Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[jamie]

That's not an answer to my question, Jamie.

Was God intending for man to live forever when He was creating him?

God created humans mortal. Why?

Was it so they could be destroyed?

"And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15)

Is the lake of fire intentional or just an accident?

 

[JudgeRightly]

God created humans mortal. Why?

Was it so they could be destroyed?

"And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15)

Is the lake of fire intentional or just an accident?

So your answer is "No, God did not intend for man to live forever."

Am I putting words in your mouth? or is that an accurate statement?

 

[jamie]

So your answer is "No, God did not intend for man to live forever."

Am I putting words in your mouth? or is that an accurate statement?

God would like for people to live forever, but it's our choice.

We are not robots playing a script.

We are intended to be like God in image and likeness.

God is not a robot either.

 

[JudgeRightly]

God would like for people to live forever, but it's our choice.

We are not robots playing a script.

We are intended to be like God in image and likeness.

God is not a robot either.

I'll take that as a "yes, the above statement is correct."

The Bible says the following:

The poor shall eat and be satisfied; Those who seek Him will praise the Lord. Let your heart live forever! - Psalm 22:26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm22:26&version=NKJV

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me All the days of my life; And I will dwell in the house of the Lord Forever. - Psalm 23:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm23:6&version=NKJV

None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him—For the redemption of their souls is costly, And it shall cease forever—That he should continue to live eternally, And not see the Pit. - Psalm 49:7-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm49:7-9&version=NKJV

Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it. - Ecclesiastes 12:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes12:7&version=NKJV

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever. - Daniel 12:2-3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel12:2-3&version=NKJV

[JESUS]“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”[/JESUS] - Matthew 25:44-46 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew25:44-46&version=NKJV

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians15:12-19&version=NKJV

Both Daniel 12:2 and Matthew 25:46 state, rather clearly, that both the wicked and the righteous (ie, those who do not have a relationship with God and those who do, respectively) have immortal souls.

Overwhelmingly, the Bible teaches that man is immortal, and that man will live for eternity, either at peace in the presence of God in heaven, or in punishment apart from God in the lake of fire.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I notice you didn't use the word god in that paragraph.

Stuart

Take Darwin's birds for example. His speculation was that some birds lived in a valley. The weather changed and they moved up onto two separate mountain peaks. One peak was rich in seeds and the other rich in flying insects. On the peak rich in seeds the birds developed bills that are well adapted for eating seeds while on the other peak the birds developed beaks well adapted for eating bugs. When the weather changed again and the birds moved back down into the valley, there were two separate species of birds. Seems fairly straight forward.

My question has always been what "triggered" the mutation that resulted in the adaptation of the beaks? At some point, the allele for the seed beaks had to come into existence. There is no "communication" between the environment and the birds DNA to develop a new allele. If the bird dies because it can't get enough food passes on nothing. The ones that did get enough to eat did so with their original beak so that beak was sufficient and is passed along. What causes the genetic mutation that results in a better beak for eating seeds?

 

[Jose Fly]

You know what I figure? I figure if you are interested in true stats, you can type. If not? Not really a big deal (I provided a link in my post to another in thread immediately after answering you if you are interested).

That's hilarious. I just got done telling [MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] that the stereotypical exchange with a creationist is: 1) creationist makes assertion, 2) creationist is asked to support or explain assertion, 3) creationist does everything they can to avoid doing so.

With Derf it was "I don't have to answer questions", with you it's "Go look it up yourself", but the overall pattern is the same.

It is basically your worldview, Jose. It is in your sig. It is in your conversation. As an atheist doing science, you've your own doctrinal bents.

You're still dodging. First, as I've told you numerous times, I'm not an atheist.

But to the larger point regarding your use of the term "atheist science", let's imagine for the sake of argument that I was an atheist. The guy in the office next to me is a Christian. What exactly is the difference between the science he does and the science I do? When we publish our papers, do they read differently? If so, how?

I think I do agree, but not probably like you are thinking. If someone tells you answers, you 'might' go the long way to figure out how that figure came up, but you could also just take it at face value. It certainly doesn't mean one can't look, if they have a desire to do so, using the scientific method.

No idea how that relates to the anti-scientific framework that I posted.

No, not at all. I GENERALLY think people who post sigs, mean it. If you don't, you 'might' consider changing it. Think "moniker," Jose. It is hard to get past it WHEN you portray the sig in your demeanor and discussion/debate structure. Sorry, Jose. You wrote and continue to write it yourself and it sticks. Whatever humor MUST be your own fault or doing, or however you like to think of it. So there it is and it is what it is: No nerve, just how I continually think of you, by your own hand.

