Creation

[betsy]

Anyone who uses the bible as a scientific text is deluding themselves. If you wanted to consider that evidence.

Once and for all, you should try and get your head around this:

We're using YOUR scientific texts...the preponderance of evidence from scientists to provide evidence of the validity of the Bible as an explanation for the creation.

You don't need to consider the Bible. That's up to you. Consider the scientific evidence and what it shows. If you don't think it indicates a necessary Intelligent Designer, tell us your theory.

Simple.

Edited February 5, 2011 by betsy

[Wild Bill]

No. Actually, He told us. Now we're trying to tell you.

No, you told yourselves that He told you! YOU make the claim that the word of your Bible is divine truth!

Of course, you're welcome to believe this if you wish but you certainly have no right to expect that anyone else must accept this with no supporting evidence.

[CANADIEN]

evolutionary theory post-Darwin has proposed inumerable theories attempting to explain the origin of life, some ridiculous and some more ridiculous.

Nope. A theory does not propose a theory. Individuals propose theories. That no reliable theory on the mechanics of the apparition of life exists does not invalidate the theory of evolution.

[CANADIEN]

Once and for all, you should try and get your head around this:

We're using YOUR scientific texts...the preponderance of evidence from scientists to provide evidence of the validity of the Bible as an explanation for the creation.

Correction. You are MISusing science texts to draw a conclusion that cannot be drawn from them, regarding the existence or non-existence of God.

You don't need to consider the Bible. That's up to you. Consider the scientific evidence and what it shows.

If the scientific evidence demonstrates the existence of God, show us the God formula.

If you don't think it indicates a necessary Intelligent Designer, tell us your theory.

Simple.

The existence of God is found through faith, and is not and cannot be explained through a scientific theory. VERY simple.

Edited February 5, 2011 by CANADIEN

[GostHacked]

Once and for all, you should try and get your head around this:

We're using YOUR scientific texts...

Yes, yes we are.

the preponderance of evidence from scientists to provide evidence of the validity of the Bible as an explanation for the creation.

Science in no way can validate anything in the bible, no matter how much it is trotted out.

You don't need to consider the Bible.That's up to you. Consider the scientific evidence and what it shows. If you don't think it indicates a necessary Intelligent Designer, tell us your theory.

Simple.

I don't need to consider the bible, but the scientific evidence the bible shows? That shows intelligence for sure.

Edited February 5, 2011 by GostHacked

[CANADIEN]

No. Actually, He told us. Now we're trying to tell you.

Yes. God told us. But He did not use science.

If He had, the Bible would open with a very precise scientifi text explaining EXACTLY how God did it. And we would not understand half of it.

[betsy]

Science in no way can validate anything in the bible, no matter how much it is trotted out.

Huh? How do you know what science can validate? I don't imagine your knowledge of the Bible or Science is at a level where you can make that statement.

I don't need to consider the bible, but the scientific evidence the bible shows? That shows intelligence for sure.

Who said anything about scientific evidence from the Bible? Care to expound on that.

[betsy]

My goodness. A lesser Christian would throw his hands in the air in despair.....but I'll hang in there.

Has anyone actually read these posts, let alone anything else?

[CANADIEN]

My goodness. A lesser Christian would throw his hands in the air in despair.....

My thought exactly whenever I read your non-sense.

[GostHacked]

Huh? How do you know what science can validate? I don't imagine your knowledge of the Bible or Science is at a level where you can make that statement.

When one uses the bible as a scientific text (which is what you are really proposing here) should one use it in a literal sense or an interpretational sense?

Who said anything about scientific evidence from the Bible? Care to expound on that.

You don't need to consider the Bible. That's up to you. Consider the scientific evidence and what it shows. If you don't think it indicates a necessary Intelligent Designer, tell us your theory.

Simple.

It does not help when one talks out of the both sides of the mouth with forked tongue.

