Page 4 of 4

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:13 pm
by Jac3510
James wrote:Jac, I take it that you are quite interested in the "Cambrian Explosion".
Jac3510 wrote:What's interesting to me is that the Cambrian explosion fits in perfectly with the Genesis account of creation
Oh, I see. Subject to literary interpretation, surely?
If you mean "day-age" interpretation, then yes. Are you thinking that calendar day creationism is the only "valid" interpretation, and that everything else is twisted readings? Are you not aware that the calendar day creation model is not even the oldest model, and that MOST Christians don't accept it?

In other words, straw man.

James wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:Also, Rana is a trained biologist . . .
...and a devout Christian?
And that has to do with what? Preconceptions? Ah, but the atheist has his own preconceptions. You can't dismiss someone because of religious beliefs. If you could, then I'd have dismissed Dawkins a long time ago. Deal with his arguments rather than throwing ad hominems at him.
James wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:The basic point is that too much evolution happened in only 5-50 million years. We have the appearance of virtually every (not all) animal phyla in less than 10 million years. (reference, see references in article as well). 146 of 182 skeletal designs made their appearance in this "short" period of time (reference).
But these references are from godandscience.org.... impartial? Peer-reviewed? Please do not reply by saying that I have not read the references to which the article refers - referring to a valid source does not make the article valid itself.
That's silly, James, and you know it. Are you going to tell me that 146 of 182 skeletal designs did NOT appear? I've already offered several sources, and the sources at this site appeal directly to scientific literature. So, if you have other numbers, present them. No more ad hominems. Just because something is said by a Christian doesn't make it automatically false. Carefuly in going in that direction . . .

Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 12:19 pm
by James
Mastermind wrote:"But Mastermind if it is "random", by defintion it does NOT have a predictable pattern."

Actually, that would depend on the degree of randomness. There are still maximum-minimum rates, which is what I was referring to when I said mechanism. For example, you can set a computer to generate a number between 1 and 10. The number is still random, but there are certain limitations.
And how would you find those maximum and minimum rates for genetic mutations? By historical evidence? But that is too unreliable....
Jac3510 wrote:Are you thinking that calendar day creationism is the only "valid" interpretation, and that everything else is twisted readings? Are you not aware that the calendar day creation model is not even the oldest model, and that MOST Christians don't accept it?
Which model do you accept?
Jac3510 wrote:Ah, but the atheist has his own preconceptions. You can't dismiss someone because of religious beliefs. If you could, then I'd have dismissed Dawkins a long time ago. Deal with his arguments rather than throwing ad hominems at him.
You are right to say this. But it must also be remembered that the motivation for a person to attack a theory is important. Would I be right in saying that if you were not a Christian then you would not attack evolution with such vigour?
The main thrust of my previous post was to establish that there is a bias in the Christian community towards disproving evolution. This is not a coincedence.
It is a big occasion for the Christian community when an atheist or agnostic admits the possibility of God or intelligent design. The piece on this website about Flew for example:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html
Indeed, as you say, why should Flew's religious beliefs be an issue?
Jac3510 wrote:Are you going to tell me that 146 of 182 skeletal designs did NOT appear?
No, I was referring to the use of language in the articles - words like 'short' and 'sudden' when describing time periods of millions of years are quite misleading. It is obvious the author is trying to imply improbability without justification by using these words.
To say that 'too much evolution took place' in such a short period may be a reasonable thing to hypothesise, but you are willing to draw a line at that. Someone who is truly looking for answers would dig deeper and investigate why so much evolution took place. That is the nature of science.

James

Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 12:40 pm
by Mastermind
"And how would you find those maximum and minimum rates for genetic mutations? By historical evidence? But that is too unreliable...."

Exactly. Which is why only scientific data recorded is used(last 200 years I believe, most of which is quite recent, apart from a few plant experiments done by the scientists of old). What do you think, they dug up some bones, made a prediction on their possible mutations that was so accurate it would give Nostradamus an orgasm, and then I decided to simply adopt it? There is no historical evidence for mutation, due to lack of anything but crystalized bones present from the original animals. We don't even know what colour they have.

Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:26 pm
by James
Mastermind wrote:"And how would you find those maximum and minimum rates for genetic mutations? By historical evidence? But that is too unreliable...."

Exactly. Which is why only scientific data recorded is used(last 200 years I believe, most of which is quite recent, apart from a few plant experiments done by the scientists of old).
I am not sure that this 200 year old scientific data will be representative of the state of evolution, say, a million years ago.
Mastermind wrote:What do you think, they [scientists] dug up some bones, made a prediction on their possible mutations that was so accurate it would give Nostradamus an orgasm, and then I decided to simply adopt it? There is no historical evidence for mutation, due to lack of anything but crystalized bones present from the original animals. We don't even know what colour they have.
As you know Mastermind, my stance is that I think it is impossible to calculate a probability of evolution being the cause of human existence. If someone says that the chances of the theory of evolution being correct are unlikely then I am inclined to ask how they are able to draw this conclusion. It is simply not possible to calculate such a probability with any confidence. All you can do is argue with parts of the theory of evolution with respect to evidence.

James

Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 6:22 pm
by Mastermind
"I am not sure that this 200 year old scientific data will be representative of the state of evolution, say, a million years ago."

15 instances of evolution would be more than enough to calculate rough odds. Of course, we assume the rate has been the same because there is no reason not to. All natural processes have a rate of occurance. It could be right, or it could be wrong. However, given that the data comes from a naturalist site, it is not me who you should be questioning. At any rate, the idea of spontaneous generation and a few problems with regard to large scale evolution (reptiles to birds, etc) seem a bit ridiculous to me.

"As you know Mastermind, my stance is that I think it is impossible to calculate a probability of evolution being the cause of human existence. If someone says that the chances of the theory of evolution being correct are unlikely then I am inclined to ask how they are able to draw this conclusion. It is simply not possible to calculate such a probability with any confidence. All you can do is argue with parts of the theory of evolution with respect to evidence."

Like I said, I don't think we can do it accurately, but based on the available evidence, it is downright impossible to have the entire thing happen by itself. That may, in the future, either strengthen or weaken my point.

Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 6:39 pm
by Jac3510
James wrote:Which model do you accept?
What does that have to do with the discussion? My personal position has absolutely nothing to do with this. Nor does Rich's, anyone's on this discussion board's, Hugh Ross', Ken Hamm's, or even your own. The point was that you attacked my statement that the Cambrian explosion fit perfectly into the picture creationism presents. Hey, in fact, the fossil record as a whole agrees with it. Now, the obvious implication is that if modern scientific findings accord with writings on the subject authored some four thousand years ago, then clearly the writer was in possession of knowledge from some external source. He claims divine authority, and, therefore, we have some credible idea to suppose that God exists. That's a standard argument that even you can accept. If the Bible is proven to be inspired, the existence of the Inspirer is obvious.

Now, to avoid this conclusion, you have to argue that the evidence does not match the biblical model. That is true by very definition. However, the evidence DOES match the day-age interpretation. What, then, can you do? You are forced to discount it as a "literary interpretation." That's a straw man, and you should easily be able to see why. You have to argue that you know the "real" interpretation, and that any other is invalid. You, therefore, have to take the Calendar Day approach, which clearly is not backed up by the evidence, label THAT the biblical model, and say all else is a false attempt on the part of the Christian to defend his or her faith.

Of course, the C.D. model is not the only model. It is not the popular model among scholars. Further, we can argue pretty well that it isn't the most theologically sound article. If you study where it came from, you'll find some interesting history there. So, your entire argument is moot . . . it's a straw man. So, my beliefs on the matter . . . well . . . they don't matter. Nor do yours. Here's the question:

Does the evidence presented by modern science agree or disagree with the biblical model?

Answer: it agrees with the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1-2, a position that has been argued and held for thousands of years.

