Dr. Shane Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Science is about building models on observable phenomenons. The study of origins is not an observable phenomenon. It is not a process that can be repeated for our observation and we have no eye witnesses - except the inspired Word of God. Thus the study of origins must be classified as a pseudo-science not an operational science. Creationism fails in the scientific arena because its assumptions are so obvious. Creationism assumes a Creator. The naturalist assumptions are less obvious, but assumptions nonetheless. As long as creationists allow naturalists to dress their assumptions in the cloak of science, creationists will continue to lose in the culture war. If the naturalist philosophy is correct, God indeed is a liar because we cannot take Him at His Word. Those that believe short-age creation requires God to be a liar demonstrate their inability to grasp the creationist philosophy. They have their minds so locked into the naturalist assumptions that they cannot step back and look at both world views from a semi-objective position. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 The world around us is observable and the theory of evolution is testable by experiments within this world. The theory predicts what I will find when I break up a rock. I can repeat the experiment by breaking up another rocks. Actually I grasp the Creationist Philosophy really well. It consists of an irrational insistance in an untestable belief in a specific interpretation of the Bible. /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 24, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 24, 2007 The world around us is observable and the theory of evolution is testable by experiments within this world. The theory predicts what I will find when I break up a rock. I can repeat the experiment by breaking up another rocks. Actually I grasp the Creationist Philosophy really well. It consists of an irrational insistance in an untestable belief in a specific interpretation of the Bible. /Bevin Romans 5: 12, 14 says that sin and death entered through one man, Adam. The same chapter says that Adam was a type of Jesus Christ. Who do you believe Adam was and what do you understand these verses to mean? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Presumably it means what it says, that at some point in the past God placed a sinless Adam on this world, and he fell. This can be true, and indeed the whole Garden of Eden story complete with tree, snake, and fruit, can all be exactly literally true without regard to what was happening over the other 99.999999% of the Earth's surface and the other 13B years of Earth's history Have you ever wondered how Adam knew what "surely you will die" would mean if he had never, ever, seen even an ant die? /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Quote: The theory predicts what I will find when I break up a rock. Based on assumptions... which makes the theory a philosophy. So we are back to square one. Quote: I grasp the Creationist Philosophy really well. It consists of an irrational insistence in an untestable belief in a specific interpretation of the Bible. By substituting the word "Bible" with the word "nature," the same can be said of naturalism. The idea that something came from nothing and that life came from non-life seems irrational to many. The people that grasp both philosophies understand how intelligent and reasonable people can disagree. Neither side owns reason just as neither side owns the evidence. Most certainly when someone claims that God must be a liar in order for creationists to be correct, he or she waives a red flag to all that they don't grasp the creationist world view. Different assumptions = different philosophies = different conslusions Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Quote: Who do you believe Adam was and what do you understand these verses to mean? Theist evolutionists come in all shapes and sizes and have as many different theories as there are colors in the world. A strict fundamentalist creationist will actually consider Adventists as being partially theist evolutionists because we believe there were other worlds and thus stars created before the Earth's creation week. Of course, our belief makes it easy to explain why starlight from distant stars is able to reach a young Earth. Although that said, non-Adventist creationists do have a few workable explanations for that (but I like ours better) If Genesis 1-11 is not to be believed as it reads, that creates all kinds of problems for the rest of the Bible since the prophets interpreted it literally, Jesus interpreted it literally and the Apostles interpreted it literally. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 25, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 25, 2007 Presumably it means what it says, that at some point in the past God placed a sinless Adam on this world, and he fell. The main reason I brought up this question now is that I'm currently in a conversation about these things with a man at my work who believes God used the Big Bang and evolution to create the world and humankind. He says he believes the Bible, but I found that he seldom reads it, and he was unaware of what Romans 5 says about death being the result of Adam's sin. When I mentioned Romans 5, he said it was the first time he'd heard of it, but he believes Romans can't be referring to literal, physical death but rather to spiritual death. As far as the "sinless Adam" goes, wouldn't Adam be the product of millions of years of both sub-human and non-human evolution? How would Adam have escaped being part of that process, during which both sin and death would naturally have been taking place? Don't you see Adam as having inherited all the moral defects of his evolutionary ancestors? In your view, aren't we the product of our evolutionary ancestors, including the non-human animals? And if that is true, then Adam also must have been a product of evolutionary processes and not the direct, special creation of God. How do you understand this? Quote: This can be true, and indeed the whole Garden of Eden story complete with tree, snake, and fruit, can all be exactly literally true without regard to what was happening over the other 99.999999% of the Earth's surface and the other 13B years of Earth's history Do you mean that you believe (or at least that it was possible) God personally and directly formed Adam from the earth as the Genesis record appears to say, apart from any human or non-human ancestors? Or do you believe that Adam was born from a sub-human (or human) mother and father? I can't see how the evolutionary model can be made to harmonize with what Romans says about death and sin entering the human experience through Adam. It would appear that according to this model, sin and death were a part of God's plan for life on the earth. Weren't sin and death necessary processes used to bring about all the species, including humans? Perhaps it wasn't counted by God to be "sin" until the disobedience of Adam, yet it seems to me unavoidable that the essential characteristics of sin-- that is, selfishness, etc.