***The Great Debate: Creation vs Evolution***

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darth_Viper81, Aug 1, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jedi_Master201 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 5, 2001
    star 5
    Considering it was written before the Greek empire, I'd say it was probably scientific knowledge.


    The point of that was that no one around these guys knew the earth is a sphere, and yet it's written down as being one.
  2. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Actually Isaiah in 40:22 tells us the earth is a circle

    A circle isn't three-dimensional.

  3. Jedi_Master201 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 5, 2001
    star 5
    dustchick, the point of that was that no one around these guys knew the earth is a sphere, and yet they have it written down as being one - the fact that it's in poetry doesn't matter much. For them to come up with such a phrase for the sake of sounding good is a little too much of a coincidence.


    a_g, I think that is still up for interpretation. It's both historical and poetic, which, in my mind, leaves a lot of room for guesses on our part. Many people do interpret it the way you say (obviously). Me, well, I'm not sure what I believe. But I believe the Bible's account of creation is true, whether it's symbollic or not.
  4. Saint_of_Killers Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 5
    "For them to come up with such a phrase for the sake of sounding good is a little too much of a coincidence."

    No it's not. The moon is round. The sun is round. It wouldn't take much to think that the Earth might be round also.
  5. dustchick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2000
    star 1
    JM_201, it is a myth that the majority of people thought the Earth was flat. Who told you that?

    My point was that, by the time of Christ, the process of science and studying the universe was underway. Cite some definitive scientific data in the Bible, maybe some that isn't subject to interpretation. I'm curious, actually, so forgive if I sound pushy.

    (Oh, by "definitive" I don't mean necessarily mean "correct". Science facts only reflect the best of our knowledge at any given time.)
  6. Jedi_Master201 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 5, 2001
    star 5
    Sure to a long time for the scientific community to accept it.


    Anyway, you missed my point there, I was saying it couldn't have just been for poetic purposes.


    EDIT: I'll have to get back to you on that, dustchick. I didn't really mean to jump into another full-blown debate in here. ;) But I'll try to get back with some Biblical science tomorrow or something.
  7. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    JM201: An "orb" isn't necessarily a sphere. The archaic definition of "orb" is "Earth".
  8. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    It took the scientific community a long time to accept it? Hmm...I was told in the first grade that people thought the earth was flat. Is that where you're getting your info?
  9. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Please give us scripture, chapter and verse from the Holy Bible stating the "Earth is flat." Or that the "earth is a flat square."

    Otherwise, put your nonsense to pasture.


    Even the late noted evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in one of his books of essays how the preposterous urban myth of Christian belief in a flat earth was popularized in the 1800's. It wasn't by a Christian.

    What this demonstrates is a lack of knowledge on the part of those who would suggest such a belief is part and parcel of Christian thought.

    Since we are discussing "creationism," please present a quote from a noted creationist promoting the idea of a "flat earth."

    Can anyone do so? Can anyone demonstrate this a part of mainstream creationist thought?



    Since some of you are so quick to suggest what scripture contains, as though perhaps you know from your own readings, then provide what I have requested.


  10. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    What, no essay? *snaps fingers* Drats!
  11. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Do you care to present the info I requested or to simply make inane comments in attempts to distract from your unloaded gun?

  12. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    What? That there were some stupid people who thought the earth was flat? Of course they were, I'm pretty sure they were Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and quite some other ones. People are naturally stupid, that's what living's all about, I never said it was a tenet of Christianity. Though if you ask me, it does seem logical that it would be, to me, they did think that the Earth was the center of the universe. ;)


    Now this is not part of evolution or creationism. So the fact that there are some ignorant or stupid people out there, does nothing to back either belief. How did this get from DNA to the earth being flat anyhow? I mean, the two are not even resembling each other.


    Do you care to present the info I requested or to simply make inane comments in attempts to distract from your unloaded gun?


    Unloaded, nooo...I'm pretty sure you went off half-cocked. Therefore my gun has yet to be fired. :D
  13. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Once more you've not answered the specific questions I asked.

    "Now this is not part of evolution or creationism. So the fact that there are some ignorant or stupid people out there, does nothing to back either belief. How did this get from DNA to the earth being flat anyhow? I mean, the two are not even resembling each other."

    Evolutionist's comments. Starting with Saint of Killers commenting on a "Flat earth." It digressed from there.


    "Though if you ask me, it does seem logical that it would be, to me, they did think that the Earth was the center of the universe."

    Please present the scriptures, chapter and verse.

