Taking back the language

[archaeologist]

I think you are missing the point here. Evolutionists don't want kids at public schools to even remotely consider the possibility of God

usually i respond to such statements with : ' if i had a dime for...' but now i will change it to: do you think i was born yesterday and have never heard a news report or talked to a secularist?

are you saying that the work of Billy Graham and others like him are in vain and need the assistance of i.d.'s presence in the classroom to get people to think of God?

do you believe that evolution and evolutionists are so powerful that they control all exterior sources for input into a child's brain? the truth does not have to force its way in anywhere, if it does then it will breed animosity and other negative reactions.

God has a better way and it is high time i.d. advocates started to listen to Him. we do not need the courtroom to get access to the classroom. we do not need to force feed the truth.

[godslanguage]

I see your point, but I think you must consider many differant options here.
The problem is however, that its not Darwinists that are the authority, its science that has become the authority which evolutionists proclaim to be part of. People have become acustomed to "trust" scientific authority, so initially, like I stated before, it leads up to the "where is your scientific proof?" scenario. How can you go beyond this if not straight to the source, which is the category of science?

do you believe that evolution and evolutionists are so powerful that they control all exterior sources for input into a child's brain? the truth does not have to force its way in anywhere, if it does then it will breed animosity and other negative reactions.

Christianity is about seeking the truth, by whatever means, and by having faith in our saviour the Lord Jesus Christ. You must agree that evolution has created a major impact and acts as the primary source (and the only source) in the public school system in which kids are taught they were formed through an unguided, unintelligent, undirected process of evolution from goo to you.

[archaeologist]

but I think you must consider many differant options here.

it is not me that needs to consider the options. why? becuase God is different than man and we must follow His leading to win any battle.

does that mean going to court and wasting a lot of time and money--no.

does it mean we change the biblical account to make it more attractive to secularists? no. r.c.c.ers did that throughout history but it didn't attract any more converts to the faith. the believer does not compromise to win the day.

People have become acustomed to "trust" scientific authority, so initially, like I stated before, it leads up to the "where is your scientific proof?

i do not care if secularists demand scientific proof. they are not going to get it nor will they find what they are looking for, they will get what is available through God's requirements and rules.

God makes the rules not man and as soon as christians realize this then maybe we can see an outpouring of the spirit and souls won. K.A.Kitchen does a great job in his book, The Bible in its World, of outlining the amount of evidence we will get from an archaeological site, the scientific world is no different, as the book Origins:14 bilion years of evolution proves.

when you do things man's ways, then you are going to go around in circles and end up hurting the cause of christ and not helping it.

How can you go beyond this if not straight to the source, which is the category of science?

science doesn't go to the source, it omits it and ignores it.

Christianity is about seeking the truth

Christianity is about following Jesus who is the truth. "I am the Way, the Truth and the Light...'

You must agree that evolution has created a major impact and acts as the primary source (and the only source) in the public school system in which kids are taught they were formed through an unguided, unintelligent, undirected process of evolution from goo to you.

the public school system is not a christian system, what do you expect them to teach? the Bible tells us that parents are to train their children, should we abdicate that responsibility and hand it over to the secular world?

not being able to go to a secular university is not the end of the world, one has to decide what they want--God or evil? sometimes we need to be outside the system to shed light.

[Forum Monk]

By the way, Forum Monk, I am not aware of your definition for ID, or how you understand it, can you please re-iterate on that if you havent already, thanks!

I'm not sure what you mean by MY definition of ID but in a nutshell, ID is the belief that the observed complexity of life and its processes (especially on the cellular level) warrants the belief it could only have been designed by an external intelligence. ID does NOT specify the designer.

Now let me fill in some of the details so you can judge if I know what I'm speaking about (I said I have studied the subject)

Original groundwork for the theory as framed today was begun in the 1980s under the auspices of a Texas organization known as FTE (Foundation for Thought and Ethics) http://www.fteonline.com/ As seen by their website, they are still active and apparently still reeling over the Dover trial. The major tenets of modern ID theory are primarily (obviously many contributed) of work by Michael Behe and William Dembski. The ID 'movement' (the philosophical/political arm) is managed by the Discovery Institue http://www.discovery.org/about.php.

Some of the major tenets include:

1. Tuned Constants - assertion if any of the 15 or so present cosmological constants was different by even the smallest fraction of a percentage, then life and the universe as we know it could not possible. The fine tuning of these constants implies intelligent design.

2. Irreducible Complexity - assertion some life systems are composed of interacting systems which cooperate and exhibit irreducible complexity. In other words, take one part away and the system fails. Behe uses the mousetrap analogy to explain it and since it is postulated that these systems could not develop independently an intelligent design is implied.

