• Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community.

    Join over 10,000 members today

    Register Log In

  • Hi Guest!

    I've added a brand new "Night Mode" option to our site design. I'd greatly appreciate your vote on this poll here.

    To switch to or from Light / Night mode simply click on Site Menu icon on top and on the dropdown choose "Switch to Night Mode" or "Switch to Light Mode"

    Thank you.

What does the future hold for Intelligent Design/Creationism and The Discovery Institute and those who reject the ToE?

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:15)

Because God created the heavens and the earth and all life that is in them. (Gen. 1:1-2:25) He spoke and these things came into existence.

Quantrill
Metaphorically speaking. Only Sunday school kids should believe it literally.

When did this happen?
Why did he create such a vast universes. Forty billion light years across with trillions of planet earths?
Just for mankind?
You have opened up a box of more questions.
 
Active Member
Metaphorically speaking. Only Sunday school kids should believe it literally.

When did this happen?
Why did he create such a vast universes. Forty billion light years across with trillions of planet earths?
Just for mankind?
You have opened up a box of more questions.
No, literally speaking. Indeed Sunday school kids should believe it as it is true. (John 1:2-3) "The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

It happened in the beginning. Actually, you don't know how big the universe is.

Well, Jesus is the Heir of all things. (Heb. 1:2) "...by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,..." And we are heirs with Christ. (Rom. 8:16-17) "...we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;..."

Quantrill
 
Loyal Member
But they do. Why? The Bible is prescience. Or do you think that the universe and earth is only six thousand years old?
I do not believe the earth is only six thousand years old, as it existed long before the earth we now live on!

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The earth that then "was" is NOT the same earth that "now" is!!!

The word, "perished" in verse 6 means, "complete destruction". Noah's flood did not completely destroy the earth, only the people.
 
Loyal Member
Metaphorically speaking. Only Sunday school kids should believe it literally.

When did this happen?
Why did he create such a vast universes. Forty billion light years across with trillions of planet earths?
Just for mankind?
You have opened up a box of more questions.
An eternal God creates things that can be eternal if he wants it to last that long. As a human you do not have the capacity to comprehend the vastness of the universe, neither do any scientists who study it. It is beyond human understanding, and or thinking.

Eph 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
 
Active Member
Science is great as long as it stays in the realm of science. But it doesn't. Due to it's real accomplishments, scientist's get arrogant and proud. As though they are the ones who hold all truth of all things, when in reality they are only fulfilling the charge God gave to man to subdue the earth. (Gen. 1:28)

And in their pride they say, if we don't know it, then you can't know it. It is only known by us and we will let you know when we can prove it. And, by the way, we can't prove God, so God really doesn't exist. And we cant prove the earth was created in six literal days, so it must not have happened. What foolishness.

Another word for the 'theory of evolution' is 'the faith of evolution'. Yes, the arrogant scientist who boasts of his scientific method or evidence and proof, operates on faith that life evolved because the time when it supposedly evolved, is beyond his reach to test. He operates on his faith that evolution is the way it occurred. But his faith is unbelief concerning the Biblical record.

Quantrill
 
Active Member
That's not how scientific work is done. Scientists start by asking
'What is the most consistent explanation for the things and events we can observe?' Then they put forward hypotheses and test each hypothesis. A hypothesis that passes tests becomes a theory.

Inevitably, anomalies crop up that contradict the theory, so it's back to the beginning with devising new hypotheses taking them into account.
 
Active Member
That's not how scientific work is done. Scientists start by asking
'What is the most consistent explanation for the things and events we can observe?' Then they put forward hypotheses and test each hypothesis. A hypothesis that passes tests becomes a theory.

Inevitably, anomalies crop up that contradict the theory, so it's back to the beginning with devising new hypotheses taking them into account.
All well and good as long as they stay out of the realm of God and His record given in the Bible. But they don't. They must force their faith upon the Bible.

Quantrill
 
Active Member
OK. But as soon as a scientist takes into account anything other than the data (tradition, the opinions of peers, religious beliefs etc) their observations become biased and their findings less reliable.

That's not to say we have to be scientifiction reductionists - believing that only science has answers and nothing exists outside the realm of scientifically observable things.
 
Active Member
If we require science to fit with our understanding of the Bible, we run the danger of repeating the mistake of the Church and Copernicus/Galileo. Not a pretty prospect.
 
Active Member
If we require science to fit with our understanding of the Bible, we run the danger of repeating the mistake of the Church and Copernicus/Galileo. Not a pretty prospect.
If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, then why wouldn't you require science to fit with your understanding of the Bible? This is in essence why Christians reject evolution. This is in essence why Christians say God created the earth.

Nothing is pretty in the conflict with the different world views held by Science and Christians. But it is necessary.

Quantrill
 
Active Member
Two main reasons.

First, the Bible makes no claim to be a scientific authority. The scientific questions that absorb us today were of little significance to the people of Bible times.

Second, if scientific enquiry takes anything other than observable data into account, it stops being science.

Imagine yourself in the early enlightenment period when Copernicus first claimed that the earth rotated the sun. Where would you have positioned yourself in the debate with the Bible-believing churich at the time?
 
Active Member
Exactly - You might be an chartered accountant. And i would not argue with you, on accounting because i don't know enough. I accept what you say especially if it has corroboration by your learned peers. So we should accept what science say if they have been peer reviewed. Is that not so?

Scientist regard the colloquial use of the term theory as an hypothesis. A science Theory is not on the level of the common usage of theory. For instance in physics we have the Theory of Gravity. Which is the theory that any two particles of matter attract one another with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Do you dispute that?

Thus the capital T in front of Theory of Evolution means its is more than a hypothesis and beyond dispute. Is on the level of the Theory of Gravity.

Theory of Evolution - and If you are able to disprove the ToE you would receive the greatest and most worthy Noble prize in history. No scientist has been able to do that in over 155 years of scientific research. In fact the opposite has happened and it is the most peer reviewed and corroborated in all of science.

Therefore the hypothesis of creation is not its equal. There is NO Theory of Creation whatsoever.
I may not be a biologist but I am not brain dead.

It is a well known fact that the difference between the theory of gravity and evolution is ''observable evidence''.

'Creation' has almost infinite observable evidence of intelligent design.

A smart person like you cannot grasp something smells fishy? The elephant in the room could not be bigger.
 
Active Member
Two main reasons.

First, the Bible makes no claim to be a scientific authority. The scientific questions that absorb us today were of little significance to the people of Bible times.

Second, if scientific enquiry takes anything other than observable data into account, it stops being science.

Imagine yourself in the early enlightenment period when Copernicus first claimed that the earth rotated the sun. Where would you have positioned yourself in the debate with the Bible-believing churich at the time?
The Bible makes no claim to be a scientific authority, but when it touches on anything concerning the interest of science, it is 100% true. It is neither a history book, but when it addresses anything historical, it does so with 100% accuracy.

This is true, science should take only observable data into account. So what are they doing talking one way or another about God or the Bible?

That is like asking me now, where would I have positioned myself then concerning the Churches stand on infant baptism or indulgences. The fact is the Roman Church put too much trust in Aristotle so that when his scientific views were attacked they viewed it as an attack on the Church. And, the fact is that neither Copernicus or Galileo contradicted the Bible.

Concerning your modern science coming out of the enlightenment period is, however, a problem. The Enlightenment was not Christian at all. It was Man doing for himself. Voltaire is the Father of the Enlightenment if I remember right. And he was thoroughly anti-christian. So before, men came to the study of science with the view that God is there and thus His creation can be studied and because He created it perfectly we can know about it.

With the Enlightenment, men come to the study of science, with the view that man is the measure of all things, and they will not allow the Bible to stand in their way of science. They either don't have a faith in God, or they are very antagonistic to God.

So, again, if one believes the Bible is the Word of God, then he should require that his study of science should fit with the Word of God. It is the modern scientist without God who brings his non-belief to the testing table, and then seeks to disprove God by science. For example, evolution or the origin of the Creation.

Quantrill
 
A smart person like you cannot grasp something smells fishy? The elephant in the room could not be bigger.
You are not listening.

“There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms.” Encyclopaedia Britannica

read my response to Quantrill as well please i would like to see your comment ( no 35)
 
For example, evolution or the origin of the Creation.
I am not an expert on evolution but I will give it a shot at explaining it briefly with what I have gleaned about evolution so far from people, who are actually interested in understanding evolution, get their knowledge from scientists or are scientists.


Evolution: is a process that takes millions, even billions, of years and is difficult to observe over a short timescale. Basically, there are billions of different organisms on earth of varying similarity, and we label them in our own human way. This means that when people argue against evolution from one species to another they are making all sorts of errors. Evolution is more complex than most people realise, and many fail to properly appreciate the various mechanisms involved. Those factors are: Adaptation, Genetic drift, Gene flow, Mutation, Natural selection, Speciation.

The human common decent fossil evidence shows a gradual move from the chimpanzee-like Australopithecus, through Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus (and various others) to Homo Sapiens, over millions of years. There are millions of other fossils, there are archaeological findings that reveal the migration of man out of Africa, there is the cross-breeding of animals and plants that we do to day, and there is DNA, amongst many other things. Evolution is simple common sense. We share over 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Why? Only primates need to take in vitamin C with their food as there bodies cannot make vitamin C. This proves a shared ancestor. We are genetically closer to chimpanzees than mice are to rats. Life is more connected than anything bible writers knew about. DNA proves this and we use DNA in paternity testing, breeding of dogs, to solve crimes, to understand disease, etc. Humans not only share a common ancestor with apes (and, technically, are apes), but we share a common ancestor with our pets, and our food, and the trees, plants etc . We have coded the genome, we have mapped out the tree of life, we have lots of fossils, and we utilise artificial natural selection by; breeding cows, tomatoes, crops to be larger, stronger and higher yielding etc. I challenge any evolution denier, when offered gene therapy to proactively cure a terminal disease they will get later in their life, to turn down the therapy on account of genes and evolution being against what the Bible says.


Remember that nature is competitive. It's a struggle to survive, so any advantage an organism can get is likely to be passed on. To use a recent example, there are now bacteria that can digest nylon. This is significant because nylon is a recent human invention. So the bacteria in question are exploiting a resource that helps it survive. Not all bacteria do this, as they're adapted to their own ecological niches. But nylon-eating bacteria exist for the same reason; they're exploiting a new niche thanks to a mutation that exploits a food resource which in turn allows for more of those organisms to propagate. It took a mutation in bacteria to begin to utilise this material as a food source. No one ever suspected that chemical polymers could provide ecological niches capable of exploitation by mutant bacteria, but the evidence shows not only that it is possible but that it is a fact. The reason that bacteria show us so much about evolution is because their reproductive rate is so much faster than ours. In the last 2,000 years, humans have gone through approximately 100 generations. Bacteria accomplish that in hours.


Motor cars have evolved from what worked before just like the human genome evolved. The first cars were not today's cars even though all the main parts that make up today's cars existed a hundred years ago. Nobody set car design in motion with the idea of today's cars, roads, highways, toll roads etc. These just happened or evolved as the requirements changed. There is no single designer of your car today. Cars of the future will evolve from today's designs and so will the technology. Products once used by your parents; videos, Sony Walkman, Kodak film, LP records, tapes, etc have become obsolete. So long as humans find use in the design, they'll pass them on and modify them. Nature is doing the same over time with our genomes. However nature is rather slow, cruel, and wasteful and it is obvious there is no intelligent designer behind it.


Our scientific knowledge evolves as well. We know things today that we did not even know twenty years ago. (Hubble telescope, Human Genome Mapping, etc)
 
Active Member
I am not an expert on evolution but I will give it a shot at explaining it briefly with what I have gleaned about evolution so far from people, who are actually interested in understanding evolution, get their knowledge from scientists or are scientists.


Evolution: is a process that takes millions, even billions, of years and is difficult to observe over a short timescale. Basically, there are billions of different organisms on earth of varying similarity, and we label them in our own human way. This means that when people argue against evolution from one species to another they are making all sorts of errors. Evolution is more complex than most people realise, and many fail to properly appreciate the various mechanisms involved. Those factors are: Adaptation, Genetic drift, Gene flow, Mutation, Natural selection, Speciation.

The human common decent fossil evidence shows a gradual move from the chimpanzee-like Australopithecus, through Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus (and various others) to Homo Sapiens, over millions of years. There are millions of other fossils, there are archaeological findings that reveal the migration of man out of Africa, there is the cross-breeding of animals and plants that we do to day, and there is DNA, amongst many other things. Evolution is simple common sense. We share over 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Why? Only primates need to take in vitamin C with their food as there bodies cannot make vitamin C. This proves a shared ancestor. We are genetically closer to chimpanzees than mice are to rats. Life is more connected than anything bible writers knew about. DNA proves this and we use DNA in paternity testing, breeding of dogs, to solve crimes, to understand disease, etc. Humans not only share a common ancestor with apes (and, technically, are apes), but we share a common ancestor with our pets, and our food, and the trees, plants etc . We have coded the genome, we have mapped out the tree of life, we have lots of fossils, and we utilise artificial natural selection by; breeding cows, tomatoes, crops to be larger, stronger and higher yielding etc. I challenge any evolution denier, when offered gene therapy to proactively cure a terminal disease they will get later in their life, to turn down the therapy on account of genes and evolution being against what the Bible says.


