RE: The dead horses (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

ianz -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 10:00:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

You tell us. What evidence, if found, would be contradictory to scripture where biodiversity is concerned?


Definition of biodiversity: "The diversity of plant and animal life in a particular habitat (or in the world as a whole)"

I don't understand if there could be any evidence found that would contradict scripture where biodiversity is concerned, which is why I asked him that question. I have to say I'm a bit confused, hence my question...

Let me put it another hypothetical way:
quote:


The purpose of creationism is to proclaim the authority of Scripture.
The purpose of ID is to demonstrate the existence of a designer through the use of scientific procedure.

What if ID uncovers that humans descended from the same common ancestor as other great apes? (Whether by design or not.)

Regards, Ian



swan42 -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 10:06:18 PM)

Or what if ID discovers that the designer was a low paid lab assistant from a planet that orbits Alpha Centauri?



drj11 -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 10:10:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ianz

What if ID uncovers that humans descended from the same common ancestor as other great apes? (Whether by design or not.)

Regards, Ian


Interestingly enough, the modern 'pioneers' of ID (namely Behe) claim to fully accept and endorse common descent and old earth and approach ID within that framework. Why Unclemonkey, and the other YEC's still trust them, I don't know.



evry1needsgod -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 10:38:01 PM)

quote:

What if ID uncovers that humans descended from the same common ancestor as other great apes? (Whether by design or not.)


I don't understand what that has to do with biodiversity, but I understand what you are asking now. And to answer your question...if evidence like that were ever found, I would personally denounce Christianity. But that will never happen. This does not mean I am not open to evidence that could be found, but I just don't believe it will be. And I obviously believe this because of what God's Word says, which is why I would renounce my beliefs if that time comes...but again, I don't believe it will.



Jhud -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 10:43:41 PM)

quote:

Interestingly enough, the modern 'pioneers' of ID (namely Behe) claim to fully accept and endorse common descent and old earth and approach ID within that framework. Why Unclemonkey, and the other YEC's still trust them, I don't know.


Maybe because they are smart enough to realize whatever the particular beliefs of IDists, it isn't sufficient reason to scientifically invalidate ID?



drj11 -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 10:45:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

What if ID uncovers that humans descended from the same common ancestor as other great apes? (Whether by design or not.)


I don't understand what that has to do with biodiversity, but I understand what you are asking now. And to answer your question...if evidence like that were ever found, I would personally denounce Christianity. But that will never happen.


Better not read any science books then...

quote:


This does not mean I am not open to evidence that could be found, but I just don't believe it will be. And I obviously believe this because of what God's Word says, which is why I would renounce my beliefs if that time comes...but again, I don't believe it will.


It already has been found. Conclusive evidence. Perhaps you should take a look at what other Christian denominations say about evolution, common descent, and the old universe. You can have your faith and science too.



drj11 -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 10:46:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Interestingly enough, the modern 'pioneers' of ID (namely Behe) claim to fully accept and endorse common descent and old earth and approach ID within that framework. Why Unclemonkey, and the other YEC's still trust them, I don't know.


Maybe because they are smart enough to realize whatever the particular beliefs of IDists, it isn't sufficient reason to scientifically invalidate ID?


But certainly it means ID'ists are also part of the conspiracy. The assault on faith and the Bible!



Jhud -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 10:51:25 PM)

quote:

But certainly it means ID'ists are also part of the conspiracy. The assault on faith and the Bible!


Actually evolution (or more properly, evolutionists) is as much an assault on science and free discourse as it is anything.



drj11 -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 10:57:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

But certainly it means ID'ists are also part of the conspiracy. The assault on faith and the Bible!


Actually evolution (or more properly, evolutionists) is as much an assault on science and free discourse as it is anything.


Another dead horse.

If the case were that open and shut, you or someone else should have no problem disproving evolution and getting a nobel prize or two.

Oh yea... the censorship.... how convenient for one's martyr complex.



Jhud -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 11:07:05 PM)

quote:

Another dead horse.

If the case were that open and shut, you or someone else should have no problem disproving evolution and getting a nobel prize or two.

Oh yea... the censorship.... how convenient for one's martyr complex.


First off, I said nothing about censorship; and secondly I said nothing about the case being open and shut (which is actually a claim of evolution, not ID)

Do you ever respond to what is actually posted, or do you just resond to the post in your mind?



drj11 -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 11:18:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
First off, I said nothing about censorship; and secondly I said nothing about the case being open and shut (which is actually a claim of evolution, not ID)

Do you ever respond to what is actually posted, or do you just resond to the post in your mind?


"...an assault on science and free discourse as it is anything."

Maybe its just me, but I don't think its a stretch to infer some allusion to censorship from those words. Speaking of which, that line above wasn't really a direct response to the words in my post in the first place. You are guilty of what you accused me of.



Jhud -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 11:21:54 PM)

quote:

"...an assault on science and free discourse as it is anything."

Maybe its just me, but I don't think its a stretch to infer some allusion to censorship from those words. Speaking of which, that line above wasn't really a direct response to the words in my post in the first place. You are guilty of what you accused me of.


I did directly respond to you by correcting you.



gluadys -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 11:38:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

What if ID uncovers that humans descended from the same common ancestor as other great apes? (Whether by design or not.)


I don't understand what that has to do with biodiversity, but I understand what you are asking now. And to answer your question...if evidence like that were ever found, I would personally denounce Christianity.


And that is how creationism creates atheists.

Buy into the big lie that you must choose between a so-called "literal" reading of scripture and the evidence that supports science, and sooner or later intellectual honesty forces one to reject that so-called "scriptural" view.



ianz -> RE: The dead horses (6/8/2008 11:57:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

What if ID uncovers that humans descended from the same common ancestor as other great apes? (Whether by design or not.)


I don't understand what that has to do with biodiversity, but I understand what you are asking now. And to answer your question...if evidence like that were ever found, I would personally denounce Christianity. But that will never happen. This does not mean I am not open to evidence that could be found, but I just don't believe it will be. And I obviously believe this because of what God's Word says, which is why I would renounce my beliefs if that time comes...but again, I don't believe it will.

But ID *does* support the idea that humans descended from a common ancestor.

http://www.discovery.org/v/22
About 2min through Dr Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute states:
quote:

We're not against evolution per se, because evolution can mean change over time, or even common ancestry, which are not meanings of the term [evolution] that we dispute

ID, as the linked video portrays it, is essentially evolution with some designer assistance. So old earth, common ancestry, incremental change, etc (with occasional guidance from a designer to make the jumps which incremental changes could not make).

Regards, Ian

Edit: added bracketed comment in last para for clarification



evry1needsgod -> RE: The dead horses (6/9/2008 12:04:39 AM)

quote:

Better not read any science books then...


quote:

It already has been found. Conclusive evidence.


Too late. Already have. Been there, done that. It's just too bad you won't respect mine and other's beliefs that differ from yours. Typical evolutionist. Don't make me out to be stupid. There is no "conclusive evidence" of this. Maybe "conclusive evidence" in your mind, but it's definitely not facts you have found.

quote:

Perhaps you should take a look at what other Christian denominations say about evolution, common descent, and the old universe. You can have your faith and science too.


I could honestly care less what certain denominations teach. I don't follow a religion or a denomination. Jesus didn't. I follow God and His words. Don't you (assuming you are a Christian)?

quote:

And that is how creationism creates atheists.


And it is Evolutionism dogma (as seen above and below) which "created" the born again, Bible believin' Christian with whom you are speaking. It can and does go both ways buddy!

quote:

Buy into the big lie that you must choose between a so-called "literal" reading of scripture and the evidence that supports science


No choosing necessary! They both coincide perfectly! Isn't it amazing what God can do and how much He can show you without relying on finite man to tell you the truth? It is all found in scripture. No need for choosing.

quote:

and sooner or later intellectual honesty forces one to reject that so-called "scriptural" view.


So you are calling me "intellectualy dishonest?" IOW, you are basically calling me stupid and a liar to myself? What a coincidence!



gluadys -> RE: The dead horses (6/9/2008 12:51:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I could honestly care less what certain denominations teach. I don't follow a religion or a denomination. Jesus didn't. I follow God and His words. Don't you (assuming you are a Christian)?


The only way you know what "God and His words" are is through the religion taught by your denomination. And yes even an "independent, bible-believing" church is a denomination.

quote:

quote:

and sooner or later intellectual honesty forces one to reject that so-called "scriptural" view.


So you are calling me "intellectualy dishonest?" IOW, you are basically calling me stupid and a liar to myself? What a coincidence!


You don't have to be stupid to be intellectually dishonest. Some of the most intelligent people there are can still be intellectually dishonest. But, yes, you are lying to yourself. Of course, you don't know that yet. When you do, sadly, you will reject not just a bad interpretation of scripture, but scripture itself and even your faith in Christ.



evry1needsgod -> RE: The dead horses (6/9/2008 12:59:46 AM)

quote:

And yes even an "independent, bible-believing" church is a denomination.


First of all, it's not. Ive never seen this on a church's billboard. Secondly, it's nice how you put words in my mouth. I never said "independent."

quote:

But, yes, you are lying to yourself. Of course, you don't know that yet. When you do, sadly, you will reject not just a bad interpretation of scripture, but scripture itself and even your faith in Christ.


Dead horse. May the Lord forgive you, for you know not what you say.



gluadys -> RE: The dead horses (6/9/2008 7:37:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

And yes even an "independent, bible-believing" church is a denomination.


First of all, it's not. Ive never seen this on a church's billboard.


Doesn't matter. Some people think that just because it doesn't say "Baptist" or "Methodist" or some equivalent in their church name they are not part of a denomination. But their churches still act as if they are a denomination, so what's the diff?



ianz -> RE: The dead horses (6/9/2008 7:38:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

Hi - in the midst of the last few posts you might have missed my reply (this post) to your question.

Regards, Ian



Jhud -> RE: The dead horses (6/9/2008 10:38:49 AM)

quote:

The only way you know what "God and His words" are is through the religion taught by your denomination. And yes even an "independent, bible-believing" church is a denomination.


What, does your denomination not allow you to read the Bible for yourself?



evry1needsgod -> RE: The dead horses (6/9/2008 12:02:34 PM)

quote:

What, does your denomination not allow you to read the Bible for yourself?


LOL! Exactly! Makes me wonder.....



gluadys -> RE: The dead horses (6/9/2008 12:55:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

The only way you know what "God and His words" are is through the religion taught by your denomination. And yes even an "independent, bible-believing" church is a denomination.


What, does your denomination not allow you to read the Bible for yourself?



Of course it does. I can even develop my own idiosyncratic interpretation if I want to. In that case I would be a "denomination" of one. In fact, that is how a lot of cults get started. One person develops their own idiosyncratic interpretation and then persuades some other people that it makes sense and the next thing you know you have Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS and a myriad other new denominations.

Most of us, however, do not follow that route. Most of us simply accept the theology taught by our respective church leadership. Some of us may comparison shop a bit and even switch from Protestant to Catholic or Presbyterian to Baptist, but we eventually settle in with a pre-existing theology that we are comfortable with. To say that accepting that pre-existing theology is equivalent to simply "knowing God and his words" or reading the scripture "as it is" without interpretation is utter nonsense.



ianz -> RE: The dead horses (6/9/2008 6:29:03 PM)

From post 39:

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

What if ID uncovers that humans descended from the same common ancestor as other great apes? (Whether by design or not.)


I don't understand what that has to do with biodiversity, but I understand what you are asking now. And to answer your question...if evidence like that were ever found, I would personally denounce Christianity. But that will never happen. This does not mean I am not open to evidence that could be found, but I just don't believe it will be. And I obviously believe this because of what God's Word says, which is why I would renounce my beliefs if that time comes...but again, I don't believe it will.

But ID *does* support the idea that humans descended from a common ancestor.

http://www.discovery.org/v/22
About 2min through Dr Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute states:
quote:

We're not against evolution per se, because evolution can mean change over time, or even common ancestry, which are not meanings of the term [evolution] that we dispute

ID, as the linked video portrays it, is essentially evolution with some designer assistance. So old earth, common ancestry, incremental change, etc (with occasional guidance from a designer to make the jumps which incremental changes could not make).

Regards, Ian

---------------

evry1: I get the feeling you're avoiding this. I'm interested because I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about ID. I mean, you've got unclemonkey for example, a hardline YEC, making reference to ID but ID doesn't seem to support his stance at all.

If ID has the support of Creationists, that seems surprising to me. In fact, the way ID portrays itself, I should think it is taking quite a risk, in that it is against evolutionists and also against Creationists.

Regards, Ian



evry1needsgod -> RE: The dead horses (6/9/2008 7:48:42 PM)

quote:

But ID *does* support the idea that humans descended from a common ancestor.

quote:


evry1: I get the feeling you're avoiding this. I'm interested because I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about ID. I mean, you've got unclemonkey for example, a hardline YEC, making reference to ID but ID doesn't seem to support his stance at all.

If ID has the support of Creationists, that seems surprising to me. In fact, the way ID portrays itself, I should think it is taking quite a risk, in that it is against evolutionists and also against Creationists.


My apologies Ian. I am not purposely avoiding it. I guess I'm just a bit confused. LOL. I started off confused and have not recovered.

Your first quote is absolutely correct. That common ancestor is Adam. I guess the problem we (or maybe just I) have in differentiating Creation and ID is we don't know exactly where they both stand. With all the IDists I have come to know, in my experience they are not too different in their beliefs that Creationists. That why I was a bit confused because at least to me, ID and Creation seems very similar. Perhaps I have not done enough studying on the IDist's point of view. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks for being so kind. I have found that barren among Evolutionists, which makes no sense, because if they claim to hold absolute fact and truth, they should be loving and respectful to others in hopes to teach them, correct? Again, I appreciate your kindness.

In Christ,
ZG



evry1needsgod -> RE: The dead horses (6/9/2008 8:02:14 PM)

quote:

Of course it does. I can even develop my own idiosyncratic interpretation if I want to.


I sure hope you haven't! I'd just stick to a normal, simplistic, literal interpretation of God's Word of which He intended. This would make Him a perfect and fair judge. IF the Bible were just stories and myths, it would be up to you to make it say whatever you want it to say. If God did not speak his words expecting us to obey them literally, who's to say your interpretation is more wrong or right than mine? But, this conversation is pointless if you're not a Christian...

quote:

Most of us simply accept the theology taught by our respective church leadership.


Sir, with all due respect, you're wrong. Who are you speaking for again? DEFINITELY not ME, and probably not Jack either! I go to church, listen to my pastor, then come home and search scriptures myself to make sure what was preached was truth. I don't except for fact ANYTHING that comes from the mouth of men. God gave us Scriptures for us to study personally to rightly divide truth (2Ti 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth). Im not a "denominationalist", I'm a "Biblicist".



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI