---

I like science more than the Bible because they use words like "theory". It respects an open mind, it does not have a dogma, it acknowledges the search for the truth. I did not know until few years ago, that there was a 'missing link' in the theory of human evolution

---

I'm a Christian trained in science - a master's degree - and I love what science can and has achieved - like the internet that I'm now using , and various techniques for enhancing our health.

But ... it's a serious mistake to say that science 'does not have dogma'. Many (most?) scientists, such as Dawkins, in fact are absolutely dogmatic about materialistic naturalism. BTW I'm talking philosophy here, not doing an anti-communist rave.  Many 'scientist philosphers' actually act like high priests with 'science' as their opiate of the masses.  Also, as a caution regarding the difference between science and truth you might ask why 'missing links' seem to be a surprise. Even Darwin knew about them, and the 'Cambrian explosion' still causes concerns for many informed evolutionists. Then there's the biggest missing link of all - how abiogenesis came up with a replicating organism on which natural selection etc could act. (I hope people see that science and truth can overlap, but they are not the same, and neither is a subset of the other.)

Anyone reading this thread with an open mind would be well advised to read 'Icons of Evolution' by Jonathon Wells and 'Darwin's Black Box' by Michael Behe for some starter material by 'real scientists' who question the science of (macro-) evolution.

I've tossed in a few big words here, hoping to spark readers' interest in doing some serious research into evolution, philosphy of science and the question of origins.

I just pop in here occasionaly now, so TTFN. I wonder where this thread will go - apart from massive cut-and-pastes from the usual suspects? (Love ya guys!!!)

Oh, and by the way, as I understand it the latest 'scientific' evidence does not put any human 'race' anywhere different from any other 'race' in the evolution 'stakes'. Some even leads 'scientists' to doubt  whether there are 'races' at all! But some scientists of the 1800's did have the mistaken idea that some indigenous peoples were less evolutionarily advanced than 'whites'.

I don't know how it all works for you. How can you study science and believe in the Bible at the same time? Have you read the Bible? I also called myself a Christian a few years ago, but the more I read the Bible the more difficult it becomes to believe in Jesus. Bible is just a book of stories and should not been taken literally.

fficeffice" /> 

What is the fuss about Cambrian explosion? It does not support the Bible story of creation, does it? It just has a few unanswered questions. Science will find the answers. Years ago people did not know how babies are made; they just could make some sense that it is connected with male sperm and ejaculation. Nowadays, in the IVF program an egg and a sperm can be taken outside of the human body, connected and given specific environment, the embryo cells will multiply. Then the embryo is placed in the womb, nine month later a baby is born. Aren't they creating a new life outside of a womb?  We don't call these medical professional Gods, do we? It's just a matter of time, until humans solve the puzzle of biogenesis, unless they destroy each other fighting about whose religion is right.

Reply to : worriedmum

Hmmm ... I wonder if my last post pushed away other contributors.

What is the fuss about Cambrian explosion?

In the context of my original post the "fuss" is that you said that until recently you weren't aware of "missing links", but the evolutionist scientists who you seem to think are open minded hadn't made you aware of the major and systematic missing links represented by the "explosion".

For many "informed evolutionists" the "fuss" is that despite 150 years of investigation into the fossil record since Darwin's "Origin of the Species" the "explosion" represents the the simultaneous appearance of all the major body plans that exist today with the only pre-Cambrian fossils being evidence of single-celled orgainisms (prokaryotes, I think) plus the enigmatic Ediacaran biota (similarly complex  as the Cambrian, and also without precursors). The fact that (quite massive, I believe) evidence exists of single-celled organisms exists tends to blow away the excuse that precursors aren't found in the fossil record because they would have been soft-bodied.)

It does not support the Bible story of creation, does it?

Well it certainly seems to contradict the macro-evolutionary parts of the neo-Darwinian synthesis which predict simple evolving into complex without saltation. I think it also is problematic for Gould's punctuated equilibria.

