Evolution OR Creation?

by Brummie 183 Replies latest members adult

• 

  frenchbabyface

  Frankiespeakin When we read the Scriptures, without knowledge of ancient custom's, and world views, its idioms, we will quite naturally, get a distorted veiw , of what is actaully being said in Scripture. Also when we failed to take into account the intended purpose of Scripture, we will get a distorted view as well.

  
  Sorry, but what is this Knowledge about ? … The bible was dedicated (if it was really God’s will) to be understood !!!. Why should we need a master degree in theology and history to be able to verify what it says to us cause it is a commandment, we have to ? THIS IS AN INCOHERENCE.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Baby,

  The point I am making has completely gone over your head.

  A FACT is still A FACT … You may want to talk about the flood (again) You may want to talk about every kind of INCOHERENCES of/in the BIBLE they are Still INCOHERENT.

  
  They are incoherent only because your expectations are preconcieved and you have made no allowance for the purpose of Scripture. In fact your rapid response suggest to me you have not given any thoughtful consideration to what I wrote.
• 

  rem

  not_tellin,

  The gist of a lot of arguments I'm seeing (and forgive me if I oversimplify) is that because the Bible's account of creation is clearly false in light of scientific knowledge, then there must be no God.

  I haven't seen this argument. What has been argued is that if the Bible's account of creation is clearly false in light of scientific knowledge, the the god of the bible is falsified. This does not falsify other definitions of god, as you mentioned.

  I also see Ockham's Razor being weilded quite a bit to show that because evolution is the simpler concept, it is more likely the correct one. But personally, when I think about the all physical laws that govern the universe, and all the things that had to go exactly right in order for anything (let alone everything) to work, the idea that it all worked out perfectly with no intervention or guidance seems a lot more complex than the idea that it was designed by someone.

  It only seems more complex because you are not using Ockham's Razor correctly. Ocham's Razor does not favor what seems to be the simpler explanation. It favors the explanation with the fewest assumptions or entities. In this case, god is an extra entity that is created ad-hoc to explain life. This seems simpler because it's really a non-explanation. It isn't simpler because you've just made the problem more complex by adding another entity to the equation with no evidence of it's existence other than the thing you are trying to explain in the first place (see also circular reasoning).

  It's also just as easy to say aliens from a different dimension created our universe. It's seems like a simple explanation, but it actually makes it much more complex, thus violating Ockham's Razor.

  rem
• 

  LittleToe

  thus violating Ockham's Razor.

  Would that be a felony or a misdemeanor?
  
• 

  frenchbabyface

  Frankiespeakin … The point I am making has completely gone over your head.
  They are incoherent only because your expectations are preconcieved and you have made no allowance for the purpose of Scripture. In fact your rapid response suggest to me you have not given any thoughtful consideration to what I wrote (A) .

  Sorry but science have to deal with history!!! Why should a bible theologist have more information than both together ?Sorry but YOUR expectation are preconceived … I have no expectation myself (something is coherent or not period) … everything else is “WHATEVER”
  
  (A) I gave consideration for what you’ve wrote BUT believe me lots of people have already tell me what you've said. BRING SOMETHING NEW ON THE TABLE … I MEAN : SOME FACTS and I’ll be interested.
• 

  not_tellin

  Rem -

  I had a feeling you might respond to that one. I don't doubt that you have correctly identified my misuse of the All-Powerfull Razor . But I do wonder about its usefulness. Is the simpler explanation (or, explanation w/ fewer entities/assumptions, depending on your quibble factor) necessarily the correct one?

  Maybe I just don't get the principle yet (which is very likely the case), but it seems to me that when looking at the question of Origin, each of the amazing, successive accidents that had to happen for the universe to form and function on it's own should be counted as individual assumptions. Making the idea that they happened independantly and accidentally far more complex than the idea that it was designed by an outside force . . . like aliens from another dimension.

  Many of you on this thread have clearly done your research on this subject, so I ask that you forgive my ignorance because I freely admit I have not done the same. If my questions are a little too basic to respond to on this thread, perhaps you could just recommend some reading (preferably web-sites) on the topic.
• 

  Jim_TX

  Without reading any of the other comments...

  I think that anyone (JWs) who says that they believe in 'creation', are only fooling themselves.

  Their own bibles say that Noah took pairs of each species into the ark. So.... that right there says that after the flood, animals have had to 'evolve'.

  Regards,

  Jim TX

  Note: I am not saying that I personally believe in that there bible - just that those who do need to consider this.
• 

  not_tellin

  Jim -

  Yeah, that's a tough one. But I think you'd agree that someone can believe in "Creation", or the idea of a Creator, without subscribing to the Biblical account.
• 

  logansrun

  Hey, don't y'all fuhget 'bout those human footprints in them dinosau tracks. I sawed 'em I did. Just trust in the Lawd.

  Bradley
• 

  AlanF

  Frankiespeakin said:

  : My proposal:

  : Atheists who argue about the scientific inaccuracy of the Bible, and fail to take into account the purpose of Scripture.

  I assume you mean something like, "atheists who argue about the scientific inaccuracy of the Bible often fail to take into account the purpose of Scripture."

  : Since they think God is suppose to be giving scientific account in Genesis about how he made the universe and populated the earth with life..

  I don't know where you got that idea. I know of no atheists who think that. On the contrary, they tend to think that God is supposed to be giving a mythological account of the origin of everything.

  : I would like to propose that the critics of Genesis (the first three chapters), explain what is the purpose of Genesis accurately? First.

  I'll give it a shot: To explain to a simple, pastoral people how everything originated, in a form they could understand.

  Now of course, one would not expect God to go into all sorts of details that would require further explanations ad infinitum. But one would expect that whatever God said, it would pass all tests of accuracy. For example, if God really wanted to tell the readers of Genesis about the order of creation of life, he could have said that he made fruit trees (obviously of the kind that the earliest readers of Genesis were familiar with, such as figs; Genesis 1:11) after he created animal life of all sorts. But by putting the creation of fruit trees before the creation of all animal life, the order is wrong. Ain't no getting away from that. Fruit trees are flowering plants, and those didn't arise until roughly 120 million years ago, when the "age of dinosaurs" was more than half over.

  : And after explaining purpose of Genesis, to produce a model, that would be an improvement over Genesis the first three chapters, and all the while keeping in mind,, the cultural setting, and the concept prevalent at the time. Any takers????

  People have done this before on this board. I haven't the time right now, but will give it a shot later. But remember that it must be in accord with proven science, such as the fact that macroscopic life has been on the earth for at least a billion years.

  Now, so that we're all on the same page, you need to provide several answers, so that we don't get bogged down in irrelevant details like arguing about just what the answers to the below questions are. Then I and/or others can quickly get down to the business of coming up with a "model" that's consistent with your standards:

  1) What is the purpose of Genesis?

  2) What is the cultural setting of Genesis?

  3) What is the concept prevalent at the time?

  Putting it simply: you answer these questions, and I'll try to provide a Genesis story consistent with your answers and modern science.

  AlanF