Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

Hey, thanks for that. I certainly hope not to cause any offence (I realise asking a native English speaker if they are an ESL person, if meant as a slight, is tantamount to trash talk!) I'm hoping civility can win the day and lead to fruitfulness on this discussion; many of my closest Christian friends and I have varying different opinions on issues here and there, but we can discuss them without losing the friendship/fellowship.

As much as I like to be open and understand varying perspectives, I cannot deny what I see in the emotional tool box of many "fundamentalist" Christians. There are several factors in their behavior which are disturbing to me. The following three are just the top of the list right now, and major stumbling blocks to any productive discourse with such people.

1.) They do not seem to be sincerely interested in discovering reality accurately. They seem to cling to a dogmatic view of life/theology regardless of the vast amount of evidence that contradicts that view.

2.) They seem to think labeling them self "Christian" or being guided by the "Holy Spirit" exempts them from the same rigorous critical analysis they aim at other ideas.

3.) In an extended discourse with them the previous two truths seem abundantly clear to any observer, though they themselves will continue to try and conceal that reality with more lip service.

 

[gcthomas]

3.) In an extended discourse with them the previous two truths seem abundantly clear to any observer, though they themselves will continue to try and conceal that reality with more lip service.

And this leads then to almost always try to claim that science is a faith or merely a belief. It seems that they feel that the unparallelled success of the scientific world view had gathered such a level of respect that one of two things must be done. One, try to bring down science to being a dogmatic belief, to provide an illusory level playing field. Or two, pretend that all the creationist arguments are in reality science and there is a conspiracy to deny it.

Both arguments assume the strength of the scientific method rigorously carried out, while denying it at the same time. Sneaky, but obvious at the same time worth no plan B when called out.

 

[noguru]

And this leads then to almost always try to claim that science is a faith or merely a belief. It seems that they feel that the unparallelled success of the scientific world view had gathered such a level of respect that one of two things must be done. One, try to bring down science to being a dogmatic belief, to provide an illusory level playing field. Or two, pretend that all the creationist arguments are in reality science and there is a conspiracy to deny it.

Both arguments assume the strength of the scientific method rigorously carried out, while denying it at the same time. Sneaky, but obvious at the same time worth no plan B when called out.

There is only plan A for facing reality. Of course the potential goals of what we do with that reality can lead to other plans. But to deny one self a clear view of reality is self-defeating and should be a huge red flag to any others they might attempt to lead. To hide one self from reality and to teach others to do that is to be "the Capt. on a ship of fools".

 

[DavisBJ]

… You slightly misrepresent things. Both of us see no fault in science itself.

I think this claim by you – that we both see no fault in science - is a pretty major misrepresentation on your part. To move beyond meaningless platitudes, tell us:

1 – Darwinian evolution (updated to reflect findings since Darwin) is an accepted part of mainstream science with which I concur. Do you?

2 – Mainstream science regularly uses multiple types of radiological dating that show the earth to be vastly older than ten thousand years. Do you see any fault in that?

3 – Astronomy is a part of mainstream science which routinely deals with observations of things that are billions of years old. That OK with you?

4 – Mainstream geology doesn’t buy into a global flood in the last few tens of millennia. You agree?

If it would help, I can enumerate numerous specific claims accepted by other branches of mainstream science that I know you would not concur with (anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, astrophysics, cosmology) as well as numerous other details in the fields I already listed.

What you blithely refer to as “science” in your mind is a grotesque parody of what “science” actually means in the scientific community when unfettered by fundamentalist distortions.

Where you are wrong here is associating the word 'evolutionist' with biological evolution. Big Bang beliefs are part of stellar evolution.

If you need to stoop to dissembling in this way, then just quit the pretense that you are honestly responding to the subject at hand. Every reference to evolution in this little discussion has, until now, been very clearly focused on a specific issue pertinent to Darwinian evolution – the Piltdown hoax. But now you have to dodge by pretending the evolution being discussed included stellar evolution?

… rash claims by cosmologists at a news conference in March of 2014.

