Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Truly amazing. Even my analogy went right over Untellectual’s head. Move over, Michael Cadry, you’ve got some serious competition in Untellectual.


Dear Davis,

Untellectual does the best he can and I think he does quite well at times; more often than naught. So I don't mind being lumped into the same category and Class. Like he has more class than many I've known. He just has trouble understanding some of your terms, maybe even many. I understand most all of the terms you use in evolution, but I don't want to tax my mind trying to waste brain cells on unnecessary propaganda. And I'll keep doing it. The object of this thread is to explain things in ways that others here can understand, rather than the groping for ridiculous and difficult words used to explain your agenda. Reminds me of the great Urantia garble.

In God's Love,

Michael

:confused: :think:
 
Last edited:

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
According to AiG:
"The Bible, God’s revelation to us, gives us the foundation that enables us to begin to build the right worldview to correctly understand how the present and past are connected. All other documents written by man are fallible, unlike the “God-breathed” infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible clearly and unmistakably describes the creation of the universe, the solar system, and the earth around six thousand years ago. We know that it’s true based on the authority of God’s own character. “Because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” (Hebrews 6:13)."
Source

The Bible is not fallible because the Bible says so?
"All other documents written by man are fallible..." (including this one presumably.)
How do they know that the Bible isn't fallible too?
Because an anonymous author of Hebrews says that God "swore by Himself" of course.

Sceptics, we have lost, there is simply no argument against the power of that overwhelming reasoning and rationality, we may as well all pack up and go home ....Oh wait I'm home already... :liberals:


Dear Alwight,

If there wasn't considerable Truth, the Bible would not be the Best Selling book every year in the world, as it has done for years and years. How often does your scientific books sell? I think not. Not any of them can touch or match the Bible. Yes, the Koran has a lot of sold copies, but considering since the Bible first came out, the Bible still holds it's own.

Now what do you think of that. There are maybe 5-10% of atheists or agnostics. There are tons of Christians and Muslims. But the Christian Bible is by far chosen by those searching for the Truth. We should have expected no little than what God put His words in. You don't seem to know that, when God tells you something, you retain the memory and words for the rest of your life. It's a matter of whom God wants to spread some into their minds and hearts. Do you think that a God Who could do everything cannot tell a human being a long enough message, without them keeping it in their heart for their entire life.

I remember the Lord speaking to me, and the angels speaking to me, and my visits from the Holy Spirit and the visions I've had. You keep those words till you die. That is quite a feat that John of Patmos did excellently, and I have most of what he said in my heart and thoughts so that I can retell it everyone else and it can be written down for my children and descendants. Nomadic or NOT, we share stories that are worthwhile, sacred, and are True.

Michael
 
Last edited:

alwight

New member
That verse is for the purpose it was intended as in the text itself. The verse is talking about Abraham. So the context would show you more.

But the inspiration of the scriptures is spoken of elsewhere in the Bible. I'm simply saying that we don't want to incorrectly use this verse.
How do YOU know that the Bible really is infallible?
Since you obviously prefer to spend more of your time studying the Bible than science then perhaps your confirmation bias is misleading you despite your claimed critical thinking skills?
 

alwight

New member
Dear Alwight,

If there wasn't considerable Truth, the Bible would not be the Best Selling book every year in the world, as it has done for years and years. How often does your scientific books sell? I think not. Not any of them can touch or match the Bible. Yes, the Koran has a lot of sold copies, but considering since the Bible first came out, is still holds it's own.
Hi Michael,
That's a rather obvious appeal to popularity which itself is a fallacy and doesn't mean that the Bible is infallible. Muslims will no doubt trust too that their holy book is without fault, but then they probably would wouldn't they?
Neither scripture can be tested (as infallible) against physical reality they are simply assumed to have "Truth" by believers. If some parts do contain some truth that isn't particularly surprising but that is also not evidence of any infallibility.

Now what do you think of that. There are maybe 5-10% of atheists or agnostics. There are tons of Christians and Muslims. But the Christian Bible is by far chosen by those searching for the Truth. We should have expected no little than what God put His words in. You don't seem to know that, when God tells you something, you retain the memory and words for the rest of your life. It's a matter of whom God wants to spread some into their minds and hearts. Do you think that a God Who could do everything cannot tell a human being a long enough message, without them keeping it in their heart for their entire life.
Actually I'm not sure what "Truth" is here, but I suspect for you it's whatever you want it to be and that is whatever you read in the Bible. I suggest however that you have no more actual knowledge that the Bible is infallible "Truth" than a Sherlock Holmes novel.

I remember the Lord speaking to me, and the angels speaking to me, and my visits from the Holy Spirit and the visions I've had. You keep those words till you die. That is quite a feat that John of Patmos did excellently, and I have most of what he said in the heart and thoughts so that I can retell it everyone else and it can be written down for my children and descendants. Nomadic or NOT, we share stories that are worthwhile, sacred, and are True.

Michael
No doubt John of Patmos was no stranger to magic mushrooms Michael. ;)
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dear Alwight,

John never had a magic mushroom in his mouth ever. His wit was precise and definitely awesome.

Michael
 

Stuu

New member
If someone says, this X is a day old... and another person says this X is actually four days old... which person would you believe? We could either say the evidences are different in that one person points with particular conviction at what he has observed to lead to that conclusion, or cites who told him such and such. We could also say that item X was dated in two different ways though item X remains how old it is either way. Then is item X the evidence or is the conclusion about how old item X is the evidence?
What the hell are you talking about?

Stuart
 

DavisBJ

New member
Dear Davis,

Don't freak on me. Mark is harmless calling someone Barbie or Betty. I've seen worse 'sins.' You don't even believe in God. Don't you know that that is a worse sin that what Mark does?? You're not even close. My sister Sue would feel fine about it. She loves people a lot, just like me. No, I wouldn't give her address to a pimp. You're a big outrageous there. There are many posters here that are really men, but they use a feminine girl as an Avatar. And so you think they're girls, And you find out they are not. What a surprise!! With Armageddon looming closer and closer, what Mark does is last priority. God's not going to send Mark to everlasting Lake of Fire (our Sun, presently) for what he's doing. It's trivial.

Now if Barbarian is upset with it and says so, then that's another thing. He and all of us would stand behind him/her. Mark is one of the lightness and comical guy on this thread. You All make a wonderful addition to this thread. Everyone does their part and it is good to get both sides.

It's just that Christians know what happens if you believe, and they know what happens if you don't believe. So it's only natural that they would hate to see someone's soul burn in fire for eternity. That is why we try so hard to talk some sense in them/you!! It isn't for ourselves, it's for you all. If we were heartless, we wouldn't give a rat's behind about you going to Hell and then, the Lake of Fire. We just are softies, that's what the problem is, or maybe it's not a problem. Even if we can get one atheist or other to come to the side of the winners, then we rejoice.

God Be With You, Davis,

Michael

:wazzup:

:confused:

:think:
I am not freaking, but I thought, incorrectly, that you had more respect for your sister than you do.

In the multitude of posts where you have traded information with others, it has been clear that you almost desperately want to be friends. Recently you and I negotiated a better relationship, but we have not exchanged the extensive banter that you have with alwight and some of the other posters. Nor will we.

I value friendships too, but I expect my friends to share some of the core values I have. Included in those is a deep and fundamental respect for women. Your dismissively laughing off the use of your sister’s name as a term of derision is even more surprising in light of the fact that you took umbrage when I joked about your imaginary disembodied companions. You defend your ghosts, but you are not bothered by giving your sister’s name to be crudely used by a sexist joker in return for his continued friendship. Our values, yours and mine, as regards how we think about women are much too divergent for me to want you as a friend in any meaningful way.

Your basic message permeating this whole thread has been that you are a divine messenger, carrying a warning that the end is nigh. Over and over you have asked us to heed your message, or soon it will be too late. In evaluating your credibility, I listen to not only your message, but I observe your demeanor. The list is substantial of the specific things I have seen on your part that convince me that you are at a minimum, someone who has mentally constructed a hopefully benign but still pervasive world of make-believe. If your message was simply that Christ’s return was imminent, then you would be the latest in a very long list of people with the same failed prophetic message over the last 2 millennia. But you take the extra step of imagining yourself as one of the lead players wearing a white hat riding in on a white charger in the upcoming scenes. But alas, Tom Cruise you are not. You might pass as one of the Keystone Cops, though.

You obviously may continue to append “I love you” to posts you send to me, but coming from you there is a strong possibility that is code for “I am a homo looking for a date tonight.” No, let’s keep a pretty substantial distance between us. Your passing out rep points to curry favor seemed just a little bit superficial, but I suppose I won’t need to expect that any more.

You have your sister that you barter for friendship, and I am uncompromising about defending the honor of my sisters. Had I come into this conversation with a neutral view on Christianity, you would have very effectively convinced me of just how vacuous it is.

How is your prostate cancer doing? I think you view that as the fuse that is burning toward your death, after which you make your dramatic entrance on the great stage. How short is the fuse?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Now if Barbarian is upset with it and says so, then that's another thing.

Why would a Christian think being a female is shameful? Seasigh, as you might know, isn't a Christian, so he thinks it's somehow an insult if he calls a man a woman. Of course, his malice isn't pleasant for anyone here, but the way he tries to strike at people is unintentionally funny.

If you really are female, you are the one who should be insulted.
 

DavisBJ

New member
A person cannot measure the age of something by its temperature.
That is not always true, since it was the heat flow out of the earth that Lord Kelvin used to derive his estimate that the earth is tens of millions of year old.

