Jump to content


Photo

If a Creationist Understands What Evolution Says...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
36 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 August 2009 - 10:15 PM

Javabean,
Different parts of the Bible are written for different reasons and people. Others that know more than me might correct me; John was written for the non-Jews who didn't believe, so it makes for an ideal spot to start reading the Bible. Where Luke, I think, was written for the Jewish community. Although there is no strict path to reading the Bible, books like John and Romans are good to start out with.

#22 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 August 2009 - 10:47 PM

I guess you're just trying to goad me Arch. I thought we were having a serious discussion?

View Post


Sorry, I know that was a little in your face. My only reason is that it's such a bad misconception I felt the need to dig the heel in and put a bit of emphasis on my point. You've gone on to talk about it, so I guess it worked :)

All but 4 of the major religions of the world are based on philosophical propositions.

View Post


Not sure I agree with that.

Greek/Roman: Worshiped a multitude of Gods. The Gods would often reign down destruction or good fortune at a whim. Clearly not philosophical.

Aztecs: Pretty similar to the Greek or Roman Gods. Plenty of them. Not sure if they were so whimsical, but definitely personality based, not philosophical.

Scientology: Thetans are apparently their God figures. They are meant to be the cosmos personified.

Wiccan: Did some study on Wiccan back in high school. Can't remember a huge amount, but there is a God and Goddess.

With very little effort I can pull four other religions that are personality based, not philosophical. And this is just scraping the surface. I'm sure with a couple of hours you'll find heaps.

Of the 4 that are based on personalities, only Christianity claims an empty tomb for its founder. Why was the tomb empty? God came to man to die for man's sins. In no other religion did this happen. Think about that for a second or 2. In no other religion does God die for the sinner.

View Post


Sorry don't have the time to give this part proper justice. I need to look into it to be sure it's true, but from what I know I think you're right. What is the significance, other than singling Christianity out because it has one difference between other religions?

Arch, you and many others think that all religions are pretty much the same. Nothing could be further from the truth. That empty tomb makes all the difference. In other religions, men strive to be good and do good so that they can please God. In Christianity, nothing we can do will let us reach God. We can never be good enough for God. He is pure, we are not, no matter how hard we try.We get our salvation by his grace. All we have to do is ask him to come into our heart and repent of our sins.

View Post


All we have to do... is ask. Sounds to me like you do something to reach God.

The purpose of prayer is to commune with God. ACTS Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication. I'm not saying people pray for the right things. If you're at a gambling casino and ask God to let you hit the big one, I'm not sure he is going to pay attention to you.

View Post


Hehe, I like the acronym. And no, I don't think God helps out with your get rich quick schemes. That's what psychics are for! :) (Kidding, just by the way).

On a more serious note, what is the point of communing with God? You've started with the assumption He's already inside you, so it can't be for belief.

Evolutionists make many assumptions. You were assuming mutation and natural selection work together and so must result in evolution. Here's that definition thing again. Adaptation is not evolution in the nutshell definition I gave you.

View Post


Yes, that's the assumption and where I wanted to start. Assuming this is true do you have a problem with the theory? (We'll get onto whether or not these assumptions are correct next, but I want to know what it is you disagree with; the theory or the application of it).

And of course, going from simple to complex is what evolution is all about. No eyes, then eyes. No heart, then a heart. No muscles, then muscles. No endocrine glands, then endocrine glands. No nerves, then nerves. No legs, then legs. No brain, then a brain. Simple to complex.

View Post


The only people I've met who are willing to make that distinction a definite are creationists. There is evidence of what is known as regressive evolution. Here's an article with a rough out of the idea. Increased complexity is not a given.

Regressive evolution

It's not whether or not a mutation is beneficial, it's whether or not it makes new information. In order for evolution to occur, there has to be new information. That does not happen by mutations. Natural selection selects the most fit individual, which does not strictly depend on the genes present.

View Post


Just so I know we agree on this, do you think beneficial mutations can happen (however rare they may be)?

