Why the Bible is the Work of God [Archive] - HVAC-Talk: Heating, Air & Refrigeration Discussion

scrogdog

12-07-2007, 09:21 AM

Really? Who do you know who has maniuplated the place of his birth?

Personally? No one. Why is it required that I know who did it? Besides, most of the reason that I think that the bible was written by men is because only they could come up with something that is so philosophically... uh.... wierd. I'm trying to be nice here. :)

If you understand 1st century Roman law, this would not even be an argument from you.

I think I may know quite a bit more of the history and law of the Roman Empire than you give me credit for. Still, please go over for us the elements of Roman law that makes your case.

Would YOU die for something you knew to be a lie? Thousands upon thousands of witnesses died in the 1st century Roman empire for what they witnessed.

So? Just because they didn't believe it to be a lie does not in any way mean that it is in fact NOT a lie. Again, there is no logic in that.

We've done this before. But I'll give you another shot. (Doing this keeps me sharp. Thanks.)

Give me an example of a contradiction.

Glad to. A few weeks ago in another topic I put forth a very large collection of scripture that showed how the bible dealt with slavery. In some parts, God instructs us how to treat our slaves. How we can punish, or even kill them, under certain circumstances. But then, there are other passages that say that God is displeased with those who may own slaves. So, if to own slaves is to disobey God, why would God even think to put in how they should be treated? That would be like God saying to me through the bible that "you need to accept Jesus, or else you'll go to hell. However, if you choose to disobey me, here is how you should go about that".

This is the sort of conflict and muck that could have only been imagined by men. Either that, or God is as flawed as we are.

Doctrine...not contradiction of Scripture.

Then, so much for your stance that all of my answers can be found in the bible. For a reading of the bible does not lead me to where you are without accepting your explanatory doctrine. Right?

bootlen

12-07-2007, 10:02 AM

Personally? No one. Why is it required that I know who did it? Besides, most of the reason that I think that the bible was written by men is because only they could come up with something that is so philosophically... uh.... wierd. I'm trying to be nice here.

It is not required that you know He did it. But it is just one example of the truth and accuracy of prophecy. Again, that is a measure of the accuracy of prophecy...that it comes true.

I think I may know quite a bit more of the history and law of the Roman Empire than you give me credit for. Still, please go over for us the elements of Roman law that makes your case.

I'm quite sure you probably do. What is the punishment for, say, the guy who checked to see if Jesus was dead on the cross should he report his death when, in fact, He were not dead? What punishment was promised for such an act?

Or how about a Roman guard whose captor escaped on his watch? What would be that guard's fate?

So? Just because they didn't believe it to be a lie does not in any way mean that it is in fact NOT a lie. Again, there is no logic in that.

Well, 1st century Christians who lived under Roman law understood that what was reported to Caesar had to be true. Many of them saw Christ die on the cross and then saw Him 3 days later very much alive...and amazingly healthy for someone who had been scourged and nailed to a cross for 6 hours. THEY are the ones I am talking about who died for what you call a ruse.

Glad to. A few weeks ago in another topic I put forth a very large collection of scripture that showed how the bible dealt with slavery. In some parts, God instructs us how to treat our slaves. How we can punish, or even kill them, under certain circumstances. But then, there are other passages that say that God is displeased with those who may own slaves. So, if to own slaves is to disobey God, why would God even think to put in how they should be treated? That would be like God saying to me through the bible that "you need to accept Jesus, or else you'll go to hell. However, if you choose to disobey me, here is how you should go about that".

God has relunctantly allowed many things because of the hardness of men's hearts. Slavery is wrong. Plain and simple. God has said so. But what is He to do with those who refuse to eliminate slavery? He is very patient. And thus tells slave-owners to treat slaves with respect. He's pretty clear that they should not be mistreated. And if slaves were treated with the respect that God calls for, they would not really be slaves. THAT is the point.

Another issue of slavery is that many times, someone would find themselves in a financial bind and, because of that economy, would become slaves to soemone who would pay off a debt for them. They were sort of "indentured" and had to work off the "loan". I guess you could also call that slavery.

In any case, God has said slavery is wrong but if you do have slaves, they should be treated as family...not property. No contradiction there.

This is the sort of conflict and muck that could have only been imagined by men. Either that, or God is as flawed as we are.

Nope. It is conflict and muck only in those eyes that are closed.

Then, so much for your stance that all of my answers can be found in the bible. For a reading of the bible does not lead me to where you are without accepting your explanatory doctrine. Right?

I don't expect you to find "answers" by reading the Bible. I expect you to read the Bible to point out my inaccuracies...so that if I am wrong, we both know it and I can be corrected.

gevans

12-07-2007, 10:04 AM

If you are gonna cite a contradiction, please be kind enough to include chapter and verse, just as you would for citing code. That way, everyone knows you are quoting and not just stating what you have heard.

bootlen

12-07-2007, 10:13 AM

BTW, Scrog, the story of Jesus last 24 hours are documented by believers and nonbelievers alike. Respected historians have recorded that short period of time. If they are not to be believed, why should we believe that George Washington was our 1st President when there is more documentation of Jesus last hours than there is of Washington's presidency?

scrogdog

12-07-2007, 10:26 AM

http://www.hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=96035&highlight=slave&page=23

Gevans, please read post number 299 from that link.

Boot, I'll be back later to reply to your words.

bootlen

12-07-2007, 10:30 AM

'kay.

scrogdog

12-07-2007, 10:53 AM

Boot, while reading your words and considering how to reply to them, it occured to me that there is something that I have never asked you that would be valuable information with regards to how you approach things. Call it a "human condition" question.

Strictly from your point of view, what faith is required in your belief? The way you speak of things it is almost as if you believe that many things, such as the resurrection of Jesus, is a locked-down fact. So, are these things really facts? And if they are, why do we need to refer to Christianity as a faith? What do you have faith in that is not necessarily a fact, if anything?

I will reply to your other post, I promise.

bootlen

12-07-2007, 11:05 AM

coordinatesales

12-07-2007, 11:10 AM

God has relunctantly allowed many things because of the hardness of men's hearts. Slavery is wrong. Plain and simple. God has said so. But what is He to do with those who refuse to eliminate slavery? He is very patient. And thus tells slave-owners to treat slaves with respect. He's pretty clear that they should not be mistreated. And if slaves were treated with the respect that God calls for, they would not really be slaves. THAT is the point.

Another issue of slavery is that many times, someone would find themselves in a financial bind and, because of that economy, would become slaves to soemone who would pay off a debt for them. They were sort of "indentured" and had to work off the "loan". I guess you could also call that slavery.

In any case, God has said slavery is wrong but if you do have slaves, they should be treated as family...not property. No contradiction there.

I may be wrong but I thought at that time most any servant or 'employee' was referred to as a slave. That also adds to our confusion as it has a different meaning today to us than it did to people of that time. It still applies to us today though since it applies to anyone working for another regardless of compensation.

bootlen

12-07-2007, 11:12 AM

I may be wrong but I thought at that time most any servant or 'employee' was referred to as a slave. That also adds to our confusion as it has a different meaning today to us than it did to people of that time. It still applies to us today though since it applies to anyone working for another regardless of compensation.

I think you are exactly right. That is exactly my understanding as well.

RoBoTeq

12-07-2007, 01:30 PM

Sysint said the following in another topic;

Ask and ye shall recieve.

To me, there is no logical connection between the popularity of Christianity or how long it has been around or how long the concepts of the bible have been held by men and the validity of the bible as a divine work.

This is not proof of anything. It does not validate anything. There is no logical connection. That the bible is popular or has been around for a long time is meaningless in terms of determining whether or not it is a divine work.

So, I am looking for a line of reasoning here that I may have missed. Why do these things tell you that the bible is a divine work?

Robo has made the claim the the OT was held unwritten in the minds of men in perfect form over the course of hundreds or perhaps thousands of years. That is flat out impossible. Further, if men were holding on to ideas that they would be eager to put on paper, then why were the OT books of the bible not written in man's first written language (cuniform)?

You've already set up all of your dismisals and have your mind firmly made up. There is no reason to have this discussion with you. A wise man once stated that it is not good for us to throw our pearls before swine because the swine would just devour them. In this case, you are the swine. No pearls for you!

scrogdog

12-07-2007, 01:49 PM

Darn. And here I was thinking that Robo was going to publish for us a white paper on the subject of how the word-for-word retention of the entire work of the OT in people minds over hundreds or thousands of years IS possible.

I guess we'll have to wait for another day for that fascinating expose. :rolleyes:

sysint

12-07-2007, 01:55 PM

scrogdog

12-07-2007, 02:06 PM

It is not required that you know He did it. But it is just one example of the truth and accuracy of prophecy. Again, that is a measure of the accuracy of prophecy...that it comes true.

No it isn't. Because you have not demonstrated anything. You have only words written on paper.

I'm quite sure you probably do. What is the punishment for, say, the guy who checked to see if Jesus was dead on the cross should he report his death when, in fact, He were not dead? What punishment was promised for such an act?

Or how about a Roman guard whose captor escaped on his watch? What would be that guard's fate?

Death. But again, it is not a lie to state what you believe to be true even if it isn't. You believe it, so you are not lying. Jesus may have only BELIEVED he was divine. I wonder how any of us might handle it if we were told at a young age that we were the Messiah? Even if men did write the bible, I believe that they were well-intentioned individuals out to change the world for the better.

Well, 1st century Christians who lived under Roman law understood that what was reported to Caesar had to be true. Many of them saw Christ die on the cross and then saw Him 3 days later very much alive...and amazingly healthy for someone who had been scourged and nailed to a cross for 6 hours. THEY are the ones I am talking about who died for what you call a ruse.

Again, they BELIEVED it to be true. Doesn't mean it was. And they certainly did not lie even if what they believed was not true.

God has relunctantly allowed many things because of the hardness of men's hearts. Slavery is wrong. Plain and simple. God has said so. But what is He to do with those who refuse to eliminate slavery? He is very patient. And thus tells slave-owners to treat slaves with respect. He's pretty clear that they should not be mistreated. And if slaves were treated with the respect that God calls for, they would not really be slaves. THAT is the point.

I suspect he could do exactly what he did before with people that did not follow his rule. Kill them. Even so, your comments don't do anything for me because it makes no sense in context with other things in the bible. For example, I am hurting no one but myself, supposedly, by not believing. To God, that is apparrently enough to kill me and throw me into hell even though I haven't hurt any of my brothers with my actions.

Enslaving a brother DOES hurt them... in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus. There should no guideline other than "just don't do it".

Another issue of slavery is that many times, someone would find themselves in a financial bind and, because of that economy, would become slaves to soemone who would pay off a debt for them. They were sort of "indentured" and had to work off the "loan". I guess you could also call that slavery.

In any case, God has said slavery is wrong but if you do have slaves, they should be treated as family...not property. No contradiction there.

You call this saying that slavery is wrong and treating people with respect?

"And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor." (Leviticus 25:44-46)

"And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be avenged; for he is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." (1 Peter 2:18)

I sure don't. The human condition indeed. :eek:

I don't expect you to find "answers" by reading the Bible. I expect you to read the Bible to point out my inaccuracies...so that if I am wrong, we both know it and I can be corrected.

You will never be corrected in these matters. :) Probably neither will I. However, your words are still valuable while I seek understanding of the thought process.

scrogdog

12-07-2007, 02:09 PM

I think what you have to do is setup some parameters for discussion.

Some here mentioned are valid such as archeological integrity and prophecy.
I'll need to think a bit more for some others. Afterwards spending some time on each would be preferable.

The slavery topic is OK with me too. Maybe that fits under "human conditions".

Fair enough, Sys. You sort of started this, so go in the direction you like with whatever parameters you are comfy with. One at a time is fine with me. Pick one. :)

scrogdog

12-07-2007, 02:25 PM

Sure, no problem.

Excellent question. One I had never thought of or been asked in this way. Why faith if there is so much physical evidence? My take on it is this and I'm sure Scripture backs me on this.

Many, I would even say most, who want to go to Heaven think that they have to do something to get their "ticket". It is called in Scripture "good works" or simply "works". However, Eph. 2 tells us explicitly that there is nothing wen can do to gain saving favor with God. We do not gain eternal life by DOING. We gain eternal life by RECEIVING. Ephesians 2 says that eternal life is a free gift (redundant...must be important) of God, not a result of works.

It is difficult for most to have that kind of faith...the kind that totally falls before God in humility and trust with their very life.

Receiving and trusting in Christ is the hardest easy thing you can ever do. It totally tears down pride (which is the very root of all sin). It is totally and absolutely dependent on faith.

I hope this answers your question.

It does.

What you just said actually demonstrates one facet of the human condition. To me it is quite plain that each of us have different standards of acceptance.

Let me explain in this way. You often refer to the fact that my belief in George Washington as our first president is similar to your belief in the ressurection of Jesus in that I believe words on paper, and then I turn around and observe that all you've got is words on paper. What the heck is wrong with Scrog?... you probably think. He seems two-faced. He accepts one thing but not another which is the exact same thing!

No it isn't. Here is why.

To a guy like me, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or proof. Now, I could be all wrong about Washington, but I believe it because there is no reason not to. No extra-ordinary claims are being made. It takes no leap of faith to believe this because it is hard to think of a motive for such a mass conspiracy.

There are plenty of motives for a mass conspiracy with regards to Christianity, and some of them are even noble and good. Look at the state of the aforementioned Roman Empire during the time of Jesus. See where I am going? It could have been God that decided that the world needed a savior at that particular time, but I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that man could easily have arrived at the same realization. So they made one.

scrogdog

12-07-2007, 03:00 PM

bootlen

12-07-2007, 03:10 PM

Again, they BELIEVED it to be true. Doesn't mean it was. And they certainly did not lie even if what they believed was not true.

Which was it that they believed that was not true...that He was scourged and crucified or that He He was ressurected? And how could so many have been made to believe something that was not true? And why would and how could the Roman government been a part of this conspiracy that would rock their very existance? Your premise that they were believing something happened that did not simply does not hold water. To me, THAT would be an impossibility of the highest order, particularly having taken place in the 1st century. It would have taken a very clever and highly technical team to pull that off. After all, they didn't even have electricity back then and it takes a huge effort these days to pull something like that off, even with the help of TV making the audience remote.

bootlen

12-07-2007, 03:13 PM

Ok, so? Have you ever heard me say that I doubt that Jesus was crucified?

What I doubt happened after his last 24 hours.

Which I noticed your post above and addressed it directly, leaving out the rest. Frankly, if you totally reject the possibility of the resurrection, the rest of the argument is moot. It was the resurrection, after all, that proves Jesus is God. He ressurected Himself without the help of the Father or the Holy Spirit. And He was able to do so because He never sinned, leaving Him invincible to corruption (rot).

bootlen

12-07-2007, 03:17 PM

It does.

What you just said actually demonstrates one facet of the human condition. To me it is quite plain that each of us have different standards of acceptance.

Let me explain in this way. You often refer to the fact that my belief in George Washington as our first president is similar to your belief in the ressurection of Jesus in that I believe words on paper, and then I turn around and observe that all you've got is words on paper. What the heck is wrong with Scrog?... you probably think. He seems two-faced. He accepts one thing but not another which is the exact same thing!

No it isn't. Here is why.

To a guy like me, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or proof. Now, I could be all wrong about Washington, but I believe it because there is no reason not to. No extra-ordinary claims are being made. It takes no leap of faith to believe this because it is hard to think of a motive for such a mass conspiracy.

There are plenty of motives for a mass conspiracy with regards to Christianity, and some of them are even noble and good. Look at the state of the aforementioned Roman Empire during the time of Jesus. See where I am going? It could have been God that decided that the world needed a savior at that particular time, but I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that man could easily have arrived at the same realization. So they made one.

Well, Scrog, if ressurecting one's self from death is not extra-ordinary, then extra-ordinary does not exist in any way, shape, or form. What other means would you suggest?

Oh, yeah. You want a personal invitation to a huge event of UNBELIEVABLE proportions...

Oops! Here we are again. UNBELIEVABLE proportions. It would still leave you in disbelief because it would be unbelievable.

Oh, well....

royc

12-07-2007, 04:01 PM

Well, Scrog, if ressurecting one's self from death is not extra-ordinary, then extra-ordinary does not exist in any way, shape, or form. What other means would you suggest?

Oh, yeah. You want a personal invitation to a huge event of UNBELIEVABLE proportions...

Oops! Here we are again. UNBELIEVABLE proportions. It would still leave you in disbelief because it would be unbelievable.

Oh, well....

Ressurections are not that unusual......watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPabMyVvC9s

Roy

bootlen

12-07-2007, 09:50 PM

Ressurections are not that unusual......watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPabMyVvC9s

Roy

Anybody you ever hear of die, to include having blood and water flow from a lung, spend 3 days dead in the grave and then come back to life?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

royc

12-07-2007, 11:08 PM

Anybody you ever hear of die, to include having blood and water flow from a lung, spend 3 days dead in the grave and then come back to life?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

Nothing like answering your own question, its usualy a sign of looney tunes.

So, are you saying the man didnt have an experience with Jesus and God ???

He's a liar ?? He didnt die and came back to life ??

Tell us how you realy feel.

Roy

bootlen

12-07-2007, 11:50 PM

I don't know what the guy did, But I doubt he died. And he sure wasn't dead for 3 days.

royc

12-08-2007, 12:44 AM

He said he encountered Jesus and God, do you think thats possible ???

Roy

bootlen

12-08-2007, 08:06 AM

He said he encountered Jesus and God, do you think thats possible ???

Roy

Not according to Scripture. Scripture says that when we die, we face judgement...either as a believer or as a non-believer. Scripture also says we are appointed to die ONCE physically. And if one read carefully, one discerns that there are one 2 possible scenarios: 2 births and one death or one birth and 2 deaths. By that I mean a physical birth, a spiritual birth, and a physical death or; a physical birth, a physical death, and a spiritual death. The former is what happens to believers and the latter is what happens to non-believers. This is not what I say but what God says. I have learned the hard way to not disagree with Him so this is what I believe.

sline-dawg

12-08-2007, 02:26 PM

bootlen

12-08-2007, 05:42 PM

Would any of you believers care to tell me what you expect in the spiritual world ? Where will you be , what will you do , for how long.... Just a few of the things I would like to hear your thoughts on.....

I'm thinking 1 birth and 1 death.....;)

That's a really good question, Sline. Fact is, we cannot fully even imagine how great it will be. But there are some descriptions of Heaven and what it will be like found in the Bible.

I'm sure you've heard of the "Pearly Gates" and "streets of gold". Well, those are from Scripture and there is much more description found if you look for it.

Also, Jesus said He was going to prepare a place for us. A mansion, as it were.
Someone once tried to figure how much space we'd have and he did it based on the measurements of Heaven found in Scripture divided up evenly among the estimated number of believers based on demographic studies. If I recollect, each citizen of Heaven would have about 60 cubic acres. I say cubic because in heaven, gravity is not an issue. In other words, you would have 6 floor plans...one for each surface of the cube. And supposedly, it will be decorated and adorned with things we cannot imagine ever owning in this world.
Now I don't claim he was close to the truth but it does cause one to wonder what Christ could prepare with over 2,000 years to work with if He created what we see now in 6 days (not that time is a barrier for Him...it is not...but it makes me wonder).

What will we do? We will work. But we will not labor. I liken work without labor to the Saturday morning polishing of the Harley. Or turning wrenches to fine tune that 409. You know...doing work that is enjoyable and rewarding.
But the best thing we'll be doing is constantly praising Jesus. That is what I really look forward to.

For how long? For eternity. Forever. In a place where time does not exist. There is no past or future...only the present. And it will never end. There will be no aging; no disease or corruption; best of all, no sin.

There will be no wars; no arguments; no disagreement; no sadness. There will be only peace; harmony; agreement; joy.

There will be no night; only day with no sun...light will have its source in the glory of Jesus Christ.

There will be no seas to separate families and loved ones. We will all be together foever with the One who gave His life so that we might enjoy this eternity of which I have not even scratched the surface.

royc

12-08-2007, 06:24 PM

Not according to Scripture. Scripture says that when we die, we face judgement...either as a believer or as a non-believer. Scripture also says we are appointed to die ONCE physically. And if one read carefully, one discerns that there are one 2 possible scenarios: 2 births and one death or one birth and 2 deaths. By that I mean a physical birth, a spiritual birth, and a physical death or; a physical birth, a physical death, and a spiritual death. The former is what happens to believers and the latter is what happens to non-believers. This is not what I say but what God says. I have learned the hard way to not disagree with Him so this is what I believe.

So, how do you explain what happend to that person, and many others including myself.

How can one meet God, and btw there is no ambiguity when that happens and no doubt about who it is, believe me I know. Does the bible say anywhere that we CAN NOT meet God in such a situation, and of so where does it say it.

What your saying is that God has written all hes ever going to do, and he cant change his mind and do something with out notifying it in scriptures first.

Roy

bootlen

12-08-2007, 07:29 PM

So, how do you explain what happend to that person, and many others including myself.

How can one meet God, and btw there is no ambiguity when that happens and no doubt about who it is, believe me I know. Does the bible say anywhere that we CAN NOT meet God in such a situation, and of so where does it say it.

What your saying is that God has written all hes ever going to do, and he cant change his mind and do something with out notifying it in scriptures first.

Roy

Sure He can change His mind but not if it violates His own edict. And Scripture is clear...one and only one physical death, then comes the judgement.

As to you and your friends, I recommend staying away from spicy foods.:D

It seems that if you really met God, He's given you a different version of truth than He's given the rest of the world.

Yup. Spicy foods.:rolleyes:

icchvac

12-08-2007, 08:30 PM

... including myself.

Roy

So Roy, since you elude to something happening to yourself, and since you like to bring up the ufo thing quite often, tell us, Has God told you something about ufos? How about letting us in on the secret.

royc

12-09-2007, 08:03 AM

So Roy, since you elude to something happening to yourself, and since you like to bring up the ufo thing quite often, tell us, Has God told you something about ufos? How about letting us in on the secret.

Look my friend, I dont know you and you dont know me, exept for what is written here. Since you have a very low post count, I'm assuming you have not read many of my previous posts. The one thing I try very hard to do in forums such as this, is not to pre judge people by their writing, for it is difficult if not impossible, to realy know the real person behind it. Forums allow a certain anonomity and one never knows others education or agenda.

I try hard to respect everyone here and I live be the Golden Rule, even if I dont agree with everything they write, and I expect the same from others.

Since you seem to make light of my and others NDE's, and attempting to ridicule by lumping it somehow to UFO's, I highly reccoment you first educate yourself in such subject matters.

You have in front of you one of the best information systems available, I wish 50 years ago I would have such tool available, so use it, you may find those subjects enlighting to say the least.

Roy

icchvac

12-09-2007, 08:40 AM

Look my friend, I dont know you and you dont know me, exept for what is written here.

Since you seem to make light of my and others NDE's, and attempting to ridicule by lumping it somehow to UFO's,

Roy

Roy, I don't see where you get that I'm making light of anyone's NDE's since I've never posted anything pertaining to that subject on any forum, much less this one.

It would be much easier to just say no if you didn't want to answer.

You're the one who brings up the ufo stuff, not me. I allow for their possibility but have seen none myself. I was just giving you a chance to state what you know or believe about the subject. But since you don't want to, never mind.

The Doctor

12-09-2007, 08:45 AM

Would any of you believers care to tell me what you expect in the spiritual world ? Where will you be , what will you do , for how long.... Just a few of the things I would like to hear your thoughts on.....

I'm thinking 1 birth and 1 death.....;)

In one of C.S. Lewis' books, he brought this thought up--that what we are becoming in this life will be continued throughout eternity. That is, if we are turning to God through the Lord Jesus Christ, then we will be changed STARTING in this life, and that will be made known across eternity.

Likewise, if we are not turning to God, then our personalities will also be made known, and they are then decidedly more and more in some other direction.

(with all apologies to Mr. Lewis, as I have not stated it very well.)

I'll track it down in the book of which I'm speaking, and I'll post it. But it is to say that we continue for eternity what we begin in the now... or thereabouts. :D

sline-dawg

12-09-2007, 11:02 AM

Thanks Len, That is the Utopia most people would try to reach, and the one I have heard most often..

Doc, that is an interesting idea....I look forward to more info...

The human mind is fascinating and imagination knows no limits.... I believe that is the key to mans survival...:)

kim

12-09-2007, 04:48 PM

The first question always has been "what is the beginning of existance?"

You can say the universe has existed forever, but you can't prove it. Science doesn't try. They have measured and postulated back to a universal event that has shaped the universe as we see it. They spend countless time and money trying to go back another nano second or two.

The other side of the chicken-vs-egg scenario: God existed forever. You can't prove it either.

Now ask yourself would you rather live in a cold callous greed inspired world of human causality.
Or would you rather live in a world where justice provails and some type of monevolent diety has got your back. The choice is completely up to you.

I have chosen a world with a God and looked at many of the more popular gods out there.
Proof of the bible: it is inhuman. Hamirobi's code predated the 10 commandments, but that is all. It does not compare with the simplicity and elegance of the 10 commandments.
Now ask yourself what person is going to write a set of laws then not publish a set of consciquences for breaking them.
What ruler in charge is going to say everybody get a day off work? There goes 14% of his productivity.
This is just an example. Jesus gave many more insightfull lessons to us.

Do not let your arrogance stand in the way of a study of the unique philosophy set out by this humble book. It was written by human hands, but it was crafted by human comprehension of a superior intellect.

chillbilly

12-09-2007, 05:11 PM

That's a really good question, Sline. Fact is, we cannot fully even imagine how great it will be. But there are some descriptions of Heaven and what it will be like found in the Bible.

I'm sure you've heard of the "Pearly Gates" and "streets of gold". Well, those are from Scripture and there is much more description found if you look for it.

Also, Jesus said He was going to prepare a place for us. A mansion, as it were.
Someone once tried to figure how much space we'd have and he did it based on the measurements of Heaven found in Scripture divided up evenly among the estimated number of believers based on demographic studies. If I recollect, each citizen of Heaven would have about 60 cubic acres. I say cubic because in heaven, gravity is not an issue. In other words, you would have 6 floor plans...one for each surface of the cube. And supposedly, it will be decorated and adorned with things we cannot imagine ever owning in this world.
Now I don't claim he was close to the truth but it does cause one to wonder what Christ could prepare with over 2,000 years to work with if He created what we see now in 6 days (not that time is a barrier for Him...it is not...but it makes me wonder).

What will we do? We will work. But we will not labor. I liken work without labor to the Saturday morning polishing of the Harley. Or turning wrenches to fine tune that 409. You know...doing work that is enjoyable and rewarding.
But the best thing we'll be doing is constantly praising Jesus. That is what I really look forward to.

For how long? For eternity. Forever. In a place where time does not exist. There is no past or future...only the present. And it will never end. There will be no aging; no disease or corruption; best of all, no sin.

There will be no wars; no arguments; no disagreement; no sadness. There will be only peace; harmony; agreement; joy.

There will be no night; only day with no sun...light will have its source in the glory of Jesus Christ.

There will be no seas to separate families and loved ones. We will all be together foever with the One who gave His life so that we might enjoy this eternity of which I have not even scratched the surface.

Very nice description Bootlen.
Can you point me to the scriptural content in the bible that matches your description?

bootlen

12-09-2007, 06:47 PM

Very nice description Bootlen.
Can you point me to the scriptural content in the bible that matches your description?

Dang it all, Chill. I was hoping you wouldn't ask that. Give me a bit. I'll find it. We have been moving lately and many things are still packed at our new digs. I'll look for my Strong's Exhaustive and hopefully find some of it.

Off hand, though, look in Rev. 21. That's just for starters.

scrogdog

12-09-2007, 09:18 PM

Now ask yourself would you rather live in a cold callous greed inspired world of human causality.

Or would you rather live in a world where justice provails and some type of monevolent diety has got your back. The choice is completely up to you.

Hehehe. Of course I would RATHER live in a world in which justice prevails And some benevolent diety has my back. What... you guys think because I speak out agonst the bible that I wish things were not so? Pshaw! I'd love it if things were that easy. Unfortunately... they do not appear to be that way. ;)

It's called being a realist. Things are not always as we wish them to be.

bootlen

12-09-2007, 09:58 PM

In one of C.S. Lewis' books, he brought this thought up--that what we are becoming in this life will be continued throughout eternity. That is, if we are turning to God through the Lord Jesus Christ, then we will be changed STARTING in this life, and that will be made known across eternity.

Likewise, if we are not turning to God, then our personalities will also be made known, and they are then decidedly more and more in some other direction.

(with all apologies to Mr. Lewis, as I have not stated it very well.)

I'll track it down in the book of which I'm speaking, and I'll post it. But it is to say that we continue for eternity what we begin in the now... or thereabouts. :D

Could it be from "Mere Christianity"? Or maybe "The Problem of Pain"?

The Doctor

12-10-2007, 12:08 AM

Could it be from "Mere Christianity"? Or maybe "The Problem of Pain"?

I'm sure you're right, Bootlen. I'm swirling through The Grand Miracle, and it's not popping up. Likewise, I know it's not The Screwtape Letters. And it's not in 'Till We Have Faces.

It's not terribly far removed from an idea that Sartre might have alluded to in No Exit, but I suppose that he was just a player-hater. What do I know? :D

The characters in The Great Divorce hinted at that idea, but the concept was more fully developed by Lewis in one of the two books mentioned at the top.

12-10-2007, 03:47 AM

I've read "Mere Christianity", and I don't recall that model being developed, but it's been a couple decades. I do have my own model, which it surprised me that C.S. Lewis also developed the same thought. The way it makes sense to me is that Jesus died, to free us from sin's slavery over our lives, if we receive His free gift. He promises us Eternal life with Him, and Eternity exists right now. We are simply in that segment of eternity governed by time. Whatever choice we make right now, in this life, within 'time', will be honored by God, and continued into eternity, after this life in 'time' is over.

I developed that model to illustrate that God doesn't send people to Hell. He warns us of the ultimate destiny of living without Him in this life, and shows us how to avoid it, and experience the life with Him He wants to have with us, but He honors our will--even if it leads to hell.

12-10-2007, 04:50 AM

Strictly from your point of view, what faith is required in your belief? The way you speak of things it is almost as if you believe that many things, such as the resurrection of Jesus, is a locked-down fact. So, are these things really facts? And if they are, why do we need to refer to Christianity as a faith? What do you have faith in that is not necessarily a fact, if anything?

A belief in Jesus, or Faith in him, that we are to have means that we trust Him so completely that our motives and actions are prompted by that reliance on Him.

4100 pisteuo { pist-yoo’-o}

from 4102; TDNT - 6:174,849; v

AV - believe 239, commit unto 4, commit to (one’s) trust 1, be committed unto 1, be put in trust with 1, be commit to one’s trust 1, believer 1; 248

GK - 4409 { pisteuvw }

1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in
1a) of the thing believed
1a1) to credit, have confidence
1b) in a moral or religious reference
1b1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul
1b2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

The OT is full of prophesies about future events, that we have seen come true--in the past, and yet it is provable that the prophesies themselves were written before they happened.

Is. 44 & 45 were written before the Babalonian conquest of Israel, and before Persia was a power worth considering a threat to anything, yet it prophesies the conquest of Babylon, by Persia, and names Cyrus as the conquerer. Daniel showed Cyrus the prophesy when he entered Babylon.

