Creation vs. Evolution

[Interplanner]

Michael, science doesn't lie. Yes some scientists have lied, scientists are human beings, but other scientists found them out and that way science itself keeps heading in generally the right direction.
The agenda of science is science, not to falsify religious belief.
Science draws its own conclusions based on evidence regardless of anyone's religious doctrine but if those conclusions happen to contradict a literal Genesis then that is not because of any agenda other than the gaining of real knowledge.
Should a list of false prophets, fake psychics and religious charlatans shatter your religious faith?

No, but a list of 20 extremely-precise natural conditions for man on earth all having to work properly the first time he breaths or shows his skin should shatter the presupposition that it is not designed, that it is impersonal nature, that it is chance.

At what exact # or % do you say a theory is faith in chance? 51%? How can a hummingbird eat if that tube does not come out properly through his proboscis the first time and everytime?

 

[Interplanner]

Interplanner,
re: "Did you mean that the belief has it's source in choosing to have them...?

Just the opposite. I maintain that beliefs cannot be consciously chosen.

Then read Lewis coin-in-the-drawer analogy. The scientist consciously chose to believe that nothing had interfered. He was a closed system guy. He consciously chose not to allow a system in which things could be acted upon. He consciously chose to believe that there is nothing other than nature at work--as far as the analogy goes, the person putting the coin there each day is 'nature.'

That's why Lewis faulted him earlier for studying Nature only. Who says Nature is all that is "out there." He wouldn't let "out there" speak for itself. He controlled it.

 

[Interplanner]

Hebrews 11:3 KJV -

PJ,
we know Heb 11:3 is there. That's not the question. The question is whether the writer could have meant something as astronomically astute as the fact that brown dwarves are not seen to the human eye--even in places on earth with no light pollution. Yet they become planets.

This is not a pointless question. Over in 2 Peter and in Jude the passages mention the places that are 'blackest darkness' and the ancients distinguished darknesses that they saw in the night sky. Lewis in "Religion and Nature" told his scientist pal that the diminutive size of the earth in the universe was not a recent discovery of the past 100 years: a theologian writing in the 6th century had stated that the earth was a mere mathematical point in a massive universe. So the "ancients" didn't think of the stars as being tiny lights a mile up after all; they weren't as primitive as we thought.

 

[Interplanner]

Dear Interplanner,

Those 'chains of darkness' are the utter blindness in the soul's vision. Each soul's vision. Do you understand? Souls are sent to Hell, the bottomless pit, as I was told by the angel, the center of our Earth, which is bottomless because everyone thinks they are on top because of gravity, and there is a center full of fire and lava, and magma. But it symbolically has no bottom, so it is the bottomless pit. It has a top and a center, but no bottom. If you have any problem with that, take it up with the Lord. He made it that way. I was also told that the 'Lake of Fire" was our Sun, where there is much fire and brimstone, and it is even hotter than Hell. Do you also know that a bolt of lightning is ten times hotter than the Sun? And it says in Rev. 20:14 that "Hell" shall give up those in hell to be judged and those who are not found written in the book shall be cast into the "Lake of Fire." There are a lot of things you do not know about. Like I said, don't kill the messenger. Take it up with the angel from the Lord, who told me. Do you understand all I have said here? It's ALL the TRUTH!! You'll find out when the time comes.

Keep Trying To Learn, Bro'!

Michael

:thumb: :wave2:

I don't put any stock in private messages to people from God. It is pointless. I'm referring to scholarship about what ancient writers were saying, what vocab they were using and why. If the places mentioned by Peter were just 'places' in 'souls' then so are angels. Sorry, you're totally off on that. Angels are half divine, half human, and can be corporeal and speak human languages. As you would know if you would listen to your Bible instead of your private messages from God. Failed.

 

[Interplanner]

Dear Interplanner,

It's not how much schooling you have or how much you think you know. It is how much you DO know. How much has been taught to you by the Lord or angels? Do you have a monopoly on that? 6days has a lifetime of experience and is surely older than you. With age, comes wisdom. I'm not saying 6days is older than you, but he sure is wiser.

Michael

:wave:

No, I have formed a list of about 5 things so far on the Bible's text, where he is clueless. He is from an era that just didn't know. The fundamentalists got themselves all backed into a corner where all science was evil. They didn't know the battle was about presuppositions because they couldn't understand Lewis or Schaeffer. They defended the wrong features of the text. They fell for the optical illusion doctrine, and they started doing what you did when they got stuck with the actual material: 'God told me what this means in a vision.'