Yes, I agree, new information is required for evolution to be true, however I believe this is possible. From the little I know, I didn't think Sanford disagreed with this?
Personally I think point two is the better one.
Talk Origins: Mutations adding information

The genes make up the individual. Natural selection selects the individual. In a round about way, natural selection selects the genes. No, it's certainly not a strict fact, and unlike a lot of evolutionists you wont see me saying 'chance' has nothing to do with it. It does. But the organism in question has a better/worse chance of survival due it's its genes and over a long period of time you should see the effects of this.

I have read Sanford's book several times. .
...........
What article did you read at the AIG that was full of misconceptions? I have  read every article on the site at least once - haven't seen any misconceptions.  Sometimes, though, misconceptions are in the eyes of the misconciever. (My own word.)

View Post


Fantastic. So far he's the only one I've seen put up a reasonably argument that doesn't already have a good answer. I'll take another look at the discussion I had with my friend and get back to you on Sanford. Might even start a new thread for it.

................

Should be a word too...write into Oxford :D

Honestly it's been a while and I can't remember which article it was. I think it may have been on dinosaur bones, but I can't be sure. If I find anything at AiG that puts me off as badly as that article did I'll let you know and we can discuss it.

To get yourself straightened out on Christianity get a modern translation of the bible and read the gospel of John first. Then Acts, Romans, Genesis.

View Post


Actually I studied John back in high-school. One of the best classes I had. It's amazing how many parallels can be dawn between John and Genesis. I have plans to sit down and read Acts...it sounds like one of the best books to read. I also need to read it to help with my discussions with de_skudd on the historical Jesus.

The Historical Jesus

Regards,

Arch.

#23 Jeff Wilhelm

Jeff Wilhelm

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Butler, PA

Posted 13 August 2009 - 06:05 PM

Hi Javabean - I'm Jeff.

You know something.  This was what started me towards Atheism.  I approached my pastor and told him that I had never read the bible (I was 8 at the time) and he gave me this same advice.  I couldn't understand it at the time, and I still question it.  Why not read the whole bible from beginning to end?  Why the specifically start with John?

lol although maybe if I did follow his advice I would still believe today!

View Post

The bible is not a novel that reads from cover to cover.
It is a collection of 66 books written over a 1500 year time span by 40 different authors.

I like to recommend starting with John since it covers the things Jesus claims about himself. It contains simple, plain messages and deep complex ones.

Unless you were an unusual 8 year old, you may have been too young to understand, IMHO.

When I was an atheist (the first 57 years of my life) I too had tried to read the bible several times from front to back - it didn't make sense, although I always liked Psalms and Proverbs. The books of the bible seemed disconnected. As with many things, some dedicated study makes it all become clear.

Your age is an interesting age - the age at which Christ was crucified. Maybe now would be a good time to read about his life.

You can do so online. This link is to the New Living Translation - very easy to understand. It will take 30 - 40 minutes to read.

Bible Gateway The Gospel of John - New Living Translation

Jeff

#24 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 August 2009 - 03:14 AM

I had problems for most of life as well.When i finally decided to become a christian i still could'nt get it until i realized what Paul wrote "The Lord Jesus Christ is made unto us righteousness and sanctification".

The holy spirit had to reveal to me what sanctification was.Being a christian is'nt about going to church and trying not to look at the girls,it's about being transformed inwardly "the circumcision of the heart" by unlimited power of the holy spirit.

Just like Jesus told Peter "Until I wash your feet,you can have no part with me".Peter had no idea what he was taking about,but was only hopeful that it was a blessing of self,as if Christ came to be a Santa Clause.In doing so,we become hardened by self and are unable to access power or even understand.

Without the revelation and power from the holy spirit,the bible is just a story book.

#25 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 14 August 2009 - 10:50 AM

Hi Javabean - I'm Jeff.
The bible is not a novel that reads from cover to cover.
It is a collection of 66 books written over a 1500 year time span by 40 different authors.

I like to recommend starting with John since it covers the things Jesus claims about himself. It contains simple, plain messages and deep complex ones.