Jesus' entry, and death were prophesied to the day, centuries before the events happened. There are over 300 prophesies of Jesus, all written centuries before his time (that's verifiable) that all came true. If you took the easiest ten of those prophesies, and calculated the odds of just those ten being fulfilled in one person, you end up with a number arround 10^125. The mathmatical odds beyond which are considered impossible, are 10^68. To put it into a picture, they would be the same odds of one man, pulling a single marked quarter, with one selection, from a pile of quarters one foot deep, and covering the entire state of Texas. That is the odds of only 10 prophesies--there are 300 more.

What boot was referring to before was the ressurection of Jesus. All the disciples saw Him die, and all of them saw Him risen again--that is the claim. The evidence of the claim being true is in the disciples themselves. We have a pretty good description of their character before Jesus died. They were changed from the inside. On one hand, they all ran away terrified when Jesus was merely arrested. On the other hand, they were executed because they would not renounce the claim that he had risen from the dead. James was beheaded. Peter was crucified. Paul was jailed, shipwrecked, beaten, stoned...and more, yet still pursued the claim that He had risen, and His claimes to be with us, give us joy in all circumstances, and eventually save us completely from our sin nature. That is faith. The willingness to act on the conviction that it is true---but we must be convicted of it first.

The disciples would have known if it was false that Jesus rose from the dead. They seen him die, and had no expectation He would rise again. All of them doubted at first, untill Jesus Himself appeared to them and convinced them. After that, nothing could shake their conviction.

What Christians believe, that is not yet fact, are the promises Jesus made that have not yet been fulfilled, and the ones we see being fulfilled all the time and forget about. He promised to be with us, in this life, to guide us, to fulfill our lives in His design for them, to champion the fight when people oppose us, to teach us how to really love each other, not just tolerate or look like we like each other, (some of us need a bit more work in this area than others), and to one day return for us to take us home with Him.

Since everything else He has told us is true, I think it is reasonable to trust Him that those yet unfulfilled promises are also true, and reliable.

You on the other hand, require somethin you have not yet seen, and that's ok. You say that you want to understand the Christian thought process, but to a degree, it can't be understood untill it is experienced, for about the same reason that a man born blind, can't understand what color is, or sight is. Only God really understands what it is you need to see, to understand the Christian thought process, and you can allways ask Him to reveal it to you. Who knows, maybe He want's to use this forum to show you exactly what you want to see, to understand, maybe it's the searching process, an out side situation, or both. That's another one of His promises though.

Proverbs 2:1-8

1 My son, if you accept my words
and store up my commands within you,
2 turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding,
3 and if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding,
4 and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure,
5 then you will understand the fear of the LORD
and find the knowledge of God.
6 For the LORD gives wisdom,
and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
7 He holds victory in store for the upright,
he is a shield to those whose walk is blameless,
8 for he guards the course of the just
and protects the way of his faithful ones.

The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984.

Jeremiah 29:11,12
11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you.

bootlen

12-10-2007, 07:14 AM

The way it makes sense to me is that Jesus died, to free us from sin's slavery over our lives, if we receive His free gift. He promises us Eternal life with Him, and Eternity exists right now. We are simply in that segment of eternity governed by time. Whatever choice we make right now, in this life, within 'time', will be honored by God, and continued into eternity, after this life in 'time' is over.

I developed that model to illustrate that God doesn't send people to Hell. He warns us of the ultimate destiny of living without Him in this life, and shows us how to avoid it, and experience the life with Him He wants to have with us, but He honors our will--even if it leads to hell.

Hey! Our pastor preached on this exact theme yesterday! He presented it as it centered around the Bema Seat and from I Cor. 3.

numbawunfela

12-11-2007, 11:24 AM

I've been in a cave studying for NATE. Sorry for the delay. interesting topic. I don't see that many replies that I believe you would find helpful Scrogdog. I hope this one is.

The bible is not a science textbook, but if an all-knowing god inspired it, he wouldn't flub when referencing something he made. When the bible touches on science it is accurate.

We spoke a little about this in a previous post, We agreed that people in the middle ages likely did not believe the earth was flat, but isaiah said in apporox 720 BCE that the earth was round, significant for his day.

In 1473 B.C.E. with the completion of the bible book of job, The Bible stated with extraordinary clarity that the earth is hanging “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) In the original Hebrew, the word for “nothing” (beli-mah′) used here literally means “without anything.”
The Contemporary English Version uses the expression, “on empty space.”

A planet hanging “on empty space” was not at all how most people in those days pictured the earth. Yet, far ahead of his time, the Bible writer recorded a statement that is scientifically sound.
--Medicine--
The Ebers Papyrus, dating from about 1550 B.C.E. was an Egyptian document containing Medical remedies. Most of the remedies were merely ineffective, but some of them were extremely dangerous. For the treatment of a wound, one of the prescriptions recommended applying a mixture made of human excrement combined with other substances.

This text of Egyptian medical remedies was written at about the same time as the first books of the Bible, which included the Mosaic Law. Moses, who was born in 1593 B.C.E., grew up in Egypt. (Exodus 2:1-10) As a member of Pharaoh’s household, he was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” (Acts 7:22) He was familiar with “the physicians” of Egypt. (Genesis 50:1-3) Did their ineffective or dangerous medical practices influence his writings?

No. On the contrary, the Mosaic Law included sanitary regulations that were far ahead of their time. For example, a law regarding military encampments required burying excrement away from the camp. (Deuteronomy 23:13) This was a profoundly advanced preventive measure. It helped keep water free from contamination and provided protection from fly-borne shigellosis and other diarrheal illnesses that still claim millions of lives each year in lands where sanitary conditions are horrible. A person who had or was suspected of having a communicable disease was quarantined. (Leviticus 13:1-5) Garments or vessels that came in contact with an animal that had died of itself (perhaps from disease) were to be either washed before reuse or destroyed. (Leviticus 11:27, 28, 32, 33) Thousands of years before medical science learned about the ways in which disease spreads, the Bible prescribed reasonable preventive measures as safeguards against disease. Not surprisingly, Moses could speak of Israelites in general in his day as living to 70 or 80 years of age. Psalm 90:10. Pretty good, even for our day.
Then there is the description of the water cycle in ecclesiastes chapter 1

When it comes to angels and miracles, we either cannot prove or disprove with the available evedence and modern science. And just as TV would have been hard to explain to Moses, he may have a hard time explaining splitting the red sea to us. Just because we can’t explain it doesn’t mean it did not happen. With enough examination of the bible as a whole one must decide to accept what we can't currently disprove, especially since their seems to be a lot recommending the bible. So just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it is untrue, it just means we have to study it more, but in the meantime we can get a lot of benefit from the rest of the bible. A closed mind stops at the first hint of an uncomfortable possibility, like the chance that biblical miricles may be real.

numbawunfela

12-11-2007, 11:38 AM

Presurvationof the text.

THe Bible is the only book that I can think of that has been under nearly universal threat of destruction for most of it's existence, from, being copied on parishable materials, to translation from a largely extinct language (modern and ancient Hebrew are quite different) to VERY powerful political and religious rulers very organized efforts to destroy it. How did the Bible turn out? well the best way to know is to compare a Very old copy with a very new one. OLD: dead sea scroll, New (er) a masoretic text.

In one study, scholars compared the 53rd chapter of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scroll with the Masoretic text produced a thousand years later. The book A General Introduction to the Bible, explains the results of the study: “Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only seventeen letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word ‘light,’ which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly. ... Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission—and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage.”

Professor Millar Burrows, who worked with the scrolls for years, analyzing their contents, came to a similar conclusion: “Many of the differences between the ... Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text can be explained as mistakes in copying. Apart from these, there is a remarkable agreement, on the whole, with the text found in the medieval manuscripts. Such agreement in a manuscript so much older gives reassuring testimony to the general accuracy of the traditional text.”

But see!!! there were errors! one may say. Yes there were, but how do we know that? Because of the huge number of copies available to be able to compare. So errors in and of themselves are no reason for suspicion. Really, an utter lack of errors would smell like a cover up. Basically, they did not all make the same mistake. And they were careful.

Skilled copyists utilized a number of cross-checking tools. To avoid omitting even a single letter from the Bible text, they went so far as to count the 815,140 individual letters in the Hebrew Scriptures. Such diligent effort ensured a high degree of accuracy.

Sir Frederic Kenyon, longtime curator of the British Museum, could therefore say: “It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain... This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”

Since prophecy is a volitile topic, I'll leave that one for last.
Perhaps if I say that 'your ac system seems to be a bit old...' first, the householder will be less inclined to freak out when I say 'It's gotta be replaced' at the end of my service call. So too I'll build on the last post about accuracy. It seems pretty well settled as far as the scentific community is concerned. Even if they think a bunch of hoodlums wrote it, at least we know exactly what the hoodlums said.

If the bible really was God's word, we would expect that he make it available.
“The Bible is the most widely read book in history. ... More copies have been distributed of the Bible than of any other book. The Bible has also been translated more times, and into more languages, than any other book.”—“The World Book Encyclopedia.” (interesting, the #2 book is 'quotations from chairman Mao' and has only one sixth the bibles circulation, only 1 billion copies)

The Bible is also the most widely translated book in history. The complete Bible or portions of it have been translated into more than 2,100 languages and dialects. Over 90 percent of the human family have access to at least part of the Bible in their own language. In this way, it crosses national boundaries and racial and ethnic barriers. More than harry potter ;)
This does not prove that it is inspired per se, but it does indicate that at least the bible is different than any other book, modern or ancient.

scrogdog

12-11-2007, 02:44 PM

I am following along, but it is my busy season at work. I'll catch up eventually but I may also be a bit scarce for a couple of weeks at least. :)

k-fridge

12-11-2007, 03:04 PM

I am following along, but it is my busy season at work. I'll catch up eventually but I may also be a bit scarce for a couple of weeks at least. :)
You work??

Just kidding, we'll miss ya. :p

scrogdog

12-12-2007, 10:44 AM

You work??

Just kidding, we'll miss ya. :p

I make it appear as if I do.

Thanks K-man. :)

scrogdog

12-12-2007, 11:29 AM

bootlen

12-12-2007, 01:40 PM

I would bet so. I think the Apochrypha (sp?) is part of it. And I think a set of books called The MacAbee's (sp? again) or something or other, is as well. It's my understanding that the Catholic Church uses them pretty extensively.

scrogdog

12-12-2007, 02:14 PM

Thanks, Boot.

It will be interesting to have a look at that stuff.

bootlen

12-12-2007, 02:31 PM

Caution is warned, however. Those that did not pass canon are likely not inspired works. The criteria was stringent and consistent.

royc

12-12-2007, 03:04 PM

Caution is warned, however. Those that did not pass canon are likely not inspired works. The criteria was stringent and consistent.

Is that the same as the "Boot Litmus Test"...lol

Roy

bootlen

12-12-2007, 03:18 PM

Is that the same as the "Boot Litmus Test"...lol

Roy

Not my standards there, roy. Maybe you never heard of the Canon of Scripture.

icchvac

12-12-2007, 04:17 PM

I think there may be a few that would be considered good, like the book of Enoch because it is mentioned in the bible, and I think there was another mentioned but I forget where that was now. I guess it's time to read the OT again.

12-13-2007, 03:13 AM

The general consensus over the centuries, when each scholar recommended changes to the established cannonical library--as I understand it--was that the apocryphal books, though likely not inspired, were still good books to read in the church service

numbawunfela

12-13-2007, 02:48 PM

This topic deserves more time than I can give it right now. I do have a question though.

Is there any collection of works that shows what was not accepted in to the bible when it was edited/canonized?

Among others there was the gospel of judas, ecclesiaticus, 1 and 2 mcabees...
Most of these are in the Jerusalem Bible. Many consider the mcabees to be fairly reliable history, but not necessarily inspired.

If you e-mail me scrogdogicus I can mailicus some stuficus to you if you likicus.
(sounds like I am cussing :D )

That way you can devote time at you leisure.

bootlen

12-13-2007, 03:17 PM

Among others there was the gospel of judas, ecclesiaticus, 1 and 2 mcabees...
Most of these are in the Jerusalem Bible. Many consider the mcabees to be fairly reliable history, but not necessarily inspired.

If you e-mail me scrogdogicus I can mailicus some stuficus to you if you likicus.
(sounds like I am cussing :D )

That way you can devote time at you leisure.

Gospel of Judas proven to be false. Written sometime around 12th or 13th century, I believe.

Soundicus likus ya goticus marblesicus in yer mouthicus.

numbawunfela

12-20-2007, 10:41 PM

Hey there scrogdog and friends! I just pulled the NATE test over my knee and gave it an extended, two week long spanking!

Core-Service (90)
Gas Heat-Service (85)
Heat Pump-Service (88)
Air Distribution-Service (83)
Oil Heat-Service (85)
Gas Hydronics-Service (85)
Oil Hydronics-Service (89)

I am now, unfortunately nearing the end of my recent worker's comp. funded sabbatical, and so will not be posting with much regularity. I will try to post a thread about some tips I learned about how to manhandle the NATE test for posterity's sake. Also the boss wants me to help the others in the company pass.

Sorry I won't be able to post too much about the bible. I'll try to get one or two more in if I can Scrog.

scrogdog

12-20-2007, 11:17 PM

Take your time, bro.

This one is deep... very deep. I need time myself. :)

Congratulations!

numbawunfela

12-21-2007, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by scrogdog

One last question. God breathed on man, but you were not one of them. So, how can you be so sure that man, as is his nature, did not screw things up (even unitentionally - not everything has to be about bad intent) between then and the time that the words were put on paper? Accuracy of translation can only account for what happened *after* it was written.

This is a FANTASTIC question. You really are a thinker Scrog. Interestingly, it seems as though the Bibble writers personality came through in the words that they wrote. their thoughts were 'herded' by the spirit if you will. so while many actually quoted god:
(Isaiah 7:7-8) “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: “It will not stand, neither will it take place. 8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Re′zin; and within just sixty-five years E′phra·im will be shattered to pieces so as not to be a people.

Other times they reported dreams god gave them.
(Daniel 7:1)In the first year of Bel·shaz′zar the king of Babylon, Daniel himself beheld a dream and visions of his head upon his bed. At that time he wrote down the dream itself. The complete account of the matters he told.

It is interesting that the meaning of the dreams are actually tied into the actual language used by the bible writer in describing them. They were just trying to get it all out, but the spirit made sure WE had what god needed to get conveyed, even though it was at times trying for the people used.

(Daniel 7:28) 28 “Up to this point is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my own thoughts kept frightening me a great deal, so that my very complexion changed in me; but the matter itself I kept in my own heart.”
(Daniel 8:27) 27 And as for me, Daniel, I felt exhausted and was made sick for [some] days. Then I got up and did the work of the king; but I kept showing myself numbed on account of the thing seen, and there was nobody understanding [it].

Poor Daniel!!
Other times they were given a message, and they were allowed lattitude in expressing it, using their own words and illustrations.

The spirit does not force the person, the person is induced, and the outcome is known to god, without a violation of man's free will, just the same way i can tell how boot would respond if I told him TB wears a too too (tu-tu?) to work and I have proof. :eek: He knows us well, and based on the intimate knowledge of the humans used, he can balance their imperfections, their right to choose for themselves their own course, and the objectives god has in inspiring them.

maybe this belongs in the other thread.... :rolleyes:

I moved it.

I'd like to get what is in my head into yours scrogiddy. It just takes a long time to type. I know that with the way you think, the clarity of the bible - when uncluttered by all of the obvious hypocrisy you so accurately point out - would be something you would get a lot of enjoyment from.

It just takes so long to type, and it takes a while to deal with the interesting, well meaning, and often enjoyable distractions posed by the other members of the thread at the same time. thus exponentially increasing the typing time.

You know where to go to get to the bottom of all of your questions.

scrogdog

12-21-2007, 09:14 AM

I appreciate how much effort that you put in to your replies, but I am afraid that you have left me confused.

I think it would be useful to divide the bible in to Old and New testaments for the purposes of this discussion. I don't think even believers dispute that the New Testament was inspired solely by men. Am I correct? The New Testament is NOT the word of God, it is the word of men describing thier view of God and Jesus. Right?

No one who recieved the OT from God could have written anything down in the moments after... uh... recepetion; if you will. The written word did not as yet exist. Thus Robo's contention that "The Word" was held in the mind of men and passed unchanged from father to son for hundreds... perhaps thousands of years.

Even more interesting... let's say this is true. Forgetting the fact that such an act would be impossible for the flawed being known as man (heck, did you ever see that demonstration on Johnny Carson where he says something secretly to one guest and then they pass it down the line, in secret, to about ten guests. By the the time they got to number ten, the orginal story could not be recognized?), but for the sake of argument, let's say it is true.

One would logically assume, then, that man would have written down the word at his first opportunity. However, it seem that among the men "breathed" upon, the Sumerians were not among them. Nothing of God is found in the earliest writings of the Sumerians.

Cuniform, while considered a language, was largely symbolic. The world's oldest known alphabet was developed in central Egypt around 2000 BC from a hieroglyphic prototype, and over the next 500 years spread to Canaan and eventually to the rest of the world.

Here is a perfect opportunity for men who are holding the OT in thier minds to put it on paper. They did not. Why not?

Next, the Phoenician writing system is developed from earlier forms, especially from Egypt. The Cumae alphabet, a variant of the early Greek alphabet gave rise to the Etruscan alphabet, and its own descendants, such as the Latin alphabet and Runes. Other descendants from the Greek alphabet include the Cyrillic alphabet, used to write Russian, among others. The Phoenician system was also adapted into the Aramaic script, from which the Hebrew script and also that of Arabic are descended.

Well, that certainly is a lot of written languages and opportunity missed by believers! What, exactly, were they waiting for? Don't you find this a bit strange, and perhaps even telling?

Whatever the reason, one cannot use OT passages to show why the OT is untainted between the time of its transmission from God and the hundreds or thousands of years that man held this unwritten in his mind. That would be what we call a "harmonic loop" - a concept that simply endlessly flips back upon itself. :)

bootlen

12-21-2007, 10:17 AM

I appreciate how much effort that you put in to your replies, but I am afraid that you have left me confused.

I think it would be useful to divide the bible in to Old and New testaments for the purposes of this discussion. I don't think even believers dispute that the New Testament was inspired solely by men. Am I correct? The New Testament is NOT the word of God, it is the word of men describing thier view of God and Jesus. Right?

Wrong. Believers (Christians) believe that everything from Genesis to Revelation is the inspired Word of God.

No one who recieved the OT from God could have written anything down in the moments after... uh... recepetion; if you will. The written word did not as yet exist. Thus Robo's contention that "The Word" was held in the mind of men and passed unchanged from father to son for hundreds... perhaps thousands of years.

Matters not. God has a great memory.

Even more interesting... let's say this is true. Forgetting the fact that such an act would be impossible for the flawed being known as man (heck, did you ever see that demonstration on Johnny Carson where he says something secretly to one guest and then they pass it down the line, in secret, to about ten guests. By the the time they got to number ten, the orginal story could not be recognized?), but for the sake of argument, let's say it is true.

One would logically assume, then, that man would have written down the word at his first opportunity. However, it seem that among the men "breathed" upon, the Sumerians were not among them. Nothing of God is found in the earliest writings of the Sumerians.

Cuniform, while considered a language, was largely symbolic. The world's oldest known alphabet was developed in central Egypt around 2000 BC from a hieroglyphic prototype, and over the next 500 years spread to Canaan and eventually to the rest of the world.

Here is a perfect opportunity for men who are holding the OT in thier minds to put it on paper. They did not. Why not?

Apparently, God did not choose a Sumerian to bring the Word.

Next, the Phoenician writing system is developed from earlier forms, especially from Egypt. The Cumae alphabet, a variant of the early Greek alphabet gave rise to the Etruscan alphabet, and its own descendants, such as the Latin alphabet and Runes. Other descendants from the Greek alphabet include the Cyrillic alphabet, used to write Russian, among others. The Phoenician system was also adapted into the Aramaic script, from which the Hebrew script and also that of Arabic are descended.

Well, that certainly is a lot of written languages and opportunity missed by believers! What, exactly, were they waiting for? Don't you find this a bit strange, and perhaps even telling?

God has His schedule. Man's is usually different.

Whatever the reason, one cannot use OT passages to show why the OT is untainted between the time of its transmission from God and the hundreds or thousands of years that man held this unwritten in his mind. That would be what we call a "harmonic loop" - a concept that simply endlessly flips back upon itself. :)

Agree. That's why you should test the prophetic writings of the OT...to see if those prophecies came true. The vast majority have. The ones that have not...well, their time has not come but will, I suspect, very soon.

scrogdog

12-21-2007, 10:45 AM

Wrong. Believers (Christians) believe that everything from Genesis to Revelation is the inspired Word of God.

Ok, I stand corrected. It is *still* useful to seperate the two for this discussion, however, since no written languages existed when God beathed on man.

Matters not. God has a great memory.

Unfortunately, it is not God's memory we are relying on to keep an untainted version of the OT in men's minds. Unless you want to show me the passage that says that God in fact breathed on man multiple times.

God breathed once, then *man* had to keep his word flawlessly in his mind for hundreds or thousands of years. As I said, this is impossible for men to do. And since God did not intervene with a "reminder" breath... man was on his own to remember. Can't be done.

Apparently, God did not choose a Sumerian to bring the Word.

Your philosphy would suffer from this view. If God's word is meant for all men, then why not the Sumerians? God should have breathed on all men that lived. If he did not, then his word is NOT intended for all men.

God has His schedule. Man's is usually different.

Unfortunately, God's schedule had nothing to do with it. Do we see any passage that tells man WHEN to write? No. Man's decision. And an awfully strange one when you figure that you have men just brimming to get this thing down.

Agree. That's why you should test the prophetic writings of the OT...to see if those prophecies came true. The vast majority have. The ones that have not...well, their time has not come but will, I suspect, very soon.

Bah. You just demonstrated the harmonic loop. :) If something could be tainted, then you cannot use that very thing to show that it is not.

bootlen

12-21-2007, 09:27 PM

Ok, I stand corrected. It is *still* useful to seperate the two for this discussion, however, since no written languages existed when God beathed on man.

Fine. Okay. But beware that the OT and NT are intricately woven so that Christian beliefs are incomplete without using them together in some discussions.

Unfortunately, it is not God's memory we are relying on to keep an untainted version of the OT in men's minds.

Aaaahh, but it IS precisely God's memory we rely upon. After all, you are the one who claims man's memory is faulty. And you are quite correct.

Unless you want to show me the passage that says that God in fact breathed on man multiple times.

Sure. He didn't exactly breathe on man multiple times but each writer was inspired by God the Holy Spirit. See IITim. 3:16-17. Pretty clear there, Scrog.

God breathed once, then *man* had to keep his word flawlessly in his mind for hundreds or thousands of years. As I said, this is impossible for men to do. And since God did not intervene with a "reminder" breath... man was on his own to remember. Can't be done.

Correct. But your scenario is not how the inspired writings of Scripture were handled.

Your philosphy would suffer from this view. If God's word is meant for all men, then why not the Sumerians? God should have breathed on all men that lived. If he did not, then his word is NOT intended for all men.

His Word was and is meant for all men. But He did not use all men to bring forth His Word.

Unfortunately, God's schedule had nothing to do with it.

Eh-eh-eh-eh! Wrong answer. It's God's plan and it is on His schedule. Very simpley.

Do we see any passage that tells man WHEN to write? No.

Right.

Man's decision.

Wrong.

And an awfully strange one when you figure that you have men just brimming to get this thing down.

Not really. God picked whom He wanted and inspired them to write HIS Words from THEIR perspective for a very good reason.

Bah. You just demonstrated the harmonic loop. :) If something could be tainted, then you cannot use that very thing to show that it is not.

God is Creator. God is omnipotent. God is omnipresent. God is omniscient. God is sovereign in all matters and is supremely better at ruling to determine the best for all. He is the One who chose the writers. He is the One who chose the message. He is the One who inspired the writers. No loop, Scrog. Just one Supreme God in three Persons.

12-22-2007, 04:43 AM

The first five books of the OT were written by Moses, in hebrew. Beginning with these, and continuing through the OT, there is no reason to expect that they were not the words God said, especially since Jesus endorsed them. The rest of the NT agrees with what the OT says. The apostles, esp. Paul, argued the case for Jesus, creating much of the NT, by arguing from the OT.

The Bible is a written record of how God revealed Himself to the Jewish nation, and the rest of the world through them, but that does not suggest that God did not reveal Himself to the nations of the world the same way he did with the Jews. There are references suggesting that He did, one of which is Melchizedeck--likely a Christophony who existed on earth for a period of time during Abraham's time. Isaac's wife, Rebecca, was the daughter of Abrahams brother, who knew God before Abrahams servant traveled to meet her.

bootlen

12-22-2007, 07:01 AM

...Melchizedeck--likely a Christophony...

I'll have to take exception with you on this point, TB. Nothing in Scripture indicates he was a Christophony. Only that his parents/beginnings are unknown to man. I believe God kept that a secret to provide an OT prophecy of Christ...and to provide an earthly root for Christ's Priestly office.

numbawunfela

12-22-2007, 09:39 AM

numbawunfela

12-22-2007, 10:23 AM

Before I get too far into this particular question, I have posted several times about the Bibles scientific accuracy, internal harmony, and whether it has been preserved accurately. Also the level of effort put into destroying this book that survived prolifically. this puts the bible in a class that is completely unique among ancient texts. even if one still decides that it is good, but not quite good enough to be inspired, it is at least incomparable to , say Homers illiad, and euclids elements, or the hindu Rig Veda, or the Q'uran. It is, from a secular viewpoint, completely accurate. It is pretty spiffy.

I think it would be useful to divide the bible in to Old and New testaments for the purposes of this discussion. I don't think even believers dispute that the New Testament was inspired solely by men. Am I correct? The New Testament is NOT the word of God, it is the word of men describing thier view of God and Jesus. Right?

REally, there is no basis for separation of the two 'testaments', they form a harmonious whole. One supports the other.

But really the main issue is transmission of the Old testament. The time of writing of the First five books of the bible is set at about 1513 BCE. All the rest of the hebrew scriptures could and in some cases were stated as, being written down immediately upon reception from God. so really, it seems you only have issue with the first book of the bible Genesis. All the rest were written as they happened by their individual writer. So there really is only issue with one of the 66 books.
first, Moses wrote, and so was literate. he likely did not know a writing style developed under a long period of oppression, so his ancestors were also literate. It is quite possible he consulted written documents when compiling Genesis. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Moses frequently uses the phrase “this is the history of,” before naming the person to be discussed. (Genesis 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2) Some scholars say that the Hebrew word here translated “history,” toh·le·dhohth′, refers to an already existing written historical document that Moses used as a source for his writing. Of course, this cannot be stated conclusively, I was not there after all.

Remember too, that people are described as living much longer before the flood. Because of the long life span of men of that period, the information could have been passed from Adam to Moses through just five human links, namely, Methuselah, Shem, Isaac, Levi, and Amram (Moses' father) this, combined with a lack of induced ADHD from artificial sweeteners and a lifestyle that lent itself to long-term-ness, makes it not so hard to believe. my wife is from a farm in Nebraska. her Dad was born in the same house he lives in today, a house he added flowing water and indoor plumbing to in 1978. He is 70+ now, and he sees entire years as cycles. I am stuck remembering what I did last week, and he can tell if the rains are earlier this year compared to the last 30 years (not kidding). Multiply that times a few millenia, and I can easily see how someone who WAS THERE can remember something and pass it along. Please note that the ages were not in months as some claim.
(Genesis 5:15-17) 15 And Ma·hal′a·lel lived on for sixty-five years. Then he became father to Ja′red. 16 And after his fathering Ja′red Ma·hal′a·lel continued to live eight hundred and thirty years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters. 17 So all the days of Ma·hal′a·lel amounted to eight hundred and ninety-five years and he died.
This would make this guy a father at barely 5 years old.... They were literal years.
In all this it is not to be forgotten that God obviously wanted it all transmitted accurately. he is the one that got the round earth right, and the 'don't put crap on open wounds' part right. (earlier posts) He could make sure it was transmitted properly.
It would seem beneficial. in my humble opinion, to stop dissing the bible from the outside, and to look at it from the inside. 'it was not transmitted accurately' has nothing to do with what it says, per se, just whether it, as a whole is reliable. Important, of course, but since there has not been a single honest objection that has held up under honest scrutiny, maybe you should get into the words of it and see it individually. The bible has a way of sounding a lot different depending on our attitude. likely it will sound different to you now that a number of your reasonable concerns have been addressed.

12-22-2007, 07:36 PM

I'll have to take exception with you on this point, TB. Nothing in Scripture indicates he was a Christophony. Only that his parents/beginnings are unknown to man. I believe God kept that a secret to provide an OT prophecy of Christ...and to provide an earthly root for Christ's Priestly office.

Very possible, I agree, and my calling him a likely Christophony, is only speculation. I think there is supporting cause, but still, it is only speculative.

Hebrews 7:1-3

1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

Of course...we could also speculate just as well that instead of a Christophony, he was a Holy Ghost-ophany. ( :D I made that up ). Since your suggestion Boot, was that He was to point to Jesus, it would be consistent with the work of the Spirit.

bootlen

12-22-2007, 09:34 PM

Hebrews 7:1-3

3 "... like the Son of God he remains a priest forever."

This little phrase here pretty much says it. It very much implies that he is a priest forever, like Christ is, leaving us with 2 different people.

12-23-2007, 02:12 AM

Good catch. Maybe a HG-ophony then??? We'll have to ask someday ;)

bootlen

12-23-2007, 07:01 AM

Good catch. Maybe a HG-ophony then??? We'll have to ask someday ;)

I don't think the Holy Ghost holds the office of either Priest OR King. I think Melchizedek was just what Scripture says he was...a man with unknown beginnings or end, used of God as a prophecy and foreteller of Christ and His offices.

The entire OT is a series of snapshots of the Christ. God screamed from His "gut" that He was going to come to earth in the Person of Jesus (Jesus means "Jehovah saves") to "seek and save the lost". The "educated" Jewish leaders of the day missed it completely. But then there were men like Simeon who heard, believed, and looked forward to the day he would physically lay his eyes on the Messiah. When he did, he recognized Him with the help of the Holy Spirit. Simeon's life and earthly joy were then complete.

kim

12-28-2007, 08:54 PM

scrogdog

12-28-2007, 10:02 PM

The oldest example of written language using an alphabet was a written by slaves of Egypt in a mine in the Sinai. It could have been written by a hebrew. Moses most likely could read and write in an alphabet language.

Also God did chose a Sumarian for his plans. His name was Abram when he lived in sumeria, He changed it to Abraham when he moved to palistine. He undoubtably knew about the babalonian genises story and the code of Hamirobi.

Kim, do you have a name for that alphabet or a link? I'm not doubting you just want to check it out. :)

Interesting comments about Abram/Abraham, I'll need to delve in to that further as well.

kim

12-28-2007, 10:51 PM

Sorry no links. I studied that stuff along time ago in college. I saw it on TV last month and brought all the memories back. I hate to admit it but it was probably that hack from the "naked archiologist" that got me thinking of it again.

I tried to look into the whole Phenesian Alphabet thing and got no place. But I just dabble in study now. I do not document my research because it is for my enjoyment and not a grade.

