• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Bible: Facts or Truths? (Split)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Gatorubet;891107; said:
Here you nail it for reasons you perhaps did not intend. Others do not have one - any - none -zilch - nada - ounce of religious belief wrapped up in this issue. To me, and many others, to embrace mainstream science and its revelations on the age of the earth and the existence of its earlier inhabitants is in no way a denunciation of Christianity. To people who think that every story in the Bible is true, if you move off of any of it, it all falls.
Click to expand...
to address the first sentence, i am aware of what i was saying, and i said it that way intentionally. to address the second sentence, there is absolutely a belief system wrapped up in evolutionary thought. one quick peek at Erasmus Darwin's "Temple of Nature" exposes that belief system: it is a worship of nature. naturalism in philosophy is a view that only takes into account natural events and discounts any supernatural or spiritual influence. naturalism in theology is the view that all religious truth comes from the study of natural events and not from divine revelation. it is only once you realize the truth that evolutionism is bound up in philosophical and theological naturalism that you can see it for what it really is.

spiritualism is the philosophy of emphasizing the spiritual aspects of a being and the theology that asserts the separate existence of God. of course, the Bible takes that one step further and teaches that because the nature of God is SO separate from the nature of man, that God became a man Himself in order to redeem His Creation and ensure mankind's ability to spend eternity in God's presence.

i will freely admit that i fit your description in the last sentence, and will merely add that the reason that the debate is waged so strongly is because of what is at stake- for both sides.



So the first requirement of a scientific inquiry - an open mnd - is not available to those who base their religion (and perhaps their idea of eternal salvation) on the literal word. To put it differently, those who are literalists cannot afford to look at this issue with an open mind. To even presume to admit evolution and the vast mainstream of scientific thought that through biology, physics, geology, etc. refute a 6,000 year old earth is to abandon your faith. So say what you will, insistance on a literal reading of the Bible as it relates to Genosis is not scientifc inquiry, it is a concentrated effort that is nothing less than a means to prove an end, that the Bible is right. Any proof that differs is to be disregarded.
Click to expand...
see above, and you will understand that the open mind required is not available to those on the other side of the argument either.

If you could show that the world is full of non-Christian scientists, you might have some sort of bias. But as the bulk of modern science at the highest levels of government and university research is conducted by scientists who consider themselves "Christian", one has little to throw rocks at. OTOH, there are virtually no athiests or agnostics who think the earth 6,000 years old.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................
Click to expand...
you cannot serve two masters. you will either hate the one and love the other, or you will hold to one and despise the other. regardless of whether one considers himself to be "christian," if one is practicing in naturalism, that person by definition is not worshiping God, who exists outside of nature.

naturalism and spiritualism are diametrically opposed.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;891133; said:
That's precisely my view on the matter. At one point in history (prehistory actually), life began. I see no way that life could begin without a divine stroke, but that's just me. This notion that evolution requires an absence of divinity has always been fantastic to me. The fact of macroevolution is one of the most persuasive arguments for the presence of a divine Creator, IMO.
Click to expand...
that statement contains a logical fallacy and is a cop-out.
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;891140; said:
to address the first sentence, i am aware of what i was saying, and i said it that way intentionally. to address the second sentence, there is absolutely a belief system wrapped up in evolutionary thought. one quick peek at Erasmus Darwin's "Temple of Nature" exposes that belief system: it is a worship of nature. naturalism in philosophy is a view that only takes into account natural events and discounts any supernatural or spiritual influence. naturalism in theology is the view that all religious truth comes from the study of natural events and not from divine revelation. it is only once you realize the truth that evolutionism is bound up in philosophical and theological naturalism that you can see it for what it really is.

spiritualism is the philosophy of emphasizing the spiritual aspects of a being and the theology that asserts the separate existence of God. of course, the Bible takes that one step further and teaches that because the nature of God is SO separate from the nature of man, that God became a man Himself in order to redeem His Creation and ensure mankind's ability to spend eternity in God's presence.

i will freely admit that i fit your description in the last sentence, and will merely add that the reason that the debate is waged so strongly is because of what is at stake- for both sides.



see above, and you will understand that the open mind required is not available to those on the other side of the argument either.

you cannot serve two masters. you will either hate the one and love the other, or you will hold to one and despise the other. regardless of whether one considers himself to be "christian," if one is practicing in naturalism, that person by definition is not worshiping God, who exists outside of nature.

naturalism and spiritualism are diametrically opposed.
Click to expand...


"And yet, it moves...."
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;891140; said:
you cannot serve two masters. you will either hate the one and love the other, or you will hold to one and despise the other. regardless of whether one considers himself to be "christian," if one is practicing in naturalism, that person by definition is not worshiping God, who exists outside of nature.
Click to expand...
You are suggesting that those of us who accept the fact of macroevolution cannot be Christian. That is one of the most offensive statements I have ever read from one of you people. You are one misguided soul.
 
Upvote 0
Max, i am asserting that the separations of the underlying doctrines that define the two- that is, spiritualism as taught in the Bible, versus naturalism as taught in our classrooms are not logically compatible. i have no clue as to the condition of your soul, nor do i make any assertion regarding the condition of your soul. what you may have missed regarding the first statement in that paragraph is that those words are not mine. to believe that the Bible and evolution are somehow compatible is disingenuous at the very least.

BTW, on what evidence you you assert the 'fact' of macroevolution? the statements of an incorruptible God or the statements of a vainglorious and corrupt man?

as a fellow follower of Christ, i would admonish you to take heed of the words written in Romans 1:20-25.
 
Upvote 0
LV -

The Himalayas were formed by the flood, eh? "All the evidence" eh? Funny how I've never heard ONE legitimate credentialed scientist advance such a claim. Not ONE. I know... I know... it's no doubt on account of the vast scientific conspiracy against God....

Anyway... where is all this evidence you speak of? If it's so obvious, no doubt I shall be easily convinced.

Here's a pretty good nutshell of my evidence for how the Himalayas were formed

You'll note that We can measure their continued growth today by GPS

On to...

The Grand Canyon... to which I've been, by the way....

Rivers, of course, not canyons, have deltas. A delta forms when water carrying suspended sediments slows down and deposits the sediment. This is not going to happen in the same place a canyon is being carved. The Colorado River does have a delta, quite a large one. Its easy to miss - it only covers about 2 million acres. However, because of dams and diversions and other water management modifications of the colorado, very little water still makes it all the way to the delta at the gulf of mexico, and the the delta is mostly dry now. Check out the following links:

Another Step Forward for Restoring the Colorado Delta (Link)

NASA Earth Observatory: Colorado River Delta (Here, you can see it yourself)

Introduction to the Colorado River Delta (More?)

COLORADO RIVER DELTA, MEXICO (More Pics and Explaination)


On statement's containing logical fallacies...

"All life comes from life...."

Really?
If true, life would not exists. Since we can see that it does, it is flagrantly false. Yes, but... how... is it false and how would it mean life cannot exist?

If true, every life form would require a prior life form to exist for it to exist. If God is to be able to give life, he must be alive.. but, to be alive, he would have to have had a life form before him give him life. So... since God didn't have a life form give him life, he must not be alive. But.. if he's not alive, then he can't give life....

Again "ALL" life... to be a LAW, LV, it is universal. You'll, no doubt, special plead on the case of God now... Also a logical fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
you still have not recognized the fact that the Law of Biogenesis is a NATURAL LAW. how hard is it for you to grasp the concept that God exists outside the bounds of nature? shall i attempt to rephrase one more time that you may resolve this? let's try it this way: there is no natural process whereby life may arise from non living matter. does that make you feel better? i didn't think so.
 
Upvote 0
Best Buckeye;890734; said:
Just curious, I believe evolution relies on the theory that everything evolved from something. If that is true what was there first and how did it get there?
Isn't it possible that evolution is the grand design of God in action?
Click to expand...
I've posted this article here before.. i find it very interesting the first cells were formed in clay.. clays properties allow the RNA to form easily, and as such created the first life on Earth.
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;891262; said:
you still have not recognized the fact that the Law of Biogenesis is a NATURAL LAW. how hard is it for you to grasp the concept that God exists outside the bounds of nature? shall i attempt to rephrase one more time that you may resolve this? let's try it this way: there is no natural process whereby life may arise from non living matter. does that make you feel better? i didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Sure, that makes me feel better. I disagree, but at least it makes more sense. Of course, as I predicted, you're special pleading. But.. what else are you supposed to do?

I'll take your silence on the rest of my post to mean you concede.
 
Upvote 0
fanaticbuckeye;890948; said:
So, understanding what my faith is and you can see my ignorance or brilliance in the field of evolution is, how can evolution and Christianity both be true?
Click to expand...
FB, I'll try to help paint the picture for you. Going by how you've described your faith (literal interpretation of the Bible) though, you'll likely not be able to reconcile both evolution and your religion as being compatible.

For the record, I am a Christian, and I am pro-life-beginning theories: I am pro-evolution, but I do not believe only in evolution unto itself (meaning not without being initiated by God); I am pro-creationism, but in an allegorical/figurative context (not a literal context).

It is this latter point, the allegorical context, that provides means by which to accept an evolutionary theory as being initiated by God.

This site talks briefly about the two ways by which this can be viewed, literal and figurative. The literal view being 24 hour days, and the figurative view being that the "days" of creation refrenced in Genesis actually represent undefined periods of time. The person posting the information at the link I provided does so from a literal creationist viewpoint, so I feel his view would likely be shared by yourself. But by reading the page, you can at least get a better feel for what others have been discussing.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;891267; said:
Something somewhat interesting for Brewtus: Dr. Georgia Purdom hmm... a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from ... hold on... that's right... The Ohio State University who... wait a minute... believes in... a 6 day Biblical Creation? I... I ... thought that was impossible.
Click to expand...
As I said, no scientific inquiry. She is a life long Christian who had a dream that she'd go into creation science...and thinks that you cannot have science without relience on the Bible's literal word. IOW, someone who is looking at everything with a preconceived answer. She does not have theories to ponder, she knows the "why and "how", she just needs to connect the dots to conform with the Bible. A scientist, however, looks at facts and sees where they take her. She knows where they take her in advance. See link
Mount Vernon Nazarene University - Academics

Also note that she does not teach at TOSU, but at a church school that has as its mission a view that is Bible centered in its science teachings. Once again, ID is Creationism light. That is nice theology, but piss-poor science.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;891267; said:
Something somewhat interesting for Brewtus: Dr. Georgia Purdom hmm... a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from ... hold on... that's right... The Ohio State University who... wait a minute... believes in... a 6 day Biblical Creation? I... I ... thought that was impossible.
Click to expand...
Well Dr. Purdom only got her degree from Ohio State, she's not a professor there. She currently teaches at a Christian university (Mt. Vernon Nazarene University). And from her short biography it appears that (besides teaching) she primarily gives pro-Creationism lectures. She's published a few papers, but none of them were in evolution-specific journals. I tried looking up her papers with differing results: Journal of Neuroscience: No listing for a Georgia Purdom, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research: (paper authored by seven other colleges that has to do with gene expression in mice), and Journal of Leukocyte Biology (two papers; both deal with the same subject as above - gene expression in mice).

But as Muck already stated, the validity of an argument is not based on the authority or credentials of the person asserting it. If she wants to be taken seriously she should publish a few papers in peer-reviewed journals that show evidence of Creationism. But then again there is no evidence for a 6,000 year-old earth, a universe that was created in 6 days, man being created from clay and woman from his rib.

EDIT: Looks like Gatorubet beat me to the punch on most of this already. :wink2:
 
Upvote 0
In what follows, I will hopefully demonstrate how a 6,000 year old earth - as proclaimed by biblical literalists - is varifiably false.

Lake Suigetsu

Lake Suigetsu is a small lake near the center of Japan on the island of Honshu, at latitude 35?35' North and longitude 135?53' East. Each spring, tiny plants bloom in Lake Suigetsu - algae. When these algae die in the fall, they drift down to the bottom of the lake covering the bottom with a thin white layer. The rest of the year, darker sediments of clay and various other things (insects, twigs, leaves etc. (these things, in that they can be carbon dated, will be addressed further below) settle on the bottom. This produces alternating layers of dark and light and one can count the years like tree rings

It looks like this:
suigetsucore.jpg


Each layer represents the record of a single year of activity at Lake Suigetsu. It also provides easy ways to date the lake. First, the layers may be counted directly, as one might count tree rings. Doing so reveals that the lake is over 100,000 years old. Counting errors have been estimated on several trials as being on the order of 1.5%, providing for a possibility that the actual age is off perhaps some 150 years per 10,000 Link Even suggesting such error is likely, and even saying 200 years per 10,000 would indicate that the lake is 80,000 years old. Far, far older than a date which would be in compliance with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

From the sediments, one may also perform Carbon dating techniques on leaves, branches and insects which are buried throughout. C-14 dating can be then calibrated with the "tree ring" approach" noted above. Testing reveals a Carbon dated age of approximately 90,000 to 100,000 years - as expected. Same link as above

As revealed in the link I keep linking, plotting the findings against time reveals a consistency between dating techniques. The consistency, of course, is truly problematic for the biblical literalist in opposition because independent metrics revealing the same results means that one has to identify errors - and more than that, critical errors - in each measuring metric... which not only disprove that the metric in question itself is invalid, but also in a manner which would establish a reason why both metrics agree despite the invalidities.

These samples have also been compared against other chronoligical measures, including Ice Core samples as well as actual tree ring samples. The results of each of these dating techiniques as against eachother reveals a remarkable consistency. Making, of course, the Biblical literalists task even harder, in that now we have 4 dating techniques providing results which agree and which were secured independently and for differing purposes.

Stated plaininly, If a literal reading of Genesis is a true historical account, then Lake Suigetsu cannot exist. And yet... it does indeed exist.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top