Remember that nature is competitive. It's a struggle to survive, so any advantage an organism can get is likely to be passed on. To use a recent example, there are now bacteria that can digest nylon. This is significant because nylon is a recent human invention. So the bacteria in question are exploiting a resource that helps it survive. Not all bacteria do this, as they're adapted to their own ecological niches. But nylon-eating bacteria exist for the same reason; they're exploiting a new niche thanks to a mutation that exploits a food resource which in turn allows for more of those organisms to propagate. It took a mutation in bacteria to begin to utilise this material as a food source. No one ever suspected that chemical polymers could provide ecological niches capable of exploitation by mutant bacteria, but the evidence shows not only that it is possible but that it is a fact. The reason that bacteria show us so much about evolution is because their reproductive rate is so much faster than ours. In the last 2,000 years, humans have gone through approximately 100 generations. Bacteria accomplish that in hours.


Motor cars have evolved from what worked before just like the human genome evolved. The first cars were not today's cars even though all the main parts that make up today's cars existed a hundred years ago. Nobody set car design in motion with the idea of today's cars, roads, highways, toll roads etc. These just happened or evolved as the requirements changed. There is no single designer of your car today. Cars of the future will evolve from today's designs and so will the technology. Products once used by your parents; videos, Sony Walkman, Kodak film, LP records, tapes, etc have become obsolete. So long as humans find use in the design, they'll pass them on and modify them. Nature is doing the same over time with our genomes. However nature is rather slow, cruel, and wasteful and it is obvious there is no intelligent designer behind it.


Our scientific knowledge evolves as well. We know things today that we did not even know twenty years ago. (Hubble telescope, Human Genome Mapping, etc)
Well, you are not an expert on evolution, and you do not believe the Bible. Puts you in a strange place. I believe I would make up my mind what I was. Or, be willing to admit what you are.

(Mark 10:6) "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."


Quantrill
 
Moderator
Staff Member
You cannot take the creation stories literally.
Yet you take a "Theory" as all encompassing truth? :smile:
You come into our house and chastise us in the unbelievable? Stop it!

When I say stop it, I mean stop being disingenuous. You speak of judges approving one perspective, while aliens planet seeding the earth is an acceptable scientific hypothesis (See Panspermia )? Gosh I really need a rolling eyes emoji. :smile:

Understand, your shelf life is dwindling here.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
<><
 
Active Member
ID is creationism - did you read my post on the Judges decision? Bible creationism clashes with known science as we all know the world is NOT six thousand years old. And that 97 percent of all species that have ever lived went extinct before mankind came along. Yet the Bible says animals were created for humans. Then why were 97 percent already extinct. You cannot take the creation stories literally.
If a judge succeeded in directing how you accept the message of the Bible, then I would not trust anything you say about it.

The Genesis account of the flood should suffice to explain how a world of animals could be reduced to the contents of one large boat, and letting science explain why most of those saved might not recover, seeing the major Ice Age followed immediately. The miles deep sediments alone covered much of the vegetation on earth, smothering food supplies. Two elephants on their own post flood would have a low chance of survival.

Where does it say God created animals for humans? It appears to me you need to review the meaning of
Genesis 1:29-30 (KJV)
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

That was His purpose for creating animals, simply because they were "good", pleasing to Him. Food for animals and men was vegetation.

After the fall of Adam and Eve that changed under the curse of sin. After the flood God allowed Noah to consume animals and plants both.

If you can't take the creation account literally, then upon what basis could you believe anything else said in the Bible? In fact there are no errors in the scriptures, not one contradiction except in the mind of skeptics. Skeptics are biased to condemn anything God said.

Modern "science" is science if actual observations are available, verified by repeatable experiment, without violating natural laws. None can revisit the origins, so can not by definition of science certify origins. Dependence on unverified facts and hypotheses is not science, but part of "study" of the natural world, which is a newer and very disingenuous definition of science. Modern science prefers to exclude the spiritual world, yet will tolerate a set belief in the Big Bang hypothesis.

Modern science academia deliberately excludes discovery of facts by scientists who believe the laws of physics and the creation account. Those scientists are usually equally educated and experienced to practice science study, but because they are apparently biased against the bias of evolutionists influeced by Darwinism, they are condemned by academia. Professors of science have the helm of influence not becasue they are right, but because Christians backed away from the fight for control of the education systems.

Do you really know what ID is about?

ID is a bridge between science and creation, a manner of thinking that explains logically why a scientist or anyone else might be drawn to believe the Genesis account of origins. It isn't science. It isn't creationism. If an evolutionist can be open minded, at least he or she can understand WHY and at least be able to tolerate enough to look fairly at the evidences of science pursuits that conclude the veracity of creation.

Academia fears looking fairly. It could cost them grant money and/or embarassment over their many books being discovered bearing errors. But none of creation science would affect the petrologists' pursuit of oil bearing sand. No hydrologist would fail to deal with aquifers. In practice creation science would not hurt any science field.....except university professor's credibility. As long as they live they will resist truth.
 

Top