The phenesians got all the credit because the Greeks copied their example, copied by Roman etc. until it got to us. Basically the middle east alphabet system was a simplified version of the egyptian coniform system.

It would probably be easier to research my posts if I cared about the fact that my spelling is terrible.

bootlen

12-28-2007, 11:05 PM

It is amazing how little some of you "experts" know about the bible.

Many of the books not cannonized were not excluded because they were false. The Council of Nicia choose books they decided were first person accounts. There were lots of stories (for lack of a better word) written about Jesus in the 3 centuries following his death. Some were written in the 1st century, some were copies with nothing new to tell. Some were written by sects that were not popular with with the people selected to the council. I have told you before about the Gnostics and how the establishment meant nothing to them. I have also told you how Constintine picked the members and would not let them leave until they hammered out all their differences. Kind of like a jury picked from all over the known world that were not allowed to have a mistrial or hung-jury

The name on the book usualy was not the author. They were usually anonomus text attributed to somebody of importance to give the more acceptability. The main exception was the letters attributed to Paul. It is most likely that Paul or somebody very close to Paul wrote them. The book of Judus was definitely not written by Judus. He was dead before any of the new testament books were written. Books written after the 4th century were not in the cannon because the cannon had been set by then. There is some debate about whether the book attributed to Judus was written before the 4th century or not.

A few other things:
The oldest example of written language using an alphabet was a written by slaves of Egypt in a mine in the Sinai. It could have been written by a hebrew. Moses most likely could read and write in an alphabet language.

Also God did chose a Sumarian for his plans. His name was Abram when he lived in sumeria, He changed it to Abraham when he moved to palistine. He undoubtably knew about the babalonian genises story and the code of Hamirobi.

What a crock.

Joshua: story of Joshua's time of leadership. Ruth: story of Ruth. I & II Samuel: Samuel's account of events of his time. Ezra: written by Ezra. Same for rest of the major and minor prophets. Esther: story of Esther. Job: Story of Job. Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John: their account of their time with Christ. Acts: Luke's account of the church's first 30 years. Romans: Paul's letter to the church at Rome. I & II Corinthians: Paul's 2 letters to church at Corinth. Galatians: Paul's letter to church at Galatia. Ephesians: Paul's letter to the church at Ephesus. Phillipians: Paul's letter to the church at Phillipi. Colossians: Paul's letter to the church at Collossae. I & II Thessalonians: Paul's letter to the church at Thessalonica. I & II Timothy: Paul's 2 letters to Timothy, who was the pastor of at least 2 churches. Titus: Paul's letter to Titus. Philemon: Paul's letter to Philemon appealing to him to forgive Onesimus. Hebrews: the writer's name is never given in this letter to the Hebrew believers. James: James letter to the tribes of Israel and to all believers who have opportune to read the letter. I Peter: Peter's letter to scattered believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythnia. II Peter: Peter's letter to all believers who have opportune to read the letter. I,II,& III John: John's letters of encouragement to all believers. Jude: Jude's letter of warning of false prophets and teachings to all believers. (Hmm...wonder who he might have talking about!)

Those are the books named for people either who wrote them or the people about whom they were speaking. Nothing hidden or named for someone of greater import. Matter of fact, many of those books named for the authors are named after men who were failures in the eyes of man.

And God changed Abram's name to Abraham because he was to be the "father of a multitude of nations". Gen. 17:5.

So much for YOU saying how little others know about the Bible. Go down to the local Wally World, kim, and pick up a copy to read sometime. That way you can get your information from the horse's mouth, so to speak, instead of from some diatribe from YOUR version of a Biblical "expert".

kim

12-28-2007, 11:31 PM

First of all I have too much respect for Americans to buy any chinese crap from Wally world. How anybody could support the largest oppressor of americans worker is beyonce me.

Second none of the books of the old testament were cannonized by Constantines council of bishops at Nicea.

There was no nicean council for the old testament. That is why there are 3 main versions.
The old testament is 1) the Torah followed by a history lesson

Not only do you doubt scientist, but you discredit historians too. Do you dislike the scientific methodology so much or are you just paraniod when your little flat earth is rocked by a little investigation. God gave you a mind to explore and be creative. Blindly repeating creeds is a waste of the mind God gave you. I quess you skipped the parable about the servent that wasted his talents. Jesus told you so much stuff. All you have to do is put down that mental block so you can listen to him.

Now lets here the proof that the book of Luke was written by Luke.

bootlen

12-28-2007, 11:47 PM

kim

12-29-2007, 01:49 AM

See there is your problem. Science does not conclude. A team of scientists make a conclusion. (just like in the scientific method). They publish that conclusion for reveiw. Now science has another tool to help explain observation. Have you ever had a meter that you didn't use much because you trusted the measurement more from a different meter. Same way with science. Some scientist same that idea is rubish. Some scientist beleive parts of it could happen that way.

There is little in science that is unanimous enough to called a conclution. By the time that idea is agreed by most to by right, it has been tested and challenged in everyway possible.

You look at religion the same way, it must be unanimous or be wrong.

kim

12-29-2007, 01:59 AM

Anyway,

How does a copy of a manuscript made in the second century tell you anything about who wrote the origin and when you wrote it?

There is one that is older that that, but the oldest first account witness would have died by the beginning of the 2nd century. And just because he was alive does not mean he was the auther.

Did you it is the science that you detest so much, that made that age theory?

bootlen

12-29-2007, 08:49 AM

Gee, kim, maybe the researchers should have contacted you before they reached their conclusion. I'm sure you could have straightened them out.:rolleyes:

scrogdog

12-29-2007, 11:26 AM

You mean, like the same biased "researchers" who concluded that the site where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found was a temple? And refused to let anyone else see the stuff for years?

Ahhhh... men and agendas.

numbawunfela

12-29-2007, 01:05 PM

It's numba with a little more to chew on... Good posts Kim. My wife is pretty bright but can't spell to save her life either. me, I just got big fingers that push more than one key at a time.....

To add another slant on bible texts in general. I thought I'd post on the style of the bible in general.

NO ONE has ever successfully challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible. It refers to real people and real events. Any attempts have been based on the notion that since archeology has not dug up something to confirm the bible's record, the bible must be false. then somebody digs up something, and the bible is right... On the other hand, many ancient texts obviously are the product of vanity or ego. The ruler of the time determining what is truth for the purpose of recording the most favorable version of ‘history’.
Honest historians would record not just victories and successes but also defeats and failures. Few secular histories reflect such honesty.
Regarding Assyrian historians, Daniel D. Luckenbill explains: “Often it is clear that royal vanity demanded playing fast and loose with historical accuracy.”11 Illustrating such “royal vanity,” the annals of Assyrian King Ashurnasirpal boast: “I am regal, I am lordly, I am exalted, I am mighty, I am honored, I am glorified, I am pre-eminent, I am powerful, I am valiant, I am lion-brave, and I am heroic!”12 Would you accept everything you read in such annals as accurate history?
In contrast, the Bible writers were quite obviously honest in their writing, distinguishing them from their non-biblical contemporaries. Moses, Israel’s leader, and writer of the first five books of the bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy and Job, and a few Psalms) frankly reported the shortcomings of his brother, Aaron, of his sister Miriam, of his nephews Nadab and Abihu, and of his people, as well as his own mistakes. (Exodus 14:11, 12; 32:1-6; Leviticus 10:1, 2; Numbers 12:1-3; 20:9-12; 27:12-14) Including the mistake that kept him, the 'all-powerfull' leader of the entire nation, from entering the promised land:
Nu 20:12 12 Later Jehovah said to Moses and Aaron: “Because YOU did not show faith in me to sanctify me before the eyes of the sons of Israel, therefore YOU will not bring this congregation into the land that I shall certainly give them.”
And how he asked to please be allowed, and how god strongly rejected that line of thought, saying:
(Deuteronomy 3:23-26) 23 “And I proceeded to implore favor from Jehovah at that particular time, saying, 24 ‘O Sovereign Lord Jehovah, you yourself have started to make your servant see your greatness and your strong arm, for who is a god in the heavens or on the earth that does deeds like yours and mighty performances like yours? 25 Let me pass over, please, and see the good land that is across the Jordan, this good mountainous region and Leb´a·non.’ 26 And Jehovah continued to be furious against me on YOUR account and did not listen to me; but Jehovah said to me, ‘That is enough of you! Never speak to me further on this matter.”
Not very flattering, but then again, the objective was not to be flattering, but to be honest.
The serious mistakes of King David (adultery and murder among others) were not covered over but were committed to writing—and that while David was still ruling as king. (2 Samuel, chapters 11 and 24) Matthew, writer of the book bearing his name, tells how the apostles (of which he was one) disputed over their personal importance and how they abandoned Jesus on the night of his arrest. (Matthew 20:20-24; 26:56) The writers of the letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures freely acknowledged the problems, including sexual immorality and dissensions, in some of the early Christian congregations. And they did not mince words in addressing those problems.—1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 5:1-13.
Such frank, open reporting indicates a sincere concern for truth. Since the Bible writers were willing to report unfavorable information about their loved ones, their people, and even themselves, there would be good reason to trust their writings.
*****In court trials the credibility of a witness’ testimony can often be determined on the basis of minor facts. Agreement on minor details may stamp the testimony as accurate and honest, whereas serious discrepancies can expose it as a fabrication. On the other hand, an overly tidy account—one in which every last detail is neatly arranged—may also betray a false testimony.
How does the “testimony” of the Bible writers measure up in this regard? The Bible penmen displayed remarkable consistency. There is close agreement about even minute details. However, the harmony is not carefully arranged, arousing suspicions of collusion. There is an obvious lack of design in the coincidences, the writers often agreeing unintentionally. Consider some examples.
The Bible writer Matthew wrote: “And Jesus, on coming into Peter’s house, saw his mother-in-law lying down and sick with fever.” (Matthew 8:14) Matthew here provided an interesting but nonessential detail: Peter was married. This minor fact is supported by Paul, who wrote: “Have I no right to take a Christian wife about with me, like the rest of the apostles and . . . Cephas?” (Cephas being the Semitic – or Jewish – equivalent of the name Peter) (1 Corinthians 9:5, The New English Bible) The context indicates that Paul was defending himself against unwarranted criticism. (1 Corinthians 9:1-4) Plainly, this small fact—Peter’s being married—is not introduced by Paul to support the accuracy of Matthew’s account but is conveyed incidentally.
All four of the Gospel writers—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—record that on the night of Jesus’ arrest, one of his disciples drew a sword and struck a slave of the high priest, taking off the man’s ear. Only the Gospel of John reports a seemingly unnecessary detail: “The name of the slave was Malchus.” (John 18:10, 26) Why does John alone give the man’s name? A few verses later the account provides a minor fact not stated anywhere else: John “was known to the high priest.” He was also known to the high priest’s household; the servants were acquainted with him, and he with them. (John 18:15, 16) It was only natural, then, that John mention the injured man’s name, whereas the other Gospel writers, to whom the man was a stranger, do not.
At times, detailed explanations are omitted from one account but are provided elsewhere by statements made in passing. For instance, Matthew’s account of the trial of Jesus before the Jewish Sanhedrin says that some people present “slapped him in the face, saying: ‘Prophesy to us, you Christ. Who is it that struck you?’” (Matthew 26:67, 68) Why would they ask Jesus to “prophesy” who had struck him, when the striker was standing there in front of him? Matthew does not explain. But two of the other Gospel writers supply the missing detail: Jesus’ persecutors covered his face before he was slapped. (Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64) Matthew presents his material without concern as to whether every last detail was supplied.
The Gospel of John tells of an occasion when a large crowd gathered to hear Jesus teach. According to the record, when Jesus observed the crowd, “he said to Philip: ‘Where shall we buy loaves for these to eat?’” (John 6:5) Of all the disciples present, why did Jesus ask Philip where they could buy some bread? The writer does not say. In the parallel account, though, Luke reports that the incident took place near Bethsaida, a city on the north shores of the Sea of Galilee, and earlier in John’s Gospel it says that “Philip was from Bethsaida.” (John 1:44; Luke 9:10) So Jesus logically asked a person whose hometown was nearby. The agreement between the details is remarkable, yet clearly unwitting.
In some cases the omission of certain details only adds to the credibility of the Bible writer. For example, the writer of 1 Kings tells of a severe drought in Israel. It was so severe that the king could not find enough water and grass to keep his horses and mules alive. (1 Kings 17:7; 18:5) Yet, the same account reports that the prophet Elijah ordered enough water to be brought to him on Mount Carmel (for use in connection with a sacrifice) to fill a trench circumscribing an area of perhaps 10,000 square feet [1,000 sq m]. (1 Kings 18:33-35) In the midst of the drought, where did all the water come from? The writer of 1 Kings did not trouble himself to explain. However, anyone living in Israel knew that Carmel was on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, as an incidental remark later in the narrative indicates. (1 Kings 18:43) Thus, seawater would have been readily available. If this otherwise detailed book were merely fiction masquerading as fact, why would its writer, who in that case would be a clever forger, have left such an apparent difficulty in the text? The obvious reason is that he wrote the account as true history for an audience that would be familiar with the geography and localities of ancient Israel. There is no reason to tell the locals that Carmel is near the sea, and that is where the water came from.

numbawunfela

12-29-2007, 01:07 PM

Kenneth S. Kantzer, a theologian, once illustrated how two reports of the same event can seem contradictory and yet both be true. He wrote: “Some time ago the mother of a dear friend of ours was killed. We first learned of her death through a trusted mutual friend who reported that our friend’s mother had been standing on the street corner waiting for a bus, had been hit by another bus passing by, was fatally injured, and died a few minutes later.”
Soon after, he heard a very different report. He says: “We learned from the grandson of the dead woman that she had been involved in a collision, was thrown from the car in which she was riding, and was killed instantly. The boy was quite certain of his facts.
“Much later . . . we probed for a harmonization. We learned that the grandmother had been waiting for a bus, was hit by another bus, and was critically injured. She had been picked up by a passing car and dashed to the hospital, but in the haste, the car in which she was being transported to the hospital collided with another car. She was thrown from the car and died instantly.”
Although it was a rather bizarre circumstance, two accounts of the same event may both be true even though they seem to disagree with each other. This is sometimes the case with the Bible. Independent witnesses may describe different details about the same event. Instead of being contradictory, however, what they write is complementary, and if we take all accounts into consideration, we get a better understanding of what happened.

numbawunfela

12-29-2007, 01:24 PM

This will be in more than one part.

There are a lot of prophecies in the bible. I try to choose a few that flagrantly defy any sort of explanation by a critic as being anything but history in advance. Of course, just as there are those that simply refuse to listen to reason among religious folk, there are those who display the same traits among non-religious folk. For both, disputing with the indisputable is second nature, and there is no such thing as a fact that does not harmonize with their pre-conceived ideas. Along those lines, I don’t expect everyone to agree with the fact that these are real prophecies, but I do expect some to. I also expect that there will be some honest requests for clarification, along with stubborn disbelief. When considering these prophecies, think of an interesting Idea I came across recently:
(2 Timothy 4:3-4) “For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.”
Although evolution and atheism is presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. It’s beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind’s selfish, independent tendencies. Many who believe in Evolution also believe in God. However they feel free to think that God is one who has not created all things, does not intervene in mankind’s affairs, ands will not judge people, in contradiction to the bible’s description of Him. Teachers of evolution are often motivated, not by facts, but by their ‘own desires’ – perhaps a desire to be accepted by a scientific community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine. Why do many believe in evolution? Many do not WANT there to be anything beyond nature. They turn their ears from the truth, and have their ears tickled.
To that end, understanding one’s PERSONAL motives in examining the scriptures authenticity is key. With the wrong outlook, a scientifically oriented person can be just as blind as a religious extremist.
The book of Daniel is a good example of long-term bible prophecies. The bible describes the passage of time allowed to determine if independence from god brings benefits to man. See this post for more on that: http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=152737&highlight=longest+post&page=43 post 223 and 224
The existence of the jewish nation and their Laws of divine origin, was to setup a running contrast between rule by God, and rule by man. When the nation was faithful, they were blessed heavily, and lived a very satisfying life. Unfortunately the ancient Jews didn’t stick to it so well, and they got conquered by the Babylonians. This was the first time that there was no manifestation of God’s rulership on earth. The only time it may have seemed that another nation, with the help of their false god were superior. To make certain that no one would confuse the failure of the nation of Israel as the failure of their god, Jehovah inspired a series of prophecies in the book of Daniel to demonstrate that what was happening over the next 2500 years was not beyond his reach, and that although he would not interfere with the ‘experiment’ in progress, he definitely was not powerless. What follows are only two of these prophecies.

numbawunfela

12-29-2007, 01:28 PM

Please get your bible out and read the scriptures yourself, I didn't post all of them due to space, but many are only cited.

In the sixth century B.C.E., during the Jewish exile in Babylon, Daniel was inspired to record some spiffy visions foretelling the future course of world events. In one, Daniel describes a number of symbolic animals that displace one another on the world scene. An angel explains that these animals foreshadow the march of world powers from that time onward. Speaking of the final two beasts, he says: “The ram that you saw possessing the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia. And the hairy he-goat stands for the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it stands for the first king. And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power.”—Daniel 8:20-22.
This prophetic foreview was fulfilled exactly. The Babylonian Empire was overthrown by Medo-Persia, which, 200 years later, gave way to the Greek world power. The Greek Empire was led by Alexander the Great, “the great horn.” However, after Alexander’s death, his generals fought among themselves for power, and eventually the far-flung empire broke into four smaller empires, “four kingdoms.”
From the standpoint of prophecy, it is remarkably accurate. From the standpoint of history, masquerading as prophecy, it is sorely lacking in details. If a man living after Alexander wanted to impress people with a prophecy, why not include the detail that two of Alexander’s sons would try to establish themselves, but would be assassinated? Why not mention it would be decades before all four generals established themselves over their respective empires? Why not mention the names of the great king and his generals? Cyrus the Persian was named as the liberator of the Jews 200 years in advance, so this would no be unheard of in scripture. The claim that bible prophecy was written after the event is a long-held, but unproven assertion made by those, who before examining the evidence have decided that foretelling events is impossible. They then are forced to explain these things, beginning from a preconceived conclusion. Not very scientific at all.
*******In Daniel chapter 7, a somewhat similar vision also looked far into the future. The Babylonian world power was pictured by a lion, the Persian by a bear, and the Greek by a leopard with four wings on its back and four heads. Then, Daniel sees another wild beast, “fearsome and terrible and unusually strong . . ., and it had ten horns.” (Daniel 7:2-7) This fourth wild beast prefigured the powerful Roman Empire, which began to develop about three centuries after Daniel recorded this prophecy.
The angel prophesied regarding Rome: “As for the fourth beast, there is a fourth kingdom that will come to be on the earth, that will be different from all the other kingdoms; and it will devour all the earth and will trample it down and crush it.” (Daniel 7:23) H. G. Wells, in his book A Pocket History of the World, says: “This new Roman power which arose to dominate the western world in the second and first centuries B.C. was in several respects a different thing from any of the great empires that had hitherto prevailed in the civilized world.” It started as a republic and continued as a monarchy. Unlike previous empires, it was not the creation of any one conqueror but grew relentlessly over the centuries. It lasted much, much longer and controlled far more territory than any previous empire.
What, though, about the ten horns of this huge beast? The angel said: “And as for the ten horns, out of that kingdom there are ten kings that will rise up; and still another one will rise up after them, and he himself will be different from the first ones, and three kings he will humiliate.” (Daniel 7:24) How did this work out?
Well, when the Roman Empire started to deteriorate in the fifth century C.E., it was not immediately replaced by another world power. Rather, it disintegrated into a number of kingdoms, “ten kings.” Finally, the British Empire defeated the three rival empires of Spain, France, and the Netherlands to become the major world power. “In the sixteenth century,” explained one historian, “England had been a second-rate power. Its wealth was slight compared with that of the Netherlands. Its population was much less than that of France. Its armed forces (including its navy) were inferior to Spain’s.” Britain evidently was an insignificant kingdom then, making up the symbolic small horn of the fourth beast. But that was to change.
22 In 1588, Philip II of Spain launched the Spanish Armada against Britain. This fleet of 130 ships, carrying more than 24,000 men, sailed up the English Channel, only to suffer defeat by the British navy and to fall victim to contrary winds and fierce Atlantic storms. This event “marked the decisive passing of naval superiority from Spain to England,” said one historian. In the 17th century, the Dutch developed the world’s largest merchant marine. With growing overseas colonies, however, Britain prevailed over that kingdom. During the 18th century, the British and the French fought each other in North America and India, leading to the Treaty of Paris in 1763. This treaty, said author William B. Willcox, “recognized Britain’s new position as the predominant European power in the world beyond Europe.” Britain’s supremacy was confirmed by the crushing victory over Napoléon of France in 1815 C.E. The “three kings” that Britain thus ‘humiliated’ were Spain, the Netherlands, and France. (Daniel 7:24) As a result, Britain emerged as the world’s greatest colonial and commercial power. Yes, the “small” horn grew to become a world power! Thus did the newcomer ‘horn’ humiliate “three kings.”
Many describe the prophecies of Daniel as written after the fact. The Bible indicates that the book of Daniel was written during the sixth century B.C.E. However, the fulfillments of its prophecies are so exact that critics claim it must have been written about 165 B.C.E., when a number of the prophecies had already been fulfilled. Despite the fact that the only real reason for making this claim is that Daniel’s prophecies were fulfilled, this late date for the writing of Daniel is presented as an established fact in many reference works.
Against such a theory, though, we must weigh the following facts. First, the book was alluded to in Jewish works produced during the second century B.C.E., such as the first book of Maccabees. Also, it was included in the Greek Septuagint version, the translation of which began in the third century B.C.E. Third, fragments of copies of Daniel were among the more frequently found works in the Dead Sea Scrolls—and these fragments are believed to date to about 100 B.C.E. Clearly, soon after Daniel was supposedly written, it was already widely known and respected: strong evidence that it was produced long before critics say it was.
An earlier date for writing is also supported by events in ancient history. In ancient Jerusalem. the changeover from Medo-Persian to Greek control came in 332 B.C.E. when Alexander the Great marched through Judah. The Greek historians make no mention of Alexander’s entry into Jerusalem. Yet the city did come under Greek dominion, and it is reasonable to assume that it was not completely bypassed by Alexander. Josephus, in the first century C.E., records the Jewish tradition that, upon approaching Jerusalem, Alexander was met by the Jewish high priest and was shown the divinely inspired prophecies recorded by Daniel foretelling the lightning conquests by Greece. (Jewish Antiquities, XI, 326-338 [viii, 4, 5]; Da 8:5-7, 20, 21) This would explain how the city came under Greek control, yet was not mentioned in Greek history - there was no battle to mention. They surrendered, viewing Alexander’s conquest as fulfillment of prophecy written in advance.
Further, Daniel contains historical details that would have been unknown to a second-century writer. Outstanding is the case of Belshazzar, the ruler of Babylon who was killed when Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E. The major non-Biblical sources of our knowledge of the fall of Babylon are Herodotus (fifth century), Xenophon (fifth and fourth centuries), and Berossus (third century). None of these knew about Belshazzar. How unlikely that a second-century writer would have had information that had been unavailable to these earlier authors! The record concerning Belshazzar in Daniel chapter 5 is a strong argument that Daniel wrote his book before these other writers wrote theirs.
Again, motives are key. The claim that bible prophecy was written after the event is a long-held, but unproven assertion made by those, who before examining the evidence have decided that foretelling events is impossible. They then are forced to explain these things, beginning from a preconceived conclusion.
Finally, there are a number of prophecies in Daniel that were fulfilled long after 165 B.C.E. One of these was the prophecy about the Roman Empire, mentioned earlier. Another is a remarkable prophecy foretelling the arrival of Jesus, the Messiah.

scrogdog

12-29-2007, 01:33 PM

Welcome back numba. You're a freakin' encyclopedia. :)

I don't beleive that I have ever disputed the historical accuracy of the bible, or the intent of the men who wrote it. My case against the bible being a divine work, in fact, has nothing at all to do with those things.

It has to do with far more philosophical matters. And to some degree, science (as in evolution).

If God breathed on man, and the result of that breath is the collection of works known as the bible, then in can only be that men have f'd things up just like he does anytime he touches just about anything. :)

Now I must ask you, numba, the same thing that I asked boot earlier. Even theologians refer to ALL religions both collectively and individually as "faith".

Why do you think that is, my friend?

numbawunfela

12-29-2007, 01:36 PM

Having used the previous to solidly fix the writing of Daniel as far earlier than the 1st or 2nd centuries BCE, this next point is rather remarkable as well.

This prophecy is recorded in Daniel, chapter 9, and reads as follows: “Seventy weeks [of years, or four hundred and ninety years] are decreed upon your people and upon your holy city.” (Daniel 9:24, The Amplified Bible) What was to happen during these 490 years? We read: “From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem until [the coming of] the anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks [of years], and sixty-two weeks [of years].” (Daniel 9:25, AB) So this is a prophecy about the time of the coming of “the anointed one,” the Messiah. How was it fulfilled?
The command to restore and to build Jerusalem ‘went forth’ in “the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king” of Persia, that is, in 455 B.C.E. (Nehemiah 2:1-9) By the end of 49 years (7 weeks of years), much of Jerusalem’s glory had been restored. And then, counting the full 483 years (7 plus 62 weeks of years) from 455 B.C.E., we arrive at 29 C.E. This was, in fact, “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” the year when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptizer. (Luke 3:1) At that time, Jesus was publicly identified as God’s Son and began his ministry of preaching the good news to the Jewish nation. (Matthew 3:13-17; 4:23) He became the “anointed one,” or Messiah.
The prophecy adds: “And after the sixty-two weeks [of years] shall the anointed one be cut off.” It also says: “And he shall enter into a strong and firm covenant with the many for one week [seven years]; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease.” (Daniel 9:26, 27, AB) In harmony with this, Jesus went exclusively to “the many,” the fleshly Jews. On occasion, he also preached to the Samaritans, who believed some of the Scriptures but had formed a sect separate from mainstream Judaism. Then, “in the midst of the week,” after three and a half years of preaching, he gave up his life as a sacrifice and was thus “cut off.” This spelled the end of the Mosaic Law with its sacrifices and gift offerings. (Galatians 3:13, 24, 25) Hence, by his death, Jesus caused “the sacrifice and offering to cease.”
Nevertheless, for another three and a half years the newborn Christian congregation witnessed solely to Jews and, later, to the related Samaritans. In 36 C.E., however, at the end of the 70 weeks of years, the apostle Peter was guided to preach to a Gentile, Cornelius. (Acts 10:1-48) Now, the “covenant with the many” was no longer limited to the Jews. Salvation was preached also to the uncircumcised Gentiles.
Because the Jewish nation rejected Jesus and conspired to have him executed, Jehovah did not protect them when the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Thus, Daniel’s further words were fulfilled: “And the people of the other prince who shall come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and even to the end there shall be war.” (Daniel 9:26b, AB) This second “prince” was Titus, the Roman general who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E.

Again there are MANY other prophecies, but these are the ones that are among the hardest for a skeptic to dispute. I could post more.......

The only conclusion one can draw is based on the facts, namely:
This prophecy spans over 800 years.
The prophecy concerning the rise and fall of world powers reaches into the 19th century, spanning 2500 years and more.

There is no possible way this could be the work of a man.

The bible is inspired.

Which is cool because that means there is a God that cares for us, a way to please him, and a hope for the future. Pretty spiffy huh?

numbawunfela

12-29-2007, 01:51 PM

I don't beleive that I have ever disputed the historical accuracy of the bible, or the intent of the men who wrote it. My case against the bible being a divine work, in fact, has nothing at all to do with those things.

Really though, just as one may begin with what is known to extrapolate what is not, reviewing the rest allows one's treacherous heart fewer recourses when it comes to finally coming around to what one may not want to agree is right.

then in can only be that men have f'd things up just like he does anytime he touches just about anything. :)

Amen brotha!!!:D

Now I must ask you, numba, the same thing that I asked boot earlier. Even theologians refer to ALL religions both collectively and individually as "faith".

Why do you think that is, my friend?

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?p=1660939&highlight=faith#post1660939
post 515

In summary of that post, it is the same thing that let's you get on a plane though you are not an expert in aerodynamics. let's you say the compressor is slugging liquid though you can't see in the suction line.
Read all of Hebrews chapter 11. the first verse defines faith:
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

numbawunfela

12-29-2007, 01:52 PM

But in modern usage it also refers to a religious system

faith (fth) n.1. confidence or trust in a person or thing. 2. belief that is not based on proof. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics or standards of merit. 5. a system of religious belief: the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc. 8. in faith, in truth; indeed.

kim

12-29-2007, 05:30 PM

Gee, kim, maybe the researchers should have contacted you before they reached their conclusion. I'm sure you could have straightened them out.:rolleyes:

Maybe if you answered the question we could have a discussion. No your mind is made up. The science that backs up your hairbrained ideas is correct and the science that does must be wrong.
you know more than scientist anyway. I am sure there is a bible verse you can quote out of context to prove it too.

numbawunfela

12-29-2007, 05:59 PM

scrogdog

12-29-2007, 06:01 PM

In summary of that post, it is the same thing that let's you get on a plane though you are not an expert in aerodynamics.

Well, I've heard this line of reasoning and it doesn't really work for me. I mean, I have observed planes fly, leading me to the academically fantastical expectation that if I enter a plane, it's going to fly. ;)

I have yet to observe anyone being resurrected after being dead for a number of days, nor have I ever seen personally a prophecy come true. There is nothing tangible about Christianity except for the bible itself. To me, THAT is why it is called faith.

The issues are not comparable to me. If it works for you, more power to you. :)

bootlen

12-29-2007, 06:15 PM

numbawunfela

12-29-2007, 06:19 PM

Well, I've heard this line of reasoning and it doesn't really work for me. I mean, I have observed planes fly, leading me to the academically fantastical expectation that if I enter a plane, it's going to fly. ;)

I have yet to observe anyone being resurrected after being dead for a number of days, nor have I ever seen personally a prophecy come true. There is nothing tangible about Christianity except for the bible itself. To me, THAT is why it is called faith.

The issues are not comparable to me. If it works for you, more power to you. :)

The problem is that you consider the concept of a God or biblical inspiration an academically fantastical conclusion, and sub orbital atmospheric flight, not so fantastical. ( i used sub orbital in a sentence - I be smart!!) thus in your mind they are not equivallent, or are subject to differing levels of qualification. the problem is that you refuse to hold both to the same standard. not because you are a doo-doo head, it's probably a matter of cultural indoctrination. I can't stomach raw sliced pig's fat, Russians and Ukranians call it Sala and it is yumilicious. Cultural indoctrination tells me it is NASTY, and them it is yummy. I could learn to like it, but I need motivation. If I had a Russian Girlfreind, that would do it, but I don't, so I haven't. With the proper motivation you can also overcome your personal biases and see the bible for what it really is.

As for not seeing prophecies fulfilled, you havent read my posts apparently.....:rolleyes:

scrogdog

12-29-2007, 06:29 PM

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

You run into any of the apostles recently? ;)

Sure I have read your stuff. You are quite an intelligent and thorough person. We just have different standards.

Prophecy can be created using the following techniqiues;

Retroactive shoehorning: Force-fitting some modern event to a vague and symbolic prediction made in the past that could fit 1000 different things. This is common in Nostradamus circles and the dispensational interpretations of Revelation that interpret Russia, Iraq, the US, the Vatican, the EU, etc. in light of the original symbolism.