Headlines that followed.... (3 examples from many):

"Surprisingly strong gravitational waves rippled through the fiery aftermath of the Big Bang, astronomers announced Monday, a finding that confirms the cosmos grew to a stunningly vast size in its very first moments.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-gravitational-waves-inflation-science-space/

Or,
Cosmology. First wrinkles in spacetime confirm cosmic inflation.
Cho A,*Bhattacharjee Y.

or,
The finding is direct proof of the theory of inflation, the idea that the universe expanded extremely quickly in the first fraction of a nanosecond after it was born.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/

Over the course of the next six months many science magazines and cosmologist started admitting that the announcement had been rash. In Oct. 'Nature' said that the claim was hanging by a thread. And in January of this year announced that it was officially dead. 'New Scientist' in Oct. 2014 said that the results indicate inflation is wrong.

I really didn’t expect you to personally add even more disproof of your claim that retractions were “slow, quiet”. But thanks anyway. (Or did you mean to say that in cosmology retractions are not so slow and quiet?)

Meanwhile many who don't pay great attention to these issues think the Big Bang is now a proven fact.

True, and those who do pay attention are not dissuaded from believing in the big bang by this misstep, either. If the results had stood up to subsequent validation, it would have been nice, but from day one it was known that the effect they were looking for would be extremely hard to detect.

 

[Hedshaker]

Ha ha! Good old Bill on the button as usual........... :chuckle:

:rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture:

 

[6days]

God's word is not all one thing. It contains narrative, poetry, correspondence, parable, apocalyptic literature, and so on, and the different types of literature should be handled accordingly.

Of course. That applies to all literature.

*I was talking about the way many Jews and Christians take the creation account, that being not literally.

There have always been people willing to compromise on God's Word. Even Paul argued against people who wanted to compromise Genesis.*

*It helps the discussion for people to be aware of the options on the table, and especially ones that would seek to show reasonably why the account was not intended to be literal

It also helps the discussion for people to be aware of how various Bible authors refer to "the account" as real history.*

It also helps the discussion for people to be aware of how compromising "the account" "with other options" damages the Gospel message.*

Ex... If the curse of death is not a result of original sin by the "first Adam", then the death and resurrection of "Last Adam" become meaningless... and the Gospel has been destroyed.*


Jesus asked 'If you don't believe Moses, how can you believe me?'*

 

[6days]

I think this claim by you – that we both see no fault in science - is a pretty major misrepresentation on your part. To move beyond meaningless platitudes, tell us:
1 – Darwinian evolution ... mainstream science...

2 – Mainstream science radiological dating*

3 – Astronomy mainstream science

4 – Mainstream geology ...
What you blithely refer to as “science” in your mind is a grotesque parody of what “science” actually means in the scientific community when unfettered by fundamentalist distortions.

What is science?*You seem to think that science is going along with whatever is mainstream. Science is knowledge. ..the search for truth using the scientific method.*

Using your point 1 as an example...
If by "Darwinian evolution" you are referring to the study of things such as the increase or decrease of a gene, within a gene pool...that is science.

If by "Darwinian evolution" you are referring to common ancestry beliefs; or, if you mean interpreting evidence in accordance with the philosophy of naturalism...that is not science.

We are discussing our origins and interpreting data to fit the religion of secular humanism, or the religion of the Creator God of the Bible.

 

[seehigh]

What is science?*You seem to think that science is going along with whatever is mainstream. Science is knowledge. ..the search for truth using the scientific method.*

Using your point 1 as an example...
If by "Darwinian evolution" you are referring to the study of things such as the increase or decrease of a gene, within a gene pool...that is science.

If by "Darwinian evolution" you are referring to common ancestry beliefs; or, if you mean interpreting evidence in accordance with the philosophy of naturalism...that is not science.

We are discussing our origins and interpreting data to fit the religion of secular humanism, or the religion of the Creator God of the Bible.

It's interesting that some people just like to revel in their ignorance.

 

[Jonahdog]

Ex... If the curse of death is not a result of original sin by the "first Adam", then the death and resurrection of "Last Adam" become meaningless... and the Gospel has been destroyed.*


Jesus asked 'If you don't believe Moses, how can you believe me?'*

good question, and the answer I have come to after lo these many years is "I don't". Your Bible is a nice story but nothing more. In fact it is often not very "nice" but you fundamentalists seem not to want to deal with the nasty parts other than to suggest your deity is soooo much better than humans he can do whatever he wants and it is never wrong.