Unless you were an unusual 8 year old, you may have been too young to understand, IMHO.

When I was an atheist (the first 57 years of my life) I too had tried to read the bible several times from front to back - it didn't make sense, although I always liked Psalms and Proverbs. The books of the bible seemed disconnected. As with many things, some dedicated study makes it all become clear.

Your age is an interesting age - the age at which Christ was crucified. Maybe now would be a good time to read about his life.

You can do so online. This link is to the New Living Translation - very easy to understand. It will take 30 - 40 minutes to read.

Bible Gateway The Gospel of John - New Living Translation

Jeff

View Post


lol to be honest I've been a very unusual person all my life. If it is your opinion that I was too young to understand the bible then that is fine. I won't say one way or the other. But seeing as I have more than a few misconceptions of the bible, its probably accurate.

Thank you for suggesting that I re-read John again. Unfortunately it has not swayed me one way or the other. I just don't see the Bible as historical truth. There are many stories in the bible that can be used to teach good morals, but unfortunately there are also stories of incredible violence and destruction.

#26 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 August 2009 - 11:11 AM

Unfortunately it has not swayed me one way or the other.  I just don't see the Bible as historical truth.

View Post

That presupposition is an important key. You have no good reason to believe that the Bible is not a historical truth except for some theories that are built on far weaker evidence then the supported evidence that confirms the Bible. I believe one of the shifts in thinking that made the Bible become so clear, (This shift occurred after being a Christian for over 10 year, mind you) is that this Book is historical truth. The moment I let the ramifications of that sink in, stuff jumped off the pages at me, like never before.

#27 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 14 August 2009 - 11:29 AM

I just don't see the Bible as historical truth.  There are many stories in the bible that can be used to teach good morals, but unfortunately there are also stories of incredible violence and destruction.

View Post


If you did the homework, you'ed likely have a different opinion.

#28 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 14 August 2009 - 02:16 PM

If you did the homework, you'ed likely have a different opinion.

View Post



You mean read John? Yeah I did. This is the second time I was accused of not doing something I actually did. I'm curious why you thought I didn't. Maybe if the time stamps between my post and Jeff's posts were say up to an hours difference could you have a legitimate argument. But there is a over a days difference.

Or did you think I implied I didn't re-read John when I said I was not swayed one way or another?

Please try not to jump to conclusions based on my faith or beliefs and I promise to do the same for you.

Thanks! :lol:

#29 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 14 August 2009 - 02:25 PM

That presupposition is an important key. You have no good reason to believe that the Bible is not a historical truth except for some theories that are built on far weaker evidence then the supported evidence that confirms the Bible. I believe one of the shifts in thinking that made the Bible become so clear, (This shift occurred after being a Christian for over 10 year, mind you) is that this Book is historical truth. The moment I let the ramifications of that sink in, stuff jumped off the pages at me, like never before.

View Post



Adam,

You always have posts that make me think and I thank you for that.

Here's my dilemma with the bible. While I would like to believe that it is completely historical, I feel that there is too much in it that I just don't buy. I just don't believe in anything that is supernatural.

How can I say this. I respect peoples beliefs, even if I don't believe it myself. I respect people's faith, even If I have no faith in what they have faith in. So please do not get offended that I don't believe in the Bible.

Thanks!

#30 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 August 2009 - 03:20 PM

Adam,

You always have posts that make me think and I thank you for that. 

Here's my dilemma with the bible.  While I would like to believe that it is completely historical, I feel that there is too much in it that I just don't buy.  I just don't believe in anything that is supernatural. 

How can I say this.  I respect peoples beliefs, even if I don't believe it myself.  I respect people's faith, even If I have no faith in what they have faith in.  So please do not get offended that I don't believe in the Bible.

Thanks!

View Post

I think sometimes people too easily mistake a Christian's mission with a Christians offense. Javabean, I share what I share with people because I love them and I want to see them delivered and saved. I'm almost 33 years old and I've got work to do.

Sharing the gospel is the best job around. Seeing someone saved is better than hitting the lottery. In fact, I just had the grace to be a part of someones salvation on Sunday. I spent time with him last night and the transformation in his perspective was awesome. Talking to him a couple of months ago would have been just like talking to anyone who believes they have rationalized away a belief in God. Jesus is awesome.

#31 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 14 August 2009 - 07:26 PM

I think sometimes people too easily mistake a Christian's mission with a Christians offense. Javabean, I share what I share with people because I love them and I want to see them delivered and saved. I'm almost 33 years old and I've got work to do.

Sharing the gospel is the best job around. Seeing someone saved is better than hitting the lottery. In fact, I just had the grace to be a part of someones salvation on Sunday. I spent time with him last night and the transformation in his perspective was awesome. Talking to him a couple of months ago would have been just like talking to anyone who believes they have rationalized away a belief in God. Jesus is awesome.

View Post



Thank you Adam.

#32 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 August 2009 - 09:58 AM

Thank you Adam.

View Post

You're welcome.

#33 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 15 August 2009 - 11:45 AM

Thanks for the link Jeff, I'll give it a read shortly.

I think you've nailed a very important point with this line:

"Many people just dismiss one or the other without knowing what is wrong with it. Many Christians are clueless about evolution and verse visa."

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Newbie AFJ--Hi.

First can we put Christians and creationists in context. Some Christians aren't interested in science, but when it comes to evolution, they have many rhetorical questions that come from philosophical understanding. Evolutionists always have a counter for this, because some scientists have already asked the question and created a hypothesis or scenario to answer it.

Creationists on the other hand, USUALLY have some scientific knowledge, and sometimes alot. For instance, a creationist PhD got his credentials in same fashion that an evolutionary PhD did. He also has to use a double paradigm--the one of his field--evolution--and his personal one--a creation model.

They really have to mind their P's and Q's, because they're attempting to discredit one paradigm while giving evidence for the other. All the while they are being watched to see if they have a lack of knowledge or understanding in either paradigm, or in their logic.

They are also outnumbered so they tend to have a broader understanding, and SOMETIMES not as specialized. They are often accused of lack of knowledge--which is not always true.

The creationist to has to have an understanding as to why they have evidence for a young earth and why the uniformintarian geologist has only a circumstantial case at best. As well as why they have evidence for design and against evolution. These are four factors they have to watch and research. They are fish out of water so they have to know at least geology, chemistry and biology. They might not have as detailed knowledge of the field as say someone who specializes in that field and then tends to lean another "expert" for evidence in another field. But a good creationist will have broad fundamental knowledge.

Then again if they are professional, they have a field, and know it well. They will still have to read up on the other fields that are pertinent to their personal point of view to be able to discern fallacies, omissions because of so-called relevance, and oversights of evolutionists.

#34 Guest_NoeL_*

Guest_NoeL_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 August 2009 - 08:57 PM

Thanks AFJ for (kinda) steering this discussion back on course. After what looked interesting on the first page, it has been totally derailed on to the topic of the Bible - not really relevant to a creation/evolution topic.

I think you guys should pick up where you left off - I believe the creationists were asked where they disagree with the real world application of the model.

#35 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 21 August 2009 - 05:02 AM

You mean read John? 

View Post


No, I was talking bout your misunderstanding about the historicity of the Bible (more to the point, the New Testament).

And there was no jumping to conclusions on this point, it was a direct response to your statement:

I just don't see the Bible as historical truth.

View Post


You are basing this on speculation and not on historically proven facts.

#36 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 21 August 2009 - 06:31 AM

No, I was talking bout your misunderstanding about the historicity of the Bible (more to the point, the New Testament).

And there was no jumping to conclusions on this point, it was a direct response to your statement:



You are basing this on speculation and not on historically proven facts.

View Post



gotcha! makes perfect sense now :D I thought you were saying that I didn't re-read John

sorry! :o

#37 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 21 August 2009 - 08:38 AM

gotcha!  makes perfect sense now :D  I thought you were saying that I didn't re-read John

sorry! :D

View Post


It's all good Java bean




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users