I thought this thread was about evolution rather then the "Bible story of creation". Frankly, there are many (scientifically) well-informed bible believers who differ on the interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. They all agree on the first part of Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ..." What He did to get to where we are now, though seems to be the subject of a wide range of opinions such as deistic evolution, theistic evolution, through day-age God of the gaps, and  6 x 24 hour day special creation less than 10,000 years ago, to "Hey this is Hebrew poetry which is not even meant to be read as science". My own take is that the key issue is that the universe was put here by God, and that one day, after further study, I'll get to a point where I think I know what the human author intended when he wrote the first two chapters of Genesis. Even then, I'll be prepared to be corrected! For now, it's just one of the those less-important things that I can't tie down.

If you're prepared to accept that maybe "In the beginning God ..." and you're held back from believing because of your belief that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict what we observe about the universe, I'd suggest reading material by someone like Alister McGrath who is recommended in the 'Recommeded reading - on Richard Dawkins' thread. That is, find a Christian (or believing Jew) who is educated in both theology and science.

It just has a few unanswered questions. Science will find the answers.

I presume you mean it will find answers which conform to materialistic naturalism. If so, what great faith you have.

Years ago people did not know how babies are made; they just could make some sense that it is connected with male sperm and ejaculation. Nowadays, in the IVF program an egg and a sperm can be taken outside of the human body, connected and given specific environment, the embryo cells will multiply. Then the embryo is placed in the womb, nine month later a baby is born. Aren't they creating a new life outside of a womb?  We don't call these medical professional Gods, do we? It's just a matter of time, until humans solve the puzzle of biogenesis ...

What a great example of the problems with abiogensis. People (intelligent life) take an egg and sperm (pre-existing living material) and still only get success about 1 time in 5, sometimes with serious side effects - due to radical hormonal therapies - to the woman who supplies the egg. Abiogensis means non-life becoming life but this example deals with life producing life.

Even the famous Urey-Miller experiments say precious little about non-life becoming life because the polypeptides produced were and are far simpler than any key cellular components, the environment that produced them immediately destroyed them (they had to be drawn into a side chamber away from the electrical discharges to exist long enough to detect them) and paleoclimatologists now believe that Earth's atmosphere was probably never reducing (in the chemical sense), but would have had oxygen present from the beginning.

How can you study science and believe in the Bible at the same time?

That's a bit like saying how could an expert mechanical engineer be a profound artist. Consider Leonardo Da Vinci. For me it comes to what I mean by science and believing the bible. When I think of science I think of the process of observing, drawing conclusions and then testing those conclusions. It used to be called the 'scientific method'. For me studying the bible starts with trying to understand the message the human authors were trying to get across to the original readers. (Well actually it starts with an attitude that I don't know everything.) My experience - somewhat of a hypothesis based on observation - is that perceived errors and contradictions in the message of the bible then melt away.

I'd certainly agree that parts of the bible are not meant to be taken literally, but I believe that other parts of the bible do present historical fact. As I understand it, the bible contains a number of different genres of writing. The book of Proverbs for example I would describe as neither fact, nor fiction but a collection of truisms.

... unless they destroy each other fighting about whose religion is right.

No doubting that bad things are done in the name of religon, but don't forget that the 20th century demonstrated that belief in a super-natural god isn't needed to produce death and destruction. Just ask the victims of Stalin, Hitler. Mao and Pol-Pot. Even today in this country we have death and destruction caused by non-religious purveyors of things such as heroin, nicotine and inappropriate consumption of alcohol.

Hello RF on the edge.fficeffice" />

May I ask you what exactly are you studying at uni? What are your majors? Have you been studying the Revivalist teaching?

