thehomer:

Evolution as used in science isn't creation. I wonder who according to you is doing the creating and what would you say is the target of this progress?

Don't be obtusely obsessed with the craze to negate the existence of deities. It is irrelevant. Evolution, as described in science, results in the creation of new species continuously. Is this a lie?

Lawd, just the word "creation" even if used the the context of a factory putting together cars seems to upset you. Calm down!

Target of creation, you ask. I told you before. I said that art imitates life.

And that as such, creation is the natural expression of the mind of the the creating element. That element which itself is the infinite summation of reality.

But then you went on to say that mountains are not alive. And so, ta ta ta ta ta ta!

thehomer:

Chromosomes aren't the only information we have from biology. There's more like plants existing before the sun, and those examples I presented to you. What I'm saying is that all these things are tied together.

If everything was created, the order of creation is not very important.

And maybe, just maybe the sun isn't powered by nuclear fusion but by firewood. It seems you don't want to put information together and make inferences from them.

Of what use is this comment?  

I don't object to making inferences as long as they are called just that - inferences. If they are not conclusively proven, then you cannot expect them to be regarded as fact.

But definitely not evolved?

They could have evolved, but they did not start out by evolution but by creation.

Of course. Maybe its because those who wrote the Bible were ignorant of what we consider to be basic biology. This is why it is preferable to pick the source with more modern and accurate information.

The bible is not a biological treatise so do seeking 'basic biology' from it may be a misapplication. I do not begrudge the modern and accurate information, what I do not agree with is some of the inferences/theories/ideas.

Since it isn't a treatise in scientific biology, then why do you wish to keep trying to refer to it as though it were such? You already said the Bible gives you an answer and for some reason, you consider this good enough to compare to modern science.

I refer to it as giving us the origin of all organisms as the creation of God, not a treatise in biology. I'd use the analogy of a birth certificate. It contains the date a person was born but obviously doesn't tell you whether the child was born naturally or by c-section or whether the mother was given an epidural injection or just gas an air. It doesn't tell you how long labour was neither does it tell you the process of formation in the womb.

The lack of such detail does not take away its validity as a statement of the birth record of the individual.

Modern science is free to hypothesize and classify and discover the workings of that creation - I do not accept its theories that things simply evolved by themselves from atoms and molecules.

I'm disappointed at Mazaje, thehomer & the rest! Why should you argue with people that dont have logical reasoning which is the basics of decision making? We tried to liberate this people from the mental slavery and they chose to be caged so I'd rather you leave them. You can try to educate new people but not same close-minded-zombies.

Atheist: This is fire and it will burn anything that gets into it.

Christian: Ah! My pastor say only if god wants it to burn me

Atheist: Well proof your pastor word and put your hand in it

Christian: That means I want to test god and its not good to test god

Atheist: I'll test logic and show you (Atheist put paper in the fire and it burns)

Christian: Hmmmm Though shall not test the lord god thy god (and crap like that) then goes mad and stay ranting you are testing hell fire before you go!!! you are question god! you are!!!

Deep Sight:

Don't be obtusely obsessed with the craze to negate the existence of deities. It is irrelevant. Evolution, as described in science, results in the creation of new species continuously. Is this a lie?

Lawd, just the word "creation" even if used the the context of a factory putting together cars seems to upset you. Calm down!

You're trying to speak metaphorically of scientific information while at the same time trying to make the metaphor somehow scientifically valid. What you've done with evolution and the factory is personification. You're free to do that but be careful not to confuse what you're doing for passing across scientific information.

Deep Sight:

Target of creation, you ask. I told you before. I said that art imitates life.

And that as such, creation is the natural expression of the mind of the the creating element. That element which itself is the infinite summation of reality.

But then you went on to say that mountains are not alive. And so, ta ta ta ta ta ta!

Well, do you think mountains are alive? If you think they are, please tell me what you consider life to be. If not, then I hope you proceed to clarify when you're speaking metaphorically or scientifically on a topic that is basically scientific.

debosky:

If everything was created, the order of creation is not very important.

Yes it is. If the Bible gives a certain order which is clearly wrong, then maybe we should be doubting the claim of everything being created.

debosky:

Of what use is this comment?  

I don't object to making inferences as long as they are called just that - inferences. If they are not conclusively proven, then you cannot expect them to be regarded as fact.

That comment is to show you that all we have are inferences and how we know they are the best is through scientific means. I hope you realize that it is through inferences that we can tell the temperature of the surface of the sun, that it is powered by nuclear fusion etc. So whether you admit it or not, you're making lots of inferences daily you only wish to suspend this when it comes to your Bible.

debosky:

They could have evolved, but they did not start out by evolution but by creation.

So maybe man evolved from a common ancestor with chimps but maybe this common ancestor was created? Or is it that the atoms that came together to form living organisms were created? Or what?

debosky:

The bible is not a biological treatise so do seeking 'basic biology' from it may be a misapplication. I do not begrudge the modern and accurate information, what I do not agree with is some of the inferences/theories/ideas.

Why do you not agree with the theories and inferences that imply that your Bible is simply an old collection of stories written when people were ignorant?

debosky:

I refer to it as giving us the origin of all organisms as the creation of God, not a treatise in biology. I'd use the analogy of a birth certificate. It contains the date a person was born but obviously doesn't tell you whether the child was born naturally or by c-section or whether the mother was given an epidural injection or just gas an air. It doesn't tell you how long labour was neither does it tell you the process of formation in the womb.

If the brand new date certificate gives a birth date of 1st October 2009 and you're looking at a 175cm male with a beard and a deep voice, what would you infer? That the birth certificate is accurate and maybe the person underwent a growth spurt or that the birth certificate is forged or that the birth certificate was filled out in error? Why would you make such an inference?

debosky:

The lack of such detail does not take away its validity as a statement of the birth record of the individual.

