Jump to content
IGNORED

Let's Start a Dialogue


ByFaithAlone

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  237
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,774
  • Content Per Day:  3.24
  • Reputation:   4,725
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Online
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

2 hours ago, ByFaithAlone said:

the theistic evolutionist can accept both God's revelation through Scripture and his revelation through nature.

The theistic evolutionist is as gullible as Eve, believing the Devil's lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

On 1/19/2019 at 8:43 PM, Michael37 said:

The theistic evolutionist is as gullible as Eve, believing the Devil's lie.

Ok so now you aren't even addressing the issues I raised in your last argument. Let us at the very least be courteous to each other and consider each other's points. I have addressed your concerns about logical fallacies that a person holding my position may need to be wary of committing. Please do not debase the discussion to the point of ad hominem attacks. 

Scripture notes that we should always be ready to defend our views in a respectful manner (1 Peter 3:15-16) and commends those that study the works of the Lord (Psalm 111:2).   

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

On 1/19/2019 at 11:40 PM, Abdicate said:

An assumption is "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."

Right off, we assume we know everything. Those things we do not understand we throw out assumptions to cover it up. Over and over the word of God is proven true, factual, and literal. For example, Paul says the word of God is written on our hearts. Until Watson and Crick published their findings in the 1950s that was just a metaphor. Today, we know that DNA is information, and it stores experiences up to 4 generations, just like Exodus says. Study after study has proven we are born knowing right and wrong, and science says we're bent towards wrong 87% of the time. So why fight it? It's just our nature they say. Making good evil and evil good - which is happening today.

With every new discovery, science keeps changing their assumptions. The evidence is so overwhelming that they clearly admit to a Designer, so instead of billions of years, it's now billions of light years - aliens seeded us. Since their fallacy of billions of years is now defunct they're moving to outer space. Now who has absurd faith?

Another assumption is that something observed today is the way it was thousands (or millions, in their case) of years ago. Everything observed on the globe was changed by the flood. Oh wait, they believe it to be a myth. So see, the bents everyone has is based on their beliefs. Atheists do not believe the word of God so they dismiss any "coincidence" pointing to the fact the word of God is true.  Bible-Beliving Christians, as someone said, choose to believe the word of God and are branded as ignorant. Someone here said, "why would God lie in one book and have it different in His workbook." That person will not listen to reason.

More assumptions are that constants are constants. The speed of light is not a constant, but academia rejects that fact and excommunicates anyone who proves it like the four physicists from Australia and the UK. They also assume the atmosphere has always been the same since - all time. Archeologists also reject reality because it'll point to the word of God being true. The facts are, both sides state the "facts" and there can only be one, and that is the word of God.

There was a man who God made, and from his rib made a woman. They sinned. Because of that, Jesus had to come and die as a man to buy us back. Without a literal Adam and a literal Eve, there's no need for a literal Jesus. Evolution is the antithesis of the word of God. No amount of scientific discovery can change that because there is one logical reason for the fallacy of evolution: why did it stop? I mean, if we have macroevolution, where are all the billions of transitions? There are none because there never were any. No one will answer these last two questions when/if they respond to my comment. I love science. I wanted to be a biochemist but was lured into computers instead. Both require the same thing to work: information. And Who put that information into our DNA? The Designer. The proof of a Designer is so overwhelming, some scientists are stating that we are indeed living in a program.

The way to prove the word of God is to first believe it is speaking the literal truth. All the answers are there. Just ask Matthew Fontaine Maury.

First of all, let me welcome you to the discussion Abdicate. Although not originally intended to be a discussion on theistic evolution it seems to have evolved into one (pun intended). Also it is quite nice to meet a fellow chemist. I did a lot of research in a biochemical/bioengineering laboratory as an undergraduate. Now let's go through your points as best we can. 