3. Specified Complexity - asserts that a thing may be complex or specified but specified complexity implies intelligent design. The alphabet soup analogy is used to explain how a single letter is specific, the alphabet is complex, but using specific letters from the alphabet to make words with meaning is specified complexity.

Other lesser known arguments also support the specific on intelligent design including the Second Law of Thermodynamics and various tenets of Information Theory which may be more complex than needed to describe in this post.

This is only a brief summary but I trust it matches your understanding of ID.

[Forum Monk]

Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA

This statement contradicts the local flood theory. If the flood was only local, there would be many surviving men and women.

[bizzt]

Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA

This statement contradicts the local flood theory. If the flood was only local, there would be many surviving men and women.

Not necessarily especially if Men and Women were located with in the mesopotamia Area

[Gman]

I'm not sure what you mean by MY definition of ID but in a nutshell, ID is the belief that the observed complexity of life and its processes (especially on the cellular level) warrants the belief it could only have been designed by an external intelligence. ID does NOT specify the designer.

Well we appreciate you zeal to specify the designer, but how does using your word "God" alone specify a designer? A friend of mine is often called "a God" of cars since he knows them well.. In fact NO one knows how God's true name should be pronounced in the Old Testament as "YHWH" unless you are a Jehovah's witness...

Are you aware of all the different names that are attributed to God in the OT? He is also called Elohim or creator God or designer... According to your exact description of God, what name do you propose we use to specify God?

The sames goes for Jesus..

Quote Rich: "Many people do not know that "Jesus" is not the "real" name of the Savior. His real (Hebrew) name is "Yeshua," which is usually translated into the English as "Joshua." The Greek transliteration is "iaysous." In fact, in three verses of the New Testament (Luke 3:29, Acts 7:45, and Hebrews 4:8 ), iaysous is translated into the English as "Joshua," since the text refers to the Old Testament saint. In addition, the word "Christ" is not Jesus' last name, but His title. The Greek word "christos" (translated "Christ" in the English) means "Messiah," the "anointed one." This is why the New Testament letters often refer to Jesus as "Christ Jesus," which means "Messiah Jesus." Other languages have different pronunciations of the name of Jesus. However, God is able to understand whom we are talking about and save us no matter what we call the name of the Savior. In addition, Job, from the Old Testament, was saved even though he did not know the name of the Savior. Therefore, although it is true that Jesus is the only way to get into heaven, you don't necessarily have to know His name to get there."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/neverheard.php

On top of this the pharisees also used the name "God" too.. The only problem is what they attributed God... They were way off according to Jesus.. Matt 23:13-29. So it's not really the name that matters, it's what you attribute to God that matters..

[Forum Monk]

Not necessarily especially if Men and Women were located with in the mesopotamia Area

I don't follow your reasoning what so ever, unless you are trying to suggest the entire population of the world lived in mesopotatmia and mesopotamia was the only area flooded. Well yes, there were men and women living in mesopotamia. And they were living in Egypt and India, and southeast asia, and the British Isles and South America and North America and central Europe and Northeast Asia just to name a few with known artifacts dating well before the calculated flood date of Genesis and prior to the Ryan Pittman Black Sea flood and I do not have to exceed the 10,000 time frame of creation to support this. This would be the known extent of the preflood world based on archaeological data.

Now if you are an old earth believer, there is evidence of life scattered throughout all of these area more than 40,000 years before present. So what exactly do you mean?

[Gman]

This statement contradicts the local flood theory. If the flood was only local, there would be many surviving men and women.

No.... According to the Bible, the people lived in one geographic location before the flood. It wasn't until later that God scattered the people over the face of the earth with their different languages.. Genesis 11:1-9.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

This statement contradicts the local flood theory. If the flood was only local, there would be many surviving men and women.

No.... According to the Bible, the people lived in one geographic location before the flood. It wasn't until later that God scattered the people over the face of the earth with their different languages.. Genesis 11:1-9.

I believe Gman is correct, thus there is no contradiction.
Now if, and when exactly this local flood occurred is up for debate.
However I believe the topic of this thread is on definitions and usages of words.
It was an interesting topic I hope to see it continue.

Edited because I felt clarification was necessary. See Forum Monk's reply below.

[zoegirl]

Hey Question GMan

How can ID be testable?? Or how can God be Testable??

I have never disagreed with the purpose of ID or the investigative power of ID. Just want to see some testable hypothesis.

Some of it has already been posted on the web site.. Again here is one example from Rich..

A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA

VEry interesting...I like this...and the more I think on this, the more I realize that even the ideas that the evolutionists come up with these data about the origin are just as tough to empirically study. . Thanks Gman, I will think more on this.

More is here...

Source: //www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.php

Also more of this is covered in the book "Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars" by Hugh Ross...



Source: //www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creat ... cience.php

I have been wanting to get this book, thanks for reminding me.

These are intriguing, and I am more convinced...but caution should still always be our guide, because I worry when we classify God's intent.

What if God's design does not align with our understanding?

What about the fall? What do you think?

Regards
zoe

[Forum Monk]

Saying "Gman is correct, thus there is no contradiction", is that something we should all agree with? Is that the final word?

I will make a response to show exactly why I believe the statement is a contradiction, but I will post in the Global Flood vs Local Flood thread. That way this thread may continue on target as you wish, BGFGS.

But the purpose of this board as stated in the guidelines is thus:

Christian apologetic website which predominantly serves the purpose of showing the harmony between Science and the Bible.

This goal is keeping with my personal objectives within the pale of orothodox christian beliefs. In my opinion and this is strictly my humble opinion, it is not correct to reject valid scientific research because it does not fit a preconceived idea nor is it correct to reject or alter the word of God to conform with a scientific notion. Neither of these exhibits harmony, but rather capitulation. Continued later on the aforementioned thread...

[archaeologist]

Saying "Gman is correct, thus there is no contradiction", is that something we should all agree with? Is that the final word

i don't know...let's see what the ible says---

G-man says:

No.... According to the Bible, the people lived in one geographic location before the flood. It wasn't until later that God scattered the people over the face of the earth with their different languages

bgfgs says:

I believe Gman is correct, thus there is no contradiction

GENESIS sasy:

God blessed them and said to them, be fruitful and increase in number: fill the earth adn subdue it..."

God did not keep them in one local geographical area...oh and where is that verse found?....Genesis 1:28

Not necessarily especially if Men and Women were located with in the mesopotamia Area

what this means is anyone's guess. i asked gman to expalin why, the people being excluded from the ark did not move to another location? inhis and deem's argument, this point is not addressed and i would like a credible explanation?

do not say 'God kept them there" because you have already intimated that God could not move noah and the animals but needed noah to build an ark thus he would have little power to keep people from moving to safe ground.

plus i am trying to figure out, that if the water did not get to the top of the mountains, as was mentioned in soeone's post earlier, how come people and the remaining animals did not climb and be safe?

a local flood theory has toomany problems not solved by the biblical account.

Monk is right, with a local flood there would be survivors, which would contadict the Biblical account and man would have many ancestors not just noah and his family.

[bizzt]

Hey Question GMan

How can ID be testable?? Or how can God be Testable??

I have never disagreed with the purpose of ID or the investigative power of ID. Just want to see some testable hypothesis.

Some of it has already been posted on the web site.. Again here is one example from Rich..

A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA

More is here...

Source: //www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.php

Also more of this is covered in the book "Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars" by Hugh Ross...



Source: //www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creat ... cience.php

GMan!! I hope you did not mind me trying to get you on that It was meant to bring that article out in the open. Nonetheless it captivates your senses

[archaeologist]

i would like to pause here and address something that has been bothering me:

many people quote Mr. Deem and many have stated that they follow his line of thinking, principles, etc. and we know this becuase people quote his religious articles as if they were actually credible and others have made point blank statements.

i did a little investigation of the person and found some interesting facts:

Richard Deem earned his bachelor of science degree in biological sciences at the University of Southern California. He received his master of science degree in microbiology from California State University, Los Angeles, and has been working in basic science research since 1976.

No where do i find any theological training, no exegetical training, no attendance of a Bible college or seminary yet he thinks he knows more than those who have such traing and have spent years of their life in their theological fields.

now i am not saying he is not a christian, or a good scientist i am saying that he does not know the theological world or how to investigate theological problems because he has had no training whatsoever.

in deconstructing his article, i found that he made statements he could not prove or provide support for and that is just wrong. also his only resource was stong's concordance which is not looked upon as a work that stands by itself in theological circles and is not enough to prove one's case.

his article did show an interpretation to fit his theory, which is not what the Bible is used for, he also failed to address several holes found in his thinking. he did not explore his topic or he would have seen that he had no answer if anyone questioned his position.

so, my question is this: why do many of the people here hold this man up as an expert or someone of importance when he obviously doesn't have the credentials or the expertise to be elevated to such a position?

the man may know his scientific field but he proves what i have been saying that science and scientists do not belong in theological discussions in a authoritative role. science doesn't have the last word and they are not equipped to deal with theological matters which transcend scientific studies.