However, No matter what you are studying you have an ability to think logically, don't you?  So if we have numbers in this order

2_4_67_9    it is obvious to you, which numbers are missing. Isn't it? If you have not found them under your bed it does not mean they don't exist.  Even if we never find them we can see that they are in the right order.  On the contrary, the bible teaches us a very opposite belief (not even a theory) and puts the numbers in the different order. First there is 7, then 1, 7, 5, 9 and it does not have number 3 at all. This is how bible represents what has been known in science in the last 150 years or so and it does not make a logical sequence. This is because Bible was written not by God, but people, who did not have all that knowledge that we have today. I am talking not about my or your knowledge, I am talking about the Knowledge that humanity has.

Cambrian explosion.

What I mean is that there are lots of missing links, but it does not mean we don't know what they may be, in addition to that, that missing link, that Darwin was talking about when he presented his theory, was found, but we will have to find others and we will never find them all! The notion of Missing link was/is used by theologians to criticise Darwin theory because his theory undermines religion as it is. The theory makes more sense to me than Bible, that is why the notion of the missing link was not an issue to me until recently. I don't know everything, in contrast to some Christians who claim that they do, but I am willing to learn more about the Cambrian explosion as well as the Bible. In contrary to the Christians, they are not interested to learn about the evolution. It is too complicated for them. I also struggle sometimes with the terminology, Sometimes I cant see your logical sequence,  I am trying to understand you but sometimes I can't, sorry, you could explain it to me in a simpler language, we are not all  biologists here, please:

The fact that (quite massive, I believe) evidence exists of single-celled organisms exists tends to blow away the excuse that precursors aren't found in the fossil record because they would have been soft-bodied.)

Also, I suggest you could learn a bit more about mutation and what causes it.

all the major body plans

Are you saying there was a mammoth together with a cockroach?

Well it certainly seems to contradict the macro-evolutionary parts of the neo-Darwinian synthesis which predict simple evolving into complex without saltation.

Well, it certainly contradicts what is in the Bible. Do you really think that our omnipotent God is so mean that he wanted to confuse humans therefore in his words (Which is the bible) he mixed everything up or lied to us? God is omnipotent there is no doubt about that, isn't it? He could definitely make all possible animals in one day and did not need rest. However, the science tells us that they evolved during millions of years. Does it matter if there was a saltation or not? Probably there were some. So what? How does it support what is said in the Bible? Christians believe that Earth is only a few thousand years old, and God created animals all at once. What has he killed dinosaurs for? Is there anything in the Bible about dinos? Then he created humans. Sorry, I want to know what they looked like? Those Adam and Eve. Did Eve look like ?Lucy'? This famous ?missing link'. According to the Bible, we look like God. I guess that person who wrote the Old Testament never saw the movie "Gorillas in the mist"

To be continued...

 fficeffice" />

 I think it also is problematic for Gould's punctuated equilibria.

Honestly, don't know much about this theory, but I will read. On the contrary, some on this forum will not make an effort to comprehend this theory, reading the Bible is much easier.

Frankly, there are many (scientifically) well-informed bible believers who differ on the interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. They all agree on the first part of Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ..."

And...So what do those many well-informed believers say about the light that God created before he created the Sun? Why God told us in the Bible that the Sun goes around the Earth? Even ancient Greeks knew it was the other way around! Please, can you name these many well-informed believers? I would like to know more about what they have to say. I hope they studied phisics.

What He did to get to where we are now, though seems to be the subject of a wide range of opinions such as deistic evolution, theistic evolution, through day-age God of the gaps, and  6 x 24 hour day special creation less than 10,000 years ago, to "Hey this is Hebrew poetry which is not even meant to be read as science".

Hoi, hoi, those are not the Bible believers, or you can put me in this category as well!

My own take is that the key issue is that the universe was put here by God, and that one day, after further study, I'll get to a point where I think I know what the human author intended when he wrote the first two chapters of Genesis.

Wishful thinking. I think the more you study the science the more you will get away from the Bible, you also stop being so na?e, when you grow older.

 Even then, I'll be prepared to be corrected! For now, it's just one of the those less-important things that I can't tie down.