But the wrong information it contains does take away its validity as a statement of the birth record of the individual.

debosky:

Modern science is free to hypothesize and classify and discover the workings of that creation - I do not accept its theories that things simply evolved by themselves from atoms and molecules.

That isn't what the theory of evolution says.

tEsLim:

I'm disappointed at Mazaje, thehomer & the rest! Why should you argue with people that dont have logical reasoning which is the basics of decision making? We tried to liberate this people from the mental slavery and they chose to be caged so I'd rather you leave them. You can try to educate new people but not same close-minded-zombies.

Atheist: This is fire and it will burn anything that gets into it.

Christian: Ah! My pastor say only if god wants it to burn me

Atheist: Well proof your pastor word and put your hand in it

Christian: That means I want to test god and its not good to test god

Atheist: I'll test logic and show you (Atheist put paper in the fire and it burns)

Christian: Hmmmm Though shall not test the lord god thy god (and crap like that) then goes mad and stay ranting you are testing hell fire before you go!!! you are question god! you are!!!

Sorry to cause such disappointment. There is a chance that someone reading these exchanges may reconsider their position on certain erroneous information they've been given in the past.

thehomer:

Sorry to cause such disappointment. There is a chance that someone reading these exchanges may reconsider their position on certain erroneous information they've been given in the past.

^^^ What thehomer said !

thehomer:

Yes it is. If the Bible gives a certain order which is clearly wrong, then maybe we should be doubting the claim of everything being created.

Who says the order given in the bible is wrong? Where is the conclusive evidence to determine this?

That comment is to show you that all we have are inferences and how we know they are the best is through scientific means. I hope you realize that it is through inferences that we can tell the temperature of the surface of the sun, that it is powered by nuclear fusion etc. So whether you admit it or not, you're making lots of inferences daily you only wish to suspend this when it comes to your Bible.

I agree completely - I do not make inferences about everything and believe certain things do not require inference if the answer is clearly provided. For example, I see no reason to make inferences to some random evolution from a primordial soup when I know there is a Creator.

So maybe man evolved from a common ancestor with chimps but maybe this common ancestor was created? Or is it that the atoms that came together to form living organisms were created? Or what?

You're free to hypothesize as much as you want - the bible does not provide a forensic level of detail, but it does say humans were separately created and did not evolve from a predecessor.

Why do you not agree with the theories and inferences that imply that your Bible is simply an old collection of stories written when people were ignorant?

Because I believe the bible is divinely inspired. You can imply as much as you want, but as a scientist what would be of more interest would be definitive and conclusive evidence.

If the brand new date certificate gives a birth date of 1st October 2009 and you're looking at a 175cm male with a beard and a deep voice, what would you infer? That the birth certificate is accurate and maybe the person underwent a growth spurt or that the birth certificate is forged or that the birth certificate was filled out in error? Why would you make such an inference?

There would be need for inferences in this case - growth rates are conclusively known - you don't need to make assumptions about how long it takes on average to become 175cm with a deep voice, and the investigators will have seen this process themselves in their lifetime.

Contrast that to people wanting everyone to believe in millions and billions of years for species to evolve, when all they have are theories and inferences that it actually requires that long for the changes to happen, or that it even took that long in the first place.

No evidence has been provided by 'science' to conclusively prove that the earth was not created.

But the wrong information it contains does take away its validity as a statement of the birth record of the individual.

If it contains wrong information then yes.

That isn't what the theory of evolution says.

Ah I see - so how did the very first living organisms come to be according to evolution?

thehomer:

You're trying to speak metaphorically of scientific information while at the same time trying to make the metaphor somehow scientifically valid. What you've done with evolution and the factory is personification. You're free to do that but be careful not to confuse what you're doing for passing across scientific information.

Well, do you think mountains are alive? If you think they are, please tell me what you consider life to be. If not, then I hope you proceed to clarify when you're speaking metaphorically or scientifically on a topic that is basically scientific.

No thanks. Your comments on the question of art imitating life were more than jarring enough.

jayriginal:

^^^ What thehomer said !

Just to be clear, except for the trolls. I won't be feeding trolls.

debosky:

Who says the order given in the bible is wrong? Where is the conclusive evidence to determine this?

e.g there were plants before the sun was available. How do you explain such a sequence of occurrences?

debosky:

I agree completely - I do not make inferences about everything and believe certain things do not require inference if the answer is clearly provided. For example, I see no reason to make inferences to some random evolution from a primordial soup when I know there is a Creator.

By creator, I take it to be the God of the Bible. How do you know that such an entity exists?

debosky:

You're free to hypothesize as much as you want - the bible does not provide a forensic level of detail, but it does say humans were separately created and did not evolve from a predecessor.

How do you know this is true? Is it because it is written in the Bible? Why would you accept this when you've said before that you don't use it as a scientific text?

debosky:

Because I believe the bible is divinely inspired. You can imply as much as you want, but as a scientist what would be of more interest would be definitive and conclusive evidence.

Why do you believe the Bible is divinely inspired? The thing is that the evidence has been provided but because you already have these assumptions such as the Bible being infallible, you write off the best available evidence.

debosky:

There would be need for inferences in this case - growth rates are conclusively known - you don't need to make assumptions about how long it takes on average to become 175cm with a deep voice, and the investigators will have seen this process themselves in their lifetime.

Could one not infer that this is a special person who somehow matures much more rapidly than other normal people?

debosky:

Contrast that to people wanting everyone to believe in millions and billions of years for species to evolve, when all they have are theories and inferences that it actually requires that long for the changes to happen, or that it even took that long in the first place.