 

[Daniel1611]

good question, and the answer I have come to after lo these many years is "I don't". Your Bible is a nice story but nothing more. In fact it is often not very "nice" but you fundamentalists seem not to want to deal with the nasty parts other than to suggest your deity is soooo much better than humans he can do whatever he wants and it is never wrong.

There aren't any nasty parts. There is trash you got from a Google search because you didn't actually read it.

 

[seehigh]

There aren't any nasty parts. There is trash you got from a Google search because you didn't actually read it.

Speaking for myself, not only did I read it in two different language to compare it, I've also studied an eight volume commentary, as well as have taken comparative religion classes in university.

I became an atheist religiously and an agnostic philosophically as a result of these studies.

Beyond what you've heard from your preacher, and perhaps Bible study in church, how much in-depth study have you done of your Bible? And in how many languages?

 

[Daniel1611]

Speaking for myself, not only did I read it in two different language to compare it, I've also studied and eight volume commentary, as well as have taken comparative religion classes in university.

I became an atheist religiously and an agnostic philosophically as a result of these studies.

Beyond what you've heard from your preacher, and perhaps Bible study in church, how much in-depth study have you done of your Bible? And in how many languages?

I've read the Bible and read it often. I read it in English. Hopefully I'll be good enough with Koine Greek someday.

 

[seehigh]

I've read the Bible and read it often. I read it in English. Hopefully I'll be good enough with Koine Greek someday.

In other words, you have a lot of learning to do.

As such, perhaps your negative commentary on those that actually understand what is in that book, and in the context that it was written, should abide until you get to learn it better.

Right now all you're doing is giving opinion.

 

[Daniel1611]

In other words, you have a lot of learning to do.

As such, perhaps your negative commentary on those that actually understand what is in that book, and in the context that it was written, should abide until you get to learn it better.

Right now all you're doing is giving opinion.

Reading commentaries and learning the Bible from atheists or apostates at a college doesn't impress me, son. You have much more learning to do than I do. You don't even know the Bible is true. You believe in stupid ideas like evolution. Someday people will look back and wonder how people were dumb enough to believe in evolution.

 

[Hedshaker]

Reading commentaries and learning the Bible from atheists or apostates at a college doesn't impress me, son. You have much more learning to do than I do. You don't even know the Bible is true. You believe in stupid ideas like evolution. Someday people will look back and wonder how people were dumb enough to believe in evolution.

And yet the exact opposite appears to be the case. Religion, and Christianity in particular, has had thousands of years to show any truth value it might hold but is clearly in decline more than ever in the Weston world, while secularism, science and rationalism grows in leaps and bounds. In short, you can't fool all the people all the time.

Not just religion but all mystical flimflam is destined for the dustbin of history, where it belongs

 

[seehigh]

Reading commentaries and learning the Bible from atheists or apostates at a college doesn't impress me, son. You have much more learning to do than I do. You don't even know the Bible is true. You believe in stupid ideas like evolution. Someday people will look back and wonder how people were dumb enough to believe in evolution.

Sorry, me boy, the profs at university, not college ( do you know the difference?) were ordained ministers.

I find it so interesting that you keep trying to prove your ignorance about reality. It is a trait that is not becoming of anyone.

 

[Daniel1611]

Sorry, me boy, the profs at university, not college ( do you know the difference?) were ordained ministers.

I find it so interesting that you keep trying to prove your ignorance about reality. It is a trait that is not becoming of anyone.

You tell me you're wise, but you don't believe in God. You're a fool.

 

[seehigh]

You tell me you're wise, but you don't believe in God. You're a fool.

 

[Daniel1611]

I can't see what you posted. Maybe a problem with the TOL app.

 

[noguru]

Sorry, me boy, the profs at university, not college ( do you know the difference?) were ordained ministers.

I find it so interesting that you keep trying to prove your ignorance about reality. It is a trait that is not becoming of anyone.

It is OK as long as one claims to believe in God.