You have to deal with the argument. Not the people arguing the argument.
James wrote:You are right to say this. But it must also be remembered that the motivation for a person to attack a theory is important. Would I be right in saying that if you were not a Christian then you would not attack evolution with such vigour?
The main thrust of my previous post was to establish that there is a bias in the Christian community towards disproving evolution. This is not a coincedence.
Of course our preconceptions have a strong influence on what we believe. I attack what I don't believe. Now, here's the problem: you insist that my disbelief in evolution is based on a preconceived faith, and therefore, my critique of it (or any creationist's critique) ought to be considered in that light. But that is just fallacious logic for several reasons.

First, the motivation behind the argument has absolutely NO bearing on the truth of the argument. A person who is afraid of water may argue that it is dangerous to swim in the ocean for (insert reasons). Now, suppose his fear is irrational. Does that change the fact that it is or is not safe to swim in the ocean? If his reason is that you are more likely to drown by swimming in the ocean than you are to die in an automobile accident, then we can easily dismiss his argument as silly. It fails to consider real probabilities. But, our dismissal is not based on his irrational fear. It is based on our own assessment of the same evidence. Yes, his stat is correct, but it is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from this stat that one should not swim in the ocean. But, suppose he has discovered that this week there is a jelly fish infestation in the place you want to swim, and that it is impossible to swim without being stung. Regardless of his irrational fear, his argument is, in fact, true.

So, when we look to evolutionary theory, and more importantly its critiques, we cannot judge it based on its opponents and/or proponents. Rather, we must look at the evidence itself, regardless of the origin of the argument. To do otherwise is to commit a genetic fallacy.

Secondly, you have to assume that our faith is an a priori faith, and I submit that it is not. Suppose I start advocating a steady-state model of the universe today. No one will accept it, and, assuming I have any kind of clout in the scientific community, I will be strongly rejected. If I am popular enough, someone will right a book or article critiquing my view. Why? Because we know enough about the state of the universe to reject this view as false.

In other words, it doesn't square with what we know already to be true. There is no reason to accept it.

Now, for the Christian, we say something to the effect that 1) Christianity is true, 2) Therefore, the Bible is God's Word, 3) therefore, that which disagrees with the Bible is false.

You can, of course, argue against that line of reasoning all you want (I certainly am not fleshing it out here!). But, keep in mind that, for the Christian, we know certain things to be true. We know that evolution cannot be squared with the biblical account, but we know the biblical account is true, because we know that the Bible is true, because we know it is the Word of God, because we know that the Christian God exists. The last of these we know because He has revealed Himself to us.

Please note that I am not arguing here "scientifically." I'm not trying to convince you that evolution is wrong because the Bible says so. What I AM saying is that you cannot discount the Christian's presumption against evolution because you consider it an a priori notion. If it were, of course, you'd have every right, but it isn't.

Interestingly enough, it is the evolutionist who disregards the Christian account of beginnings on the a priori assumption. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT CHRISTIANITY IS FALSE. Furthermore, as stated in this thread, modern science is backing up the Christian account of origins. All scientific inquiry into the question supports the Christian account. But, the evolutionist strongly attacks Creationism, but based on what? It is based on his own a priori assumption that the Christian God does not exist and that materialism represents truth. It is, therefore, YOUR position that should be held in a sharper critique. In fact, let me just show you how feeble your position is. Watch:

"You are right to say this. But it must also be remembered that the motivation for a person to attack a theory is important. Would I be right in saying that if you were a Christian then you would not attack creationism with such vigour?
The main thrust of my previous post was to establish that there is a bias in the non-Christian community towards proving evolution. This is not a coincidence."