I hope you know that scientific theories are the things that enable humans fly to the moon, treat diseases and other things? Just to be clear, how old do you think the earth is?

debosky:

No evidence has been provided by 'science' to conclusively prove that the earth was not created.

What sort of evidence do you have in mind that would make you consider that e.g the earth and other planets formed from debris orbiting the sun? Would evidence showing this make you think that the earth wasn't created?

debosky:

If it contains wrong information then yes.

Okay. Do you think that the Bible contains wrong information?

debosky:

Ah I see - so how did the very first living organisms come to be according to evolution?

Evolution doesn't address that.

Deep Sight:

No thanks. Your comments on the question of art imitating life were more than jarring enough.

You're welcome.

thehomer:

e.g there were plants before the sun was available. How do you explain such a sequence of occurrences?

I can't definitively answer this question.

By creator, I take it to be the God of the Bible. How do you know that such an entity exists?

Because he has revealed himself through his creation and through his prophets through the ages.

How do you know this is true? Is it because it is written in the Bible? Why would you accept this when you've said before that you don't use it as a scientific text?

I don't use it as scientific text in terms of providing the minutiae or detailed processes. The bible does make statements of fact - that man was created. That is not a 'scientific' comment in my view.

Why do you believe the Bible is divinely inspired? The thing is that the evidence has been provided but because you already have these assumptions such as the Bible being infallible, you write off the best available evidence.

Let's not get issues muddled up here - I do believe the bible is divinely inspired because of the continuous thread of God's power, mercy and love running through it. What evidence has been provided to conclusively prove that man was NOT created?

Could one not infer that this is a special person who somehow matures much more rapidly than other normal people?

Of course you can infer a billion things - of what use is an inference if it isn't tested and confirmed/discarded?

I hope you know that scientific theories are the things that enable humans fly to the moon, treat diseases and other things? Just to be clear, how old do you think the earth is?

Yes I am aware of the impacts of scientific theories - in the cases you highlighted, those theories have been proven. I don't have a specific view on the age of the earth.

What sort of evidence do you have in mind that would make you consider that e.g the earth and other planets formed from debris orbiting the sun? Would evidence showing this make you think that the earth wasn't created?

Again, that the earth was created does not exclude the proposed formation process. If God created it and the method of creation was by gathering the debris orbiting the sun, it is still created.

Evidence to show the earth isn't created would have to conclusively prove there is no creator.

Okay. Do you think that the Bible contains wrong information?

Define what you mean by 'wrong' - there could be textual errors or translation errors and the like. There could also be wrong interpretations of passages that are metaphorical but interpreted as literal and vice versa.

Evolution doesn't address that.

Let's move away from that discussion then.

debosky:

I can't definitively answer this question.

Why not? The Bible gives a definite answer. Do you not believe the answer in the Bible?

debosky:

Because he has revealed himself through his creation and through his prophets through the ages.

How has he managed to do this? So he revealed himself in the malaria parasite and ignorant prophets who are willing to kill 42 children by commanding bears because they were being mocked for being bald?

debosky:

I don't use it as scientific text in terms of providing the minutiae or detailed processes. The bible does make statements of fact - that man was created. That is not a 'scientific' comment in my view.

Is a man living in a fish for three days a statement of fact? How about talking snakes, talking donkeys and zombies roaming the streets?

debosky:

Let's not get issues muddled up here - I do believe the bible is divinely inspired because of the continuous thread of God's power, mercy and love running through it. What evidence has been provided to conclusively prove that man was NOT created?

What we have is evidence that man evolved.

debosky:

Of course you can infer a billion things - of what use is an inference if it isn't tested and confirmed/discarded?

I don't know the use but you should realize that that is what you do when you assert that the Bible says humans were created from sand and women from his rib. How can you test this for confirmation? Are you willing to discard such a notion? How about inferring that someone can live in a big fish for several days. How can you test this for confirmation? Are you willing to discard this idea.

debosky:

Yes I am aware of the impacts of scientific theories - in the cases you highlighted, those theories have been proven. I don't have a specific view on the age of the earth.

And I hope you realize that the theory of evolution is in that category. You don't have a specific view on the age of the earth? Are you not interested in knowing how old the earth is?

debosky:

Again, that the earth was created does not exclude the proposed formation process. If God created it and the method of creation was by gathering the debris orbiting the sun, it is still created.

Evidence to show the earth isn't created would have to conclusively prove there is no creator.

I hope you can see that you've simply made an inference that you cannot confirm or discard. What is the use of such an inference?

debosky:

Define what you mean by 'wrong' - there could be textual errors or translation errors and the like. There could also be wrong interpretations of passages that are metaphorical but interpreted as literal and vice versa.

Let's move away from that discussion then.

By wrong I mean factually incorrect statements e.g do you think someone lived in a fish for some days, snakes talked, donkeys talked and zombies roamed the streets?

i really like the quote below so much because of the way it so accurately describes the approach of the evangelical atheists and their Sunday School level "theology" or understanding of the Bible.

Worth repeating.

From http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/flying-spaghetti-monster-invisible-pink-unicorns-et-al-part-1-4

Many atheists exhibit a lack of knowledge of the very theism against which they most often, if not exclusively, argue - the Bible's Judeo-Christianity. Worse yet, they think that they are well versed by claiming that they were "raised Christian" (whatever that means), "went to Sunday School," "was an altar boy," "saw the movie (hyperbole intended)," etc.

I am not one to claim that you must be a theologian to speak on, or against, Christianity nor a scholar to speak on, or against, the Bible. That is to be reserved for scholarly settings. Yet, one ought to be at least somewhat versed on the subject that one seeks to critique and be skeptical enough to double check both what one is being told as well as one's own positions.

