It's called evolution. Just a tip. If you're looking up Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism you'll find plenty of christian propaganda sites and creationism sites and ID sites.
Evolution is not tied to a belief that god cannot exist. No one is saying god didn't create evolution.
Show me evidence that hasn't been rebutted several times before. In fact, just show me one of the many peer reviewed scientific papers. One.
I have looked at your links, and I'm still not sure why you dont want to be called a Darwinist. The only other kinds of evolution I am aware of of are Lamarkianism or punctuated equilibrium, both of which are mostly discarded by modern evolutionists. No-one is saying God didn't create evolution!! Are you serious? Have you ever read any Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, or any publications from the Evolutionary elite. Sure there are a few theistic evolutionists (syncretists) out there, Peacock, Polkinghorne etc. but this is not the norm and they are ridiculed by most Evolutionists. Listen, for example to what Dawkins says about them:
‘Now the conclusions of science must be accepted a priori, and religious interpretations must be finessed and adjusted to match the impeachable results from the magisterium of natural knowledge. The big bang happened and now we must find God at this tumultuous origin – I’m sorry. I know that I shouldn’t be so dismissive…but I find the arguments of syncretism so flawed, so illogical, so based on hope alone, so freighted by past procedures and certainties that I have difficulty keeping a straight face or a peaceful pen.’
If you want one example of a peer-reviewed ID paper: The Design Inference by William A. Dembski, which appeared in Cambridge University Press's monograph series 'Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and decision Theory' The series was edited by Brian Skyrms (a member of the national academy of sciences) and an impressive editorial board. Cambridge university Press has also published a book called 'debating design' that Dembski co-edited with leading evolutionist Michael Ruse. Although the first round of ID papers were published in the peer reviewed literature, more recently the Evolutionist establishment has had some success in convincing publishers that giving voice to these dangerous 'creationists' is a bad idea and they have enforced a high degree of censorship on anything percieved as supporting design theory. For this reason pro ID scientists have established their own proffesional society of over 50 research fellows, all of whome have had peer-reviewed papers published in the past. This group includes Fritz Schaefer, the inventor of computational quantum chemistry who has published over nine nundred peer-reviewed papers, is the third most cited chemist in the world, and has been considered for the nobel prize five times. The claim that these peoples are not scientists is just ridiculous, you can check their credentials on http://www.iscid.org Peace.
Think about what you are saying grazman. Where do we observe the fossils, in the past, or in the present? The ONLY way we can observe the past is to travel back in time.
And don't forget, we can observe the past by reading the bible, right?
Which way you interpret the strata depends on your philosophical outlook. If you believe in evolution the when you look at the strata in a cliff you will say 'wow look these bottom layers must be so old' but if you are a creationist you will say 'wow that was a serious flood'.
Wrong. A scientist will not say 'wow these look old'. They'll do tests, tests upon tests and more tests. They'll publish their findings if anyone disagree they are free to do more tests. There is data within these layers that can be tested too. This data is compared with different data from all over the world.
This shows you don't really know how the scientific method works.
All the fossils show overwhelming evidence of sudden catastrophic burial, not gradual burial. Without sudden burial, animals do not fossilize, they are consumed, they rot, they leave nothing behind.
Only a very small percentage of living organisms actually fossilized. The conditions have to be right. But this can, of couse, happen without one great burial. If there was indeed one great burial wouldn't there be millions of fossils?
Without a sudden burial, bones can be buried gradually. It's as simple as that.
And don't forget, we can observe the past by reading the bible, right?
Nope, the Bible is in the present too.
Wrong. A scientist will not say 'wow these look old'. They'll do tests, tests upon tests and more tests. They'll publish their findings if anyone disagree they are free to do more tests. There is data within these layers that can be tested too. This data is compared with different data from all over the world.
This shows you don't really know how the scientific method works.
I wasn't talking about scientists examining the rocks, I was talking about what we automatically think of as we see cliffs if we have accepted the evolutionary narritive.
Only a very small percentage of living organisms actually fossilized. The conditions have to be right. But this can, of couse, happen without one great burial. If there was indeed one great burial wouldn't there be millions of fossils?
Um there are millions of fossils, billions actually.
Without a sudden burial, bones can be buried gradually. It's as simple as that.
No. when animals die, the bones decompose before they are buried under normal conditions. plus the carcasses are torn apart by scavengers. The fossils in the strata are complete and many even have the soft parts preserved.
I have looked at your links, and I'm still not sure why you dont want to be called a Darwinist. The only other kinds of evolution I am aware of of are Lamarkianism or punctuated equilibrium, both of which are mostly discarded by modern evolutionists.
I don't care what you call me. It's kind of like calling you a creationist, though.
No-one is saying God didn't create evolution!! Are you serious? Have you ever read any Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, or any publications from the Evolutionary elite. Sure there are a few theistic evolutionists (syncretists) out there, Peacock, Polkinghorne etc. but this is not the norm and they are ridiculed by most Evolutionists. Listen, for example to what Dawkins says about them:
‘Now the conclusions of science must be accepted a priori, and religious interpretations must be finessed and adjusted to match the impeachable results from the magisterium of natural knowledge. The big bang happened and now we must find God at this tumultuous origin – I’m sorry. I know that I shouldn’t be so dismissive…but I find the arguments of syncretism so flawed, so illogical, so based on hope alone, so freighted by past procedures and certainties that I have difficulty keeping a straight face or a peaceful pen.’
