Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth Creation


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#31 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:25 AM

Kay, please stop being patronising and instead, think about how credible the sites you quote are when they're similarly sounding off against 'anti-Republican science'. . We can do without right wing, American Bible-thumping evangelicals telling us what to believe.

More importantly, and to Mark's point, who invented 'natural' processes? Evolutionary biology is as much a reflection of God's glory as anything else.


You are a guest here David - and the topic is about YEC, and comparison of OEC - not on the topic of evolution, or politics, or American Evangelicals. Evolution, though discussed in a minor way at the beginning, and probably will see more discussion at a later stage.

We have been through all this before - and surely we can have discussion about it in peace without the usual, several brethren proselyting evolution to all and sundry (that they have found a "better way") - that fact, and about evolution, is God is removed by science, man "makes up" how all came into being - therefore, God's Word is disregarded and then the need for man re-invent God's account, that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says - and it is arrogance by mankind in the extreme.

The examples used, and they are "all over the place" - was that of the "padding" - that they don't have a clue, but "evolution is true" apparently (and the site, does it matter? - the site also referenced where the information was originally presented).

That said, back to the discussion, which was a discussion until you entered again (to move the discussion from what it was about) - which wasn't unexpected (because of the monitoring of sites) but all becomes rather destructive rather than instructive and discussion and done in a Christ-like manner - also, the above statement and quoted statement of yours, David - aren't you one who preaches that we should be tolerant, or is it dependent?

So, back to the topic of YEC and OEC - please respect this, David.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#32 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 26 August 2012 - 06:41 AM

I don't think a discussion of evolution would be off topic, but I would like evidence about evolution and not claims about evidence supposed to exist somewhere.

I was not persuaded by trinitarians who claimed the issue has been dealt with in Nicea. Christadelphians make up less than one percent of "sola scriptura" religions. Does this mean the arguments they have are invalid and they are adding to the Bible? Are we as unitarians somehow misinterpreting the Bible as trinitarians would have us believe? An overwhelming number of Christians are trinitarians. An overwhelming number of scientists (but not all) are evolutionists. Read some quotes I'm about to go on Google and find about what trinitarians say about the divinity of Jesus.
*fairly clear
*quite obvious
*Jesus is God
*based on Jesus' own words
*always been a strong belief of true christianity
*obvious throughout Scripture
*the obvious plurality of the Godhead is strongly implied
*By simply allowing God's Word to speak for itself one will notice how Christ's deity is clearly defended
*Paul clearly identifies Christ as God.
*The full deity of Jesus Christ is taught unequivocally and plainly
*The New Testament clearly affirms the deity of Christ

Those quotes were just to show how deluded some people can unfortunately become. We know how silly the idea that Jesus is God is and can easily dismantle every argument for this theology without adding to the Bible.

What if an equally enormous ratio of people were wrong about their field of study - such as scientists? "Christianity" often means reformed Christianity even though it's not. Science sometimes means evolution even though it's not.

It's very easy for people who all have the same wrong presuppositions (Jesus had to be God or genetics can't make sense without evolution) to come to the wrong conclusion (and disagree with how they got there.)

Evidence against trinitariansim and evolutionism are not thought to their adherents and their adherents don't usually know the arguments against it (which unitarians usually do know both sides). This might explain why they are all wrong.

I wasn't a "Bible student" when I started asking the question of weather or not Jesus is God. I became one and educated myself in arguments for and against. As difficult as it is to find evidence online for evolution I have tried. I believe that IF evolution is true, then I would believe it. So what is the reason YOU believe in evolution. Avoid appeal to authority because the only authority I recognize are empirical facts and the Bible.

#33 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:01 PM

Kay, it is hard to decide whether to be irritated by your habit of addressing people of a different opinion to yourself as though you were speaking to a child with severe learning difficulties, offended by your misrepresentation of what others say (you know perfectly well that I do not believe God is removed by (evolutionary) science, that man "makes up" how all came into being, or that God's Word is disregarded , and so on), or amused by your continual efforts to stifle discussion. However: the original point was about YEC and why it's not common among C'dns. I have explained that. It is also pertinent however to go on to point out that some of the features that deprive YEC of credibility, also apply to OEC: and that while OEC was perhaps tenable at the time our particular denomination within the Christian family was founded (hence its adoption by John Thomas and others), it is no longer so in view of the further evidence that is now available, especially in our understanding of the genome.All this is more than adequately explained in various books, such as Collins' The Language of God, or Alexander's Evolution or Creation -do we have to choose?, and others referenced on my own website, or sites such as Biologos and the Faraday Institute. The facts are set out there in much greater detail than would be appropriate in a forum such as this.