After-the-fact prophecy: Writing the original "prediction" after the event transpired. For instance, pretending you predicted the WTC bombing a day after, whereas you never had a clue it would happen.

The Shotgun Effect #1: Making a trillion individual readings and/or predictions, quoting the ones that are fulfilled by sheer chance, and ignoring the rest. Edgar Cayce and other psychics are notorious for using this technique.

The Shotgun Effect #2: Nesting a huge number of specific predictions within one prophecy, and focusing only on those that pan out.

Predicting the obvious: "There will be wars and rumors of wars," "Many people will die," etc. In other words, a statement that will hold true at any point in history.

Invented fulfillment: Saying that something you predicted did happen, when it didn't. For example, predicting aliens will communicate with you--then going up, alone, on a mountain and lying that they did.

Self-fulfilling a prophecy: An example would be looking up a prophecy stating the Messiah must write a paper decrying the evils of dentistry, and then writing it with fulfilling the prediction in mind.

For a prophecy to be truly demonstrated, it would have to pass ALL of the following criteria;

Be clearly identifiable as an actual prophecy of the future. This is to prevent the obvious, where someone goes through the Bible (or another source) and plucks out any statement that resembles a modern event, even if it was, say, not a prediction of the future, but a flavored goat recipe in context.

Be demonstrably written before the event. This one is a no-brainer. If someone "predicts" 9/11/2001, with all records of said prediction conveniently dating to 9/12 or later, they can't really claim any amazing fulfillment....

Be specific, with little recourse to multiple vague interpretations. A good prophecy should be obvious in intent before the fact. If a prophecy requires oodles of allegorizing and force-fitting some event to various obscure symbols, consider that a warning sign. As another well-informed Prophet friend of mine (from the Internet Infidels board), who independently devised a set of criteria for evaluating prophecy, put it, "Obviously a [false] prophecy that can be applied to a host of things with equal explanatory scope is useless." If a prophecy says a man will be "killed," just because the word can mean "become a butterfly gardener" in a secondary or even tertiary application in another language, doesn't mean that interpretation can be invoked, sans evidence, without fatally wounding the prediction's apologetic value.

Demonstrably be fulfilled outside of the false prophet's imagination. That's a bit harsh, but you get the picture. Is one unsupported claim being used to prop up another? Where is the evidence a prophecy was fulfilled? Does it come entirely from sources with a motive for inventing such a fulfillment? Or does the real event differ substantially from the prediction, with those parts that don't fit being downplayed and ignored? Don't take them at their word on any fulfillment unless you can obtain outside confirmation. Even if the basics are right, make sure they haven't given any spin to the fulfillment story and made it more favorable than it was.

Be fulfilled in its entirety. A fulfilled prophecy within a larger group of prophecies that were left unfulfilled is unimpressive to those in the know, and most likely a textbook example of the shotgun approach (i.e., making 50 predictions and focusing on the 2 that turned out correct).

Be very unlikely to occur solely via other means explained above. This is to guard against the self-fulfilling, "duh" predictions like "there will be wars and plagues" that happen throughout history, educated guesses, etc. Any prediction that can be explained in light of the techniques listed above can automatically be discounted as worthless in apologetics. There is some insignificant overlap here with previous criteria.

Tell you what. Bring forth your strongest *single* prophecy case. Give exact chapter and verse and try to avoid using your own words. Then, we'll bandy it about and see if it passes.

Deal? :)

EDIT: Incidentally, that stuff above came from here http://christianforums.com/t153028

numbawunfela

12-29-2007, 07:09 PM

Sure I have read your stuff. You are quite an intelligent and thorough person. We just have different standards.

I would agree as far as standards (also as far as the other stuff too I guess...:p). You try to get to the heart of a matter, and you analyze brilliantly. as far as this discussion, I only ask for parity. do not suspend your thinking abilities as many have obviously done. just suspend bias and unfounded criticism. if the question is: "Is the bible inspired?" then one of the possible answers has to be 'Yes', as well as 'no'.

Tell you what. Bring forth your strongest *single* prophecy case. Give exact chapter and verse and try to avoid using your own words. Then, we'll bandy it about and see if it passes.

Deal? :)

Diggidy deal brotha

I would hafta say considering the audience, (Scrogdog) and past experience, the prophecy would have to be demostrably written before the fulfillment, specifically mention names, and have a bit of the interpretation supplied with it, to avoid any problems with the nostradomus shotgun effect, or ambiguity effect.

The best I can come up with off the top of my head is the ones I already posted. You may wish to pick those apart. In a slight bending of the 'only one' rule, prophecies usually establish an interpretation precedent that is used by others. so if a horn means a ruler here, it usually does there as well.

But I hafta go get ready for the Patriots and Giants game now, and the wife wants my attention. Sorry!!

I will be back though.

scrogdog

12-29-2007, 08:07 PM

Ok, I will choose the one you mention from the book of Daniel as I read that you consider that to be one of the hardest to refute. I have read your commentary, but what I really need from you is a listing of relevant scripture. Not that you need to actually post what they say, but I want to be sure that I have read every bit of scripture that you consider to make your case.

In the meantime, I'd like to tackle this little ditty;

Although evolution and atheism is presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. It’s beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind’s selfish, independent tendencies. Many who believe in Evolution also believe in God. However they feel free to think that God is one who has not created all things, does not intervene in mankind’s affairs, ands will not judge people, in contradiction to the bible’s description of Him. Teachers of evolution are often motivated, not by facts, but by their ‘own desires’ – perhaps a desire to be accepted by a scientific community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine. Why do many believe in evolution? Many do not WANT there to be anything beyond nature. They turn their ears from the truth, and have their ears tickled.

As i mentioned earlier in another topic, all of science is kicked off by observation. So, what observation(s) kicked off the science of evolution?

Glad you asked. :)

Before I begin, I'd just like to say that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. The science of evolution begins with a very simple life form, but it does not postulate where that life form came from.

Now, for the observations.

Observation 1 - All life comes from other life. In other words, no one has ever seen life spawning out of thin air. We may not know how life got here, but we do know that since then, all life has come from other life, right? Life comes from seeds and eggs and other biological processes.

Observation 2 - simple forms of life were here before more complex ones. As we dig down in to the Earth, we find things that came from the past. How do we know that? Well, stuff that is fairly recent, while buried, still have tablets and writings that identify time period. As you go deeper down, you see the reverse of progress. Writings and technologies become simpler and so forth.

Now, way way down there, when life first appears, it is only in very simple forms. We don't know how they got there; spontaneous combustion of chemical or the hand of God. Perhaps alien beings - for the purposes of any discussion of evolution, it is irrelevent how they got there.

But, back to the observations (note that we aren't talking about any of the scientific theory yet - just observations), it all boils down to this; IF all life comes from other life and IF simple forms of life were here before more complex ones; THEN the more complex ones MUST have come from the simpler ones.

Believers have a field day with the very correct notion that we can't exactly explain it yet. :) No one is saying that we can. Darwin, Gould, et al... they all admit the provisional nature of the explanations, but we don't need science to know that evolution occurred.

There is simply no other logical place to go with the facts that we have. Whether we can explain it or not is irrelevant. Gravity existed WELL before we even attempted to explain it. :) Being able to explain a phenomena or not is NOT a criteria as to whether or not the phenomena exists in the first place.

bootlen

12-29-2007, 09:58 PM

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

You run into any of the apostles recently? ;)

I'm trying to figure out what your point is here, Scrog. Could you expound just a bit?

bootlen

12-29-2007, 10:04 PM

Observation 1 - All life comes from other life. In other words, no one has ever seen life spawning out of thin air. We may not know how life got here, but we do know that since then, all life has come from other life, right? Life comes from seeds and eggs and other biological processes.

Observation 2 - simple forms of life were here before more complex ones. As we dig down in to the Earth, we find things that came from the past. How do we know that? Well, stuff that is fairly recent, while buried, still have tablets and writings that identify time period. As you go deeper down, you see the reverse of progress. Writings and technologies become simpler and so forth.

Now, way way down there, when life first appears, it is only in very simple forms. We don't know how they got there; spontaneous combustion of chemical or the hand of God. Perhaps alien beings - for the purposes of any discussion of evolution, it is irrelevent how they got there.

But, back to the observations (note that we aren't talking about any of the scientific theory yet - just observations), it all boils down to this; IF all life comes from other life and IF simple forms of life were here before more complex ones; THEN the more complex ones MUST have come from the simpler ones.

Believers have a field day with the very correct notion that we can't exactly explain it yet. :) No one is saying that we can. Darwin, Gould, et al... they all admit the provisional nature of the explanations, but we don't need science to know that evolution occurred.

There is simply no other logical place to go with the facts that we have. Whether we can explain it or not is irrelevant. Gravity existed WELL before we even attempted to explain it. :) Being able to explain a phenomena or not is NOT a criteria as to whether or not the phenomena exists in the first place.

John 14:6 "I (Jesus) am the way, the truth, and the life..."

Yes. Life comes from other life. No question about it. But what says complex life MUST have come from simpler life? Certainly nothing Darwin proved...especially since all he did was postulate.

scrogdog

12-29-2007, 11:31 PM

John 14:6 "I (Jesus) am the way, the truth, and the life..."

Yes. Life comes from other life. No question about it. But what says complex life MUST have come from simpler life?certainly nothing Darwin proved...especially since all he did was postulate.

Um... because they were here first and now we are? ;)

Again, Darwin need not be involved in this. We are only talking about observations here. Not theories. Life comes from life. Simple forms were here first and now we are. SO...

I am willing to entertain alternate theories as to why this is so. Yours?

scrogdog

12-29-2007, 11:34 PM

I'm trying to figure out what your point is here, Scrog. Could you expound just a bit?

Were all of those things that are referred to fulfilled?

And if not, what happened to thier generation?

bootlen

12-30-2007, 07:22 AM

Um... because they were here first and now we are? ;)

Again, Darwin need not be involved in this. We are only talking about observations here. Not theories. Life comes from life. Simple forms were here first and now we are. SO...

I am willing to entertain alternate theories as to why this is so. Yours?

Sure. God is the source of all life. Our life (ALL life) is a result of His.

bootlen

12-30-2007, 07:27 AM

Were all of those things that are referred to fulfilled?

And if not, what happened to thier generation?

Ah! I think you think that Jesus is talking about the generation to whom He was speaking. He was actually talking ABOUT and to the generation that sees all the signs about which He spoke in the preceding verses. Obviously, He was speaking prophetically.

scrogdog

12-30-2007, 09:08 AM

This one was already considered by that other link where I got the criteria. I didn't even have to do any work. :)

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

Matt. 24:29-34
"Immediately after the distress of those days [the Jewish War] the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

Basically, if we're to listen to Matthew's gospel, Jesus predicted that his immediate generation of followers would live to see the Second Coming and end of the world. But this never happened.

Apologists will try to explain away this failure using three main arguments:

"This generation" should be translated "This race," i.e., the human race. This, while technically allowable by the word's usage, is obviously a suboptimal translation. There's no particular reason to mention the human race would still be around (duh?), whereas there would be in mentioning the current generation living to see it. Basically, if you take the prophecy and read it without knowledge of its failure, you could never arrive at the "this race" translation as the most plausible. And translating it suboptimally just to salvage a prophecy is not only special pleading, but destroys any apologetic value for the prophecy by reason of creating vagueness.

"This generation" refers to the generation from Israel's founding in 1948... This is justified by a dubious argument involving the fig tree parable from verse 32-33, which supposedly represents Israel. But there's (1) no reason whatsoever to consider it such, (2) such an interpretation is again fatal to the prophecy's value by creating undue vagueness, and (3) significantly more than a Biblical generation (30 years) has passed from Israel's founding without anything happening. One can appeal to yet another definition of "generation," such as the 70 years of the average US male--but this creates fatal ambiguity yet again (why not 50 years? or the average Middle Easterner's lifespan? etc.), and what's worse, the time is rapidly approaching when even this may pass without the Second Coming. Of course, then we can expect a new redefinition, which makes the prophecy look even sillier...

Jesus returned in 70 AD and judged Jerusalem, letting the Romans destroy it. This is a fascinatingly creative approach known as preterism, but it may create more problems than it solves. For one, it basically allegorizes every specific event that could be expected by the prophecy's wording as it stands, making it totally worthless. Also, verses like Matthew 24:21 ("there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again") look implausible in light of things like the Holocaust, which made the Jewish War look like a game of hide and seek.

There are no good reasons to take any of these explanations in favor of the painfully obvious--that Matthew records one of the quadrillions of failed "the end is near!!!!!" predictions throughout history.

scrogdog

12-30-2007, 09:15 AM

Sure. God is the source of all life. Our life (ALL life) is a result of His.

That does not explain the observation. Ok, let's say God created those first simple life forms OR created all eternity at the start of the big bang.

In either case, evolution is unaffected, and you STILL have the observations to explain.

RoBoTeq

12-30-2007, 05:56 PM

That does not explain the observation. Ok, let's say God created those first simple life forms OR created all eternity at the start of the big bang.

In either case, evolution is unaffected, and you STILL have the observations to explain.

Evolution is just part of God's Creation. God's Creation seems to be like computer programming only with a shelf life for each evolvement. Whether things are done by man or by nature, there is a cause and effect just like a computer programs "if-then" scenarios.

Creation and evolution do not conflict with one another.

bootlen

12-30-2007, 09:34 PM

That does not explain the observation. Ok, let's say God created those first simple life forms OR created all eternity at the start of the big bang.

In either case, evolution is unaffected, and you STILL have the observations to explain.

I think we talked about this some months ago and I acquiesced to your "evolution" but I called it "adaptation". I really don't have a problem with that and neither does Scripture, especially in light of the fact I can go along with the "big bang" theory as the very beginning of creation. I mean, for something to become something from nothing has GOT to make a hell of a racket. And God DID say He SPOKE it into existence.

Anyway, there's a little common ground here, no?

bootlen

12-30-2007, 09:38 PM

scrogdog

12-30-2007, 10:38 PM

Not what I meant at all. He was saying that the generation that witnessed what He was speaking about in the preceding verses would not pass away before the 2nd Coming of Christ.In other words, the time that passes from those pangs till His coming would be less than a lifetime (typically 70 years but probably more like 40 years and possibly around 20).

Sorry, Boot. :) Your contention is simply a form of the "this race" argument.

Read this again please...

There's no particular reason to mention the human race would still be around (duh?), whereas there would be in mentioning the current generation living to see it. Basically, if you take the prophecy and read it without knowledge of its failure, you could never arrive at the "this race" translation as the most plausible.

Without question, this prophecy fails the above listed criteria (in post #103).

Which is what I've been saying all along. That won't matter to you. It does to me. The human condition is responsible and the bible fails to grasp it.

scrogdog

12-30-2007, 11:04 PM

I think we talked about this some months ago and I acquiesced to your "evolution" but I called it "adaptation". I really don't have a problem with that and neither does Scripture, especially in light of the fact I can go along with the "big bang" theory as the very beginning of creation. I mean, for something to become something from nothing has GOT to make a hell of a racket. And God DID say He SPOKE it into existence.

Yes. Beleive it or not... I believe that we have some common ground. :)

Explain to me how Adam and Eve fit in to the scientific picture of evolution? Or even how evolution fits in to the story of Genesis at all?

If God created... it would seem logical to assume that he did so at the beginning of all things... not necessarily the beginning of Earth.

bootlen

12-31-2007, 12:12 AM

Yes. Beleive it or not... I believe that we have some common ground. :)

Explain to me how Adam and Eve fit in to the scientific picture of evolution? Or even how evolution fits in to the story of Genesis at all?

If God created... it would seem logical to assume that he did so at the beginning of all things... not necessarily the beginning of Earth.

Just read Genesis 1. Big bang theory works here. And God could create an aged earth as well as an un-aged earth. He created Adam as a mature male. Why not each animal as mature?

scrogdog

12-31-2007, 10:51 AM

Ok, it has been some time since I've read Genesis, so I will read it again to see if there is any possible way to get to where you are from what it says.

I'll let you know. :)

coolwhip

12-31-2007, 11:20 AM

Who created God?

sline-dawg

12-31-2007, 12:12 PM

Who created God?

Mans mind......;)

RoBoTeq

12-31-2007, 12:52 PM

Who created God?

God is spiritual, not physical. The fact that no one needed to create God is what proves that God is indeed the great Creator of all physical entities.

Maybe there is a greater Creator who is responsible for creating all of spiritual entities, such as God. I think it best we stick to what we have been messing up on since the begginings of mankind rather then try to go that far into our theology.

scrogdog

12-31-2007, 01:00 PM

Maybe there is a greater Creator who is responsible for creating all of spiritual entities, such as God.

Right. We call that "infinite regression"; which more or less means that if one requires things to have a beginning or a creation, then saying that God created doesn't really answer the whole creation question. You simply move the problem back one step, if you take my meaning.

If someone/something created God, then someone/something also had a creator, and on and on down the line.

RoBoTeq

12-31-2007, 01:34 PM

Right. We call that "infinite regression"; which more or less means that if one requires things to have a beginning or a creation, then saying that God created doesn't really answer the whole creation question. You simply move the problem back one step, if you take my meaning.

If someone/something created God, then someone/something also had a creator, and on and on down the line.

But, if our concern is over Creation of the physical world in which we currently dwell, then the spiritual entity we refer to as God would be the one and only Creator. All of physical existance was Created by God is not disputed by the question; "what created God" since God is not of the physical world.

coolwhip

12-31-2007, 03:16 PM

RoBoTeq

12-31-2007, 06:44 PM

If mankind were not here to create a religion, then perhaps there would be no God.
The American Indian did not believe in God, same with many other cultures. These cultures were spiritual none the less and proud.
It seems like God came into the picture when certain people wanted to subjucate others and used the construct as a means to instill fear.
Keep the masses ignorant and living in fear and they will be easier to control and manipulate. It will also make it easier for the ruling class to maintain and hold onto their power.

If there is a God, then thats fantastic!, but I will always be suspicious of anything written by man and told to take it as the word of God. As if mankind is capable of spreading a goodness without attaching his own subversive evil antics.
Get rid of greed, then we can talk of good.

Im babeling.:D

.

Where do you get that American Indians did not believe in God? All Indian tribes in North America had a form of faith very close to the ancient Hebrew faith before Christianity forced the change in the Hebrew faith.

As a matter of fact, all cultures that ever existed exibit some form of spirituality. Man did not fabricate God; God has been revealing Himself to man forever. It is just our lack of understanding God's communications and the interventions of evil that has caused all of the trouble.

kim

12-31-2007, 10:29 PM

howdy Kim!

I'm not sure how much you hang out here, but you will see a LONG exchange between bootlen and sysint in the 'christian but don't celebrate christmas' thread If you care to understand the best way to (or not to) converse with our dear friend bootlen.

Good posts by the way.

I wrote a couple post on that thread.

I can't converse with Boot. It is more of Nancy Grace interveiw. I ask him a point blank question. He insults me then launches a diatribe on a completely different track.
He reminds me of my little brother. He tries so hard to prove he is better than me; on time he went to the job I was working and told me all the things I was doing wrong in front of the customer.
How can you deal with a person like that?

kim

12-31-2007, 10:35 PM

Darwin did not say man evolved from monkeys.
Darwin came up with a theory to explain the veriety of creatures he saw. He did realize the implications of his theory, but did not dwell on them.

bootlen

12-31-2007, 11:09 PM

on time he went to the job I was working and told me all the things I was doing wrong in front of the customer.
How can you deal with a person like that?

U-u-u-h, Ya got me confused with someone else, there , kim. Celebratin' '08 pretty hard, are ya? Might oughtta stay away from the reefer. Those hallucinations sure bring out the real you.

scrogdog

01-01-2008, 01:34 AM

Darwin did not say man evolved from monkeys.

I would expect that is so because of the very fact that man did not evolve from monkees. ;)

Darwin came up with a theory to explain the veriety of creatures he saw. He did realize the implications of his theory, but did not dwell on them.

Darwin's accomplishments were twofold; 1) Estabishing the fact of evolution... and 2) proposing a theory called Natural Selection, to describe the mechanisims of evolution.

He recognized the provisonal nature of his theory, but that does not modify the observation(s) (or facts).

deanmech

01-01-2008, 01:44 PM

Scrog--you seem to get distracted a lot by your mind. I don't pick up a viciousness in your posts, though, which is encouraging. My prayer for you in this New Year is that you would come to experience in a real way the deep, intimate love of God for you personally. The heart of the Bible is that "God so loved the world............" (John 3:16). As for me, I never want to be too far from this--I study the bible, find its history, information, etc. fascinating, but at the end of the day, it is only so that I can know HIM better. Jeremiah 9: 23-24 is a good scripture in this regard. Paul's attitude toward this can also be seen very clearly in Philippians 3: 3-14. Knowing Him and living in a relationship with Him is light years' better than understanding doctrines, theologies, philosophies, etc. etc. He is very, very real, very much alive, and He does talk to you........if you choose to listen..........

scrogdog

01-01-2008, 05:18 PM

Scrog--you seem to get distracted a lot by your mind.

I have to admit this struck me as rather amusing, no offense. Are you saying that I think too much? :)

I don't pick up a viciousness in your posts, though, which is encouraging. My prayer for you in this New Year is that you would come to experience in a real way the deep, intimate love of God for you personally. The heart of the Bible is that "God so loved the world............" (John 3:16). As for me, I never want to be too far from this--I study the bible, find its history, information, etc. fascinating, but at the end of the day, it is only so that I can know HIM better. Jeremiah 9: 23-24 is a good scripture in this regard. Paul's attitude toward this can also be seen very clearly in Philippians 3: 3-14. Knowing Him and living in a relationship with Him is light years' better than understanding doctrines, theologies, philosophies, etc. etc. He is very, very real, very much alive, and He does talk to you........if you choose to listen..........

Thanks for your good wishes, but if I haven't heard what God is saying by now, it is doubtful that I will. Of course, God could play me like a fiddle if he wanted. I'm not sure why he chooses the path of mystery, but that's his call. I think one should not be surprised that I find God to BE a mystery since that is apparently the case. :)

k-fridge

01-01-2008, 05:22 PM

Of course, God could play me like a fiddle if he wanted.

He may be doing that even now. ;)

scrogdog

01-01-2008, 05:24 PM

He may be doing that even now. ;)

Perhaps so, my friend. :)

RoBoTeq

01-01-2008, 05:30 PM

I have to admit this struck me as rather amusing, no offense. Are you saying that I think too much? :)

Thanks for your good wishes, but if I haven't heard what God is saying by now, it is doubtful that I will. Of course, God could play me like a fiddle if he wanted. I'm not sure why he chooses the path of mystery, but that's his call. I think one should not be surprised that I find God to BE a mystery since that is apparently the case. :)

Even with all of that thinking too much you continue to think backwards.

God is not playing you at all. God has not chosen a path of mystery for you, you have. God is patiently waiting for you to stop putzing around with every thought that can possibly distract you from Him so you can finally get to Him.

Just as with all of us, God is right there in the center of your life. You just happen to be one of those people who keeps his back to God while running around in circles crying; "where's God....where's God!" TURN AROUND!

scrogdog

01-01-2008, 05:42 PM

Even with all of that thinking too much you continue to think backwards.

God is not playing you at all. God has not chosen a path of mystery for you, you have. God is patiently waiting for you to stop putzing around with every thought that can possibly distract you from Him so you can finally get to Him.

Just as with all of us, God is right there in the center of your life. You just happen to be one of those people who keeps his back to God while running around in circles crying; "where's God....where's God!" TURN AROUND!

Hmmm, well I admit that I struggle to make philosophical sense of much the bible. Not all; as I said there is nothing wrong with your core principles - they are admirable. Maybe things would be easier if I could see the sense in the rest of it.

deanmech

01-01-2008, 11:33 PM

Thx for the reply Scrog. I don't throw away my mind when I walk with God. A good mind is a gift from God and there is nothing wrong with using it, but you won't perceive Him primarily through it--not initially at least. God is a heart and a relationship kind of person. He is very, very intelligent, but if you tried to dispute doctrines with Him, that would give Him a bit of a chuckle--kind of like a kid in grade 2 talking about counting to 10 with Einstein. Understand He is a Father who wants the best for His children. What makes Him angry is when they abuse themselves and each other. What He likes is when we are simply open to Him, like little children coming to talk to their Dad about how the day went. He likes it when we show kindness and respect to ourselves and to others.

There is a lot more I could say, but I'll give you a little hint...........simplify a bit..........have you ever got frustrated with what you thought was a gnarly troubleshooting problem and another mechanic comes in and sees a very simple answer at first glance. It's a little humbling--it's probably happened to us all a few times in this trade. Knowing Him is kind of like that. He is a Spirit. He is right there. You can breathe Him in. You can sense His Presence. You get better at it the more you pursue it, but you have to tune in to it, almost like finding a wavelength on the radio. Our society has most of us so drowned in noise (mental noise, emotional noise--you name it), we have lost much of our capacity to hear.

kim

01-02-2008, 10:08 PM

U-u-u-h, Ya got me confused with someone else, there , kim. Celebratin' '08 pretty hard, are ya? Might oughtta stay away from the reefer. Those hallucinations sure bring out the real you.

See what I mean???

kim

01-02-2008, 10:23 PM

I would expect that is so because of the very fact that man did not evolve from monkees. ;)

Darwin's accomplishments were twofold; 1) Estabishing the fact of evolution... and 2) proposing a theory called Natural Selection, to describe the mechanisims of evolution.

He recognized the provisonal nature of his theory, but that does not modify the observation(s) (or facts).

The piont I was trying to make:
Fundies demonize Darwin, because they do not understand science. They look it as a statement about having all the answers. When it is actually individuals try to get grant money.

Everybody can understand a individual who what a job that pays more money. Everybody has seen a movie where the popular scientist is living the good life. Why is it so hard to see these papers they site as the work of an individual try to have a better life.

Eventualy the truth will prevail, even the scientist take what they read with a grain of salt

bootlen

01-03-2008, 12:09 AM

See what I mean???

Oh. Yeah. Uh-huh. :D

numbawunfela

01-07-2008, 08:00 PM

I type as I get the chance, then lay it all down when the opportunity arises...Hope you don't mind :D

But, back to the observations (note that we aren't talking about any of the scientific theory yet - just observations), it all boils down to this; IF all life comes from other life and IF simple forms of life were here before more complex ones; THEN the more complex ones MUST have come from the simpler ones.

That is a reasonable conclusion, but not necessarily the correct one. Yes all life comes from life, and simpler ones came first, but that does not necessarily mean that the more complex ones came from the simpler ones, it just means the simpler ones came first.
The creation account in Genesis describes the process of creation, and it does so with the immediate audience in mind. Geologist Wallace Pratt said: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” With that in mind, we need to understand one or two things.
1) the ‘days’ of creation are not necessarily 24 hours long. To illustrate, the same word is used in the following verses:
(Genesis 2:4) “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”
(2 Peter 3:8) “However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.”
So the entire creative period is referred to as one day, where earlier it had been divided into 6 ‘days’ or periods. The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. As A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P. Schaff, 1894.
2) The chapter does not give every detail. As we read it, we should not be put out if it omits particulars that ancient readers could not have comprehended anyway. For example, in writing that chapter, Moses did not report the function of microscopic algae or bacteria. They would logically have been created at the point when they would have been necessary for the sustainment of the life that was being created at that particular phase. It is unreasonable to condemn the bible for what it does not say.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) The Bible’s first refers to the creation of our solar system, including our planet. According to the Bible, at one time the earth’s surface was “formless and waste.” There were no continents and no productive land. But the next words highlight what scientists say is the most important requirement for a life-sustaining planet—an abundance of water. God’s spirit was “moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.”—Genesis 1:2.
For surface water to remain liquid, a planet must be the right distance from its sun. Mars is too cold, Venus is too hot, Earth is just right. Similarly, for the growth of vegetation, there must be sufficient light. And significantly, the Bible account reports that during an early creative period, God caused the sun’s light to penetrate dark clouds of water vapor. Remember, the point of view is that of an earthly observer, as if there was one. Genesis 1:3-5.
In the next verses of Genesis, we read that the Creator produced what the Bible calls “an expanse.” (Genesis 1:6-8) This expanse is filled with gases making up earth’s atmosphere.
The Bible then explains that God changed the formless surface of the earth to make dry land. (Genesis 1:9, 10) He evidently caused earth’s crust to buckle and move. As a result, deep troughs may have been formed and continents pushed out of the ocean.
At some unspecified time in earth’s past, God created microscopic algas in the oceans. Using energy from the sun, one-celled organisms began to convert carbon dioxide into food while releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. This process sped up during a third creative period by the creation of vegetation that eventually covered the land. Thus the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere increased, which would make it possible for man and animals to sustain their lives by breathing.—Genesis 1:11, 12.
To make the land productive, the Creator caused a variety of microorganisms to live in the soil. (Jeremiah 51:15) These tiny creatures break down dead matter, recycling elements that plants use to grow. Special types of soil bacteria capture nitrogen from the air and make this available to plants so that they can grow.
Genesis 1:14-19 describes the forming of the sun, moon, and stars in a fourth creative period. Bear in mind, however, that Moses, the writer of Genesis, penned the creation account from the viewpoint of an earthly observer, as if one was present. Apparently, the sun, moon, and stars became visible through earth’s atmosphere at that time.
The Genesis account assigns the appearance of sea creatures to a fifth creative period and that of terrestrial animals and of man to a sixth day.
So the bible allows for the simple to come before the complex, but as for them coming FROM the simple forms of life, we need to look at the Bible in the light of modern science.
In the 18th century, the scientist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier studied the weight of matter. He noticed that after a chemical reaction, the weight of the product equaled the combined weight of the original ingredients. For example, if paper is burned in oxygen, the resulting ash and gases weigh the same as the original paper and oxygen. Lavoisier proposed a law—‘conservation of mass, or matter.’ In 1910, The Encyclopædia Britannica explained: “Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.” That seemed reasonable, at least back then.
However, the explosion of an atom bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945 publicly exposed a flaw in Lavoisier’s law. During such an explosion of a supercritical mass of uranium, different types of matter form, but their combined mass is less than that of the original uranium. Why the loss? It is because some of the mass of the uranium is converted into energy.
As this and other explosions proved, a small amount of matter represents an enormous quantity of energy. This link between matter and energy explains the power of the sun, which keeps us alive and well. What is the link? Well, some 40 years earlier, in 1905, Einstein had predicted a relationship between matter and energy. Many know of his equation E=mc2. Once Einstein formulated that relationship, other scientists could explain how the sun has kept shining for billions of years. Within the sun, there are continuous thermonuclear reactions. In this way, every second, the sun converts about 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium. This means that 4 million tons of matter are transformed into solar energy, a fraction of which reaches earth and sustains life.
Significantly, the reverse process is also possible. “Energy changes into matter when subatomic particles collide at high speeds and create new, heavier particles,” explains The World Book Encyclopedia. Scientists accomplish this on a limited scale using huge machines called particle accelerators, in which subatomic particles collide at fantastic speeds, creating matter. “We’re repeating one of the miracles of the universe—transforming energy into matter,” explains Nobel laureate physicist Dr. Carlo Rubbia.