Well, yes.
The point was, though, that you keep claiming evolution cannot be reconciled with a higher power. That is simple not true, regardless of Dawkin's opinion on it.
If you want one example of a peer-reviewed ID paper: The Design Inference by William A. Dembski, which appeared in Cambridge University Press's monograph series 'Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and decision Theory' The series was edited by Brian Skyrms (a member of the national academy of sciences) and an impressive editorial board. Cambridge university Press has also published a book called 'debating design' that Dembski co-edited with leading evolutionist Michael Ruse.
Thanks.
Although the first round of ID papers were published in the peer reviewed literature, more recently the Evolutionist establishment has had some success in convincing publishers that giving voice to these dangerous 'creationists' is a bad idea and they have enforced a high degree of censorship on anything percieved as supporting design theory. For this reason pro ID scientists have established their own proffesional society of over 50 research fellows, all of whome have had peer-reviewed papers published in the past. This group includes Fritz Schaefer, the inventor of computational quantum chemistry who has published over nine nundred peer-reviewed papers, is the third most cited chemist in the world, and has been considered for the nobel prize five times. The claim that these peoples are not scientists is just ridiculous, you can check their credentials on http://www.iscid.org Peace.
I won't be reading their "peer reviewed scientific papers". They are openly supporting ID. All of them. This is from their website:
"PCID welcomes survey articles, research articles, technical communications, tutorials, commentaries, book and software reviews, educational overviews, and controversial theories. The aim of PCID is to advance the science of complexity by assessing the degree to which teleology is relevant (or irrelevant) to the origin, development, and operation of complex systems.
Articles accepted to the journal must first be submitted to the ISCID archive. To be accepted into the archive, articles need to meet basic scholarly standards and be relevant to the study of complex systems. Once on the archive, articles passed on by at least one ISCID fellow will be accepted for publication. The journal will be published in electronic form only (there will be no print version)."
That's not what I call peer review.
"Peer review is a standard process by which proposed papers for scientific journals, presentations at scientific meetings, or requests for research funding are evaluated in terms of their scientific appropriateness and possible contribution to the advancement of science. The reviewers are experts in the relevant scientific fields who have no conflict of interest with or especially close personal relationships to the authors or requestors."
I checked their credentials, many of them have a phd in philosophy and other irrelevant fields. There are a few who have the right credentials i.e. experts in the relevant scientific field. But like their website says, only one of them needs to accept a paper, it could be one of the people who have no credentials whatsoever, or by one who has the wrong credentials e.g. a professor in philosophy accepting a paper on biology.
Besides, do they have anything more recent than 2005?
Hit the quote button of the post you want to reply to and seperate each point with [ quote = person you're quoting ] at the start and [ / quote ] at the end of each point. Minus the spaces I've put in here.
No. when animals die, the bones decompose before they are buried under normal conditions. plus the carcasses are torn apart by scavengers. The fossils in the strata are complete and many even have the soft parts preserved.
Under normal conditions. That's right, hence the fact that there is only a very small percentage of fossils.
Conditions have to be perfect, that's not 'normal'.
Under normal conditions. That's right, hence the fact that there is only a very small percentage of fossils.
At least we agree on something.
The notion you have that only a 'very small' percentage of historical animals have fossilised is totally empirically unverifiable since the alleged 'others' left no trace. The idea is necessary because the theory requires countless other species of animals to have existed as transitionional forms between the ones we have fossilised. This was a problem for darwin, as he said in 'origin of the species'
'Why is not every geological formation charged with such [intermediate] links, why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections, which may be urged against my theory.'
today the situation is even worse for darwinists since the proposed transitional fossils of darwin's day have been shown not to be transitional at all and the few proposed transitionals that people speculate about (alleged dino-bird transitionals like archaeoptrix) today are highly dubious (most evolutionists now accept that archaeoptrix is just a bird). The theory demands that the strata be filled with such links. They are not!
Conditions have to be perfect, that's not 'normal'.
"Peer review is a standard process by which proposed papers for scientific journals, presentations at scientific meetings, or requests for research funding are evaluated in terms of their scientific appropriateness and possible contribution to the advancement of science. The reviewers are experts in the relevant scientific fields who have no conflict of interest with or especially close personal relationships to the authors or requestors."
I checked their credentials, many of them have a phd in philosophy and other irrelevant fields. There are a few who have the right credentials i.e. experts in the relevant scientific field. But like their website says, only one of them needs to accept a paper, it could be one of the people who have no credentials whatsoever, or by one who has the wrong credentials e.g. a professor in philosophy accepting a paper on biology.
Philosophy is not irrelevant, it is a vital component of ID, as it is for Darwinism, which is why people like Daniel Dennet are so important to Darwinists. You suggest that iscid fellows would get someone from the wrong field to review a paper, this is just silly and it shows your unwillingness to accept that these people could be rational human beings. I am glad that you now accept that these people are real scientists, but your statement that you will not read their papers because they 'openly support ID' shows your predjudice, you speak of it as if it were immorral, like supporting Hitler or something. oh and the thing about conflicts of interests, everyone has their own interests, not least Darwinists, thats why they are on such a crusade to censor ID.
Philosophy is not irrelevant, it is a vital component of ID, as it is for Darwinism, which is why people like Daniel Dennet are so important to Darwinists. You suggest that iscid fellows would get someone from the wrong field to review a paper, this is just silly and it shows your unwillingness to accept that these people could be rational human beings. I am glad that you now accept that these people are real scientists, but your statement that you will not read their papers because they 'openly support ID' shows your predjudice, you speak of it as if it were immorral, like supporting Hitler or something. oh and the thing about conflicts of interests, everyone has their own interests, not least Darwinists, thats why they are on such a crusade to censor ID.
Philosophy is not relevant when you're reviewing a paper on molecular biology, for example. I'm not suggesting they'd get someone from the wrong field to review a paper. But, it's possible under their own rules. So who knows who reviewed these papers?
They have an obvious agenda. Scientists usually don't have an agenda, they study data and see whether this data support their theory or not. If it doesn't they start over and try to find a theory in which the data does fit (in simplistic terms).
Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory. Simple as that. Now, the ID-ers have started to attack the scientific community, which consists out of people from all creeds and atheists and agnostics too. They are a fringe group who do not agree with the scientific method because they cannot use it. If they were to use it, you'd see there "evidence" doesn't fit their theory anymore.
They want to allow supernatural explanations into science, which is ridiculous for that simple reason that anything can then be allowed. There is no proof whatsoever that a god exists. None. Instead of studying the facts, the data... they want science to allow speculation and supernatural explanations. How can anything be scientific then? Here's a supernatural explanation; evolution is false, ID is false, everything is false; this is the will of the supernatural being Gantor the Great, he made everything up, placed "evidence" everywhere on earth to fool mankind, who still needs to be saved by the truth that Gantor is the only truth path to freedom, glory, truth etc. I know so because I am his son. Pretty easy don't you think. Evidence? Scientific methods? Who needs any of it if something intangible, something that cannot be proven is allowed as an explanation?
This is the field of philosophy and theology, not science.
They [ID'ers] have an obvious agenda. Scientists usually don't have an agenda, they study data and see whether this data support their theory or not. If it doesn't they start over and try to find a theory in which the data does fit (in simplistic terms).
Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory. Simple as that. Now, the ID-ers have started to attack the scientific community, which consists out of people from all creeds and atheists and agnostics too. They are a fringe group who do not agree with the scientific method because they cannot use it. If they were to use it, you'd see there "evidence" doesn't fit their theory anymore.
They want to allow supernatural explanations into science, which is ridiculous for that simple reason that anything can then be allowed. There is no proof whatsoever that a god exists. None. Instead of studying the facts, the data... they want science to allow speculation and supernatural explanations. How can anything be scientific then?
Scientists don't usually have an Agenda!!! Have you read Dawkins latest book 'The God Delusion'? Evolutionist scientists are making a living out of the many book-length rebuttals of ID that are surfacing. Of course they have an agenda. The agenda is to unphold the dogma of naturalism (materialism)Check comment of evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:
'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'
Naturalism/materialism is the religion of evolutionists, much is at stake and ID is a direct threat to its hegemony. You say 'there is no proof God exists' but if you only allow naturalistic explanations,you blind yourself to seeing signs of design in nature. You are also wrong in suggesting that ID scientists are all Christians, many are not. ID is embraced by Jews, Christians, Muslims, agnostics and deists. Michael Denton, in fact, is a Deist. You call ID 'Bible Design' but ID does not use the Bible or any religious text. It uses the scientific method, it observes the natural world, experiments on it, and draws conclusions. The difference is that it doesn't rule out any possible expanation first as naturalism does. It returns science to its roots, a search for truth.
Depends of course what you mean by almost immediately. Twenty years after his death and up to 120 years after his death, that's hardly what I'd call 'immediately'.
Twenty years, in the scheme of 2,000, is pretty much "immediately." None of the gospels were written 120 years after Christ's death, because the four gospel writers were all dead by then.
To say that the things in the bible are historical fact just as the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence is absolutely absurd.
I don't mean fact as in "you have to believe they were true." I mean fact as in, there was a man named Jesus, who ran around the Holy Land around 30 AD preaching and performing what some called miracles. That IS an historical fact. You don't have to believe the miracles were real, or that he was who he said he was. That is where faith (or lack thereof) comes in.
But the pure history of it: There was a man named Jesus running around doing all this stuff -- that was real. There are historical documents outside the Bible even, to back that up.
What is in the bible are the supposed words of someone who died 20 years after it was written - and in an age where information wasn't easily stored, it was mostly passed on orally.
You act as if the gospels were written by people getting the information second hand. They were eyewitness accounts. This is what these guys saw, or think they saw (unless they are making it up entirely, which is another debate).
Also, just because some of them were first "published" (or whatever you want to call it) two decades after the fact, doesn't necessarily mean they were STARTED after it happened. If it were me, and I were witnessing some of the shit these guys allege to have witnessed, I might start keeping a diary.
At any rate, I think I'd be able to get the major plot points down 20 years later.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Who cares if you're going to die in this hellhole, they all believed they were going to paradise.
How does their execution mean that they're writings are accurate at all? I don't see the link. Heretics were executed by the church too. Plenty of them. I guess all they wrote and said was accurate too, after all, what did they have to gain?
I'm not saying it means they were accurate.
I'm saying it means they had no motive to lie.
If you want to believe they were insane, or just completely fooled by Jesus' parlor tricks, are on some sort of hallucinogenic drug, that's a perfectly valid belief.
I'm saying it means THEY had to have believed what they were writing, otherwise, why risk death for it? if they were lying, and they knew the whole thing was made up, then there was no "paradise" and they knew it. So, again, why risk death?
Judging by several of your posts to me on this thread, I think you are confused as to my motives. I'm not telling you that you HAVE to believe any of this. I'm not even necessarily saying I believe it. I'm just offering some historical perspective, which you can take or leave. That's all.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Moses, who wrote Genesis 4,000 years ago, had never heard of evolution, so he put it in words he could understand. Genesis could be seen as a parable, just like there are parables in the New Testament.
Again, not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Saying "God created Adam out of dust" could mean God created Adam out of single cells that evolved, yada yada yada. Ie ... the "dust" isn't literal "dust." Just like the six "days" of creation weren't literal "days."
There is a whole school of thought that seeks to reconcile the scientific evidence that points to evolution with the creation story in Genesis.
If you want to interpret Genesis as word-for-word literal, that's fine. But it isn't the only way Christians -- even many mainstream Christians -- choose to interpret it.
so the only evidence for Creationism is the bible, which is a book full of words, but the words in it shouldn't be taken literally. brilliant!!!
Twenty years, in the scheme of 2,000, is pretty much "immediately." None of the gospels were written 120 years after Christ's death, because the four gospel writers were all dead by then.
What does 2000 years have to do with it?
If you compare it to two billion years it's almost instantly. It's about how accurate the gospels could have been, are, being written 20 to 70 years after his death (indeed not 120 years).
I don't mean fact as in "you have to believe they were true." I mean fact as in, there was a man named Jesus, who ran around the Holy Land around 30 AD preaching and performing what some called miracles. That IS an historical fact. You don't have to believe the miracles were real, or that he was who he said he was. That is where faith (or lack thereof) comes in.
But the pure history of it: There was a man named Jesus running around doing all this stuff -- that was real. There are historical documents outside the Bible even, to back that up.
I don't know whether it is a fact that Jesus is a real historical figure. I think the evidence is very thin. But I'll give Jesus the benefit of doubt.
You act as if the gospels were written by people getting the information second hand. They were eyewitness accounts. This is what these guys saw, or think they saw (unless they are making it up entirely, which is another debate).
Well, were they really eye witnesses? If Jesus existed, I'm pretty sure Luke and Matthew didn't witness his birth. Or his childhood years. Yet it is in there. There is no way they could have known that, so it might as well be bullshit, bullshit laced with references to the OT to make Jesus sound like the savior the Jews expected. So, unless you can tell me how they know the details about Jesus' birth... I consider the whole nativity story the imagination of a few men, perhaps even propaganda to make it easier for Jewish people to convert. So how can you trust the rest of their writings?
And let's not forget the Q source too, or the Gospel of Mark which are argued to have been used by Matthew and Luke. Tell me, why would a eye witness need to copy or use someone else's eye witness account.
If I witness something and I want to write about it, I would describe what I witnessed. I would not consult another source.
There are plenty phrases, little changes... within the gospels that suggest the authors changed parts in order to be in agreement with the prophecies of the OT. I have examples of this, I will look for them.
Also, just because some of them were first "published" (or whatever you want to call it) two decades after the fact, doesn't necessarily mean they were STARTED after it happened. If it were me, and I were witnessing some of the shit these guys allege to have witnessed, I might start keeping a diary.
At any rate, I think I'd be able to get the major plot points down 20 years later.
That's true. But there you said it, the major plot points. I wonder if the people who worshipped David Koresh left behind their opinion of him. I wonder how accurate their recordings would be. It's the same thing. Even for some people on the board here, Ed seems to be this god who cannot do anything wrong, his every idea is right and just etc.
I'm not saying it means they were accurate.
I'm saying it means they had no motive to lie.
I must have been confused by your statement:
"So, I'd actually say it's pretty accurate."
I'm saying it means THEY had to have believed what they were writing, otherwise, why risk death for it? if they were lying, and they knew the whole thing was made up, then there was no "paradise" and they knew it. So, again, why risk death?
I'm okay with the theory that they believed what they wrote. They could, however, have exaggerated greatly in order to convince people their boy Jesus was indeed the savior. Again, the people who believed Koresh really believed him. What makes them any different?
Judging by several of your posts to me on this thread, I think you are confused as to my motives. I'm not telling you that you HAVE to believe any of this. I'm not even necessarily saying I believe it. I'm just offering some historical perspective, which you can take or leave. That's all.
I'm sorry but you said the gospels were a historical fact like the declaration of independence and the magna carta. That's absurd.
If you meant that it is a historical fact that these works were indeed written and don't comment on their content - bullshit or truth - I'm cool with that. But I have to say I don't see the point in that argument.
And again, you actually said it was 'pretty accurate'.
So, if that was not your intention then I guess we're just having a communication problem.
Well, were they really eye witnesses? If Jesus existed, I'm pretty sure Luke and Matthew didn't witness his birth. Or his childhood years. Yet it is in there. There is no way they could have known that, so it might as well be bullshit, bullshit laced with references to the OT to make Jesus sound like the savior the Jews expected. So, unless you can tell me how they know the details about Jesus' birth... I consider the whole nativity story the imagination of a few men, perhaps even propaganda to make it easier for Jewish people to convert. So how can you trust the rest of their writings?
And let's not forget the Q source too, or the Gospel of Mark which are argued to have been used by Matthew and Luke. Tell me, why would a eye witness need to copy or use someone else's eye witness account.
If I witness something and I want to write about it, I would describe what I witnessed. I would not consult another source.
You are correct collin, when you say that Mathew and Luke were not eyewitnesses to the birth of Jesus, most of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses of some of the events, but the gospels are compilations of these accounts. Luke makes this crystal clear in the introduction to his Gospel:
'Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.'
You suggest that the authors deliberately manipulated the facts to make it seem as if Jesus fulfilled prophecies from the Jewish scriptures. I look forward to hearing your examples of this. I know that your faith in naturalism demands that genuine prophecy does not exist, but Jesus fullfilled about 300 prophecies, even the year of his death was foretold in prophecy centuries before he was born. Beware! many who have attempted to refute Jesus messiahship on these grounds have ended up believers, as I think slightofjeff has already mentioned.
You mentioned that Luke used Mark and Q as sources, yes he certainly used mark and the theoretical document Q is a valid theory. You say you would not consult other sources, as if doing so is something shameful. Consulting, and evaluating primary sources is the way all good historians record history and, as many modern historians have acknowledged, Luke was a historian of the highest rank.
You got me there. I over-spoke. What I mean is they had no motive to lie. If they are inaccurate, it is because of some other reason (as we mentioned before).
I'm okay with the theory that they believed what they wrote. They could, however, have exaggerated greatly in order to convince people their boy Jesus was indeed the savior.
I'm still going to say they wouldn't have greatly exaggerated on purpose. The things they wrote and preached wound up with a lot of people getting killed, including themselves. They really had no motive to try and convince people Jesus was the savior except that they actually really believed it. Again, I'm not ruling out the fact that these people might have been believing a lie -- that's up to each reader to figure out on their own.
Again, the people who believed Koresh really believed him. What makes them any different?
Nothing. I think the people who followed Koresh -- at least the ones that stayed until the burned up -- firmly believed the guy was telling the truth. If you believe the early Christians were all a bunch of crazies running around, well, you wouldn't be the first.
I'm sorry but you said the gospels were a historical fact like the declaration of independence and the magna carta. That's absurd.
I don't want to go over this again. But -- I'm not saying the "teachings" in the gospels are historical fact. That would be absurd. I'm saying the story of Jesus -- that there was such a man running around preaching and performing magic tricks -- is a historical fact. He is mentioned in all kinds of historical texts outside of the Bible.
And again, you actually said it was 'pretty accurate'.
Yeah, I admit, I misspoke there.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
so the only evidence for Creationism is the bible, which is a book full of words, but the words in it shouldn't be taken literally. brilliant!!!
So you think the Bible is a literal book, through and through? Every single sentence to be interpreted literally? There are no metaphors. No allegory. No parables?
Have you even read it?
One more time: You seem hung up on the fact that man was created "from dust." This is how it was translated from ancient Hebrew. I don't think there was an ancient Hebrew word for "cell" or "molecule." It's not a large stretch to think "created from dust" could mean "evolved from cells."
There is another school of thought out there that this "dust" business was actually God imbuing man with a soul. Thus, "creating" him. Before man got a soul, he was still considered animal.
I don't even know why you're arguing with me. I'm not saying all this stuff is true. I'm just saying this is a school of thought out there -- and a very popular school of thought in Christian circles. I'm just saying it's a fact it exists. Nobody is forcing you to believe any of it.
Frankly, I just think it bothers you to think there are Christians out there who don't fit your "slack-jawed, don't-believe-in-evolution" stereotype.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
i heard an interesting story behind the whole tree of knowledge episode last month. twas one im seriously thinking of entertaining as the story. screw that whole apple/snake/satan explanation.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
So you think the Bible is a literal book, through and through? Every single sentence to be interpreted literally? There are no metaphors. No allegory. No parables?
Have you even read it?
One more time: You seem hung up on the fact that man was created "from dust." This is how it was translated from ancient Hebrew. I don't think there was an ancient Hebrew word for "cell" or "molecule." It's not a large stretch to think "created from dust" could mean "evolved from cells."
There is another school of thought out there that this "dust" business was actually God imbuing man with a soul. Thus, "creating" him. Before man got a soul, he was still considered animal.
I don't even know why you're arguing with me. I'm not saying all this stuff is true. I'm just saying this is a school of thought out there -- and a very popular school of thought in Christian circles. I'm just saying it's a fact it exists. Nobody is forcing you to believe any of it.
Frankly, I just think it bothers you to think there are Christians out there who don't fit your "slack-jawed, don't-believe-in-evolution" stereotype.
awww right, so if the words dont fit in with the evolution theory, change them into different words so it looks like it fits, i got yers. brilliant!! i wondered why it was called the 'holy' bible.
awww right, so if the words dont fit in with the evolution theory, change them into different words so it looks like it fits, i got yers. brilliant!! i wondered why it was called the 'holy' bible.
I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Probably because you don't want to. Because nobody is really this dense.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
"There is no proof whatsoever that a god exists. None."
Of course there isn't. God wants everyone to come to him by faith.
Why not prove to everyone that he exists with a sign that would erase the doubts of all atheists/agnostics? I don't honestly know. However, he's God, and if he wants to save you he'll reveal his spirit to you.
Comments
I have looked at your links, and I'm still not sure why you dont want to be called a Darwinist. The only other kinds of evolution I am aware of of are Lamarkianism or punctuated equilibrium, both of which are mostly discarded by modern evolutionists. No-one is saying God didn't create evolution!! Are you serious? Have you ever read any Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, or any publications from the Evolutionary elite. Sure there are a few theistic evolutionists (syncretists) out there, Peacock, Polkinghorne etc. but this is not the norm and they are ridiculed by most Evolutionists. Listen, for example to what Dawkins says about them:
‘Now the conclusions of science must be accepted a priori, and religious interpretations must be finessed and adjusted to match the impeachable results from the magisterium of natural knowledge. The big bang happened and now we must find God at this tumultuous origin – I’m sorry. I know that I shouldn’t be so dismissive…but I find the arguments of syncretism so flawed, so illogical, so based on hope alone, so freighted by past procedures and certainties that I have difficulty keeping a straight face or a peaceful pen.’
If you want one example of a peer-reviewed ID paper: The Design Inference by William A. Dembski, which appeared in Cambridge University Press's monograph series 'Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and decision Theory' The series was edited by Brian Skyrms (a member of the national academy of sciences) and an impressive editorial board. Cambridge university Press has also published a book called 'debating design' that Dembski co-edited with leading evolutionist Michael Ruse. Although the first round of ID papers were published in the peer reviewed literature, more recently the Evolutionist establishment has had some success in convincing publishers that giving voice to these dangerous 'creationists' is a bad idea and they have enforced a high degree of censorship on anything percieved as supporting design theory. For this reason pro ID scientists have established their own proffesional society of over 50 research fellows, all of whome have had peer-reviewed papers published in the past. This group includes Fritz Schaefer, the inventor of computational quantum chemistry who has published over nine nundred peer-reviewed papers, is the third most cited chemist in the world, and has been considered for the nobel prize five times. The claim that these peoples are not scientists is just ridiculous, you can check their credentials on http://www.iscid.org Peace.
And don't forget, we can observe the past by reading the bible, right?
Wrong. A scientist will not say 'wow these look old'. They'll do tests, tests upon tests and more tests. They'll publish their findings if anyone disagree they are free to do more tests. There is data within these layers that can be tested too. This data is compared with different data from all over the world.
This shows you don't really know how the scientific method works.
Only a very small percentage of living organisms actually fossilized. The conditions have to be right. But this can, of couse, happen without one great burial. If there was indeed one great burial wouldn't there be millions of fossils?
Without a sudden burial, bones can be buried gradually. It's as simple as that.
naděje umírá poslední
Nope, the Bible is in the present too.
I wasn't talking about scientists examining the rocks, I was talking about what we automatically think of as we see cliffs if we have accepted the evolutionary narritive.
Um there are millions of fossils, billions actually.
No. when animals die, the bones decompose before they are buried under normal conditions. plus the carcasses are torn apart by scavengers. The fossils in the strata are complete and many even have the soft parts preserved.
I don't care what you call me. It's kind of like calling you a creationist, though.
Well, yes.
The point was, though, that you keep claiming evolution cannot be reconciled with a higher power. That is simple not true, regardless of Dawkin's opinion on it.
Thanks.
I won't be reading their "peer reviewed scientific papers". They are openly supporting ID. All of them. This is from their website:
"PCID welcomes survey articles, research articles, technical communications, tutorials, commentaries, book and software reviews, educational overviews, and controversial theories. The aim of PCID is to advance the science of complexity by assessing the degree to which teleology is relevant (or irrelevant) to the origin, development, and operation of complex systems.
Articles accepted to the journal must first be submitted to the ISCID archive. To be accepted into the archive, articles need to meet basic scholarly standards and be relevant to the study of complex systems. Once on the archive, articles passed on by at least one ISCID fellow will be accepted for publication. The journal will be published in electronic form only (there will be no print version)."
That's not what I call peer review.
"Peer review is a standard process by which proposed papers for scientific journals, presentations at scientific meetings, or requests for research funding are evaluated in terms of their scientific appropriateness and possible contribution to the advancement of science. The reviewers are experts in the relevant scientific fields who have no conflict of interest with or especially close personal relationships to the authors or requestors."
I checked their credentials, many of them have a phd in philosophy and other irrelevant fields. There are a few who have the right credentials i.e. experts in the relevant scientific field. But like their website says, only one of them needs to accept a paper, it could be one of the people who have no credentials whatsoever, or by one who has the wrong credentials e.g. a professor in philosophy accepting a paper on biology.
Besides, do they have anything more recent than 2005?
naděje umírá poslední
Hit the quote button of the post you want to reply to and seperate each point with [ quote = person you're quoting ] at the start and [ / quote ] at the end of each point.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Break up the text and place after it.
Like this:
John is a good fellow. I like to play pool with him.
But without the spaces.
naděje umírá poslední
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Under normal conditions. That's right, hence the fact that there is only a very small percentage of fossils.
Conditions have to be perfect, that's not 'normal'.
naděje umírá poslední
At least we agree on something.
The notion you have that only a 'very small' percentage of historical animals have fossilised is totally empirically unverifiable since the alleged 'others' left no trace. The idea is necessary because the theory requires countless other species of animals to have existed as transitionional forms between the ones we have fossilised. This was a problem for darwin, as he said in 'origin of the species'
'Why is not every geological formation charged with such [intermediate] links, why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections, which may be urged against my theory.'
today the situation is even worse for darwinists since the proposed transitional fossils of darwin's day have been shown not to be transitional at all and the few proposed transitionals that people speculate about (alleged dino-bird transitionals like archaeoptrix) today are highly dubious (most evolutionists now accept that archaeoptrix is just a bird). The theory demands that the strata be filled with such links. They are not!
Nothing more to say, just testing the quote thing
Philosophy is not irrelevant, it is a vital component of ID, as it is for Darwinism, which is why people like Daniel Dennet are so important to Darwinists. You suggest that iscid fellows would get someone from the wrong field to review a paper, this is just silly and it shows your unwillingness to accept that these people could be rational human beings. I am glad that you now accept that these people are real scientists, but your statement that you will not read their papers because they 'openly support ID' shows your predjudice, you speak of it as if it were immorral, like supporting Hitler or something. oh and the thing about conflicts of interests, everyone has their own interests, not least Darwinists, thats why they are on such a crusade to censor ID.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Philosophy is not relevant when you're reviewing a paper on molecular biology, for example. I'm not suggesting they'd get someone from the wrong field to review a paper. But, it's possible under their own rules. So who knows who reviewed these papers?
They have an obvious agenda. Scientists usually don't have an agenda, they study data and see whether this data support their theory or not. If it doesn't they start over and try to find a theory in which the data does fit (in simplistic terms).
Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory. Simple as that. Now, the ID-ers have started to attack the scientific community, which consists out of people from all creeds and atheists and agnostics too. They are a fringe group who do not agree with the scientific method because they cannot use it. If they were to use it, you'd see there "evidence" doesn't fit their theory anymore.
They want to allow supernatural explanations into science, which is ridiculous for that simple reason that anything can then be allowed. There is no proof whatsoever that a god exists. None. Instead of studying the facts, the data... they want science to allow speculation and supernatural explanations. How can anything be scientific then? Here's a supernatural explanation; evolution is false, ID is false, everything is false; this is the will of the supernatural being Gantor the Great, he made everything up, placed "evidence" everywhere on earth to fool mankind, who still needs to be saved by the truth that Gantor is the only truth path to freedom, glory, truth etc. I know so because I am his son. Pretty easy don't you think. Evidence? Scientific methods? Who needs any of it if something intangible, something that cannot be proven is allowed as an explanation?
This is the field of philosophy and theology, not science.
naděje umírá poslední
Scientists don't usually have an Agenda!!! Have you read Dawkins latest book 'The God Delusion'? Evolutionist scientists are making a living out of the many book-length rebuttals of ID that are surfacing. Of course they have an agenda. The agenda is to unphold the dogma of naturalism (materialism)Check comment of evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:
'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'
Naturalism/materialism is the religion of evolutionists, much is at stake and ID is a direct threat to its hegemony. You say 'there is no proof God exists' but if you only allow naturalistic explanations,you blind yourself to seeing signs of design in nature. You are also wrong in suggesting that ID scientists are all Christians, many are not. ID is embraced by Jews, Christians, Muslims, agnostics and deists. Michael Denton, in fact, is a Deist. You call ID 'Bible Design' but ID does not use the Bible or any religious text. It uses the scientific method, it observes the natural world, experiments on it, and draws conclusions. The difference is that it doesn't rule out any possible expanation first as naturalism does. It returns science to its roots, a search for truth.
Twenty years, in the scheme of 2,000, is pretty much "immediately." None of the gospels were written 120 years after Christ's death, because the four gospel writers were all dead by then.
I don't mean fact as in "you have to believe they were true." I mean fact as in, there was a man named Jesus, who ran around the Holy Land around 30 AD preaching and performing what some called miracles. That IS an historical fact. You don't have to believe the miracles were real, or that he was who he said he was. That is where faith (or lack thereof) comes in.
But the pure history of it: There was a man named Jesus running around doing all this stuff -- that was real. There are historical documents outside the Bible even, to back that up.
You act as if the gospels were written by people getting the information second hand. They were eyewitness accounts. This is what these guys saw, or think they saw (unless they are making it up entirely, which is another debate).
Also, just because some of them were first "published" (or whatever you want to call it) two decades after the fact, doesn't necessarily mean they were STARTED after it happened. If it were me, and I were witnessing some of the shit these guys allege to have witnessed, I might start keeping a diary.
At any rate, I think I'd be able to get the major plot points down 20 years later.
for the least they could possibly do
I'm not saying it means they were accurate.
I'm saying it means they had no motive to lie.
If you want to believe they were insane, or just completely fooled by Jesus' parlor tricks, are on some sort of hallucinogenic drug, that's a perfectly valid belief.
I'm saying it means THEY had to have believed what they were writing, otherwise, why risk death for it? if they were lying, and they knew the whole thing was made up, then there was no "paradise" and they knew it. So, again, why risk death?
Judging by several of your posts to me on this thread, I think you are confused as to my motives. I'm not telling you that you HAVE to believe any of this. I'm not even necessarily saying I believe it. I'm just offering some historical perspective, which you can take or leave. That's all.
for the least they could possibly do
so the only evidence for Creationism is the bible, which is a book full of words, but the words in it shouldn't be taken literally. brilliant!!!
What does 2000 years have to do with it?
If you compare it to two billion years it's almost instantly. It's about how accurate the gospels could have been, are, being written 20 to 70 years after his death (indeed not 120 years).
I don't know whether it is a fact that Jesus is a real historical figure. I think the evidence is very thin. But I'll give Jesus the benefit of doubt.
Well, were they really eye witnesses? If Jesus existed, I'm pretty sure Luke and Matthew didn't witness his birth. Or his childhood years. Yet it is in there. There is no way they could have known that, so it might as well be bullshit, bullshit laced with references to the OT to make Jesus sound like the savior the Jews expected. So, unless you can tell me how they know the details about Jesus' birth... I consider the whole nativity story the imagination of a few men, perhaps even propaganda to make it easier for Jewish people to convert. So how can you trust the rest of their writings?
And let's not forget the Q source too, or the Gospel of Mark which are argued to have been used by Matthew and Luke. Tell me, why would a eye witness need to copy or use someone else's eye witness account.
If I witness something and I want to write about it, I would describe what I witnessed. I would not consult another source.
There are plenty phrases, little changes... within the gospels that suggest the authors changed parts in order to be in agreement with the prophecies of the OT. I have examples of this, I will look for them.
That's true. But there you said it, the major plot points. I wonder if the people who worshipped David Koresh left behind their opinion of him. I wonder how accurate their recordings would be. It's the same thing. Even for some people on the board here, Ed seems to be this god who cannot do anything wrong, his every idea is right and just etc.
naděje umírá poslední
I must have been confused by your statement:
"So, I'd actually say it's pretty accurate."
I'm okay with the theory that they believed what they wrote. They could, however, have exaggerated greatly in order to convince people their boy Jesus was indeed the savior. Again, the people who believed Koresh really believed him. What makes them any different?
I'm sorry but you said the gospels were a historical fact like the declaration of independence and the magna carta. That's absurd.
If you meant that it is a historical fact that these works were indeed written and don't comment on their content - bullshit or truth - I'm cool with that. But I have to say I don't see the point in that argument.
And again, you actually said it was 'pretty accurate'.
So, if that was not your intention then I guess we're just having a communication problem.
naděje umírá poslední
You are correct collin, when you say that Mathew and Luke were not eyewitnesses to the birth of Jesus, most of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses of some of the events, but the gospels are compilations of these accounts. Luke makes this crystal clear in the introduction to his Gospel:
'Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.'
You suggest that the authors deliberately manipulated the facts to make it seem as if Jesus fulfilled prophecies from the Jewish scriptures. I look forward to hearing your examples of this. I know that your faith in naturalism demands that genuine prophecy does not exist, but Jesus fullfilled about 300 prophecies, even the year of his death was foretold in prophecy centuries before he was born. Beware! many who have attempted to refute Jesus messiahship on these grounds have ended up believers, as I think slightofjeff has already mentioned.
You mentioned that Luke used Mark and Q as sources, yes he certainly used mark and the theoretical document Q is a valid theory. You say you would not consult other sources, as if doing so is something shameful. Consulting, and evaluating primary sources is the way all good historians record history and, as many modern historians have acknowledged, Luke was a historian of the highest rank.
You got me there. I over-spoke. What I mean is they had no motive to lie. If they are inaccurate, it is because of some other reason (as we mentioned before).
I'm still going to say they wouldn't have greatly exaggerated on purpose. The things they wrote and preached wound up with a lot of people getting killed, including themselves. They really had no motive to try and convince people Jesus was the savior except that they actually really believed it. Again, I'm not ruling out the fact that these people might have been believing a lie -- that's up to each reader to figure out on their own.
Nothing. I think the people who followed Koresh -- at least the ones that stayed until the burned up -- firmly believed the guy was telling the truth. If you believe the early Christians were all a bunch of crazies running around, well, you wouldn't be the first.
I don't want to go over this again. But -- I'm not saying the "teachings" in the gospels are historical fact. That would be absurd. I'm saying the story of Jesus -- that there was such a man running around preaching and performing magic tricks -- is a historical fact. He is mentioned in all kinds of historical texts outside of the Bible.
Yeah, I admit, I misspoke there.
for the least they could possibly do
So you think the Bible is a literal book, through and through? Every single sentence to be interpreted literally? There are no metaphors. No allegory. No parables?
Have you even read it?
One more time: You seem hung up on the fact that man was created "from dust." This is how it was translated from ancient Hebrew. I don't think there was an ancient Hebrew word for "cell" or "molecule." It's not a large stretch to think "created from dust" could mean "evolved from cells."
There is another school of thought out there that this "dust" business was actually God imbuing man with a soul. Thus, "creating" him. Before man got a soul, he was still considered animal.
I don't even know why you're arguing with me. I'm not saying all this stuff is true. I'm just saying this is a school of thought out there -- and a very popular school of thought in Christian circles. I'm just saying it's a fact it exists. Nobody is forcing you to believe any of it.
Frankly, I just think it bothers you to think there are Christians out there who don't fit your "slack-jawed, don't-believe-in-evolution" stereotype.
for the least they could possibly do
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
awww right, so if the words dont fit in with the evolution theory, change them into different words so it looks like it fits, i got yers. brilliant!! i wondered why it was called the 'holy' bible.
I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Probably because you don't want to. Because nobody is really this dense.
for the least they could possibly do
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU&feature=user
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Does this mean you have broadband now?
LOL!!! great videos!
heres a good one specially for slightofjeff
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3POEuxG2Rnk
Of course there isn't. God wants everyone to come to him by faith.
Why not prove to everyone that he exists with a sign that would erase the doubts of all atheists/agnostics? I don't honestly know. However, he's God, and if he wants to save you he'll reveal his spirit to you.