On your first point, you mention that some people assume they know everything and that assumptions tend to cause problems when searching for truth. I would completely agree with you that this would be a bad starting place and simply assuming things to be true would not be good science. You give several examples of assumptions that are made. Let's talk in brief about each of them. First, let's deal with the idea that our planet was seeded by extraterrestrial (although perhaps not sentient life - for example on theory of this seeding is that basic microbes came via a meteorite). This hypothesis attempts to deal with the question of abiogenesis which is a difficult field of study with no hard evidence pointing in one direction or another. This is indeed a hypothesis but has little evidence to support it and is not recognized as a well-proven theory by the scientific community (unlike evolution and the Big Bang for example which are regarded as having sufficient scientific evidence to warrant the title of theory). Next, let's deal with the question of the age of the universe and planets. Now this is calculated through a variety of methods from the isotopic decay of certain elements or based on the speed of certain galaxies and their distance from us. By extrapolating backwards scientists can calculate the age of certain objects and the universe. Lastly, let's deal with the speed of light issue. Speed of light is not constant and whoever told you that probably meant that speed of light in a vacuum is constant. This is true and that speed is the value of c that we see in numerous equations. If there is a paper that says otherwise I'd be interested in looking at it but no such evidence has been provided.   

Now, let's discuss some of your other points. In regards to the issue of Adam, there was a previous point made about this so I would ask that you look back in the thread to look over that issue. Next, let's deal with the "problems" you see within evolution. As to if evolution has stopped, the scientific evidence shows that it hasn't. Although it is harder to notice in animals due to their relatively longer lifespans, plants, short-lived animals and bacteria are probably the fastest to change. For example, the salsify family of plants which used to be one species back around 1900 has since split into several. E. coli is another quite famous example with multiple subspecies evolving from a single genetic heritage in laboratories. The apple maggot fly and the sea urchin Echinometra are some good examples of allopatric speciation. 

You and I agree that Scripture it true and that God is the Creator - an Uncaused Cause that made the universe and imparted upon humanity His image. I would simply disagree with a literal interpretation of the creation account found in Genesis. I would suggest that an allegorical view would better represent the historical views of the Early Church and would also line up with our understanding of God's creation through science.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  237
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,774
  • Content Per Day:  3.24
  • Reputation:   4,725
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Online
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

6 hours ago, ByFaithAlone said:

Ok so now you aren't even addressing the issues I raised in your last argument. Let us at the very least be courteous to each other and consider each other's points. I have addressed your concerns about logical fallacies that a person holding my position may need to be wary of committing. Please do not debase the discussion to the point of ad hominem attacks. 

Scripture notes that we should always be ready to defend our views in a respectful manner (1 Peter 3:15-16) and commends those that study the works of the Lord (Psalm 111:2).   

Jud 1:22-23
(22)  And on some have compassion, making a distinction;
 
(23)  but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

On 1/21/2019 at 3:04 PM, Abdicate said:

Thanks for replying.

First, the word of God says that God made everything from the ground so it wasn't aliens or a meteorite. Next, carbon-14 dating requires a constant flow of carbon-14 which the flood reset the baseline making things appear much older than they are. The current 1 part per trillion is a result of an absorption rate that was changed in the flood, killing off all living things. With less carbon-12 to dilute the carbon-14, the ratio of c-14 to c-12 would slowly begin to increase. If the ratio were doubled, everything measured would show it 5370 (half-life) years older, if it's quadrupled, all organic material would appear 11,460 years older. Therefore, a radiocarbon year would not represent an actual year. Finally, the Flood would have released much of the trapped CO2 adding to the c-14 ratio, artificially increasing the "age" of an organic item. This is why the Flood is rejected, because it disproves organic material from being so old. Think about it. If the specimens were millions of years old, there wouldn't be any c-14 left to identify any age. In the 1980's they found that the radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying. In other words, c-14 dating is eliminated as a choice for age dating.

Since the speed-of-light isn't constant, then the star "billions-of-years away" may not be. In fact, the distance-to-time measurement of the speed of light has decreased so fast, experimental error cannot explain it. In fact, to date, there has never been an increase in the speed of light when using the same equipment to measure distance-to-time speed, but 100% of the time a decrease is recorded. Furthermore, extrapolating the decrease backwards, shows that the speed of light was ten billion times faster as zero than today. This makes sense when you see extremely distant galaxies have the same twist as nearer galaxies. The further away the observation to be the more in slow motion it seems .

As to the billions of transitions, I'm sorry, they do not exist. I want to see all the steps between a fruit-fly and a human. They do not exists nor will they ever. Time is irrelevant if the process even exists. You seem to be mixing micro- adaptable evolution and not macro-evolution which goes from goo to you. I want to see the fruit-fly turn into a house fly. You can't produce it and you'll give some genetic reason, but the fact is, there are no hybrids of all the transitional states to observe. Evolution is based on a lie and is a lie. You have to make more assumptions about evolution than just to believe the word of God.

Anyhow, I believe Genesis 1-3 as literal, and as a scientist I can see how it happened too without billions of years. We cannot equate God to man. If a man can make a clock and it appears older than it is, why can't God. He did so in order for you to believe Him and His word trusting Him without all the knowledge. The more we study the more things we discover, and every discovery proves the word of God correct, and we adjust our beliefs. Before the 1950s there was no beginning of the universe. Scientists then said "the word of God is wrong, there was no beginning" today, they admit through extrapolation, that indeed the universe had a beginning. Scientists still say "the universe is trillions of years old, the evidence is clear" but what if it isn't. You see what you're allowed to see. There are particles that affect things in ways we don't even understand yet. Dark energy and dark matter where dismissed for years, but now it occupies 87% of the known universe! And it's right there in the word of God in Genesis 1.

In a word, the more we learn about God's creation the more complex it gets. It's a fractal understanding by definition and in reality. In quantum physics, scientists have already discovered the scriptural definition of faith. In fact, Niels Bohr said, "An independent reality, in the ordinary physical sense, can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation. " Heisenberg once said, "The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite. Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word `understanding'." And Bohr expresses the same idea as follows: "As our knowledge becomes wider, we must always be prepared...to expect alterations in the point of view best suited for the ordering of our experience."

The point is, we base so much on what we believe, the outcome of our observations skew the results. In other words, Proverbs 21:2 "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but Yahweh weighs the hearts." Since we're so biased, what frame of reference for the truth can we go to except the word of God.

Hey Abdicate, sorry I've taken so long to reply. Let's delve into it. So first we have to discuss the idea of carbon dating. Scientists tend not to use radiocarbon dating as a tool for anything over 20,000 years old. This is simply because by that point the amount of the isotope measure (C14) is so small as to be useless as scientific evidence. Nowadays, it is used a lot in archaeological chemistry as that it is where it is most useful. But as I said, for anything over 20,000 years old scientists use other methods of dating such as the potassium-argon dating method. As to the fact that radiocarbon has been shown to increase recently, that is partly true. The article that mentions that is Cook (1966) and while it is true that radiocarbon is higher than it was in the past but it is not rising steadily. Cook only looked at part of the data and drew an incorrect assumption. Studies since indicate that C14 has fluctuated over time.  

Regarding the speed of light we know that the speed of light isn't constant through materials. However, as I mentioned last time it is constant through a vacuum (c). I'm not sure where you are getting the data showing that it was massively faster at some point in the past. If you could provide something for me to peruse that would be great.

As to evolution, I provided some examples of transitions currently being observed right now. As to fruit fly to human or horse fly to fruit fly, that is not how evolution works. Evolutionary biology would say that we have a common ancestor (for humans and flies some microorganism millions of years ago while fruit flies and horse flies diverged from each other much later) but not that a fruit fly would ever turn into a human. That is simply a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology. The fact that you don't understand what evolutionary biology actually says is somewhat concerning as it undermines the entire conversation if you are pointing out flaws that evolutionary biology does not even claim.

As to your last point, you mention something interesting. That science used to view the universe as static and infinite. While it was a popular theory it was certainly not the only one and it was not considered anything more than a hypothesis. As you mention, in the 20th century the universe was shown to be past-finite. The 1920s and 1930s was when this research was being done by Friedmann and Lemaitre. Both of them happened to be Christians (Lemaitre was even a member of the clergy) and their work is the foundation on which our modern understanding of Big Bang cosmology is built.  

I agree with you that there is a lot we do not know. That is the point of studying God's creation through science. However, while you may say that God created an "old clock" to use your metaphor, Of course, it is impossible for me to prove that He didn't create in that manner. I would ask why would our loving Creator deceive us in that manner? Then I go back and look at Origen, Augustine and others and see that the Church has always believed that an allegorical view of the creation in Genesis to be valid and orthodox. To me the current cosmological models point towards a Creator and I have no need to defend a young earth position. Thus, I arrive at my position of being a theist who also argues for such an allegorical view.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

Michael, once again you are not addressing my points. If you wish to exit the dialogue that is fine. Simply say so rather than posting Scripture without saying why it is relevant.

On 1/21/2019 at 6:16 PM, Michael37 said:

Jud 1:22-23
(22)  And on some have compassion, making a distinction;
 
(23)  but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.
 

If you are implying that my views are heretical and I need to be "saved with fear" then I would like an immediate retraction. Simply disagreeing with my points is no reason to imply that I am not a Christian in need of you to save me by fear. It would be highly impolite and simply untrue.

Edited by ByFaithAlone
Accidental double post. Corrected to respond to Michael.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

4 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

The are several types of theories of evolution. I'm talking about the one they teach the world:

2144505206_ScreenShot2019-01-30at12_15_25AM.png.6dd5b844f952cc7b28a300563f481bd7.png

This is no translation from goo to you. Like it or not, space is not a pure vacuum so that theory goes out the window. Also, every galaxy viewed has the same approximate shape no matter the distance. Since we know that the speed of light is not a constant, therefore there's nothing that says the furthest galaxy observed should be the same as ones much closer but they are. I really hate the implication that you're using for your argument that "Why would God lie" when you know full well He doesn't. Therefore, your observations of pseudo constants is flawed. Everything you've said has become unraveled. The word of God explains everything.

 

It's interesting that you took such a short time to respond to my post (around ten minutes). Perhaps you are a speed reader who looked up some of the references I mentioned with a speed I can only envy but it seems more likely that you did not look through my entire post. This seems even more likely given that you did not address some of the points I made in my previous post. Please do me the courtesy of at least looking through my post and dealing with it point by point. Now let's deal with some of the points you make: (a) evolutionary biology (b) galaxy shape (c) the speed of light (d) the implications of the "old clock" argument

I don't know where you are getting the idea that there are multiple theories of evolution. Of course there are different ideas about how it happens and why but evolutionary biology as a whole is based around a central scientific theory. Again, as I mentioned in my previous post, your understanding of evolutionary biology seems to be very flawed if you think that fruit flies would somehow become human. As I also mentioned two posts ago, there are several examples of species divergence into new species (aka speciation) that are observable either currently or through the fossil record.   

As to each galaxy being the same shape, this is not quite correct. There are several different types of galaxies. Spirals are pretty common (like the Milky Way) but other shapes are observable. Elliptical, lenticular and irregular galaxies are the other major types. Of course these all of sub-types as well but those would be the large families. 

As to the whole speed of light issue we agree that it is not constant through material. Physicists do try to account for this as best they can when measuring distances between certain galaxies and is one of the sources of error in their calculations that is presented (as in most scientific papers) with appropriate statistics. However, the constant being used in many equations is c or the speed of light in a vacuum. This is understood to be constant under our models of physics. If you would like to argue that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant you are more than welcome to do so but it would require some significant evidence.  

Regarding my implication you mention above, I am simply arguing that God would not deceive us via nature as Scripture encourages us to study His creation (Psalm 111:2). You proposed that God has the possibility of making an "old clock" as you put it in your previous analogy. I countered that this would make God a deceiver which would not be in His nature. On this, you and I seem to agree. I would therefore contend that God creating an "old clock" universe would be contradictory to our theistic understanding of God. So that leaves us with two possibilities that theists like ourselves can accept. The first option is that modern scientific understanding is incorrect and the earth is very young and somehow all scientists are completely misunderstanding the vast amounts of data. The second option is that the modern scientific evidence is correct and that it is compatible with both our theological and historical understanding of the creation account in Genesis. I argue for the latter approach while you seem to be arguing for the either the first approach or the "old clock" approach which already has problems as mentioned above.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, Abdicate said:

There was a literal Adam and a literal Eve and original sin for which the literal Son of God had to come and save me.

There is no aspect of evolutionary theory that precludes this possibility. The scientific evidence suggests that the human population was much larger than 2 at the time, but a literal Adam and Eve are certainly possible. I am one of many Christians that accept evolution as a tool of God’s creation, while still accepting a literal Adam and Eve.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

No, it doesn't actually.

Ok, what scientific evidence do you have to the contrary? You seem quite confident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

To continue the conversation will not change the facts that God made an Adam from adamah and a Havah from Adam's rib.

There is no reason to assume that this language could not be figurative. Additionally, even if it is precisely literal, there can clearly be additional members of humanity present on the earth at the same time. It is erroneous to assume that one's particular interpretation is the only possible interpretation, and anyone with a different reading of scripture is "scripturally ignorant". @ByFaithAlone has already pointed out a tradition of non-literal interpretation of Genesis goes all the way back to prominent figures in the early church, such as Augustine of Hippo.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...