So God could simply CREATE the simpler forms of life before the more complex. Then the simple comes before the complex, but the complex life does not need to come from the simple forms. All life came from the creator, he is the ‘life’ that the other forms of life come from.

numbawunfela

01-07-2008, 08:07 PM

Evolution presents man and all life as a steadily improving species, creation presents man as steadily degrading, or getting worse.
(Romans 5:12) “That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”
Creation points to a specific man and woman as the beginning of humanity, evolution does not. In fact, Christians rely on this as being accurate, since the gospels refer to jesus lineage as proof of his messiah-ship tracing that lineage back to adam. (Luke 3:23) “Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, [son] of He´li,” Yada Yada…(Luke 3:38) “[son] of E´nosh, [son] of Seth, [son] of Adam, [son] of God.”
If one argues for evolution, one is forced to arbitrarily determine where in the evolutionary chain adam and eve should be placed to make the two lines of thought agree.
(Acts 17:24-26) “24 The God that made the world and all the things in it, being, as this One is, Lord of heaven and earth…made out of one [man] every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of the dwelling of [men],”
Making us “out of one man” does not allow room for evolution.
Evolution says that dissimilar animals can have a common ancestry. Creation states simply what mankind has been able to observe for all history:
(Genesis 1:24-25) “24 And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25 And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that good.”
The boundaries of a ‘kind’ being determined by the point at which cross fertilization is no longer possible. So a big horse and a little horse can procreate ‘according to their kind’ but a horse and a donkey cannot, a mule is an infertile hybrid, this is what makes it impossible for a woman and a bull to make a minotaur etc. this allows for relatively few animals to be in the ark of Noah. Only two dogs were necessary to provide the DNA necessary to end up with the diversity we have today, for example. At a distant historical past time, when the degradation of imperfection had not yet caused that much damage to the human DNA (as seen by the longer life-spans enjoyed back then), close relatives could interbreed without the consequences we see today. But about 2,500 years after Adam became a sinner, God prohibited incestuous marriage. This served to safeguard the offspring from defects and it elevated the sexual morality of God’s servants above that of people around them who were then engaging in all manner of depraved practices. For example see Leviticus 18:2-18.
We realize that Darwin proposed his theory based on observations that seem reasonable to someone with the level of biological understanding prevalent at the time. However, today we are a bit more well-versed. The real test for evolution is not so much the large animals, but the microscopic organisms. There is a little bit of give and take in what mutations can occur, (assuming that all laboratory induced mutations didn’t result in harmful deformities, which they do) and whether such can survive as a dog or ape. But in the molecular world, there is no play in what will work. To this end, Michael Behe, professor of Biochemistry said “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature – in the prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred…..The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” This leads into the thought from a previous post, namely:

Although evolution and atheism is presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. It’s beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind’s selfish, independent tendencies. Many who believe in Evolution also believe in God. However they feel free to think that God is one who has not created all things, does not intervene in mankind’s affairs, ands will not judge people, in contradiction to the bible’s description of Him. Teachers of evolution are often motivated, not by facts, but by their ‘own desires’ – perhaps a desire to be accepted by a scientific community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine. Why do many believe in evolution? Many do not WANT there to be anything beyond nature. They turn their ears from the truth, and have their ears tickled.
To back that idea, Behe goes on ”Many people, including many important and well respected scientists just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature”
Many clergymen simply want to appear wise, to fit in, just as the scientists do who succumb to peer pressure.
Of course, we all can quote scientists who support our side of the argument, much as people do when it comes to global warming, however, when examined carefully and objectively, evolution falls far short of a viable theory of the origin of humankind. It is put forth because ‘there is nothing else’. Creation, as explained by those who are [I]not fundamentalist wakos, is far more reasonable.

bootlen

01-07-2008, 08:11 PM

1) the ‘days’ of creation are not necessarily 24 hours long. To illustrate, the same word is used in the following verses:
(Genesis 2:4) “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”
(2 Peter 3:8) “However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.”
So the entire creative period is referred to as one day, where earlier it had been divided into 6 ‘days’ or periods. The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. As A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P. Schaff, 1894.

EXCEPT...

In every instance of Scripture where the word "yom" (Hebrew for "day") is used, when it is enumerated as in "one day" or "two days', etc., or as in "first day" or "second day", etc., Biblical scholars agree that it ("yom") is referring to a literal 24 hour period.

numbawunfela

01-07-2008, 08:32 PM

A really impressive prophecy is recorded at Isaiah 45 and foretells the fall of Babylon.
(Isaiah 44:27-45:7) “the One saying to the watery deep, ‘Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up’; 28 the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in [my] saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘You will have your foundation laid.’” 45 This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut: 2 Before you I myself shall go, and the swells of land I shall straighten out. The copper doors I shall break in pieces, and the iron bars I shall cut down. 3 And I will give you the treasures in the darkness and the hidden treasures in the concealment places, in order that you may know that I am Jehovah, the One calling [you] by your name, the God of Israel. 4 For the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, I even proceeded to call you by your name; I proceeded to give you a name of honor, although you did not know me. 5 I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God. I shall closely gird you, although you have not known me, 6 in order that people may know from the rising of the sun and from its setting that there is none besides me. I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. 7 Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating calamity, I, Jehovah, am doing all these things.”
(Isaiah 46:10-11) “10 the One telling from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done; the One saying, ‘My own counsel will stand, and everything that is my delight I shall do’; 11 the One calling from the sunrising a bird of prey, from a distant land the man to execute my counsel. I have even spoken [it]; I shall also bring it in. I have formed [it], I shall also do it.”
Writing by Isaiah was completed by about 732 B.C.E.
(Jeremiah 51:30-32) “30 “The mighty men of Babylon have ceased to fight. They have kept sitting in the strong places. Their mightiness has run dry. They have become women. Her residences have been set on fire. Her bars have been broken. 31 “One runner runs to meet another runner, and one reporter to meet another reporter, to report to the king of Babylon that his city has been captured at every end, 32 and that the fords themselves have been seized, and the papyrus boats they have burned with fire, and the men of war themselves have become disturbed.”” Jeremiah, writing completed about 580 B.C.E

The Bible prophecies relating to Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon foretold that its rivers would be dried up, eliminating the moat around Babylon, and its gates left unshut, that there would be a sudden invasion of the city and a lack of resistance on the part of Babylon’s soldiers. Isaiah even supplied the name of the conqueror—“Cyrus,” a great Persian king. Two centuries after Isaiah recorded his prophecy, on the night of October 5, 539 B.C.E., the armies of Medo-Persia under the command of Cyrus the Great were encamped near Babylon, and according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, “the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle.” Herodotus describes a deep, wide moat encompassing Babylon, relating that numerous bronze (or copper) gates provided entrance through the interior walls along the Euphrates River, which bisected the city. Laying siege to the city, according to Herodotus (I, 191, 192), Cyrus went “drawing off the river by a canal into the lake [the artificial lake said to have been made earlier by Queen Nitocris], which was till now a marsh, he made the stream to sink till its former channel could be forded. When this happened, the Persians who were posted with this intent made their way into Babylon by the channel of the Euphrates, which had now sunk about to the height of the middle of a man’s thigh. Now if the Babylonians had known beforehand or learnt what Cyrus was planning, they would have suffered the Persians to enter the city and brought them to a miserable end; for then they would have shut all the gates that opened on the river and themselves mounted up on to the walls that ran along the river banks, and so caught their enemies as in a trap. But as it was, the Persians were upon them unawares, and by reason of the great size of the city—so say those who dwell there—those in the outer parts of it were overcome, yet the dwellers in the middle part knew nothing of it; all this time they were dancing and making merry at a festival . . . till they learnt the truth but too well. Thus was Babylon then for the first time taken.”
Almighty God had shaped the circumstances in human affairs for fully carrying out his counsel. He had called Cyrus “from the sunrising,” from Persia (to the E of Babylon), where Cyrus’ favorite capital of Pasargadae was built, and Cyrus was to be like “a bird of prey” in swiftly pouncing upon Babylon. (Isa 46:10, 11) It is of note that, according to The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1910, Vol. X, p. 454), “the Persians bore an eagle fixed to the end of a lance, and the sun, as their divinity, was also represented upon their standards, which . . . were guarded with the greatest jealousy by the bravest men of the army.”

Isaiah even foretold that Cyrus ‘did not know me’ or was not a worshipper of Jehovah. There is no evidence that he converted to Judaism. King Cyrus was likely a pagan devotee of Zoroastrianism. Jehovah God had been figuratively ‘taking Cyrus’ right hand’ to lead or strengthen him, girding him and preparing and smoothing the way for his accomplishing the divine purpose: the conquest of Babylon. This was later, likely, revealed to Cyrus by the Jewish prophet Daniel, who became one of the top three officials in the kingdom. When issuing his decree to rebuild Jerusalem, also as foretold, he speaks of Jehovah as ‘commissioning’ him.
(Ezra 1:1-3) “1 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm, and also in writing, saying: 2 “This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, ‘All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me, and he himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3 Whoever there is among YOU of all his people, may his God prove to be with him...”
The only ‘problem’ with this prophecy is that critics love to say it was not written before the fact. The only real reason to doubt the dates of writing is the implications of a real prophecy, and what that would mean for those who prefer not to be accountable to a god. The dating of the manuscripts is arrived at by the writers themselves. They date the writing, and receive corroboration through contemporaries, and anthropological evidence.
(Jeremiah 1:1-3) “1 The words of Jeremiah the son of Hil·ki´ah, one of the priests that were in An´a·thoth in the land of Benjamin; 2 to whom the word of Jehovah occurred in the days of Jo·si´ah the son of A´mon, the king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reigning. 3 And it kept on occurring in the days of Je·hoi´a·kim the son of Jo·si´ah, the king of Judah, until the completion of the eleventh year of Zed·e·ki´ah the son of Jo·si´ah, the king of Judah, until Jerusalem went into exile in the fifth month.”
He was commissioned by Jehovah in the year 647 B.C.E., the 13th year of the reign of King Josiah of Judah. His book was completed in 580 B.C.E. which makes the time covered by Jeremiah a period of 67 years.
Isaiah served during the time of at least four kings of Judah: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; evidently beginning about 778 B.C.E. (when Uzziah died, or possibly earlier) and continuing at least till after 732 B.C.E. (Hezekiah’s 14th year), or no less than 46 years. He had also committed his prophecy to writing by this latter date. (Isa 1:1; 6:1; 36:1) Other prophets of his day were Micah in Judah and, to the north, Hosea and Oded.

Isaiah made a further prediction regarding Babylon: “She will never be inhabited.” (Isaiah 13:19, 20) To predict permanent desolation for a sprawling city occupying a strategic location was bold indeed. You would normally expect that such a city would be rebuilt if ruined. Although Babylon lingered on for a while after its conquest, Isaiah’s words eventually came true. Today the site of ancient Babylon “is flat, hot, deserted and dusty,” reports Smithsonian magazine.
After her fall, Babylon was the center of a number of rebellions, until 478 B.C.E. when she was destroyed by Xerxes. At the end of the fourth century, Alexander the Great planned to restore her, but he died before the work had progressed very far. From then on, the city just declined. There were still people living there in the first century of our Common Era, but today all that is left of ancient Babylon is a heap of ruins in Iraq. Even if her ruins should be partially restored, Babylon would be just a tourist showpiece, not a living, vibrant city. Isaiah couldn't have written THAT after the fact. This decline apparently due in part to the effects of centuries of irrigation and the evaporation of the water leaving salts in the ground, eventually making it unfertile.

This prophecy is the equivalent of predicting the exact manner in which a modern city, such as New York or London, would be destroyed 200 years from now and then emphatically stating that it would never again be inhabited. Of course, most remarkable is the fact that Isaiah’s prophecy came true.

Whaddaya say mista scrog? Pretty nifty eh?

numbawunfela

01-07-2008, 08:37 PM

I wrote a couple post on that thread.

I can't converse with Boot. It is more of Nancy Grace interveiw. I ask him a point blank question. He insults me then launches a diatribe on a completely different track.
He reminds me of my little brother. He tries so hard to prove he is better than me; on time he went to the job I was working and told me all the things I was doing wrong in front of the customer.
How can you deal with a person like that?

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head there Kim. A very succinct description of the usual Bootlen exchange.

:rolleyes:

bootlen

01-07-2008, 08:39 PM

The truth is so very difficult for some. Kim and #1 are 2 peas in the "no truth for me" pod.

royc

01-07-2008, 08:47 PM

scrogdog

01-07-2008, 10:20 PM

Evolution presents man and all life as a steadily improving species

It will take some time for me to "compute" your post and formulate a reply. I'll be asking where you got some of your ideas on evolution, such as the above. :)

You never got that from any science text, I know that much.

Evolution has NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, to do with "improvements". It is all about adaptation to environments.

As a matter of fact, evolution is very much a game of rock/paper/scissors.

Let me give you a modern day example that you can relate to. Soon, possibly within my remaining lifetime, man will actually live on Mars. Consider the implications. First, there will be no more of this "Houston, we've got a problem" stuff. The teams sent there will need to survive on thier own.

I don't think it is a stretch to imagine them developing thier own culture.

Evolution would presume that these humans would develop in to at least a sub-species if not a new race over time. But would they be "improved"? That would depend on the eye of the beholder. It is doubtful that an Earthbound athlete would consider reduced muscle mass an improvement, for example.

sysint

01-08-2008, 09:01 AM

EXCEPT...

In every instance of Scripture where the word "yom" (Hebrew for "day") is used, when it is enumerated as in "one day" or "two days', etc., or as in "first day" or "second day", etc., Biblical scholars agree that it ("yom") is referring to a literal 24 hour period. Quote by Numba: "As A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P. Schaff, 1894."

I take it you think this guy is full of it? Who are your "Biblical Scholars"? Numba actually quotes a source. You do not.

numbawunfela

01-08-2008, 09:49 AM

It will take some time for me to "compute" your post and formulate a reply. I'll be asking where you got some of your ideas on evolution, such as the above. :)

You never got that from any science text, I know that much.

Evolution would presume that these humans would develop in to at least a sub-species if not a new race over time. But would they be "improved"? That would depend on the eye of the beholder. It is doubtful that an Earthbound athlete would consider reduced muscle mass an improvement, for example

That is valid, the conclusion is mine. The idea is that mutations are pretty much categorically a bad thing in any species that has been observed. The thrust of evolution on the other hand is that a species can become better suited to their environment through random mutations, selected naturally through survival to end up in increased chances for the survival of the altered version of the species. So if there is an increased chance of survival, the beholder (me :p ) would seem to agree that the species improved... At the very least, even if one did not consider it an improvement per se, it most definitely goes against observed science in that they are are presumed to serve any other purpose besides detrimentally harming the species experiencing the mutation, as well as going contrary to the Bible's principle that mankind is steadily degenerating. Anecdotally proven by my grandpa who insists that he walk to school 5 miles in the snow, uphill, BOTH WAYS and never complained once, wherease kids nowadays complain all the time. :D

I guess I should be clear I suppose in that I am refering mainly to mutations, as opposed to things possible in the realm of selective breeding, since bigger dogs are still dogs, but getting a lizard from a fish for example, would require a bit more than what selective breeding can do.

sysint

01-08-2008, 11:01 AM

..... the very least, even if one did not consider it an improvement per se, it most definitely goes against observed science in that they are are presumed to serve any other purpose besides detrimentally harming the species experiencing the mutation, as well as going contrary to the Bible's principle that mankind is steadily degenerating. I've got this post to Geer I can't find (awhile back) quoting an article about a supposed macro-evolutionary change in humans about 6,500 years ago. I'd like to find that one.

Anyway, if you map out the lifespans of humans mentioned in the Bible generationally it seems to follow closely rate of decay. You get the big dropoff and then the curve flattens out.

However, the Bible doesn't state that people would steadily be degenerating generation to generation. (that I know of)

scrogdog

01-08-2008, 04:34 PM

The idea is that mutations are pretty much categorically a bad thing in any species that has been observed. The thrust of evolution on the other hand is that a species can become better suited to their environment through random mutations, selected naturally through survival to end up in increased chances for the survival of the altered version of the species.

Close. :) Mutations can be good or bad. Whether or not they are is decided by Natural Selection.

As a matter of fact, most mutations are neutral in terms of how fit one is to survive. A lot of these types of "fitness nuetral" mutations self-repair themselves through various mechanisms. That is to say, the mutation is "changed back", if you will, before it becomes permanent.

Let's say that a mutation causes a skunk's scent to be changed. If the change is benificial to the animal (the smell and effect is even worse than before, for example), than the animal benefits from an increased survival rate. In turn, that increases the chance that the animal will mate and spawn babies, which take on the genetic disposition of thier parents. Eventually, the overall population has a much higher number of smellier skunks. Over time the less smelly skunks, being an easier meal, begin to fade out.

If the change is detrimental instead (such as the spray being less powerful in some way), then the animal's chance of survival and making babies is reduced. It is in this way that natural selection favors the fit. The offending gene has little chance of becoming a population norm.

Did the smellier skunk become "improved"? Well, it certainly became more fit to survive. However, I daresay that having smellier skunks around would hardly be considered as any sort of improvement by most of us. :)

sysint

01-08-2008, 05:02 PM

Is it still a skunk? (yes)
What determines if a mutation is simply recessive or a product of inbreeding?
When do you make a mutation jump to a different species?

scrogdog

01-08-2008, 05:49 PM

Is it still a skunk? (yes)
What determines if a mutation is simply recessive or a product of inbreeding?
When do you make a mutation jump to a different species?

Yes, it is still a skunk. That was an example of mirco-evolution. We have clear examples of speciation right now on the Earth.

Macro-evolution takes too long to observe the process, but it works in exactly the same way.

There is no determined time for speciation. It is defined simply as when the "branched off" species can no longer breed with the parent species.

As Gould said (please pay attention to the bolded part);

Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.) Creationists do not deny these observations; how could they? Creationists have tightened their act. They now argue that God only created "basic kinds," and allowed for limited evolutionary meandering within them. Thus toy poodles and Great Danes come from the dog kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert a dog to a cat or a monkey to a man.

The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.

The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution—strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution.

Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

Gould shows that intelligent design fails, while at the same time explaining how we can be so sure about something that has not been observed.

sysint

01-08-2008, 05:58 PM

Transitional fossils are an assumption. To say positively they are linked is speculation.

...."An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. " Yea. That's why those artificial limbs are so impressive people are cutting off their arms and legs to get them. Most everything, (if not all) is already in nature and your engineers are simply copying things that already exist from sonar to velcro... oftentimes in an inferior manner.

"Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia..."

Maybe that's where they liked to hang out before the continents separated and they didn't like to swim. There are marsupials all over the world. Some places have more than others.

I find these "explanations" rather poor.

As far as similarities go, I know in business things are shared and built on principles and designs of other things already made. It is not unreasonable to conclude that God may have made things in a similar fashion. Apparently so since hearts, brains and lungs are fairly common among many creatures.

EDIT: (Can't pass on this) "Gould shows that intelligent design fails, while at the same time explaining how we can be so sure about something that has not been observed." --- I think you should look up Hebrews 11:1

scrogdog

01-08-2008, 06:27 PM

Transitional fossils are an assumption. To say positively they are linked is speculation.

Well, I'll give you credit for this. I had yet to hear this one. Usually it is that they don't exist.

So, you deny that the six species of human show an evolutionary progression? Ok, let's assume that's true. Have you anything other than "strange and mysterious ways" to explain thier presence in the first place? Why would God need to create six different versions? Practice? :rolleyes:

:)

...."An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. " Yea. That's why those artificial limbs are so impressive people are cutting off their arms and legs to get them. Most everything, (if not all) is already in nature and your engineers are simply copying things that already exist from sonar to velcro...

Now, now, let's not complain about others being obtuse, shall we? ;) Of course, what Gould meant was not that man can design a better limb, but God certainly could have. But he didn't. So, what's so "intelligent" about that sort of design-work, hmmm?

"Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia..."

Maybe that's where they liked to hang out before the continents separated and they didn't like to swim. There are marsupials all over the world. Some places have more than others.

Well, your time frames aren't in synch. Marsupials appeared about 50 million years ago. The last time that the continents were connected was about 240 million years ago.

Besides, Gould did not say that Marsupials were found only in Australia. What he asked was... well... what he asked. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia *be* marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent?

I find these "explanations" rather poor.

You are welcome to do so. I just don't see much logic in your arguments. :)

As far as similarities go, I know in business things are shared and built on principles and designs of other things already made. It is not unreasonable to conclude that God may have made things in a similar fashion. Apparently so since hearts, brains and lungs are fairly common among many creatures.

Wait... wait... things were not "already made" when God created. You are talking about improving an existing design from a human standpoint. God doesn't need to improve his design, right? So, again, it would be optimal to create individual bone structures rather than shared ones.

scrogdog

01-08-2008, 06:43 PM

In an effort to gain insight regarding your point with Hebrews, I pulled out my master tool Google and found this.

http://in-fraction.blogspot.com/2005/06/danger-of-substantial-faith-pt-2.html

I thought you in particular would enjoy it, Sys; check out the readers comments below too.

sysint

01-08-2008, 07:25 PM

You are "Geering" me with your response style....

I read an article on a supposed macro-evolutionary event about 6,500 years ago with human DNA. When I see something like this it sure muddies the waters when you want to make some sort of linking based on fossils. I think that is speculative. Interesting as a potential theory, but not something to be considered factual. The only thing factual about it is the presence of the fossils, not the potential for a link. What I'm stating is that if somebody is making things they may do things similarly. (for whatever reason)

Further, to say that certain limbs or parts of creation are poorly designed or unnecessary based on current environment is not very scientific. I point to some trees that aren't reproducing presumably because there are no Dodo's anymore to assist. Was the tree improperly designed or was it simply designed for a more specific purpose? Bees work with flowers. Evolutionary or design?

"Of course, what Gould meant was not that man can design a better limb, but God certainly could have. But he didn't. So, what's so "intelligent" about that sort of design-work, hmmm?"

Well, as soon as you design a few things uniquely, I think you can qualify what is not intelligent, or what decision making went into the design. I'm saying neither you or I have the ability to grade what I attribute to God's design.

"Why should all the large native mammals of Australia *be* marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent?"

...they liked the weather better than bears.

"You are talking about improving an existing design from a human standpoint. God doesn't need to improve his design, right? So, again, it would be optimal to create individual bone structures rather than shared ones."No. I'm saying in new product development people may utilize similarly conceived parts or processes. It is not unreasonable for God to like lung design and make variations of it creature to creature. As far as trying to critique design, (again) it wasn't too long ago the appendix was supposeadly a useless organ (vestigial) What did evolutionists say about that? Well, it's the opposite of what they say about it now because it turns out that now medical science is saying that useless appendix actually has a modern purpose.

sysint

01-08-2008, 07:32 PM

Definition of vestigial: a small, functionless structure that was once well-developed in an organism's ancestors but which has been reduced during the course of evolution UW

What will happen with the appendix is the claim that it's percentage of vestigial is not such that it's totally inactive. That's going to be the CYA on that when in reality it's probably doing what it always has.

scrogdog

01-08-2008, 07:34 PM

Well, I am only trying to give you an understanding of what science currently says. It is a rare thing for such a robust theory as evolution to be flat out wrong. Even after Einstien modified what Newton said about gravity, everything that Newton said about gravity and its laws still applied on Earth.

All theories are, by nature, provisional. We can still poke holes in even Einstien's Theory, but nothing happens to gravity when we do.

Again, even if Gould and Darwin are dead wrong about how evolution works, we still know that simple forms of life were here first but now we are.

How am I Geering you by asking what God's plan was by putting 6 progressive types of man on the Earth? Seems a reasonable question to me.

sysint

01-08-2008, 07:52 PM

sysint

01-08-2008, 08:00 PM

Well, I am only trying to give you an....How am I Geering you by asking what God's plan was by putting 6 progressive types of man on the Earth? Seems a reasonable question to me.Geer likes to break every down every sentence in a PARAGRAPH. It makes response more difficult as it gets very busy. I'll have to say you are more cohesive.

As far as the 6 steps of man--- the Bible states God made everything according to it's kind. So, what constitutes a man today is essentially the way men were created. I give some leeway here as it appears that according to the Bible after sin there was a change in people that they died. Whether that change was simply some support of some sort from God or a physical change is not known. I don't know what God did to shut the everlasting life "switch" off in people when they sinned.

scrogdog

01-08-2008, 08:19 PM

Is but faith, of things being hoped for a basis, of things a conviction not being seen. (Emphatic diaglott Literal)

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. 2 For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them. --NWT.

Have to use the JW Bible as they state it better.

"Gould shows that intelligent design fails, while at the same time explaining how we can be so sure about something that has not been observed."

"the evident demonstration _____of realities__________though not beheld."
" ____sure _________________about something______that has not been observed."

The principle is the same. Paul was talking about the law and promises of God culminating in Christ. Those people before Christ didn't see him but what was going on in their environment assured their expectation of a Messiah. Science's Messiah is evolution. Should it prove to be true it liberates them from God.

Ok, thanks. I get your point now.

Here is how I look at the matter that I think you are presenting. Let's take the discovery of the planet Neptune as an example, It was not discovered by direct observation. Its mass, size and position were, however, pretty accurately estimated by its affect on other bodies. In short, it was discovered using math.

Next example. There is no one living or that has ever lived that has directly observed the Earth orbiting the sun. Do you doubt that it does? No. Why? Because there is *overwhelming* evidence that this is, in fact, the case.

I see your point in principle, but in practice, to me, you lack the "overwhelming evidence" part. Evolution is also based on "overwhelming evidence". As far as I can tell, nothing in the bible matches up.

Besides... honestly Sys, I'm not sure of your exact motivation in opposing evolution. You have agreed with Numba that creation days do not mean 24 hours, they indicate different phases of creation.

Ok wow, what a concept. Evolution has also occured in phases. :)

Let me give you one example of where I am going with this. I am sure that you are aware of the arguments surrounding fossils and the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian periods. The scientific explanation of why a "boom" of fossils appeared in the Cambrian era is simple; before that only simple invertibrates existed. Soft tissue is notably hard to fossilize, but it can still occur if the animal is trapped in a certain environment at death (resin for example).

So it is simply that there were far more and easier to fossilize creatures that had bones and/or shells in the Cambrian era. Again, where the whole matter of macro-evolution is particularly weak is not the 'what happened' part, it is the "how and why it happened" part. In other words, the fossil record shows what it shows. But we have no idea WHAT it was that suddenly caused the next phase to 'happen", if you will. WHY it was that moment in time. HOW it happened. What was the stimuli that promoted this change? THAT is the theory part.

Now, why... if you say that creation happened in phases, is this so hard for you? I mean... even a single "creation day" could have spanned millions of years! Maybe even a creation day had phases within itself! Even if we explain the pre-Cambrian and Cambrain phases down to the Nth scientific degree, so what? Why does science being able to explain a thing automatically mean that God did NOT do it?

If creation even loosely follows science, why can't we say that the bible's explanation was written for simpler people in simpler times? What's wrong with that? Why does that idea challenge your faith? Why do things have to be so literal to strengthen you and your faith in God and Christ?

numbawunfela

01-08-2008, 11:15 PM

I am glad to see i have stirred the pot a bit :D

Check out this service vehicle I posted..

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=158494

I hate to post and run, seeing you are actually on line scrog, but I gotta.

For your entertainment,

Clarifications on mutations being bad usually:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/mutant_flies/mutant_flies.html
I have yet to see a mutation that is useful, or that is extreme enough to warrant re catagorization of an organism as a new species.

And I tend to shy away from evolutionary discussions involving full-grown animals, since it gets into what you and sys just discussed. Really though, their had to be microscopic life (according to evolution) before full grown, that means stepped progression, with USEFUL intermediary steps to be naturally selected. this is pretty much inconceivable on the microscopic scale. Darwin can look around at what he saw and reason much as we have on this forum, but examining microscopic life is another story, the model breaks down.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/question.htm
(I don't like their tone necessarily, but it kinda illustrates the point)

The Fall of babylon is way interesting.. eh?

I'm packing to go outta town. I'll read ya later!!!!! :cool:

scrogdog

01-09-2008, 09:21 AM

Well, your link is hardly clarification since it basically says the same thing that I just did. In fact, here you go, direct from your link;

Mutations are neither good nor bad: some may be beneficial for an organism; others may be lethal. By creating new gene versions, mutations are a driving force for changes in evolution, sometimes leading to new species.

I have yet to see a mutation that is useful, or that is extreme enough to warrant re catagorization of an organism as a new species.

Uh well, you aren't understanding how macro-evolution works then. No one would expect that you would see a *single* change mutate one animal in to another! The process takes too long to be observed as I've said, and it involves many, many changes over time. So then, why be shocked with the notion that YOU can't observe it? :)

There is no "recatagorization", per se. It is a mistake to think that the parent species always becomes extinct when branching off occurs. Yet, we hear that sort of thing from creationists (whom frankly have not even checked out what the theory actually SAYS before making claims about it) quite frequently. For example, "if man evolved from apes, how come there are still apes?"

Firstly, man did NOT descend from apes. Rather, several evolutionary branches came from a single ape-like creature that is now extinct. Some of the branches died out; others survived. Among the survivors are man, apes and monkees.

We have *documented* speciation on the micro level. For example, man introduced mice to the Pharoe Islands. Within 50 years or something like that, SEVERAL new species of mice appeared that were NOT found elsewhere on the planet. That is to say, yes, they were still mice. However, they were unable to interbreed with each other because they were different species of mice!

Where'd the new mice come from do ya think? ;)

Those mice are also a perfect example of a parent species not becoming extinct just because there was some branching off.

Really though, their had to be microscopic life (according to evolution) before full grown, that means stepped progression, with USEFUL intermediary steps to be naturally selected. this is pretty much inconceivable on the microscopic scale. Darwin can look around at what he saw and reason much as we have on this forum, but examining microscopic life is another story, the model breaks down.

EDIT: Changing approach with this edit. Please show us the scientific source that backs this claim. Thanks! ;)

It simply ain't so. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite is true. It is VERY useful for us to observe evolution in life forms that have short life spans because we can observe processes that we otherwise could not. We use microrganisms to *demonstrate* evolution, my friend! :) Along with other types of organisims with short lifespans like fruit flies.

I have yet to see a mutation that is useful,

You aren't looking hard enough. I could give you examples that would fill entire pages. FACT: Once upon a time in Britain, coal smoke and soot filled the air. At times you could not even see across the street. It is a documented fact that a species of white moth changed to black in a VERY short time because the coal soot was covering the trees. Moths defend themselves by blending in to the environment. You don't call that useful?

Documented FACT: Bees evolve to resist pesticides. That's not useful? See, pesticides are nerve agents. That means that they are unable to be resisted by such things as antibodies. The only way to resist is to genetically adapt.

Have a nice trip. See ya when you get back. :)

kim

01-13-2008, 06:02 PM

I have yet to see a mutation that is useful, or that is extreme enough to warrant re catagorization of an organism as a new species.
:

Darwin saw the variaties of Finch on the various islands. They had adapted to fit the particular ecosystem. They came from a common place and were probably blown in with a storm. It was too far to fly home. The variety that was best adapted for that ecostructure survived the best. During hard times the other varieties' population decreased unto it was no longer viable. At the same time minor mutations increased a particular bird's chance of feeding its young. If sometime catostrophic happened, like say a large tidal wave, it might be that 75% of the varities could not survive. The storms would blow new species in and natural selection would again favor some variaties over others. After a million years, a lot of small mutations could happen and a lot of ecosystem changes could happen.

