Evolution

Originally posted by whodey
Very good Freaky. How about prophetic light sources in Revelation Chapter 21.

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth for the first heaven and first earth were passed away......"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it, for the glory of God did lighten it; and the Lamb was the light thereof."

It's enough to make an h ...[text shortened]... ? I can just hear scientists screaming, "But you can't do that God, you can't do that!"

Or you're like me, and you really don't care.

We can make up all sorts of fairy tales. Whatever gets you off in the spiritual way. Just don't get so smug by thinking that your religion is the only one that can take advantage of the supernatural loophole.

Originally posted by telerion
or maybe (insert your own!)

Really the harmonizations are only limited by your imagination. That's the wonderful thing about disregarding the laws of the natural world. Now let's not get all excited and go searching for this "life-enfusing" light. It's not like we really believe that's what happened.[/b]

OK I will insert my own. How about the fact that I was told in school that ALL life on earth depended upon the sun and there were no exceptions. Later during my lifetime, however, it was discovered that plants grow on the ocean floor independent of the sun.

Originally posted by telerion
Or you're like me, and you really don't care.

We can make up all sorts of fairy tales. Whatever gets you off in the spiritual way. Just don't get so smug by thinking that your religion is the only one that can take advantage of the supernatural loophole.

It is not being smug about my religion, rather, it is humility knowing that God is limitless. I do not have all the answers and I do not mean to come across seeming as I do. I am merely trying to make sense of it all based on what I believe to be true as you are.

Originally posted by whodey
It is not being smug about my religion, rather, it is humility knowing that God is limitless. I do not have all the answers and I do not mean to come across seeming as I do. I am merely trying to make sense of it all based on what I believe to be true as you are.

Then don't claim to have any basis in science for your insane theories.

Originally posted by whodey
It is not being smug about my religion, rather, it is humility knowing that God is limitless. I do not have all the answers and I do not mean to come across seeming as I do. I am merely trying to make sense of it all based on what I believe to be true as you are.

But you do realize that anyone can replace "God" with any other supernatural omnipotent character and they can be humbled to, right?

Originally posted by whodey
OK I will insert my own. How about the fact that I was told in school that ALL life on earth depended upon the sun and there were no exceptions. Later during my lifetime, however, it was discovered that plants grow on the ocean floor independent of the sun.

What's your gripe? Feel free to ignore the new evidence. You don't have to allow your beliefs to evolve in light of it like everybody else does. Nobody's forcing you to accept any new evidence in favor of the existence of such ocean dwellers; just ignore it like you ignore mounds of other evidence. You're free to continue to adhere to your old, incorrect beliefs.

Seriously, what do you think should happen to one's beliefs when new evidence is discovered? Should it be ignored, or should theories be revised if the new evidence shows them to be incorrect?

Would you prefer to have remained ignorant to the new evidence about the fish, so that your beliefs didn't have to be challenged or revised?

I simply don't understand your gripe.

Originally posted by whodey
OK I will insert my own. How about the fact that I was told in school that ALL life on earth depended upon the sun and there were no exceptions. Later during my lifetime, however, it was discovered that plants grow on the ocean floor independent of the sun.

Then what you found out from your second group of "educators" was false. They are not plants on the ocean floor. They're actually closer to animals, and they are dependant upon the hot water and the microbes within them are dependant upon the sulphur.

The very fact that the planet exists, and they way it exists IS dependant upon the sun.

Originally posted by telerion
But you do realize that anyone can replace "God" with any other supernatural omnipotent character and they can be humbled to, right?

I do not deny that.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Then what you found out from your second group of "educators" was false. They are not plants on the ocean floor. They're actually closer to animals, and they are dependant upon the hot water and the microbes within them are dependant upon the sulphur.

The very fact that the planet exists, and they way it exists IS dependant upon the sun.

Thank you for the correction. My only point in bringing this up was that science is an ever changing field of study due to the nature of its endevour. It is, after all, in the business of new discovery and new ways of thinking. The "lifeform" that was found on the ocean floor was just such an example. No life form like it had ever been found before and it caused science to pause and reexamine how they thought about life.

