|
Creation vs Evolution (pg. 18)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| torontotrance |
| quote: | | Let me use a different example: The bible was actually written by aliens. How do I know? Well you can't PROVE that it wasn't written by aliens. Yea you have a wealth of empirical evidence throughout history indicating that the bible was written by men who existed, but were you THERE? No? Ok well I think they should teach both theories that the bible was written by men and that it was written by aliens. |
as I will say again, the Bible's record speaks for itself and feel free to try prove it wrong (many have tried, all have failed), 23 yrs and still no one has given me even a decent argument. That's why most of you non Bible people who think it is wrong, you talk a great game but when it comes down to it, you don't do anything nor can you prove an error. See it does not come down to Christians proving it was'nt written by aliens because I believe the Bible to be error free and the book that I use to guide and live my life. See I'm not the one saying the Bible is full of errors, see I'll stand by my belief of no errors. The onus is on you, not me because till someone proves an error, then my view holds true and as I've said, no one has ever taken me up on my offer. See you have to first read the entire thing before you can even comment and none of you are willing to do that. So the Bible's accuracy in my mind is beyond anything ever written and till someone actually tries to disprove, my beliefs won't change. The Bible stands for itself, it's historical record is unmatched and it does not need my arguments. I've always held the belief, the onus is not on me to prove the Bible's accuracy, the onus is on the rest of the non believers to prove it wrong, because remember just 1 error makes the Bible fall apart but no one has ever proven one. |
|
|
| tranceaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by torontotrance
I don't get how you can call Christianity the main religion of America or any country. Most people that claim to be Christians are not really Christians, they don't attend church, they just claim it on a census. The main religion of the world is the following, I call it the buffet table religion, you take a little from this, a little from that, a little from there and you have a religion. I've always viewed Christianity to be in the minority in terms of religion, just because you claim to be something, does not mean you are. A Christian by the TTA definition is someone that has given their lives to Christ, attends Church on a regular basis, reads the bible daily or nearly every day and lives by examples. I find you could claim to be a Christian, yet never attend church and do what I want, that's not a christian, either you believe it all or none at all, the faith never made a maybe or iffy category. Either you are a Christian or you are'nt, there is no in between in my view. Judging by what I've seen in Canada with the all the new laws and new things, Christianity is a minority and so is organized religion.
My offer still stands btw and I nor Seventil are going away, it's nice to see another true Christian on these forums. |
yeah i agree with this...just because u wear a cross around ur neck doesnt mean u r a christian..even porn stars wear crosses..u will find alot of people claiming to be christians yet they went to church maybe once in thier life..even if they dont go to church they probably dont pray on thir own or anything...inorder to be a christian u have to attempt to live as a christian.. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceaholic
yeah i agree with this...just because u wear a cross around ur neck doesnt mean u r a christian..even porn stars wear crosses..u will find alot of people claiming to be christians yet they went to church maybe once in thier life..even if they dont go to church they probably dont pray on thir own or anything...inorder to be a christian u have to attempt to live as a christian.. |
hence why everytime I hear people going on, there are too many Christians in a certain country, I find it funny because I would seriously doubt that 60% of the people that claim to be one, ever set foot inside a church bar easter and christmas |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Your logic is incorrect because there IS empirical evidence for one and not the other. The whole science of evolution is based upon empirical evidence. All of science is based on empirical evidence. THe question you need to ask yourself is do you not believe in the validity of empirical evidence to support a theory?
Actually let me pose a question to you: Do you think the Earth is round? Would you support education of both theories that the Earth is round and flat? Would you treat both theories equally? Essentially your argument that radiometric dating is prone to assumptions is anallagous to me saying the Earth is flat because every theory proving the earth is round is prone to assumptions. For example:
Theory: The earth is round as seen by pictures from space.
My Response: No it just looks round because the gravitational field of Earth distorts reality.
Scientists: You're crazy, nothing about field theory indicates that it has any effect whatsoever on vision.
My response: You're simply assuming that field theory is constant everywhere.
Scientists: We've taken innumerable readings and NOTHING indicates it's ever changed.
My response: Can you prove it never has nor will it ever change?
Scientists: Ummmmm no.
Me: exactly! I win.
Now this statement goes against all empirical evidence that supports the knowledge of field theory, that gravitational fields would have NOTHING to do with creating illusions, but technically my response cannot be disproven because we cannot prove an absolute truth. According to all evidence gathered do we know how gravity and fields have behaved on Earth? Yes. Has all evidence gathered indicate that they have remained constant? Yes. Is it an absolute truth that they have been always constant? Very probable but impossible to say with absolute certainty. Therefore do we treat both theories equally? Of course not, one resides on the presumption of fact rather than the presumption of doubt.
Let me use a different example: The bible was actually written by aliens. How do I know? Well you can't PROVE that it wasn't written by aliens. Yea you have a wealth of empirical evidence throughout history indicating that the bible was written by men who existed, but were you THERE? No? Ok well I think they should teach both theories that the bible was written by men and that it was written by aliens. |
I feel like I'm repeating myself here: I'm not debating the fact that dating methods use the best reasonable assumptions possible.
Quoting myself:
| quote: |
I'm not questioning modern dating methods. They're great. The problem is, however, with the assumption of the rate of X being constant from the beginning of time (what, 20 billion years ago?) to now. That, in my opinion, is one hell of an assumption to have made - even though (let me finish) - it is within reason to *assume* that they have been the same. I don't have a problem with science *assuming* that X has been the same - I have a problem with science and society using this assumption to *disprove* the Biblical account.
I can see where you are coming from, completely. It would be illogical to give up using dating X because of an *assumption* - however - it needs to be made damn clear that there is indeed, an assumption, made in said dating method. Example: This rock was dated using method X, at approximately 100 million years, if said constant X was indeed constant throughout the 100 million years. But, children, this constant has only been observed for the past 100 - things in the past (such as global temperature changes, ice ages, meteor impacts, etc) could have changed this.
|
And again:
| quote: |
I understand your point of "scientists go by what the reasonably understand to be accurate." - And that's fine. I admit it would be counterproductive to play devil's advocate with every new dating find made - "Scientists have found a rock they believe to be 100 million years old, according to dating method X." -- this is a completely valid statement (even though some of the dating methods they use are debatable, but, like you said - it is what they find reasonably accurate) - but it needs to be socially understood that this number they are using is not, indeed, factual. It is, as I've said before, speculation due to unmeasurable constants of the past.
|
The example you used is no where near what I am trying to say. You are using measurable and observable facts (like the earth is round) and debating with "Chicken Little" type logic by me playing an extreme devils advocate.
I agree that the dating methods use constants that should <----(that's important!) be assumed as constant. That's right -- I think that evolutionists SHOULD assume that radioisotope dating method X has always been the same! It's the fact that it is not treated as an assumption, and as a fact, that worries me. I've repeated this time and time again but yourself and Opus have blown this off as "crazy speculation" on Creationists part.
So, I'll repeat myself: Dating methods use the most reasonable assumptions and should do so.
Religion has one very KEY thing here: it has an eyewitness account to things. That is exactly why Biblical considerations should be taken into account in evolutionary theory! It's like having a witness during a murder. Although I agree it sucks we don't have a living, breathing person who can say: "Yep, I was there for the flood!" - we have the next best thing. I concur this is all on -faith-, which is the exact reason we should not abolish evolutionary research without Biblical assumptions.
Is this making sense? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by torontotrance
as I will say again, the Bible's record speaks for itself and feel free to try prove it wrong (many have tried, all have failed), 23 yrs and still no one has given me even a decent argument. That's why most of you non Bible people who think it is wrong, you talk a great game but when it comes down to it, you don't do anything nor can you prove an error. See it does not come down to Christians proving it was'nt written by aliens because I believe the Bible to be error free and the book that I use to guide and live my life. See I'm not the one saying the Bible is full of errors, see I'll stand by my belief of no errors. The onus is on you, not me because till someone proves an error, then my view holds true and as I've said, no one has ever taken me up on my offer. See you have to first read the entire thing before you can even comment and none of you are willing to do that. So the Bible's accuracy in my mind is beyond anything ever written and till someone actually tries to disprove, my beliefs won't change. The Bible stands for itself, it's historical record is unmatched and it does not need my arguments. I've always held the belief, the onus is not on me to prove the Bible's accuracy, the onus is on the rest of the non believers to prove it wrong, because remember just 1 error makes the Bible fall apart but no one has ever proven one. |
You keep bringing up your challenge as if you're insecure with your own convictions. I did actually take you up on your offer and if you went back to my post that replied yours you'll see my response in the referenced thread. Even Seventil acknowledged that the bible was prone to errors. I'll concede that they may be transcriptional errors but you seem convinced that even those do not exist. Or you can address Drug_Tito's post. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
| more like secure with my own convictions, I would'nt make a challenge if I did not think that there was no errors. I'll be waiting for your pm with your so called proof, or anyone's for that matter. My problem is that evolutionists think that Christians should have to prove the Bible's accuracy when the record speaks for itself and no one has proven an error, as I said before feel free to try. |
|
|
| tranceaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You keep bringing up your challenge as if you're insecure with your own convictions. I did actually take you up on your offer and if you went back to my post that replied yours you'll see my response in the referenced thread. Even Seventil acknowledged that the bible was prone to errors. I'll concede that they may be transcriptional errors but you seem convinced that even those do not exist. Or you can address Drug_Tito's post. |
torontotrance is hard headed i seem to notice..i am also a christian and i agree that the bible is not error free..u have to remember it is not written by christ himself but by students of his..if u tell a story to 4 different people they will all inturpret it differently...or if 4 people see an event surely there will be differences in thier account. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You keep bringing up your challenge as if you're insecure with your own convictions. I did actually take you up on your offer and if you went back to my post that replied yours you'll see my response in the referenced thread. Even Seventil acknowledged that the bible was prone to errors. I'll concede that they may be transcriptional errors but you seem convinced that even those do not exist. Or you can address Drug_Tito's post. |
Drug_Tito's post brings up two topics: One of God's morality, and one of killing in the name of God. He could have posted about 20 better ones than those... heh.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/law_killing.html - Explains killing in the name of God.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net..._authority.html - This explains God's moral authority.
I can post more links if you want a better explanation of these topics, or other ones. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
The example you used is no where near what I am trying to say. You are using measurable and observable facts (like the earth is round) and debating with "Chicken Little" type logic by me playing an extreme devils advocate.
|
How is that playing extreme devil's advocate? It's the same rejection of empirical evidence. How do you know that gravitational field theory is constant? It's only ASSUMED constant because every time it's been measured it's been constant. But you don't know that it's ALWAYS constant. Therefore why is my claim that the Earth being round is an assumption false whereas you can claim that decay rates are an assumption cogent?
| quote: |
I agree that the dating methods use constants that should <----(that's important!) be assumed as constant. That's right -- I think that evolutionists SHOULD assume that radioisotope dating method X has always been the same! It's the fact that it is not treated as an assumption, and as a fact, that worries me. I've repeated this time and time again but yourself and Opus have blown this off as "crazy speculation" on Creationists part.
So, I'll repeat myself: Dating methods use the most reasonable assumptions and should do so.
|
Agreed. So if dating methods use the most reasonable assumption, and evidence of the Earth being round use the most reasonable assumptions, why should the two theories be treated any differentely. Same methodology of using empirical evidence …
| quote: |
Religion has one very KEY thing here: it has an eyewitness account to things. That is exactly why Biblical considerations should be taken into account in evolutionary theory! It's like having a witness during a murder. Although I agree it sucks we don't have a living, breathing person who can say: "Yep, I was there for the flood!" - we have the next best thing. I concur this is all on -faith-, which is the exact reason we should not abolish evolutionary research without Biblical assumptions.
Is this making sense? |
Ahhh ok so if both theories conflict with each other than what do you do? Obviously it comes down to the individual deciding upon which empirical evidence they trust the most. And that’s fine. Whatever floats a person’s boat. However, you’ve been systematically labeling evolutionary theory as based upon assumptions. And that’s fine, in the broader philosophical sense I would agree. However, I’m simply grounding that belief in reality, in that if we were to apply that label to evolution, we can similarly apply that label to any theory … such as the Earth being round … or the bible being written by men. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by torontotrance
more like secure with my own convictions, I would'nt make a challenge if I did not think that there was no errors. I'll be waiting for your pm with your so called proof, or anyone's for that matter. My problem is that evolutionists think that Christians should have to prove the Bible's accuracy when the record speaks for itself and no one has proven an error, as I said before feel free to try. |
I already posted my proof. Simply go back to my post. I don't see why this has to be taken to pms. Just reply here for everyone to see. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
I suggest you read up on Creation science. There are perfectly reasonable explanations (from a Biblical assumption point of view, of course!) - to explain dinosaur fossils.
Mainly, it has to do with a pre-Flood world, between the Fall of Man and the Flood. Keep in mind one thing also: the word "dinosaur" was invented in the 1800's, or around there. There are many ancient texts, many not Christian in origin (in fact most aren't) that mention "dragons" or huge lizards.
As far as fossils, these can be explained by 1500 years of a higher atmospheric pressure and oxygen levels, which is theorized (in Creation science) because of a layer of ice/water in the high atmosphere. (I forgot what Genesis verse, but it mentions that water was in the earth and out of the earth). These living conditions explain many things; the enormous size of people and creatures of the time, the longer lifespans (900+ years some times). In the Biblical Flood, water rose from the fountains of the deep and fell from the heavens (the ice/water layer).
Anyway, this is all been explained much better than I could. Look at some popular creation sites like http://www.trueorigins.org - and such.
Do me the favor of reading up on the science I believe in before questioning you on it; I've done the respects of being familiar with evolutionary theory (though occrider and Opus have taught me a thing or two!). Thanks. |
I was clarifing what some else said in regards to dinosaurs and asked you how it jived with your beliefs of historical events and the bible, I wasn't asking what contemporary creationist believe.
Even after reading your post its still not clear to me. Would yes/no questions be more helpful to pin you down?
1. Dinosaurs existed? true/false
2. Dinosaurs coexisted with mandkind? true/false
3. Dinosaurs aren't mention in the bible because _________ ? (fill in the blank) |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
How is that playing extreme devil's advocate? It's the same rejection of empirical evidence. How do you know that gravitational field theory is constant? It's only ASSUMED constant because every time it's been measured it's been constant. But you don't know that it's ALWAYS constant. Therefore why is my claim that the Earth being round is an assumption false whereas you can claim that decay rates are an assumption cogent?
Agreed. So if dating methods use the most reasonable assumption, and evidence of the Earth being round use the most reasonable assumptions, why should the two theories be treated any differentely. Same methodology of using empirical evidence …
|
I, personally, see a big difference in a) assuming that the gravitation is always the same (as in now, when we aren't measuring it) - and assuming that decay rates have been the same throught Earth's history. Although I agree it's the best assumption to make, it's still that, an assumption.
| quote: |
Ahhh ok so if both theories conflict with each other than what do you do? Obviously it comes down to the individual deciding upon which empirical evidence they trust the most. And that’s fine. Whatever floats a person’s boat. However, you’ve been systematically labeling evolutionary theory as based upon assumptions. And that’s fine, in the broader philosophical sense I would agree. However, I’m simply grounding that belief in reality, in that if we were to apply that label to evolution, we can similarly apply that label to any theory … such as the Earth being round … or the bible being written by men. |
Now we're getting somewhere. What do we do? I say we teach both of my proposed theories equally. I could argue, through logic, that evolutionary theory based on Biblical assumptions should be taught as the "better theory" - because of an eyewitness account has taken place. I won't though, because I agree the Bible is taken on faith, and will respect those who choose not to believe in it.
Let me make it clear again that I do not think all of evolutionary theory makes assumptions. I agree that a lot of it is viable and would be exactly the same in the theory I am putting forth.
My question may be of a social matter; why is evolutionary theory with Biblical assumptions not taught? |
|
|
|
|