But since you are clearly stuck on page one of this 500 page radiological dating idea, let me see if I can put it in terms that even a brand-new, just starting, recently graduated, hopeful-for-the-future, tinker toy engineer can understand.

A few days ago The Barbarian posted that Steve Austin, a prominent YEC scientist with good academic credentials, submitted a sample of material from the recent eruption of Mt. St. Helens to a laboratory for radiological dating. The lab that he selected not one that was equipped to date recently solidified magma, but Austin used them anyway. The sample he submitted to the lab was not a pure sample of just recently cooled magma. The date they came up with was millions of years, which is clearly nonsense for Mt. St. Helens. (post 5221)

In post 5245 you asked why a person would need to know the date of something before it can be dated.

(Now the analogies start) in answer to your question in post 5221, The Barbarian likened it to measuring temperatures of fudge or of a blast furnace. Barbie was not saying that the dating was a matter of measuring temperatures. He was saying that just like a low temperature substance (like fudge) needs one kind of thermometer, and a high temperature substance like molten steel needs a completely different kind of thermometer, likewise measuring recent dates in rocks required a different type of measurement than measuring dates of very old rocks. Get it? Low temperature fudge takes one kind of thermometer, and high temperature molten steel needs a different kind of thermometer, just like recently cooled magma has to be dated by one method, and very old magma has to be dated by a different method. That type of comparison is known as an analogy.

In post 5253 you asked how would you know the age before submitting it to determine the age?

Barbie, in post 5256 says you don’t always know the date, but Austin knew darn well that Mt St. Helens was recent, yet he submitted the sample to a lab that did dating of older rocks.

Kinda like if you are an engineer (know what that is?), and you specialize in designing dams that go across thousand-foot wide canyons. Then a customer asks you to measure something for them - the thickness of a strand of spider web.
You: “Whoa, my transit is designed to measure hundreds or thousands of feet.”
Cust: “It’ll be fine, just do the best you can with this spider web, and see what you get.”
You: “Ok, it’s your money. One foot (that’s as low as my transit will go).”
Cust: “Thanks, now I am going to tell everyone you idiots think spider web strands are one foot thick.”
(That was an analogy. I hope you see how using the wrong tool means you will get the wrong answer, whether it be in measuring spider web thickness or in dating recent lava or in measuring the temperature of hot liquids.)
 

noguru

Well-known member
Dear Alwight,

If there wasn't considerable Truth, the Bible would not be the Best Selling book every year in the world, as it has done for years and years. How often does your scientific books sell? I think not. Not any of them can touch or match the Bible. Yes, the Koran has a lot of sold copies, but considering since the Bible first came out, is still holds it's own.

Now what do you think of that. There are maybe 5-10% of atheists or agnostics. There are tons of Christians and Muslims. But the Christian Bible is by far chosen by those searching for the Truth. We should have expected no little than what God put His words in. You don't seem to know that, when God tells you something, you retain the memory and words for the rest of your life. It's a matter of whom God wants to spread some into their minds and hearts. Do you think that a God Who could do everything cannot tell a human being a long enough message, without them keeping it in their heart for their entire life.

I remember the Lord speaking to me, and the angels speaking to me, and my visits from the Holy Spirit and the visions I've had. You keep those words till you die. That is quite a feat that John of Patmos did excellently, and I have most of what he said in the heart and thoughts so that I can retell it everyone else and it can be written down for my children and descendants. Nomadic or NOT, we share stories that are worthwhile, sacred, and are True.

Michael

Michael I am not sure why you think comparative annual sales figures of The Bible and other books is somehow good evidence that you and the other creationist hacks here are accurate in regard to science. Can you explain that to us?

Do you think most people would buy or are even interested in comprehensive detailed analysis of the natural world? It is my experience that most people are not even interested in the subject enough to study it on their own. Whereas most people do have some sort of interest in understanding the overall purpose of their lives. Do you think the sum of people's interest in science and theology is somehow evidence that you and Untellectual are good sources in which to obtain accurate science?
 

6days

New member
It is also clear that God created life by the earth bringing forth living things. Creationist claims that He created living things from nothing is another of their additions to Scripture.
Not out of nothing really. Our omnipotent,omniscient Creator spoke our universe into existence.
Psalm 33:6 "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth"
Genesis 1
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image,

Endorsements by modern revisionists don't really mean much to me. The ancient Christians, like St. Augustine, knew even then that Genesis was not a literal history,
It isn't new that people compromise on the plain clear teaching of God's Word. It has been this way since the Garden of Eden when the serpent asked "Did God say...?"
As to your "modern revisionist comment, You might do well do examine how the Bible authors and Jesus referred to Moses writings as literal history. Hebrew scholars and historians declare the text is literal history... not poetry, and the church has traditionally accepted Genesis as history.
For example...Dr Benno Zuiddam (historian) this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd*century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th*century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve."


