimate criticisms, especially while simultaneously refusing to defend such illegitimate criticisms, does not lend any credibility to your position.

Declan Lander · 08-04-2012 04:32PM

Morbert wrote: »

Wolfsbane, do you not see how everything you have said here, you have said before, and has been addressed before. Your scientist friends have not made a single legitimate criticism of evolution. Repeating illegitimate criticisms, especially while simultaneously refusing to defend such illegitimate criticisms, does not lend any credibility to your position.

He's bat****. On another thread I saw him pretending Catholics worship statues, so he's either free Presbyterian or some other type of neanderthal northern ireland evangelism I would say. When Catholicism in Ireland has been killed off, these types need to be next.

wolfsbane · 09-04-2012 05:55PM

tommy2bad said:

I have read the creationist research,

Not very carefully, if this post is anything to go by.

its twaddle a bunch of nonsense that has been refuted a thousand times. What is it about creationists that they refuse to acept the science? An example;
“Many people believe mutation and natural selection are responsible for the widely varying animal species and races of humans seen on the earth today. They are wrong.”
First off their are no races of humans,

Quite. That is the creationist position. We are all 'one blood', as the Scriptures say. I assume she is using it in the common manner - as in 'racial discrimination'. Everyone knows what that means - no one takes it to mean there is more than one human race. But any stick, when you haven't an argument.

thats a notion that doesn't apply to evolution putting it in their shows how little she knows.

As above.

Just stating that their wrong is pointless, she fails to demonstrate why. The article linked dosnt exist. (a common trick of AiG and other creationist sites)
Google skils however circumvented this; So from the not linked piece;

So a faulty link is really a deliberate attempt to hide her article? But they forgot to remove it from their website?? You didn't need to google it, just do a search on the AiG site. Another 'any stick'.

"Hoekstra contrasts this with the popular evolution mechanism of “small changes accumulated over long periods of time”"
What? Evolution isn't only small changes over time it also covers rapid changes but that wouldn't support the creationist bias so...

Please!! If you had read any creationist research you would know that rapid speciation is one of the evidences used to support the creation model. That all the present species derived from the original kinds that came off the ark about 4000 years ago.

"It is unusual to find one mutation that leads directly to a selectable trait in a higher organism (although this does happen commonly in bacteria, as is seen in antibiotic-resistant bacteria)." and then contradict yourself. Quality work all right.

Not sure where the contradiction is.

Dear God, but these people are stupid and dangerous.

Your people are clever and dangerous. There, I'm being respectful to your mistaken theories.

I'm back from the vigil so now for the youtube video.
This woman admits she never studied or worked on evolution

I think her point was that operational science does not need any evolutionary theory for it to function correctly. Evolution experts are story-tellers, building up a forensics case for their theory. Operational science has no need of them.

and further she admits that she starts from the presumption that the bible is an actuate account of creation.

Yes, she knows how we originated, so has an advantage over those who don't. Your assumption that she does not know is just that, an assumption.

Then she goes on to claim that this limited knowledge provides enough to dismiss all the work of real experts.

The real experts are those in operational science - the stuff one can prove by observation and repeated experiments.

When asked about the age of the universe she drags out the old Mt St Hellenes chestnut.

It being a well-established evidence of the faulty assumptions of geological dating does not make it irrelevant. It bears repeating again and again.

She has the audacity to claim that her view is the only correct one and thats after telling us that bacteria are a result of original sin.

Is there more than one correct view? Not in the real world. So your problem is her claiming she knows the correct one. You make the assumption, I gather, that no one can know what science has not clearly demonstrated. You rule out revelation by an Intelligence who was there and knows how it happened. That is your key mistake.

As to telling us that bacteria are a result of original sin, I think this again proves your careless listening. She said harmful bacteria are the result of original sin.

Why? Why? Why?
as far as I can make out it because of the slippery slope, if this then what next?

Yes, I think that is the main reason Christians hold to the Genesis account. Scientific scepticism of evolution is secondary. If Genesis is mistaken, all of Scripture is unreliable. Not just that - as Christ and the apostles refer to Genesis as if it is true, then they too are exposed as mistaken or worse.

I'm never going to change your opinion but I can hope you come to see how foolish this literal genesis is and how damaging promoting creationism even ID is.

The truth of God is foolish to unregenerate men:
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 3:18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; [a] 20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”

Heres some truth for you, theirs a lot of pieces to this lecture but their worth seeing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Ytr...eature=related

I watched a sample three but found nothing to warrant watching further. A case for evolution being creationism in a certain sense - we all can see how that is so. A case that evolution is not atheistic since many Christians hold to it - no one said all evolutionary models are necessarily atheistic. A pedantic argument against a politician for using the term 'primate' to refer to man's supposed evolutionary ancestor - it would have some validity if it were a scientist who said it, but it was a politician.

Seems Ken Millar is also desperate for arguments.

**********************************************************************
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

wolfsbane · 09-04-2012 06:29PM

Morbert wrote: »

Wolfsbane, do you not see how everything you have said here, you have said before, and has been addressed before. Your scientist friends have not made a single legitimate criticism of evolution. Repeating illegitimate criticisms, especially while simultaneously refusing to defend such illegitimate criticisms, does not lend any credibility to your position.

This whole thing has indeed been addressed in the BCP Part 1 thread. But if new posts are made, I'll continue to respond as time permits.

My scientist friends say they have not been refuted. Your claims that they have been are just that - claims. The debate is not settled by claims.

As to my inability to advance scientific argument, that is not my calling or purpose. I'm here merely to point those who are interested to the fact that there is an alternative scientific case to evolution, and to the historic Christian position on creation.

What you or others do with that information is up to you.