Edited February 5, 2011 by GostHacked

[CANADIEN]

As I said above, I'm not a new-earth believer. I believe that Genesis is expressing geological time. That time and space were created as part of the universe. Time and space are controlled by God.

Genesis is not expressing geological time. Genesis is an allegorical tool.

[betsy]

When one uses the bible as a scientific text (which is what you are really proposing here) should one use it in a literal sense or an interpretational sense?

It does not help when one talks out of the both sides of the mouth with forked tongue.

I don't know what you mean, other than you quoting my two statements. Explain.

Edited February 5, 2011 by betsy

[pinko]

I don't know what you mean, other than you quoting my two statements. Explain.

I would suggest the onus of proof is on you given the position you have staked out. Several of your fellow Christians have given you an opportunity to explain yourself and you have been rather obtuse in response.

[bloodyminded]

Betsy: Pinko makes a good point. You're not only debating with atheists here. The Christians disagree with you as well.

[betsy]

Since no one has proposed an alternative to an Intelligent Designer as the cause of the beginning of the universe, I have to assume either that there is none in the collective mind of posters or that that collective is in the process of formulating one...

In anticipation of the latter and in the meantime, here’s a brief outline of an epistemology which I find particularly important. It is brilliant in its simplicity and directness, lacking as it does the pretentious and affected language and convoluted thinking of so much philosophical endeavour, and in the fact that, unlike with most philosophical speculation, it has the benefit of demonstrable, real life evidence in its support.

The theory is that scientific theories and knowledge can never be considered true categorically, but must be considered true only on the basis of probability. In other words.... assuming increased knowledge, all scientific theory and knowledge must inevitably be subject to revision or abandonment.

The history of science certainly demonstrates the truth of this. The Theist has little problem accommodating this into his wider philosophy because he readily understands that all knowledge is in God and man is simply scraping the surface of that vast resource.

Man’s mind, as impressive as it is, will never attain absolute knowledge. It is beyond his capacity. This should be resident in the mind of anyone, including those on this forum, who imagine the finality, or even the eventual finality, of human scientific enquiry.

[dre]

Betsy: Pinko makes a good point. You're not only debating with atheists here. The Christians disagree with you as well.

I wanted to expand on this point because it illustrates how literal biblical creationists are sort of barking up the wrong tree when it comes to atheists.

Atheists pose the SMALLEST threat to biblical literalism. The real threat comes from inside the Christian faith from its hundreds of millions of followers. THEY will be the ones that drag the church and fundamentalists kicking and screaming into the modern world just like they always have been. Guys like Jack Webber that are able to construct for themselves a way of thinking that can accomodate both empyrical and doctrinal sets of belief.

Atheists are barely relevant. We are tiny percentage of the worlds population... probably less than 3%. We have no common goals, no common cause, and no organization, and the vast majority of us could care less what other people believe.

Christians are rejecting literalism and they will continue to do so in increasing numbers. They will accept evolution in time just like they accepted galileos theories on planets and orbits. And whats more they are accepting these things much faster now that they cant no longer massacre their philophical opponents, and burn their books.

The attack on literalism and fundamentalism is an INSIDE JOB!

[bloodyminded]

Since no one has proposed an alternative to an Intelligent Designer as the cause of the beginning of the universe, I have to assume either that there is none in the collective mind of posters or that that collective is in the process of formulating one...

In anticipation of the latter and in the meantime, heres a brief outline of an epistemology which I find particularly important. It is brilliant in its simplicity and directness, lacking as it does the pretentious and affected language and convoluted thinking of so much philosophical endeavour, and in the fact that, unlike with most philosophical speculation, it has the benefit of demonstrable, real life evidence in its support.

The theory is that scientific theories and knowledge can never be considered true categorically, but must be considered true only on the basis of probability. In other words.... assuming increased knowledge, all scientific theory and knowledge must inevitably be subject to revision or abandonment.

The history of science certainly demonstrates the truth of this. The Theist has little problem accommodating this into his wider philosophy because he readily understands that all knowledge is in God and man is simply scraping the surface of that vast resource.

