Creation vs. Evolution

[gary-ramey]

references, yes ... personal accounts of having met him, no

not outside of the New Testament

and even those books of the New Testament ascribed to "eyewitnesses" have been established by solid scholarship to have been written by others long after the fact

(it is by now beyond doubt in serious Bible scholarship that three of the Gospels were not written by their namesakes (Mark, Matthew, and John). the historical Luke might have written the Gospel of Luke, but he never met Jesus in person himself, and he traveled with Paul, who also never met Jesus in person)

the only books in the New Testament absolutely known to have been written by a contemporary of Jesus are the first five or six epistles of Paul ... and Paul himself acknowledges he never met Jesus alive

Paul does describe meetings with Peter (the Apostle) and James (the brother of Jesus) in Jerusalem ... so the best we get in the New Testament is someone who never met Jesus but met two people who told him "yeah, Jesus was a real person" -- but what exactly they told him, and what they knew about Jesus, and what they talked about, Paul does not go into (other than Peter and James agreed that Paul would go preach to the Gentiles)

even taking Paul at face value (and he might have been overstating his case to convince others of his authority and relationship to other Church elders) that's as close as we get

Surely you jest. There are few works in the bible not acredited to the book's namesake author by "serious" bible scholars except for a few of the works of paul. The earliest account is John which dates back to around 65AD. If not for the atheist Nero, we might have quite a few more authentic pieces of scripture.

 

[gary-ramey]

first, there are no creation models other than: supernatural being shows up (from somewhere) and creates the universe (out of nothing) ...

As opposed to the Universe is perpetual and self-replicating.

 

[gary-ramey]

I have an Aunt who attends a church who's preacher has stated, on numerous cases, that science is the devils door into this world. I have no idea how common that particular viewpoint is amount the clergy (n=1, and all that), but given what I've seen in this thread, and elsewhere, I suspect its not as uncommon as you think.

Most church's avoid discussions of science altogether. Most understand they are there to teach about faith in God.
My whole purpose for posting on here is because I'm tired of the sanctimonious attitude of scientists that tout the theory of the day as fact. Yet, even on here, you see they admit Darwin had it wrong. So if Darwin had it wrong and you guys have molded his theory into something more palatable, why stand there and say its indisputable fact? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, according to the evidence we have today this is what we believe? I also find it ironic that science uses so many static models to represent a dynamic equation. Time itself is not even a constant and is relative. Doesn't Hawking discuss the tearing of the space-time continuum? I see science today as a lot like fudging the answers to the pre-determined result that I already "know" instead of approaching that data with a more open mind.

 

[deco_martini]

Yet, even on here, you see they admit Darwin had it wrong. So if Darwin had it wrong and you guys have molded his theory into something more palatable, why stand there and say its indisputable fact?

Well, we know that penicillin works as an anti-biotic, however its wrong (causes allergic reactions in some and doesn't battle all infections well). Why don't we dump this anti-biotic idea and just go back to faith healing with its successful track record instead of researching anti-biotics more and making them stronger and with less side effects?

Science isn't dogma. This is why we can admit Darwin got some things wrong. However, he got a great many things right and the things he did get wrong don't make evolution wrong. One of the things he got wrong was genetics which in his day was thought to be a process like mixing paint. However, these days we have DNA and chromosomes. That model of genetics was based on a hypothesis and hadn't gone through the trials, repeated trials by others for verification, peer review, and such that go in to becoming a theory. Of in creationist terms "just a theory". (yeah, its an admission of ignorance to say "just a theory" because it reveals you don't know the difference between a scientific theory and the vernacular definition of the term)

The idea that "if one piece is wrong, then the whole is suspect" is not one I would convey if I based my belief on the bible with its accuracy record. It can't even keep the creation story straight in the first 2 chapters. First its animals then people, then its people then animals. Of course, in English you don't see that its actually two different stories. One from the J source and one from the E source. That's based on the criticism of the sources though. There were some errors that you can read in English such as discrepancies between Kings and Chronicles. Mind you, you have to find them in an unaltered KVJ. If you read modern "translations" they make the stories agree (which isn't translating anymore). The NIV is a good example of this.

 

[deco_martini]

You neglect to mention the fact that Josephus referenced Jesus twice. The first is considered authentic by ANY serious historian, the 2nd a forgery by a follower of Christ. Oddly enough had this scribe not taken the works of Josephus as seriously as he did, we would know very little of Josephus. Furthermore its a well established fact that Josephus's historical references have been proven 100% correct.

Well, the pros and cons of using Josephus as a source have been laid out 10 times in the thread. If I was still a fundmentalist like I was 10 years, I would say "I have faith that Jesus was the son of God and that's all that matters". I don't need historical verification from someone who wrote over 30 years after Jesus death to corroborate the story.

There are few works in the bible not credited to the book's namesake author by "serious" bible scholars except for a few of the works of Paul. The earliest account is John which dates back to around 65AD. If not for the atheist Nero, we might have quite a few more authentic pieces of scripture.

We have no original sources for any book of the bible. Ergo, historically speaking even the gospels cannot be considered historical records of the life of Christ. Even the epistles of Paul are lost and all we have are "witnesses". Witnesses are copies of the text made by scribes. Some witnesses are based on other witnesses. One of the way we try to recreate those original texts is to take "witnesses" and compare them to try to identify errors by the scribes, redactions, additions, etc to find what is common consistently.

 

[deco_martini]

If not for the atheist Nero, we might have quite a few more authentic pieces of scripture.

Nero most likely believed in Jupiter and typical Roman gods of the time. In the Talmud, it is claimed that he converted to Judaism out of fear of the wrath of God. In the Christian tradition, he is the anti-Christ of the New Testament (although I heard a woman the other day declare it was Barack Obama). Don't tell Jack Van Impe or the guy who wrote the Left Behind books about that though as they are happy to cash checks on people's ignorance of who the Bible was really talking about when it talks of the anti-Christ.

Now, why was he 'anti-Christ' ? Was it because he didn't believe in any god (atheist)? Was it because he thought like Joseph Stalin that religion must be eradicated (anti-theist)? Was it because he was a devout Roman and believed that Jupiter was the one true god? The best historical explanation is that the great Roman fire made him look bad so he blamed and arrested an unpopular sect called the "Christians" as scapegoats to make it look like he was doing something.

In any case, "the atheist Nero" is not historically factual and it appears to be a slur of some kind. Either to slur Nero by implicating him for being an atheist (because that is supposed to be bad), or to slur atheists for being like Nero. However, Nero would most likely call you an atheist for not believing in Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and the other Roman gods. A modern atheist is like you ce4jesus, they do not believe in Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Quirinus, Janus, Vesta, etc. They just take it one deity further than you.

 

[sandmanz32]

deco, love the avatar. "this is a great thread! for me to poop on!"

this thread is so far off topic its not even funny. you can't change others beliefs, so quit trying. me personally, i'm an atheist. i think the idea of a "god", "heaven", and a "hell"
is just plain silly. they are all like the scare tactics bad parents use on misbehaving children. i dont need a book, or a list of commandments to be a decent human, i can do it all on my own, and when i die im going here:https://www.nmreef.com/. evolution is real and obvious to anyone who observes nature. it's what happens when a species needs to adapt to survive. those who can't adapt die. i'm by no means a scientist, but even i can grasp that concept. if you're a christian, muslim, jew, or whatever, thats fine by me. just dont pust those beliefs on me. use your own crutch, i evolved legs to stand on!

 

[Theunis]

Look at this. I've been in the Kruger National Park for seven days, but I was not able to see any proof of evolution. All I saw was Creation by God!!

But what about this photo, does it proofs evolution from a rhino to a elephant?? Look at the little rhinos tusk, is he evolving into a elephant?????

 

[Theunis]

Please click on the "photo" to enlarge. It is possible proof of evolution!!!

 

[MikeFerrara]

evolution is real and obvious to anyone who observes nature. it's what happens when a species needs to adapt to survive. those who can't adapt die. i'm by no means a scientist, but even i can grasp that concept.

I don't think you have the concept quite right. Your description ("needs to adapt to survive") makes it sound like a process guided by intent.

Maybe it isn't so obvious?