What you are telling me you do not really believe what the old testament is about, it is not important to you, as you want to believe that there was God. Of course I understand,  It is easier to live if you know that you are a special creation, because god made you so and if you are good to God you won't need to die forever. It is a nice story, but though I want to believe it with all my poor soul, my education and life experience tell me it is just another fairy tale.

I'd suggest reading material by someone like Alister McGrath who is recommended in the 'Recommeded reading - on Richard Dawkins' thread. That is, find a Christian who is educated in both theology and science.

OK, Alister McGrath then. I will read, not today though. What I have known so far, when he went to Oxford to study science he found it too difficult and he started to study theology instead. It is very questionable, that he is a very educated scientist. I would say he is just another theologian that tried to study science, but science and religion don't mix. Christianity and science are two incompatible ways of looking at life.

I presume you mean they find answers which conform to materialistic naturalism. If so, what great faith you have.

No, I hope they will find something one way or the other. I am open to all possibilities. What if they find evidence of early humans mixing with aliens? I am likely to believe this theory. Then I will believe that Jesus was abducted by aliens who revived him. I will never believe in the Bible truly. Harry Potter story has more logic in it that the bible.

What a great example of the problems with abiogensis.

Sorry, but I did not have it as an example of abiogenesis, you got me wrong. I know what abiogenesis is. All I meant was, some time ago humanity did not know a lot of life secrets that we know now, and we keep learning.

People (intelligent life) take an egg and sperm (pre-existing living material) and still only get success about 1 time in 5,

I though the IVF success was much better for some than in a womb - Natural and godly way of fertilisation! That is why woman go for an IVF.

Even the famous Urey-Miller experiments say precious little because the polypeptides produced were and are far simpler than any key cellular components, the environment that produced them immediately destroyed them (they had to be drawn into a side chamber away from the electrical discharges to exist long enough to detect them) and paleoclimatologists now believe that Earth's atmosphere was probably never reducing (in the chemical sense), but would have had oxygen present from the beginning.

Definitely it presents a challenge for science. I also would like to argue, that by not knowing what you don't know, don't deny yourself a chance of getting to know by believing in God.

How can you study science and believe in the Bible at the same time? That's a bit like saying how could an expert mechanical engineer be a profound artist.Consider Leonardo Da Vinci.

No, it is not the same. Leonardo lived a few hundred of years ago and I have seen somewhere that he was a gay. It is possible that he was not a believer. He was a rebel! Being an engineer and an artist does not contradict each other, however religion and science have incompatible views to life.

 For me it comes to what I mean by science and believing the bible. When I think of science I think of the process of observing, drawing conclusions and then testing those conclusions. It used to be called the 'scientific method'. For me studying the bible starts with trying to understand the message the human authors were trying to get across to the original readers. (Well actually it starts with an attitude that I don't know everything.) My experience - somewhat of a hypothesis besed on observation - is that perceived errors and contradictions in the message of the bible then melt away.

I don't really think you believe the bible. You believe in God, and you are not sure what you believe, but it provides comfort to you. If you want to achieve something in science you cant be buried in dogma of RF life, if you want to be a successful scientist, because you will be considered a heretic if you don't take Bible literally, and I mean the Old testament as well, this is what RF wants us to believe.

Even today in this country we have death and destruction caused by non-religious purveyors of things such as heroin, nicotine and inappropriate consumption of alcohol.

This as a side effect of living in a capitalist /democratic society.

Just ask the victims of Stalin, Hitler. Mao and Pol-Pot.

Please, don't mix communists with Hitler. Hitler's ideas were a perversion of both religion and biology.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65).

Communists on the other hand believed in the theory of Marx and Lenin, which became a religion for them. They had built a cult of a leader in each communist country and some could die to defend their ideas. Same brainwashing was present in everyday life and all other opposing ideas were proclaimed as dangerous to the national security. People were taught that they need to build a communist society, and it was not easy when all countries around are capitalist, but their children will live in a better and happy future, they will have a much better life than them. It reminds me Christian teachings to be humble, so we will live in paradise in afterlife. I agree, this was dangerous as any dogma! That is why religion is dangerous! Religion is dangerous because if we give way to the Christian fundamentalism, science and health care will suffer first of all. Education will be only accessible to a chosen elite, such as theologians, politicians etc. Abortion will be prohibited; women will lose those rights that they were fighting for centuries for. They will have to stay home and have one baby after the other. So then they will not have the same judgement and education as men, and will be proclaimed stupid again. Truly, women will become servants to men again. Can't you see tendency in the universities that women are more likely to study and complete study than men? Give way to Christians and we will have to forget about our freedom of religion then. You simply will be discriminated if you are not a Christian! Then you can shovel your democracy down your ass. The whole country will be one big Revival Fellowship. Another country under a dictator, the difference is you will call each other brother, not comrade.

I should not spend too much time on this forum, because it served its purpose for me, and now I need to come back to normal life and start looking for a job. However, now I am aware of the problem with religion, because it deeply touched my life. Christianity as it is taught by Revivalism almost destroyed my family. I will come here sometimes, to see if other people need help.

It reminds me Christian teachings to be humble, so we will live in paradise in afterlife. I agree, this was dangerous as any dogma! That is why religion is dangerous! Religion is dangerous because if we give way to the Christian fundamentalism, science and health care will suffer first of all. Education will be only accessible to a chosen elite, such as theologians, politicians etc. Abortion will be prohibited; women will lose those rights that they were fighting for centuries for. They will have to stay home and have one baby after the other. So then they will not have the same judgement and education as men, and will be proclaimed stupid again. Truly, women will become servants to men again. Can't you see tendency in the universities that women are more likely to study and complete study than men? Give way to Christians and we will have to forget about our freedom of religion then. You simply will be discriminated if you are not a Christian! Then you can shovel your democracy down your ass. The whole country will be one big Revival Fellowship. Another country under a dictator, the difference is you will call each other brother, not comrade.

Worried mum if this is how you view christianity, and how the bible sees women, education etc, you have not really understood the word of God at all.

The revivalist view of christianity is not at all like the biblical view on Christianity

e5

You made some interesting posts.

Yeah. I have a life of my own too, so I'm not going to continue any more on this thread after posting this, and I'm not going to address in detail all your points. You should consider that I am well over 40 years old, my undergraduate studies were in biology, and my tertiary studies were completed several decades ago, so you would be wise to be careful about what you assume about me, my life experience and naivity, and our relative knowledge about issues such as 'mutation', even though you seem highly confident of your expertise in biblical theology and science.

For example do you truly appreciate the significance of 'genetic load'?  Also, I can tell you without fear of contradiction that a pine tree's response to drought is not an example of macro-evolution, and yes botany was a significant focus of my studies, but someone who had studied high school biology could confirm my statement. (I do know about micro-evolution, but like many others do not accept that the mechanisms of (observed) micro-evolution can be simply "scaled-up" to (unobserved) macro-evolution, since evidence and logic indicate otherwise.)

I'm prepared to stand corrected on Hitler. My understanding of what others wrote about him was that he used religon and the name of Christianity, but did not embrace it in any way that he would be recognised as a Christian.

In retrospect I should have written: For many "informed evolutionists" the "fuss" is that despite 150 years of investigation into the fossil record since Darwin's "Origin of the Species" the "explosion" represents the geologically simultaneous appearance of virtually all the major body plans that exist today ...

Sure IVF works for many, where natural conception doesn't or can't; science can be wonderful. But it's not 100% successful, and my point (misguided as you say) was that it says nothing about abiogenesis. Be careful in your assumption that science (whatever you mean by that) will reveal all truth.

Sorry about your trouble following my logic, but I'm not posting as a tutor. Alister McGrath is an example. You would be wise to read others of his ilk, too. Perhaps try the American Scientific Affiliation and www.apologetics.org

Make no mistake, I absolutely and without reservation believe that the bible, both Old and New Testaments, as it was originally written was God's inspired word and that what we have today is not significantly different from the original words. I accept it as my rule of faith. That is why I seek to be a disciple of Jesus and although I attend an RF do not accept, amongst other things their "no tongues = no salvation" doctrine. I boldly embrace the Old Testament and I boldly seek to have the same understanding of it as Jesus and His first disciples. I accept without reservation it's principle that there is a personal God, who as a potter has moulded me as clay the way He sees fit.

I sincerely hope that you do some serious study of both Christianity and "science" with reliable tutors as you'll be astounded by what you find. Currently you have some seriously incorrect understandings. For example, the bible does not say the sun revolves around the Earth, it does not say that if I am good to God I don't have to die and it does not say that humans look like God. Mutation has nothing to do with fossilisation of soft-bodied organisms and Darwin specifically said that saltation was precluded by his theory. Do you really think that the official RF teaching on origins is literal? For example they don't teach that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and they don't teach young earth cosmology.

Do you really understand the wide range of views within "Christian fundamentalism" regarding social justice. Today in Australia the leaders of both the major  "nominally capitalist" and "nominally socialist" political parties are committed Christians. Australia's social welfare system was heavily inspired by the work of William Booth, Wilberforce's Christianity was crucial to his work to abolish slavery, Wesley's work was foundational to the British public school system. Look at apartheid in South Africa. Christianity was used to both support and fight it. Sure bad things have and are done in the name of Christianity e.g., you mention Hitler. But good things are done too. Hitler's evil was confronted by among other things Bonhoeffer's attempt to do good.

I pray that as you "get back to normal life" there has been a seed sown in you that you just might currently lack true understanding regarding  the bible and the nature of this universe, and that just maybe the God of the bible could be more than just a fairy tale . My prayer is that your eyes, mind and heart will be open to the evidence that you need to question everything including your beliefs that science and the bible are incompatible, and the conclusions you have currently drawn from your "education and life experiences".

BTW Here's a mathematical exercise back at you. I could legitimately say "1 plus 1 equals 10" and you could say "Wrong, 1 plus 1 equals 2" with my statement being true and your statement being false. (Feel free to PM me if you wish me to explain.)

Sorry, RF on the Edge, I had an inpression that you were still studying. I apologise.

You say

Currently you have some seriously incorrect understandings. For example, the bible does not say the sun revolves around the Earth, it does not say that if I am good to God I don't have to die and it does not say that humans look like God. Mutation has nothing to do with fossilisation of soft-bodied organisms and Darwin specifically said that saltation was precluded by his theory. Do you really think that the official RF teaching on origins is literal? For example they don't teach that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and they don't teach young earth cosmology.

This is not what I said. Actually, it is not really that important for me now what they teach. What is important how my son understood what they were teaching, and that was really shocking. It is also shocking what is in the old testament. Surprise, surprise! RF does not teach it literally. Yes, I know, there were other people before Adam. What about everything else?

By the way, I refuse to be a God's puppet! My destiny is in my hands.

OK, I may have  wrong info  about his education.

However, Christians also need to study his works. Very interesting

This is a link from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_of_Atheism

I argue, that even McGrath can see how the spread of the Christian dogma will  suffocate atheism, and therefore our democracy and science.

Reply to Didaktikon

As  I said before about McGrath earlier

I will read, not today though. What I have known so far...

 I 've already read it, thanks. 

I feel that you are attacking me personally all the time, instead of making your point, which is very unChrisitan.   You may be doing a great job analising revivalist beliefs, but you know you could not convince me that God exist, because the only proof that you have is Your faith.

I guess you have a lot of bones to pick with the church you went before, which damped you, but I am definitely not the right end to bite on. I think the anger that is still present in you showing up and you may benefit from some 'wordly' counselling. This is a friendly advice. However, I may guess, what reaction you will have to it, don't falll off your chair.

Reply to RF-on the edge.

I just want to reply to one of your remarks about RF.

For example they don't teach that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman 

I noticed that and I kept reading genesis again and again, until it stricken me.