I find that many atheists not only lack knowledge of Christian theology and the contents and contexts of the Bible but lack a basic understanding of natural theology / general revelation, which seeks to infer the cause of the universe from nature (nature not meaning biosphere alone but the universe as a whole).

Take a lack of knowledge of natural theology / general revelation - add to it a lack {of} knowledge of Christian theology and the contents of the Bible - mix that with a typically early age rejection of Christianity - blend it with the early, Sunday School, age understanding of theology - and finally bake it in the presuppositional oven of self-professed erudition and what do we end up with? . . . .

A good warning to those about a certain whiny character on this board. Please follow the advice.

It is amazing a whopping 41.4 % are not for creationist fairy tale,  wow this is amazing,  I think this poll is very edifying

@thehomer good advise there, it is just that, I was sure Creationists would be at 99.9%,

Mumu evangelical atheists trolling Christian discussions all over the place and all over the forum ----- and now complaining about "trolling"!

Duplicitous whiny sissies! 

zataxs:

@thehomer good advise there, it is just that, I was sure Creationists would be at 99.9%,

Nah Nairaland is smarter than that. We just have some that are misguided and indoctrinated and a few others that are probably unable to learn. It is the teachable that we must aim for and leave the trolls to their devices.

thehomer:

Why not? The Bible gives a definite answer. Do you not believe the answer in the Bible?

The bible does not explain why the plants were recorded in the creation account before the sun's mention. If it's not specifically in the bible, I can't explain the reason why it's thus recorded.

How has he managed to do this? So he revealed himself in the malaria parasite and ignorant prophets who are willing to kill 42 children by commanding bears because they were being mocked for being bald?

This is a distraction - I believe God has revealed himself through the beauty of his creation and and that should be sufficient for the purposes of this discussion. Let's focus on the issue of the origin of man.

Is a man living in a fish for three days a statement of fact? How about talking snakes, talking donkeys and zombies roaming the streets?

Again this is moving away from the focus of this discussion - if you want to discuss the validity of all the accounts in the bible, that can be done elsewhere.

What we have is evidence that man evolved.

No - what you have is evidence, interpreted to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence that conclusively shows that man evolved. The same evidence could be interpreted otherwise.

I don't know the use but you should realize that that is what you do when you assert that the Bible says humans were created from sand and women from his rib. How can you test this for confirmation? Are you willing to discard such a notion? How about inferring that someone can live in a big fish for several days. How can you test this for confirmation? Are you willing to discard this idea.

I cannot test the idea as I was not present when it happened, and I am not willing to discard the idea on the grounds of faith. I consider it to be a statement of fact, which does not require to be proved - the biblical account is sufficient for me.

And I hope you realize that the theory of evolution is in that category.

Erm so theory of evolution is in the same category as the law of gravity that helps us fly? Can you explain how the theory of evolution is in the same category as physical laws that can be measured?

You don't have a specific view on the age of the earth? Are you not interested in knowing how old the earth is?

Not particularly - the specific age of the earth means little to me in the overall scheme of things.

I hope you can see that you've simply made an inference that you cannot confirm or discard. What is the use of such an inference?

I know that's what I did - however, I don't ask that everyone accept my inference as a statement of fact. The inference helps to distinguish between the act of creation and the process of creation. That science has postulated a possible process of gathering of debris around the sun does not mean the earth was not created.

By wrong I mean factually incorrect statements e.g do you think someone lived in a fish for some days, snakes talked, donkeys talked and zombies roamed the streets?

Again, I'd rather set aside these peripheral discussion and focus on the issue at hand.

debosky:

The bible does not explain why the plants were recorded in the creation account before the sun's mention. If it's not specifically in the bible, I can't explain the reason why it's thus recorded.

Do you think there were plants before the sun? I'm not asking why but whether you think it happened.

debosky:

This is a distraction - I believe God has revealed himself through the beauty of his creation and and that should be sufficient for the purposes of this discussion. Let's focus on the issue of the origin of man.

No it isn't a distraction. It is an important and integral part of the point I'm making. You say he revealed himself in his creation one of which is man that he cares about yet we also have this parasite that kills humans. What sort of revelation is this? He creates humans who can think and kills them off?

debosky:

Again this is moving away from the focus of this discussion - if you want to discuss the validity of all the accounts in the bible, that can be done elsewhere.

No it isn't because you're presenting the Bible as containing valid information. All I'm doing is that it contains wrong information and you're trying to evade this basic fact.

debosky:

No - what you have is evidence, interpreted to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence that conclusively shows that man evolved. The same evidence could be interpreted otherwise.

Please tell me how you wish to interpret the evidence we've gotten from the various fields like anatomy, embryology, genetics, geography, biochemistry etc.

debosky:

I cannot test the idea as I was not present when it happened, and I am not willing to discard the idea on the grounds of faith. I consider it to be a statement of fact, which does not require to be proved - the biblical account is sufficient for me.

You don't need to demonstrate that a man can live in a fish before you believe that it happened? You simply swallow anything that happened to be written in the Bible simply because it is in the Bible? This is why I have such a problem with religious faith.

debosky:

Erm so theory of evolution is in the same category as the law of gravity that helps us fly? Can you explain how the theory of evolution is in the same category as physical laws that can be measured?

Laws and scientific theories are different and perform different tasks. There is a theory of gravity, theory of continental drift, germ theory of disease etc. The theory of evolution is in a class like they are.

debosky:

Not particularly - the specific age of the earth means little to me in the overall scheme of things.