Lewis was asked one time if he would contradict the lastest knowledge from science. From his vantage point, he had seen quite a bit of the Bible corroborated by discoveries (before 1950). He said no, even if it looked bad for a moment, he believed that the text would eventually be vindicated.

Every one today seems to have forgotten the fundamentalists of science, like Henry Miller's test tube experiment. (Not the novelist). It was on the cover of LIFE in the 50s. It was a total fail. Cosmological scientists redrew the whole experiment realizing there had to be living materials for it to work, which forced them to allow for the pre-existence of living material, which forced them even further back... That is what Lewis meant.

The way some Biblicists sound today is like scientists who are still saying Miller's experiment was a success.

 

[Interplanner]

MichaelC,
it also will help you not to use emoticons.

 

[Interplanner]

Dear 6days,

Yes we agree. Jude and Peter say nothing about black holes in space. It's preposterous!

Michael

:wave2: :thumb: :cloud9: :angel:

You guys just can't read: "...wandering stars, for whom the blackest darkness has been reserved forever." You have all sorts of questions to answer there. Jude 13.

The parallel passage (2 Pet 2 and Jude are as strong as parallels go as many passages in the gospels) is 2 Pet 2:17. (v4 may be entirely subterranean imagery; I'm not sure). v17 is celestial. The expression comes from how the ancient sky was seen before there was so much light pollution.

I studied the parallel of 2 Pet 2 and Jude under Greek professor Dr. Goodrick at Multnomah. (Goodrick and Kohlenberger wrote the NIV concordance). He used to keep reminding us: 'the universe is full of beings and entities, according to the Bible; it is not bare, sterile, empty.'

But wow you are good at emoticons.

 

[ok doser]

MichaelC,
it also will help you not to use emoticons.

:noway:

:sibbie:

Spoiler

 

[Hedshaker]

No, but a list of 20 extremely-precise natural conditions for man on earth all having to work properly the first time he breaths or shows his skin should shatter the presupposition that it is not designed, that it is impersonal nature, that it is chance.

At what exact # or % do you say a theory is faith in chance? 51%? How can a hummingbird eat if that tube does not come out properly through his proboscis the first time and everytime?

My personal favourite is the idea that God just exists without a cause and doesn't come from anywhere. How utterly daft is that? The most powerful entity in existence (according to theists), omni-everything, all knowing, all loving, perfect every way yet simply exists for no reason what-so-ever. No cause, no nothing, exists by default, just because. And stranger still is the apologetic that gives God a get-out-of-the-logic free card. Apparently, God isn't subject to the same logic as everything else because, well because he's God and God, they claim, always existed, even though there is no such thing as "always" in a state of timelessness. That would be a mean trick if it wasn't so ridiculous.

I guess anything is possible when supernatural magic is afoot! At least we know the universe is real :thumb:

 

[rstrats]

Interplanner,
re: " The scientist consciously chose to believe that nothing had interfered."

How do you know that the belief was obtained by consciously choosing to have it?

Let me ask you - can you consciously choose to believe things?

 

[Interplanner]

My personal favourite is the idea that God just exists without a cause and doesn't come from anywhere. How utterly daft is that? The most powerful entity in existence (according to theists), omni-everything, all knowing, all loving, perfect every way yet simply exists for no reason what-so-ever. No cause, no nothing, exists by default, just because. And stranger still is the apologetic that gives God a get-out-of-the-logic free card. Apparently, God isn't subject to the same logic as everything else because, well because he's God and God, they claim, always existed, even though there is no such thing as "always" in a state of timelessness. That would be a mean trick if it wasn't so ridiculous.

I guess anything is possible when supernatural magic is afoot! At least we know the universe is real :thumb:

"God does not play dice with the universe." --Einstein.

Would you rather He had?

People are known by their actions, and God is a person. In our first encounter with him, then, in Gen 1, we see a person taking a thing that is 'formless and void' which quite possibly was doing something unapproved, and he forms it and fills it with life and animals and a beautiful naked male-female couple who are to have children. Guess what that means, lol!

I don't know about you, so far, but I'm impressed. Not only that, but just about everyone I know has that same image in them--we tend to find things that have gone chaotic or 'wrong' and fix them.

You've made all kinds of objections to the unseen side of God, which is a moving target about which we know very little. Now you have to respond to the seen.

 

[Interplanner]

My personal favourite is the idea that God just exists without a cause and doesn't come from anywhere. How utterly daft is that? The most powerful entity in existence (according to theists), omni-everything, all knowing, all loving, perfect every way yet simply exists for no reason what-so-ever. No cause, no nothing, exists by default, just because. And stranger still is the apologetic that gives God a get-out-of-the-logic free card. Apparently, God isn't subject to the same logic as everything else because, well because he's God and God, they claim, always existed, even though there is no such thing as "always" in a state of timelessness. That would be a mean trick if it wasn't so ridiculous.

I guess anything is possible when supernatural magic is afoot! At least we know the universe is real :thumb:

I'm intrigued by the word choice of your last sentences (magic...afoot). That's exactly what Lewis was trying to say to naturalism. Although they have no reason to, they have decided the whole of the world is only Nature.

 

[6days]

Dear 6days,

I do not know where you got 'dim-witted' from? I did not notice it before. I barely understand what you mean in the context you've used it. See Post #12767.

Michael

Evolutionists portrayed Neandertals originally as hairy stooped over dimwitted beasts. Science has proven those beliefs we're false.
Ancient man was intelligent.

 

[6days]

I do think modern humans have less intelligence than Adam and the first humans.
Quite possibly, Neandertals were also smarter than us, as they did have slightly bigger brains than us. Brain size alone does not confirm they were more intelligent, but its quite possible they were--contrary to the dim witted image evolutionists often used

i disagree, but it's hard to tell. after all, Adam & Eve displayed extremely poor judgement and decision making skills. having been told from the start the ONE thing they could not do !!

Intelligent people are deceived be Satan even today. Every day in the news, we hear stories of supposedly smart people showing poor judgement.


Do you really think God would have created Adam and Eve in His image....but with low intelligence?

then ONLY Noah and his family were spared. i was speaking more about recent (3000 years) history. we are, as a world, smarter and much more advanced. we are living longer and as i said, IQ's are astonishingly up, all forms of science are more advanced.

Of course science advances. But that doesn't mean we are more intelligent than Adam and Eve..... or more intelligent than the Aztec, or other ancient civilizations.

 

[6days]

My personal favourite is the idea that God just exists without a cause and doesn't come from anywhere. How utterly daft is that?

Actually an uncaused Creator God is the most logical and scientific explanation.*

 

[Hedshaker]

"God does not play dice with the universe." --Einstein.

Would you rather He had?

People are known by their actions, and God is a person. In our first encounter with him, then, in Gen 1, we see a person taking a thing that is 'formless and void' which quite possibly was doing something unapproved, and he forms it and fills it with life and animals and a beautiful naked male-female couple who are to have children. Guess what that means, lol!

I don't know about you, so far, but I'm impressed. Not only that, but just about everyone I know has that same image in them--we tend to find things that have gone chaotic or 'wrong' and fix them.

You've made all kinds of objections to the unseen side of God, which is a moving target about which we know very little. Now you have to respond to the seen.

Well, you don't actually have a God. What you have is a "belief". Big difference there, though you are entitled to believe whatever you want of course.

 

[Hedshaker]

Actually an uncaused Creator God is the most logical and scientific explanation.*

A Nobel prize awaits so get your paper written up. :thumb:


Tis a wonder no one else has done it, no?

 

[Hedshaker]

I'm intrigued by the word choice of your last sentences (magic...afoot). That's exactly what Lewis was trying to say to naturalism. Although they have no reason to, they have decided the whole of the world is only Nature.

Magic, supernatural, miracles etc etc.... What exactly is the difference? With extraordinary claims that have no extraordinary evidence there is no difference.

Nature, natural is undeniable. One has to be pretty cuckoo to deny nature. :kookoo:

 

[6days]

A Nobel prize awaits so get your paper written up. :thumb:

I see you aren't offering a more logical explanation.... so I might get my Nobel before you get yours!
There are only a couple possible explanations to explain our existence.
1. Something has existed throughout eternity
Or
2. Nothing caused everything.

Science and logic suggests that what appears fine tuned or designed may have a tuner or a designer.
Science and logic tell us that anything which begins to exist has a cause.
We can find that Cause in Gen. 1:1

 

[Hedshaker]

I see you aren't offering a more logical explanation.... so I might get my Nobel before you get yours!
There are only a couple possible explanations to explain our existence.
1. Something has existed throughout eternity
Or
2. Nothing caused everything.

Science and logic suggests that what appears fine tuned or designed may have a tuner or a designer.
Science and logic tell us that anything which begins to exist has a cause.
We can find that Cause in Gen. 1:1

Like you I don't know what caused the universe. The difference is I admit it and you have cherished beliefs to protect.

But anyway, your god-of-the-gaps argument is not science :yawn:


Where exactly was God's creation factory situated in the eternal "nothing"? Don't tell me.... supernatural magic?