(Oh, and to the trinity point - the trinity isn't a very good metaphor I suspect and certainly not a Scriptural one, but do remember that since God, and presumably Jesus when 'with' God, are outside our space and time, and so thinking of individuals a bit like us might not be anything more than a feeble approximation)

#34 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:25 PM

David, you know exactly what is meant - that science removes God which also brings into question why you should be believed - as you misrepresented what was said.

The evidence, what is it really David?

Man's opinion, and again, science removes God though because you seemed to have missed what was said before I will repeat it again for you:

Again, we have been through this with you before - over and over and over again - and not dismissing that you believe in God


However, evolutionary science does remove God, it gives "evolution" the "intelligence" and they marvel at how "bright" and "knowledgeable" evolution is ... and you can't deny that, because it is throughout "peer reviewed" Journals, the praise is given to evolution and not to God, the creator, the intelligence behind all we see about us.

BTW, I also think Jesse mentioned the issue of appealing to "authority" which you do continually, and have done again.

To spell it out - because Theistic Evolutionists believe in something (example, those at BioLogos etcetera) apparently the logic is that we should too and whether they are right or mistaken (and doctrinal issues again come to the forefront) - and who are we to argue against so called "scholarship" (which is rather reminiscent of the middle ages when the Church dictated to the people, that they weren't allowed to think for themselves it seems).

The trinity argument goes along the same lines (logic and illogical reasoning).

Those who claim evolution is true is because of the claimed thought that apparently if God was the creator of all we see around us then we would not see the supposed "flaws" (or evil - which was also Victorian thought and prior to this).

So the logical or illogical conclusion must be that all we see about us was by the process of evolution (common descent) and Jesus' family tree if this is believed would also include ape-like creatures.

The rationale is if there is a God, then why would he do this (that that created had "flaws" or became "flawed") - it is what one calls second guessing God by man. The "authority" of the church says that the trinity is true, "scholars", hence - there is no difference in the appeal made, that if "scholarship" says it is true, then why should it be questioned.

Just on a further note, David - once again, please stop the attacks and the attempt to belittle etcetera because you are already treading a thin line regarding Guidelines in this section of the Board ... and for your information (and one of your posts has already been reported):

Discussion in The Bible and Science Category is to be based on reason.

If debate is undertaken, brethren and friends are to be treated with the utmost respect. “Name calling” and or “attacking” a member individually will not be accepted. If this type of conduct is evident offending posts will either be edited or removed.

If a comment is made any response to a post must be “on-topic” and without the onslaught of other irrelevant information (spam) including multiple posts. Offending posts will be either edited or removed.

The subject areas are important especially from a doctrinal point of view.

The Forum is also available for guest view.

“Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.” Colossians 4:6


If you can't discuss the issue without attacks on brothers and sisters in Christ, your brothers and sisters and others and accusing them of falsehoods etcetera it is perhaps time your bowed out from discussions here (and also the fact that a very specific question was asked in the first instance - about Young Earth Creation) - if you can discuss the topic without the usual "baggage" then you are welcome to contribute.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#35 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 07:44 PM

David, why don't you concentrate on something else for a while? This subject seems to be all you ever talk about and it only seems to make you angry. That can't be good for you. Close your science textbooks for a while and read your Bible.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb 12:22-23)

#36 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 08:53 PM

David, the reason I brought up the trinity is to show that in a field of study (bible or biology) 99% of people can be wrong. And simply appealing to scholarship or majority does not work. I personally believe both evolution and the trinity are both helplessly stupid and impossible. In order for me to accept evolution I would have to have FAITH. I'm not worried that evolution and the Bible are at war and people reject the Bible because of this. If they reject the Bible for this, then it's God's fault for saying "and there was evening and morning, one day." Why do you believe evolution happened?

Kay, evolution is not science. I'm all for science. I love it, but it doesn't include evolution.

#37 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 08:28 AM

Discussion in The Bible and Science Category is to be based on reason.

If debate is undertaken, brethren and friends are to be treated with the utmost respect. “Name calling” and or “attacking” a member individually will not be accepted. If this type of conduct is evident offending posts will either be edited or removed.

If a comment is made any response to a post must be “on-topic” and without the onslaught of other irrelevant information (spam) including multiple posts. Offending posts will be either edited or removed.

The subject areas are important especially from a doctrinal point of view.

The Forum is also available for guest view.

“Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.” Colossians 4:6


Moderator Edit

#38 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 09:44 AM

David, I'm not too concerned with whether or not the Bible and evolution can fit without any problems. I'm concerned with evolution itself. I dispise this belief system. As a theistic evolutionist you mock the character of God by saying he used this horrible ugly process of death to produce mankind. To be honest (if I had a choice in my salvation) I wouldn't believe the Bible if evolution was true in my eyes.

If the Eiffel Tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; and anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. -Mark Twain


In the above video Richard Dawkins explains that there is a deep incompatibility between the Bible and evolution and theistic evolutionists are deluded.