Actually, it is very important in coming to grips with the theory of evolution and the origin of humans so I'd really like to know how old you think the earth is.

debosky:

I know that's what I did - however, I don't ask that everyone accept my inference as a statement of fact. The inference helps to distinguish between the act of creation and the process of creation. That science has postulated a possible process of gathering of debris around the sun does not mean the earth was not created.

What is the point of holding on to this? You previously implied that an inference such as the one you made was simply not useful.

debosky:

Again, I'd rather set aside these peripheral discussion and focus on the issue at hand.

No it isn't peripheral. I'm using that to find out how you're able to distinguish between myths and actual occurrences.

thehomer:

Do you think there were plants before the sun? I'm not asking why but whether you think it happened.

It depends - Genesis said light was created before the plants, so it is possible that the later verses just explained what light was created initially by God. I don't know what happened.

No it isn't a distraction. It is an important and integral part of the point I'm making. You say he revealed himself in his creation one of which is man that he cares about yet we also have this parasite that kills humans. What sort of revelation is this? He creates humans who can think and kills them off?

Sharks can kill people, so many things can kill people - are you asking that humans must be indestructible or for there to be no factors that can kill man on earth for God to have created man?

No it isn't because you're presenting the Bible as containing valid information. All I'm doing is that it contains wrong information and you're trying to evade this basic fact.

Hardly - I do not believe it contains wrong information beyond errors of the type I explained previously. The information may be misinterpreted, but that does not make it false.

Please tell me how you wish to interpret the evidence we've gotten from the various fields like anatomy, embryology, genetics, geography, biochemistry etc.

That they all point to the wisdom of the Creator.

You don't need to demonstrate that a man can live in a fish before you believe that it happened? You simply swallow anything that happened to be written in the Bible simply because it is in the Bible? This is why I have such a problem with religious faith.

Hardly - this isn't a matter of swallowing, this is a matter of understanding the overall purpose of the bible and not focusing on a verse by verse verification of a combination of metaphors, historical accounts, parables (or stories) instructions and the like.

Laws and scientific theories are different and perform different tasks. There is a theory of gravity, theory of continental drift, germ theory of disease etc. The theory of evolution is in a class like they are.

Gravity can be experienced and is experienced everyday. It is not an idea which cannot be conclusively proven like evolution. That is the difference. If you regard them as the same, that's your prerogative.

Actually, it is very important in coming to grips with the theory of evolution and the origin of humans so I'd really like to know how old you think the earth is.

I don't subscribe to the theory of evolution so you see why I'm quite ambivalent when it comes to the age of the earth.

What is the point of holding on to this? You previously implied that an inference such as the one you made was simply not useful.

People can make/ho;d inferences as they please - it may give them a frame of reference that suits some other purpose, it's not my place to tell people what inferences to make. My main concern is that inferences are not regarded as fact.

No it isn't peripheral. I'm using that to find out how you're able to distinguish between myths and actual occurrences.

The bible consists of historical accounts, stories/parables, poems amongst others. Unless you're going to ask me about each and every verse, then it is peripheral. Let us focus on the aspects that deal with man's origin.

debosky:

It depends - Genesis said light was created before the plants, so it is possible that the later verses just explained what light was created initially by God. I don't know what happened.

No, it talks about some other light and later explicitly states that the sun was created. Is it possible that there are other sources of light. Claiming you don't know what happened doesn't get you off because I'm asking what you think about the plants and the sun. Which of them came first?

debosky:

Sharks can kill people, so many things can kill people - are you asking that humans must be indestructible or for there to be no factors that can kill man on earth for God to have created man?

What I'm pointing out is that the malaria parasite is supposed to kill people by its very "design" and not by accident or by humans going into the wrong turf.

debosky:

Hardly - I do not believe it contains wrong information beyond errors of the type I explained previously. The information may be misinterpreted, but that does not make it false.

Then please explain what sort of errors are demonstrated in my examples.

debosky:

That they all point to the wisdom of the Creator.

Well how do they point to the wisdom of the Creator? By their mere presence? The way you're saying it means anything can point to the wisdom of the Creator like the stone at the bottom of the pool points to this wisdom too.

debosky:

Hardly - this isn't a matter of swallowing, this is a matter of understanding the overall purpose of the bible and not focusing on a verse by verse verification of a combination of metaphors, historical accounts, parables (or stories) instructions and the like.

How can you tell the overall purpose when you're not even clear on which parts are myths and which parts are historical? I'm simply asking you to spell this out.

debosky:

Gravity can be experienced and is experienced everyday. It is not an idea which cannot be conclusively proven like evolution. That is the difference. If you regard them as the same, that's your prerogative.

No you're trying to make an arbitrary distinction by trying to base it all on experience because we've learned that the continents are moving slowly and we've learned that animals evolve slowly.

debosky:

I don't subscribe to the theory of evolution so you see why I'm quite ambivalent when it comes to the age of the earth.

No I cannot. The age of the earth also has important implications for the Biblical stories, geography of the earth, engineering, energy supply etc.

debosky:

People can make/ho;d inferences as they please - it may give them a frame of reference that suits some other purpose, it's not my place to tell people what inferences to make. My main concern is that inferences are not regarded as fact.

That is still wrong because people are jailed based on inferences, the information you're depending on to run your life is based on inferences, the computer you're using was put together and functions based on inferences so how you regard your inferences is very important.

debosky:

The bible consists of historical accounts, stories/parables, poems amongst others. Unless you're going to ask me about each and every verse, then it is peripheral. Let us focus on the aspects that deal with man's origin.

No I'm not. I'm trying to see if you can tell which ones are myths, which ones are historical etc. If you cannot tell which ones are myths, that may explain why you hold the beliefs you currently hold.

