Q: Creationism/Evolution/"Young Earth"

[techboy]

Why does God hide from us now? It used to be he'd destroy cities, tell people to kill their children etc.. You can't get a single peep from him these days.

He's upset with us because nobody sticks to the topics of threads anymore, so He withholds His favor.

[brandymac27]

Why does God hide from us now? It used to be he'd destroy cities, tell people to kill their children etc.. You can't get a single peep from him these days.

IMO, it really is a matter of how much faith you have. If you have a lot of faith, you can feel Gods presence around you all the time. If you lack faith, then you wonder where the heck God is.

I understand where you're coming from. I've wrestled with that same thing for a while now.

[Larry]

Why does God hide from us now? It used to be he'd destroy cities, tell people to kill their children etc.. You can't get a single peep from him these days.

He stopped answering his phone. Telemarketers.

Leave a message.

[Spear]

The scientific term "theory" is not a pejorative. The only reason evolution isn't a law is because there's always the possibility that new discoveries will necessitate tweaks in our understanding.

Notice, I said "tweak". The general idea of evolution is here to stay; it's the details that may or may not be entirely correct. Creationists have exploited this scientific practice of bet-hedging to their semantic advantage, taking "theory" to mean something the scientists pulled out of their ass.

It's just stupid. To completely dismiss evolution is to deny that your children inherit your traits or that DNA exists. That mechanism of vertical gene transfer is ALL evolution needs to work at its most basic level. It's our incomplete understanding of the impact of stuff like horizontal gene transfer that keep the Theory or Evolution from becoming the Law of Evolution.

[twist]

IMO, it really is a matter of how much faith you have. If you have a lot of faith, you can feel Gods presence around you all the time. If you lack faith, then you wonder where the heck God is.

I understand where you're coming from. I've wrestled with that same thing for a while now.

Faith's definition being belief in the absence of evidence.

Things that have to do with God rely on faith, and science is a means of understanding the world by careful examination of the evidence, they are antithetical viewpoints on reacting to the world.

Chart:

This is why creationism and ID are not scientific in any way, and should never be treated as such until it produces solid verifiable evidence, and makes solid falsifiable predictions about the future.

ID is a rehashing of an interesting philosophical viewpoint in the middle ages, it doesn’t deserve credulity as a scientific theory.

However, for the main thrust of the rest of this thread, people are likely to believe what they want to regardless of the evidence or lack there of, and some of them can sound really smart while doing it.

It doesn’t mean they aren't full of it.

[Vicious]

He's upset with us because nobody sticks to the topics of threads anymore, so He withholds His favor.

Well, Techboy, do you really believe in Creationism and the earth being 6000 years old? I don't think you do. I think me and you can hold hands and dance in a meadow on this one.

[Vicious]

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=281829&highlight=pictures&page=2 here's some pictures

[Thiebear]

Why does God hide from us now? It used to be he'd destroy cities, tell people to kill their children etc.. You can't get a single peep from him these days.

From everything i've seen and read on the news lately.

Still doing both

[Dan T.]

Dr. Ehrman is a top-notch textual critic, who was the protege of the person widely considered to be the preminent textual critic of the 20th century, Dr. Bruce Metzger.

It's important, though, not to let the sensationalism of the popular media (or Dr. Ehrman himself), overstate the case.

...

Thanks for that response Techboy. Ehrman dances around - or doesn't address - the issue of how the Word of God gets onto paper in the first place. But the fact that iterations of the text have introduced changes over the ages raises questions among the skeptical or the doubting. Who was the first scribe? How good was he? Was God's voice clear? In stereo? The right language?

It seems an imperfect way for an all-powerful God to impart His word onto his flock...

[techboy]

Things that have to do with God rely on faith, and science is a means of understanding the world by careful examination of the evidence, they are antithetical viewpoints on reacting to the world.

The only place faith and science are in opposition to one another is in the minds of fundamentalists, be they religious or atheist.

It's interesting, really. Christian and atheist fundamentalists have more in common than I believe either suspects.

A great example would be the use of the Bible. One of the hallmarks of fundamentalism is a hyper-literal reading of the Bible, with frequent "proof-texting" (taking one verse out of context to support a preconceived idea, rather than reading all of Scripture in context and allowing that to inform the reading). Often, it makes use of archaic, difficult to understand translations of the Bible, such as the King James, because proof-texting and language twisting is easier, and inconvenient modern advances in textual criticism are ignored.

Some atheists (the authors of the SAB being a prime example) do precisely the same thing in their war on Christianity. They use the King James, quote verses out of context to create negative (and wrong) imressions, and insist on hyper-literal readings of everything. They're soul brothers of the people they hate, and they don't even realize it.

This is why creationism and ID are not scientific in any way, and should never be treated as such until it produces solid verifiable evidence, and makes solid falsifiable predictions about the future.

I agree. ID is not science, it's philosophy.

Before we run off with that, though, it's important to remember that without philosophy, science is worthless.

And, despite the attempts of some to claim that religious faith and science are at loggerheads, it was in fact the advent of monotheism and its resultant view of the Universe as an orderly, predictable place that allowed science to develop and flourish. After all, if you don't believe that the world is predictable, why try to predict it? I read an excellent article on this by a Catholic scientist and historian, but I can't find it right now.

Dr. Robin Collins, though, touches on this point (and the value he sees for ID in terms of science) in his Intelligent Design not Science But Metascience:

Treating the world as if it were designed has already been productive in physics. Since the scientific revolution, physics has implicitly assumed that underlying physical reality has a beautiful and elegant mathematical design. As Morris Kline, the famous historian of mathematics, has observed: "From the time of the Pythagoreans, practically all asserted that nature was designed mathematically." Historically, starting with Galileo and Kepler, this has been what has grounded the search for an underlying elegant mathematical order in nature, though today such an order is largely taken for granted apart from any theistic basis. Indeed, as Banish Hoffman, one of Albert Einstein's main biographers, notes, "When judging a scientific theory, his own or another's, he asked himself whether he would have made the universe in this way had he been God." This shows that in doing science, Einstein treated the world as if it were created by God, even though he did not believe in God.

I recommend the entire short piece, by the way... it's an excellent discussion of what ID actually is and isn't, and what role it can play in scientific investigation.

[edgun88]

The fact that Christians deny many scientifically proven facts yet believe is something that has no proof is a mystery to me.

[Spear]

My view is that physics govern the equations, not the other way around. There's a physical reason that c is the fastest speed in the universe -- a photon traversing one planck length can do so no sooner than one planck time, as they are the smallest increments possible. Nothing is arbitrarily assigned by a deity. Everything interfaces, influences, and manipulates everything else on some level, and the natural balance of low-level, poorly-understood forces tugging on one another generates the stable system from which every equation has or will be derived. No supreme being spinning a wheel and landing on "E=MC^2" required.

[grego]

The fact that Christians deny many scientifically proven facts yet believe is something that has no proof is a mystery to me.

what scientifically proven facts are christians denying?

i go to church every week with a nobel prize winning physicist who would take issue with this generalization/statement.

DanT- my understanding of 'changes' to the bible is that they are very limited. the dead sea scrolls seemed to show that very little had changed over thousands of years of transcribing. this was one of my first questions regarding veracity of the bible. someone can correct me if i am wrong.

there are more copies of biblical manuscripts than any other 10 ancient manuscripts combined. is this correct? if so, it is 'testable'. how does it hold up?

[edgun88]

what scientifically proven facts are christians denying?

i go to church every week with a nobel prize winning physicist who would take issue with this generalization/statement.

DanT- my understanding of 'changes' to the bible is that they are very limited. the dead sea scrolls seemed to show that very little had changed over thousands of years of transcribing. this was one of my first questions regarding veracity of the bible. someone can correct me if i am wrong.

there are more copies of biblical manuscripts than any other 10 ancient manuscripts combined. is this correct? if so, it is 'testable'. how does it hold up?

How do Christians deny the the proven existance of dinosaurs and believe the existance of a god that has no proof whatsoever. No visual proof. No scientific proof. Nothing besides what a book says. I'm not trying to fight/argue. If anything, I'm looking for answers.

So what about that?

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

I really dont care, but for some reason I think it happened like this:

God created Adam already grown - correct? So why couldnt he have created an Earth that had some years on it too?

I guess my theory is irrefutable....score one for the God side!

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

How do Christians deny the the proven existance of dinosaurs and believe the existance of a god that has no proof whatsoever. No visual proof. No scientific proof. Nothing besides what a book says. I'm not trying to fight/argue. If anything, I'm looking for answers.

So what about that?

I always thought that the Bible referred to "dinosaurs" as a behemoth?

The text from the Book of Job 40 (Judaica Press Bible) is as follows:

15 Behold now the behemoth that I have made with you; he eats grass like cattle.

16 Behold now his strength is in his loins and his power is in the navel of his belly.

17 His tail hardens like a cedar; the sinews of his tendons are knit together.

18 His limbs are as strong as copper, his bones as a load of iron.

19 His is the first of God's ways; [only] his Maker can draw His sword [against him].

20 For the mountains bear food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there.

21 Does he lie under the shadows, in the covert of the reeds and the swamp?

22 Do the shadows cover him as his shadow? Do the willows of the brook surround him?

23 Behold, he plunders the river, and [he] does not harden; he trusts that he will draw the Jordan into his mouth.

24 With His eyes He will take him; with snares He will puncture his nostrils.

The passage describes Behemoth in this way: it was created along with man (40:15a), it is herbivorous (40:15b), it has strong muscles and bones, and it lives in the swamp (40:21).

[skinsfan51]

Good comments/questions, Larry. To answer you in short from a young earth Creationist/fundamental position for over 22 years, science and Christianity in now way conflict. The issue is now about science vs. religon. It's about a worldview that contradicts what we feel is the truth as found in the Bible. Furthermore, we don't feel that the evidence goes against the Biblical narrative. And we reject the idea that evolution is a fact, as many consider it. It has so many problems and issues that aren't discussed that it's silly to consider it a fact.

Without a Christian worldview there would be no science at all. God created science and the scientist. So it makes no logical sense to conclude that science and Christianity are at odds.

[techboy]

Thanks for that response Techboy. Ehrman dances around - or doesn't address - the issue of how the Word of God gets onto paper in the first place.

Before the Gospels were set down in writing, the information contained therein was largely passed by oral transmission (the letters, of course, were originally written). For instance, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8(ESV):

3For(F) I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died(G) for our sins(H) in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised(I) on the third day(J) in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that(K) he appeared to Cephas, then(L) to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to(M) James, then(N) to all the apostles. 8Last of all, as to one untimely born,(O) he appeared also to me.

Because of the language Paul uses in this text (which is formulaic for passing on something learned elsewhere), scholars have determined that this text is a formula from the earliest days of the Christian church, certainly within 5 years of the crucifixion of Jesus, and potentially within months (as has recently been argued).

The earliest Christians probably formulated many such creeds and sayings. The theoretical "Q" source that appears to be used (along with Mark) as a source for Matthew and Luke is apparently one such set of such sayings of Jesus.

Now, to the 21st century Western mind, this seems incomprehnsibly stupid and faulty, but in 1st century Palestine, oral transmission was extremely reliable, and in fact, culture of the day (Jewish and Greek) placed much greater worth on oral testimony than it did upon written, because the speaker could be questioned.

All of the texts of the New Testament were written while followers of Jesus were still alive to cross-check, and so quality could be controled. Luke, for instance, begins his Gospel in the style of Greek histories of the day, assuring his reader that he carefully investigated and collected the accounts he is about to relate.

If this is an issue that interests you (and if you read Ehrman, I suspect it might), I highly recommend Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, by Dr. Richard Bauckham.

In it, he talks about oral transmission and oral history, both ancient and modern (such as those who collect the stories of Holocaust survivors), how the New Testament writers made use of eyewitness testimony, and the like.

It seems an imperfect way for an all-powerful God to impart His word onto his flock...

It does, to our minds, but who knows what God's reasoning is. How could we know?

Like the hiddenness of God that Vicious references, it certainly seems to us like He could go about things better, but who's to say, really. Maybe He has His reasons.

It certainly can't be shown that the existence of God is logically incompatible with His hiddenness or His choice of transmission.

Given that I have other solid reasons for believing in the Christian God, I figure He must have His reasons and accept that it's reasonable that finite beings aren't going to understand the every motivation of God.

The fact that Christians deny many scientifically proven facts yet believe is something that has no proof is a mystery to me.

What's a mystery to me is that anyone thinks that Christianity as a whole either rejects science or believes without proof.

there are more copies of biblical manuscripts than any other 10 ancient manuscripts combined. is this correct? if so, it is 'testable'. how does it hold up?

If you follow the link I provided in my first response to Dan T., I go over the evidence for the textual transmission of the Biblical texts. As I said, the New Testament is about 98.5% firmly established, with no significant doctrine effected and most of the other 1.5% things like spelling disagreements. The Old Testament's a bit trickier, but one of my links talks about comparing Isaiah of the Masoretic texts to the Dead Sea finds, and the transmission's excellent there as well.

[edgun88]

Not all dinosaurs are herbivorous, you know that. That could be alot of things. The Bible is all about finding a way to interpret things to make them work with what people want to think/hear. Thats why I can't believe it. If it said it plain and simple like "There were dinosaurs." I would accept it.

One more thing. Why do Christians deny the theory of Evolution which is a few discoveries away from being scientifically proven, and believe a story of Creation that has no scientific evidence WHAT-SO-EVER?????? That boggles my mind daily.

I wish the Christians would think realistically for once. Which seems more logical? The human race suddenly *POOF* came into existance, OR that we evolved over a long period of time? Please don't tell me that you don't think the latter is more believable. Please.

One thing I could believe, though, is Divine Intervention within Evolution.

[Springfield]

I always thought that the Bible referred to "dinosaurs" as a behemoth?

I never knew that dinosaurs lived along side of man. This is news to me, but it must be true, it's in the book of Job.

The passage describes Behemoth in this way: it was created along with man (40:15a), it is herbivorous (40:15b), it has strong muscles and bones, and it lives in the swamp (40:21).

Everything else aside... This description could fit many species of animal. But I guess since dinosaur fits the description we should probably take it to mean that God created dinosaurs.

[techboy]

How do Christians deny the the proven existance of dinosaurs and believe the existance of a god that has no proof whatsoever.

Christians don't deny the existence of dinosaurs. Christians don't do much of anything as a whole (except believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior), it's hardly a monolithic group.

And, as I said, there's plenty of reason to believe in the existence of God.

[edgun88]

What's a mystery to me is that anyone thinks that Christianity as a whole either rejects science or believes without proof.

Well, give me some proof then. What do you got??

[twist]

The only place faith and science are in opposition to one another is in the minds of fundamentalists, be they religious or atheist.

I didn't say they were in opposition I said they are antithetical ways of looking at the world. People are perfectly capable of using antithetical ways of viewing things and being OK with it. It is actually perfectly natural from a psychological standpoint to see why people do this; consistency takes a back seat to ones feelings.

Faith and methodological evidence gathering when compared as means of understanding the world are each everything the other is not, or antithetical. When methodological evidence gathering discredits an idea that was previously supposed to be taken on faith there is always a reaction.

Either 1 you ignore the evidence, 2 discard the faith, or 3 rationalize the faith with respect to the new evidence.

Whether you can tie your faith into current scientific progress is immaterial to the discussion because anything can be reinterpreted to fit the normal social forces of the day.

I say good for you, enjoy.

It's interesting, really. Christian and atheist fundamentalists have more in common than I believe either suspects.

I am an agnostic fundamentalist but I see your point. They are both slaves to consistency. What is wrong with consistency exactly?

A great example would be the use of the Bible. One of the hallmarks of fundamentalism is a hyper-literal reading of the Bible, with frequent "proof-texting" (taking one verse out of context to support a preconceived idea, rather than reading all of Scripture in context and allowing that to inform the reading). Often, it makes use of archaic, difficult to understand translations of the Bible, such as the King James, because proof-texting and language twisting is easier, and inconvenient modern advances in textual criticism are ignored.

Fundamentalism being a relatively new phenomenon based on an entirely different reading of the Bible than those that have come before it, is just another interpretation, which I suppose made sense when it started, at least to someone.

This is the problem with faith though, there is no means for telling who is correct when they make a claim and it highlights my point between faith and science. When two scientists make competing claims and thus competing predictions the competitive part of the predictions can be settled. Fundamentalists with faith and you with faith have no real way of settling your argument because neither of you really has anything substantial to go on, excepting of course when the fundamentalist says something that can be disprove scientifically like "the earth is 6000 years old" and such.

Some atheists (the authors of the SAB being a prime example) do precisely the same thing in their war on Christianity. They use the King James, quote verses out of context to create negative (and wrong) imressions, and insist on hyper-literal readings of everything. They're soul brothers of the people they hate, and they don't even realize it.

There are plenty of in context problems with the Bible though. I have always wondered how someone can read Jewish propaganda that their enemies are all the products of incestuous relationships and such and not see that these passages were written to justify later genocides.

These things get by the believer because they aren't thinking about the motivations of someone writing down "inspired" scripture.

Complete context:

Lot and His Daughters

30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."

33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [g] ; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [h] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=19&version=31

I agree. ID is not science, it's philosophy.

Before we run off with that, though, it's important to remember that without philosophy, science is worthless.

Science IS a philosophy, a utility based philosophy that comes with a method. A methodological epistemological philosophy that, when adhered to can give us concrete understandings of the world around us.

ID and creationism are merely philosophy, and don't really do anything other than try to justify religion.

And, despite the attempts of some to claim that religious faith and science are at loggerheads, it was in fact the advent of monotheism and its resultant view of the Universe as an orderly, predictable place that allowed science to develop and flourish. After all, if you don't believe that the world is predictable, why try to predict it? I read an excellent article on this by a Catholic scientist and historian, but I can't find it right now.

Monotheism is an ordered view of the universe while polytheism is not?

Thankfully Aristotle's view of the universe was heartily accepted by early catholic theologians, it was an incredible step forward for it's time and is rightfully preserved.

Religions social mechanisms make it a perfect fit for those who love order.

Some of the meta-purposes for religion are to get society on the same page by telling a universal story for them (usually about metaphysics), comfort them about the ills and struggles that go on around them, and instill them with a correct method of conduct. This of course has more to do with power and social glue, than about how good a means faith is for discovering truth.

Dr. Robin Collins, though, touches on this point (and the value he sees for ID in terms of science) in his Intelligent Design not Science But Metascience:

I recommend the entire short piece, by the way... it's an excellent discussion of what ID actually is and isn't, and what role it can play in scientific investigation.

If it read metaphysics rather than metascience I would agree, although metascience, IS a great stand in term for metaphysics (Aristotle again), funny.

The author yammering about “methodological naturalism” isn’t going to help you with any scientists, because there is no such thing as methodological supernaturalism (that is the realm of metaphysics). And, until you invent a way of testing the supernatural it’s a bunch of pissing in the wind. Once you cross that barrier you are no longer doing science and your “explanations” are no longer scientific, and no one has to listen to you because you aren’t in an objective realm of thought anymore.

ID adds nothing to scientific investigation other than unnecessary complexity. The author also mistakes that science rules out god, which it does not, it simply doesn’t speak to the issue.

Saying things are “scientifically traceable” (although he refuses to elaborate on how) or “design like” don’t really advance our understandings at all, it’s just an agenda driven play on words meant to ram God into a medium that isn’t built to handle metaphysical questions.

[edgun88]

Christians don't deny the existence of dinosaurs. Christians don't do much of anything as a whole (except believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior), it's hardly a monolithic group.

And, as I said, there's plenty of reason to believe in the existence of God.

Yes, but the bible doesn't explain the existance of dinosaurs. Isn't anyhting not in the Bible obsolete?

[techboy]

The Bible is all about finding a way to interpret things to make them work with what people want to think/hear. Thats why I can't believe it. If it said it plain and simple like "There were dinosaurs." I would accept it.

No, the Bible is about relating the story of salvation. Certain Christians are about trying to find everything in there, even when it's sometimes not.

One more thing. Why do Christians deny the theory of Evolution which is a few discoveries away from being scientifically proven, and believe a story of Creation that has no scientific evidence WHAT-SO-EVER?????? That boggles my mind daily.

Not all Christians deny evolution. Did you read the entire thread? Francis S. Collins is a Christian and believes in evolution.

I've also posted a link to a quick video of Dr. William Lane Craig making an argument that evolution argues for the existence of God (though the main point of that video is that evolution and Christianity are not incompatible), and a paper by Dr. Alvin Plantinga that argues that beliefs in natualism and evolution cannot rationally be held at the same time, which would mean that theism is the only way evolution makes sense as a belief.

One thing I could believe, though, is Divine Intervention within Evolution.

That is a position well within the Christian mainstream.

I never knew that dinosaurs lived along side of man. This is news to me, but it must be true, it's in the book of Job.

Maybe.

Well, give me some proof then. What do you got??

Give me a minute.