Again I emphasize small mutations over time. Large mutations would probably not be tollerated by the rest of the population anyway. They would shun or kill the freaks.

Do not get bogged down by the popularist catch phrases like survival of the fittest. It was probably natural disasters that spurred change in species. Something as common as a drought could change an ecosystem enough that one variety now has a marked increase of survival potential over another variety.

numbawunfela

01-17-2008, 11:34 AM

You aren't looking hard enough. I could give you examples that would fill entire pages. FACT: Once upon a time in Britain, coal smoke and soot filled the air. At times you could not even see across the street. It is a documented fact that a species of white moth changed to black in a VERY short time because the coal soot was covering the trees. Moths defend themselves by blending in to the environment. You don't call that useful?

Documented FACT: Bees evolve to resist pesticides. That's not useful? See, pesticides are nerve agents. That means that they are unable to be resisted by such things as antibodies. The only way to resist is to genetically adapt.

Have a nice trip. See ya when you get back. :)

I guess that is what I get for posting on the fly… Here is the full version. Please let us not forget that the discussion is two pronged – one the bible is sound (prophecy) the alternatives to the bible (and it’s account of creation in this instance) are not.
This post does not address the issue of the spontaneous generation of life necessary for inorganic chemicals to turn into living cells. That will be in a later post. The fruit fly post, though from a pro-evolution website, gives graphic illustration of the negative impact of mutations on a species.
As for Evolution. Just how is it supposed to have happened? What is a basic mechanism that is presumed to have enabled one type of living thing to evolve into another type? Evolutionists say that various changes inside the nucleus of the cell play their part. And foremost among these are the “accidental” changes known as mutations. It is believed that the particular parts involved in these mutational changes are the genes and chromosomes in sex cells, since mutations in them can be passed along to one’s descendants.
“Mutations . . . are the basis of evolution,” states The World Book Encyclopedia.(The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 13, p. 809.) Similarly, paleontologist Steven Stanley called mutations “the raw materials” for evolution. (The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 65.) And geneticist Peo Koller declared that mutations “are necessary for evolutionary progress.” (Chromosomes and Genes, by Peo C. Koller, 1971, p. 127.)
However, it is not just any kind of mutation that evolution requires. Robert Jastrow pointed to the need for “a slow accumulation of favorable mutations.” (Red Giants and White Dwarfs, by Robert Jastrow, 1979, p. 250) And Carl Sagan added: “Mutations—sudden changes in heredity—breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species.” (Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 27.)
How do mutations originate? It is thought that most of them occur in the normal process of cell reproduction. But experiments have shown that they also can be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. And how often do they happen? The reproduction of genetic material in the cell is remarkably consistent. Relatively speaking, considering the number of cells that divide in a living thing, mutations do not occur very often. As the Encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing “of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents.” (Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742)
Are They Helpful or Harmful?
If beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution, what proportion of them are beneficial? There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan declares: “Most of them are harmful or lethal.” (Cosmos, p. 31. Cosmos, p. 31.)
Peo Koller states: “The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.” Chromosomes and Genes, p. 127.)
Excluding any “neutral” mutations, then, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one. “Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization,” states the Encyclopædia Britannica. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1959, Vol. 22, p. 989.) That is why mutations are said to be responsible for hundreds of diseases that are genetically determined. (The Toronto Star, “Crusade to Unravel Life’s Sweet Mystery,” by Helen Bullock, December 19, 1981, p. A13.)
Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.” (Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742) When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.” (Processes of Organic Evolution, by G. Ledyard Stebbins, 1971, pp. 24, 25)They could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage.
In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: “Most mutations are for the worse.” However, he then asserted: “In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward.” (The Wellsprings of Life, by Isaac Asimov, 1960, p. 139) But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered beneficial? If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? If a driver of an automobile made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? If a surgeon made thousands of wrong moves for every right one when operating, would you want him to operate on you?
Geneticist Dobzhansky once said: “An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.” (Heredity and the Nature of Man, by Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1964, p. 126) Thus, ask yourself: Does it seem reasonable that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down?
Do Mutations Produce Anything New?
Even if all mutations were beneficial, could they produce anything new? No, they could not. A mutation could only result in a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but never anything new.
The World Book Encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen with a beneficial mutation: “A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water.” (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 6, p. 332) But has anything new appeared? No, it is still the same plant. It is not evolving into something else.
Mutations may change the color or texture of a person’s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers. A person’s hand may be changed by mutations. It may have fingers that are abnormal. At times there may even be a hand with six fingers or with some other malformation. But it is always a hand. It never changes into something else. Nothing new is coming into existence, nor can it ever.

numbawunfela

01-17-2008, 11:35 AM

Few mutation experiments can equal the extensive ones conducted on the common fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Since the early 1900’s, scientists have exposed millions of these flies to X rays. This increased the frequency of mutations to more than a hundred times what was normal.
After all those decades, what did the experiments show? Dobzhansky revealed one result: “The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.” (Heredity and the Nature of Man, p. 126) Another result was that the mutations never produced anything new. The fruit flies had malformed wings, legs and bodies, and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies. And when mutated flies were mated with each other, it was found that after a number of generations, some normal fruit flies began to hatch. If left in their natural state, these normal flies would eventually have been the survivors over the weaker mutants, preserving the fruit fly in the form in which it had originally existed.
The hereditary code, the DNA, has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. This helps to preserve the kind of organism it is coded for. Scientific American relates how “the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation” are preserved “by enzymes that continually repair” genetic damage. The journal states: “In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized.” (Scientific American, “Inducible Repair of DNA,” by Paul Howard-Flanders, November 1981, p. 72)
Thus, in the book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.” (Darwin Retried, by Norman Macbeth, 1971, p. 33)
Often in evolutionary literature England’s peppered moth is referred to as a modern example of evolution in progress. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia stated: “This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.” (The International Wildlife Encyclopedia, 1970, Vol. 20, p. 2706) After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: “Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one.” (Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235) The case was, of course, the peppered moth.
Just what happened to the peppered moth? At first, the lighter form of this moth was more common than the darker form. This lighter type blended well into the lighter-colored trunks of trees and so was more protected from birds. But then, because of years of pollution from industrial areas, tree trunks became darkened. Now the moths’ lighter color worked against them, as birds could pick them out faster and eat them. Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type.
But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.” (On Call, July 3, 1972, p. 9) There were two variations existing, just as there are white and black sheep. The conditions simply changed which of the two PREEXISTING versions became more prevalent. Nothing new came of it.
The inaccurate claim that the peppered moth is evolving is similar to several other examples. For instance, since some germs have proved resistant to antibiotics, it is claimed that evolution is taking place. But the hardier germs are still the same type, not evolving into anything else. And it is even acknowledged that the change may have been due, not to mutations, but to the fact that some germs were immune to begin with. When the others were killed off by drugs, the immune ones multiplied and became dominant. As Evolution From Space says: “We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes.” (Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 5).
The same process may also have been the case with some insects being immune to poisons used against them. Either the poisons killed those insects on which they were used, or they were ineffective. Those killed could not develop a resistance, since they were dead. The survival of others could mean that they had been immune at the start. Such immunity is a genetic factor that appears in some insects but not in others. In any event, the insects remained of the same kind. They were not evolving into something else.
The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”
Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.” (On Call, July 3, 1972, pp. 8, 9)
Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].” (Science, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” by Roger Lewin, November 21, 1980, p. 884) So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1) stability and (2) limited ranges of variation.
Thus, the book Molecules to Living Cells states: “The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction.” (Molecules to Living Cells, “Simple Inorganic Molecules to Complex Free-Living Cells,” Scientific American, Section I, introduction by Philip C. Hanawalt, 1980, p. 3) And Symbiosis in Cell Evolution says: “All life . . . reproduces with incredible fidelity.” (Symbiosis in Cell Evolution, by Lynn Margulis, 1981, p. 87) Scientific American also observes: “Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation.” (Scientific American, “The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus,” by Edouard Kellenberger, December 1966, p. 32) And a science writer commented: “Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs.” He concluded that mutations “cannot account for overall evolution—why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.” (Los Angeles Times, “Fishing for Evolution’s Answer,” by Irving S. Bengelsdorf, November 2, 1967)
The matter of variation within a kind explains something that influenced Darwin’s original thinking about evolution. When he was on the Galápagos Islands he observed a type of bird called a finch. These birds were the same type as their parent kind on the South American continent, from where they apparently had migrated. But there were curious differences, such as in the shape of their beaks. Darwin interpreted this as evolution in progress. But actually it was nothing more than another example of variety within a kind, allowed for by a creature’s genetic makeup. The finches were still finches. They were not turning into something else, and they never would.
Thus, what Genesis says is in full harmony with scientific fact. When you plant seeds, they produce only “according to their kinds,” so you can plant a garden with confidence in the dependability of that law. When cats give birth, their offspring are always cats. When humans become parents, their children are always humans. There is variation in color, size and shape, but always within the limits of the kind. Have you ever personally seen a case that was otherwise? Neither has anyone else.
Not a Basis for Evolution

numbawunfela

01-17-2008, 11:37 AM

The conclusion is clear. No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind. As French biologist Jean Rostand once said: “No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips’ of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations.’” (The Orion Book of Evolution, by Jean Rostand, 1961, p. 79).
Similarly, geneticist C. H. Waddington stated regarding the belief in mutations: “This is really the theory that if you start with any fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare. . . . it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better.”( Science Today, “Evolution,” by C. H. Waddington, 1961, p. 38)
The truth is as Professor John Moore declared: “Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . . that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth.” (Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny, by John N. Moore, December 27, 1971, p. 5)

We should do better.......

scrogdog

01-17-2008, 01:05 PM

Well, I can only say that you surely have not been reading or understanding what I've been saying.

There are always going to be scientists that lie outside of the mainstream. That doesn't mean much other than some people disagree with the theory of how something works.

As I've said, to poke a hole in the theory is *meaningless* with regards to determining whether or not evolution occurred. We can poke a hole in the theory of gravity. Does that mean that gravity doesn't exist?

That we cannot properly explain the "hows" of evolution is similarly meaningless.

We can sit here and bandy about the theory all you like. But it is useless if your goal is to demonstrate that evolution never happened. Because all we need to know that is OBSERVATION. Not science. We don't need science AT ALL - not even ONE LITTLE BIT, to know that it happened.

One more time... here is what we observed.

1) We know that when you dig into the Earth that you find things that are older than what is on the surface. How do we know that? Well, two ways. Firstly, discoveries made near the surface are "recent history" which is confirmed by tablets and documents (they date themselves). As we go deeper down, we see the regression of progress. The writings get simpler and so do the tools. Eventually writings disappear. Tools disappear. Simpler forms of man are found even deeper. Deeper than that, and we see the regression of all life. Vertibrates disappear.

So, we know the further down that we dig, the older things are. This was determined WELL before the age of radiomentric dating by using the geological column. All radiometry did was to confirm what we already knew.

2) We know that all life comes from other life. Except for how the first life forms got here. We don't know about that. But we do know that after that time, NO ONE, not even in biblical stories, has ever claimed to see life pop out of thin air. So... all life comes from other life. It doesn't just spawn out of nowhere.

So... if all life comes from other life... and if simpler forms were here before more complex ones, then the more comlpex ones MUST have come from the simpler ones.

Whether we can explain HOW it happened or not is *irrelevent*. Not sure how many time I must keep saying that. :)

Further, as I've said, I highly doubt if you've even read a mainstream account of evolution. You are more interested in taking it down anyway you can. Ok fine. But at least consider that I HAVE read the bible before making decisions about it.

How do I know you haven't? Easy.

This post does not address the issue of the spontaneous generation of life necessary for inorganic chemicals to turn into living cells.

For the eleven-billionth time, this has not ONE thing at ALL to do with Evolution. That's Abiogenesis. :)

I'm not sure what type of discussion can be continued if you ignore my points and just continue on with more of the same.

Now, I could respond to your posts, which are rife with scientific innaccuracies, but again, it would be meaningless because your goal is to disprove that evolution ocurred. That is impossible. Again, this would be as silly as explaining why gravity doesn't exist by poking a hole in the theory of how it works. Such a process is MEANINGLESS, my friend. :)

Your only hope is to put forth an alternate explanation of our two observations above. Hey, give it a shot. Maybe you'll win a Nobel. ;)

numbawunfela

01-19-2008, 12:25 PM

I'm sorry. maybe I didn't understand what you were getting at. I did not mean to offend.

I thought we had addressed the above points to a certain extent earlier, but maybe I was off, or things got mixed up in the medium we use (conversations tend to overlap around here).

Concerning your post on observations, and specifically concerning ones that may lead one to the conclusion that more complex MUST have come from less complex, I partially responded:

That is a reasonable conclusion, but not necessarily the correct one. Yes all life comes from life, and simpler ones came first, but that does not necessarily mean that the more complex ones came from the simpler ones, it just means the simpler ones came first, [and all life came from the Creator, a living source of life.]
The creation account in Genesis describes the process of creation, and it does so with the immediate audience in mind. Geologist Wallace Pratt said: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” With that in mind, we need to understand one or two things.
2) The chapter does not give every detail. As we read it, we should not be put out if it omits particulars that ancient readers could not have comprehended anyway. For example, in writing that chapter, Moses did not report the function of microscopic algae or bacteria. They would logically have been created at the point when they would have been necessary for the sustainment of the life that was being created at that particular phase. It is unreasonable to condemn the bible for what it does not say.
[The principles of relativity and current Atomic theory allow for energy to be converted into matter.] So God could simply CREATE the simpler forms of life before the more complex. Then the simple comes before the complex, but the complex life does not need to come from the simple forms. All life came from the creator, he is the ‘life’ that the other forms of life come from.

Yes there are scientists out of the mainstream that one can cite to support any claim. I actually said as much:

To this end, Michael Behe, professor of Biochemistry said “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature – in the prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred…..The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”
To back that idea, Behe goes on ”Many people, including many important and well respected scientists just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature”
Many clergymen simply want to appear wise, to fit in, just as the scientists do who succumb to peer pressure.
Of course, we all can quote scientists who support our side of the argument, much as people do when it comes to global warming, however, when examined carefully and objectively, evolution falls far short of a viable theory of the origin of humankind. It is put forth because ‘there is nothing else’. Creation, as explained by those who are not fundamentalist wakos, is far more reasonable.

I then had the idea to examine the theory of evolution. This seems a reasonable thing to do if it is to affect our perception of the bible. Also it seemed as though you were asking for my thoughts on the matter. My thoughts is that Evolution is not viable, as I am sure you can tell, and I am just clarifying why that is. If I am off in the details I apologize. I simply wished to get into the nuts and bolts of things. That means more then general observation, as seemed to have been posted in the question you posed in the above post, it means detailed observation. I totally agree that it seems reasonable on a surface examination th believe that evolution is at least plausable. it does make a certain amount of sense, but closely examined, it falls apart as I hope I am demonstrating. Thus the extended posts on evolutionary theory. This also includes the origin of life, which, in the absence of a creator, must have happened through spontaneous generation, unless my reasoning is off. thus my intent to post on that part of the theory of evolution.

Many religious fundamentalists chafe at careful scrutiny of their dogmatic assumptions. This is because they only look good on the surface until you give them the scrutiny that anything that could mean a change in our perception of reality deserves. I have found that "Religious" is not the only form of fundamentalist. and as a careful examination of the theory of evolution shows, many who adhere to it do so, not based on observed science, but out of a desire to fit in, or to appear learned, or because they do not wish to entertain any other ideas. a religious person displaying these traits would be catagorized as a fundamentalist, the same measure should be applied to non-religious as well. Just looking for parity.

I have seen that you are not a fundamentalist, and I do not want to convey the idea that I think you are one.

I think I just missed the point. wouldn't be the first time. Please help me out...

scrogdog

01-19-2008, 01:05 PM

Let me put it this way. And, BTW, you did not offend, I just want you to see my point a little more clearly. We can address any point you like, I just want to make sure that you are acknowledging my points as well.

So, let's not get bogged down in the theory part just yet, ok?

As for the observations, in my world "we know what we know"... if you will. Now, that doesn't mean that God didn't create. As I said, evolution does not postulate where the first simple life forms came from. That, instead, is the science of Abiogenesis... which is a whole seperate argument. Again, I am willing to discuss anything that you like, but to stay on the topic of evolution means that we should not wander from it. Meaning, that for the purposes of this argument, I am willing to concede the possibility of God placing those first simple forms on the Earth.

If he did that, however, even the theory part of evolution is unaffected.

Now, as I mentioned... and again along the lines of "knowing what we know", evolution seems a reasonable explanation as to how, without any "magical intervention" which science will never recognize, there was a progression of life. To me, it is a fact that life developed on the Earth because ALL of science points to this (not just evolution or abiogenesis alone... ALL of science). However, that does not mean that our theory of how the different phases occured is correct or even anywhere near it. It is just that the puzzle seems to fit.

If one wants to say that, instead of Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, there is some other method or mechanism that is responsible for the progression of man (including the hand of God at work), then I am perfectly ok with that.

So, if you want to make God the catalyst of evolution... be my guest. However, that still isn't exactly Adam and Eve, is it? :)

As I tried pointing out to Sysint, one can rationalize even the biblical account of creation as loosely following the explanation of science. If you let it. But it seems that the story of Adam and Eve is just so gosh darn important that you are unwilling to see that which is before your eyes. No offense intended and in my humble opinion. Of course, you and Sys aren't even close to being alone in this.

numbawunfela

01-19-2008, 05:50 PM

That is fine.

Meaning, that for the purposes of this argument, I am willing to concede the possibility of God placing those first simple forms on the Earth.
If he did that, however, even the theory part of evolution is unaffected.
I actually agree that the original theory of evolution does not include spotaneous generation but modern versions do, making it pertinent to the discussion at hand.
When Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” (The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, Mentor edition, 1958, p. 450.
) But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form.
A current evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.
Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.(The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 16.)

Now I will cut short this part of the discussion lest i get bogged down in theory. :D

Let us review a little, establishing what we've gone through so far.

Now, as I mentioned... and again along the lines of "knowing what we know", evolution seems a reasonable explanation as to how, without any "magical intervention" which science will never recognize, there was a progression of life. To me, it is a fact that life developed on the Earth because ALL of science points to this (not just evolution or abiogenesis alone... ALL of science). However, that does not mean that our theory of how the different phases occured is correct or even anywhere near it. It is just that the puzzle seems to fit.

If one wants to say that, instead of Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, there is some other method or mechanism that is responsible for the progression of man (including the hand of God at work), then I am perfectly ok with that.

Please let me stress that I agree that evolution seems reasonable on the surface, but having demonstrated yourself a blindly believing fundamentalist wako killer (I view that as a compliment, hope you do too ;) ), I thought the next step would be to examine evolution at it's nuts and bolts level.
I would contend that the reason 'all science' seems to point in that direction is that it is fashionable to do so. the way to substantiate such a claim is to not only demonstrate inconsistencies with the current theory that would seem to at least undermine the rabid enthusiasm people express persuing evolution (if not actually undermining the theory as a whole), but also provide a viable alternative. As you say science will never acknowledge this (a creator based alternative), which means you may have to think for yourself and recognize the bias in those who will not approach the situation with an open mind. Parity my friend, parity.
Please let us not forget that the flat earth model also seems very reasonable on first examination. there are plenty of reasons to accept based on simple observation. Many Russians argued against the existence of a god because yuri gregarin did not see him when he orbited the earth, simple observation.
Simple observations can be misleading, so we need to clarify and not give in to complacency, accepting the easiest explanation. Also many fall into cliche 'as we seek, so shall we find' If you want to find reason to go to war in Iraq, for example, you'll find one. It is hard to let go of personal bias.
Examined objectively, creation is the only option that truly makes sense.

So, if you want to make God the catalyst of evolution... be my guest. However, that still isn't exactly Adam and Eve, is it?

I wholeheartedly agree. That is why I posted earlier that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. God is not the catalyst of evolution. I can expand on that a little if you wish, perhaps I did not flesh out the arguments very well. Of course, the fact that Christianity and evolution are incompatible in and of itself is no reason to reject one or the other. the only reason to reject one or the other is if one can be demonstrated as true. If evolution is demonstrated as true, and it is incompatible with Christianity, then it follows that Christianity is not true.

So I think I have shown that:
1) genesis does not DISAGREE with known science. (though admittedly vague for us modern folk).
2) The bible is accurate in every measure we have for it, thus indicating that it is reliable for us today.
3) Evolution, though it seems reasonable, falls apart upon close examination. (I can expand on that if you like).
4) Evolution and biblically based religions are not compatible. If the bible is reliable, and evolution is not. evolution goes down.

I hope you feel I am hearing you.
I know there is a point there at the end that you either do not agree with, or do not feel I have solidly founded through the course of our discussions. so which one do I need to get into?

scrogdog

01-20-2008, 01:47 AM

Numba, I appreciate very much our discussion. It is why I come to ARP.

But I am afraid that you are still missing it by virtue of needing to talk about the "nuts and bolts" of evolution. The "nuts and bolts" of how evolution occured have NO BEARING on whether or not the phenomena occured in the first place.

Let's take a look at some other examples of scientific *observation* at the risk of sounding condescending. Please believe that I am not trying to be so. I am simply trying to communicate an idea that should be, in my mind, clear to see but is vehemently resisted by believers.

Example 1. The sun. It exists. We see it in the sky. We feel its manifestations of heat and light upon the Earth. That is *observation*. Does knowing HOW it works actually affect anything? Well... no. The sun shed heat and light upon the Earth even in the day of Adam. Whom... even if perfect, could not have hoped to scientifically explain HOW the sun worked.

Conclusion: Whether we can explain (or not) HOW the sun works is irrelevant to the FACT that it exists and sheds heat and light upon the Earth.

In other words, do the "nut and bolts" of how the sun works determine whether or not it exists? No. Observation does.

Example 2. Gravity. Apples fall to the ground. Should we say, then, that if we CANNOT explain how that happens to the Nth degree... that apples will no longer fall to the ground? :confused:

That is exactly what you are suggesting by attempting to disprove that evolution occured by charging that we can't explain HOW it works.

My counter-charge is really very simple. So what? :)

Again, this isn't about "nuts and bolts" it is about telling us what *observation* that you disagree with and why. :)

Incidentally, that flat Earth thing is a myth.

numbawunfela

01-20-2008, 08:22 PM

Again, this isn't about "nuts and bolts" it is about telling us what *observation* that you disagree with and why. :)

Incidentally, that flat Earth thing is a myth.

Yeah we went around about the flat earth thing a little before....

The observation that I disagree with is that any thing in our physical universe ACTUALLY points to evolution. They just SEEM to until One makes an appropriate examination.

Just as a tech may misdiagnose a system with non-condensibles in the system as overcharged due to his observations, misconstruing reality as observed by a cursory glance is a recipe for drawing a wrong conclusions. the reality of evolution is by no means as sure as the existence of the sun in the sky, or the fact things fall when we drop them.

To futher the illustration, and have fun with thermodynamics at the same time ( :D YAY FUN!!!)
The only way to tell if it is non-condensibles or an overcharge is to get into the nuts and bolts of things.

•Does the system usually run high head?
•Was there work performed recently that opened the system?
•If it is suspect, then you PIN IT DOWN with accurate experimentation and diagnosis:
•Electrically disable the compressor and allow the condenser fan to operate.
•Attach a temperature probe to both the discharge line and liquid line.
•Place a third temperature probe to measure the temperature of the air entering the condenser.
•Connect a pressure gauge on the system to measure the pressure of the refrigerant in the condenser.
•When all three temperature probes (discharge line, liquid line and air entering the condenser) read the same temperature, record the pressure of the refrigerant in the condenser.
•Using a P/T (pressure/temperature) chart, convert the measured pressure to its saturation temperature.
•The converted temperature should be within a few degrees of the measured discharge, liquid and air entering temperatures.
•If the converted temperature is higher than the measured temperatures by more than a few degrees, there are non-condensables in the system and which need to be removed.

You CANNOT KNOW if there are or are not non-condensibles unless you perform this test. Until then you are guessing.
Only this level of observation accurately determines the answer, not 'the head is high, betcha theirs airs in thayers'. :rolleyes:

Evolution is a Myth. It is promulgated (nice word eh?) by those who
1) Do not wish for anything else to be so (Fear of a God, ego, whatever)
2) Have not fully investigated, and so don't know any better
3) wish to fit in with the big kids
4) Kim would say 'those who are trying to land easy grant money'
etc. Ain't that right Kim :)

I'm saying that nothing in the fossil record, biology, astronomy, or any other science points to evolution. many engaged in such sciences CHOOSE to draw such conclusions, extrapolating beyond the available data, for above listed reasons. I'm Saying that there is no equivalent to a big bright thing in the sky that is evolution embodied for all to see. Evolution is more akin to a series of symptoms that require interpreting. Just as it is backward for the trinitarians to say 'god is three but one too', and when objections arise then say 'we CAN'T understand it'. it is backward to say evolution is everywhere, but it happens so slow, there are no examples of it available, we can't see it.

Evolution Cannot be explained beyond vague generalities, because it does not fit available data. Just as no one in the panel of believers can explain the majority of their beliefs beyond a vague generality. evolution and purgatory (for example) belong in the same catagory.

I think this summed it up:

That is a reasonable conclusion, but not necessarily the correct one. Yes all life comes from life, and simpler ones came first, but that does not necessarily mean that the more complex ones came from the simpler ones, it just means the simpler ones came first, [and all life came from the Creator, a living source of life.]

Or 'An overcharge is a reasonable conclusion, but not necessarily the right one, High head doesn't necessarily mean an overcharge, it just means there is a lot of pressure in the condenser. We should test for non-condesibles'

YOur list of observations does not automatically lead to evolution as the obvious conclusion. a POSSIBLE conclusion - yes, inevitable - no.

I KNOW The bible is inspired because the evidence points to it. Any amount of examination can only prove this. Just as any amount of examination will only prove that gravity makes things drop, or there is a sun in the sky. granted - biblical inspiration is not as obvious, but most certainly as real. It would seem that if evolution was real, delving into the nuts and bolts could only help...

bootlen

01-20-2008, 08:38 PM

Example 1. The sun. It exists. We see it in the sky. We feel its manifestations of heat and light upon the Earth. That is *observation*. Does knowing HOW it works actually affect anything? Well... no. The sun shed heat and light upon the Earth even in the day of Adam. Whom... even if perfect, could not have hoped to scientifically explain HOW the sun worked.

Just a little FYI (not pertinent to your argument because it is not the point), Adam, nor any of his children nor anyone till Noah never saw the sun.

Don't you just love it when a wrench gets thrown in the spokes?:D

Rich

01-20-2008, 09:30 PM

What your trying to do is argue a fact that something has no taste without putting it in your mouth. Your trying to have us tell you something about Christianity and faith while you may have an attitude of contempt and certainly one of presuppositions, AND I'm pretty confident you never read it completely through, which is like not putting something in your mouth to see if there is taste.

Most, (I would almost say everyone) who asks for 'proof' refuse to read the entire scriptures with an open mind, to study the scriptures and history with an attitude that sets aside all their pre-conseptions of what they 'think' the scriptures and history documents, they refuse to read the book but argue it till time is over for them. In one of your posts you stated several times "I think" It doesn't matter what you 'think', it matters however what the facts are and how you deal with them. Believing in something is worth nothing unless its acted appon, James 2:19 states the devils believe in God but it also says their going to hell fire. Its faith, a marriage with Christ and we are the bride. Can you see a little light now as to why Christians view marriage as being sacred? Marriage is ONLY defined by Christianity and no other religion. If you would read the Scriptures for yourself in an attitude of learning of Christ you will soon discover that the things previously posted is just a dot in a universe compared to what else is in the book. The dead sea scrolls was the turning point to many many skeptics. Do a search and do your own DD (due diligence) in study of their history, the scriptures and theology.
Then when you have some real questions from your study many people will be most excited to help you.

One teaching in the scriptures is, God is the one who does the conversion, not man. This is between you and God, and if you mess it up, well, its a LONG time to be wrong!

Rich

bootlen

01-20-2008, 09:39 PM

Should we say, then, that if we CANNOT explain how that happens to the Nth degree... that apples will no longer fall to the ground? :confused:

Hey, Scrog. Should that same logic not also apply to what Scripture says? Just because it cannot be explained "mechanically" does not mean it is errant.

why would a rule apply to one but not the other?

Rich

01-20-2008, 09:42 PM

Example 2. Gravity. Apples fall to the ground. Should we say, then, that if we CANNOT explain how that happens to the Nth degree... that apples will no longer fall to the ground? :confused:

That is exactly what you are suggesting by attempting to disprove that evolution occured by charging that we can't explain HOW it works.

Wait a minute and think about what you just wrote.
Attempting to disprove that evolution occured by charging that we cant explain HOW it works"

My questin then is, why don't you use the same rule your using to concerning the resurrection? Just because you can't explain it doesn't make it any less of a truth!

The problem, friend, is the same, you never read the scriptures for yourself. If you did you would certainly ask different type of questions instead of the ones your asking.

You want us to be able to put in a 50 word reply to your questions which took many a lifetime, hundreds of hours of study and reading to understand the mind of God? Not possible. When Saul was converted by Christ Himself on Saul travel to kill more Christins, Christ sent him into the desert to learn and get to know Christ in a personal way. Note, Saul (later changed to Paul) was a Sandhedren, a Jewish teacher in the temple!! And God sent him to learn the truth instead of believing something.

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you really want the answers you aren't going to get them on a forum unless you put personal time towards seaking the truth. Think of us for a moment, for every answer we give you will only come up with a million more and it will never end. This is because its a personal issue, and its YOUR responsibility to seak the Lord while He may be found, the time is ever so short to do so, when that old heart stops there is no more chances according to scriptures. If you decide to venture into a personal study we would be happy to advise and quide you and answer quesitons from a systematical study, but pulling quesitons out of thin air because your thinking about them at that time will not serve you, instead, its a sure path to destruction and confusion.

Rich

scrogdog

01-20-2008, 10:29 PM

The observation that I disagree with is that any thing in our physical universe ACTUALLY points to evolution.

:)

Well, if we agree that all life comes from other life... then there is only one place that you could possibly go with this. That you disagree with the observation that the further that we dig in to the Earth the older the things are that we find there.

If it is not that you disagree with, then it must be that you do NOT agree that life comes from other life.

If, instead, you do agree with these two observations... then evolution is logically unassailable. So, please tell us which of the two it is, and we can proceed from there. :)

scrogdog

01-20-2008, 10:44 PM

AND I'm pretty confident you never read it completely through

You are an awfully presumptious lad, aren't ya now? As a matter of fact, not only have I read the bible in its entirety, I have on many occasions pointed out other opinions to different references posted by believers in these forums. Perhaps if you were around here more you would not make such foolish and unfounded accusations. Not only have I studied the content of the subject at hand, I have also read the pros and cons from the experts.

You were saying? :rolleyes:

In one of your posts you stated several times "I think" It doesn't matter what you 'think', it matters however what the facts are and how you deal with them.

This is perhaps the most ironic statement I have yet read on these boards. Coming from the specialists in the denial of facts. Oh, don't just take my word for it... look at a little history when you get a sec. Galileo? Copernicus? Book burnings and modern day "Stickers" on science texts in the absence of the uncouth practice of burning books?

And you have the gall to talk to ME about the denial of of facts?

It is to laugh.