    Here, you again do not seem to know the actual history involved, but use it as a slur against Christianity specifically and not dark ages Europe. It was a belief of the science of the time and never a doctrine of the Christian church to my knowledge. Would you care to correct me?


    Now you feign that you do not seem to know what those specific questions are, or would it be due to the "natural stupidity" you alluded to in your post?

    This is known generally as "willful ignorance."

    Ahh, I see, you've now edited that out.

  14. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Once more you've not answered the specific questions I asked.


    I'm under no obligation to answer anything of yours. See, this nice little system we have here of picking and choosing which we wish to answer, you should try it some time.

    Evolutionist's comments. Starting with Saint of Killers commenting on a "Flat earth." It digressed from there.

    Then take it up with SoK, mmkay? See, he's Saint_of_Killers, I'm Fire_Ice_Death, yep, the two are not the same.

    Please present the scriptures, chapter and verse.

    Here, you again do not seem to know the actual history involved, but use it as a slur against Christianity specifically and not dark ages Europe. It was a belief of the science of the time and never a doctrine of the Christian church to my knowledge. Would you care to correct me?


    Oh of course it wasn't, Galileo was only put under house arrest because he was a raving lunatic. No, you're right, it was the science of the time, but guess who decreed that anything contrary is a heresey? I'll give ya a hint, it begins with "C". ;)

    Now you feign that you do not seem to know what those specific questions are, or would it be due to the "natural stupidity" you alluded to in your post?

    I don't feign, unless it's in TFC, and then I sneak up and kill ya. :D So no, I don't feign anything, it's 4am, you honestly think I'm gonna go on a scavanger hunt? Especially considering who's making the request? Hell no.

    This is known generally as "willful ignorance."

    I never made a claim that I don't use willful ignorance, in fact I've used it quite a few times. Why? Mostly because I have no desire to, and another, well, I owe nothing to anyone who posts here, except my friends on the JC. So where's the motivation? No amount of "enlightenment" is gonna change my opinion, that's for sure.

  15. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    FID,

    "I'm under no obligation to answer anything of yours. See, this nice little system we have here of picking and choosing which we wish to answer, you should try it some time."

    Then, why did you post anything?
    You obviously have nothing serious or constructive to say on this topic.


    "Then take it up with SoK, mmkay? See, he's Saint_of_Killers, I'm Fire_Ice_Death, yep, the two are not the same."

    Then, perhaps you shouldn't have responded to my post. I didn't specifically address you.

    "Oh of course it wasn't, Galileo was only put under house arrest because he was a raving lunatic. No, you're right, it was the science of the time, but guess who decreed that anything contrary is a heresey? I'll give ya a hint, it begins with "C"."

    Again, if I were you, I'd go invesigate the actual history for myself. You don't have all the facts. But I suppose that doesn't bother you. But, Galileo is simply one more distractive merry goose chase avoiding my specific questions.


    I merely asked that individuals making certain assertions corroborate those assertions with facts. For some reason you found this request to be offensive, apparently. Only you would know why.













  16. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    From your post you didn't specifically answer anyone. Even a nice poster uses a quote or something, you left it purposefully vague, I'm curious, why?

    I merely asked that individuals making certain assertions corroborate those assertions with facts. For some reason you found this request to be offensive, apparently. Only you would know why.


    Offensive? Nope, I don't get offended easily, thick skin and all. I don't even care about losing at something, you obviously assume you know too much about people. :D


    Good...day...night, wherever you're at.
  17. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    FID,

    I have no idea what you are going on about.

    I asked specific questions pertaining to allegations regarding my faith, regarding the Holy Bible.

    If an accusation is to be made it should be backed with some sort of verifiable fact. I've asked for chapter and verse. Is that not reasonable?

    Of course it is.

    If there is no specific verse asserting what has been suggested, then those are erroneous and fallacious accusations. To whit, lies.


    Are we not interested in getting to the truth in this discussion? I, for one, certainly am.


    EDIT:

    This is a partial quote. Anyone reading my initial post this evening, and the subsequent posts until this one, should recognize the veracity of the following words;

    "They'll bury you in details and endless rabbit trails, nit-picking over your choice of words, pretending to misunderstand simple concepts you express that a twelve-year-old would readily grasp. They ignore your own direct challenges, or dismiss them as unworthy of being addressed. This is like sport to them, and they are resolved never to give in."


    Quoted from Fire_Ice_Death, from a post above:

    "I'm under no obligation to answer anything of yours. See, this nice little system we have here of picking and choosing which we wish to answer, you should try it some time."