See?
James wrote:It is a big occasion for the Christian community when an atheist or agnostic admits the possibility of God or intelligent design. The piece on this website about Flew for example:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html
Indeed, as you say, why should Flew's religious beliefs be an issue?
Flew's religious beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the truth of the matter. No one, not even Rich Deem, argues that it does. However, his "conversion" is extremely significant because it goes a long way to prove that there IS evidence that points positively toward ID. A basic thrust of atheism is that there is no evidence for God. Flew, a person you cannot argue is biased in favor of God, has conceded that there is. It would be similar to Bush coming out and saying that he was wrong about the war. What position would that leave those of us in who believe the war was right? Certainly, his admission doesn't make it so, but it certainly lends very, very strongly to the case against it!
James wrote:No, I was referring to the use of language in the articles - words like 'short' and 'sudden' when describing time periods of millions of years are quite misleading. It is obvious the author is trying to imply improbability without justification by using these words.
To say that 'too much evolution took place' in such a short period may be a reasonable thing to hypothesise, but you are willing to draw a line at that. Someone who is truly looking for answers would dig deeper and investigate why so much evolution took place. That is the nature of science.
Are they misleading? How so? ALL--repeat--ALL adjectives are subjective. "The house is big," or "He was driving very fast" are good examples. Big compared to what, and fast by what standards? Even apparently objective adjectives are subjective. "The sky is blue." But, what does that mean to the person who is color blind?

Now, the fact is, in evolutionary time periods, three to ten million years is a "short" period of time. But, short to what? It is certainly a long time to, say, make the general size of a population increase by, say, 1% total body mass per individual average. That would be totally believable. But, it is a very, very short to expect the kinds of changes that we have observed to have occurred in the Cambrian explosion. As I said, compare that level of evolution with what "happened" throughout the rest of history. In fact, these "explosions" are so important, and indeed so common, that the entire theory has had to be modified. No longer do we consider gradualism--at least not in its traditional form--as valid, but rather, we have been forced to follow Gould into some form of punctuated equilibrium. This, I should add, we've done without any sort of mechanism.

Now, I'm not saying that we should stop here. Hey, go for it. Try to find ways to explain it. I'll even help you fund it! But, in the mean time, this is exactly what the Bible tells us happened. That God said "let there be" and there was. Finding a confirmation of a theory and celebrating it as such is not the same as rejecting further research, and no one is arguing that it is except those of you who want to straw man the Christian position.

See, James, here's the point:

The Bible says the beginning came about in a certain fashion. When Moses penned the account some four thousand years ago, he did it with his own hand, using his own language, for the edification of his people, under the inspiration of God. He simply did not have the means, nor the purpose, of giving a scientific textbook explanation of beginnings. As a result, we know for 100% sure certain theological truths concerning the beginning. But, the HOW of that is open to interpretation. We, therefore, say, "If this, then that. But, if not this, but rather that, this this instead." When we discover the first premise is false but the second premise true, we look to see if "this" is indeed the case. In biblical studies, we have found it to be, in fact, the case.

What you, as an unbeliever, have to deal with is the simple fact that modern science is in perfect harmony with the Genesis account of creation in the day-age model. There is absolutely NO other religious account of the beginning that can claim this type of accuracy. NONE. Where did Moses get that kind of info? You know yourself that the Bible is far from vague. The creation account has some specific claims, and they are being continually confirmed. If, then, they are true, we are justified in our beliefs.

Are you?

Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:46 pm
by Kurieuo
Just thought people might be interested to download and take a look at a really great slideshow that reveals the parallels between the record of nature and the Genesis creation. I'm sure an honest skeptic would have to acknowledge some consistency.

http://www.swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/P ... e/Gen1.ppt (~23MB)

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:00 pm
by James
Sorry for the delayed reply. I thought this thread had been deleted. But as it turns out, it had been transferred from the "answers for non-christians" to the "creation and design" board.