Please, please, please tell me why you believe in evolution. I've got a thousand questions for you and am extremely anxious to learn why an evolutionist such as yourself would believe in it. You have to believe IN it. There must be great evidence that has convinced you. If you share this evidence with me, than perhaps you could win another person (with a rather uncommon appetite for seeking out facts and truth) to the light. If you say "x, y, z is why I believe in evolution" and I can't explain x y or z within a creationist context, then I will ask you questions and if you (or any other evolutionist) can't explain it, then aren't we both acting on faith? I want to see why you believe in evolution, please please please tell me! Give at least one evidence that shows why you believe it. I am literally begging you.

#39 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 07:23 PM

Unacceptable content - removed by moderator.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 28 August 2012 - 07:56 PM.


#40 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 07:44 PM

Correction, David: one of your posts was moderated because the way you have been speaking to people is absolutely atrocious, not because the moderators disagreed with your views. Please remember you're speaking to your brothers and sisters whom Christ died for, as well as an interested visitor in Jesse2W.

If you could show a little humility and moderate the way you speak to people, we won't have to do it for you.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb 12:22-23)

#41 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 07:49 PM

David, I have removed the content of your last post, which was unacceptable. if you continue in that way, still engaging in personal criticism instead of simply presenting the evidence requested (Jesse2W asked why you believe in evolution, not why other people who've written books do) then as nsr says, you will continue to be moderated.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 28 August 2012 - 07:58 PM.


#42 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 29 August 2012 - 03:03 AM

Kay, evolution is not science. I'm all for science. I love it, but it doesn't include evolution.


I agree, Jesse2W, it is not science, it is rather a philosophy.

I also love science, but true too, that doesn't include evolution that all came about by process of "common descent" - though of course, it did come by way of "limited common descent" - birds have always been birds, man has always been man, fish have always been fish and so forth.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#43 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 29 August 2012 - 07:30 AM


Kay, evolution is not science. I'm all for science. I love it, but it doesn't include evolution.


I agree, Jesse2W, it is not science, it is rather a philosophy.

I also love science, but true too, that doesn't include evolution that all came about by process of "common descent" - though of course, it did come by way of "limited common descent" - birds have always been birds, man has always been man, fish have always been fish and so forth.



Yes, it's like many ancestral tress for each genesis "kind." We see loss of information producing genetic change, but the genetic load created by mutations has not been shown to produce functional information. I have never even read a hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory that could explain exactly how mutations acted upon by some unknown natural process can produce genetic information. It's like saying I believe in special creation, but I don't know how it happened. At least creationists know that it is possible with God. Evolutionists as far as I've researched don't even know if there is a natural process that can organize randomness to produce complex life. They have faith in naturalism that there is one.
  • Kay likes this

#44 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 30 August 2012 - 01:43 PM

I find the censorship on this forum quite unacceptable, and request the moderators to send me a private message stating exactly to what phrases they take exception and why. I note that emotive language and misrepresentations from the biblical literalist side are entirely welcome, suggesting double standards apply.

To Mark's point, I accept evolution because the morphological, the palaeontological, and (for me) especially and overwhelmingly the genetic, evidence supports evolutionary theory. Like King David, like Job, like Paul, I respect the evidence of the natural world, believe it to be reliable, and find in it evidence of God. I have provided references to several sources which review that evidence at great length. Those in turn provide further evidence and links to the extensive primary literature. I have also addressed the initial question. Perhaps the YEC proponents would care to explain why they are unwilling to engage in open debate? Or to set out why they feel the careful early Christadelphian writers and thinkers were wrong in rejecting YEC and in taking the science of their day respectfully and seriously.

Meanwhile, should any readers of the forum share my disappointment that only one side of the discussion can be fairly aired, do contact me privately or use the Berea forum.

#45 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 30 August 2012 - 03:37 PM

David, I had hoped for some humility or contrition for the completely unacceptable way you have been conducting yourself. Your response is disappointing. I don't care how "right" you think your position is or how intelligent you think you are. I don't even care what your views on the subject are. The way you are speaking to your brothers and sisters in Christ is unacceptable. You should not need to have the reasons why spelled out to you. It should be perfectly obvious that insulting, demeaning and belittling people who disagree with you, and making accusations and judgements of other people's motives, is not acceptable for a brother in Christ.

I strongly advise you once more to drop this subject for the time being and concentrate on something that is more profitable spiritually, which will enable you to build up and strengthen your brothers and sisters in their walk to the Kingdom.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb 12:22-23)

#46 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:07 PM

I find your language rather offensive, and repeat my request that you send me a private message, in which I'd be obliged if you would kindly identify yourself. Nothing I have posted is insulting, demeaning or belittling, though I make no apology for robust rebuttal of a theory, ie YEC, which I believe to be quite untenable. Equally , your reference to humility or contrition is objectionable in the extreme. Patronising language of such a kind is a technique of those who wish avoid rather than engage in mature discussion.

