What if creationism is true?

[dyanaprajna2011]

As a Christian, I already know who the Designer is.:yes: But, while all Christians support intelligent design, not all people who support intelligent design are Christians. What Intelligent Design Offers to Agnostics.

Most Christians accept theistic evolution, but I guess you could throw that in with ID. And, there's only one non-Christian who I can think of who supports ID, so this is hardly evidence of it's veracity, when most scientists reject it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Since this post is large, I will have to post it in three parts. Here is part 1.

Call of the wild it is correct and even a famous agnostic/atheist came to support intelligent design since it was the most logical assumption:

The term "intelligent design" does not always mean the same thing to everyone. To some people, it means that there is a reasonable possibility that an alien created life on earth. But how does that help very much since where did the alien come from?

Regarding what intelligent design meant in the Dover trial, I assume that what it means to Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is what it meant to the judge, who, by the way, is a Christian, and was appointed by a Republican president. Miller testified at the Dover trial. Miller is a devout Roman Catholic, and a theistic evolutionist.

Consider the following:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...2/article.html

.......the flagellum has been presented so often as a counter-example to evolution that it might well be considered the "poster child" of the modern anti-evolution movement.

In any discussion of the question of "intelligent design," it is absolutely essential to determine what is meant by the term itself. If, for example, the advocates of design wish to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with an overarching, possibly Divine intelligence, then their point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share, along with many scientists. As H. Allen Orr pointed out in a recent review:

Plenty of scientists have, after all, been attracted to the notion that natural laws reflect (in some way that's necessarily poorly articulated) an intelligence or aesthetic sensibility. This is the religion of Einstein, who spoke of "the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence" and of the scientist's "religious feeling [that] takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law." (Orr 2002).

This, however, is not what is meant by "intelligent design" in the parlance of the new anti-evolutionists. Their views demand not a universe in which the beauty and harmony of natural law has brought a world of vibrant and fruitful life into existence, but rather a universe in which the emergence and evolution of life is made expressly impossible by the very same rules. Their view requires that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the very laws of nature he had fashioned. The world of intelligent design is not the bright and innovative world of life that we have come to know through science. Rather, it is a brittle and unchanging landscape, frozen in form and unable to adapt except at the whims of its designer.

Certainly, the issue of design and purpose in nature is a philosophical one that scientists can and should discuss with great vigor. However, the notion at the heart's of today intelligent design movement is that the direct intervention of an outside designer can be demonstrated by the very existence of complex biochemical systems. What even they acknowledge is that their entire scientific position rests upon a single assertion – that the living cell contains biochemical machines that are irreducibly complex. And the bacterial flagellum is the prime example of such a machine.

Such an assertion, as we have seen, can be put to the test in a very direct way. If we are able to search and find an example of a machine with fewer protein parts, contained within the flagellum, that serves a purpose distinct from motility, the claim of irreducible complexity is refuted. As we have also seen, the flagellum does indeed contain such a machine, a protein-secreting apparatus that carries out an important function even in species that lack the flagellum altogether. A scientific idea rises or falls on the weight of the evidence, and the evidence in the case of the bacterial flagellum is abundantly clear.

As an icon of anti-evolution, the flagellum has fallen.

The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. It also demonstrates, more generally, that the claim of "irreducible complexity" is scientifically meaningless, constructed as it is upon the flimsiest of foundations – the assertion that because science has not yet found selectable functions for the components of a certain structure, it never will. In the final analysis, as the claims of intelligent design fall by the wayside, its advocates are left with a single, remaining tool with which to battle against the rising tide of scientific evidence. That tool may be effective in some circles, of course, but the scientific community will be quick to recognize it for what it really is – the classic argument from ignorance, dressed up in the shiny cloth of biochemistry and information theory.

When three leading advocates of intelligent design were recently given a chance to make their case in an issue of Natural History magazine, they each concluded their articles with a plea for design. One wrote that we should recognize "the design inherent in life and the universe" (Behe 2002), another that "design remains a possibility" (Wells 2002), and another "that the natural sciences need to leave room for design" (Dembski 2002b). Yes, it is true. Design does remain a possibility, but not the type of "intelligent design" of which they speak.