    "... when "the person" is often well deserving of criticism for his deception, double-standards, willful ignorance, etc. They make much of smaller matters just to manufacture words without truly addressing the challenges placed before them."


    Quoted from Fire_Ice_Death's post above:

    "I never made a claim that I don't use willful ignorance, in fact I've used it quite a few times. Why? Mostly because I have no desire to, and another, well, I owe nothing to anyone who posts here, except my friends on the JC. So where's the motivation? No amount of "enlightenment" is gonna change my opinion, that's for sure."


    Truth and accuracy in reporting, eh.


  18. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4


    Saint of Killers,
    "No it's not. The moon is round. The sun is round. It wouldn't take much to think that the Earth might be round also."

    Then, by your own words, you agree, they thought the world was round. They were correct. By your admission you defeat your own premise.


    Flat Earthism as a Red Herring/Straw Man Fallacy

    To suggest, or insinuate intentionally or unintentionally, that "creationists" subscribe to "flat earthism" is no less absurd than suggesting all southern men are subversive white supremacist card carrying members of the K.K.K. It is that preposterous.

    As a "creationist" I do not believe in a flat earth, as a Christian I do not believe in a "flat earth," I am aware of no scriptural verse or Church doctrine advocating a belief in a "flat earth," nor have I ever personally met any "creationist" or Christian who believes the earth to be flat.


    This whole "flat earth" business is a red-herring, a straw man of sorts, and distracts from more serious discussion of pertinent issues. Unless it can be demonstrated assertively that "flat earthism" is part and parcel of creationism, or is endorsed by Holy scripture, the whole issue is merely just a supercilious distractive tactic, a bit of propaganda intended to bespot unfairly all "creationists" in a slurrish bit of association, the attempt at depicting a form although devoid of actual substance linking persons to a negative idea that the connotations may unfairly bias against those persons or ideas, for persuasion for the offhanded dismissal of those persons or ideas.

    What this attempts to do is to remove us from the facts, to discourage the actual examination of the words and evidence and reasoning of individuals who appear to disagree with the status quo, that those views are, a priori, dishonest, untrustworthy, incompetent, et el. It basically serves to divert from the actual facts without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness.


    The of the use of the "flat earth" red herring has become somewhat prevalent, within the last week, not only has it come up in this thread, but a stranger in a coffee shop brought it up harangue-ingly in conjunction with "creationism."

    This only reflects poorly upon the individual citing the "flat earthism" and denotes the impoverishment of their understanding of "creationists" and "creationism," not to mention actual history.

    This ridiculous nonsense has become such a prevalent fallacy of the ignorant that even "creationist" organizations are addressing the non-issue:

    "?Flat earth?
    This game tries to link creationists with all kinds of odd beliefs. An example appeared in a newspaper article by Sydney Morning Herald journalist Ben Hills. He gave a run-down of creationist beliefs, then added, ?Some groups teach that the earth is flat ... .? We personally don?t know any creationist groups who teach a flat earth, but we could easily point out that some evolutionists believe in astrology, tea-leaf prophecy and lucky charms. Evolution doesn't stand or fall on those unassociated wrong beliefs, just as creation doesn?t stand or fall on someone?s belief in a flat earth."


    From the AiG website.

    "Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a flat Earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn?t teach it."

    "Yet it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the ?official Christian viewpoint?.
    "The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245-325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life.
    "He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Churc
  19. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Saint of Killers,

    Out of curiosity, did you locate these inconsistencies on your own, or from an atheism 101 website or publication;

    "The Bible also says that bats are birds, that rabbits chew cud, and that Pi is 3."


    Please provide a scriptural reference, chapter and verse, stating. "Andth thou shalt counteth Pi is 3.0, no moreth, no lessth!"

    I am eagerly awaiting. You certainly are more familiar than I with scripture in all of my years if you can find it for me.





    Bats as birds:

    "Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.

    "The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers). It's similar to refuting geocentrism charges against the Bible by showing that even modern astronomers use terms like "sunset" and "sunrise" without being accused of being geocentrists, so why shouldn't we make the same allowance for the Bible writers."