@OP,

Atheists and evolutionists have got no clue as to the origin of man, any answer apart from the biblical account of Genesis (even though it sounds illogical and unreasonable) would suffice them.

thehomer:

No, it talks about some other light and later explicitly states that the sun was created. Is it possible that there are other sources of light. Claiming you don't know what happened doesn't get you off because I'm asking what you think about the plants and the sun. Which of them came first?

If the ‘other light’ could generate photons required for photosynthesis by plants, then it renders the question of which came first irrelevant. In any case, without being present at creation, I can only speculate. What I think is not rof the essence here as it doesn't change what happened at the beginning.

What I'm pointing out is that the malaria parasite is supposed to kill people by its very "design" and not by accident or by humans going into the wrong turf.

The malaria parasite is not exclusively/specifically human killing parasite. So again, I struggle to see the validity of this claim. Humans can die by a variety of means.

Then please explain what sort of errors are demonstrated in my examples.

Your examples are tangential to the discussion - those can be done elsewhere.

Well how do they point to the wisdom of the Creator? By their mere presence? The way you're saying it means anything can point to the wisdom of the Creator like the stone at the bottom of the pool points to this wisdom too.

Yes! Because everything anywhere on this earth has its origins in the creator - it was either directly created by him, or the work of one of his creations.

How can you tell the overall purpose when you're not even clear on which parts are myths and which parts are historical? I'm simply asking you to spell this out.

Because the bible tells us its overall purpose is to reveal God to us and to reveal his love for us.

No you're trying to make an arbitrary distinction by trying to base it all on experience because we've learned that the continents are moving slowly and we've learned that animals evolve slowly.

The distinction is not arbitrary at all. If you have not observed a phenomenon throughout its existence, you are simply extrapolating what you do know to cover the periods outside your observations.

It may be convenient to carry out such extrapolations, but it doesn’t make them fact.

That a 17 year old boy is increasing in height slowly right now doesn’t mean that has always been his pace of growth.

No I cannot. The age of the earth also has important implications for the Biblical stories, geography of the earth, engineering, energy supply etc.

Those are not the subject of this thread and are thus tangential.

That is still wrong because people are jailed based on inferences, the information you're depending on to run your life is based on inferences, the computer you're using was put together and functions based on inferences so how you regard your inferences is very important.

I agree inferences are important, very important in fact. However, the distinction between inferences and fact still needs to be clear.

No I'm not. I'm trying to see if you can tell which ones are myths, which ones are historical etc. If you cannot tell which ones are myths, that may explain why you hold the beliefs you currently hold.

It should be sufficient for the purposes of this discussion that I consider man’s creation by God as fact. Let’s deal with the portions referring to man’s origin as those are pertinent to this discussion.

debosky:

If the ‘other light’ could generate photons required for photosynthesis by plants, then it renders the question of which came first irrelevant. In any case, without being present at creation, I can only speculate. What I think is not rof the essence here as it doesn't change what happened at the beginning.

Now you're just making things up trying to force reality to fit your Bible. That is a terrible approach to knowledge. Sure what you think doesn't change what happened but it goes a long way in showing what you believe and why. And that is important if we're to have any serious discussion.

debosky:

The malaria parasite is not exclusively/specifically human killing parasite. So again, I struggle to see the validity of this claim. Humans can die by a variety of means.

Sure but the normal function of the malaria parasite does lead to human death so what is its purpose from a loving God?

debosky:

Your examples are tangential to the discussion - those can be done elsewhere.

No they're not. They're to show your thought processes. If you cannot identify fact from myth in the Bible, then what is the point of trying to have a discussion? Or are you simply trying to be evasive?

debosky:

Yes! Because everything anywhere on this earth has its origins in the creator - it was either directly created by him, or the work of one of his creations.

This is a mere assertion. I too could say it all had its origins in Brahma, would that be a satisfactory answer?

debosky:

Because the bible tells us its overall purpose is to reveal God to us and to reveal his love for us.

So I guess the Qur'an and others too are probably true.

debosky:

The distinction is not arbitrary at all. If you have not observed a phenomenon throughout its existence, you are simply extrapolating what you do know to cover the periods outside your observations.

It may be convenient to carry out such extrapolations, but it doesn’t make them fact.

Yes it is. Did you observe the construction of the International Space Station? Is its existence a fact?

debosky:

That a 17 year old boy is increasing in height slowly right now doesn’t mean that has always been his pace of growth.

This is irrelevant.

debosky:

Those are not the subject of this thread and are thus tangential.

No, they're not tangential because like I said before, the age of the earth has significant bearing on the origin of man so unless you're not interested in understanding the origin of man, then you can write off the age of the earth as being unimportant.

debosky:

I agree inferences are important, very important in fact. However, the distinction between inferences and fact still needs to be clear.

How are you able to tell that what you're using to write your posts is a computer? How do you know that it is actually computer as a matter of fact?

debosky:

It should be sufficient for the purposes of this discussion that I consider man’s creation by God as fact. Let’s deal with the portions referring to man’s origin as those are pertinent to this discussion.

No it isn't sufficient because you need to justify such a claim if we're to have a serious conversation otherwise I too could simply say it is a fact that man was created by Brahma then we can deal with whatever else you want.

OLAADEGBU:

@OP,

Atheists and evolutionists have got no clue as to the origin of man, any answer apart from the biblical account of Genesis (even though it sounds illogical and unreasonable) would suffice them.

well said

thehomer:

Now you're just making things up trying to force reality to fit your Bible. That is a terrible approach to knowledge. Sure what you think doesn't change what happened but it goes a long way in showing what you believe and why. And that is important if we're to have any serious discussion.

