Jump to content
IGNORED

Intelligent Design, Science & Religion


bcbsr

Recommended Posts


  • 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:

You cannot have evolution AND Adam and Eve, they are diametrically opposed to each other.

This is not true. Please go back earlier in the thread if you want to see what I wrote about Adam and Eve.

 

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

Evolution is a lie. Period. To believe in it is saying God's word is a lie. It is that simple. Indignation or not.

No, acceptance of evolution most certainly does not say that God's word is a lie. Feel free to disagree with me, but do not put words in my mouth. Do you believe it is calling God's word a lie if someone claims that the sky is not a solid dome supported by physical pillars?

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, dhchristian said:

Macro evolution is Purely theoretical with no empirical evidence to back it up. It is nothing more than imagination, as there are no missing links in the fossil record.

There is abundant empirical evidence in both the fossil record and genomes of living organisms. I do not know if you have any desire to learn any more about the evidence, but I am willing to have an honest conversation about it, if you are willing to learn new things.

Side note - I'm pretty sure you did not articulate what you intended regarding missing links.

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 minute ago, Abdicate said:

no one can believe in evolution because every theory erases Adam and Eve AND believe in the word of God.

Again, this is untrue. I accept evolution AND a literal Adam and Eve. Do you really want to repeat the same false statement? Or do you want to spend a few minutes to look back in the thread for an explanation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  53
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   30
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/15/2019
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

I Am saying the Empirical evidence is beginning to outweigh the theoretical evidence that makes up evolution. Evolution is mostly theoretical evidence. Please, also do not use micro evolution as proof of Macro evolution as others have done. We (most Christians) Believe that Micro evolution occurs, and species adapt to various environments, But a bird does not become a Hippo, Nor a monkey a man. Macro evolution is Purely theoretical with no empirical evidence to back it up. It is nothing more than imagination, as there are no missing links in the fossil record. 

I mean, there is the fossil record, DNA evidence, genome projects, biogeographical studies, observational studies on short-lived species (insects, bacteria, etc.) These are all rather empirical. As to the idea that a bird does not become a hippo, I would agree as would every evolutionary biologist out there. Ditto on a monkey or chimp becoming a man. Evolution merely says that the evidence points towards common ancestors between species. For example, a monkey does not become a man. However, the scientific evidence does support the idea that both man and monkeys descended from a common ancestor. Regarding the missing link argument is again a rather wrong notion. It implies some sort of linear chain between species which again, is not something evolutionary biologists support. It also tends to lead to an ad infinitum sort of argumentation. For example, many evolutionary biologists will cite Archaeopteryx as an example to which the creationist will ask for a link between Archaeopteryx and another species. And we continuum ad infinitum. Of course, as no one can provide a complete fossil record, some claim this as a victory which is a scientifically immature view on the subject. Does the fossil record have gaps? Of course. Fossilization is extremely rare. However, the fossil evidence we have does suggest the idea of common ancestry according to the vast majority of SMEs.      

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Does this sound like theistic evolution to you, it does not to me, sounds more fundamentalist....

I Was the other way I around, I am more in Awe of God's Workmanship now that I do not need evolution to explain creation. Or for that matter time. I Work with my hands, I Know what it is like to design and build things, I Know the time it takes, the sweat and effort, and that is just a little old wooden structure. I Then see the complexity of the creation as is being revealed to us through advances in Microscopes, and DNA studies, and I am blown away that this can come about in a day. I Used to see this and doubt, and say now way could this come about in a day, But now I do not doubt Him and his ability create all of this in a day. Which view takes more faith to believe in, and which view Doubts God's Omnipotence? 

The Irenaeus quote you presented does not seem either particularly evolutionary or creationist in nature to me. Rather, it sounds like he is responding to Gnostics who claimed that material things (including man) were created by lesser entities (in the quote's context angels). This makes sense given that Gnostics believed that God would not deign to create the physical universe and they concluded a lesser being would have created all that is material. Once again, this is not what theistic evolutionists believe. Irenaeus was arguing that Christian orthodoxy holds that God created the material world in addition to that which is not seen. It's almost as if the book Against Heresies was written (in part) to respond to the Gnostics. 

Now, I would never claim that the early Church Fathers were theistic evolutionists. They had no idea what evolution even was. Moreover, as I mentioned in my previous post, people like St. Basil supported a young earth interpretation. However, Augustine, Origen, Philo, etc. all write about a less literalistic view of Genesis. This idea was never considered heterodoxy or heretical within the Church as a whole.    

In essence, we agree that God's handiwork is beautiful to behold. However, where we disagree is that I can reconcile this handiwork with the scientific consensus. I don't think the evolution takes away from God's power. Nor do I think accepting the scientific consensus should be viewed with skepticism by the Church. As the Psalmist writes, "the heavens declare the glory of God." I see science as merely one way for us to experience the grandeur of God. From the Big Bang to evolution to microbiology to particle physics. To me, denying the evidence in front of us seems to be denouncing this creative work as lie meant to mislead humanity. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

Just now, ChessPlayer said:

Origen

The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 may have anathemized Origen, or it may have only condemned certain heretical teachings which claimed to be derived from Origen. His teachings on the pre-existence of souls were rejected by the Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

2 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

Augustine

Perhaps we ought not to think of these creatures at the moment they were produced as subject to the processes of nature which we now observe in them, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.2

Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor (1982), Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 33, paragraph 51–52, p. 141, italics in the original. New York: Newman Press.

Did You happen to notice, how all of these people you are using to support your notions come from Alexandria and North Africa? Did you also Notice where the Gnostic heresies originated? Did you also notice which texts a lot of modern translations rely on as opposed to the Latin Vulgate? Alexandria... Things that make you go HMM!? You see, the Notion that man's wisdom is wiser than the Word of God is a Gnostic notion, You may have no affinity with Gnosticism per se, But you are doing their bidding for them.

10 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

From the Big Bang to evolution to microbiology to particle physics. To me, denying the evidence in front of us seems to be denouncing this creative work as lie meant to mislead humanity. 

So, What is the source of the lies? According to what you just said, The Word of God is the Liar, that clearly states that God created the earth in Six days. Do You see How I ain't buying it... When you dig enough, you will find the Truth, I dug through a lot to arrive where I am at now, and I choose to accept the Literal interpretation of the Word of God. I Will tell you one thing, it is like coming out of a Cult when you start to question evolution...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  53
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   30
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/15/2019
  • Status:  Offline

12 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 may have anathemized Origen, or it may have only condemned certain heretical teachings which claimed to be derived from Origen. His teachings on the pre-existence of souls were rejected by the Church.

Regarding Origen, some of his work was condemned as being erroneous. This is certainly true. However, none of it related to his stance on Genesis. As your own citation says, it regarded his views on souls and other matters. Regarding the Council of Constantinople, it is still debated among Early Church scholars on which matters Origen was condemned and what eclessiastical authority that particular council held but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. As I mentioned, the teachings that are condemned are not regarding his writings on Genesis. If you want to learn more consider reading the fifteen sections that were written regarding Origen. 

20 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Did You happen to notice, how all of these people you are using to support your notions come from Alexandria and North Africa? Did you also Notice where the Gnostic heresies originated? Did you also notice which texts a lot of modern translations rely on as opposed to the Latin Vulgate? Alexandria... Things that make you go HMM!? You see, the Notion that man's wisdom is wiser than the Word of God is a Gnostic notion, You may have no affinity with Gnosticism per se, But you are doing their bidding for them.  

Regarding Augustine, I'm unsure of how the part you're quoting is in favor of a literalistic interpretation of Genesis. If you mean the title, scholars tend to view this as him separating this new work from his earlier work regarding Manachees which focused on the importance of Genesis from a prophetic and symbolic point of view (the relationship between Genesis and Christ). In his Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine is more clear in this passage where he says, "When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time." As we can see, Augustine is slightly more clear in this passage than the one you presented in his views on the creation account. He clearly never viewed them as literal days nor was the account taken literalistic in the modern sense. 

Regarding the idea that the people that wrote these ideas down came from North Africa and Alexandria, this is certainly true. However, to blend them all into Gnosticism is a slippery slope fallacy or fallacy by association (in this case to location). Much of the Early Church was located in Alexandria, North Africa, the Levant and Anatolia. This is mostly due to the Church spreading by word of mouth. These are locations all close to Jerusalem and the areas that Christ lived. Alexandria was a hub for knowledge at the time so many Christian, pagan and Jewish intellectuals (such as Philo) lived there. It's library continued to exist in some form (despite being burned by Julius Caesar) until the 4th century. Note that despite all of these people living in close proximity to the Gnostic heresy they wrote extensively against Gnosticism and other heretical views.

40 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

So, What is the source of the lies? According to what you just said, The Word of God is the Liar, that clearly states that God created the earth in Six days. Do You see How I ain't buying it... When you dig enough, you will find the Truth, I dug through a lot to arrive where I am at now, and I choose to accept the Literal interpretation of the Word of God. I Will tell you one thing, it is like coming out of a Cult when you start to question evolution...  

To me, the problem for Young Earth Creationists is sort of bind. Option A) YEC deny the scientific evidence for evolution and instead cling to a literalistic interpretation of Genesis. Option B) Accept the scientific consensus. If Option B they would no longer accept YEC. If Option A we YECs have to come up for an explanation as to why God's creation seems to be deceiving so many. To me, claiming that God's creative work is deceptive would be a theological concern as it would go against the very nature of God. Therefore, I think the only logical thing for a YEC to do is to attempt to debate the science of the matter (which, to your credit, you attempt to do). However, based on all the evidence presented, a young earth and the YEC models do not appear to be credible to me while the evolutionary models seem strikingly accurate. 

Again, I do not view Genesis in the same manner you do. I would argue that the Word does not lie nor does it need to be read in such a literalistic manner regarding Genesis. I don't view it as a cult. A cult generally implies a small group of people who don't invite criticism onto their views. Evolutionary biology is the subject of rigorous debate both from within and from the outside. All research tends to be peer-reviewed (which is not always the case with YEC papers). It also contains a variety of researchers from atheists to deists to theists. I am not sure what makes it so cult-like in your mind.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

15 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

Regarding Origen, some of his work was condemned as being erroneous. This is certainly true. However, none of it related to his stance on Genesis. As your own citation says, it regarded his views on souls and other matters. Regarding the Council of Constantinople, it is still debated among Early Church scholars on which matters Origen was condemned and what eclessiastical authority that particular council held but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. As I mentioned, the teachings that are condemned are not regarding his writings on Genesis. If you want to learn more consider reading the fifteen sections that were written regarding Origen. 

Actually, his teaching on the pre-existence of souls comes from his allegorical reading of Genesis.

 

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.2

Did You not read the Quote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

9 hours ago, Abdicate said:

The odds are 1 x 10^110 for each protein in each organism on the planet.

This is called a mathematic impossibility. Twist it anyway you like, yet it is an impossible probable. Statistically IMPOSSIBLE.

Why do we revert to using scripture as a science project? It was never intended to be such. We cannot even understand the minds that wrote it and the minds to whom it was written. 

If God wanted a scientific paper written, NONE of us would EVER understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

10 hours ago, ChessPlayer said:

To me, the problem for Young Earth Creationists is sort of bind. Option A) YEC deny the scientific evidence for evolution and instead cling to a literalistic interpretation of Genesis. Option B) Accept the scientific consensus. If Option B they would no longer accept YEC. If Option A we YECs have to come up for an explanation as to why God's creation seems to be deceiving so many. To me, claiming that God's creative work is deceptive would be a theological concern as it would go against the very nature of God. Therefore, I think the only logical thing for a YEC to do is to attempt to debate the science of the matter (which, to your credit, you attempt to do). However, based on all the evidence presented, a young earth and the YEC models do not appear to be credible to me while the evolutionary models seem strikingly accurate. 

Again, I do not view Genesis in the same manner you do. I would argue that the Word does not lie nor does it need to be read in such a literalistic manner regarding Genesis. I don't view it as a cult. A cult generally implies a small group of people who don't invite criticism onto their views. Evolutionary biology is the subject of rigorous debate both from within and from the outside. All research tends to be peer-reviewed (which is not always the case with YEC papers). It also contains a variety of researchers from atheists to deists to theists. I am not sure what makes it so cult-like in your mind. 

You are ignoring the Option I chose, and that is the Truth of the Word of God. When one does science from this assumption, the science points to a creator God, when One begins science with assumption there is no God, whether that denial is in the form of atheism, or deism the science that results is going to point to the lack of a creator God or his hand in creation. Now, Knowing God is the problem here, IMO. The deism you espouse, right or wrong ultimately comes from a lack of a personal relationship with a living God, One that acts within his creation in supernatural ways, even today. I say this not to belittle you, but to tell you that he is alive, and at Work creating in this world as we speak. We who are redeemed by his Blood are a "new creation" in Christ Jesus, and this is evidence of His creation in our lives. The reason why evolution seems factual is because of this lack of understanding of How God is creating even as we speak. The first Adam gave us the natural, the Second Adam (Jesus) Gave us the Spiritual. We are no longer fleshly beings looking at fleshly evidences, but we have been reborn of the Spirit and become a Spiritual creation in Christ Jesus. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1 Cor 15:45)

A cult has nothing to do with size of the following. Evolutionists do not invite criticism, in fact, when one comes up with scientific evidence that contradicts evolution, a Smoking gun such as irreducible complexity, They immediately ostracize that person by claiming he/she is not a "real scientist. This is what has happened to most creation scientists, and why they are maligned despite their academic credentials. The fact that creationism is excluded from the curriculum of Public schools, and Universities now also shows an intent to manipulate one's conclusions, which is a marker of a cult. If evolution were not a cult they would want and allow for all theories to be taught, that the individual can make an informed decision on what they want to believe... Because that is what both options boil down to is belief. Evolution is anti- peer review, unlike any science before. They ignore the peer review of creation scientists altogether, as I have said. If they were so sure of their theory, why is it that they have to berate creationism as bad science, so as to ignore their science altogether? this universal rejection of the creationist science is also a proof of the cultic nature of evolutionary science.

I Have a lot of experience with cults, and I know what they look like, and what they "smell" like, and evolutionary science is a cult, nothing more. Read the following link to understand how cults operate and you will see the exact means used by evolutionary scientists to silence creationist opposition. 

https://libertyforcaptives.com/2012/06/29/eight-ways-to-identify-religious-brainwashing-mystical-manipulation-part-2-of-8/ 

 

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

2 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Oh dear brother, it is true and you're making a terrible mistake.

First, let me apologize for my combative tone yesterday. I was dealing with a few areas of stress and I'm afraid some of that came out in ungracious dialogue.

Please indulge me for a minute and think about what I am saying before responding. I firmly believe God is the Creator of all things. I also believe that God can create in two primary ways. First, God can create through the laws of nature which He established. We see this every day in something as routine as the birth of a child. The child started as a single cell. Through the molecular activities that He established, that single cell begins the beautiful process of growth and development, culminating in the birth of a precious newborn baby. God does not have to miraculously guide every protein produced and every cell division, this process of gestation operates according to the laws He established. I believe that in the same way, God established laws that allowed the development of living organisms, finally giving rise to a group of organisms He chose to make into His image. You can (and will) completely disagree with this point, but hold on - there is more.

Second, God can create directly through His own divine action. You will completely agree with me on this point. I personally believe that the "image of God" is not a physical image since God is spirit, and that His direct activity in the creation of Adam and Eve was a spiritual one. You believe that the creation of Adam and Eve was both physical and spiritual, but we both believe in a special form of creation that brought Adam and Eve into their image of God existence.

I will not beat on this point again after this post, but I do want to set the record absolutely straight. I believe in both a literal Adam and Eve and accept biological evolution. You will only make yourself a liar if you claim that I cannot believe both of these things.

Am I making a mistake? I do not think so, but I accept that it is technically possible that God could have created the universe, earth, and all living organisms with the mere appearance of age and biological evolution. But I assure you, that if I am indeed making a mistake, it is not a terrible one. I fully believe that the sin of each and every one of us separates us from our Creator. I believe this sin originated with a literal Adam. I believe that God's plan from the beginning was to offer the death of His Son as payment for the sins of all humans. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead in order to offer those that accept Him a new life.

Yes, it is possible that I am mistaken about the details of creation, but if it is so, I am certain that my loving Creator knows my heart and commitment to serving Him and accepts me just as I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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