|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5068 days) Posts: 23 From: Ottawa ON, Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is the Bible acceptable? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Reality Man writes: Is the Bible acceptable in discussions? Is it not ignorant to say, "well in the bible, it says" etc. It is just as ignorant to say, "well Darwin says". To believe the Bible is an act of faith, to believe Darwin is also an act of faith. It is the job of both faiths to interpret science. To take the Bible away is to take away your faith, to take your faith is to take your interpretation, and without your interpretation you have nothing to say about science. It is the same with Darwin. How strong is your faith in Darwin? Darwin was not even sure what he believed was true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
How often do you see anyone on the evolution side appealing to Darwin, except when Darwin's words or beliefs are the issue at hand ? We know that Darwin - for all his greatness - is not the last word. We know that many people have built on, extended and improved his work. By "faith of Darwin" I mean evolution, which in its basic theory remains pretty much the same as in its original form. Darwin questioned the whole theory... to build upon that is to build on shaky ground.
There is no "faith of Darwin" competing with creationism - only science. It is evolution that competes with creationism, not science. Science presents obsticals that have to be addressed by both. The Bible is the backbone of creation, and Darwin the backbone of evolution.
Darwin was aware of the limitations of the knowledge of his time, and took great care to investigate and consider the evidence. The humility of doubt is a far better guide to reliability than the false certainty of faith. Doubt = reliability? hmmm. Is doubt in evolution what drives people to pursue it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
PaulK writes: Evolution IS science. Creation is a science just as much as evolution is a science.
People who doubt take the time to check - they do the work, to try to get it right. That's what Darwin did. Well Darwin didn't really start to doubt until after he took the time to check.
People who have huge faith in their own ideas - like many creationists - don't bother to check and often get things very badly wrong. Things are not necessarily wrong because they are not checked (I'm not advocating not checking things). But for the creationist, their faith is not in their own ideas, but God. They recognize that faith in God is far superior to their own ability to make sense of the world around them. That shows humility. They doubt in their own ideas just as much as evolutionists do theirs. The difference being that creationists do not pursue their doubts, but have faith in God. You doubt in evolution... You also doubt in creation... but for some reason you choose to only pursue evolution. Back to my original point, the Bible is just as valid to science in explaining creationism as a scientific theory, as Darwin is to explaining evolutionary theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Larni writes: Show how creation and the bible is science or retract your woefully foolish assertion. Being confronted by a satanic looking dude and the barrel of a gun, I will most certainly retract my foolishness. Seriously though. Within the Bible there are both supernatural and natural elements. Creation in itself is supernatural, so science which studies only the natural can have nothing to say about it. But other elements within the creation model are natural, such as "kind after kind" which can be proven through science. Any time you make an observation or statement about the natural world, it can be looked at scientifically. The natural elements within the creation model are studied as creation science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Larni writes: 100 virtual if you can define 'kinds' for me in a way that matches observed reality. The definition for kind is very simple. Here is how Blue Letter Bible defines it:
quote: In other words, a parent and their offspring are the same kind. This is what I have always thought of species as, but species does not make that distinction about ancestrial gene pool, just if they can produce furtile offspring. So It depends on your evolutionary view. If you believe everything evolved from the same single celled organism, then all life is the same kind. If you believe in creation though, then kind is the same as species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
autumnman writes: In the first creation account the plants and trees are brought into being on the third day of creation, and humanity is brought into being on the sixth day of creation. According to the second creation account, however, the plants, herbs, and tree come into being at the same time the human archetype. I think you will enjoy this thread: http://EvC Forum: Adam was created on the 3rd day -->EvC Forum: Adam was created on the 3rd day Toward the end we kind of reach an impass, not much more to add, but I'd be interested in any fresh thoughts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Larni writes: Did you mean to reply specifically to me? To anybody really. I replied to you because your responses are short, sweet and generally pick up the feel of what other people are saying. I can't reply to everyone or I'd be repeating myself, and I have limited time. Anyone can respond, and if I missed an important point please let me know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Larni writes: So you could point to an 'ancesteral gene pool' and say this kind is distinct from that kind?Where for art thou, distinct ancesteral gene pools? LOL. Well defining ancestrial gene pools would take alot more research than defining a species. Its a question for science, from the Bible (might I add) that science already tries to answer. This shows the Bible as a good source for doing scientific research.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
autumnman writes: Were these biblical "kinds" mortal or immortal creatures when God told the waters, heavens, and earth to bring them forth (Gen. 1:20 & 24)? The only kind that started out immortal was Adam and Eve until they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Other kinds were not instructed, not said to be immortal. You can't have them multiply without death or things would run amuck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
ramoss writes: SO, what predictions does the bible make on what science will find? From the Bible you can predict, and I believe science has found that a species (humans for example) can be traced back only so far and then can find no other trace of it. There are other species (homo erectus for example) that might be similar in structure and different ones trancend throughout time, but there is no proof that one is the ancestor of the other. There are broken links. I think this point at the end of the line is the likely point of creation. I'm not a data junkie, so only speak in theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
autumnman writes: nepesh chayah=breathing mortal creatures. You do not get it both ways; humans cannot be instructed to "be fruitful and multiply" and be immortal as well. As you say, "things would run amuck." a "nephesh" corresponds with creature, and "chay" indicates that it is living. There is nothing in the definition that indicates that it has to be mortal. Adam eventually became mortal but not to start out. Adam was not instructed to be fruitful and multiply until after he became mortal. Genesis 2 came before Genesis 1 in part. Check that thread I refered you to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
PaulK writes: Creationists more frequently take "kind" to include a number of species (because they want to invoke a post-Flood period of rapid macroevolution and diversification so they can cut down on the number of species that need to be carried in the Ark). Well that includes everyone inbetween the two extremes. I lean toward the "no new information" extreme. I do agree with natural selection, but not to a point that one cannot reproduce within their own kind. I believe in a localized flood and an ark that took on indigioous species that were later to continue within that same region. I believe the Bible supports this view when looking at the word translated as "earth" it can mean a particular land or region. "no new information" means no new genetic mutation that is beneficial to the organism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
autumnman writes: As a Heb. clause nepesh chayah is only used to describe "mortal creatures." It is never used to describe a mythical immortal being. Can you document that? And could it be because as of now all "nepesh chayah" are mortal creatures.
So, according to you, when did "Adam" become mortal? When he ate from the tree.
If "Adam" became mortal after "The Fall", then when did God "bless them,and say 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it'."? He said that in Gen 1, but the timing of it was after they left the garden. Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
I'll go check out that other thread now. Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Larni writes: No 100 virtual for you. Darn. I was really counting on that. Can I try again?
So to claim you 100 virtual you need to identify these hypothesised distinct ancesteral gene pools aloowing us to identify kinds in a systematic way. I hypothesize that these distinct ancestrial gene pools are what we call species today. Now how far back can we trace them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
PaulK writes: Since beneficial mutations are known to occur, your position has been proven false. I don't believe so, but maybe you could point me at some other threads where there is discussion on that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024