Jac, I understand, and agree (to an extent) with your criticism of my line of argument. I should not have rejected the validity of the sources you referenced so readily. However, I do believe it is important to take into account an author's standpoint when studying their material (please refer to our earlier exchange concerning Dr. Rana's language in his article on the Cambrian Explosion). Dr. Rana, clearly out to disprove evolution, uses descriptive words which he can not justify. As you say, all adjectives are subjective:
Jac3510 wrote:ALL--repeat--ALL adjectives are subjective. "The house is big," or "He was driving very fast" are good examples. Big compared to what, and fast by what standards? Even apparently objective adjectives are subjective. "The sky is blue." But, what does that mean to the person who is color blind?
Rana uses the word "sudden" by the standards of geological time. As I have said before, geological time is a red herring. An unbiased observer reading Rana's article and go away believing that, in evolution, one million years is a relatively short timescale. This is Rana's agenda, he wants to persuade people that, given his subjective opinion, evolution is impossible. The reader has a right (and an obligation) to know of this agenda so that they can treat the material with the appropriate skepticism. Otherwise the readers make themselves susceptible to what could be effectively propaganda.

As you know, there are effectively three groups of people: Believers, atheists and agnostics. The believers and the atheists have made up their minds concerning the existence of God. Agnostics have made no such conclusion.
As I myself am agnostic I find it difficult to understand how believers and atheists reach their conclusions with such certainty. Where is the conclusive evidence for the existence of God? On the other hand, where is the evidence for God not existing? There are questions over the reliability of the Bible because, as you have said, there are many interpretations:
Jac3510 wrote:Are you thinking that calendar day creationism is the only "valid" interpretation, and that everything else is twisted readings? Are you not aware that the calendar day creation model is not even the oldest model, and that MOST Christians don't accept it?
It is this ambiguity in the text where the argument between atheists and believers falls apart. There is no right or wrong interpretation of the scripture - if there was, then Christianity could be proved or disproved very easily. As it stands, with the varying interpretations of the Bible, the believer will "fit" the text to the scientific model, while the atheist will show that the text does not fit with science. If a text is ambiguous then it can not be used as evidence for or against Christianity, because it argues both sides equally well. The believer says, "Genesis fits the observable history of the earth" whereas the atheist says "Calender day creationism has been disproved.". Where the situation becomes farcical is when "Day-Age Creationists" will not settle on specific periods of time for each of the "days" in their day-age interpretation of genesis. This makes it impossible to confirm whether or not the Bible is correct. Rest assured, the length of the "days" in the day-age interpretation will alter whenever new scientific evidence arises. Are the believers willing to commit to a certain time-scale that the Bible undeniably states?
Jac3510 wrote:You know yourself that the Bible is far from vague.
No, I think the bible is vague. How else could the huge divisions in Christianity over the origin of life be explained? You might deflect this with the argument that this is the fault of Christian fundamentalists. Personally, I think that fundamentalist Christians, who follow every word of the bible to the letter are the only Christians who are being reasonable. They have every right to argue against science because they are themselves taking a definite standpoint. They do not change their interpretation of the scripture as and when it is necessary to accommodate for conflicting evidence.
Jac3510 wrote:The creation account has some specific claims, and they are being continually confirmed.
Could I ask what these specific claims are exactly? In what way are they specific? Do they involve numbers, or are they more general?

To sum up, I suppose my question is this:
Is Christianity prepared to put forward a precise model (including time-scales, dates etc..) for the formation of the Earth and life thereon based PURELY on the creation accounts to be tested against evidence?

If, as you say, the Bible makes such unquestionable "specific claims" then these claims should be tested.

James

PS. Please do not respond with:
"But, the theory of evolution has not put forward any time-scales"
Because this discussion is not about evolution. It is about intelligent design: "The Question of Design"

Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:49 pm
by Jac3510
James wrote:Sorry for the delayed reply. I thought this thread had been deleted. But as it turns out, it had been transferred from the "answers for non-christians" to the "creation and design" board.
Now I'm the one with the delayed response. Ah well . . . my apologies.
James wrote:However, I do believe it is important to take into account an author's standpoint when studying their material (please refer to our earlier exchange concerning Dr. Rana's language in his article on the Cambrian Explosion). Dr. Rana, clearly out to disprove evolution, uses descriptive words which he can not justify. As you say, all adjectives are subjective:
Of course it is important to take their bias into account. We'd never ask you to do otherwise! There is no such thing as a neutral human, but you still have to recognize that bias does not equal fault. By the standards of geological time, the cambrian explosion WAS a "sudden" event. Besides that, Rana's articles are set in a website--indeed in an entire section--dedicated to the promotion of Christianity. The bias should be very clear.

So, you are right that we need to take biases into account, but wrong to say that "he cannot justify" his claims. That simply is not true. I have said a million times in the past, and I expect to say it a million times in the future: deal with the argument, not with the person arguing.
James wrote:This is Rana's agenda, he wants to persuade people that, given his subjective opinion, evolution is impossible. The reader has a right (and an obligation) to know of this agenda so that they can treat the material with the appropriate skepticism. Otherwise the readers make themselves susceptible to what could be effectively propaganda.
I touched on this above . . . Rana is not trying to disprove evolution based on his subjective opinion. He is trying to do it based on objective data. His interpretation of that data may be subjective, but again, subjective does NOT mean false. If the evolutionary model predicts millions upon millions of years for the the formation of more than 80% of all the skeletal types we have today, and if this happens in less than ten million years, what adjective would you prefer him to use? Would it make you feel any better, and would it no longer be "propaganda" if Rana simply said, "In the Cambrian Explosion, hundreds of millions of years of evolution [cite reference] occurred in less than ten million years. This is an example of evolution's falsified predictions."? Certainly, you would agree that it is a problem for the non-Christian. How, then, would you have Rana address it?
James wrote:As I myself am agnostic I find it difficult to understand how believers and atheists reach their conclusions with such certainty. Where is the conclusive evidence for the existence of God? On the other hand, where is the evidence for God not existing?
I don't know how atheists reach their conclusions, but I can tell you that for Christians, for the most part, it is based on experience. Logic and evidence certainly buttress our beliefs, but they don't, usually, lead us to them. The Bible teaches that men cannot be won by logic alone, because Satan has blinded the mind of the unsaved man. It requires the conviction of the Holy Spirit followed by the repentance of the person before revelation and illumination can take place.

I know that sounds all "religious," but I encourage you to look at that statement logically. IF the claims of Christianity are true, then the above is simply a matter of fact. Christians know for certainty that there is a God because we have met Him. That is, we have experienced Him in a very real way. To illustrate this, I'll use an example I've used many times in the past: how could you ever explain the beauty of the sunrise to a blind man? It simply cannot be done. It must be experienced . . . it must be seen. You could, perhaps, help someone understand who has seen the colors red, yellow, purple, orange, and who has looked on the ocean, and who has witnessed, say, a sunset. You could use those to build an image in their mind, albeit imperfectly. But what could you say to the blind? Or, let me ask you: what is it like for the bat to "see" with his ears? If you've read Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker, you know that he has an incredibly advanced sonar system, so much so, that his experience would be very similar to our experience of "sight." What would that be like? We just can't know.

God and faith are sort of the same. We know God exists because we have met Him. It is based on this understanding that we come to the world. It is that faith that interprets our observations, just as it is your lack of faith that interprets those same observations on your part.
James wrote:It is this ambiguity in the text where the argument between atheists and believers falls apart. There is no right or wrong interpretation of the scripture - if there was, then Christianity could be proved or disproved very easily. As it stands, with the varying interpretations of the Bible, the believer will "fit" the text to the scientific model, while the atheist will show that the text does not fit with science. If a text is ambiguous then it can not be used as evidence for or against Christianity, because it argues both sides equally well. The believer says, "Genesis fits the observable history of the earth" whereas the atheist says "Calender day creationism has been disproved.". Where the situation becomes farcical is when "Day-Age Creationists" will not settle on specific periods of time for each of the "days" in their day-age interpretation of genesis. This makes it impossible to confirm whether or not the Bible is correct. Rest assured, the length of the "days" in the day-age interpretation will alter whenever new scientific evidence arises. Are the believers willing to commit to a certain time-scale that the Bible undeniably states?
The believer in the Bible DOES make certain absolute statements, but, on many things, the Bible simply does not comment. How long are the days? We just don't know. The Bible's inerrancy doesn't hang on that. But, there are many flat statements. Here's a simple challenge for you: look at the claims concerning Jesus' resurrection. There are many of them. You disprove the resurrection, you disprove Christianity. It is that simple. I promise you this . . . if you research it honestly, the day will come that you will come to either accept Christ as your Savior or reject Him, but, either way, you won't be able to rationally deny His claims. You will know what you are doing, and you will be well aware of the consequences.

As a side note, in my class on Genesis I'm taking, I have to do a book report. One of the questions surrounds the issue of the author's purpose. Dr. Halsey made this statement (paraphrased, of course): "Tell me what the author's purpose is, and critique him based on that. You can't fault a person for not citing information or positions that do not pertain to his position."

The same applies to the Bible. What was the purpose behind the Genesis account of Creation? Who were the first readers? What was the author trying to tell them? Why? What, then, is the relevant material? I'm sure you will see, if you answer those questions, that many of your claims are simply invalid concerning the apparent discrepancies between modern science and biblical creationism.
James wrote:No, I think the bible is vague. How else could the huge divisions in Christianity over the origin of life be explained? You might deflect this with the argument that this is the fault of Christian fundamentalists. Personally, I think that fundamentalist Christians, who follow every word of the bible to the letter are the only Christians who are being reasonable. They have every right to argue against science because they are themselves taking a definite standpoint. They do not change their interpretation of the scripture as and when it is necessary to accommodate for conflicting evidence.
No offense, but then I must assume that you have never read it. You talk about the divisions of Christianity as if they are impossible to bridge, but is that true? Don't you see that the divisions in our faith are on side issues, and for those that disagree with main issues, they either change the text of the bible (JW's) or get entirely new sacred texts (Mormon's)? Yes, there are many disagreements, but they are matters of interpretation of DOCTRINE, not matters of objective fact.

There is a method of biblical interpretation that needs to be followed. It is called the literal-historical-grammatical hermeneutic. This was the method used by Jesus Christ and His apostles. It was not until after the apostolic age that allegorical and other hermeneutics took center stage, and THAT is when division started. But the LHG almost always leads to basic, consistent theology among various interpreters, and always with itself.

As another aside, I'd encourage you to look into Daniel 11. The Bible simply is NOT vague. It is painfully explicit where it needs to be, that is, where it INTENDS to be (see previous comments on the purpose of the author's writing).
James wrote:Could I ask what these specific claims are exactly? In what way are they specific? Do they involve numbers, or are they more general?

To sum up, I suppose my question is this:
Is Christianity prepared to put forward a precise model (including time-scales, dates etc..) for the formation of the Earth and life thereon based PURELY on the creation accounts to be tested against evidence?

If, as you say, the Bible makes such unquestionable "specific claims" then these claims should be tested.
I'd just direct you back to our main page (http://www.godandscience.org) and to http://www.reasons.org. Both sites are dedicated to answering those questions.

Secondly, Christianity is not prepared to put forward a SINGLE model of the type you request. But, neither can science. We put forward several possible models based on the Scriptural evidence. Some things the Bible flat refutes (a universe existing infinitely into the past), and other things is is vague on (the age of the universe), while other things it flat affirms (the beginning of the universe). There are many claims in Scripture that fall under various categories. I cannot give you a complete list here . . . it would be pages and pages long. If you really want to know, seriously, sift through our pages and through the pages at Ross' site. You'll find ample material there.

When you do, you'll find that these claims can, and have been, tested, and are found to be in complete harmony with modern scientific observation.

If, James, you'd like to discuss some technical details, feel free to email me. I can do a bit of research and put together a list for you, but, again, I'd ask you to look a little yourself, first. We all are busy ;)

God bless

Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:09 pm
by Prodigal Son
Jac3510,

awesome!