I await your PM
  • Servetus likes this

#47 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:12 PM

Dave, I received a pm from another evolutionist, and am not convinced by his arguments. To all evolutionists who may be reading this. Why would I be sent a pm with evidence rather than on a discussion forum? Do you expect me to believe that the moderators are deleting logical arguments? The moderators are moderating your ad hominen attacks.

You're not engaging in discussion David. By going on the theistic evolution forum I'm admitting that these moderators are moderating out logical arguments to keep me ignorant. They are not going to moderate arguments from science for evolution if you refrain form acting harshly. I see the patients with which they moderate and deal with trinitarians who come here. I have no reason to believe they are moderating out content because it's too convincing.

If I go to a theistic evolution forum, then then the assumption of naturalism will be heavily relied upon. If I believed in naturalism, then I wouldn't believe the Bible. Once you accept the Bible is true and naturalism is untenable, then you can see how God created man out of the dust of the ground. You're looking at wine Jesus made and saying it had a natural origin when it didn't. Naturalism is a safe assumption unless it contradicts the Bible because God is the reason naturalism is usually a safe assumption and he can change a natural uniformitarian process through miracles and divine judgements.

Do you believe Moses was a real person who wrote the Torah? Secular historical "science" doesn't. I have faith that God made the universe in 6 days and unless evolution can be proven without a naturalist and uniformitarian assumption, then.I will not believe it. I think naturalism and uniformitarianism are flawed philosophical ideologies.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Hebrews 11:3


Edited by Jesse2W, 30 August 2012 - 10:14 PM.


#48 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 31 August 2012 - 04:09 AM

Jesse2W

Your assessment of the situation above is fairly spot on regarding a pro evolution forum, because it is not to discuss it is to say you are wrong and all those down the centuries fall into the same category.

I would assume Servetus, Ken Gilmore, was the one who contacted you as I saw him on the forums yesterday (and then several others who haven't been around for a while) - so I assume there is commentary elsewhere regarding discussions here, such behaviour not unexpected because of the pattern (though only the few involved).

My apologies for what has happened to you by the few over the past several days - trust it doesn't affect your interest in our faith and continued discussions with us.

"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#49 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 31 August 2012 - 05:35 AM

Good points, Jesse.

Going beyond water into wine, its OT precursor, the miracle of water into blood in Egypt, is an even starker challenge to naturalism. Blood is a tremendously complex substance - far, far more complex than wine - and by any normal human reasoning its existence is a direct indication of the presence of (currently or formerly) living things. Yet God's power, through the hand of Moses, turned water into blood throughout Egypt, including the vast volume of the Nile itself.

How many animals died to yield that enormous quantity of blood? Even if you assume they were large animals (so fewer were needed), by any naturalistic explanation the number must be in the billions, if not trillions. Yet according to scripture, the answer is zero: the blood that appeared was formerly water, and had never coursed through the veins of any living thing. Such is the power of God, our creator: he does things far beyond our ken, defying all naturalistic explanations, without the slightest difficulty.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 31 August 2012 - 06:00 AM.


#50 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 31 August 2012 - 06:27 AM

I find the censorship on this forum quite unacceptable, and request the moderators to send me a private message stating exactly to what phrases they take exception and why. I note that emotive language and misrepresentations from the biblical literalist side are entirely welcome, suggesting double standards apply.


David, the only thing that has been censored is the belittling which you don't seem to be able to grasp that you do it and do it all the time - the personal attacks on brethren and even that of Jesse2W.

The one on Jesse2W, I will repeat that for you:

would also regard the statemen from Jess2W, whoever he is, that


So, the "double standards" - you mean you wish to "save" people from leaving, yet, in what you say, encourage others away from the faith?

Did you bother to find out who Jesse2W is or do you consider him of no consequence - because that is what you implied?

Jesse2W is interested in our faith and having come to the conclusion that the trinity isn't Biblical etcetera and it would seem changing stance is never an easy road.

The behaviour by several and even the messaging - did any of you stop to think or do you ever think that it may or could have had adverse affects on his (or anyone else's) faith or interest in the things of God - does it matter to you, or only the interest to "beat the drum" for evolution?

Several of you are proselyting - the push to "evolutionise" the brotherhood because of the claim some leave because they believe "evolution is true" though the larger majority of brethren reject this - and also the claim or implied, leaving in droves. There may be also some inaccuracies placed forward from Lectures, but science moves on, and in lectures in science when I was at university, yes, there have been inaccuracies there too – one is not above the other.

Then - BEREA – yet another open thread more or less implying foolishness which, the commencement of the thread about this thread suggests once again the immature behaviour - then the calculating commentary which goes hand in hand (on that note, I hadn't been there for a while - I find it rather tiresome - but thought I would check because of the regularity of undignified comments about the brotherhood - everyone else is wrong, bar the "handful" of brethren – and that is what I find tiresome – none of us have all-inclusive say that we “are right in all things”).

Again, have you ever bothered to consider the many adverse affects on someone who is seeking the Truth of God, or who is a member of our community already?

I will quote this again, and from other discussions - which is fact:

"The words of Paul come to mind 1 Cor 1:19 - “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."

I find the whole [discussion on evolution] faith destroying stuff and am very sad for all the “clever” brethren who, some at least, display an arrogance unbecoming of those to be servants of Christ."

And such, has this been displayed here once more?

I will say this again - no-one wants to stifle any discussion on the issues - I always enjoy discussing science but what I don't enjoy, nor others (and one would have thought several would have realised by now) - that attacks on brethren and other members of the forum, those interested in finding truth the behaviour displayed by those promoting evolution is simply not on.

Yet, if you are pulled up for it then you behave again in a less that christ-like way.

I personally have stated before that this is one of the very reasons why if this is what it comes out of such belief, then the aspects of indoctrination and calling peoples intelligence into question (other than ones own) and has been done on many occasions, then there is something radically wrong with the theory, the philosophy - the same as stifling the discussions in class-rooms, which is also occurring and even moves to legislate, that problems within and about the theory are suppressed from the public eye.

Where were you, David, when the discussions about trinity were being had ... was Ken Gilmore or the others who are now viewing the board ?

Nor some of the other issues, yet, this subject is raised and the way several of you have behaved again is in a very unchrist-like manner and how destructive it may have been or is to others.

Do you ever consider that - or you are on a mission and don't care who is destroyed along the way.

If you wish to believe in evolution, then believe it, but also have the common courtesy to allow other opinion - and the belief of God and Creation - His Creation is still very much alive and well, and there are still many in the sciences who believe in OEC and YEC and various other opinion too.

Again, if there is discussion, then this is fine but it doesn't seem to work this way with several.

If you can't engage in discussion without the usual (which you are well aware of - as well as Servetus and others) then please refrain from doing so.

Again, my apologies to Jesse2W, however, some clarification about the supposed “censorship” was needed.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#51 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 31 August 2012 - 08:08 AM

"Again, have you ever bothered to consider the many adverse affects on someone who is seeking the Truth of God, or who is a member of our community already?"

Yes I have, and a principal reason I'm resisting your attempts to prevent robust discussion is that the 'adverse effect' of the anti-science attitude among some C'dns such as yourself - but fortunately not all - is to deter from faith altogether those informed and educated people, especially the young, who on exposure to modern science are led to the false conclusion that they must choose faith OR science. That's a conclusion Richard Dawkins or Ken Ham might like them to draw, but I take a diametrically opposite view

I await your PMs - not to debate evidence, but for the moderators to state exactly what phrases in my earlier posts they object to and why.

#52 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 31 August 2012 - 08:08 AM

I'm completely fine, Kay. My faith isn't shaken by morality - only facts. I actually appreciated Ken sending me the pm, but I find his motives questionable because he did not wish to share it openly. I like this forum and appreciate the effort put into answering my inquiries. I'm not offended by David, just frustrated that he didn't share evidence. Perhaps he thinks it is pointless?

I realize that he's probably looking at us like we look at geocentric believers, but evolution (in all it's variable forms) doesn't explain all the data without adding assumptions like an Oort cloud for comets. Young Earth Catastrophes can explain this and many other facts with fewer assumptions.

That's an even better example Mark! It's not deception, it's creation.
  • Kay likes this

#53 violin

violin

    Alpha

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 31 August 2012 - 09:10 AM

Jesse - let me attempt to explain why i think theistic evolution makes sense. You referred above to "x,y,z" - well, as a mathematician by training I love x,y and z, in other words the almost magical-seeming way that superficially simple mathematical equations involving abstract entities referred to as x, y, e, i, pi etc can explain complicated, chaotic-seeming phenomena in beautiful, elegant ways which are immensely satisfying. The human desire to understand, to categorise, to explain a myriad of random-seeming observations by a series of equations using far fewer, but fundamental quantities, is to me an expression of the existence of meaning behind the universe. The mathematics of chaos theory, or of relativity, of quantum physics: the structure of the atom which enables the different properties of chemical elements to be explained and the beautiful simplicity of the periodic table - all these are examples where humanity has been able to glimpse the existence of underlying patterns and order underlying our observations of the world around us. I believe evolutionary theory, properly defined and understood, is a similarly beautiful and elegant explanation of our observations of the existence of the variety of countless billions of living organisms past and present, and that the idea of God setting life in motion and giving it just the simple command to "be fruitful and multiply" explains the huge diversity of life in a way which I find satisfying and compelling. There is not necessarily one single piece of evidence (although the field of evidence from DNA and the genetic code is to my mind overwhelming), but the fact that given an evolutionary framework, all the new observations keep fitting in and making sense.

I appreciate that many do not see it this way, but it saddens me to hear you describe the way I believe God chose to fill the world with creatures who could respond to him as "horrible and ugly". The fact that others such as Dawkins say evolution is incompatible with belief in God only shows that he knows far less about God than he does about evolution.

You are probably unable to be convinced by any one piece of evidence at the moment, as we all have a human tendency to dismiss evidence that contradicts our existing world view and to latch onto anything that supports it. And clearly God doesn't mind exactly what you understand by his creative power, as millions of believers have lived and died without needing to know. But please try not to believe (as Dawkins and many extreme YECs want you to think) that belief in the biblical God is incompatible with evolutionary biology - just keep listening and learning with an open mind.

To misquote Kay "If you wish to believe in YEC, then believe it, but also have the common courtesy to allow other opinion(s)"

All the best with your continued exploration of the wonders of God's world and his word (and, especially, of his Word made Flesh...)

#54 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 31 August 2012 - 10:11 AM

violin - the fiddle may be related somewhere ;) though oboe and cor anglais are my forte – more haunting ;)

The heart of it, if anyone has differing opinion then I personally don’t have a real bother with that in a sense (and providing that there is always discussion), whether right or wrong, and a game of “intellectual bullying” isn’t in the playground, which more often these days seems to be the case and especially on pro-evolution websites.

A colleague of mine, actually several and very gifted scientists and believers in God - when the scientific hat was placed upon their heads, then they abode by that, not to rock a boat, when religion came to the front, their belief and hope were taken as true and that “man was made in God's image, and after his likeness”.

Other discussions encompassing belief, and evolution, and such was non-issue and that of the variations. BTW, they were highly gifted in many other areas too and one the brilliance of the violin.

What we seem to be seeing, which if you are who I think you are (without looking) and often unimpressed with are "thought police” of any persuasion but we are experiencing this in certain ways as example the “evolutionary thought police" within the brotherhood who navigate the web to argue rather than discuss the topic – if there are varying opinions, then it is so – but do we have the mind of God, what is certain, only God is Truth, and God is truthful to his creation – and whether or not, in the case of Dawkins or others, you can’t reconcile evolutionary biology with the Word, as the basis is:

Evolutionary Biology claims that man and women came into being through a long process – common descent

The Bible says differently:


“man was made in God's image, and after his likeness”.

the two can’t be reconciled.

In the sense, whilst I don’t agree with the likes of Dawkins, Coyne et al, they are candid about the various issues regarding the ability to reconcile the opinion of science to the Word of God.

Just a note, your post was written primarily to Jesse2W - but wanted to also add a thank you for the cordial tone in your response.

"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#55 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 07:28 AM

"Again, have you ever bothered to consider the many adverse affects on someone who is seeking the Truth of God, or who is a member of our community already?"

Yes I have, and a principal reason I'm resisting your attempts to prevent robust discussion is that the 'adverse effect' of the anti-science attitude among some C'dns such as yourself - but fortunately not all - is to deter from faith altogether those informed and educated people, especially the young, who on exposure to modern science are led to the false conclusion that they must choose faith OR science. That's a conclusion Richard Dawkins or Ken Ham might like them to draw, but I take a diametrically opposite view

I await your PMs - not to debate evidence, but for the moderators to state exactly what phrases in my earlier posts they object to and why.


David, I was going to let this matter remain unanswered on the public section of the board but have been prompted to respond.

No-one prevents debate here under usual circumstances - but your posts removed (we still have copy) because of your attack on your brothers and sisters and also another member of the forum.

As another recent example of what the complaint is about, and also your being offended when the attitude is called on you then set off to another forum and post this:

Posted by you, David, Yesterday, 09:47 PM :

At least lions have a decent roar. Those moderators are more like a pathetic old cat, with the same unconvincing miaow time after time...


Should we take offence at this or you feel justified by what you have said yet again?

That you are above fault in what you do here and elsewhere?

Prior to the current guidelines, which are now based on scripture reference, it was expected that board members didn’t behave in the manner of targeting and also having public battle with the moderators. If one had a problem, or difficulty then to speak to the moderators privately.

Such, if done in a public area would have been removed post haste by the previous moderators which also calls into question several other comments made on the said forum and about moderation – comments by David Hudson from Coffs Harbour ecclesia reflects rather unpleasant behaviour yet again, though not unexpected, “silly old moo” claim he made also comes to mind, but that said, according to the "Rules" of that Forum these posts and including yours should have been removed and many of the other comments made about brethren and others along the way in various threads - but depending on who the target is it would seem.

Then you wonder why and with this type of behaviour continued at another forum you are critical of the removal of similar comments here – which simply aren’t needed, and in analogy more seems like a “game” played by the immature - “tit for tat”.

Moderation - the Diary since a number of changes after 18 months is only up to Page 6.

Prior to the change and re-vamping the Diary comprised page after page with argument and justification and the Diaries listed in month order very seldom was it limited to just a few pages per month.

Basically, a good deal wasn’t God-honouring.

The "robust" debate?

No-one is stopping the purpose of discussing the many issues as you are well aware, the debate has been going on for years, and if we are specifically speaking about the Creation and Evolution debate.

The E-D must be about or near 20 years of the discussions and the subject being raised, same players at various times over the years.

On facebook, then the ManyCouncillors - same core group who also made claim that this board was like "Sunday School", and referred to other brethren or implied the "Salem Witch Hunt". The ones who "prided" themselves and by implication of what was said that they were more intelligent than other brethren. Apparently such was the persuasion of the evolution argument that at least one left and is now agnostic or atheist or holds some belief along those lines - others?

Then other Forums in particular set up, again a “core group” to preach evolution to the brotherhood, one of the main aims.

We have also had lengthy discussion here about the subject unfortunately there wasn't a balance in the discussion and some were made to look like fools (such even by the moderating staff at times, and other of the moderating staff who sided with certain opinion wouldn’t take action) - others were targeted, whether right or wrong or whether what was said was unrealistic the manner in which they were treated and even when one referred to the scriptures - was this how one should act in Christ? Was all this God-honouring?

Then the agitation that some should be "punished" - warned - even when one of the brothers and I at times also used to somewhat disagree with what was stated was also publicly slandered - the then moderators did nothing about it, and the slanderer justified their comment and to be above the complaint.

Again, was all this God-honouring behaviour, was it what we as a Forum should be about, was it about teaching and preaching the good new of the kingdom of God, or becoming more of a game of “mind”.


The previous discussions here, unfortunately a Forum Manager at the time, and unfamiliar with the upgraded software managed to, rather than archive it all to another area, deleted the WHOLE discussion.

Then again, the board during the time seemed to be spammed and moderators at the time would close discussions before opportunity was had to respond.

Then, the issues have been raised here during the period of the last 10 years from time to time, again, the same “core” group – but we also have the issue, that members remove themselves from the discussion, because they simply aren’t interested in it, or the manner in which it is being conducted.

So, the claim you make, David, is simply not true – the last several days have seemed like “old-times” in certain aspects.

Then, another problem area for these discussions as evidenced before here and elsewhere:

again, it is about discussion, but we have those who simply aren’t interested in discussing the issues if it isn't "peer reviewed" or will only listen if someone was in a particular field.

Their interest is not to discuss but to indoctrinate - proselytise.

Again, the emphasis on qualifications and who has capability of working things through, and especially some of the most vocal ones about evolution (world), don’t believe in God as example:

we had a posted YouTube of RIchard Dawkins – Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe - to prove evolution was true - natural selection – the length of the nerve being sub-optimal yet, on a Bible Discussion Forum, in one breath Dawkins was speaking about "if God was the creator – then the evidence of poor a designer”, therefore all must have come into being by evolution - there is no God.

This was posted, and not checked by moderators that on a Bible Discussion Forum, there was a man mocking God, to prove that what we see about us God wasn't part of.

So, should that be usual behaviour, that in an endeavour to establish a point, that some now, amongst the “core” group also ascribe that all came about by natural selection employing those who mock God, those who don’t believe in God?

When such was pointed out to the then moderators, nothing was done about that either - and they had to be prompted further.

I notice that the YouTube video has resurfaced on another forum to refute a brothers work which is not in public domain (the brothers work), and written some 20 years ago – 1993 - many things have moved on since that time - science has changed, and what was relative at the time may longer be, yet the same isn't done with the textbooks we were taught out of at school and in the University environment when they, science, have been absolutely and utterly wrong with what they promoted as previous truth.

Again, this is the problem with the debate and discussion - that some are willing to discuss it, others are just here to indoctrinate, and with any discussion and with such a theory, there needs to be a balance, and also including the imperfections of the theory, which there are many.


You fairly much have your answer now David, which I think you would be well aware of anyway.

More posting what you and several others have done in the public domain is more of the concern, and how your brethren in Christ for whom Christ died are treated.

The gain is that the comments and attitudes are viewed by a number, and the attitude, those promoting evolution to the brotherhood, such is found wanting because whether it is intended or not, it is far from what the scriptures teach in regard to the way we treat one another even the comment made at the bottom of each post on E-D:

"Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves."
Philippians 2:3

and such is not reflected, rather the opposite.

A reminder - The Guidelines for CBDF (Christadelphian Bible Discussion Forum) encompass the following:

Guidelines

"Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves."
Philippians 2:3

"Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer."
Colossians 4:6

"Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves."
Romans 12:10

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."
Ephesians 5:21

"Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience."
Colossians 3:12

"Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble."
1 Peter 3:8

The above guidelines are your answer, David.

"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#56 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 07:54 AM

Violin,

Firstly, like Kay I appreciate the measured tone of your comment, by contrast with some other postings. However, that doesn't mean I agree with what you say. The core of the problem I see in your post is here:

I believe evolutionary theory, properly defined and understood, is a similarly beautiful and elegant explanation of our observations of the existence of the variety of countless billions of living organisms past and present, and that the idea of God setting life in motion and giving it just the simple command to "be fruitful and multiply" explains the huge diversity of life in a way which I find satisfying and compelling.


Presumably by "setting life in motion" you have the idea that God created some very simple form of life (the simplest workable one, whatever that might be?), from which all the diverse forms of life we now see evolved, at God's command to "be fruitful and multiply". But a big issue with this is that although to support your idea you quote words from Genesis, you make no reference at all to the context of those words in Genesis, as to whether your idea fits with that. You're taking the words in abstract, out of context, which is a serious concern. Are you using them correctly, or abusing them?

The command to "be fruitful and multiply" comes twice in Genesis 1. The second time it is addressed to the man and woman God had made made, where they are also told to have dominion over all the other living things in creation (Gen 1:28), so clearly that use is not relevant to your idea. What is the context of its first occurrence, in Gen 1:18?

16 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens."
17 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that [it was] good.
18 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
19 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


We see clearly from the context that these words are addressed, not to some simple life form which is thus being instructed to evolve, but to "the great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind", which God had just created.

According to evolutionary theory, large sea creatures, fish, and birds are all very highly evolved, very far removed from the supposed universal common ancestor of all life. So your idea is quite at odds with the context of the scripture you cite to support it. You are indeed therefore taking those words badly out of context. And in fact, that same scriptural context makes a clear statement that directly opposes the idea of evolution (universal common descent), namely that God created those particular kinds of living thing, not by a vast long process of evolution from a single very simple kind of organism, but each directly, "according to its kind".

From this we can see that although you appear to interpret "be fruitful and multiply" as meaning "turn from one (simple) kind into many (complex) kinds", that cannot be true, as these different kinds of very complex life were clearly already in existence when God first said those words.

This is a good illustration of the dangers here. We must be careful in how we use scripture - it is the word of God, and is sharper than any two-edged sword. In this particular case, the very words you cited from scripture to support your idea actually turn out, when read properly in their context, to oppose it!

Edited by Mark Taunton, 01 September 2012 - 09:38 AM.


#57 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 09:40 AM

No Kay, I guess you never can leave things unanswered, and at length....

#58 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 09:58 AM

No Kay, I guess you never can leave things unanswered, and at length....


So, in brief, David:

No-one is forcing you to stay, you are here by your own choice - hence, if you don't like the way the board is run then you are under no obligation to stay.

It would and is an advantage to be civil, even what was posted by you on another board showed exactly the reason for moderation and the initial moderation.

So the ball is now in your court - if you, by choice, have desire to post here, then please abide by the guidelines - thanks :)

The length of the post - well, it is certainly part of the history, and in the end why it was thought best to split the board out, and in the case that in public, to preach about the kingdom of God. We have so many other avenues to discuss our pet subjects etcetera, which has been the case over many decades - but in public, it is about the coming kingdom on earth - the Good News, though if and when, discussion about various other subjects and providing it is discussion or reasoned debate - civility.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#59 violin

violin

    Alpha

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 11:07 PM

In this particular case, the very words you cited from scripture to support your idea actually turn out, when read properly in their context, to oppose it!


Well obviously I will disagree with you here, as I am reading the words in the context and in the genre that I understand them: as a poetical assertion of God's overall creativity (in contrast to the sun/moon/animal deities of surrounding nations) rather than a detailed scientific description. But I suspect this forum is not the place to pursue such debates further - I answered Jesse's question, and will leave it at that.

#60 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 06:20 AM

Violin,

Why is this forum not the place? I would be happy to continue discussion of the issue you raised, and no-one else has objected to having such a debate. Indeed Kay, the administrator, has been quite clear that such debate is welcome, so long as those involved make their case, and discuss it, in a reasonable and considerate way (as you earlier did). What is the problem? Do you now doubt that your reading of Genesis 1 is defensible?

All that I did in my earlier comment, and would continue to do if you were willing to discuss this further, is to consider what you proposed in the light of the word of God, in its own terms, as we find it recorded in scripture. I would hope you are willing to do the same, in the same spirit of "listening and learning with an open mind" you advised Jesse2W to have. We should all, surely, be open to listening to and learning from the word of God!

Edited by Mark Taunton, 02 September 2012 - 07:22 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users