Creation questions

[Craigbythesea]

Funny you should say that, I am planning to do precisely that. I have about one third of a degree's worth of directly relevant and "countable" Open University credits and plan to bring them up to a Life Sciences BSc hons over the next couple of years.

Excellent!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Several creation “scientists” (none of whom were educated in the biological sciences) have argued that only representatives of the “families” (a unit used by biologist today) of animals were aboard the ark rather than representatives from the nearly 3,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals. They further argue that “speciation” took place giving us the nearly 3,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals that are alive today. I do not know of a single Ph.D. biologist teaching in major university who would use either the term “speciation” or the term “microevolution” for such a process that requires tens of millions of years to take place. Even I have serous doubts about the possibility that evolution on such a grand scale has ever taken place. This is yet another example where the creation scientists are being willfully dishonest with their reading public.

I do not know of a single Ph.D biologist teaching in major university who would...

Perhaps you had better re-educate yourself. Ever think of getting an education at BJU. They have a very good science department, with a good faculty all with Ph.d's. In fact they used to have a debate team that would go to different universities across the nation challenging the professors of the science faculties to debates on the merits of evolution. They never lost a debate.
Of course they never lost a debate because they were true scientists, and evolution is but a religion not based on any scientific fact.
DHK

 

[Craigbythesea]

Gold Dragon wrote,

I apologize if I distorted your words.

I accept your apology.

But as I'm sure you are aware, tone is difficult to convey over text and message boards and I think you need to soften the tone of your comments which I often agree with outside of the tone that is conveyed.

I suppose we could say the same thing about the tone that Jesus used in a similar situation,

Matt. 23:13. "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
14. ["Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]
15. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
16. "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.'
17. "You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?
18. "And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.'
19. "You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering?
20. "Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it.
21. "And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it.
22. "And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.
23. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
24. "You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
26. "You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
27. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
28. "So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30. and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31. "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32. "Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.
33. "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
34. "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,
35. so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36. "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
(NASB, 1995)

 

[Craigbythesea]

DHK wrote,

Perhaps you had better re-educate yourself. Ever think of getting an education at BJU. They have a very good science department, with a good faculty all with Ph.d's. In fact they used to have a debate team that would go to different universities across the nation challenging the professors of the science faculties to debates on the merits of evolution. They never lost a debate.
Of course they never lost a debate because they were true scientists, and evolution is but a religion not based on any scientific fact.

BJU is not exactly known for its academic excellence in the sciences , and I certainly would not have anything to do with such an institution. Nonetheless, can you quote even one of their faculty members using either the term “speciation” or the term “microevolution” for such a process as described above? This specific issue is not subject to debate and I would think that even the faculty at BJU would know at least that much.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Of course they never lost a debate because they were true scientists, and evolution is but a religion not based on any scientific fact.

 

[Craigbythesea]

God also used in very powerful ways fishermen, carpenters and wildmen in the desert to be our role models.

Matt. 11:2. Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples
3. and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?"
(NASB, 1995)

 

[Craigbythesea]

OldRegular wrote,

Perhaps if I had a PhD in evolutionary biology I could make the connection.

Of that fact their can be no doubt!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
BJU is not exactly known for its academic excellence in the sciences , and I certainly would not have anything to do with such an institution. Nonetheless, can you quote even one of their faculty members using either the term “speciation” or the term “microevolution” for such a process as described above? This specific issue is not subject to debate and I would think that even the faculty at BJU would know at least that much.

Their science graduates are employed immediately as they graduate. There is a great need for them. None of them ever have to fear about remaining unemployed. I can't say the same thing about the graduates of secular universities.

It is obvious you would never go to such a place because it is fundamental and you are liberal, and for that reason alone--not because of academic excellence or the lack thereof.

I have not been following all of this discussion, so to comment on some of the more direct points in your quote I may not have understood completely what you were referring to. I'll try better this time around.

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Several creation “scientists” (none of whom were educated in the biological sciences)

You stop right there. I don't claim to be a "scientist" but even I have been trained in biological sciences. Slander and false accusations are completely unwarranted. The professors at BJU have most definitely been trained in biological sciences. Why the defamation, and the slander. This has to stop.

have argued that only representatives of the “families” (a unit used by biologist today) of animals were aboard the ark rather than representatives from the nearly 3,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals. They further argue that “speciation” took place giving us the nearly 3,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals that are alive today. I do not know of a single Ph.D. biologist teaching in major university who would use either the term “speciation” or the term “microevolution” for such a process that requires tens of millions of years to take place. Even I have serous doubts about the possibility that evolution on such a grand scale has ever taken place. This is yet another example where the creation scientists are being willfully dishonest with their reading public.

Your not even being honest with yourself, much less with the rest of the board. In almost every biological book I read, I read of both microevolution and macroevolution. Most admit that microevolution to some degree or another does take place. It is the macroevolution that the creationists have a problem with.
It seems thay you have a problem with taxonomy. Are you trying to impose a modern day taxonomy system into a Bible, the author (in this case Moses) lived 1400 years before the time of Christ. Even at that, Moses probably took written manuscripts kept by ancestors from Adam to Seth to Noah all the way down to Moses, and edited them under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to come up with the five books of the Torah. This being the case, the first few chapters of Genesis could be written by a man living as far back as 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. And you want impose your modern day taxonomic system on that first chapter of Genesis. We are not certain what the word "kind" means. "Each one after its own kind" Does it mean species or family, or some other kind of grouping. I will ask Adam for you when I get to heaven.
DHK

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Charles Meadows
God chose to give us scripture by this means (human hands). He could have carved (Himself) another set of stone tablets but He did not.

Ironically, we only know about the stone tablets because we read about it in His word.

 

[Charles Meadows]

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Craigbythesea
Any rational man or woman can see at once that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

What kind of point does the narrative have if it's not true?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Their science graduates are employed immediately as they graduate. There is a great need for them. None of them ever have to fear about remaining unemployed.

This statement is contrary to fact.

It is obvious you would never go to such a place because it is fundamental and you are liberal, and for that reason alone--not because of academic excellence or the lack thereof.

Please refrain from posting personal attacks against members of this message board.

I have not been following all of this discussion, so to comment on some of the more direct points in your quote I may not have understood completely what you were referring to. I'll try better this time around.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Several creation “scientists” (none of whom were educated in the biological sciences)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You stop right there. I don't claim to be a "scientist" but even I have been trained in biological sciences. Slander and false accusations are completely unwarranted. The professors at BJU have most definitely been trained in biological sciences. Why the defamation, and the slander. This has to stop.

My words, “none of whom were educated in the biological sciences,” was descriptive of a particular set of creation “scientists” which did not include you nor anyone at BJU. Please read my posts more carefully and get your facts straight.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
have argued that only representatives of the “families” (a unit used by biologist today) of animals were aboard the ark rather than representatives from the nearly 3,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals. They further argue that “speciation” took place giving us the nearly 3,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals that are alive today. I do not know of a single Ph.D. biologist teaching in major university who would use either the term “speciation” or the term “microevolution” for such a process that requires tens of millions of years to take place. Even I have serous doubts about the possibility that evolution on such a grand scale has ever taken place. This is yet another example where the creation scientists are being willfully dishonest with their reading public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your not even being honest with yourself, much less with the rest of the board.

Please refrain from posting personal attacks against members of this message board.

In almost every biological book I read, I read of both microevolution and macroevolution. Most admit that microevolution to some degree or another does take place. It is the macroevolution that the creationists have a problem with.
It seems thay you have a problem with taxonomy. Are you trying to impose a modern day taxonomy system into a Bible, the author (in this case Moses) lived 1400 years before the time of Christ. Even at that, Moses probably took written manuscripts kept by ancestors from Adam to Seth to Noah all the way down to Moses, and edited them under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to come up with the five books of the Torah. This being the case, the first few chapters of Genesis could be written by a man living as far back as 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. And you want impose your modern day taxonomic system on that first chapter of Genesis. We are not certain what the word "kind" means. "Each one after its own kind" Does it mean species or family, or some other kind of grouping. I will ask Adam for you when I get to heaven.

The taxonomy at any point in time is absolutely irrelevant. We have with us today nearly 3,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals that we would not have with us today had there been a world-wide flood if they were not represented on the ark. This has NOTHING at all to do with taxonomy or nomenclature, but with genetics.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Marcia wrote,

What kind of point does the narrative have if it's not true?

It is difficult for me to conceive how, after all these months and all these posts in all these threads, some people could still fail to understand what I am saying. However, here it is again, “The story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event.” That does NOT mean that any part of the Bible is untrue from the perspective of the writers.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by DHK:
Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Several creation “scientists” (none of whom were educated in the biological sciences)

My words, “none of whom were educated in the biological sciences,” was descriptive of a particular set of creation “scientists” which did not include you nor anyone at BJU. Please read my posts more carefully and get your facts straight.

I read your post carefully. There it is above. You referred to a minority and slandered every Christian scientisnt by doing so.

It would be the same as me saying:
Several of the secular evolutionist are complete morons. None of them have a genuine education in the pure sciences.

And then retract my statement like you did: I wasn't referring to the people you were referring to. That is just pitiful. You slander the whole by using an example of some, and then backtrack and say you weren't referring to some in particular.
It is still slander.
DHK

 

[Craigbythesea]

I read your post carefully. There it is above. You referred to a minority and slandered every Christian scientisnt by doing so.

Here it really is below, it context,

“Several creation “scientists” (none of whom were educated in the biological sciences) have argued that only representatives of the “families” (a unit used by biologist today) of animals were aboard the ark rather than representatives from the nearly 3,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals. They further argue that “speciation” took place giving us the nearly 3,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals that are alive today. I do not know of a single Ph.D. biologist teaching in major university who would use either the term “speciation” or the term “microevolution” for such a process that requires tens of millions of years to take place. Even I have serous doubts about the possibility that evolution on such a grand scale has ever taken place. This is yet another example where the creation scientists are being willfully dishonest with their reading public.”

Every word in the above paragraph is true and not one word of it is slanderous.

 

[DHK]

So, is it ethical to or even logical to argue:
"several creation scientists" vs. "I do not know a single Ph.d biologist..."
What does "several" vs. "none" give the impression of? The answer is, that no creationist scientist is educated.
That is the direct inference that you made.
DHK

 

[Craigbythesea]

I should clarify one point that may possibly be causing confusing. I am not claiming that all scientists who believe in a creationist model of Genesis are liars or deceivers, and perhaps the words liars and deceivers is a bit too strong. I have, however, personally encountered a number of creation scientists who deliberately misrepresent their academic appointments, their data, the data of others, and the reasonable interpretation of the data. Many of them specialize in searching for “anomalous” data and represent the data as being the characteristic data when they know for a fact that it is not. And when the anomalous character of their data is pointed out, they accuse the real scientists of ignoring anomalous data. I shall let my readers decide for themselves if such conduct makes these men liars and deceivers or just very poor scientists who misrepresent the facts.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Marcia wrote,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What kind of point does the narrative have if it's not true?

It is difficult for me to conceive how, after all these months and all these posts in all these threads, some people could still fail to understand what I am saying. However, here it is again, “The story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event.” That does NOT mean that any part of the Bible is untrue from the perspective of the writers.
</font>[/QUOTE]So it's not a literal account but it's true?

 

[Craigbythesea]

So it's not a literal account but it's true?

I am not a philosopher, so I shall leave the answer to your question to those who are.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> So it's not a literal account but it's true?

I am not a philosopher, so I shall leave the answer to your question to those who are.

</font>[/QUOTE]My statement was more rhetorical than a real question. Also, I was wondering what you would say.

If it's true but not literal, it does not make sense, especially since Jesus referred to Noah as a real person and to the flood as a real event.

BTW, I am not an anti-science person (I know you did not say I was, I just thought I would make this point here). I think science is how we interpret God's creation and the laws by which it operates. But that interpretation can be faulty. However, the Bible is interpreted according to its own standard -- scripture compared to scripture -- and assessing the literary signals.

The story of Noah is not presented as a parable nor as an allegory but as an actual account (especially with Jesus' references to it later). So I take it as an historical narrative that is literally true.