Of course I embrace the concept that's behind the Mencken quote....that's why I put it there. What's funny to me is how the quote makes no mention of religion, yet you apparently assume it's directed at you. If you didn't, you wouldn't give it a passing thought. That says a lot, whether you recognize it or not.

Not necessarily theistic evolutionists, though I'd suspect them too. Nutshell: ANYONE who is a Christian and believes Christ created everything, is a 'creationist.' It would include anybody that believes God did anything to make life etc. happen. Your wife is a creationist if she is a Christian.

You know, if you want to claim theistic evolutionists as your own, and encourage your fellow Christians to embrace that belief over believing that God created humans as is a few thousand years ago, I'm good with that.

But I have a feeling some of your fellow Christians like [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] and [MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION] might take issue.

 

[Derf]

That's hilarious. I just got done telling [MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] that the stereotypical exchange with a creationist is: 1) creationist makes assertion, 2) creationist is asked to support or explain assertion, 3) creationist does everything they can to avoid doing so.

With Derf it was "I don't have to answer questions", with you it's "Go look it up yourself", but the overall pattern is the same.

With Derf it was an issue of staying on topic.

I don't consider endless rounds of bringing up this or that small piece of information to debate with you a matter of great benefit. I'm glad to see my response affected you so.

 

[Jose Fly]

My question has always been what "triggered" the mutation that resulted in the adaptation of the beaks? At some point, the allele for the seed beaks had to come into existence. There is no "communication" between the environment and the birds DNA to develop a new allele. If the bird dies because it can't get enough food passes on nothing. The ones that did get enough to eat did so with their original beak so that beak was sufficient and is passed along. What causes the genetic mutation that results in a better beak for eating seeds?

Maybe you can help me understand....do you give God credit for every mutation that occurs, or just the beneficial ones?

And btw, mutations happen in every organism, every time they reproduce. You, me, and everyone else here was born with ~120.

 

[Jose Fly]

With Derf it was an issue of staying on topic.

I don't consider endless rounds of bringing up this or that small piece of information to debate with you a matter of great benefit. I'm glad to see my response affected you so.

That's hilarious. You claimed that two articles at Science Daily described evidence that should cause people to reject evolution. All I asked was for you to explain how that was so.

So I guess you took yourself off topic? :chuckle:

 

[6days]

I am interested in having a rational discussion about it. It is not a belief I hold, so if someone wants to make the point to me they will have to face my counterarguments.

Great... lets have a rational discussion. But, unfortunately I agree with your statement that "It is not a belief I hold". But... YES IT IS A BELIEF!! We all examine the exact same data, but have different beliefs about the past.

Because these are reasons why I don't believe in a designed cosmos. If you can't show me that my reasons for holding this position is invalid, then those are good reasons NOT to accept your claims.

The exact opposite can also be said. " If you can't show me.....". We look at the same evidence and interpret to fit our priori beliefs. As much as you or I insist we are a blank slate.... we are not.

I'm interested in having an HONEST discussion about cosmic design/

Ok. Where would you like to start? Would you agree that there has to be a cause that existed eternally? Or, the alternative is that you think nothing might have caused everything. The answer "I don't know" seems like a cop out from being willing to sqy that the evidence MAY lead to the Creator God of the Bible.

*Would you agree that much of that science has helped confirm the Biblical account of a perfect creation that has been subjected to entropy?

No. Nothing has come close to demonstrating that. I've opened my mind to the possibility and found nothing compelling. If you think there is something I'm not considering, let's hear it.

Hmmmmm Vulcan.... honestly, I don't think you are being honest with yourself. Lets look at our genome as an example. Genetics shows a good design is being corrupted by a mutation rate (VSDM's) that is far beyond what selection can remove. That is one clear example fitting the Biblical model.

Would you agree that much of that scientific evidence has proven many evolutionary conclusions were shoddy... and not based on Science? And, that those shoddy conclusions were used to sell a belief system? (vestigial organs, junk DNA, poor design arguments / vertebrate eye, psuedogenes, speciation = Uphill evolution, useless organs / appendix)

Absolutely not. Science is not a belief system

We agree on that. Science definitely is not a belief system. But the examples I gave were not science. They were bad conclusions based on a belief system. Science proved those were false conclusions... false beliefs. Those false beliefs actually hindered science in some cases

So which is your problem? Science collecting data, or people forming conclusions about the world based on that data?

Again, you ask questions that can be asked of you. We both agree though what science is, and using the scientific method to form conclusions.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Maybe you can help me understand....do you give God credit for every mutation that occurs, or just the beneficial ones?

Interesting question. I will say that evolution does not happen outside God's control. God did say he created the blind and infirm so...

And btw, mutations happen in every organism, every time they reproduce. You, me, and everyone else here was born with ~120.

There are mutations and there are MUTATIONS. There are minor mutation in individual genes. Where does a whole new chromosome come from?

 

[Jose Fly]

Interesting question. I will say that evolution does not happen outside God's control. God did say he created the blind and infirm so...

Do you then believe that God deliberately created things like the malaria parasite with the express purpose of causing death and suffering?

There are mutations and there are MUTATIONS. There are minor mutation in individual genes. Where does a whole new chromosome come from?

The most common mechanism is via duplication and subsequent divergence.

 

[6days]

And btw, mutations happen in every organism, every time they reproduce. You, me, and everyone else here was born with ~120.

No... you are born with THOUSANDS of mutations. Perhaps you meant to say each person is born with about 120 de nova mutations?

 

[Jose Fly]

No... you are born with THOUSANDS of mutations. Perhaps you meant to say each person is born with about 120 de nova mutations?

Yes, ~120 new mutations per person.

 

[6days]

But I have a feeling some of your fellow Christians like [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] and [MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION] might take issue.

I agree with you on this one. A person can trust in Christ as their Savior yet have a poor grasp of Scripture and theology... or even incorrect doctrine.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Do you then believe that God deliberately created things like the malaria parasite with the express purpose of causing death and suffering?

We live in a fallen creation and I do believe that that has implications. Did God intentionally create suffering? I tend to say not. But God does allow it. Could He end it? Sure! But I believe that He does not because He charged us to love and care for one another. We do that VERY poorly.

The most common mechanism is via duplication and subsequent divergence.

Still so many questions. When doe the chromosome become active? How does it become active? If it is a duplicate at first, how come it "quickly" mutates into a completely different chromosome doing something complete different than the one it started out as?

 

[Jose Fly]

We live in a fallen creation and I do believe that that has implications. Did God intentionally create suffering? I tend to say not. But God does allow it. Could He end it? Sure! But I believe that He does not because He charged us to love and care for one another. We do that VERY poorly.

I'm having trouble understanding how that meshes with what you said earlier about God guiding evolution and specifically dictating mutations. In order to cause malaria, the plasmodium parasite has to go through a very complex life history and utilize some complex biochemistry, likely far more intricate than the finch beaks example you cited. So it would stand to reason that according to the logic you cited with the finches, God must have deliberately designed the plasmodium parasite to cause malaria, correct?

Still so many questions. When doe the chromosome become active?

As soon as it's duplicated.

How does it become active?

It's a copy of an already-existing chromosome, so it's active the same way as the original.

If it is a duplicate at first, how come it "quickly" mutates into a completely different chromosome doing something complete different than the one it started out as?

It doesn't quickly mutate into a completely different chromosome. It takes time for the new copy to diverge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneuploidy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid

 

[Lon]

That's hilarious. I just got done telling @Derf that the stereotypical exchange with a creationist is: 1) creationist makes assertion, 2) creationist is asked to support or explain assertion, 3) creationist does everything they can to avoid doing so.

With Derf it was "I don't have to answer questions", with you it's "Go look it up yourself", but the overall pattern is the same.

Lazy and weak, Jose. 1) I provided the link. 2) it shows YOUR pattern of unreasonable expectation. Similarly, I just read a quote from TInark. He too thinks the opposite of what the links suggest: No change. Clearly there is atheist propaganda out there that likes to pad data in its hopeful favor. Britain has a fair share of most atheists. Here in the U.S.? :nono:

You're still dodging. First, as I've told you numerous times, I'm not an atheist.

Honestly, this looks like the first time. You are functionally anti-Christian in your sentiments and often sided with atheists in your agreements and statements. It'll always be hard to remember you don't consider yourself an atheist. H.L. Mencken signature not-with-standing as well. It doesn't allow room for a deity. One of your stories about your children disallowed from going to AWANA was fairly atheistic and anti-Christian. You couldn't get much more of either by actions.

But to the larger point regarding your use of the term "atheist science", let's imagine for the sake of argument that I was an atheist. The guy in the office next to me is a Christian. What exactly is the difference between the science he does and the science I do? When we publish our papers, do they read differently? If so, how?