*******************************************************************
2 Peter 3: 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

tommy2bad · 09-04-2012 06:36PM

Wolfsbane ;
It being a well-established evidence of the faulty assumptions of geological dating does not make it irrelevant. It bears repeating again and again.

Point Refuted A Thousand Times.http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

As to telling us that bacteria are a result of original sin, I think this again proves your careless listening. She said harmful bacteria are the result of original sin.

Oh well thats OK then :rolleyes:

I watched a sample three but found nothing to warrant watching further.

Covering your ears and singing la la la is all you can do.

Now the meat and potatoes;

Yes, I think that is the main reason Christians hold to the Genesis account. Scientific scepticism of evolution is secondary. If Genesis is mistaken, all of Scripture is unreliable. Not just that - as Christ and the apostles refer to Genesis as if it is true, then they too are exposed as mistaken or worse.

Why do you think it's mistaken and not metaphor? Why insist on a ;literal interpretation of this one book when you admit metaphor and poetry and sayings and allegory in other parts?
Well it's your opinion and your entitled to hold it as long as you also admit that the science is an afterthought and that your opinion is not based on any evidence but faith alone. No works involved.

Zombrex · 09-04-2012 08:35PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

The debate is not settled by claims.

How is the debate settled? You seem to simply reject anything that does not fit into a particular narrative. To be honest this is to be expected since you believe that you have absolute certainty that the Bible as you interpret it is the word of God.

What debate then are you looking for? We have told you a million times that how you describe the scientific community, full of scared scientists and Satan's influences, is not how the scientific community actually is. You simply don't believe us, preferring to hold again to the particular narrative that all of science is pitched against the truth of Christianity.

It does call into question what purpose continuing to debate with you serves?

Wh1stler · 09-04-2012 10:09PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Please!! If you had read any creationist research you would know that rapid speciation is one of the evidences used to support the creation model. That all the present species derived from the original kinds that came off the ark about 4000 years ago.

Were there any Neanderthals on the ark?

MrPudding · 09-04-2012 10:24PM

Wh1stler wrote: »

Were there any Neanderthals on the ark?

Yes. They were used to feed the velociraptors and the t-rex.

MrP

lmaopml · 09-04-2012 11:27PM

Declan Lander wrote: »

He's bat****. On another thread I saw him pretending Catholics worship statues, so he's either free Presbyterian or some other type of neanderthal northern ireland evangelism I would say. When Catholicism in Ireland has been killed off, these types need to be next.

No, he is not bat*** (whatever that is meant to be...) He's said more than once that he is not a Scientist, but he is a Christian who happens to also believe that Genesis is literal, and so takes an interest in Creationist material - I don't agree with him, but I certainly don't see why it's such a huge issue either, so much so, that everybody seems to want to have a go....

Why is it such a big deal that some people are Creationists? Why does it matter so much to Atheists, like the Scientists are personal friends or something, or that Science will stop because of a few people like Wolfe, who are in fact quite harmless imo.

Cossax · 10-04-2012 03:35AM

lmaopml wrote: »

No, he is not bat*** (whatever that is meant to be...) He's said more than once that he is not a Scientist, but he is a Christian who happens to also believe that Genesis is literal, and so takes an interest in Creationist material - I don't agree with him, but I certainly don't see why it's such a huge issue either, so much so, that everybody seems to want to have a go....

Why is it such a big deal that some people are Creationists? Why does it matter so much to Atheists, like the Scientists are personal friends or something, or that Science will stop because of a few people like Wolfe, who are in fact quite harmless imo.

Probably because we've seen people pushing that utter nonsense into classrooms in the USA.

Closely related to this is probably how offensive those who identify themselves as being rational find the idea of anything about creationism being scientific.
If wolfsbane wants to believe in creationism, fine.
Just don't try and pretend it's based on anything other than the Bible. It's not scientific. There is zero scientific evidence for it. Anyone claiming it is is either lying or terribly misguided.

doctoremma · 10-04-2012 12:07PM

Cossax wrote: »

Probably because we've seen people pushing that utter nonsense into classrooms in the USA.

There are a scary number of people in the USA who wish to see creationism taught in schools. Scary because the USA is a democracy and that means that, in theory, if enough people want it, it will be so.

We simply cannot afford to allow this nonsense to take hold.

gkell3 · 10-04-2012 06:22PM

lmaopml wrote: »

No, he is not bat*** (whatever that is meant to be...) He's said more than once that he is not a Scientist, but he is a Christian who happens to also believe that Genesis is literal, and so takes an interest in Creationist material - I don't agree with him, but I certainly don't see why it's such a huge issue either, so much so, that everybody seems to want to have a go....

Why is it such a big deal that some people are Creationists? Why does it matter so much to Atheists, like the Scientists are personal friends or something, or that Science will stop because of a few people like Wolfe, who are in fact quite harmless imo.

You seem highly intelligent yet I am surprised that you do not take in a wider if more complicated picture and almost treat the topic documentary style and seek out a sensible conclusion.

It matters to atheists to diminish the Biblical texts as they would see them in competition with their own texts,the voice of reason over superstition or something along those lines.The creationists do not help as they themselves project the narratives out into the wider world which they are free to do and essentially are harmless but more often than not,the atheist will dwell on the creationist point of view and extend it to all other disciplines in science such as astronomy or geology.

For over 150 years it is known that the Genesis authors protected their texts from the over-reliance on the surface narrative of the creation/flood cycle that so occupies people today in such a way that after an incredible creation/flood narrative that certainly they borrowed from older renditions,the story shades off into a history of a nation and their beliefs.I find the chronological sequence of Genesis to be a masterpiece yet it doesn't add or take away from the core message,it just protects it in such a delicate way.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments