|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/4/2008 4:02:16 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Answers in Genesis has a fine search engine, Nothingman. I found THIS ARTICLE quite easily. I'm sure a bright fellow like you can deduce other reasonable explanations for sources of light before the sun was made.
""God can, of course, create light without a secondary source. We are told that in the new heavens and Earth there will be no need for sun or moon (Rev 21:23). In Genesis, God even defines a day and a night in terms of light or its absence.""
hmmm...so thats it. God just made light without the Sun. I see...Makes so much sense...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/4/2008 4:35:36 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1025
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nothingman
hmmm...so thats it. God just made light without the Sun. I see...Makes so much sense...
Well, stars make light without the sun.
Anyway, the thing that really impresses me about that page is that there is essentially no science at all. It is a science-free zone. The only evidence admitted for discussion are verses from the Bible. Now I realize plenty of people here think that scripture is a fine source of information, but that's not how science operates.
Now Sarfati is a chemist/spectroscopist, so must have some scientific training, but he's not making any use of it in that webpage. His scientific credentials are irrelevant to the argument he's making, which rests only on interpretation of a text.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/6/2008 6:24:33 PM
|
|
|
cybrjewls
Posts: 1479
Status: offline
|
Greetings! Jesus said: 'Unless you believe that 'I AM', you will die in your sins.'
Jesus walked on two legs while on earth. God can do anything that He wants to. Even have His Presence dwell between the Cherubim on The Ark of The Covenant of God. For it is written His Name shall be 'God with us': Immanuel.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nothingman
quote:
Creation (not evolution) in six days (not eons) is the only reasonable reading of Scripture - unless you're claiming God walks on legs!
umm, he's claiming God doesn't, since he doesn't take the passage literally. It would be you who would take it literally...as with Genesis...
< Message edited by .prophetica. -- 4/6/2008 6:37:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/6/2008 6:43:07 PM
|
|
|
cybrjewls
Posts: 1479
Status: offline
|
Greetings!
The probability that it exists is 100% to you and me. We can agree on that. The probability that it came to pass through merely randomness and chaotic events and 'out of nothing' is large to me. For the mathematics that it would take to throw a die over and over again until one came up with the combination of 'random' events that came to pass, as a whole, would be unthinkable to calculate. Therefore, to me, the science does not mathematically say 'everything in the universe is here by accidental' processes.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
< Message edited by .prophetica. -- 4/7/2008 11:36:48 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/7/2008 3:38:33 AM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
.prophetica, a hint: where you use semi-colons, just put commas instead...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/7/2008 10:46:53 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3904
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
They would be other scientists, and they may or may not be creationists, I haven't verified.
They are creationists.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/7/2008 12:51:23 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 631
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
They would be other scientists, and they may or may not be creationists, I haven't verified.
They are creationists.
And therefore not scientists and not knowledgeable in their fields. They publish nothing; they do not contribute. Right? They're just "creationists".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/7/2008 1:44:57 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3904
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
They would be other scientists, and they may or may not be creationists, I haven't verified.
They are creationists.
And therefore not scientists and not knowledgeable in their fields. They publish nothing; they do not contribute. Right? They're just "creationists".
That's correct. They have earned no credibility, therefore have no standing in the scientific community. It's just the cold, hard truth.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/7/2008 3:43:36 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 631
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
They would be other scientists, and they may or may not be creationists, I haven't verified.
They are creationists.
And therefore not scientists and not knowledgeable in their fields. They publish nothing; they do not contribute. Right? They're just "creationists".
That's correct. They have earned no credibility, therefore have no standing in the scientific community. It's just the cold, hard truth.
Just to make sure we're talking about the same people, who are you talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/7/2008 4:36:26 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3904
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
They would be other scientists, and they may or may not be creationists, I haven't verified.
They are creationists.
And therefore not scientists and not knowledgeable in their fields. They publish nothing; they do not contribute. Right? They're just "creationists".
That's correct. They have earned no credibility, therefore have no standing in the scientific community. It's just the cold, hard truth.
Just to make sure we're talking about the same people, who are you talking about?
The AIG people you linked to. None of them are publishing their creationist research in (real science) peer-reviewed journals.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/7/2008 4:48:07 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 631
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
They would be other scientists, and they may or may not be creationists, I haven't verified.
They are creationists.
And therefore not scientists and not knowledgeable in their fields. They publish nothing; they do not contribute. Right? They're just "creationists".
That's correct. They have earned no credibility, therefore have no standing in the scientific community. It's just the cold, hard truth.
Just to make sure we're talking about the same people, who are you talking about?
The AIG people you linked to. None of them are publishing their creationist research in (real science) peer-reviewed journals.
What would you consider "creationist" research? Research done by a creationist? Or research that attempts to prove that evolution didn't happen? What would you consider to be a "real science" peer-reviewed journal? Are you saying that they are stupid because they are too dumb to get their work into a journal, or that they are bad at their job because they aren't trying to publish their work? What do you want? An explanation of the survival of trees on floating log mats during Noah's flood published in the Journal of Botany? Would that be "creationist" research in a peer-reviewed journal?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/7/2008 4:53:33 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3272
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
cow desperately wants to wave his magic wand and eliminate thousands (nay, probably tens of thousands) of God-fearing, Bible-believing, Spirit-led scientists with rigorous academic credentials who fully understand the hypocritical fallacy of evolution taught as gospel truth to the brain-washed adherents of humanistic naturalism. Guess what - IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/8/2008 2:57:24 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
I'll pull out a favorite from drmark's book:
drmark desperately wants to wave his magic wand and eliminate thousands (nay, probably tens of thousands) of God-fearing, Bible-believing, Spirit-led scientists with rigorous academic credentials who fully understand the hypocritical fallacy of creationism taught as gospel truth to the brain-washed adherents of fundamentalism. Guess what - IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/8/2008 2:58:40 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 631
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
Dr David Dewitt is a scientist, professor, and creationist who teaches and conducts research at Liberty University. He does research on Alzheimer's and has published his work in science journals.
Chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans are associated with the lesions of Alzheimer's disease. DeWitt, D. A., Silver, J., Canning, D. R. & Perry, G. (1993). Experimental Neurology 121, 149-52.
Glial Cell Extracellular Matrix in Alzheimer's Disease, NON-NEURONAL CELLS IN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, edited by P Zatta & M Nicolini (University of Padova, Italy)
Now unless you're a liar, stop saying that creationists don't publish their work in science journals.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/8/2008 3:15:55 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3272
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
who fully understand the hypocritical fallacy of creationism taught as gospel truth Please reference a Bible verse that supports evolution, thus showing creationism to be a hypocritical fallacy.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/8/2008 3:23:22 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3904
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Dr David Dewitt is a scientist, professor, and creationist who teaches and conducts research at Liberty University. He does research on Alzheimer's and has published his work in science journals.
Chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans are associated with the lesions of Alzheimer's disease. DeWitt, D. A., Silver, J., Canning, D. R. & Perry, G. (1993). Experimental Neurology 121, 149-52.
Glial Cell Extracellular Matrix in Alzheimer's Disease, NON-NEURONAL CELLS IN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, edited by P Zatta & M Nicolini (University of Padova, Italy)
Now unless you're a liar, stop saying that creationists don't publish their work in science journals.
And how do either of these articles support YEC?
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/8/2008 6:37:12 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 631
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Dr David Dewitt is a scientist, professor, and creationist who teaches and conducts research at Liberty University. He does research on Alzheimer's and has published his work in science journals.
Chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans are associated with the lesions of Alzheimer's disease. DeWitt, D. A., Silver, J., Canning, D. R. & Perry, G. (1993). Experimental Neurology 121, 149-52.
Glial Cell Extracellular Matrix in Alzheimer's Disease, NON-NEURONAL CELLS IN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, edited by P Zatta & M Nicolini (University of Padova, Italy)
Now unless you're a liar, stop saying that creationists don't publish their work in science journals.
And how do either of these articles support YEC?
The claim is that Creationist scientists don't publish in peer-reviewed science journals. They do, and here is an example. There are journals for Botany, journals for physics, journals for Alzheimer's, journals for Creation, etc. The journals for Creation are also called "unreliable, unscientific, pseudoscience" journals. If you want an article published that explicitly claims to support the creation theory, you will have to publish it in one of these.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/8/2008 7:04:32 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3904
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Dr David Dewitt is a scientist, professor, and creationist who teaches and conducts research at Liberty University. He does research on Alzheimer's and has published his work in science journals.
Chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans are associated with the lesions of Alzheimer's disease. DeWitt, D. A., Silver, J., Canning, D. R. & Perry, G. (1993). Experimental Neurology 121, 149-52.
Glial Cell Extracellular Matrix in Alzheimer's Disease, NON-NEURONAL CELLS IN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, edited by P Zatta & M Nicolini (University of Padova, Italy)
Now unless you're a liar, stop saying that creationists don't publish their work in science journals.
And how do either of these articles support YEC?
The claim is that Creationist scientists don't publish in peer-reviewed science journals. They do, and here is an example. There are journals for Botany, journals for physics, journals for Alzheimer's, journals for Creation, etc. The journals for Creation are also called "unreliable, unscientific, pseudoscience" journals. If you want an article published that explicitly claims to support the creation theory, you will have to publish it in one of these.
Glad you understand. So no more claiming that Creationist scientists publish in scholarly peer-reviewed science journals.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/8/2008 7:48:57 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
who fully understand the hypocritical fallacy of creationism taught as gospel truth Please reference a Bible verse that supports evolution, thus showing creationism to be a hypocritical fallacy.
That would be silly. The Bible isn't a science. Its religious book that speaks to our spirit. Why do you try to elevate as such? Jesus never held such views. Your using it as a scientific document limits your understanding of the world.
How about this: You find me evidence in the Bible that demonstrates gravity, germ theory, quantem mechanics etc and THEN and only then will I accect those as viable science. Until then, its simply a matter of who I put faith in, God, or my senses, experiance, and reasoning...right drmark? As if they are mutually exclusive...
Come on..
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/8/2008 11:27:52 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3272
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Glad you understand. So no more claiming that Creationist scientists publish in scholarly peer-reviewed science journals. cow, are you for real?! DanJ just cited an article by a creationist scientist published in a peer-reviewed journal and you babble on about scientific credentials. It's back to the pasture for you!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/8/2008 11:29:35 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3272
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Jesus never held such views. Please exegete Matt 19:4 and Mark 10:6 or retract your statement!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/9/2008 12:11:50 AM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
I'm weary of pulling out single verses out of the Bible in order to prove a doctrine. I think a thousand different doctrines can be conjured by simply plucking out those specefic verses that support your view. Anyways...
The verse you mentioned, Matt 19:4, is, "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'"
If you read the rest of what Jesus is saying, you're read:
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Again in Mark, when reading in context, it states the same message as above:
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
He's speaking about proper human marriage. I see no reason to think that Jesus' use of Genesis to give an answer to a question regarding marriage supports a literalist interpretation of Genesis in any way, and really just begs the question. Look, I will explain simply what my exegesis is. We are humans. We are on earth. We are biological. We need food. We need sleep. We get tired. That's just our nature; we follow those dictates regardless of what we think about them. However, we are also spiritual and dumbfounded by the persistant and basic question in life - which Science cannot answer - "why are here and what are we supposed to do?" In other words, what is the meaning of life? This why religions exist. This, I believe, is what the Bible answers, although limitedly. When reading the Bible one discovers a progression of revelation of God to man, and a process and development of man's understanding of God. In short, the Bible is a description of our TELOS, our purpose and our meaning in life. Pure and simple, and purely simply. The Bible is chock full of literary fables, analogies, metaphors, parables, myths etc, in order that we may have a reference of God's revelation throughout history, and more importantly, that we may continue from that reference and recieve our own personal revelation of God individually. As such I find it limiting the Bible when taking it as a quote/end-quote of God's Words. Furthermore I think taking a literalist approach provides a one-dimensional understanding of the message. The whole purpose of Genesis is providing a fundamental, but extremely important, understanding of human | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
Although I doubt you'd last long there because you might as a question about something. 