    ""Well, it is the Word of God, isn't it? It should be perfect at all times and in all circumstances!"
    If this is how "perfection" is to be understood -- if the Bible is supposed to be prepared for our every change in natural understanding of unalterable data -- then all we'd have to do to make the Bible "wrong" is change our terminology on things. If the Bible says, "the sky is blue," we can change our definition of what is "blue" and then say that the Bible is wrong. So would skeptics seriously suggest that the Bible might have to say, for example:

    This is what the Lord says: "The sky is blue -- although Joe Padooski, living in 1874 AD, will define this as others would define 'green' and he will call the color in question 'Fred'."
    Skeptics who make this sort of complaint don't want answers -- they need a serious reality check, and are acting like spoiled children who always want their way. The objection has no legitimacy."


    From:

    Bat Mobile



    Rabbits chewing cud:

    "So: the Hebrew word in question is NOT specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does "maketh" the previously digested material to "come" out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does) and does thereafter does chew "predigested material"! The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it."

    From:

    Those Wascally Wabbits

    See also;

    Do Rabbits Chew Cud?





    Your statement in and of itself doesn't bring the Biblical account into question, but the implication, and based upon your standing in this discussion seemed to indicate you thought these to be "contradictions," or "inconsistencies," or perhaps the correct word is "inaccuracies."

    I used the words "contradictions" and "inconsistencies" since usually when these references are presented those words are part and parcel to what is being presented. If the Biblical narrative is inconsistent, or elsewhere presents a verse which confutes those then, and only then, is it a contradiction or inconsistency, however, the scriptures are internally consistent here. Thus, we have neither inconsistency or contradiction.

    This leaves us with "inaccuracy." But it isn't a true inaccuracy, but wha
  20. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
  21. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Nice realization. Thanks for sharing.

    Trolling is also "bad."
  22. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Oh, I'm not trolling, I'm just lurking, I'm not looking for fights. :D


    EDIT: Before we get this thread any more off-track by our chatter, take this...whatever to PM.
  23. EnforcerSG Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2001
    star 4
    _Darth_Brooks_

    "The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above 'the circle of the earth' (the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere').

    So basically it is vague enough to go either way. Obviously it clearly means sphere since that is what the earth has been discovered to be.


    Getting back to basics. May you explain exactly why you believe in a young earth (I am assuming you do, forgive me if you do not, if you don't, you can ignore most of this)? I realize that the answer will probably be something along faith in the Bible and God, and the next question would be why do you have such faith in those two things? The answer I think would be a personal experience you had with God.

    It would be a large digression of this thread to have you explain why you but so much trust in that experience, but maybe if I could ask are you sure that when God came to you, that Him doing that proved that Genesis is to be taken literally and why?

    I am trying to tie this into creationism. I feel that this thread will be locked soon if we don?t get back on track.
  24. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    I dunno how helpful or accurate this can be, but here is a comparison between the two. It still baffles me how someone can call "creation", science.
  25. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Enforcer,

    "Getting back to basics. May you explain exactly why you believe in a young earth (I am assuming you do, forgive me if you do not, if you don't, you can ignore most of this)? I realize that the answer will probably be something along faith in the Bible and God, and the next question would be why do you have such faith in those two things? The answer I think would be a personal experience you had with God."

    I do not know exactly how old the earth is, but I do believe in the Genesis account.



    "It would be a large digression of this thread to have you explain why you but so much trust in that experience, but maybe if I could ask are you sure that when God came to you, that Him doing that proved that Genesis is to be taken literally and why?"

    One of the first questions I asked of the Lord after my conversion experience was whether or not common descent occurred. Why? Because I was an evolutionist, having simply accepted the theory without investigating it's deficiencies.

    I cannot doubt the veracity of the Lord's response to my petition. Quite simply the Lord does not lie, and there is no more authoritative source. Perhaps the only people who can understand and believe are others who've likewise had experiences with the Almighty Living God. To the rest it is, as scripture proclaims, "foolishness" to those who do not believe.

    So, I've had specific responese to fully trust in the Genesis account.

    And, additionally, all of scripture confirms the Genesis account, beginning with the Gospels in the NT, and throughout the Epistles.

    It doesn't hurt that scripture also forewarned that the Flood and Creation would be regarded as "fables," especially toward the time of the Risen Christ's soon return.

    Many of the "creation" scientists have likewise heard from the Lord, which is why they are able to bear the ridicule they are met with. They, like myself know, that the opinions of men are secondary to standing before the Lord, and to the faithfulness or unfaithfulness for which we must account.



    "I am trying to tie this into creationism. I feel that this thread will be locked soon if we don?t get back on track."

    It may be better if this thread were locked, all things considered. Everyone is polarized into their respective positions. Much of this has digressed into disrespectful superfluous comments against "creationists," and against Christianity, and assaults upon the Holy Bible.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.