The Flood

xingu wrote:

Good article. Now the first thing that comes to mind is how did his family react when he entered his new profession.

Quote:
Darwin resolved disparate observations in nature by identifying natural selection as the prime agent driving evolutionary change. Likewise, Domning and Hellwig resolve vexing and long-standing theological issues by showing how chance, mutations, natural selection and evolution necessarily link to God?s selfless love, ?physical? and moral evil, and selfishness and salvation. Love would be impossible without free will, which in turn can only exist in an autonomous universe, and evolution offers the only mechanisms known that could have produced conscious creatures able to choose, they reason. As a once-fervent creationist, the irony is not lost on me at how theologically revealing evolutionary theory is to Christianity.

Somehow I don't think literal Biblist are going to buy this.

I'll have to pay a visit to that museum. Never heard of it before.

The author tries to say that Genesis portrays the Earth as flat.

This is a fallacy that he does not, however, back up with any citation.

He also states that 'all the world's fossils could not have been laid down in a single flood', as if the Bible had somewhere made this claim as well.

You will, however, search the Bible in vain for such a statement.

Also quite interesting how he tries to trash creationists for reading the Bible in a 'selectively literal way'.

Since he apparently realizes how foolish it would be to accuse Christians of reading the Bible in a completely literal fashion (because none do so), he conjures up this clever term which SOUNDS like the same accusation but allows him an out.

Not buying it? I, for one, am not. Although I'm not sure what a 'literal Biblist' is.

Good to hear from you, though, xingu.

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

He also states that 'all the world's fossils could not have been laid down in a single flood', as if the Bible had somewhere made this claim as well.

You will, however, search the Bible in vain for such a statement.

No doubt. The concept of "fossil" is , to my knowledge , nowhere in the Bible. Therefore, it seems to me that an interpretation based upon all the scientific evidence that clearly points to faunal succession and environments of deposition and "deep time" seems to be perfectly in order with a Bibliocentric life, neh?
Why then, are YEC's considered "Biblical Literalists"? , Does this mean that their interpretation of the Bible must deny science and evidence? Question

0 Replies

My rather rough but truthful post has been totally ignored. Mind you, I don't blame anyone.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rl
Quote:
He also states that 'all the world's fossils could not have been laid down in a single flood', as if the Bible had somewhere made this claim as well.

You will, however, search the Bible in vain for such a statement.

No doubt. The concept of "fossil" is , to my knowledge , nowhere in the Bible. Therefore, it seems to me that an interpretation based upon all the scientific evidence that clearly points to faunal succession and environments of deposition and "deep time" seems to be perfectly in order with a Bibliocentric life, neh?
Why then, are YEC's considered "Biblical Literalists"? , Does this mean that their interpretation of the Bible must deny science and evidence?

I do not deny science, nor evidence, as you well know. I do interpret evidence differently since I do not assume evolution prior to viewing evidence as evolutionists do.

However it is common for evolutionists, such as the author of the article, to misrepresent the creationist viewpoint; and they roll out the strawmen when arguing against creation.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I do not deny science, nor evidence, as you well know. I do interpret evidence differently since I do not assume evolution prior to viewing evidence as evolutionists do.

RL,

Your attempt to argue for a different inteprtetation of the evidence is disingenuous and vacuous because you can't offer any other scientific interpretation for the evidence.

If you want to interpret the evidence based on magic, then shower yourself in pixie dust and have a happy day, but don't kid yourself (or us) by saying you 'don't deny science, you just interpret evidence differenty', when you don't have anything else but poofism to offer. We're talking about science here, not any wild theory someone can come up with.

Hell, I can dream up a thousand different way to interpret the evidence, I just can't come up with any other scientific interpretation which fits all the facts. And neither can you or anyone else (or they would have already).

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

I do interpret evidence differently since I do not assume evolution prior to viewing evidence as evolutionists do.

Have you ever in your life even seen any of the available "evidence" . I work in this field and see the examples on a daily basis. Where do you claim your authority?

Im not putting you down intellectually, Im just trying to plumb your experience either as an amateur or a pro. Anyone can rail on about how "harry Potter" is the spawn of satan. But at least they should read the books first. Same thing for scientific evidence. If youve taken time to study a linneage (of fossils) and their stratigraphic sequences , then top that off with a visit and study about the genomics of the present lines containing some derivatives, then Ill take your criticism of "evidence is merely subject to a point of view" seriously. Right now, its a baseless assertion that I know where comes from. Its aploy, a stand off position based mainly upon scientific ignorance . The truth is that most of the Creationist camps have spokespeople who read the techy literature, do the quote mining, and visit a museum periodically to say theyve seen some rocks. Theres really no concerted effort to conduct any research (at all) ever since theICR quit funding all its silly "Hunts for Noah's Ark"

I hope you dont build bridge piers by using pi's Biblical value.

0 Replies

"God does not play dice with the universe" :wink:

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

"God does not play dice with the universe" :wink:

Why not?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

"God does not play dice with the universe" :wink:

God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of the players, (ie everybody), to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.
-- "Good Omens" by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
"God does not play dice with the universe" :wink:

Why not?

Not my quote ma. As "science-this' and "science-that" is being bantered about on this thread - I thought I'd include a little input from a somewhat reputable source on the subject. Copy & paste the quote on nearly any search engine to see who coined the phrase. Although not speaking of the Ark; this qualified person shared a few thoughts on God & science and if there's a relation. :wink:

0 Replies

Einstein made it abundantly clear that he did not[/i] believe in any sort of personal God.

His quote 'God does not play dice' should be translated as 'Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things'.

Quote:

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive

Albert Einstein

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

maporsche wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
"God does not play dice with the universe" :wink:

Why not?

Not my quote ma. As "science-this' and "science-that" is being bantered about on this thread - I thought I'd include a little input from a somewhat reputable source on the subject. Copy & paste the quote on nearly any search engine to see who coined the phrase. Although not speaking of the Ark; this qualified person shared a few thoughts on God & science and if there's a relation. :wink:

I knew where the quote came from, I was just asking why that was true. Maybe god does play dice with the universe. Is that not possible? Maybe there is no god, would that be possible?

But regardless, the existence of a general 'god' does not prove that Christianity is true, the god could be Zues, or Allah, or any of the other thousands of gods.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
maporsche wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
"God does not play dice with the universe" :wink:

Why not?

Not my quote ma. As "science-this' and "science-that" is being bantered about on this thread - I thought I'd include a little input from a somewhat reputable source on the subject. Copy & paste the quote on nearly any search engine to see who coined the phrase. Although not speaking of the Ark; this qualified person shared a few thoughts on God & science and if there's a relation. :wink:

I knew where the quote came from, I was just asking why that was true. Maybe god does play dice with the universe. Is that not possible? Maybe there is no god, would that be possible?

But regardless, the existence of a general 'god' does not prove that Christianity is true, the god could be Zues, or Allah, or any of the other thousands of gods.

I thought you would know where the quote came from. I am also unsure if it's true! My point was obviously to show the relationship between some scientists and God.

Quote:

Einstein made it abundantly clear that he did not believe in any sort of personal God.

His quote 'God does not play dice' should be translated as 'Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things'.

Actually Steve - Einstein waffled between believing in God and not; depending on the time that you (and I) choose to review his life/career. I am unsure of his position at death.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know