As Darwin wrote, there is grandeur in an evolutionary view of life, a grandeur that is there for all to see, regardless of their philosophical views on the meaning and purpose of life. I do not believe, even for an instant, that Darwin's vision has weakened or diminished the sense of wonder and awe that one should feel in confronting the magnificence and diversity of the living world. Rather, to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom (Miller 1999). Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.

 

[Agnostic75]

Here is Part 2.

Following are some of the results of the Dover trial:

On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:


For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)


The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)


The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)


Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not ‘teaching’ ID but instead is merely ‘making students aware of it.’ In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants’ argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)


After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64)


The one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)


ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

It is well-known that the motives of the defendants in the trial, who were the Dover area school district, had religious motives in mind regarding the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. While some proponents of intelligent design do not have religious motives, most of those who get involved in expensive lawsuits do.

 

[Agnostic75]

Here is Part 3.

The Dover area school district was clearly in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The current legal situation regarding the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is the culmination of a number of lawsuits that date back at least to 1879. Consider the following:

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)
Court finds that the federal antibigamy statute does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

The U.S. is a democracy. Presidents are elected by the majority of Americans, or at least by the majority of electoral votes, which in most cases is the majority of the popular vote. Presidents nominate judges, who are confirmed by the Senate. The current U.S. Supreme Court consists of four consevative members, four liberal members, and one swing vote who votes with the conservatives the majority of the time. The current U.S. Supreme Court has not overturned the ruling at the Dover trial.

Thus, the current situation is the result of democracy at work. Many Republicans complain when what they call "activist judges" make rulings that are opposed by the majority of voters in a given state, but the judge in the Dover trial, who as I said is a Christian, and was appointed by a Republican president, infatically said somewhere that he is definitely not an activist judge, but is doing his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.

Thank goodness that we have an independent judiciary that is not subject to the whims of the majority.

As far as the will of the majority is concerned, the voters of Oregon twice legalized physician assissted suicide, and the governor of Oregon also approved it, but President Bush unsuccessfully tried to overturn Oregon's law. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled 6-3 in favor of Oregon. The three disssenting justices were all appointed by Republican presidents. All lower courts also ruled in favor of Oregon. Is President Bush for states' rights or not?

 

[Agnostic75]

Most Christians accept theistic evolution.......

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

Gallup poll - 2010

Creationist view - 40%

Theistic evolution - 38%

Percentage Christians in U.S. - 2008 - 76%

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

Wow, that's changed alot since the last time I checked, and that was only about two years ago.

 

[Agnostic75]

Wow, that's changed alot since the last time I checked, and that was only about two years ago.

I just edited the last part of my previous post to read "Percentage Christians in U.S. - 2008 - 76%." I previously left out "in U.S."

Over the past 28 years, support for creationism has dropped four percentage points from 44% to 40%.

 

[gnostic]

The U.S. is a democracy. Presidents are elected by the majority of Americans, or at least by the majority of electoral votes, which in most cases is the majority of the popular vote. Presidents nominate judges, who are confirmed by the Senate. The current U.S. Supreme Court consists of four consevative members, four liberal members, and one swing vote who votes with the conservatives the majority of the time. The current U.S. Supreme Court has not overturned the ruling at the Dover trial.

Thus, the current situation is the result of democracy at work. Many Republicans complain when what they call "activist judges" make rulings that are opposed by the majority of voters in a given state, but the judge in the Dover trial, who as I said is a Christian, and was appointed by a Republican president, infatically said somewhere that he is definitely not an activist judge, but is doing his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.

Thank goodness that we have an independent judiciary that is not subject to the whims of the majority.

As far as the will of the majority is concerned, the voters of Oregon twice legalized physician assissted suicide, and the governor of Oregon also approved it, but President Bush unsuccessfully tried to overturn Oregon's law. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled 6-3 in favor of Oregon. The three disssenting justices were all appointed by Republican presidents. All lower courts also ruled in favor of Oregon. Is President Bush for states' rights or not?

Intelligent Design should have never been decided in the courtroom in the 1st place. When the science community rejected Intelligent Design, when ID did not meet the requirements of the Scientific Method and not been falsifiable, it should have been settle then and there, among the scientists. The court and politics should never have been involved in ID, because they are scientific bodies.