Interestingly, you argue that Christian science isn't. For this example, isn't it interesting that you are saying you agree with his Christian perspective? You are saying it wouldn't matter if he were YEC, for example, that "the science is the same."

No idea how that relates to the anti-scientific framework that I posted.

No surprise to me. The point is, it might not be science, but it can be. Let me give an example: The sky is blue. You can just accept it OR you can do some tests to see if indeed the sky is blue. I had one science teacher say it wasn't actually blue. He was being silly. The sky IS blue. It has to do with light refraction, filtration and scattering.

Of course I embrace the concept that's behind the Mencken quote....that's why I put it there. What's funny to me is how the quote makes no mention of religion, yet you apparently assume it's directed at you. If you didn't, you wouldn't give it a passing thought. That says a lot, whether you recognize it or not.

He was a bit of an enigma: “For the Bible, despite all its contradictions and absurdities, its barbarisms and obscenities, remains grand and gaudy stuff, and so it deserves careful study and enlightened exposition. It is not only lovely in phrase; it is also rich in ideas, many of them far from foolish. One somehow gathers the notion that it was written from end to end by honest men—inspired, perhaps, but nevertheless honest. When they had anything to say they said it plainly, whether it was counsel that enemies be slain or counsel that enemies be kissed. They knew how to tell a story, and how to sing a song, and how to swathe a dubious argument in specious and disarming words.”
― H.L. Mencken, H.L. Mencken on Religion

Despite that, he was often an egotist and thought to comment on each and every societal member as if he were brilliant and all the rest morons (mostly by his own arrogant lips).
You, however, have that quote supporting each and every aspect of your conversation, thus whatever the context, YOU use it for that purpose. It is no stretch. It is you.

You know, if you want to claim theistic evolutionists as your own, and encourage your fellow Christians to embrace that belief over believing that God created humans as is a few thousand years ago, I'm good with that.

OR vice versa? To see them embracing YEC? :think:

But I have a feeling some of your fellow Christians like @6days and @Stripe might take issue.

It is pretty much an in-house discussion. I realize some like to try and oust another believer from the Body. There is only One with that authority.

 

[Lon]

I got my information from the same page. I wonder if you have read it properly.

Stuart

Interesting. It SAYS 'no appreciable change' right on that page :think:

 

[Jose Fly]

Lazy and weak, Jose. 1) I provided the link.

Not in this thread or discussion. You made a claim and have since done everything you can to avoid backing it up.

Like I said, that's the stereotype.

Honestly, this looks like the first time. You are functionally anti-Christian in your sentiments and often sided with atheists in your agreements and statements.

That's because fundamentalist Christians have gone out of their way to make science and education an enemy of their faith, so now merely advocating science is perceived as "anti-Christian and atheistic".

Simply put, fundamentalists have ceded the sciences to non-Christians.

One of your stories about your children disallowed from going to AWANA was fairly atheistic and anti-Christian.

That was because they were trying to turn a 3 year old into a missionary for something she didn't understand. The subject matter was irrelevant.

Interestingly, you argue that Christian science isn't.

You keep throwing around these terms like "Christian science" and "atheist science", but you go out of your way to avoid saying what they mean. Like I said, that's the stereotype.

For this example, isn't it interesting that you are saying you agree with his Christian perspective? You are saying it wouldn't matter if he were YEC, for example, that "the science is the same."

Try and keep up Lon. You referred to something you called "atheist science". Since then I've been asking you what that is and how it differs from just plain ol' science, and you've dodged that question every time.

A saying among lawyers is "the questions a person avoids tells you more about them than the questions they answer". There's obviously a reason you're avoiding this.

No surprise to me. The point is, it might not be science, but it can be. Let me give an example: The sky is blue. You can just accept it OR you can do some tests to see if indeed the sky is blue. I had one science teacher say it wasn't actually blue. He was being silly. The sky IS blue. It has to do with light refraction, filtration and scattering.

You're still not making any sense at all.

You, however, have that quote supporting each and every aspect of your conversation, thus whatever the context, YOU use it for that purpose. It is no stretch. It is you.

I've not disputed that at all. As I noted, I have it there because I agree with its sentiment. What amuses me is how you assume it must be about you.

OR vice versa? To see them embracing YEC?

Um.....no Lon. Geez.

It is pretty much an in-house discussion. I realize some like to try and oust another believer from the Body. There is only One with that authority.

As [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] noted, he sees theistic evolutionists as having "a poor grasp of Scripture and theology... or even incorrect doctrine".