Mans mind, as impressive as it is, will never attain absolute knowledge. It is beyond his capacity. This should be resident in the mind of anyone, including those on this forum, who imagine the finality, or even the eventual finality, of human scientific enquiry.

You're right that we don't have an "alternative" idea to the existence of a Creator. that in no way--not even faintly--is evidence for a Creator. Not one bit. "I don't know" does not set us in default to believing in God.

I don't believe in God. That doesn't mean I know there is no God. Of course not. I'm not feeling him...and feeling him is about the only way to faith (aside from indoctrination, which I suppose isn't real Faith).

I would never argue with anyone about the existence of God; not unless they wish to debate the matter...say, by bringing the subject up on a debate forum. Then it's fair game.

But I would never inform a grieving parent that he or she might be wrong, that there's no evidence for Heaven, and that I doubt God's existence. I would consider that cruel. And their faith is none of my business.

But when people say, as you have, that evolutionary theory has been discredited, I will argue the point; because it's flatly untrue.

Or when you say that there is scientific evidence for God. Again, that's not at all true.

Edited February 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[CANADIEN]

Since no one has proposed an alternative to an Intelligent Designer as the cause of the beginning of the universe, I have to assume either that there is none in the collective mind of posters or that that collective is in the process of formulating one...

You do not get it, do you? The proof of the existence of God (since this is Who we are talking about here) comes from faith, not scientific knowledge.

You feel free to prove a factual, concrete, scientific proof of the existence of God. Keeping in mind, of course, that YOU admit that scientific knowledge has its limits.

[Jonsa]

The theory is that scientific theories and knowledge can never be considered true categorically, but must be considered true only on the basis of probability. In other words.... assuming increased knowledge, all scientific theory and knowledge must inevitably be subject to revision or abandonment.

Every scientist worth their salt will agree with you in regard to theories. As for knowledge, it depends on you definition. For instance, the knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun is categorical - it has to do with the SCIENCE of orbital mechanics and isn't subject to revision. I can see a world where religious fundamentalists might abandon such categorical knowledge in the interests of supporting their scriptural interpretations of the universe, but the knowledge will still be categorically correct.

The history of science certainly demonstrates the truth of this. The Theist has little problem accommodating this into his wider philosophy because he readily understands that all knowledge is in God and man is simply scraping the surface of that vast resource.

Man’s mind, as impressive as it is, will never attain absolute knowledge. It is beyond his capacity. This should be resident in the mind of anyone, including those on this forum, who imagine the finality, or even the eventual finality, of human scientific enquiry.

The theist has enormous problems in accomodating new knowledge when it contradicts their faith based interpretation of existence. Your denounciation of ToE is but one obvious example and perhaps a refresher on the tribulations of Galileo might be helpful to you.

I agree that absolute knowlege (omniscience) is far beyond the intellectual and emotional capabilities of homo sapiens sapiens. But that doesn't stop us from imagining the attainment of such, and at least we have a proven process of inquiry, experimentation, rejection and proof in validating and applying the knowledge we acquire.

[wyly]

Every scientist worth their salt will agree with you in regard to theories. As for knowledge, it depends on you definition. For instance, the knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun is categorical - it has to do with the SCIENCE of orbital mechanics and isn't subject to revision. I can see a world where religious fundamentalists might abandon such categorical knowledge in the interests of supporting their scriptural interpretations of the universe, but the knowledge will still be categorically correct.

surprisingly in surveys done regarding scientific knowledge in the USA 20% of adults still believe the sun orbits the earth...

If asked the same questions what percentage of canadians would get that wrong...

[GostHacked]

I don't know what you mean, other than you quoting my two statements. Explain.

You need to troll harder or get better at acting ignorant.

Creation and evolution are two different things, that talk about two completely different topics.

[betsy]

In the beginning....

Well, for a start, that watch did NOT come to happen in a quick explosion. We had the explosion and it took about 11 BILLION YEARS of things coming together to make that watch happen!