What did I make up? Did the bible not talk about light being created before the plants?  Are photons not the basic unit of light and the requirement for photosynthesis? Just what part did I make up? I'm not forcing any reality into anything - the bible explicitly talks about light existing before plants.

Sure but the normal function of the malaria parasite does lead to human death so what is its purpose from a loving God?

I don't know for certain - the bible does not explicitly tell us the function of malaria parasites. Again, this is not about falciparum but about the origin of man - let's get back on topic.

No they're not. They're to show your thought processes. If you cannot identify fact from myth in the Bible, then what is the point of trying to have a discussion? Or are you simply trying to be evasive?

I am not being evasive in the least - it will involve a lengthy discussion to address the examples you gave and we can hold those elsewhere. If we want to discuss the bible in general, then that is a separate thread.

This is a mere assertion. I too could say it all had its origins in Brahma, would that be a satisfactory answer?

That's your prerogative I guess. What kind of proof would be satisfactory to you to show it is not a mere assertion?

So I guess the Qur'an and others too are probably true.

Not necessarily - if they plagiarised text from the bible for example, then there might be elements of truth in them.

Yes it is. Did you observe the construction of the International Space Station? Is its existence a fact?

I didn't, but others did - those people are still alive aren't they? The space station's factories of construction are available - their blueprints, their parts and the entire process can be readily repeated. I am not extrapolating to determine that the space station exists. There is incontrovertible evidence of it beyond conjecture and mere inference.

This is irrelevant.

But it is relevant - many of the theories that underpin an old universe are based on assumptions on atomic decay for example, proceeding at the same rate since the origin of the universe. While this may be a plausible assumption, and even one valid within our period of measurement, it may not hold over thousands of years for example.

No, they're not tangential because like I said before, the age of the earth has significant bearing on the origin of man so unless you're not interested in understanding the origin of man, then you can write off the age of the earth as being unimportant.

In my view it is unimportant - the bible tells me man was created. To simplify, man being created is the necessary and sufficient condition for me to establish the origin of man. If you ask about how long man has been around for, then that is a different matter altogether.

How are you able to tell that what you're using to write your posts is a computer? How do you know that it is actually computer as a matter of fact?

Because the maker of the device I'm using (Lenovo) has called it a computer. I have the evidence from the manufacturer to prove it. I have also independently seen other computers and I am able to identify their constituent elements as defined by the manufacturers.

No it isn't sufficient because you need to justify such a claim if we're to have a serious conversation otherwise I too could simply say it is a fact that man was created by Brahma then we can deal with whatever else you want.

I have justified my claim - my belief in the fact of man's creation is based on the account in the bible. I am trying to have a serious conversation but it is hard when you are constantly trying to widen the gambit to include the whole bible, which isn't the subject of discussion. Leave your general reservations about the bible aside and let's discuss the aspects that deal with the origin of man.

debosky:

What did I make up? Did the bible not talk about light being created before the plants?  Are photons not the basic unit of light and the requirement for photosynthesis? Just what part did I make up? I'm not forcing any reality into anything - the bible explicitly talks about light existing before plants.

You're forcing reality to fit the Bible. What was the source of this light with photons? You see, you're unable to tell fact from fiction as you've just demonstrated.

debosky:

I don't know for certain - the bible does not explicitly tell us the function of malaria parasites. Again, this is not about falciparum but about the origin of man - let's get back on topic.

No the Bible doesn't but modern medicine does and it obviously kills people by its normal processes.

debosky:

I am not being evasive in the least - it will involve a lengthy discussion to address the examples you gave and we can hold those elsewhere. If we want to discuss the bible in general, then that is a separate thread.

No it won't. It is a simple question asking you to identify the types of errors. After all, the other Genesis stories may simply be a similar type of error or don't you agree?

debosky:

That's your prerogative I guess. What kind of proof would be satisfactory to you to show it is not a mere assertion?

I need evidence that your God actually performed such creations not just extrapolations from stories in a book.

debosky:

Not necessarily - if they plagiarised text from the bible for example, then there might be elements of truth in them.

The differences displayed may be due to the Qur'an's superior accuracy. Is there a way you can tell?

debosky:

I didn't, but others did - those people are still alive aren't they? The space station's factories of construction are available - their blueprints, their parts and the entire process can be readily repeated. I am not extrapolating to determine that the space station exists. There is incontrovertible evidence of it beyond conjecture and mere inference.

How do you know that those people weren't lying? I thought you said if you've not seen a phenomenon through out its existence, then all you have are just extrapolations which doesn't make them facts. So is it a fact or just an extrapolation? Now do you see the importance of inference even when you're not present?

debosky:

But it is relevant - many of the theories that underpin an old universe are based on assumptions on atomic decay for example, proceeding at the same rate since the origin of the universe. While this may be a plausible assumption, and even one valid within our period of measurement, it may not hold over thousands of years for example.

Then you need to show why it may not hold over thousands of years. This is the sort of claim put forward by young earth creationists without evidence to back it up. I hope you can do better.

debosky:

In my view it is unimportant - the bible tells me man was created. To simplify, man being created is the necessary and sufficient condition for me to establish the origin of man. If you ask about how long man has been around for, then that is a different matter altogether.

This tells me that you're unable to tell the difference between fact and fiction since you're saying that a story in a book is sufficient reason for you to believe whatever is in the book.

debosky:

Because the maker of the device I'm using (Lenovo) has called it a computer. I have the evidence from the manufacturer to prove it. I have also independently seen other computers and I am able to identify their constituent elements as defined by the manufacturers.