-- would have always been a necessary part of Adam's inheritance, as well as the experience of all humans who lived before Adam. Quote: Have you ever wondered how Adam knew what "surely you will die" would mean if he had never, ever, seen even an ant die?/Bevin Of course Adam could not possibly have known about death from personal experience, that is, unless God could point to Adam's evolutionary ancestors, both human and non-human life-forms. But in any case I am sure God explained what death meant-- that if Adam disobyed God's direct command, Adam would cease to exist, return to the earth, and be forever separated from God and all life. God evidently made Adam so that he had on that first day the capability of complex thought and an understanding of speech. If you had seen Adam on the first day of his life, then, wouldn't he have appeared to've been alive for a much longer period of time? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 If I had seen Adam the first Sabbath, would he have a memory of an elephant dying? /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 25, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 25, 2007 If I had seen Adam the first Sabbath, would he have a memory of an elephant dying? /Bevin No, not according to my understanding of what Genesis is saying. My understanding is that Adam's sin affected not only humans but the whole animal kingdom. The Genesis record is that God gave humans dominion over all of the other life-forms, so that the human experience would have a direct affect on the animals. What do you think? On a related issue, when Revelation says there will be no death in heaven or on the new earth, doesn't that include the animals? Or do you think that is only referring to humans? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Quote: Quote: The theory predicts what I will find when I break up a rock. Based on assumptions... which makes the theory a philosophy. So we are back to square one. The ONLY assumptions are that a group of people can somewhat reliably think and perceive. Those assumptions are a subset of the Creationist ones. If you don't believe those, there is no way of distinquishing between atheism, Christianity, and little-green-martian-worship and the whole rest of the conversation is irrelevant. In short, short-age Creationists require a God that created a huge deception. Most short-age Creationists don't see that because they have not actually examined the evidence for the period of death the Earth, and thought through the implications. There are lots of short-age Creationists in this group. They don't realize that their philosophy leads to a God that is a liar. /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 "No death in the new Earth" Do bacteria die? Do insects breed? What happens when an elephant steps on a slug? What do whales eat? If there isn't death of small life-forms, then the world will be incredibly different, and I mean INCREDIBLY different, to what happens around us today. /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 25, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 25, 2007 "No death in the new Earth" Do bacteria die? Do insects breed? What happens when an elephant steps on a slug? What do whales eat? If there isn't death of small life-forms, then the world will be incredibly different, and I mean INCREDIBLY different, to what happens around us today. /Bevin I'm simply trying to understand the effect of belief in the evolutionary model on one's understanding of, and faith in, the Bible and God. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Actually, I am trying to understand what short-age literal creationists really think happened in detail. My experience is that they DON'T think about the details. /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 25, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 25, 2007 Actually, I am trying to understand what short-age literal creationists really think happened in detail. My experience is that they DON'T think about the details. /Bevin I thought about those details you mentioned years ago, Bevin. I believe in a literal creation but not necessarily that the earth itself, or the material of the earth, is of short age. I don't believe that the life and death of bacteria is necessarily related in any way to God's plan of redemption. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Quote: There are lots of short-age Creationists in this group. They don't realize that their philosophy leads to a God that is a liar. What we have is a complete and total lack of understanding of the creationist philosophy. We have a view that is so locked into naturalist assumptions that it cannot comprehend how the evidence can be viewed from another perspective without making the Deity into a liar. It is a very shallow grasp of the issues in the discussion. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am just trying to get people to see other people's perspective. It is clear that some people are unable of stepping back and seeing things the way other people see things. I see where the naturalists are coming from and can respect them. I have much less respect for the theistic evolutionists that want to butcher the Bible in order to compromise with atheist naturalists who won't respect them for doing so anyway. If the Bible is wrong than it is wrong. Throw it away and look someplace else for truth. If it is the truth, then accept it and don't be ashamed of what God has spoken. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Quote: If I had seen Adam the first Sabbath, would he have a memory of an elephant dying? Of course not. God looked at creation and pronounced it good. Dying and pain are not good. Adam did not fully understand death just as we do not fully understand eternity. Quote: Do bacteria die?Do insects breed? What happens when an elephant steps on a slug? What do whales eat? Now really, these are questions one would expect from a high school or elementary students and not from someone that claims to understand the creationist philosophy. What happened to the three Hebrew worthies thrown into the fiery furnace? Were the laws of physics at work there as we understand them? Or is there something beyond what we understand? Who is to say an elephant is going to step on a slug? As long as we are asking such silly questions let me add couple. Is God so powerful that He can create a rock too heavy for Him to lift? Can God make a square round? Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 25, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 25, 2007 Quote: If I had seen Adam the first Sabbath, would he have a memory of an elephant dying? Of course not. God looked at creation and pronounced it good. Dying and pain are not good. Adam did not fully understand death just as we do not fully understand eternity. Quote: Do bacteria die?Do insects breed? What happens when an elephant steps on a slug? What do whales eat? Now really, these are questions one would expect from a high school or elementary student and not from someone that claims to understand the creationist philosophy. What happened to the three Hebrew worthies thrown into the fiery furnace? Were the laws of physics at work there as we understand them? Or is there something beyond what we understand. Who is to say an elephant is going to step on a slug? As long as we are asking such silly questions let me add couple. Is God so powerful that He can create a rock too heavy for Him to lift? Can God make a square round? Exactly. Talk about hitting the nail squarely on the head. Bevin, correct me if I am wrong, but my impression of Bevin's question about the elephant is that he asked it the way he did in order to make the point that the whole issue is silly and trite, as silly as his own question about the elephant. But those are similar to the objections to the Bible and to Creationism that I used to hear from my Marxist friends, who didn't have a clue of what the Bible actually says. Most had never read any of it except as quotes in an atheist's critique. It was common to hear them say things such as, "There's no more reason to believe in Christ than there is to believe in Santa Clause." Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeHiscost Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 The world around us is observable and the theory of evolution is testable by experiments within this world. The theory predicts what I will find when I break up a rock. I can repeat the experiment by breaking up another rocks. /Bevin For the person who believes in a Supreme Creator as revealed in Jesus Christ, it seems to me that the "breaking of" is more apt to be saving if we are the ones who are broken. "The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower." Psalm 18:2 KJV "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them." Matthew 21:43-45 KJV I see no reason to believe that principle wouldn't stand for any person who believes themselves able to interpret the Word, for themselves or others. Regards!! Quote Lift Jesus up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeHiscost Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Have you ever wondered how Adam knew what "surely you will die" would mean if he had never, ever, seen even an ant die? /Bevin Seems if Jesus is willing to express Himself understandably to His disciples as friends, His Father would be able and willing to converse with the first of humanity made in His own image, especially to warn him of dangers and what those dangers meant. "When the cool evening breezes were blowing, the man and his wife heard the Lord God walking about in the garden......" Genesis 3:8 NLT Regards!! Quote Lift Jesus up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeHiscost Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 "If there isn't death of small life-forms, then the world will be incredibly different, and I mean INCREDIBLY different, to what happens around us today. /Bevin Praise God!! "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Revelation 21:4 KJV "Now to Him Who, by (in consequence of) the [action of His] power that is at work within us, is able to [carry out His purpose and] do superabundantly, far over and above all that we [dare] ask or think [infinitely beyond our highest prayers, desires, thoughts, hopes, or dreams]--" Ephesians 3:20 AMP “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for Me?" Jeremiah 32:27 NKJV Regards!! Quote Lift Jesus up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeHiscost Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 But those are similar to the objections to the Bible and to Creationism that I used to hear from my Marxist friends, who didn't have a clue of what the Bible actually says. Most had never read any of it except as quotes in an atheist's critique. It was common to hear them say things such as, "There's no more reason to believe in Christ than there is to believe in Santa Clause." "...the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated." 1 Cor 2:14 AMP Regards!! Quote Lift Jesus up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Quote: I have much less respect for the theistic evolutionists that want to butcher the Bible in order to compromise with atheist naturalists who won't respect them for doing so anyway. I must also add I have respect for the honest agnostic that looks at both world views and concludes he or she isn't sure which to believe. Some of these are in the church and have decided to live a Christian life even though they are not completely convinced. Sometimes I have felt in this category myself and thus pray for God to increase my faith. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin mccarty Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Do snakes really eat dust? mel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Since snakes were winged animals one presumes they ate from the trees. Having lost their wings, they now eat from the ground. (Although we all know that many snakes climb trees.) There is poetry in the first few chapters of Genesis but that doesn't take away from its plain reading anymore than the poetry in the Psalms takes away from its meaning. The blood of Abel didn't literally cry out to God either. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin mccarty Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Hmmm so do I get to decide which is poetry or do we have a committee for that? hehe mel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.