I am glad that the Dover case and the Supreme Court ruled against Intelligent Design. But even with the defeat, ID won't go away. The ID advocates and creationists are like cockroaches; you kill one, but there are lot more hiding in the darkness.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Some forms of the afterlife have been around - in written records - as far back as the Old Kingdom Egypt or in the Sumerian civilization from the 3rd millennium BCE. And these civilizations left behind legacies that influenced other cultures - to the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and many others - including the Christians.

Well, its funny you are speaking for a historical standpoint, because historically speaking, Christianity stands on its own. Christianity did not get its influence from any ancient civilizaiton. It did not borrow its doctrine from anyone, and its message is a clear and distinct message that is separate from all.

There was nothing unique with Jesus or his resurrection or with Christian theology. It just a bunch of borrowed ideas and ideals from other cultures...other religions.

Hmm. So what other religion tells us that God has revealed himself in three persons, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, and that the Son came to earth to die for the sins of mankind, and after he died he resurrected confirming his message, and that whoever believes that he died for their sins will receive eternal life??? Please, do tell.

The very idea of having the afterlife in heaven instead of the netherworld was absolutely foreign to the Judaism and bordered upon blasphemy. But it was nothing new to other religions of that time.

Life after death is something that I think everyone wants. So what, other religions believe that there is life after death....what does this prove? The question is, is their version of the afterlife true?

Intelligent Design is not even a hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory. Everything about Intelligent Design points towards PSEUDOSCIENCE - fake science - creationism without using the "g" word or "c" word.

Intelligent Design is a hypthesis. You cannot prove that nature is all there is, nor can you disprove the existence of God. As long as the existence of God is even possible, which it is, then we can use God as a hypothesis for being the creator of the universe. Now I can understand why you dont like the concept of a God (for whatever reasons you may have), but as long as you cant disprove the existence of God, you cant logically negate his existence with certainty, which at best leaves you with agnostism. Intelligent Design is not a scientific concept. Intelligent Design is simply saying that based on the complexity of life/the universe, there must have been a designer. If you look at the space shuttle, you will immediately conclude that it was designed, yet every cell in our DNA is more complex than a space shuttle. If you conclude that a space shuttle is designed, but fail to reach that conclusion if you look at something more complex than a space shuttle, you are being dishonest by not going where the evidence points.

There's no big secrets there: Intelligent Design is just another name for Christian creationism and Christian theism. It is not science. There are no evidences to support Intelligent Designer, Creator or God to being any more real than to the existence of Godzilla.

No, Intelligent Design isn't another name for Christian theism. Intelligent Design is another name for THEISM. Any monotheistic or polytheistic religion is positing ID, not just Christianity. And there is evidence to support Intelligent Design. The whole structure of DNA is support of Intelligent Design. The chances of our universe being able to support human life is highly improbable, and the chances of producing a living cell by random chance is equally highly improbable. This all points to ID. I mentioned the "gender problem", which no one on here has been able to deal with, that whole process is highly improbable. There is plenty of evidence for ID, you have to deal with the evidence that is being provided, which you or nobody else can do.

How is the Judaeo-Christian deity more real than the Sumerian triad of An, Enlil & Enki, or that of the Canaanite-Ugaritic El and Ba'al?

I answered this by saying that based on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, that would make Christianity true.

The Yahweh/Elohim deity was largely derived from these older deities of Sumer and Canaan. And much of the Genesis from 1 to 8 is a borrowing of the older Sumerian-Babylonian myths, just show us how not so original the Genesis is. [/quote

It is not so much a question about who god is, but who he's not?

So the Sumerian-Babylonia said that God created the universe, the animals, and mankind in 6 days and the first man and womans' name were Adam and Eve and they had two sons named Cain and Abel??

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's presupposing that the Bible is true. What if it's not? What if it's a completely other god that created the earth? What if it was a Hindu god? Or a Greek god?

I am saying the bible is true based on the historical evidence of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

You say that Christian theism has the most evidence supporting it, but I disagree.

Why do you disagree?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

None of these things describe the Big Bang or evolution.

Right, because these improbable things have to take place before you even begin to dream about evolution.

Why does there have to be objective morality? There's none as far as I can see. All morality is subjective. And as far as there being no contradictions or errors in the Bible, that's completely false.

So you dont believe that things like murder and rape are objectively wrong??? And the all alleged contradictions in the bible have been answered.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I am saying the bible is true based on the historical evidence of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

What little historical evidence there is, is highly disputed. And that's only for there might have been a Jesus of Nazareth that the biblical myths were based on, not that the death and resurrection were historically true.

Why do you disagree?

See above. Not to mention all the errors in the Bible. Not to mention that, at best, philosophy can muster a "first cause" argument, but this tells us nothing of the nature of whatever supposed god there might be. All the evidence, what little there is, points toward deism.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Right, because these improbable things have to take place before you even begin to dream about evolution.

I don't understand. There's nothing random about the Big Bang or evolution.

So you dont believe that things like murder and rape are objectively wrong??? And the all alleged contradictions in the bible have been answered.

Murder, depends on the circumstance. Rape, yes. But your Bible is filled with your god allowing both, so I don't see how a Christian could object to those.

 

[McBell]

Right, because these improbable things have to take place before you even begin to dream about evolution.

You keep tossing out the word improbable.

please be so kind as to present your math.

 

[Quagmire]

That's presupposing that the Bible is true.

And that we understand it. :yes:

IMO, that first supposition would be an article of faith.

The second one would be an hallucination.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

And that we understand it. :yes:

IMO, that first supposition would be an article of faith.

The second one would be an hallucination.

That about sums it up.

 

[Leafar]

Before you even begin to talk about natural selection, mutation, speciation, or any other "tion" out there in regards to this topic, you have to give a plausible explanation to how this unguided and blind process ever assembled a living cell. Each cell in our DNA is more complex than a space shuttle. There is no plausible explanation to this kind of complexity without postulating Intelligent Design.

No I don't. Evolution doesn't deal with how life came to be. It only explains how it can go from one, simple, cell (Extremely much simpler than any type of cell found today) to the extremely complex forms of life that we have today.

But there is a few hypothesies out there regarding the "birth" of life, if you will. None of them are proven and has yet to raise to the status of a theory. But even if they haven't been proven, the only thing we can say is that we don't know how life came to be. Lack of evidence for one hypothesis does not prove another.

And not only this, no one has ever been able to give a good answer for the "gender problem". How is it that both the male and female' reproductive system just HAPPEN to be compatible with each other? Evolution does not provide a good example of this, in fact, it just COULDNT happen based on this view. The males penis could not have evovled before the females, and vice versa. If that was to happen, there would BE NO REPRODUCTION. If the male had to wait a million years for the female to evovle her compatible vagina, there would be no reproduction. Both the male and the female had to get their respective systems AT THE SAME TIME, or AROUND THE SAME TIME. There could not have been this huge gap in-between that you evolutionists like to tout around. And you not only have to provide a naturalistic answer for just humans, put every living and breating organism from humans to insects. There are just no good scientific answers for neither of the two things. Creationists believe that am Intelligent Designer constructed and created these highly complex cells and chromosomes (DNA), and that God created all living things at or around the same time, making the genders of each "kind" compatible with one another allowing them to reproduce and fill the earth, as the book of Gen indicates. So I think its clear where the evidence and common sense points in regards to this topic.

You don't know what you're talking about. The reproductionary organs developed side by side and did not just suddenly pop up in one generation. It takes millions of years and the reproductive organs develop side by side, with minimal changes, one generation at a time. The part that is not yet fully explained is why it would be an evolutionary advantage and therefore be forced to develop.

wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

First of all, Luke used the word "hegemon" to describe Quirinius' position. That word means "leader". But leader how? Governor? Mayor? King? Emperor? The vast majority of bibles translates the word to "Governor". But that, at best, is a mistake of translation, not a mistake on Lukes part. Maybe Quirinius was a leader or procurator of Judea at the time of the census, and at a later year promoted to governor.

You missed something: According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's
death."

The first census in Israel was 6 and 7 AD(wiki/Census_of_Quirinius]Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]), funny enough 6 and 7 years after christ himself was born but also 10 years after Herodes died(wiki/Herod_the_Great). One of them is lying.

 

[gnostic]

You missed something: According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's
death."

True. There was no census carried out during Herod's reign.

Also, the Romans wouldn't do census on non-provincial kingdom. Herod may pay tributes to Rome, but the Judaeans wouldn't pay tax to Rome, so there would be no reason for the Romans to have census in Judaea while Herod the Great was still king (or his son, Herod Archelaus, and successor) of Judaea.