Evolution is a FACT. Get used to it bud. Whether God did it or something else happened, that life progressed in phases on this planet is FACT.

The dead sea scrolls was the turning point to many many skeptics.

Ah yes, the famed Dead Sea Scrolls whose date has not been locked down. But here is what has been locked down... the original holders of this discovery barred its examination by unbiased researchers for many, many years.

Of course, BEFORE unbiased researchers were let in to see the evidence, the site was named a holy temple. However, AFTER they were admitted (after many years)... somehow your temple turned in to a pottery factory.

And the Christian "search for truth" continues.

And you challenge MY facts. Lol - you kill me.

scrogdog

01-20-2008, 10:48 PM

Hey, Scrog. Should that same logic not also apply to what Scripture says? Just because it cannot be explained "mechanically" does not mean it is errant.

why would a rule apply to one but not the other?

Sure it applies. Observation is observation.

I can observe the sun in the sky. I can observe apples falling to the ground. I can examine the fossil record and I can observe that NO ONE has ever observed or CLAIMED that life spontaneosly appears.

So... based on those observations, I can come to conclusions... even if I can't explain them.

What observation can you offer me that starts me on the path of Jesus ressurection?

scrogdog

01-20-2008, 10:54 PM

My questin then is, why don't you use the same rule your using to concerning the resurrection? Just because you can't explain it doesn't make it any less of a truth!

Ok... here is me using the same rule. Simply point me to the observation that shows me that resurrection occured, and we can move on from this.

I can hear it now... but Scrog... you accept scientists word regarding what they see but not the bible's. WHY?

Simple, because I can see the modern day observations if I choose to. Most people in this day and age do not chose to refute what thousands of scientists have seen, simply because it's a bother. But I could see the geological column if I wanted and many other things. In fact, I have. At Boston's Museum of Science. You might try visiting such a place sometime with Hvacker's words in my sig on your mind. ;)

bootlen

01-20-2008, 11:45 PM

Sure it applies. Observation is observation.

I can observe the sun in the sky. I can observe apples falling to the ground. I can examine the fossil record and I can observe that NO ONE has ever observed or CLAIMED that life spontaneosly appears.

So... based on those observations, I can come to conclusions... even if I can't explain them.

What observation can you offer me that starts me on the path of Jesus ressurection?

Tiny things. Like the pretty miraculous connection of the eye to the brain. Things like that.

No, no. Do your own research on that. It's past my bedtime.

G'night.

scrogdog

01-21-2008, 07:53 AM

I can usually follow you pretty well, Boot, but you've lost me with this one. :)

numbawunfela

01-21-2008, 08:24 AM

Well, if we agree that all life comes from other life... then there is only one place that you could possibly go with this.

Yes there is only one place to go - that god created all things.

I think I am unclear as to how these things point to evolution. you seem to say they do, without explaining how. whereas I have gone into detail as to how they clearly point to a creator.

I agree with both observations, but not the conclusion you draw from them.

once again:

Yes all life comes from life, and simpler ones came first, but that does not necessarily mean that the more complex ones came from the simpler ones, it just means the simpler ones came first, [and all life came from the Creator, a living source of life.]

So my observation:
Older stuff came first, and life comes from life. so God created all things, smaller stuff first. Perhaps you could tell me which of these observations you disagree with and we can start from there.

numbawunfela

01-21-2008, 08:28 AM

You decide to change your signature the day after the packers lose to NY...

Very Telling :eek:;):rolleyes:

Boot should like that one :D

scrogdog

01-21-2008, 08:33 AM

Yes there is only one place to go - that god created all things.

I think I am unclear as to how these things point to evolution. you seem to say they do, without explaining how. whereas I have gone into detail as to how they clearly point to a creator.

I agree with both observations, but not the conclusion you draw from them.

once again:

So my observation:
Older stuff came first, and life comes from life. so God created all things, smaller stuff first. Perhaps you could tell me which of these observations you disagree with and we can start from there.

Ok, I think we are getting close to an agreement.

So... IF God created small things first, and then created more complex things in the *next phase*, and you agree that creation days describe the phases of creation, AND I acknowledge that God may be the catalyst for the next phase....

I guess I am at a loss to undertand what your problem with evolution IS exactly. :)

As I have maintained since day one of these forums... evolution is NOT in conflict with God. Even if the Earth is old (which it is ;)).

numbawunfela

01-21-2008, 08:43 AM

I can examine the fossil record and I can observe that NO ONE has ever observed or CLAIMED that life spontaneosly appears.

You seem averse to a review of the nuts and bolts, yet these prove conclusively that the fossil record does not support evolution, and that people DO claim abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation happenned.

A bit more of what you don't want to get into:

A current (not the 100+ year-old version Darwin wrote, which sidestepped the origin of life question by conceding that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”) evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself. (The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 16)

Sounds like spontaneous generation to me.

You seem eager to avoid that aspect of modern evolutionary theory, willing to let the notion that God got the ball rolling save you from an uncomfortable position.

numbawunfela

01-21-2008, 08:48 AM

Hello there!

Alrighty then.

We agree:
We can let god at least start life.

The question is:
THen did he use evolution to get us to where wh are now?

I will say no.
1) Evolution is unsientific, and not supported by modern scientific data gathered in any sphere of science, thus it was not used by god, cause it didn't happen
2) It was not used for a few other reasons, but as is often the case I can't get into it here and now, since I gotta meet with a building and go over drawings and freeze my nose off and pretend to be freinds with hostile now-it-all engineers..... (sigh)

Enjoy the game??

just kidding about your signature, more of a jab at Boot's communication style than vince lombardi.

scrogdog

01-21-2008, 08:50 AM

You seem averse to a review of the nuts and bolts, yet these prove conclusively that the fossil record does not support evolution, and that people DO claim abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation happenned.

A bit more of what you don't want to get into:

A current (not the 100+ year-old version Darwin wrote, which sidestepped the origin of life question by conceding that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”) evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself. (The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 16)

Sounds like spontaneous generation to me.

You seem eager to avoid that aspect of modern evolutionary theory, willing to let the notion that God got the ball rolling save you from an uncomfortable position.

Well, I think I am just going to give up on this, you just can't seem to grasp that whether or not we can explain a thing has nothing to do with whether or not it exists.

I'd be happy to correct your scientific inaccuracies, but to do so would be meaningless in the context of this particular conversation. Being able to explain a thing or not IS MEANINGLESS with regards to its existance. I have explained it, given examples, and yet you just can't help but return here.

Even when I directly say to you that God could very well be the explanation!

But I have made the point as much as I can. If you can't see it at this point, I give up. You win.

numbawunfela

01-21-2008, 08:55 AM

I think we got out of order, I reposted on abiogenesis before i saw what you said in the preceeding post.

I'll wait for you.

scrogdog

01-21-2008, 09:05 AM

The question is:
THen did he use evolution to get us to where wh are now?

I will say no.

1) Evolution is unsientific, and not supported by modern scientific data gathered in any sphere of science, thus it was not used by god, cause it didn't happen

Actually, ignoring tested and peer reviewed science is what is unscientific. But, again, the explanation is irrelevent. Just as we don't need to explain the sun for it to exist, just like we don't need to explain gravity to know that it exists, whether or not our current scientific explanation of things is correct or not means nothing.

If God made each change, then science does not NEED to explain evolution. Yet, evolution still occurred.

Once, man made bronze without knowing how it worked. As we investigated the why, we made better metals. As we have explored the nature of evolution, there has been a ton of benifit to mankind, particularly in the area of medical science. So, the theory part has tangible value whether it explains things to the Nth degree or not. In fact, we could be dead wrong about how evolution works, but that does not mean that it did not occur.

You see, theories EXPLAIN facts. So, if there is no fact to explain, then there is not beginning to science. We've plainly seen the phases of life. Whether or not we can explain HOW things changed or HOW the phases may have occured is irrelevent. They DID occur... EVEN IF our theory about how it did is dead wrong. Just like if we were to find that Einstien and Newton could not have been more wrong about gravity... apples would still fall to the ground.

In no area of science does a theory attempt to demonstrate that the phenomena exists in the first place, What a theory does is to try to explain an observation. But that observation does not go away if we are wrong about the hows and whys.

Some facts might be uncomfortable, I understand that. But things are what they are. For example, did you know that IF God created THEN we are still in the last day of creation? That's right. Creation has not, and presumably will not end. At least, anytime soon. This is a good thing. Because as the universe expands it could "run out of gas", if you will, if new stellar bodies were not being constantly created within nebulas. This is precisely why we believe that we will avoid the entropy effect.

numbawunfela

01-21-2008, 09:28 AM

so then,

We agree:
We can let god at least start life.

The question is:
THen did he use evolution to get us to where wh are now?

We will avoid point #1 for the time being if you wish.

And you are waiting for my nebulous 'plenty of other reasons' clarification. fair enough. I'll get that to ya ASAP. thanks for your patience.

If God made each change, then science does not NEED to explain evolution

This is the key. so IF god did use it, the bible, presummably, could tell us, and one could establish evolution as a fact without getting into any arguments over whether my biologist can beat up your biologist.

Cool, good to get back on the same channel...

To chew on (but not get distracted by)

In no area of science does a theory attempt to demonstrate that the phenomena exists in the first place, What a theory does is to try to explain an observation. But that observation does not go away if we are wrong about the hows and whys.

actually, modern physics works in reverse. it makes a theory based on current observations, yes, but then makes predictions which are then tested experimentally. theory actually staying ahead of observation. current theory haas been in place since 1973, but is being tested as experimental meathods progress enough to allow for it to be done. but then of course you get a wierd observation every once in a while that re-writes the books.

http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41

Traditionally, physics progressed by acontinual interplay of theory and experiment. Theorists hypothesized ideas and principles, which were explored by stating them in precise mathematical language. This allowed predictions to be made, which experimentalists then test. Conversely, when there is a surprising new experimental finding, theorists attempt to model it in order to test the adequacy of the current theories.

numbawunfela

01-21-2008, 09:30 AM

I'm gonna be late - read ya later.

I Love football season!!!!!

scrogdog

01-21-2008, 09:48 AM

actually, modern physics works in reverse.

No. All science works the same as what you just described.

First, an observation is made. Then a hypothesis formulated. Then an experiment performed. The hypothesis predicts both what should happen, and what should NOT happen during the experiment, with emphasis on why the result would demonstrate the hypothesis to be true.

During the experiment, additional observations can always be made. This is true in any area of science. So, what happens when we make new observations? Well, then the process starts anew. :)

What I think you meant to say, and what the article actually says, is that we have a largely theoretical science on our hands here. Strictly speaking, if something can't be tested, then it really isn't science. After a hypothesis begins to be confirmed by experiment, that is when it can be called a true scientific theory.

It is true that testing in the case of modern quantum mechanics often trail the hypothesis by quite a margin. I suppose one could view this as things working backwards... in a sense. To me, it is not that it is necessarily backwards, it is simply that the time between hypothesis and the test is longer than it might be in other sciences. The test still does NOT preceed the hypothesis, however.

Models are NO substitute for testing, either in physics OR global warming. Please note that the author refers to himself as a "theorist". He does so with good reason. I wish the global warming alarmists could be similarly honest with themselves.

Actually, I should modify that a bit. Models aren't good for future predictions. They can be valuable in scenarios where most, if not all, elements are known. For example, the shuttle review board used a fluid flow dynamics model to show how superheated plasma probably entered and destroyed the wing. Note that I said "probably". As the board itself commented, the model by itself was not conclusive. But added to the weight of other evidence, it was helpful.

I view modern quantum physics as quasi-science for this reason. Hey, some of the models and theories are fascinating. Enjoyable to read and understand. But too many times we have made discoveries that fly in the face of logic (until we understand the processes at work). That is precisely WHY we came up with the scientific method. Both to limit the inherent bias of man, and to warn researchers away from common mistakes, such as the belief that the scenario is SO logical that no test is needed. It is the biggest mistake one can make in science.

In the case of both quantum mechanics and GW, however, I do not make a claim that there is anything "funny" going on. It is simply that we do not have the technology to perform the proper test. In some cases, we aren't even sure what the proper test might be. :) However, it IS wrong to claim that the case is closed, in ANY field of science, based only on models. It is complete BS.

It is no matter that the bible does not mention evolution. It was written for an earlier mindset. It also does not specifically dismiss evolution. But, the bible does imply that creation has ended. It clearly has not. So, when we see conundrums like these, I would see a need to rationalize these facts with the bible if I were a believer. This is what I have been attempting to do for the benefit of others. I am not your enemy... science is not your enemy. But if one is in the business of fact denial to preserve an agenda, that doesn't strike me as being a healthy thing for our kids. And that's where MY agenda comes from. :)

scrogdog

01-21-2008, 10:48 AM

The question is:
THen did he use evolution to get us to where wh are now?

What I am not understanding is what the roadblock is for you. Even if I concede that God may have indeed been responsible. So, if the argument I bring does not deny God to you, what's the problem?

I'm gonna be late - read ya later.

I Love football season!!!!!

Game two yesterday was a classic, in my view. Just a great, great game to watch for all fans.

Too bad it's all over in one more game. :)

numbawunfela

01-21-2008, 03:48 PM

Game two yesterday was a classic, in my view. Just a great, great game to watch for all fans.

Too bad it's all over in one more game. :)

that's for sure, but then again there is always NFL Replay on the NFL network (much to my wife's chagrin :p)

numbawunfela

01-21-2008, 03:50 PM

What I am not understanding is what the roadblock is for you. Even if I concede that God may have indeed been responsible. So, if the argument I bring does not deny God to you, what's the problem?

Did I miss the point again?.....

I usually do. but you hafta admit, once I get it I do ok... :rolleyes:

Then did he use evolution to get us to where wh are now?

That is the question to be clarified - yes?

numbawunfela

01-21-2008, 03:54 PM

So, when we see conundrums like these, I would see a need to rationalize these facts with the bible if I were a believer. This is what I have been attempting to do for the benefit of others. I am not your enemy... science is not your enemy. But if one is in the business of fact denial to preserve an agenda, that doesn't strike me as being a healthy thing for our kids. And that's where MY agenda comes from. :)

Cool

With you all the way on that one.

bootlen

01-21-2008, 03:54 PM

I can usually follow you pretty well, Boot, but you've lost me with this one. :)

Do the research. Nothing chance in the way the eye works with the brain.

scrogdog

01-21-2008, 05:04 PM

Do the research. Nothing chance in the way the eye works with the brain.

Just because something is amazing doesn't mean anything.

Your statement about chance is what is known as a non sequitur. :) There is no logical path to your conclusion.

scrogdog

01-21-2008, 05:10 PM

Did I miss the point again?.....

I usually do. but you hafta admit, once I get it I do ok... :rolleyes:

Then did he use evolution to get us to where wh are now?

That is the question to be clarified - yes?

You do fine. :)

I am only suggesting that you do not dismiss evolution out of hand. Now that you know that poking holes in the theory is pretty much a meaningless effort, and that God is not dismissed by evolution, then perhaps you can look at things in a new way now.

I'm not suggesting that you should automatically accept it just because of this conversation. However, I hope I have given you a new way to look at the subject. Maybe I have "unblocked the road"... even if only a little bit. :)

numbawunfela

01-21-2008, 09:14 PM

You do fine. :)

I am only suggesting that you do not dismiss evolution out of hand. Now that you know that poking holes in the theory is pretty much a meaningless effort, and that God is not dismissed by evolution, then perhaps you can look at things in a new way now.

I'm not suggesting that you should automatically accept it just because of this conversation. However, I hope I have given you a new way to look at the subject. Maybe I have "unblocked the road"... even if only a little bit. :)

I knew that evolution does not necessarily rule out a god in the mind of the individual adherent. do you know how many atheists I meet that believe god doesn't care about them?

There is no room for evolution and Christianity as presented in the bible. I believe the source of the frustration was that I assumed you were looking for a scientific disproval of evolution, when it seemed you wanted to simply establish that evolution does not necessarily rule out the existence of god. As I mentioned before there are a variety of reasons to rule out evolution, scientific, and biblical. to assert this is not to dismiss it out of hand. for you to take my word on it would be for you to dismiss it out of hand, which I do not expect you to do. but you should know by now I have thought my ideas through very carefully. I just gotta get around to typing it up. the fact that evolution can co-exist in the minds of some religious people and make them happy does not mean it is a good thing, or factual.

Of course, i am not in a position to expound on those biblical reasons at this time.... I'm supposed to be doing the budget :rolleyes:

So to make sure I actually answer the question you are really asking (I sometimes don't :p) you are looking to establish through review if God used evolution to bring mankind to the state we are in, thus taking the idea of a hybrid evolution/God/Christian model through to it's logical conclusions, exploring the implications thoroughly. Without a bunch of Scientific mumbojumbo. (spell checker doesn't like that word...)

scrogdog

01-21-2008, 09:32 PM

Whoops.

scrogdog

01-21-2008, 09:33 PM

Ok, well, I suppose the only place to go then is back to the observations.

There are six different and clearly progressive humans in the fossil record. Not only that, but they adhere to the "deeper you go the older it gets" thing.

Under your scenario of creation, knowing that God is perfect and would understand beforehand what man would do with this information, wouldn't that make God a deciever?

Why would God place these things in this arrangement? I mean, there can be only one possible conclusion from it and God knows it.

I smell strange and mysterious ways coming. :rolleyes:

:)

numbawunfela

01-22-2008, 08:45 AM

Awright!

So we agree that a cursury observation of the world around us suggests evolution, but is by no means conclusive. (you would be willing to agree to much more, but I am not, so WE agree on this much:o)

We also agree that there are variations of the evolution theory that allow for God to play a role. whether they agree with the bible is another story that we have not gotten into yet (my slowness to blame)

We also agree that we are Both VERY sure of our individual positions (You: evolution is Fact - Me: Evolution is Myth) but are willing to approach the discussion with an open mind.

We are considering the God Directed version of evolution, which means that any discussion of abiogenesis and it's impossibility are irrelevant, since God presummably directed that portion. Also discussions concerning the astronomical improbability are also irrelevant, since God loaded the dice so to speak, directing things.

Now we are into the fossil record, the six stages of man specifically.

To avoid the mess that was the last week or so of conversation where I we were engaged in two separate conversations with each other (sorry!!!) I just wanted to confirm we were on the same page.

numbawunfela

01-22-2008, 09:30 AM

I smell strange and mysterious ways coming. :rolleyes:

:)

Oooops!

I farted :D

scrogdog

01-22-2008, 09:42 AM

That's exactly how I see it as well.

Like I've said, if one wants to dispute what observations are telling us, that's fine. We SHOULD and NEED to question things as humans.

So now, we approach things from your point of view. Evolution is a myth.

Ok, great. BUT, we still have the observations to explain.

Now that we are in this place, I need to try to approach this in a way that I hope will give you a series of small revelations that lead to a larger picture.

So, before we even go further with the 6 versions of man, let me ask you this. Again, I'm not attempting to be condescending in any way. In reality, I would like to talk about things that would not make sense to me and why, and then hear your reasons as to why they make sense to you.

Here's the question; do you believe that some or all of the following civilizations existed; The Incas, The Aztecs, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, The Sumerians?

If the answer is yes to all or no to all, then you don't really need to explain anything. However if you believe some existed and others did not... why?

numbawunfela

01-22-2008, 04:07 PM

Here's the question; do you believe that some or all of the following civilizations existed; The Incas, The Aztecs, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, The Sumerians?

Yes to all. that seems like an odd question....

Anyhow, I am a little hesitant to get into the fossil record as I have previously mentioned. let me explained why.

Many objections to biblical authenticity have been based on a lack of outside confirmation (usually through archaeology). this is, of course is ludicrous on its face, since you can't know that there is nothing to confirm the bible unless you dig up every square inch of the middle east to a depth of 25 feet or so. then you know there is nothing NOW, but that does not prove there WAS nothing, and then the fact that there was nothing only confirms no outside confirmation, not that the bible is wrong. on top of that, so far, nearly every case of this happening in the past has later been disproved by a new discovery, which confirms the bible record, showing the futility of such an excercise to begin with.

Parity my friend, parity. So, in an effort to be fair, if I say ' a lack of archeaological confirmation proves nothing', it is only fair in the case of the fossil record not to use the simple lack of fossils as some sort of conclusive evidence that evolution is wrong, the idea being the same as above concerning archaeology. The only difference is that there are plenty of OTHER reasons to prove the bible is reliable, so that it can stand on it's own merit, however the only support for Evolution besides the fossil record is the conjecture and assertions of theorists. So I won't stress too much there is no fossil record to support evolution, I'll just point that out using some specifics in a future post.

It would be nice for you to put up a few specifics of your own, though. I usually let the assumption be made that you are right in a given instance, and approach it with a view to disproving it using various references. of course I find I don't usually disprove much, since we actually agree most of the time and don't know it. :rolleyes:

numbawunfela

01-22-2008, 04:26 PM

my perfunctory google aided search on the 6 stages of man did not turn up anything. I have heard of prehistoric man, just not the specific 6 stages you refer to. a link would be nice.

thanks!!

scrogdog

01-23-2008, 08:22 AM

my perfunctory google aided search on the 6 stages of man did not turn up anything. I have heard of prehistoric man, just not the specific 6 stages you refer to. a link would be nice.

thanks!!

Really? Rats. I was hoping you would correct me.

I'm a bit busy today and may not be back to tend to this until tomorrow. For now, I will admit that there are not 6 stages of man. You got me there.

There are actually 14. ;)

If you are curious about this and would like to find out more before tomorrow; here's a clue. We are all homos. :)

numbawunfela

01-23-2008, 05:29 PM

Really? Rats. I was hoping you would correct me.

Yeah you know how that would go, we'd banter for a week and realize we actually agree.....

Better to let you describe your view a little so we can really fight mean and ..... I mean engage in proper intillectual discourse. :)

We are all homos. :)

Woah easy there!!!!

Speak for yourself.......

:D

k-fridge

01-23-2008, 07:47 PM

We are all homos

I'm surprised the Democrats haven't adopted that slogan yet. :D

mrs reb77

01-23-2008, 09:42 PM

My husband is a self professed lesbian. He came out quite some time back.

:D

sorry, couldn't resist, it is one of his favorite sayings.

k-fridge

01-23-2008, 09:46 PM

My husband is a self professed lesbian. He came out quite some time back.

:D

sorry, couldn't resist, it is one of his favorite sayings.

LOL. That's always been one of my sayings

scrogdog

01-23-2008, 11:05 PM

Jeez... we're talking high-minded-stuff here.

We are talking about God and science... the human condition... philosophy... the meaning of life itself!

And this is what you guys bring to the table? Shock and awe! Blasphemy!

Uh... before I continue I would just like to say, in my best Sienfeld voice, that there is nothing WRONG with being a lesbian. :D

Ok, now as to the matter at hand. I mis-spoke earlier. While it is correct that there are 14 versions of homo :), it is not correct to refer them as "stages of man", even under evolutionary theory which we are assuming not to be true in this discussion at this time.

Instead, some lines died out... others survived and WERE the descendants of man. But, of course, that is irrelevant because we are operating solely in your world at the moment... SO... we still must explain *the very existence of these fossils and not how they fit in to evolution*.

See what I mean?

This is where "strange and mysterious ways" comes in. I am almost sure of it. :p

By the way... here are the 14 versions of homos, just because I know that you would be personally interested. :D Google away!

Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo cepranensis
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens idaltu
Homo sapiens (Cro-magnon)
Homo sapiens sapiens
Homo floresiensis

As for my earlier question, why... all I wanted to do was to establish precedent. That history is found below the surface of the Earth. :)

bootlen

01-24-2008, 07:23 AM

All but sapiens are a scam.

scrogdog

01-24-2008, 08:32 AM

All but sapiens are a scam.

Of course. Science is all one big scam created with the singular purpose of denying your God. :rolleyes:

Do tell.

bootlen

01-24-2008, 10:29 AM

Actually, no. Science confirms Scripture's veracity when properly applied. It's all a matter of intellectual honesty.

scrogdog

01-24-2008, 10:32 AM

Well, I am still waiting for you to tell us how science is improperly applying an observation. :)

How would one "improperly apply" ANY observation? For example, how would one improperly apply that an apple falls to the ground? Or that the sun is 93 million miles away from us?

numbawunfela

01-26-2008, 05:53 PM

Evolution and the bible are incompatible for a few reasons. As one considers the differences one can take the view that science has established the credibility of it’s evolutionary theory, and so the bible must comply with this standard, or one can understand that the bible has demonstrated itself to be extremely credible, and science and it’s ever-changing theories and ideas must comply with it. I have posted extensively concerning the reasons the bible is trustworthy.
http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=156062&page=8
http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=156062&page=6

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=156062&page=12
Post 145
And many others

Several have posted, quite accurately, that scientific theories and concepts change consistently. Of course this does not mean that the underlying realities these theories described have changed, just that our understanding of them has. Evolution must be understood as another example of this, a human understanding of observations made that is subject to change as new observations come to light. The bible is not a science text and therefore does not usually have a bearing on our understanding of scientific matters. God let us enjoy the task of figuring out his handy-work on our own. In this case however, the bible - which has not changed for millennia and has still been consistently accurate, has something to say on this topic.

We are considering a variation on the Theory of evolution that eliminates the most glaring imperfections, namely that God used it to bring about man – so religious people shouldn’t be offended, eliminates abiogenesis as a factor in the origination of life, and since god ‘loaded the dice’ it eliminates any concern over the astronomical odds against blind chance being able to achieve the results we now enjoy.
This is, of course, dependant on whether God says he used Evolution. God, of course, did not put the word evolution in the bible, so the concept must at least not Conflict with what God did put there, since it is not commented on directly.

numbawunfela

01-26-2008, 05:54 PM

1) Creation presents mankind’s beginning with one man, Adam. Evolution denies that there was one man.

The bible presents Adam as a historical person, giving details of his life including the name of his wife, names of some of his children, things he said and did, when he lived and when he died. Luke considered Adam as real as Jesus, whom he had met personally, tracing his genealogy back to that first man. (Luke 3:23&38) “23 Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, [son] of He´li,…..
38 [son] of E´nosh, [son] of Seth, [son] of Adam, [son] of God. ”
Thus if one believes that Jesus is a real, historical figure, one must also accept Adam as a historical figure as well. Also, when the apostle Paul addressed an audience of Greek philosophers who were educated in the famous Greek schools, he told them (Acts 17:24-26) “24 The God that made the world and all the things in it… made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth.”
Clearly, the bible teaches we descended from one man. Evolution does not. This idea is not exclusive to a fable in Genesis, it permeates the entire body of scripture. The two philosophies are incompatible.
2) What the bible says about man’s original condition is not compatible with evolution.

According to the bible, God made the first man Perfect. It is impossible for God to make things any other way. Genesis Says: (Genesis 1:27&31) “27 And God proceeded to create the man in his image…
31 After that God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good.” What is a perfect man like?
Perfect man has free will and is able to imitate god’s qualities completely. The bible says: (Ecclesiastes 7:29) “. . .the [true] God made mankind upright, but they themselves have sought out many plans.”
Adam chose to rebel against god. Through this rebellion, he lost perfection for himself and his offspring. This explains why we often disappoint ourselves, even though we want to do what is good. The apostle Paul wrote: (Romans 7:15) “For what I wish, this I do not practice; but what I hate is what I do.” Evolution does not explain this.

A perfect man would live forever in perfect health. According to the bible. It is evident from what god said to Adam that if the first man had not disobeyed god, he would never have died. (Genesis 2:16-17) “16 And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.””
For more on this see this post:
Jehovah would not have declared the creation of man to be ‘very good’ if the man had the tendency to get sick or rebel. The fall from perfection explains why the human body, though marvelously designed, is susceptible to deformities and disease.
Evolution is therefore incompatible with the bible. Evolution presents man as a steadily improving animal, constantly adapting through chance to become better suited to it’s surroundings. The bible describes modern man as the degenerating descendant of a once perfect man. Evolution - we have and are getting better Creation – we have already gotten much worse.

3) The idea that God directed evolution in order to produce man is also incompatible with what the bible says about God’s personality.

If God guided the process of evolution, it would mean that he guided mankind into its present diseased and distressed state. That this current condition we find ourselves in is what god had purposed for us from the beginning. However, the Bible says of God: (Deuteronomy 32:4-5) “ 4 The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; Righteous and upright is he. 5 They have acted ruinously on their own part; They are not his children, the defect is their own.” So again we were meant to be perfect, and mankind’s present suffering is not the result of God-directed evolution. It is the result of one man’s losing perfection for himself and his offspring by rebelling against God. God’s will for us is stated in the following verses: (Psalm 37:10-11) “10 And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more; And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be. 11 But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.”
(Psalm 37:29) “29 The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it.”
(Genesis 1:28-30) “28 Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” 29 And God went on to say: “Here I have given to YOU all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth and every tree on which there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed. To YOU let it serve as food.
(Isaiah 41:10) “. . .Do not be afraid, for I am with you. Do not gaze about, for I am your God. I will fortify you. I will really help you. I will really keep fast hold of you with my right hand of righteousness.’”
(Isaiah 41:13) “13 For I, Jehovah your God, am grasping your right hand, the One saying to you, ‘Do not be afraid. I myself will help you.’”
(Isaiah 48:17-18) “17 This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel: “I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit [yourself], the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. 18 O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.”

So God wanted us to live forever on earth and enjoy life, not to live in poor health in a war torn society fighting each day for survival. He cares for us and helps us each day to live, and takes an active interest in our lives according to the bible.
These three reasons eliminate the possibility of reconciling evolution with any religion that adheres to the Old Testament, including Judaism and Many Christian organizations. Some Christian organizations put little or no emphasis on the Old Testament, although, as previously posted, the Old Testament has many marks of authenticity, and demonstrates divine authorship.

numbawunfela

01-26-2008, 05:55 PM

4) Evolution is not compatible with what the bible says about Jesus. This means you cannot believe in evolution and Christianity.

Now that we have considered Adam, we can turn to Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:3) “. . .Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;”
(1 Peter 3:18) “18 Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous [person] for unrighteous ones, that he might lead YOU to God,. . .”
To see why evolution is incompatible with this, we first need to understand why the bible calls us sinners and what sin does to us.
We are sinners in the sense that we cannot perfectly imitate God’s qualities, such as his love and justice, therefore the bible says: (Romans 3:23) “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”
The bible teaches that sin is the cause of death.
(1 Corinthians 15:56) “The sting producing death is sin” Our inheritance of sins also the underlying cause of sickness. Jesus indicated that there is a link between sickness and our sinful condition. He said to a paralytic: “your sins are forgiven”, and the man was healed. (Matthew 9:2-7) Sinless people enjoy perfect health, as Adam did.
So now that we understand what sin is and how it affects us, back to the original point of this part, namely: Evolution is incompatible with this statement: (1 Corinthians 15:3) “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;”
How does Jesus’ death help us? The bible contrasts Jesus with Adam and says: (1 Corinthians 15:22) “For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” By laying down his life, Jesus paid the price for the sin we inherited from Adam. Thus all who exercise faith in Jesus and obey him will receive what Adam forfeited – the prospect of everlasting life. (John 3:16) ““For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” (Romans 6:23) “For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Do you see how evolution is incompatible with Christianity? If we doubt that “in Adam all are dying” how can we hope that in “in the Christ all will be made alive”?
The connection between a Christian’s faith and forgiveness of sins and the resurrection is so strong that the apostle Paul said: (1 Corinthians 15:16-18) “16 For if the dead are not to be raised up, neither has Christ been raised up. 17 Further, if Christ has not been raised up, YOUR faith is useless; YOU are yet in YOUR sins.

So regardless of what science contends, evolution and the bible do not agree.

This means at the very least the ‘god directed’ model of evolution currently under discussion, must be modified to a ‘Godless’ model since God says he had no hand in the matter.
But if one is inclined to examine the abundance of evidence supporting the inspiration of the scriptures, then one must dismiss the theory of evolution altogether.

numbawunfela

01-26-2008, 05:59 PM

sline-dawg

01-26-2008, 07:16 PM

God let us enjoy the task of figuring out his handy-work on our own. In this case however, the bible - which has not changed for millennia and has still been consistently accurate, has something to say on this topic.

Too bad the scribes made it a fictional mystery instead of a factual documentary.....

Which is more difficult to comprehend.....A universe that has no boundary , or a universe that does ...;)

scrogdog

01-27-2008, 12:28 AM

Numba, why do you continually do this?

I am trying my best to not be offensive here. But I am beginning to believe that you are just another tap dance artist. You have to be kidding me with those replies, dude.

Stop. Reset. Let's try this again.

What portion of the following do you fail to understand, my friend?

From post #210

So now, we approach things from your point of view. Evolution is a myth.

From post #218

But, of course, that is irrelevant because we are operating solely in your world at the moment... SO... we still must explain *the very existence of these fossils and not how they fit in to evolution*.

Now, are you going to address the points I actually made? Or return to your tired... what is this... the third time? tirade against evolution when that does not have anything to do with the point at hand? When will you learn that ATTACKING A THEORY IS MEANINGLESS???? I thought you had acknowledged that earlier in this very topic.

We are talking about OBSERVATIONS damn it!!! Not theories. Now... if you wish to deny an *observation* then please at least tell us your basis for doing so!!

Obviously we still have much work to do. :)

numbawunfela

01-27-2008, 09:28 PM

SOrry I missed the new stuff. I was last here when you called me a homo :)

Nice to see the conversation go straight to third grade in one post :D

I spent the time since then typing this up for you.

I won't forget what you posted about the homos

I told you i was out for a little while so hadn't seen the new stuff about the various homos......

I didn't think you'd get so mad. wowza

It SEEMS reasonable that if we have a god-sponsored evolutionary theory that there are plenty of things to attack in the theory.

I thought you meant it was useless to attack the theory on the grounds of abiogenesis because your god-sponsored theory didn't rely on abiogenesis, god got the evolution thing rolling. that would mean that yes, it is useless to attack the theory in THAT way, since it has nothing to do with the theory under consideration. That was a conclusion i can definitely agree with. I thought the confusion came in the fact that the god-sponsored aspect of your version of evolution was not mentioned at the outset, in fact I described it first for you.

We are considering the God Directed version of evolution, which means that any discussion of abiogenesis and it's impossibility are irrelevant, since God presummably directed that portion. Also discussions concerning the astronomical improbability are also irrelevant, since God loaded the dice so to speak, directing things.
To avoid the mess that was the last week or so of conversation where I we were engaged in two separate conversations with each other (sorry!!!) I just wanted to confirm we were on the same page.

Please understand that I see no harm in that, I lose track of where i'm going often myself.

A god-sponsored evolutionary theory relies on - among other things - God's involvement, so to challenge whether god participated seems perfectly reasonable. I also plan to challenge other observations, I just haven't got to them yet, that's all.

I suppose it may have happened that you posted about various homos and saw my treatise on Evolution and the bible and assumed I was dodging the issue maybe. not so my friend!

I haven't gotten to the homos yet, that's all.

Besides, you haven't commented at all on ANY of the very compelling lines of evidence showing the bible is inspired, but I don't get uppity. It's an exchange, that's all, in an imperfect medium.

http://www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/smart-dog-avoids-water.html

Have a laugh on me.

numbawunfela

01-28-2008, 07:12 AM

Need I remind you?

Remember how long it took for me to understand what the heck you were talking about when you said 'human condition'?

I need this in bite size pieces. I feel like I answer the question just after the question changed, that's usually what happens when i never understood the question to begin with. please bear with me.

So the Human experience is the veriety evident in mankind, including in viewpoints. The notion that there is one true religion cannot be right since not everyone will agree. since not everyone will agree, and the bible apparently condemns those who do not agree, the bible is not right.

I LIKE to think the inquiry on my part allowed for greater clarity for BOTH, may not really be so of course.

You seem to be crying foul and I can't see why. Doesn't mean you shouldn't cry foul, it means I can't see why. that's all.

If the observations seem to lead to a particular conclusion -'theory'- but the theory is shown unfeasable by an alternate means, it means the observations are misinterpreted and must be reexained to assure the conclusions drawn are warranted, and not improper extrapolations.

scrogdog

01-28-2008, 12:52 PM

Sorry, if I came off badly. I wasn't mad; more like exasperated. :)

Sorry.

In any case, a theory is an explanation of a fact. An observation is just that; something known because of our senses. Conclusions are NOT theories, they are conclusions. A conclusion is NOT an explanation; that's what a theory does.

So now I say to you, if we are in your world where evolution does not exist in terms of explaining anything, ok fine. Now our task is to explain the observations in a different way.

Observations do not just up and leave us if the theory that explains the hows and whys falls through. We do not need any type of theory AT ALL to come to conclusions. We are perefctly able to conclude things even if we don't know how they work. For example, we could quite logically conclude that some force that we call gravity existed well BEFORE we knew how it worked. How it worked is the theory. That it exists is the observation and conclusion. Observation and conclusion are wholly different matters than theories or explanations.

numbawunfela

01-28-2008, 07:08 PM

So now I say to you, if we are in your world where evolution does not exist in terms of explaining anything, ok fine. Now our task is to explain the observations in a different way.

Now to be fair, I didn't disprove evolution per se, just the involvement of God part. You can post in support of a godless version if you like.

Observations do not just up and leave us if the theory that explains the hows and whys falls through.

I agree. we discussed the immortal soul previously. the bible DOES say things that could be understood as supporting this idea, the theory arises from this observation. then through investigation we see the bible directly contradicts this, requiring an adjustment in the theoretical model used to describe the relationship of the person and the soul. the result is a more accurate understanding that adjusts, not the observations (the bible still says the same thing), but their meaning.

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=152737&highlight=hell&page=45
Post 203 for a review of this concept

I'll get to the homos soon

That dog video was pretty cool!

numbawunfela

02-10-2008, 06:46 PM

Ok the time has come to talk about homos. As I left off so long ago, the question was left at, what do the existence of intermediary stages of man mean? There are observations that exist and are indisputable. The significance of these observations are very much disputable. So we must start at the beginning,
There are bones that got dug up
They were examined by some guy.
They were dated by the guy, or his buddies
He and his buddies assigned significance to them.
The significance assigned to them was that they are intermediary stages of man.

Of these, I intend to show that only the first is indisputable – maybe the second too (some guy did examine them of course ;) )

I know that there will be the assertion that I cite crazy people in the course of this post. Please review the sources listed to see that they are either mainstream, or pro-evolution in most cases.

First a little about the Gaps that are in evidence in the fossil record. I have not, as of yet, posted concerning the fossil record, but I most certainly could if asked to do so. But It should be noted that there are gulfs that are not bridged in the fossil record. Please bear with me as I digress, mista scrog, I only digress a teensy bit. :D
Fossils give tangible evidence of the varieties of life that existed long before man’s arrival. But they have not produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began or how new kinds got started thereafter. Commenting on the lack of transitional fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: “The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.” (The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 19)
The important places he refers to are the gaps between the major divisions of animal life. An example of this is that fish are thought to have evolved from the invertebrates, creatures without a backbone. “Fish jump into the fossil record,” Hitching says, “seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, full formed.” (The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 20) Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: “In a sense this account is science fiction.” (The Origin of Vertebrates, by N. J. Berrill, 1955, p. 10)
Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, from the reptiles came both mammals and birds, and eventually some mammals became men. The previous post has shown that the fossil record does not support these claims. This post will only mention that there is an obscene magnitude of the assumed transitional steps. I can expound on any of these ‘gulfs’ in the fossil and evolutionary record if you like, but the thrust of this post is to answer the question concerning the significance of transitional ape to men fossils. All of the following gulfs are empty spaces that are left unaddressed in the current evolutionary lines of evidence.
The Gulf Between Fish and Amphibian
The Gulf Between Amphibian and Reptile
The Gulf Between Reptile and Bird
The Gulf Between Reptile and Mammal
The Gulf Between Ape and Man
Physically, man fits the general definition of a mammal. However, one evolutionist stated: “No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care.” (Populations, Species, and Evolution, by Ernst Mayr, 1970, p. 375.)
What sets man apart from all other creatures on earth is his brain. The information stored in some 100 billion neurons of the human brain would fill about 20 million volumes! The power of abstract thought and of speech sets man far apart from any animal, and the ability to record accumulating knowledge is one of man’s most remarkable characteristics. Use of this knowledge has enabled him to surpass all other living kinds on earth—even to the point of going to the moon and back. Truly, as one scientist said, man’s brain “is different and immeasurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe.” (The Brain: The Last Frontier, by Richard M. Restak, 1979, p. 162)
Another feature that makes the gulf between man and animal the greatest one of all is man’s moral and spiritual values, which stem from such qualities as love, justice, wisdom, power, mercy. This is alluded to in Genesis when it says that man is made ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ And it is the gulf between man and animal that is the greatest chasm of all.—Genesis 1:26. This has no evolutionary ‘survival of the fittest’ explanation. It does not benefit man to appreciate art, for example, when gathering food or hunting as primodial man is supposed to have done according to evolution. Evolution as a theory does not take into account the human condition, one might say.
Thus, vast differences exist between the major divisions of life. Many new structures, programmed instincts and qualities separate them. Is it reasonable to think they could have originated by means of undirected chance happenings? The fossil evidence does not support that view. No fossils can be found to bridge the gaps. As Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say: “Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms.” (Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 111) I did not post on that since it only marginally deals with the discussion at hand, but I can if you like. For those whose ears are open to hear, the fossil record is saying: “creation.”

numbawunfela

02-10-2008, 06:49 PM

Ok on to the homos specifically. I don’t know If I name all 14….
For many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.” (Science 81, “How Ape Became Man,” by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, April 1981, p. 45.)
True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting. (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 31. ) Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.” (Boston Magazine, “Stephen Jay Gould: Defending Darwin,” by Carl Oglesby, February 1981, p. 52. ) And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “I hate myself and my parents for naming me Gaylord” :D ….just checking to see if you are still reading – this is a long post after all ;) Naw he realy said: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.” (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 27)
Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As shown in the previous post, there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.
Now I know that you say the 'adaptations' are not better or worse, but to be fair, for natural selection to work, they at least have to advantageous. that means that from the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but none of the 14 intermediary homos. Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes? :rolleyes:

numbawunfela

02-10-2008, 07:00 PM

From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.” (The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Fifty Years of Studies on Human Evolution,” by Sherwood Washburn, May 1982, pp. 37, 41) This is a conclusion that I have posted previously: http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?p=1721632#post1721632 post 143

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of these many homos? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.” (Spectator, The University of Iowa, April 1973, p. 4.) New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.” (New Scientist, “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?” by John Reader, March 26, 1981, p. 802.)
Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.” (Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977, p. 55) Science magazine adds: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.” (Science, “The Politics of Paleoanthropology,” by Constance Holden, August 14, 1981, p. 737)

Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding various homos? Note the following. Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ said Elwyn Simons of Duke University.” (Newsweek, “Bones and Prima Donnas,” by Peter Gwynne, John Carey and Lea Donosky, February 16, 1981, p. 77.) The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.” (The New York Times, “How Old Is Man?” by Nicholas Wade, October 4, 1982, p. A18. ) Science Digest: “The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.” (Science Digest, “The Water People,” by Lyall Watson, May 1982, p. 44)

Modern-type humans, with the capacity to reason, plan, invent, build on previous knowledge and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. Gould, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, notes: “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago.” (The Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1981, p. 324. ) Thus, the book The Universe Within asks: “What caused evolution . . . to produce, as if overnight, modern humankind with its highly special brain?” (The Universe Within, by Morton Hunt, 1982, p. 45.) Evolution is unable to answer. But could the answer lie in the creation of a very complex, different creature? I, of course would think so, I am the creation supporter in this conversation after all….. :D

So then where are the “Links”? Have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.” (Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 91) Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.” (Newsweek, “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” by Jerry Adler and John Carey, November 3, 1980, p.)

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.” (Science 81, “Human Evolution: Smooth or Jumpy?” September 1981, p. 7.)

Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh: “The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more.” (Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, “Myths and Methods in Anatomy,” by Solly Zuckerman, January 1966, p. 90.) He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary.

As a result, the “family tree” often drawn of man’s claimed evolution from lower animals changes constantly. For example, Richard Leakey stated that a more recent fossil discovery “leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.” (National Geographic, “Skull 1470,” by Richard E. Leakey, June 1973, p. 819) And a newspaper report regarding that discovery declared: “Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of man, every drawing of man’s family tree will have to be junked. They are apparently wrong.” (The Boston Globe, “He’s Shaking Mankind’s Family Tree,” by Joel N. Shurkin, December 4, 1973, p. 1.)

The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the castoffs of previously accepted “links.” An editorial in The New York Times observed that evolutionary science “includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere.” (The New York Times, October 4, 1982, p. A18.)

In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”

Discover concluded: “The human species, and all species, will remain orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past.” (Discover, book review by James Gorman of The Myths of Human Evolution by Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, January 1983, pp. 83, 84) Perhaps “lost” from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not the Genesis alternative “found” our parents as they actually are in the fossil record—fully human, just as we are? Yes it has. We were just plain created. That is the only REASONABLE conclusion.
(Romans 1:18-20) There are "men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. 20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable”
The denial of god's existence according to the bible and science is inexcusable.

The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

numbawunfela

02-10-2008, 07:03 PM

‘Ok then numba, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based?’ Remember that there is only enough remains of 14 separate supposed intermediary forms of man to not quite cover a pool table, there being more than one instance of some of these 14 forms, meaning you have the remains of at least 15 – 20 or more people there in far from complete fragments of skeletons. You tell me what it is based on…. The book The Biology of Race answers: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.” It adds: “Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.” (The Biology of Race, by James C. King, 1971, pp. 135, 151)

Science Digest also commented: “The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.” (Science Digest, “Anthro Art,” April 1981, p. 41) Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: “No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.” (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 286)
Indeed, New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.” (New Scientist, book review of Not From the Apes: Man’s Origins and Evolution by Björn Kurtén, August 3, 1972, p. 259) So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects . . . sheer invention.” (The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 224) Thus in Man, God and Magic Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.” (Man, God and Magic, by Ivar Lissner, 1961, p. 304)

In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig. (Missing Links, by John Reader, 1981, pp. 109, 110; Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1983, pp. 201-226)

If “ape-man” Homo-whatever reconstructions are not valid, then what were those ancient creatures whose fossil bones have been found? One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote: “They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels.” (p. 315) Richard Leakey called the mammal a “rat-like primate.” (Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977, p. 40) But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.

Next on the generally accepted list, with an admitted gap of about 40 million years, are fossils found in Egypt and named Aegyptopithecus—Egypt ape. This creature is said to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have displayed pictures of this small creature with headings such as: “Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time, “Just a Nasty Little Thing,” February 18, 1980, p. 58) “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times , “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes,” by Bayard Webster, February 7, 1980, p. A14; “Fossils Bolster a Theory on Man’s Earliest Ancestor,” by Bayard Webster, January 1, 1984, Section 1, p. 16) “Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977 p. 52) But where are the links between it and the rodent before it? Where are the links to what is placed after it in the evolutionary lineup? None have been found.

numbawunfela

02-10-2008, 07:05 PM

Following another admittedly gigantic gap in the fossil record, another fossil creature had been presented as the first humanlike ape. It was said to have lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus—Rama’s ape (Rama was a mythical prince of India). Fossils of it were found in India about half a century ago. From these fossils was constructed an apelike creature, upright, on two limbs. Of it Origins stated: “As far as one can say at the moment, it is the first representative of the human family.” (Origins Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977 p. 56)

What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same publication remarked: “The evidence concerning Ramapithecus is considerable—though in absolute terms it remains tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus a collection of teeth.” (p. 67) Do you think that this was “considerable” enough “evidence” to reconstruct an upright “ape-man” ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical creature was drawn by artists as an “ape-man,” and pictures of it flooded evolutionary literature—all on the basis of jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times reported, for decades Ramapithecus “sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree.” (The New York Times, “Time to Revise the Family Tree?” February 14, 1982, p. E7)

However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the present-day ape family. So New Scientist now declares: “Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line.” (New Scientist, “Jive Talking,” by John Gribbin, June 24, 1982, p. 873) Such new information provoked the following question in Natural History magazine: “How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward-marching procession?” (Natural History, “False Start of the Human Parade,” by Adrienne L. Zihlman and Jerold M. Lowenstein, August/September 1979, p. 86.) Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not say if from the space of February to June this ‘foundation’ can be so completely removed from evolutionary theory. It shows that - the fact that there are bones does not mean that they are bones of an evolutionary ancestor. The observation – “it’s a bone” – is different from – “it’s proof of evolution.”

Another gap of vast proportions lies between that creature and the next one that had been listed as an “ape-man” ancestor. This is called Australopithecus—southern ape. Fossils of it were first found in southern Africa in the 1920’s. It had a small apelike braincase, heavy jawbone and was pictured as walking on two limbs, stooped over, hairy and apish looking. It was said to have lived beginning about three or four million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor.
For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: “With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines . . . are actual human ancestors.” (The Social Contract, by Robert Ardrey, 1970, p. 299.) The New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man.” (The New York Times, “Bone Traces Man Back 5 Million Years,” by Robert Reinhold, February 19, 1971, p. 1.) And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” Emphatically she declared: “The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found.” (Man, Time, and Fossils, by Ruth Moore, 1961, pp. 5, 6, 316.)

But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of these Homo ancestors.
So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.” (The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 142) Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.” (Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, January 1966, p. 93.) Please note that this is not from some wako fringe group, but Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.” (Beyond the Ivory Tower, by Solly Zuckerman, 1970, p. 90.) Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines . . . were not men.” (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 38) Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.” (Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977, p. 86)

If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them “ape-men.” The same is true of other fossil “cousins” that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called “Lucy.” Of it Robert Jastrow says: “This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain.” (The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 114.) Obviously, it too was simply an “ape.” In fact, New Scientist said that “Lucy” had a skull “very like a chimpanzee’s.” (New Scientist, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” by Jeremy Cherfas, January 20, 1983, p. 172)

Another fossil type is called Homo erectus—upright man. Its brain size and shape do fall into the lower range of modern man’s. Also, the Encyclopædia Britannica observed that “the limb bones thus far discovered have been indistinguishable from those of H[omo] sapiens.” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1976, Macropædia, Vol. 8, p. 1032) However, it is unclear whether it was human or not. It is either an ape or similar animal, or a human, any contention beyond this is speculation.

numbawunfela

02-10-2008, 07:06 PM

Neanderthal man (named after the Neander district in Germany where the first fossil was found) was undoubtedly human. At first he was pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. Now it is known that this mistaken reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found, confirming that he was not much different from modern humans. In his book Ice, Fred Hoyle stated: “There is no evidence that Neanderthal man was in any way inferior to ourselves.” (Ice, by Fred Hoyle, 1981, p. 35) As a result, recent drawings of Neanderthals have taken on a more modern look.
Another fossil type frequently encountered in scientific literature is Cro-Magnon man. It was named for the locality in southern France where his bones were first unearthed. These specimens “were so virtually indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to concede that they were humans,” said the book Lucy. (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 29)
Thus, the evidence is clear that belief in “ape-men” is unfounded. Instead, humans have all the earmarks of being created—separate and distinct from any animal. Humans reproduce only after their own kind. They do so today and have always done so in the past. Any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that—apes, or monkeys—not humans. And fossils of ancient humans that differ slightly from humans of today simply demonstrate variety within the human family, just as today we have many varieties living side by side. There are seven-foot humans and there are pygmies, with varying sizes and shapes of skeletons. But all belong to the same human “kind,” not animal “kind.”
When reviewing a book on evolution, English author Malcolm Muggeridge commented on the lack of evidence for evolution. He noted that wild speculations flourished nevertheless. Then he said: “The Genesis account seems, by comparison, sober enough and at least has the merit of being validly related to what we know about human beings and their behavior.” He said that the unfounded claims of millions of years for man’s evolution “and wild leaps from skull to skull, cannot but strike anyone not caught up in the [evolutionary] myth as pure fantasy.” Muggeridge concluded: “Posterity will surely be amazed, and I hope vastly amused, that such slipshod and unconvincing theorizing should have so easily captivated twentieth-century minds and been so widely and recklessly applied.” (Esquire, book review by Malcolm Muggeridge of The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski, July 1974, p. 53.)

So in conclusion. there are bones, and they are real, but the contention that they are ancestors of a human goes beyond observation and into speculation.

numbawunfela

02-10-2008, 07:07 PM

Please no replies unless you can tell me what gaylord simpson said.

Then I'll know you actually read the post.

:p;):D:eek:

deanmech

02-10-2008, 07:18 PM

A couple of things to consider. The focus of the Bible revolves much more around the question "Why am I here?" and much less around the question "How did I get here?". It is a book that reveals the nature and heart of God to us, who is a spiritual being--not a physical being. It was not written to be a textbook of physical science. This is not to say that certain historical events are not recorded in various levels of detail (because they are), but that the FOCUS of those events is different (i.e. what are they trying to say). Adam and Eve is about the failure of man to be obedient, their (& therefore our) consequent rejection from the Presence of the Father and hence the need for the salvation experienced through the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The writers of this story weren't thinking about (indeed had never heard of) "the theory of evolution" or "creationism" as scientific dogmas.

I hope this helps.

numbawunfela

02-10-2008, 07:29 PM

Howdy dean!!

Good post, you will note, however that the thread has 230+ posts already. our latest exchange is the apparent contradiction of current popular evolutionary theory and what is popularly believed as the bible's viewpoint. my buddy scrogdog is the evolutionary protagonist, whereas I am the lowly creation supporter.

We were pretty regular for a while, but he posted about a bunch of homos

homo-erectus
homo-superior

and some others, and I took my sweet time getting back to him.

the thread actually makes for good reading if you have the time. there is not a lot of bizarrity that is not uncommon in ARP.

scrogdog

02-11-2008, 07:28 AM

Numba, I just can't seem to get you away from the same old tired recording! :)

I am not asking you to trace the lineage of man. I'm not asking you to disprove (or not) that man evolved from apes.

I am asking you how the 14 fit in to creation. Let's take Cro Magnon. Are you *seriously* suggesting that this is not a man?

It doesn't matter where it came from or where it went. To say that cro-magnon is NOT a man would be to say that if we found a fossilized fish that we can't tell it's a fish. :)

I mean, take an angel fish. Is it a fish? Yes. Ok, how about a haddock? Can we tell it's a fish? Yes. But wait, the two are nothing alike! They can't even live in the same environments! Ok... but are they fish? Um... yes.

Cro Magnon is CLEARLY a man! Why did God create it?

Now, your post is very nice. Too bad it doesn't not do one thing to address what I asked to be addressed.

Once again, to be clear, I am asking you to explain the observations under the context of creation NOT EVOLUTION. You post doesn not come close to doing that, it only says how the different forms can't connect. Um, I have said that in this scenario that evolution does not exist.

Given that, please explain the existence of Cro- Magnon MAN. Please explain the existence of simpler forms of life existing before complex ones instead of things appearing "all at once". Please explain how life developed from simple to complex. Again, it does not matter if we can show transitions or not, please stay on the point simple forms of life were here first but now complex ones are. How? Why? Challenging the age of things is meaningless. We still know that simple forms were here first, EVEN IF THEY ARE ONLY 5000 YEARS OLD! :)

scrogdog

02-11-2008, 07:35 AM

the thread actually makes for good reading if you have the time. there is not a lot of bizarrity that is not uncommon in ARP.

Hey!!! :)

numbawunfela

02-11-2008, 08:01 AM

I am asking you how the 14 fit in to creation. Let's take Cro Magnon. Are you *seriously* suggesting that this is not a man?

Cro Magnon is CLEARLY a man! Why did God create it?

Given that, please explain the existence of Cro- Magnon MAN. Please explain the existence of simpler forms of life existing before complex ones instead of things appearing "all at once". Please explain how life developed from simple to complex. Again, it does not matter if we can show transitions or not, please stay on the point simple forms of life were here first but now complex ones are. How? Why? Challenging the age of things is meaningless. We still know that simple forms were here first, EVEN IF THEY ARE ONLY 5000 YEARS OLD! :)

Cro magnon man may very well have been a man. Below (or above, or whatever) I posted:
"Another fossil type frequently encountered in scientific literature is Cro-Magnon man. It was named for the locality in southern France where his bones were first unearthed. These specimens “were so virtually indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to concede that they were humans,” said the book Lucy. (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 29)"

A man, sure, created, of course, the confusion seems to come in when we see the cartoons showing him to be a cave-man thug that looks a little ape like. the thrust of the post, among other things is that to depict him that way is pure imagination. why would god make a cave-man-ape looking guy, makes no sense... I agree, it makes no sense because he did not look like an ape-cave-man. as the quote indicates, he is just a plain old man. Why the funky cartoons? Again, as posted: "Science Digest also commented: “The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.” (Science Digest, “Anthro Art,” April 1981, p. 41) Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: “No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.” (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 286)" because the paleontologist told the cartoonist what he was looking for in a picture.

You never did post post what mista gaylord said..... ;)

numbawunfela

02-11-2008, 08:33 AM

Once again, to be clear, I am asking you to explain the observations under the context of creation NOT EVOLUTION.

So god created everything. a guy found some bones, said they were cro-magnon, an ancient intermediary between man and apes. he was wrong. it was just an old set of bones from a plain old human. the rest of the post allows for me to say 'see what I posted for the scientific aupport of this conclusion'. that is all.

Please explain how life developed from simple to complex. Again, it does not matter if we can show transitions or not, please stay on the point simple forms of life were here first but now complex ones are. How? Why? Challenging the age of things is meaningless. We still know that simple forms were here first, EVEN IF THEY ARE ONLY 5000 YEARS OLD! :)

See your post:
Ok, I think we are getting close to an agreement. It has links that take you back to mine, then yours, etc.

Simpler ones were obviously here before more complex (observation) the extrapolated conclusion that they came FROM the older simpler ones is not observation. it is conjecture. the simpler ones were simply created first. that is why they are older.

scrogdog

02-11-2008, 09:02 AM

So god created everything. a guy found some bones, said they were cro-magnon, an ancient intermediary between man and apes. he was wrong. it was just an old set of bones from a plain old human. the rest of the post allows for me to say 'see what I posted for the scientific aupport of this conclusion'. that is all.

Ok, so, we have cro-magnon (not saying it was a descendent of homo sapien, just saying it exists), which is clearly NOT a plain old human (else we'd call it a homo sapien instead of what it actually is - a different specie of man - different but very similar bone construction in the skull). And this cro-magnon, as you agree, existed before Adam who was a homo-sapien.

Where is the biblical account of this? Would you say that cro-magnon was a mistake by God or what?

Simpler ones were obviously here before more complex (observation) the extrapolated conclusion that they came FROM the older simpler ones is not observation. it is conjecture. the simpler ones were simply created first. that is why they are older.

So, you are saying then that God DID NOT, in fact, create everything at once as Genesis would imply? Or is it that evolution occured, not by scientific transition, but by the hand of God? We have clear phases of life (or creation if you will), such as non-vertibrates existed for a long time before vertibrates appeared. So, are we saying that God created these phases which may equate to biblical creation days?

Warning: the above paragraph is a clear trap. :)

Beleive it or not, I think we are getting somewhere. Again, if evolution is false, fine. But we'll still need to explain some things. :)

yelram

02-11-2008, 09:02 AM

God made evolution. Read up on the cambrian explosion. It proves alot of modern evolutionary interpretations incorrect.

scrogdog

02-11-2008, 09:10 AM

God made evolution. Read up on the cambrian explosion. It proves alot of modern evolutionary interpretations incorrect.

No it doesn't. It is simply that the in the pre-cambrian there were no hard shells or bones - thus; nothing to fossilize. The only way you get pre-cambrian fossils is if the subject was trapped in something like a resin. It is no surprise that there was an "explosion" of fossils after vertibrates appeared, because bones and shells fossilize without the need of an outside agent.

Besides, again, it does not matter whether or not we can explain it. We have observed what we have observed. FACT: evolution occurred. Now, whether that happened by scientific transition or by the hand of God is IRRELEVANT.

It occurred. Period.

Tell you what, let's stop calling it evolution lest Numba be tempted to whip out more "anti-science". Let's say that life has observable phases that occured over time. Scientific transition is one possible explanation, the hand of God another. ;)

Where I think Numba and I are getting "tripped up" so to speak is how a literal interpretation of Genesis needs to be stretched and bent a bit to align with what we know. His problem, as I see things, is that he has always said that you can only go with what the bible tells you. Strictly speaking, I don't believe Genesis describes God creating phases of life. Seems like it was a one shot deal if you MUST see things literally.

numbawunfela

02-11-2008, 11:00 AM

Ok, so, we have cro-magnon (not saying it was a descendent of homo sapien, just saying it exists), which is clearly NOT a plain old human

I have furnished evidence to the contrary, you have not. Cro magnon is a far from complete skeleton, designated as a pedecessor of modern man by a biased scientist. please indicate why this is not so. simple consensus is not enough, by this measure, we are all going to hell, and we covered that already also.

And this cro-magnon, as you agree, existed before Adam who was a homo-sapien.

I do not agree, I did not say I agreed. Cro magnon is a plain old human or animal skeleton fragment. that is where the "observations" end. anything beyond that is speculation. to require an accounting from a clear and reasonable authority to acount for a fantastical dream theory that has no real supporting evidence is like asking you to tell me why my nephew, in grade school, told me my AC is not really busted when you, the professional says it is. and being serious about it.

Where is the biblical account of this? Would you say that cro-magnon was a mistake by God or what?

I agree that there is no biblical account of the above referenced scenario. this is because theis scenario does not exist.

So, you are saying then that God DID NOT, in fact, create everything at once as Genesis would imply?

Genisis does not imply this, or say it at all. we covered this before:

PLEASE READ THAT POST!!!!

That is a reasonable conclusion, but not necessarily the correct one. Yes all life comes from life, and simpler ones came first, but that does not necessarily mean that the more complex ones came from the simpler ones, it just means the simpler ones came first.
The creation account in Genesis describes the process of creation, and it does so with the immediate audience in mind. Geologist Wallace Pratt said: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.”

So God could simply CREATE the simpler forms of life before the more complex. Then the simple comes before the complex, but the complex life does not need to come from the simple forms. All life came from the creator, he is the ‘life’ that the other forms of life come from.

Or is it that evolution occured, not by scientific transition, but by the hand of God? We have clear phases of life (or creation if you will), such as non-vertibrates existed for a long time before vertibrates appeared. So, are we saying that God created these phases which may equate to biblical creation days?

[QUOTE=scrogdog;1756094] Warning: the above paragraph is a clear trap. :)

I am not as dumb as i think you think i think i am.....i think :confused: