That strikes me as an outrageously thoughtless and condescending assessment.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Adam and Eve as a Myth
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Well, sorry 
But I mean they didn't even have toilet paper!
But I mean they didn't even have toilet paper!
outhouse
Atheistically
I dont have a problem with what you believe
but it does bother me you just now completely refused common knowlede in a subject, of real history
javajo
Well-Known Member
Here's my belief. It is clear from the text that the light was actually light and the dark was dark and so it set up a twenty-four hour period of night and day. God the Father spoke saying, "Let there be...", Jesus is the Word, and the Spirit hovered over the deep, and God said, "Let US made man in OUR own image," which puts the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit on the scene and as John 1 and Col. 1 say, Jesus created all things and by him all things consist. As far as Christ being the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, he is that, too and it is understood that he is the sacrificial lamb without blemish who purged our sins and sat down at the right hand of the Father. He is not a lamb literally, for the blood of lambs could not purge our sins, he is THE lamb of God who paid our sin debt. The context tells how to interpret it.
Yes, the Bible uses simile and when it does so I acknowledge it. There is no indication at all this light was not actually light, as it made the dark and light, day and night periods as I said above.So?
You have heard of literary "simile", haven't you?
In literature, authors have the tendency to use similes to describe things.
Some examples:Her eyes flashes like fire...Just because people use similes, doesn't mean her eyes are "fire" or that the runner is the "wind". And the girl is not literally or physically a "lioness".
He run like the wind...
The girl was as fierce as a lioness.
You shouldn't take some phrases so literally; doing so will only misunderstand the author's intention.
EDIT
Oops!
Heathen Hammer beat me to it.
BOO! You do know that there are scientists today, non-Christian, who have some major problems with evolution, right? I think soon many people are going to wonder how they were ever duped by such 'science.'
Thank you. Real history. Ok, look, I said I believe the Flood did happen BEFORE these civilizations came to be, duh! You know that scholars put the creation anywhere from 4004 BC (strictly counting the years of people's ages in the Bible) and 12,028 BC and many estimates besides depending on which translation is used. I am not dogmatic to say creation began on October 23rd 4004 BC. The further one goes back, the more difficult it is to pinpoint exactly when any civilization began, but whenever they did, it was after the Flood. I have no conflict with 'real' history.
Last edited:
Or at least appears that way while being critiqued by uneducated city people who have no idea what they were talking about.
History states? History states? History is this kind of being, that can say stuff??
These nameless civilisations you refer to had very little records of what exactly happened when, and in relation to what. I have never heard of any ancient record that has a continuous record of time, allowing us to deduce the age (other than the bible of course). The purpose of writing stuff down was primarily to back up the legitamacy of the current king, and if, despite that, a new king got up, the records got rewritten. They had no respect for history, and it is quite a web to untangle. These writings are actually dated by archeologists, and many of these dateing methedologies are dubious, to say the least.
The bible on the other hand, is a continuous record of time, allowing us to date the events with great accuracy. The biblical authors had much greater respect for history, as evidenced by numerous records of events unflattering to those who would have had the power to change the records.
Man is 200k years old . . . not up for debate . . . . ummm . . . . Isn't the purpose of this forum to debate stuff?
Last edited:
Sure. Some Muslim scientists (a very small percentage of them) also claim to have "major" problems with evolution. They also could never point those "major" problems out in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Just like the very small percentage of Christian scientists who claim to have "major" problems with the Theory of Evolution.
However, I find your statement interesting. I hear similar claims to yours very often, but nobody's ever been able to back it up.
As the Theory of Evolution is a biological theory, biologists are the relevant scientists to ask about the Theory of Evolution. Physicists and chemists and cosmologists and engineers, etc. won't know much more about biology than the average Joe Doe on the street.
So, lets start with biologists. Could you name even five non-religious biologists alive today who have "major" problems with the Theory of Evolution? Let's make it easier. Can you name even one living non-religious biologist who has "major" problems with the Theory of Evolution? Could you reference even one article published in peer-reviewed biological journal, authored by a non-religious biologist living today, indicating these "major" problems?
Sure. Some Muslim scientists (a very small percentage of them) also claim to have "major" problems with evolution. They also could never point those "major" problems out in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Just like the very small percentage of Christian scientists who claim to have "major" problems with the Theory of Evolution.
However, I find your statement interesting. I hear similar claims to yours very often, but nobody's ever been able to back it up.
As the Theory of Evolution is a biological theory, biologists are the relevant scientists to ask about the Theory of Evolution. Physicists and chemists and cosmologists and engineers, etc. won't know much more about biology than the average Joe Doe on the street.
So, lets start with biologists. Could you name even five non-religious biologists alive today who have "major" problems with the Theory of Evolution? Let's make it easier. Can you name even one living non-religious biologist who has "major" problems with the Theory of Evolution? Could you reference even one article published in peer-reviewed biological journal, authored by a non-religious biologist living today, indicating these "major" problems?
Here is your one living nonreligious biologist who has major problems with Darwinian Evolution:
Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As I said in a different thread, there is nothing wrong with religion being involved in science. My religion states that the bible is true, so then I can apply that to science, I can say the bible says there was a catastrophic global flood in the order of four and a bit thousand years ago, so I can predict that we should see evidence of that. Then I can go out and see that. What is wrong with that? is that not scientific? How come athiests are the only ones who are allowed to be "real scientists"?
gnostic
The Lost One
siweLSC said:
Krok asked for a non-religious scientist that had published in "peer-reviewed" journals (more specifically in journals relating to biology) that have successfully refuted the Theory of Evolution.
Behe did not publish any such thing in those journals.