As far as Dr. Chien's article goes, it would be nice to hear you two duke it out. I am at a disadvantage in defending what he was trying to say based on the fact that this is not my field of study. I think that all he was trying to say was that science seems to have down played the explosiveness of the Cambrian explosion as well as the enormity of the event. Whether he is right or wrong in my mind has no bearing in determining whether or not the Genesis account is right or wrong. I suppose I can take his word for it, your word for it, or learn more myself by taking other scientists word for it. Either that or I can become a scientist myself. Unfortunately, this is not realisitic prospect for me at this time, however. Despite this I do from time to time try to educate myself based on the fact I have always had an interest in the field. Although I am often ridiculed for bringing to discussion men of faith who are scientists, I think I am one of the few creationists on this site who has been willing to embrace the possibilties of such sientific theories as evolution and such that I do not find to necessarily be at odds with my faith. In a way, I do come here to be ridiculed in order to get other more educated persepctives and to challenge what I think and what others think. I have no ego to bruise, rather, I concede that I do not have all the answers but am searching. It simply erks me when others think they have all the answers just as it did when I was told in my science class that no life could exist independent from the sun.

Originally posted by whodey
Thank you for the correction. My only point in bringing this up was that science is an ever changing field of study due to the nature of its endevour. It is, after all, in the business of new discovery and new ways of thinking. The "lifeform" that was found on the ocean floor was just such an example. No life form like it had ever been found before and it caused science to pause and reexamine how they thought about life on earth.

And that's supposed to be a BAD thing???!!!!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What's your gripe? Feel free to ignore the new evidence. You don't have to allow your beliefs to evolve in light of it like everybody else does. Nobody's forcing you to accept any new evidence in favor of the existence of such ocean dwellers; just ignore it like you ignore mounds of other evidence. You're free to continue to adhere to your old, beliefs didn't have to be challenged or revised?

I simply don't understand your gripe.

I have no gripe. I was merely bringing up an article from a Christian scientist who's main field of study is the Cambrian explosion. Of coarse you would know this if you had read the article.

Edit: So how do you find science and the Bible incapatible with each other?

Originally posted by whodey

So how do you find science and the Bible incapatible with each other?

They differ drastically in their epistemology. To the extent that one is attempting to use them toward the end of establishing beliefs according to a standard, they are not compatible, as there exist acceptable beliefs in one which are unacceptable in the other.

In the scientific method, there are no forbidden hypotheses, no claims that must be accepted as fact - even meta-claims about the method itself are subject to investigation. All scientific claims, even the most basic and foundational, are subject to revision based on new evidence.

Adhering to a Biblical epistemological standard, one must put the cart before the horse and believe a priori a set of claims as absolutely guaranteed to be forever true - primarily that the Bible is the word of God - and hypotheses contrary to these primary claims are forbidden. Foundational claims from a Biblical standpoint are not subject to revision, regardless of how much new information is encountered.


For example, apply the principles of each to the claim "God spoke to Moses through a burning bush."

If the Bible is your standard, then you accept the claim as true, for the Bible makes the claim that God did speak to Moses.

If the scientific method is your standard, you accept the claim if the weight of the evidence indicates that it is true. The evidence in favor of the claim is the testimony of the author of the book - unknown to begin with, and certainly no longer alive, we cannot interrogate him to determine his intentions in writing those words and what meaning he intended them to convey. The evidence in favor of its negation is inductive, based on observations of burning bushes that don't speak with the voice of God, as well as of people who claim that God is speaking to them that are assessed to be delusional.

Thus we have an incompatibility if you try to accept both standards. You'll believe the claim in one and reject it in the other, unless you are going to find that even without presuming the Bible's claims to be true, the weight of the evidence actually does lie in favor of God having spoken to Moses through the bush.


Those who adopt the scientific method have to find a way to incorporate new evidence into their beliefs, even their foundational ones. For an illustration of this, read any scientific journal for a year, or read through any popular history of science.

Those who adhere to the Biblical standard have to ignore any new information that weighs against their foundational beliefs, no matter how heavily, or simply deny that it weighs against their beliefs. For an illustration of this, see any thread here that discusses the logistics of the story of Noah's ark, or any thread that discusses where dinosaurs fit in the Biblical timeline.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles

Those who adhere to the Biblical standard have to ignore any new information that weighs against their foundational beliefs, no matter how heavily, or simply deny that it weighs against their beliefs. For an illustration of this, see any thread here that discusses the logistics of the story of Noah's ark, or any thread that discusses where dinosaurs fit in the Biblical timeline.[/b]

This is simply not true. You are saying that to believe in the Bible, which you assume to be irrational and further assume before hand to have no evidence to support it, you must first reject the only "rational" belief system that is based on the proponderance of evidence which is science. The Bible does in fact have evidence to help support its validity. As I have said in the past, their is a wide body of evidence to help support its validiy such as the field of Biblical Archeology and the historical accuracy of the Biblical stories. Granted, the Bible is not a scientific text as is science not a text of spirituality/morality. Therefore it is much akin to comparing apples and oranges. This is one of the reasons Dr. Chien does not attempt to prove the Bible via science. On the other hand, evidence is not merely limited to being based upon the scientific method. Personal experiences are just such an example. An example are the circumstances surrounding Dr. Chien's conversion to Christianity. He says,

"It was a struggle for many years before that, I thought I wanted to be a scientist, but I did not want to be a superstitious person. But I was really attracted to Jesus Christ and his teachings. In many respects I thought His teachings were deeper than much of the Chinese moral teaching. So in many ways I was converted in my heart, but I refused to become a Christian at first.....When I looked at nature, which I was deeply in love with, I suddenly realized that I had to worship the Creator of nature..."

Here we see evidence for the Creator, but not in relation to the scientific method. We see the attraction to the gospel, but only in reference to morality/spirituality. I would say that these count as evidence, but I also agree that this evidence is not subject to the scientific method. If you want the proponderance of such evidences, however, just look at the number of people who have converted and had similair experiences such as myself and Dr. Chien. This accounts for billions of people and Christianity currently outnumbers all other faiths to date. If billions of people claimed they saw a UFO, for example, it should count for something. Granted, it is not proof.

It used to be that in the time of Galileo, that the church found his scientific findings to be a threat to Christianity. It was assumed that his finding contradicted the word of God in some way. As we can see today, nothing can be further from the truth. There is nothing in scripture that refutes his findings. LIkewise, what I see from the Christian world today, there is much resistance from scientific findings regarding the theory of evolution and such. I do not necessarilty think that such finding contradict scripture much in the same way Galileo's findings did not do so as well. In fact, I would say that the church has for the most part divorced itself from science completely, much to its shame, and as a result, driven most scientists and other educated people to atheism. It is almost as if the Christian world asumes they know all there is to know about God. How proposterous is that? What we have in the Bible are a chapter or two on the creation of the universe, therefore, much is left to the imagination and much unfortunatly is assumed. For example, I am an old earth creationist. I have posted in the past why I think this and you are welcomed to look at my theories on previous threads about evolution via a physicist named Dr. Schroeder. For example, the 6 days are not six literal days. The lliteral Hebrew translation of morning and evening can be correctly translated as "chaos" and "order". In fact, these Hebrew words are found no where else in the Bible as a description of time. As you can see, I do not divorce myself from science and rational thought. I simply do not limit my self to its realm. There are other dimensions to our existence that science cannot ponder and/or man cannot fully comprehend such as spirituality. This does not mean we must ignore it and render it as dung.

Originally posted by whodey
The Bible does in fact have evidence to help support its validity.

But is that the reason you believe it?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But is that the reason you believe it?

Partially. For example, the story of creation has an oreder to it that is correct. Frist the light, then the plants and then the animals for example. The author even says that the stars and sun were made at the same time. How did they know the sun was a star? If the story made no sense after knowing what we know today, I would perhaps be compelled to reconsider. As I have said before, it is the proponderance of evidence. The strongest bit of evidence, however, is a spiritual "awakening" to the truth. I can only say that Christ has a way of changing you that is as real as the nose on your face. You can feel it and others can see it in you. That is a fact, or at least, in my life and others I have seen.