Moreoever, while the creation of life took the larger first part of those 11 billion years, once it happened things were no longer entirely random. Some things work better than others once the groundwork has been prepared. Once mankind came on the picture, things started to develop at a HUGELY faster rate! We went from sundials to inventing that watch within a couple of hundred years, because there were all sorts of people all over the place busy inventing and developing all the pieces necessary to make that watch.

....there was Bill sitting in the front row seat when it all started.

Then...along came Canadien.

Yes. God told us. But He did not use science.

If He had, the Bible would open with a very precise scientifi text explaining EXACTLY how God did it. And we would not understand half of it.

....who claims to know how God will precisely do it!

He threw an impossible task to poor Betsy.

As I said before, feel free anytime to show the mathematic formula that proves the existence of God.

Well you tell me!

You seem to be in more position than anyone else on this planet to do that....saying how you know the mind of God.

However..... lo and behold, I got the flak from Bill:

Are YOU one of those who tells God how he did his works?

Suddenly, a monty python-moment happened. Bill and Canadien got together.

And if evolution is not fact, then how does one explain scientifc evidence of life forms that predates the apparition of human beings? It is one thing (which I believe) to say that all life and all Creation ultimately comes from God. It is quite a different thing to deny the FACT of evolution because it contradict allegories used to say that God created the Universe (i.e. the Genesis story), or to develop pseudo-scientific theories (i.e. intelligent design).

Exactly! Betsy and her supporters are not content to insist on the existence of God. They have to tell HIM how he did everything!

And it's me who spout non-sense???

My thought exactly whenever I read your non-sense.

I'm sorry...couldn't help it...bwa-ha-ha-ha....forgive me if....bwa-ha-ha-ha...I just ignore you two.....

Edited February 6, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

In the beginning....

....there was Bill sitting in the front row seat when it all started

Bill does not make any claim to that effect. learn to read.

Then...along came Canadien.

....who claims to know how God will precisely do it!

Nope. Simply pointing that if God had chosen for the Bible to be a science book, the text would have been very different. Learn to read.

Well you tell me!

You seem to be in more position than anyone else on this planet to do that....saying how you know the mind of God.

I would not have audacity to claim I or anyone knows the mind of God. Learn to read.

Besides, you are the one who claims that the existence of God can be proven by scinece. Not me. So, once again, show us the formula, will you?

And it's me who spout non-sense???

Yes.

Edited February 6, 2011 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

Since no one has proposed an alternative to an Intelligent Designer as the cause of the beginning of the universe,

"Well, nobody has come up with proof of anything else, so obviously God did it!"

Brought to you by the same minds who knew that maggots spontaneously generate in spoiled meat.

I have to assume either that there is none in the collective mind of posters or that that collective is in the process of formulating one...

I wish to propose a possible alternative to an Intelligent Designer that may not yet have been considered. I call it "Unintelligent Non-Design". Briefly, the theory is that the universe was created by complete accident by a completely unintelligent entity that exists outside of space and time.

In some faiths and traditions, this entity is known as Jiffy the Space-Dog... but may be known by other names in other traditions, or might not be known to any faith or tradition at all.

Jiffy The Space-Dog. Our unintelligent non-designer!

-k

[Wild Bill]

"Well, nobody has come up with proof of anything else, so obviously God did it!"

Brought to you by the same minds who knew that maggots spontaneously generate in spoiled meat.

I wish to propose a possible alternative to an Intelligent Designer that may not yet have been considered. I call it "Unintelligent Non-Design". Briefly, the theory is that the universe was created by complete accident by a completely unintelligent entity that exists outside of space and time.

In some faiths and traditions, this entity is known as Jiffy the Space-Dog... but may be known by other names in other traditions, or might not be known to any faith or tradition at all.

Jiffy The Space-Dog. Our unintelligent non-designer!

-k

Didn't the white mice have something to do with it? As they muttered "42!"?