His own pet hypothesis - Irreducible Complexity (for Intelligent Design) - has been thoroughly refuted and debunked by biologists and biochemists, and rejected by peer-review.
Krok said: Could you reference even one article published in peer-reviewed biological journal, authored by a non-religious biologist living today, indicating these "major" problems?
Krok did not ask for a paper successfully refuted evolution. You are never never going to get a single article that successfully refutes the full grand theory of evolution. It is just too big.
Were you implying Behe is religious? As far as I can make out from a quick reading of that wiki article, he doesn't believe in any specific God, he doesn't even speculate on whether life was designed by God or aliens, and his only reason for accepting ID is that evolutionary theory doesn't fit the facts. That is not religion.
Behe did not publish any such thing? Cut and paste from the above linked wikipedia article:
In 2004, Behe published a paper with David Snoke, in the scientific journal Protein Science that uses a simple mathematical model to simulate the rate of evolution of proteins by point mutation,[28] which he states supports irreducible complexity, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, the paper does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers. Nevertheless, The Discovery Institute lists it as one of the "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design".[29]
Although this is probably a topic for a different forum, I certainly disagree that ID was debunked.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
No, that's the point at which you depart from science by accepting as unquestionable an a priori truth. In science, everything has to be up for potential falsification.
No. When I said I apply it to my science, I mean that I put my biblical assumptions up for potential falsification. And face it, if my biblical assumptions are true, then I have nothing to fear by making predictions based on them!
Contrast to Professor Richard Lewontin:
Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
siweLSC said:
I actually didn't know what religion he has, and I don't particularly care if he is or not. And I didn't read wiki article on Behe until now, since you brought up the link (in post 311). And the wiki page indicate that he is Catholic, so I'd guess he is religious.
Behe is one of chairman for the Discovery Institute, known for Intelligent Design (ID). He had postulated Irreducible Complexity, which is one of the keys to understanding of ID. And Irreducible Complexity have already been debunked and refuted.
Intelligent Design is nothing more than pseudoscience and creationism in disguise. All the SUPPOSED professors and experts in ID are nothing more than creationists. There are no credibility in either (Creationism or ID) in the world of science and nature.
Did you bother to read Krok's very last question?
krok said:
- So, "peer-reviewed biological journal". Behe has not submitted any article that has been peer-reviewed that show any major problem with evolution.
- And since he is Catholic (if true, then) Behe is not non-religious.
- He is advocate for ID, and is a senior member of Discovery Institute, they are totally against Evolutionary theory and Evolutionary Science, so they have been trying to debunk evolution (unsuccessfully).
If he was a real scientist, then he should have evidences for this "Designer", for without evidences, he has no ground for his (already debunked) hypothesis (on Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity).
So are you still going to use Behe as your "non-religious" scientist with peer-reviewed articles?
I think you're asking these questions to mock the Scriptures, not because you're looking for answers. But for those who may have honest questions, I'll reply:
The Flood waters drained off the earth into the sea basins. Some of the rain that falls gently on your head may have fallen first in the Noachian Flood. Water covers most of the Earth's surface, in places to a depth of several miles. This global catastrophe caused massive changes to the Earth, doubtless raising mountains far higher then before the Flood. The billion of tons of water may have caused other tremendous changes on the Earth's surface, causing massive shifts in Earth's crust. allowing the waters to drain away. A fact frequently ignored by skeptics is that the Flood was an act of God, and God controlled it's effects according to his purpose.
Before the Flood, water surrounded the Earth and apparently kept the Earth at a consistent warm temperature. 2 Peter 3:5,6 says: "There were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water."
Thus, I believe the Bible explains where the water came from and where it went. As to the relatively small population of those destroyed, their bodies would have been scattered far and wide by the Flood waters and pose no disposal problem for the eight survivors.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
You have also said elsewhereNo. When I said I apply it to my science, I mean that I put my biblical assumptions up for potential falsification. And face it, if my biblical assumptions are true, then I have nothing to fear by making predictions based on them!
How, in that case, are your "biblical assumptions up for potential falsification"?
They keyword is "reinterpreted". Evidence is not ignored, but explained in a different way. I have facts - I can interpret them acc to the Darwinian paradigm, or the biblical paradigm. In my experience, which is mostly in molecular biology, a lot of facts need to be mutilated and beaten before they will fit into the Darwinian paradigm.
For example, this fact: Dinosaur soft tissue and protein--even more confirmation!
I have no idea how they fit this into the Darwinian paradigm, but I think they just ignore it! The Darwinian paradigm at any rate is not up for falsification: Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote
I still hold that for the purposes of his research, he is non religious, as he obviously does not allow his roman catholicism to influence his views. If he did, he would be a biblical creationist, but he is actively trying to distance himself from biblical creation. ID is not creationsism, ID allows the possibility of aliens planting life on earth. This idea I believe is actually becoming increasingly fasionable in the scientific community.
Did you bother to read my post? In it I quoted from the wikipedia article:
In 2004, Behe published a paper with David Snoke, in the scientific journal Protein Science that uses a simple mathematical model to simulate the rate of evolution of proteins by point mutation,[28] which he states supports irreducible complexity, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, the paper does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers.
Yes I probably am
What is really a joke with me is spontaneous generation / origin of life without design. Would you like to explain to me how life arose in an environment with DNA and RNA destroying UV light (no ozone layer) before DNA repair mechanisms had had a chance to evolve?
ID doesn't say anything about a designer. It says that ID is the only plausible hypothesis of how life came to be.
I still maintain that it doesn't matter if a scientist is religious and conducts his scientist accordingly. Creation is to christianity what evolution is to atheism. Having religious scientists is no worse than having athiest scientists, providing that they continue to behave scientifically.