Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Jetavan said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Jetavan said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Jetavan said:
Asteriktos said:
I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"
God created light photons that appeared to have left stars a billion years ago. These photons were created 7000 years ago, 7000 light years from earth, directly between earth and the stars.
Okay, if God created beams of light between earth and the stars, how then can we see those same stars from our satellites that we've sent hurtling through space?
God created light photons not only between earth and the star, but between any point in space and the star.
Then how can our satellites which are not on Earth, such as Voyager, see those stars?
At the moment God created Adam, God created photons just about to hit Adam's eyes, and these photons appeared to have come from the star 14 billion light years away. From the photons that were just about to hit Adam's eyes, to the star, God also created numerous photons that all appeared to have come from the star. So when God created each star, he created that star's own God-created web of photons simultaneously, a web that stretched from the star outwards into the universe, such that the photons looked as if they came from that star. So any satellite that Adam, or we, decide to send into space, will encounter photons that are actually part of that God-created web of photons, rather than photons that derive from the star itself. The photons that derive from the star itself, we won't see for 14 billion years.
Here you contradict yourself. First you say God only put photons between the Earth and a star, and now you say the photons are 360 degrees stretching outward from the star (which is scientifically correct). You can't have it both ways.

And what about the new stars which are born all the time? Does God place a web of photons around each of them as they are formed? What of the stars which die? Does God suddenly snuff out the web of photons? Apply Occam's Razor here and tell me which is more believable: that God in the beginning made the stars to appear old when they are not, and constantly adjusts the universe so that we think it's older than it actually is; or that the universe actually is as old as it appears.
Right. God put photons at each point in space between Adam and the star in question, making it appear, from Adam's point of view, that the photons did physically originate from the star. God could have created stars at various stages of evolution, some fully formed, some still forming, and a web of photons are created in association with each of the stars. God could have even created stars that have appeared as if they have already gone white dwarf or supernova -- and God would have created the web of photons apparently manifesting from such entities, as well.

The fact that we see evidence indicating a universe 14 billion years old, is a result of our Fallen mental faculties (reason, logic, etc.), faculties that may be useful for most of what we do on earth, but are not infallible. One could certainly sympathize with those who believe the universe to be 14 billion years old; they are simply following what their reading of the evidence indicates. Modern Western science is a science based on Fallen logic. Such science is part of the language of the public arena, which is the arena all of us -- believers and non-believers -- share. Thus, the True Knowledge of the universe should not be taught in the public arena, say, public schools, because the public arena is the arena of Fallen logic, not True Knowledge.

True Knowledge is best taught in churches, in religious schools, where such knowledge is properly respected, held sacred, and silently contemplated. Fallen logic has certainly proven very useful and powerful, since this is a Fallen world -- thus, Fallen logic has a central place in the public curriculum. Occam's razor is a great example of Fallen logic that works quite well in this Fallen world. Neo-Darwinian theory is a tremendous scientific achievement, and it could be said that such a theory is the best scientific theory for how biological diversity is achieved. However, such theory is still relevant only to this Fallen cosmos, as understood by our Fallen logics. Evolution is indeed true -- but it's true within a context that is, of course, summarily rejected by the likes of Richard Dawkins. One need not debate a Dawkins, because he knows how to adeptly operate within the context of Fallen logic. If, one day, he intuits the unsatisfactory nature of such logic, we will be eager to share with him the light of True Knowledge.
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Jetavan said:
The fact that we see evidence indicating a universe 14 billion years old, is a result of our Fallen mental faculties (reason, logic, etc.), faculties that may be useful for most of what we do on earth, but are not infallible. One could certainly sympathize with those who believe the universe to be 14 billion years old; they are simply following what their reading of the evidence indicates. And one could make the case that modern Western science is a science based on Fallen logic, and thus the true knowledge of the universe should not be taught in public schools, because the public arena is the arena of Fallen logic, not True Knowledge. True Knowledge is best taught in churches, in religious schools, where such knowledge is properly respected, held sacred, and silently contemplated. Fallen logic has certainly proven very useful and powerful, since this is a Fallen world -- thus, Fallen logic has a central place in the public curriculum. Occam's razor is a great example of Fallen logic that works quite well in this Fallen world. However, Occam's razor shatters against the diamond of True Knowledge.
I find it amazing that such Fallen Logic allows to to put men on the moon and rovers on mars. Mundane Scientific Knowledge is not the 'enemy' of the spiritual life. Yes it can distract us but it can also inform us. Truth is Truth.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
ignatius said:
Jetavan said:
The fact that we see evidence indicating a universe 14 billion years old, is a result of our Fallen mental faculties (reason, logic, etc.), faculties that may be useful for most of what we do on earth, but are not infallible. One could certainly sympathize with those who believe the universe to be 14 billion years old; they are simply following what their reading of the evidence indicates. And one could make the case that modern Western science is a science based on Fallen logic, and thus the true knowledge of the universe should not be taught in public schools, because the public arena is the arena of Fallen logic, not True Knowledge. True Knowledge is best taught in churches, in religious schools, where such knowledge is properly respected, held sacred, and silently contemplated. Fallen logic has certainly proven very useful and powerful, since this is a Fallen world -- thus, Fallen logic has a central place in the public curriculum. Occam's razor is a great example of Fallen logic that works quite well in this Fallen world. However, Occam's razor shatters against the diamond of True Knowledge.
I find it amazing that such Fallen Logic allows to to put men on the moon and rovers on mars. Mundane Scientific Knowledge is not the 'enemy' of the spiritual life. Yes it can distract us but it can also inform us. Truth is Truth.
Fallen logic can do wonders. It is simply a result of living within a Fallen cosmos. No need to assume Fallen logic is somehow 'evil', or 'against' the good. Fallen logic has been used to do great good. Indeed, one could argue that, in this Fallen world, Fallen logic has a necessary place, an irreplaceable function in terms of human survival and human advancement. But survival and advancement is not Truth. The Crucifixion disabused us of that notion forever.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Jetavan said:
ignatius said:
Jetavan said:
The fact that we see evidence indicating a universe 14 billion years old, is a result of our Fallen mental faculties (reason, logic, etc.), faculties that may be useful for most of what we do on earth, but are not infallible. One could certainly sympathize with those who believe the universe to be 14 billion years old; they are simply following what their reading of the evidence indicates. And one could make the case that modern Western science is a science based on Fallen logic, and thus the true knowledge of the universe should not be taught in public schools, because the public arena is the arena of Fallen logic, not True Knowledge. True Knowledge is best taught in churches, in religious schools, where such knowledge is properly respected, held sacred, and silently contemplated. Fallen logic has certainly proven very useful and powerful, since this is a Fallen world -- thus, Fallen logic has a central place in the public curriculum. Occam's razor is a great example of Fallen logic that works quite well in this Fallen world. However, Occam's razor shatters against the diamond of True Knowledge.
I find it amazing that such Fallen Logic allows to to put men on the moon and rovers on mars. Mundane Scientific Knowledge is not the 'enemy' of the spiritual life. Yes it can distract us but it can also inform us. Truth is Truth.
Fallen logic can do wonders. It is simply a result of living within a Fallen cosmos. No need to assume Fallen logic is somehow 'evil', or 'against' the good. Fallen logic has been used to do great good. Indeed, one could argue that, in this Fallen world, Fallen logic has a necessary place, an irreplaceable function in terms of human survival and human advancement. But survival and advancement is not Truth. The Crucifixion disabused us of that notion forever.
Thank God for "Fallen Logic."  :p

There really is no spoon.  8)
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Nebelpfade said:


How do you know that reason/logic are fallen?  What if they are the language to understand true knowledge?
In order to understand true knowledge, one must understand fallen logic, its strengths and its weaknesses. Fallen logic is a felix culpa, if you will. Without the Matrix, there would be no Neo. ::)
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Jetavan said:
Nebelpfade said:


How do you know that reason/logic are fallen?  What if they are the language to understand true knowledge?
In order to understand true knowledge, one must understand fallen logic, its strengths and its weaknesses. Fallen logic is a felix culpa, if you will. Without the Matrix, there would be no Neo. ::)
Hmmm.... I don't think logic can be "fallen." Those that misapply or erroneously attempt to use logic in an illogical manner are fallen. In other words, logic itself is irrefutable. But logic alone cannnot bring man into relationship with Transcendental Holy Mystery. Logic may be able to bring man to the point where he acknowledges that there is something beyond logic, bigger than logic, and more powerful than logic in which he must humbly place his faith. But logic alone is insufficient to unravel the mysteries of the universe, and it is insufficient to fill that mysterious void in the human soul.

Selam
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXKFTzlBziI

It's a scene from the Matrix.  All this logic and fallen logic talk reminded me of this scene.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
I found another one!  ;D

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/21/fossil-ida-missing-link (Ida, fossil that fascinated the world, may miss out on missing link status)

This is what this article says:

Quote:
"Tear up the wallchart documenting "humanity's long lost ancestor". Correct the recently altered "primate family tree" [pdf]. Dismiss the 3.7bn year timeline "from bacteria to mammals" [pdf]. Ignore the front page comment by Sir David Attenborough.

Ida, the 47 million-year-old fossil described as the "first link in human evolution" and vociferously championed by the media (including the Guardian) earlier this year, is no such thing, according to a team of scientists. They say that Ida is, instead, from a "group of extinct primates" that are "not ancestors" to humans.


The initial unveiling of the fossil by Dr Jørn Hurum, described as "a bit of a showman" and "a real-life Indiana Jones", set palaeontological pulses racing in May this year.

Ida, named after Hurum's daughter, was hailed by some as a "missing link" between animals and humans.

The team identified Ida as having lived at around the time the biological order of primates was splitting into distinct branches – our branch of the primates (the haplorhines), which includes monkeys and apes, split from a second group including lemurs, lorises, pottos and bush babies (the strepsirrhines).

Ida was exciting because of her lack of lemur-like physical characteristics – no fused teeth in the middle of her lower jawbone, no grooming claw – suggesting she was from the newly developed "human branch" of primates.

Presenting his findings, Hurum said Ida was the "first link in human evolution": the first step towards the branch of primates from which humans, apes and monkeys developed.

It was an exciting time. Attenborough presented a BBC1 documentary about the discovery and claimed: "This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of all the mammals – with cows and sheep, and elephants and anteaters."

However, Ida's significance is being called into question by a paper that will be published in the science magazine Nature tomorrow.

A team led by Erik Seiffert, from Stony Brook University in New York, examined a 37 million-year-old primate, which they describe as a close relative of Ida. Like Ida, the fossil shares several features with higher primates, the branch that includes humans.

But Seiffert says both mammals belong to the adapoids – a group of extinct primates that are not related to humans

To read the rest, please visit the link.



It seems like the pressups of some is what drives the interpretation of the evidence. If you want to see it as such and such.......then most likely you will interprete it to be such and such.













ICXC NIKA
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Riddikulus said:
This type of stuff happens often, but very few get to know that such and such was really false, no, they only get to hear the hype in big print on the front page of Mags, Newspapers, and the history channel.......etc.

But this side of the story is barely heard........let alone told.


There should be a lesson in all this. This should tell us, that there is alot of Philosophy, assumptions, speculations in modern science, and so one shouldn't take the claims too seriously, because what is forced down your throat today will be seen as a myth tomorrow.


If one can't give "absolute" truth, then one really don't have anything of worth to give.

Just think of all the people who lived 100 years ago that mocked christians because they thought we were stupid and foolish for not believing that the Universe was eternal. The Steady State theory is now seen as a myth, and so just think of all the people that rejected  christianity because of that myth. They are dead now, but there are people living right now who believe in myths, and they are holding on to those myths and mocking those who believe in other things, and one day they too will die and it will one day be known that what they once thought was true was in reality just another naturalistic myth.










ICXC NIKA
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,103
Reaction score
33
Points
48
Age
41
There should be a lesson in all this. This should tell us, that there is alot of Philosophy, assumptions, speculations in modern science, and so one shouldn't take the claims too seriously, because what is forced down your throat today will be seen as a myth tomorrow.
What you are describing has a lot to do with media hype. The media has to fill their papers and news programs with information. It's dangerous to create the news, so they'll often take whatever news is available. That's where the scientists come in. Scientists need funding, and they can only get that if people are supporting what they do. And they have to get results to maintain their funding. So they are eager to get results. Perhaps a little too eager sometimes. However, the great thing about science is that it has self-correcting mechanisms. If a scientist or team of scientists make a claim, you can be sure that there's a whole gang of scientists who'll be more than happy to examine their claim and see if it holds up. It's not the fault of scientists if the media doesn't cover the later findings as much as the initial claims.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
I think this only proves how trustworthy the scientific system is.  I don't know why you boast about this story.  This actually supports the case of science.  It shows how honest scientists are, and how something falsifiable can be retested and reevaluated and challenged by others in the community.  It's a very good thing that this happened, and it's not something scientists shy away from.

On the other hand, if you, Jnorm, don't trust scientists, how you can trust anything scientists say?  You have to give equal skepticism for those that reject Ida as part of a common ancestry to those that accept it.  You can't pick and choose something because it suits your personal case against evolution.  In fact, they simply moved Ida to another part of the evolutionary tree.

This is why you can't have a discussion about evolution and science.  Because you just don't get it.  You make yourself no different from the media with your hype.

"This type of stuff happens often...but the side of the story is barely heard, let alone told."  I don't see these scientists get stoned for rejected the Ida ancestry hypothesis as you seem to put it.  They make a good case, it becomes heard.  If they had made a bad case, it would have become turd.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
minasoliman said:
I think this only proves how trustworthy the scientific system is.  I don't know why you boast about this story.  This actually supports the case of science.  It shows how honest scientists are, and how something falsifiable can be retested and reevaluated and challenged by others in the community.  It's a very good thing that this happened, and it's not something scientists shy away from.

On the other hand, if you, Jnorm, don't trust scientists, how you can trust anything scientists say?  You have to give equal skepticism for those that reject Ida as part of a common ancestry to those that accept it.  You can't pick and choose something because it suits your personal case against evolution.  In fact, they simply moved Ida to another part of the evolutionary tree.

This is why you can't have a discussion about evolution and science.  Because you just don't get it.  You make yourself no different from the media with your hype.

"This type of stuff happens often...but the side of the story is barely heard, let alone told."  I don't see these scientists get stoned for rejected the Ida ancestry hypothesis as you seem to put it.  They make a good case, it becomes heard.  If they had made a bad case, it would have become turd.

Can you give us a clear explanation of the "scientific system?"

Selam
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
minasoliman said:
I think this only proves how trustworthy the scientific system is.  I don't know why you boast about this story.  This actually supports the case of science.  It shows how honest scientists are, and how something falsifiable can be retested and reevaluated and challenged by others in the community.  It's a very good thing that this happened, and it's not something scientists shy away from.

On the other hand, if you, Jnorm, don't trust scientists, how you can trust anything scientists say?  You have to give equal skepticism for those that reject Ida as part of a common ancestry to those that accept it.  You can't pick and choose something because it suits your personal case against evolution.  In fact, they simply moved Ida to another part of the evolutionary tree.

This is why you can't have a discussion about evolution and science.  Because you just don't get it.  You make yourself no different from the media with your hype.

"This type of stuff happens often...but the side of the story is barely heard, let alone told."  I don't see these scientists get stoned for rejected the Ida ancestry hypothesis as you seem to put it.  They make a good case, it becomes heard.  If they had made a bad case, it would have become turd.

Can you give us a clear explanation of the "scientific system?"

Selam
Gebre,

What exactly don't you understand about it?  I thought you know something about the scientific method and how the community works.  Part of the system is how these experiments are falsifiable, testable, and other scientists will challenge the ideas of others, putting the hypothesis to the test.  If there is inconsistency, as they show, then there is room for rejection.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
minasoliman said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
minasoliman said:
I think this only proves how trustworthy the scientific system is.  I don't know why you boast about this story.  This actually supports the case of science.  It shows how honest scientists are, and how something falsifiable can be retested and reevaluated and challenged by others in the community.  It's a very good thing that this happened, and it's not something scientists shy away from.

On the other hand, if you, Jnorm, don't trust scientists, how you can trust anything scientists say?  You have to give equal skepticism for those that reject Ida as part of a common ancestry to those that accept it.  You can't pick and choose something because it suits your personal case against evolution.  In fact, they simply moved Ida to another part of the evolutionary tree.

This is why you can't have a discussion about evolution and science.  Because you just don't get it.  You make yourself no different from the media with your hype.

"This type of stuff happens often...but the side of the story is barely heard, let alone told."  I don't see these scientists get stoned for rejected the Ida ancestry hypothesis as you seem to put it.  They make a good case, it becomes heard.  If they had made a bad case, it would have become turd.

Can you give us a clear explanation of the "scientific system?"

Selam
Gebre,

What exactly don't you understand about it?  I thought you know something about the scientific method and how the community works.  Part of the system is how these experiments are falsifiable, testable, and other scientists will challenge the ideas of others, putting the hypothesis to the test.  If there is inconsistency, as they show, then there is room for rejection.
The last part sounds like congress.
 
Top