No, you're simply inferring that it is a computer due to your perceiving its similarities to other things called "computers". But how do you know for a fact that it is a computer? Can you do this without inference?

debosky:

I have justified my claim - my belief in the fact of man's creation is based on the account in the bible. I am trying to have a serious conversation but it is hard when you are constantly trying to widen the gambit to include the whole bible, which isn't the subject of discussion. Leave your general reservations about the bible aside and let's discuss the aspects that deal with the origin of man.

No it isn't a justification to simply say you believe it because it is in some book of stories. That is an argument from an improper authority and I hope you realize that when you do this, it brings the entire Bible up for questioning to see if such a belief is justified. This is the reason for my questions on other Bible stories. Since you've already demonstrated that you cannot really tell fact from fiction, then there is no point in my showing you the scientific means by which we've come to know what we now know.

thehomer:

You're forcing reality to fit the Bible. What was the source of this light with photons? You see, you're unable to tell fact from fiction as you've just demonstrated.

I’m struggling to see how I am forcing anything. The bible mentions light was in existence before plants, I didn’t make that up.

No the Bible doesn't but modern medicine does and it obviously kills people by its normal processes.

Falling off a cliff kills people by its natural processes (force of gravity). Drowning in water is by natural processes (the human body being unable to extract oxygen from water). As previously mentioned, that things exist that can kill people doesn’t preclude the existence of a Creator.

No it won't. It is a simple question asking you to identify the types of errors. After all, the other Genesis stories may simply be a similar type of error or don't you agree?

We are not discussing errors in the bible as a whole, we are discussing man’s origins. If you can show me that the bible portions pertaining to man’s origin are in error, then let’s discuss that.

I need evidence that your God actually performed such creations not just extrapolations from stories in a book.

What would be evidence to you? God visiting you with pictures of the creation?

The differences displayed may be due to the Qur'an's superior accuracy. Is there a way you can tell?

It’s not at all difficult to see the plagiarism in names, places and stories by the Qur’an - it’s historical age alone gives a clue to its plagiarised content.

How do you know that those people weren't lying? I thought you said if you've not seen a phenomenon through out its existence, then all you have are just extrapolations which doesn't make them facts. So is it a fact or just an extrapolation? Now do you see the importance of inference even when you're not present?

This is a red herring. If you have people who were present when man originated, then this argument would be relevant. I do not doubt the importance of inferences, but there should always be room for corroboration before establishing it as fact. I can corroborate the existence of the space station by visiting where it was manufactured, by looking at it through a telescope and so on.

Then you need to show why it may not hold over thousands of years. This is the sort of claim put forward by young earth creationists without evidence to back it up. I hope you can do better.

I am not putting forth a claim as such; I’m just highlighting a potential flaw in conventional thinking. Besides, I am not arguing for a specific age of the earth, so I don’t have skin in the game of earth age determination.

This tells me that you're unable to tell the difference between fact and fiction since you're saying that a story in a book is sufficient reason for you to believe whatever is in the book.

The reason I believe in the bible is because I believe it is divinely inspired. I don’t believe it simply because it’s in the book, I believe in the inspiration of the authors by God.

No, you're simply inferring that it is a computer due to your perceiving its similarities to other things called "computers". But how do you know for a fact that it is a computer? Can you do this without inference?

Computers have a certain definition as provided by the manufacturer - by comparing what I have with the manufacturer’s specifications, I know for a fact that is a computer.

No it isn't a justification to simply say you believe it because it is in some book of stories. That is an argument from an improper authority and I hope you realize that when you do this, it brings the entire Bible up for questioning to see if such a belief is justified. This is the reason for my questions on other Bible stories. Since you've already demonstrated that you cannot really tell fact from fiction, then there is no point in my showing you the scientific means by which we've come to know what we now know.

I have demonstrated no such thing - you are simply unable to have a focused discussion to address the origin of man. You’ve spent three quarters of the time going off tangent about inferences and trying to discuss the whole bible in a single thread.

debosky:

I’m struggling to see how I am forcing anything. The bible mentions light was in existence before plants, I didn’t make that up.

Falling off a cliff kills people by its natural processes (force of gravity). Drowning in water is by natural processes (the human body being unable to extract oxygen from water). As previously mentioned, that things exist that can kill people doesn’t preclude the existence of a Creator.

We are not discussing errors in the bible as a whole, we are discussing man’s origins. If you can show me that the bible portions pertaining to man’s origin are in error, then let’s discuss that.

What would be evidence to you? God visiting you with pictures of the creation?

It’s not at all difficult to see the plagiarism in names, places and stories by the Qur’an - it’s historical age alone gives a clue to its plagiarised content.

This is a red herring. If you have people who were present when man originated, then this argument would be relevant. I do not doubt the importance of inferences, but there should always be room for corroboration before establishing it as fact. I can corroborate the existence of the space station by visiting where it was manufactured, by looking at it through a telescope and so on.

I am not putting forth a claim as such; I’m just highlighting a potential flaw in conventional thinking. Besides, I am not arguing for a specific age of the earth, so I don’t have skin in the game of earth age determination.

The reason I believe in the bible is because I believe it is divinely inspired. I don’t believe it simply because it’s in the book, I believe in the inspiration of the authors by God.

Computers have a certain definition as provided by the manufacturer - by comparing what I have with the manufacturer’s specifications, I know for a fact that is a computer.

I have demonstrated no such thing - you are simply unable to have a focused discussion to address the origin of man. You’ve spent three quarters of the time going off tangent about inferences and trying to discuss the whole bible in a single thread.

I don't see any reason why I should continue this discussion with you since you've made up your mind to believe whatever is in the Bible. If you're unable to tell fact from fiction in the Bible, then how will you be able to come to understand the actual origins of man without using myths?

Good luck with your Bible based thinking.