The census was carried out only when Archelaus was ousted in 6 CE, and Augustus had Quirinius appointed as legate of Syria, and Coponius as prefect of Judaea. Because Judaea has become province, a census was required.

What I don't understand is why Joseph would have to travel from Galilee to Bethlehem to enroll for the census when he wasn't even living in Judaea.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No I don't. Evolution doesn't deal with how life came to be. It only explains how it can go from one, simple, cell (Extremely much simpler than any type of cell found today) to the extremely complex forms of life that we have today.

As I keep pointing out, each cell in our DNA is more complex than a space shuttle. You cannot get this kind of complexity from a blind and random process, which is exactly what evolution is. A blind man has a better chance of going to the junkyard and assembling a space shuttle than non-living material to produce a living cell. There is no scientific explanation for this kind of complexity. To believe this occured by a evolutionary process is a leap of faith. It is relying on the unseen. And not only are you relying on the unseen, but the PROCESS of evolution is relying on the unseen. There is no mind, there are no eyes. There is no agenda. There is no purpose. There is just this mindless, blind, unintelligent process that seems to be performing these acts of complex and orderly functions. This just can not happen. So if you believe it, thats fine, but for you, and others to say that this is science is being disingenuous.

But there is a few hypothesies out there regarding the "birth" of life, if you will. None of them are proven and has yet to raise to the status of a theory. But even if they haven't been proven, the only thing we can say is that we don't know how life came to be. Lack of evidence for one hypothesis does not prove another.

Saying you dont know something is taking the honest approach, no doubt. But, there are only two options. Either we are here by evolution, or we are here by ID. It is more probable, more plausible, more reasonable, and flat out more logical to believe that the complexity we see not only in DNA, but for the constants and low entropy condition that we have on this earth, to believe that we are here by ID. Whenever we see machinery, paintings, puzzles, art, or hear music, we immediately realize ID. So there is absolutely no need for us to come to a screeching halt when it comes to things like DNA, which is more complex than anything man has made as of yet. You, just like any other naturalist, are patiently waiting for science to come up with a smoking gun in regards to these matters. But there are no smoking guns. Science cannot be used to explain the origin of itself. The origin of the universe, and agent that created all of this complexity that we observe, can only be found outside of the universe. No entity can be used to explain the origin of its own domain. So this "we dont know" stuff just wont work. You are right, we dont know who did it, but we have enough evidence to know that someone did it.

You don't know what you're talking about. The reproductionary organs developed side by side and did not just suddenly pop up in one generation. It takes millions of years and the reproductive organs develop side by side, with minimal changes, one generation at a time. The part that is not yet fully explained is why it would be an evolutionary advantage and therefore be forced to develop.

wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

No, you dont know what you are talking about. First of all, I didnt say that it just suddenly "pop up in one generation". Side by side?? The question is, before each gender got its reproductive organs, how were they reproducing??? You said "it takes millions of years and the reproductive organs develope side by side", which FAILS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. While the reproductive organs were developing, how were they reproducing?? Second,how did evolution know what was needed to be compatible?? Males have testicales that produce sperm, and a penis to which the sperm travels to fertilize the eggs which are in the females vagina. The female just happen to have what is needed in her system to reproduce with the males system. How did evolution know?? How can a blind an unintellectual process know what each gender needed?? Third, as I said before, this same question applies to all living organism excluding plant life. How are roaches reproductive systems compatibles, how are whales, the same question applies to these guys as well. This lame answer you gave makes it clear, that science does not provide a good answer for this, and that ID is the best explanation. I would like my questions answered, please.

You missed something: According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's
death." The first census in Israel was 6 and 7 AD(wiki/Census_of_Quirinius]Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]), funny enough 6 and 7 years after christ himself was born but also 10 years after Herodes died(wiki/Herod_the_Great). One of them is lying.

On my research there is some concern as to whether the translation should be "before" Quirinius was governor as opposed to "while" Quirinius was governor. As long as this is even possible, then there should be no cry of a contradiction.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Call of the Wild, you keep saying evolution is a "blind and random" process. I'm curious, have you ever actually read anything about evolution besides literature from your point of view? In other words, have you ever read anything about evolution written by people who accept it? It seems pretty obvious to me from your posts that you haven't, but I thought I'd ask and make sure. I need to know if it will be pointless or not to attempt to engage you in debate.