Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[The Barbarian]

From Answers in Genesis:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today.

The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging. 

From the Institute for Creation Research:

There are more examples of how different kinds of reproductive isolation cause speciation from a common kind of animal. Speciation events are documented for nearly every kind of animal that has been described, and recently it has been estimated that 10 percent of all animal species still hybridize (mate with other species, producing fertile offspring) in the wild, and even more when brought into contact with each other in captivity. This evidence indicates that most species had a common ancestor from which similar species have descended.

How do they justify this?   They just say "it's not real evolution."  

13 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

If you could ever understand real science, you would know they are right.

The scientific definition for evolution is "change in allele frequencies in a population over time."   Or as Darwin put it, "Descent with modification."    That's what speciation is, by their own description.

15 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I keep telling you definitions are not evidence.

They are, however, the way words are used.    As you see, creationists have to change the scientific definition to avoid calling speciation "evolution."    Do you think anyone is fooled?

When I tell you that God says the Earth brought forth living things, that's not the same as saying that the Earth has genes.   You're so tied up in your new doctrines that it won't let you accept His word as it is.

17 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You dont even understand you own comments. Life must have genes and DNA and some other elements in some kinds of life.  NOTHING  necessary for life is  in  dust.  Therefor it can't cause life in any form. 

God disagrees with you:

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

19 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

This of course this came from God creating this life ex nihlo.

As you learned here, God didn't create life ex nihilo; He created it from the Earth.    Remember what the term means.   "From nothing."   Set your pride aside and let it be His way.

 

[omega2xx]

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

There's a difference between creating things according to their kind, and the non-scriptural belief of "reproduce according to kind."   C'mon.   Let it be God's way, without your addition.

Your understanding of Scripture , I should say your lack of understanding Scripture is laughable.  You have to distort a very simple concept to try and shoehorn  it into your non-Scriptural theology.  If you understood real science it would help you not look so foolish.   Read this next comment very slowly and maybe it will sink in.  The species(kind) were not created after their kind.  They were created separate and distinct.  This is proved by their DNA.  After each species was created, then they started reproducing  not according to kind, but AFTER THEIR KIND. You deny or don't understand the "after their kind" is proved by observation and repeating thousands of times evry day and can't b e falsified. 

Another example you having to change Scripture to make it fit you non-Biblical theology.  Shame on you,  Tell it like  it is.

(Barbarian shows the two largest YE creationist groups admit the fact of speciation)

Even most YE creationists admit that new species appear.   As you see, most even accept new genera and families.

See above.  No point in denial. 

From Answers in Genesis:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today.

Already gave you one earlier.  Did you think I'd lost it?   Here you go:

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/

You don't seem to understand creationism any better than you understand mainline Christianity.

And you don't understand that what you call mainline Christianity, is not based on the Bible.  It is  liberal, man made, non-Scriptural theology.  It reminds  me of evolution, twist and deny  what does not fit your theology.

 

 

 

 

[omega2xx]

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

From Answers in Genesis:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today.

The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging. 

From the Institute for Creation Research:

There are more examples of how different kinds of reproductive isolation cause speciation from a common kind of animal. Speciation events are documented for nearly every kind of animal that has been described, and recently it has been estimated that 10 percent of all animal species still hybridize (mate with other species, producing fertile offspring) in the wild, and even more when brought into contact with each other in captivity. This evidence indicates that most species had a common ancestor from which similar species have descended.

How do they justify this?   They just say "it's not real evolution."  

The scientific definition for evolution is "change in allele frequencies in a population over time."   Or as Darwin put it, "Descent with modification."    That's what speciation is, by their own description.

They are, however, the way words are used.    As you see, creationists have to change the scientific definition to avoid calling speciation "evolution."    Do you think anyone is fooled?

When I tell you that God says the Earth brought forth living things, that's not the same as saying that the Earth has genes.   You're so tied up in your new doctrines that it won't let you accept His word as it is.

God disagrees with you:

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

As you learned here, God didn't create life ex nihilo; He created it from the Earth.    Remember what the term means.   "From nothing."   Set your pride aside and let it be His way.

 

You keep repeating the  same stories and do  not to provide any evidence.

If you dont come up with something new and include the supporting evidence  i will not respond.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

You keep repeating the  same stories

For most people, truth doesn't change over time.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

and do  not to provide any evidence.

I provided links showing you that they admit it.   Would you like me to do it again?

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

If you dont come up with something new and include the supporting evidence  i will not respond.

That would have been a smarter move the first and second times I showed you these things and the evidence for them.  But maybe third time's the charm.

 

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

And you don't understand that what you call mainline Christianity, is not based on the Bible.

 Mainline Christianity is based on the Bible.   It's not based on your new revision of the Bible.   His Church will not fail.   He sad that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, so your opposition certainly will not.

 

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by The Barbarian

[omega2xx]

21 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

For most people, truth doesn't change over time.

I provided links showing you that they admit it.   Would you like me to do it again?

That would have been a smarter move the first and second times I showed you these things and the evidence for them.  But maybe third time's the charm.

 

 Mainline Christianity is based on the Bible. 

It is not surprising that you don't understand Christianity any better than you do science.  Mainline churches are liberal, and deny the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.    They deny miracles. and fulfilled prophecy, and accept evolution.  Those are some of the reasons they are starting to fail as churches, while conservative denomination are growing in membership.

  It's not based on your new revision of the Bible. 

Obviously you are also ignorant of how Bible translation are done.  They are not revised.  They are done by  teams of scholars from the available mss used to translate all Bibles.

  His Church will not fail.  

Congratulations, you finally got something right.

He sad that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, so your opposition certainly will not.

Amusing.  I am a fundamentalist, and we teach God's word is inspired b y God, and is inerrant and infallible.    It is the mainline churches that take away and add to God's word in spite of God telling us not to(Deut 4:2).

Are there any errors and or contradiction sin the Bible?

 I belong to a PCA church.(Presbyterian Church in America).  If you are not ashamed of your church denomination, I am curious what it is.  That way I will know more about your theology.

Love, peace, joy

 

21 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

 

 

[omega2xx]

On 2/29/2020 at 2:21 PM, A Christian 1985 said:

amazon.com/s?k=9781641407922&ref=nb_sb_noss

youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=rVEJNRDsIL0

truthseekersasciencespiritual.blogspot.com/

 What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.

What are the ramifications?  Be specific.

If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C.

There are fossils of humans.  I don't know when they are dated.

Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will.

What specifically can interfer with man's free will?

We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man.

What evidenced do you have to support that non-Biblical idea"  The Bible tells  in simple English how God formed man,.  Why don't you accept that?

If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but sub­stantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two.

There is a conflict betweed science and religion.  Science can't validated spiritual truths. It does not accept miracles or God.   Science does not accept the supernatural, because it can't b e proved.  Christianity accepts the supernatural based on faith alone.

Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1.

Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one?

Not true, the creation account in Gen show just the opposite.  God created something from nothing.  that is not an evolutionary  account.  Science cant explain and does not accept that man has a soul and a spirit.

 Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.145  

FYI Allegories are based on actual, literal events.  There is no logical reason not to accept what n omnipotent God can do.

        The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution.

They didn't need that info.  God told them what to write, and you have no evidence that points to what Gen. say as not being true  If you think God could not do what is recorded, your God is too small.

Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. 146 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

God creating something out of nothing IS NOT an evolutionary development.

I am always puzzled why some claiming to be Christian(and I am not saying you aren't) deny the power  of God recorded in Genesis.

Love, peace, joy

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

It is not surprising that you don't understand Christianity any better than you do science. 

As you've seen, you've made basic errors in both on this discussion.    Dunning-Kruger strikes again...

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Mainline churches are liberal, and deny the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. 

See, there's another example; you're presuming to tell us about things you have no knowledge about:

(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" - Dei Verbum

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

"It ain’t so much men’s ignorance that does the harm as their knowing so many things that ain’t so.” - Artemus Ward

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Obviously you are also ignorant of how Bible translation are done. 

It's not a translation; it's your revision of His word that matters.    Likely, you have no idea of the kind of scholarship that goes into a new translation of the Bible.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Amusing.  I am a fundamentalist, and we teach God's word is inspired b y God, and is inerrant and infallible. 

Except where it displeases you.   That's how the "life ex nihilo" error came into your belief system.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Are there any errors and or contradiction sin the Bible?

The Bible lists many sins both potential and historic.   Do you deny it?

Some atheists take figurative passages and try to criticize them as literal history or as mathematical expressions.    Hence their claims that the Bible says that pi= 3.0, and so on. 

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

If you are not ashamed of your church denomination, I am curious what it is.  That way I will know more about your theology.

If you weren't paying attention, I've pointed out that I'm Roman Catholic in a number of places.   However, I don't see that Presbyterians are any less Christian than Catholics are.    Those who try to push others away from God only succeed in removing themselves from God.   

I realize that this is a very controversial subject in your denomination, which has not been able to resolve it.    Perhaps the example of other mainline denominations would be useful.   The Catholic Church, for example, leaves the issue open to interpretation; Roman Catholics may accept or reject evolution as they will, since it has no bearing on salvation,and there is no definitive statement in the Bible one way or the other.

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by The Barbarian

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

As you've seen, you've made basic errors in both on this discussion. 

Not on your say so.  You reject something that is obvious, and proved thousands of times every day.---after their kind. 

   Dunning-Kruger strikes again...

Does your church teach you to be insulting.  Jesus doesn't, Presbyterians teach  us to love our neighbor as  our self., because that is whaqt Jesus taught.

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

I know what "Dunning Kruger  is and it fits you to a T.  You certainly have posted many comments about science and the Bible that are wrong, indicating you do not recognize you lack of ability to recognize the truth and IMO, you certainly have an air of superiority, always claiming you are right, even when I easily show you lack real knowledge in science and Christianity.

See, there's another example; you're presuming to tell us about things you have no knowledge about:

Another example of you thinking you are superior in knowledge of ssiene and Christianity.

(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

The men who penned the Bible did not have any power or ability to know what men needed in their spiritual life.  It was all of the power and knowledge  of "God.

 

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" - Dei Verbum

That is a very good and accurate  statement, but I am not sure Catholics accept such things as the inspiration of Scripture, eternal security and especially that sinful men have the authority to forgive sin and assign penance.  The Bible  certainly does not give them that authority.  I am going to have to do some research on the Catholic belief on the inerrancy of Scripture.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

"It ain’t so much men’s ignorance that does the harm as their knowing so many things that ain’t so.” - Artemus Ward

It's not a translation; it's your revision of His word that matters.    Likely, you have no idea of the kind of scholarship that goes into a new translation of the Bible.

That simply is not true and you can't post even  one example of Protestants revising "God's word.  I am more aware of what goes onto a  revision, not a new translation of the Bible. Calling a revision a translation shows you knowledge of this subject.

Except where it displeases you.   That's how the "life ex nihilo" error came into your belief system.

Here is another good example of your lack  of knowledge in understanding the Bible.  "Created" is used 5 times in Genesis 1.  Each time it refers to something that was not in existence.  That is ex nihilo.  You also do not understand the verses that say some things were MADE, not created from earth.   Since earth has no elements of life(DNA, genes, etc)  God had to have formed them  like He did Adam.

Notice when God said "let us make man  in our own image and likeness(Gen 1:26) in v27 "likeness" is omitted. "Image" refers to man;s invisible  traits---mind, love, compassion, etc.  Then in Then in Gen 2:7 man's likeness to God is formed , not created.  Animals are not cred in God image.  They were formed from the earth.  Animals have no spirit or soul.  That is why it not sad God created them.  They have no invisible attributes

The Bible lists many sins both potential and historic.   Do you deny it?

Of course not.

Some atheists take figurative passages and try to criticize them as literal history or as mathematical expressions.    Hence their claims that the Bible says that pi= 3.0, and so on. 

Who cares what atheist do?  The Bible does not say pi=3.0.

If you weren't paying attention, I've pointed out that I'm Roman Catholic in a number of places.   However, I don't see that Presbyterians are any less Christian than Catholics are. 

One's denomination does not make one  a Christian.

   Those who try to push others away from God only succeed in removing themselves from God. 

I don't know of any denomination that tries to push others away from God.  Certainly conservative Protestants do not.  Evangelism is very active in my denomination and in every conservative denomination.

I realize that this is a very controversial subject in your denomination, which has not been able to resolve it. 

It is not  controversial  at all in conservative denominations, so there is nothing to resolve.  One goal of conservative denominations is is trying to convert non-believers to accept Jesus as the Savior and be saved.

   Perhaps the example of other mainline denominations would be useful.   The Catholic Church, for example, leaves the issue open to interpretation; Roman Catholics may accept or reject evolution as they will, since it has no bearing on salvation,and there is no definitive statement in the Bible one way or the other.

Right.  What one believes about evolution does not affect their salvation, but I believe your current pope pushes evolution. 

Love, peace joy

 

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Does your church teach you to be insulting. 

Perhaps you should have considered that, earlier.  

“Never be haughty to the humble, never be humble to the haughty.”

― Mark Twain

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Another example of you thinking you are superior in knowledge of ssiene and Christianity.

I never claimed to be superior.   Don't have to.   I merely document my claims.   That's all that's necessary.

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

That is a very good and accurate  statement, but I am not sure Catholics accept such things as the inspiration of Scripture

I showed you what the Church teaches.  No point in denying the fact.   You see, this is the kind of thing that gets you in trouble here.

Except where it displeases you.   That's how the "life ex nihilo" error came into your belief system.

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Here is another good example of your lack  of knowledge in understanding the Bible.  "Created" is used 5 times in Genesis 1.  Each time it refers to something that was not in existence.  That is ex nihilo.  

No.  It is ex nihilo, if it is created from nothing.   As I showed you, God says life was brought forth by the Earth.   Hence, not from nothing.   By definition.   That's what He said; no point in you denying it. 

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Who cares what atheist do?  The Bible does not say pi=3.0.

If you take it literally, it does...

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Now, that cannot be literally true.   A circle ten units in diameter will have a circumference of 10 times Pi units.   But mathematical exactitude isn't the point of this verse.   The author gave an approximate value, or alternately, the vessel wasn't perfectly round, and actually had those dimensions.   Doesn't matter, unless you claim the the Bible must be exactly true in every respect, even to the fractional values.

Barbarian observes:

If you weren't paying attention, I've pointed out that I'm Roman Catholic in a number of places.   However, I don't see that Presbyterians are any less Christian than Catholics are.Those who try to push others away from God only succeed in removing themselves from God. 

 

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I don't know of any denomination that tries to push others away from God.  Certainly conservative Protestants do not.  Evangelism is very active in my denomination and in every conservative denomination.

I realize that this is a very controversial subject in your denomination, which has not been able to resolve it. 

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

It is not  controversial  at all in conservative denominations, so there is nothing to resolve. 

Seems like it is:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/evolution-and-the-presbyt_b_5563724

 

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Right.  What one believes about evolution does not affect their salvation, but I believe your current pope pushes evolution. 

Since John Paul II, at least, popes have personally recognized the fact of evolution, even common descent.   But that's not doctrinal; it's merely their recognition of the evidence.   Catholics are not in any way obligated to accept evolution.

[XRose]

On 1/9/2020 at 6:30 PM, The Barbarian said:

I have to disagree.   I you accepted God's word without reservations, this wouldn't be a problem for you.    Your rejection of evidence is not a religious issue.

 

No, that's wrong.   In this case, the changes in size and shape of beaks under natural selection was documented by the Grants on Daphne Major in the Galapagos.   Directly observed and documented.

Barbarian observes:

It's not controversial.   Even honest creationists admit the fact of natural selection:

I'm just pointing out that two YE creationists who have actual knowledge of the evidence, readily admit it.    You're citing people who don't know about it.

So, right over here we’ve got these oryx, beautiful creatures and very, very pale colors.  The wild range of the oryx is right on the southern end of the Sahara desert.  And so you can see their coloration makes sense.  If you get a really dark colored one, that’s going to be really easy for predators to find, and so they end up being these really beautiful, light colors.  And that’s an example of where selection would take a variation and turn it into an adaptation.

YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood   What is Natural Selection?

As you learned, even AiG admits the fact of natural selection.   Would you like me to show you, again?

the "yom" of the "creation week" are categories of creation, not literal days.  

No, that's wrong.   Even ancient Christians knew that isn't true.   YE creationism is a very modern revision of scripture.

The sun existed before the Earth was formed.

Over a thousand years ago, St. Augustine clearly showed that the text itself shows that the "yom" of Genesis are not literal days.    As he showed, it is absurd to imagine literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

Genesis is consistent with evolution, and with most forms of creationism.   Genesis does rule out literal days, and the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo."  But otherwise, it's neutral on evolution.

It's all there in Genesis.   No point in denying it.   God says that the Earth brought forth living things, not ex nihilo.

Of  course Adam was directly given a living soul, ex nihilo.    His body was brought forth by the earth as any other animal.