Re Augustine....Why are you appealing to him? He seems to have always accepted that Adam, Eve, the Garden and the flood were literal events to go along with with his young earth interpretation. He did have some ideas which I think were off but he wrote against pagan ideas of the earth being many thousands of years old. (Augustine used the Septuagent and said creation took place in 5600 BC). Perhaps the reason you appeal to Augustine is thought earlier in his life that the days in Genesis were symbolic. But later he wrote "De Genesi ad litteram." Translated 'On the necessity of taking Genesis literally.'

Interesting thing about this Hebrew professor, is that he does not believe Genesis, but says the text is written as literal history
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

and the "days" (which in Hebrew were used to mean "24-hour day", or "in my time", or "an era" or "unspecified length of time", were not intended to be taken as actual days.
No, that's not even close to correct. The Hebrew word for 'day' is YOM. The Hebrew word is used exactly the same as our English word 'day'. In other words the meaning is made clear by context.
EXAMPLE...I could say "in my fathers day, it took 7 days to complete harvest, working only in the day"
I used the word 'day' 3 times...3 different meanings....all easily understood by context.
The Hebrew is the same... same meanings...same easy to understand context.
The days of creation are literal 24 hour days.
 

noguru

Well-known member
Not out of nothing really. Our omnipotent,omniscient Creator spoke our universe into existence.
Psalm 33:6 "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth"
Genesis 1
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image,

Since we can see from modern science in general, and quantum mechanics specifically, that man's perception/idea of "nothing" can be quite different than there being actually "nothing", the use of poetic language and figurative speech here is not surprising.

It isn't new that people compromise on the plain clear teaching of God's Word. It has been this way since the Garden of Eden when the serpent asked "Did God say...?"

It seems to me that you are the one compromising the plain clear teaching of God's word. It was not meant to be an accurate scientific treatise on origins, yet you want to make it such.

As to your "modern revisionist comment, You might do well do examine how the Bible authors and Jesus referred to Moses writings as literal history.

Since a theological text can achieve and often is a mosaic of actual events weaved together with figurative less scientifically detailed language, there is certainly a literal aspect to scripture. But we need to use reason to decide which parts are literally accurate and which parts are figurative speech void of scientific detail.

Hebrew scholars and historians declare the text is literal history... not poetry, and the church has traditionally accepted Genesis as history.

See response above.

Interesting thing about this Hebrew professor, is that he does not believe Genesis, but says the text is written as literal history
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.

See response above.

No, that's not even close to correct. The Hebrew word for 'day' is YOM. The Hebrew word is used exactly the same as our English word 'day'. In other words the meaning is made clear by context.
EXAMPLE...I could say "in my fathers day, it took 7 days to complete harvest, working only in the day"
I used the word 'day' 3 times...3 different meanings....all easily understood by context.
The Hebrew is the same... same meanings...same easy to understand context.
The days of creation are literal 24 hour days.

Since God wanted us to incorporate his vast (in space and time) creative power into our human weekly time frame, it is not surprising that the Biblical authors would want us to literally acknowledge God's creative power on a human weekly basis.
 

Stuu

New member
As to your "modern revisionist comment, You might do well do examine how the Bible authors and Jesus referred to Moses writings as literal history.
You mean the Moses that writes about his own death?

Hebrew scholars and historians declare the text is literal history... not poetry, and the church has traditionally accepted Genesis as history.
There should be lots of archeological evidence of an event the size of the alleged biblical exodus, but actually there is none.

At least five different people wrote the work traditionally attributed to Moses.

Stuart
 

noguru

Well-known member
Moses almost certainly did not write that. Perhaps Joshua or some other person did.

Just as Adam could not have written a scientifically detailed account of origins prior to his birth (or awareness of things as an adult).
 

noguru

Well-known member
Indeed. Perhaps it was the same writer that invented the Exodus.

Stuart

The roots of monotheism are found in ancient Egypt, perhaps that was due to the influence of Hebrew culture, or perhaps that is where Hebrew culture developed its distinction from Egypt. But the Exodus certainly seems to be meant as one way to distinguish the polytheistic cultures around them from the Hebrews monotheistic culture.
 

6days

New member
God is the ultimate author

God is the ultimate author

Indeed. Perhaps it was the same writer that invented the Exodus.

Stuart
The author ultimately is God...All scripture is God breathed / inspired. The point of the discussion was that it is written as history...not poetry.
 

noguru

Well-known member
The author ultimately is God...All scripture is God breathed / inspired. The point of the discussion was that it is written as history...not poetry.

First, all things are ultimately authored by God. The natural world along with the discipline we use to study that, science, as well.

Ancient books on history and theology weave poetry together with actual events. This is quite obvious from all the evidence we have at our disposal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top