Perceptions of God, Creationism and Evolution

[Soldier of Macedon]

The Jewish religion was ethnocentric, exclusive for the Jews themselves and to their descendants.

But Christianity isn't, and never has been, not even from its beginning.

Christianity adopted their faith.....

Christianity evolved from Judaism, it didn't 'adopt' it. What did Islam evolve from?

......made some changes and presented it to the whole world as an universal religion.

Wow, sounds like a fantastic movie! When did they present it to the whole world? How did they manage to 'trick' them into thinking it is a universal religion?

You know, we still don't have a proof whether a man called Jesus really existed or not.

What sort of proof are you after, and does the same proof exist for Muhammed? If not, why mention only Jesus?

Religion is also a tool for legitimization of the ruling core`s actions.

It is a sad fact that religion is used in this way, especially where it concerns armed action.

Religion is a tool used by the few to control the many, quite simple.

That is one view, but it is one-dimensional, as religion is more than just a means of gaining control in the manner you suggested.

Yes the dinosaur theory was stupid I admitted it I myself never have and still don't believe in it. You call it stupid yet promote evolution along with other members on this forum which is on the same level of stupid as the dinosaur statement hence why I used it

Suggesting that evolution is stupid is simply stupid.

Either way Phoenix, complexity and diversity in themselves are not evidence of evolution. You'd have to demonstrate how/why they are a characteristic more likely of evolution...particularly seeing the mathematical improbability of random chance creating so much diversity and complexity.

It may be improbable, but it is not impossible. Whereas the existence of God, while not proven to be impossible, hasn't been proven to be possible either, let alone probable - at least not in scientific terms.

I'm not sure where you got that from, but regardless, can you explain then, or provide an explanation of, how biological organisms that consist of multiple co-ordinated parts (which must all co-exist in order for it to function) evolved? If it is so readily dismissed, this should be easy.

Tom, I am no expert on the topic and will certainly read more into it, but in the meantime see this list of scientific societies that reject the theory on the below link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design

And this, from the same university in which Michael Behe teaches:

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

[makedonin]

Again, you're confusing what the Bible is. It never claimed to be a science textbook. Why on earth would it include information about DNA when its primary theme is God and our relationship with him.

I don't confuse the Bible at all.I know that it informs us about Theo-political world view that invented apocalyptic theories to handle the problem of theodocity and failed prophecies, and at last was corrupted by it's spread among Gentiles.

It is rather the creationist who are mistaking it for historical and scientific literal dogma and therefore engage in pseudo science to prove Biblical accuracy because they don't wanna admit that what the Bible is for the most part, that being Myth of a desert nomads with less than no knowledge at all.

Amatuer atheism at its worst!

Fundamentalist creationist are the worst wanna be's of this world who engage in thing they don't understand.

[makedonin]

Christianity transformed the Jewish ethnocentrism into the doctrine of predestination.

[Vangelovski]

It may be improbable, but it is not impossible. Whereas the existence of God, while not proven to be impossible, hasn't been proven to be possible either, let alone probable - at least not in scientific terms.

I've already provided some from the field of cosmology. Further, scientific evidence is not the only type of evidence available, for example, there is philosophical evidence from teleology and ontology.

Tom, I am no expert on the topic and will certainly read more into it, but in the meantime see this list of scientific societies that reject the theory on the below link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lligent_design

And this, from the same university in which Michael Behe teaches:

There's a lot of this from atheists - sweeping statements and outright objections. What we see very little of however, is an explanation of how a irreducibly complex organisms have evolved.

You need to remember, scientists and atheists are biased as well. Many have built their careers on evolution and to admit that they are wrong is a tough decision. Many have been brave enough to do so, and I've posted some of their admissions in this thread.

[Vangelovski]

I don't confuse the Bible at all.Il ow that it informs us about Theo-political world view that invented apocalyptic theories to handle the problem of theodocity and failed prophecies, and at last was corrupted by it's spread among Gentiles.

It is rather the creationist who are mistaking it for historical and scientific literal dogma and therefore engage in pseudo science to prove Biblical accuracy because they don't wanna admit that what the Bible is for the most part, that being Myth of a desert nomads with less than no knowledge at all.

Fundamentalist creationist are the worst wanna be's of this world who engage in thing they don't understand.

So why do you keep asking stupid questions like, "why doesn't the Bible mention DNA"?

[makedonin]

So why do you keep asking stupid questions like, "why doesn't the Bible mention DNA"?

Those questions ain't stupid, rather valid.

You are using theistic arguments that I might in some extent even accept or consider as possibility.

However you are arguing that those arguments build a good case for the Bible view which is absurdity in it self.

Christians when debating scientist always do argue with theistic arguments, but that does not proves the Christian view point of creation and therefore does not proves that the Bible is true.

[Vangelovski]

Those questions ain't stupid, rather valid.

You are using theistic arguments that I might in some extent even accept or consider as possibility.

However you are arguing that those arguments build a good case for the Bible view which is absurdity in it self.

Christians when debating scientist always do argue with theistic arguments, but that does not proves the Christian view point of creation and therefore does not proves that the Bible is true.

On the one hand, you say that you understand that the Bible is not a science textbook and that nobody claims that it is, but on the other, you ask why it does not mention DNA and a whole bunch of other technical details that noone would have understood until at least the 18th century...

[makedonin]

On the one hand, you say that you understand that the Bible is not a science textbook and that nobody claims that it is, but on the other, you ask why it does not mention DNA and a whole bunch of other technical details that noone would have understood until at least the 18th century...

You with your fallacy. I said that creationists and fundamentalist claim it that Bible contains scientific knowledge prior scientific revolution.
Here you are defending Biblical flat earthism and claim scientific knowledge for the Bible:

It wasn't the Church that developed the theory of a flat earth or the sun revolving around the earth, it was the scientists of the day. In fact, Isaiah 40:21-22, refers to the 'circle of the earth' and Job 26:7 refers to the earth as being suspended over empty space.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=60756&postcount=188

If you were clever enough you would have practice what you preach and seen that it is Job that was talking, not God as shown in context:

And Job answereth and saith: -- ...Stretching out the north over desolation, Hanging the earth upon nothing,
Job 26:1,7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...,7&version=YLT)

BUT if you have read further, you would have seen that God has actually refuted Jobs argument by saying:

Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. ...
“Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? ...
“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail,[/B]
Job 38:1-4,12-13,22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...22&version=NIV)

God refutes Job reasoning that the earth is placed in void: "it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?"
Creationist can argue theistic arguments but can't do away Biblical ignorance.

[makedonin]

And about Isaiah 40:21-22 you mention,

*22He who is sitting on the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants [are] as grasshoppers, He who is stretching out as a thin thing the heavens, And spreadeth them as a tent to dwell in.
Isaiah 40:22 (literal translation)

circle ≠ spheroid, because a spheroid is a 3d object.
They had word for spheroid object, say ball (Hebrew dur)thus they could used some to describe the earth if they really knew and didn't meant flat earth.
Here Jim Miler answering:

See also: http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/2328.htm "to draw around, make a circle".
The word is chug (the "ch" pronounced like in loch or Bach). *The cognate verb means "to draw a circle." *The noun means circle, or horizon --which is the circle which defines the edge of your vision. *It is extremely interpretive to understand the term as orb or sphere. *Perhaps that was a later meaning of the term. *The simple meaning is "circle". *How much further you want to take that meaning is up to you.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/Hebrew-Meaning.htm

Note also the use of the word tent to describe the sky. A tent is something you put on a flat surface. There has never been a tent that is a spherical object enveloping another spherical object, as is the earth's atmosphere which forms the bluish sky or heavens.

[Risto the Great]

If something can appear out of nothing, then surely it would not be unresonable to expect a $50 note (a simple piece of plastic) to appear out of nothing in my wallet, especially if we were to believe that this complex universe appeared out of nothing?

I know for a fact that I can make nothing appear out of something any time. Case in point, $50 notes disappear form my wallet all the time.

[Bill77]

I know for a fact that I can make nothing appear out of something any time. Case in point, $50 notes disappear form my wallet all the time.

I have the same skill Risto........well actually, its my wife who should take the credit for that trick. I'm just the assistant

[Zarni]

Vangelovski you do understand the age of the Earth, our moon, the planets, the milky way and universe is not determeninded by radioactive decay entireley on its own there are many other tools too

[George S.]

One thing in this life is certain yo are born & then you die in between are the taxes & you can't take it with you.Bill & rtg i can assure you i allways seem to count $50 less only when my wife & kids are around.$50 bucks goes missing guranteed.

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski you do understand the age of the Earth, our moon, the planets, the milky way and universe is not determeninded by radioactive decay entireley on its own there are many other tools too

Of course there are Zarni. You can list them all.

[Vangelovski]

I know for a fact that I can make nothing appear out of something any time. Case in point, $50 notes disappear form my wallet all the time.

$50, is that all? That's amatuer hour