23-24 So God expelled them from the Garden of Eden and sent them to work the ground,

an orthodox bible actually says God told Adam to  "cultivate the ground". One can argue that indeed these Garden of Eden was somewhere in the Middle East where the agriculture really started and then spread around the globe. There is a little problem with this "theologian truth". Agriculture was known long before Adam (aprox. 6000BC?) and the incidence of wheat cultivation of 9000-7000 BC in the Fertile Crescent is condsidered to be the most important.

Funny though, that agriculture was known to ancient indigenous Americans and introduced by Quetzal Feathered Serpent deity who was known as the inventor of books and the calendar, the giver of corn to mankind. And the earliest maize samples have been documented at the Los Ladrones cave site in Panama 5500BC

OK, what about Indigenous Australians? Amazingly it did not go far enough to reach Australia, as indigenous people were a gather -hunter society when discovered by Europeans. (That is why probably they were not even considered humans, oh, a racist god indeed). I am about to weep as I am living in a God forgotten land.

More to it, if you read genesis carefully again you will see that ch1 and ch2 are simply 2 different stories about creation and have little in common. In the 1^st ch God creates humans last and blesses them to multiply, he does not create a paradise and does not make them to cultivate the land. In the second one he creates a man before all plants, forbids education and dooms them to multiply and cultivate the land. My point is Bible is unreliable source of information about the Earth and life on Earth, it is so inconsistent within self and it contradicts science, in this case historical science. I find historical science is a more reliable source of information.

You believe what the science tells you or you believe what the bible tells you. The law of non contradiction tells you that it can be one or the other. Nothing in between.

Reply to : worriedmum

Oh my goodness. Let me know when  you understand the implications of Didaktikon's comment about the genre of the first chapters of Genesis.

For example they don't teach that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman 

And they still don't. And there's still no contradiction between Genesis and the facts of science. As I said, if you find macro-evolution credible you've got a lot of Christian company.

First of all, I am sorry I made you feel that you are being converted. I cannot convert you simply because I am not a follower of any sort of religion at the moment. But I am enjoying discussions with an educated person about the fatal bible flaws.

Ok. Thanks. But you really would be better off meeting with some theologically educated people. You would be wise to heed Didaktikon's input. I won't be dedicating any more time to this thread as I need to spend more time in other parts of my life.

Your posts are confusing. I really do think you would be wise to come to some sort of conclusion as to that there might be a 'supreme being' before you get fussed about whether or not the bible is true.

I would like to ask you a few questions.
Yes, they obviously teach that Adam and Eve were not the first humans.Please, educate me, who were those people that god created and blessed to multiply in the first chapter and how macro evolution fits into this idea of God's creation? It looks to me that they are contradicting each other.

As I said before consider the implications of the genre (as explained by Didaktikon) of the first chapters of Genesis

I am sorry I dare to correct you a little. The law of non-contradiction actually means that two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. X cannot be non-X. A thing cannot be and not be simultaneously. And nothing that is true can be self-contradictory or inconsistent with any other truth.

I'm happy to be corrected, but from what I've read, and from Didi's post it seems that the real law is pretty much " X cannot be non-X.", and the rest of your points are deductions (or should that be corollaries?)

Yes, I am openly and accurately investigating the Bible, but as I read the Bible I can see that God first created animals and plants and then humans in the 1st chapter, then he created Adam and later plants and animals and Eve in the second chapter. So it looks very contradictory to me. Nothing that is true can be self-contradictory. So, the Bible is not true. This is firstly.

Yet again, consider the implications of the genre (as explained by Didaktikon) of the first chapters of Genesis. Talk to someone trained in theology. PM Didaktikon. Read some high quality one-volume commentaries. It may look contradictory to you, but I'd suggest are you not seeing with the perspective of the original readers.

Secondly, if we ignore this as a flaw and accept that as a truth, then we end up contradicting the evolution theory, particularly the part, which says humans evolved from some ape looking mammals. It does not say, mind you, as many RF followers believe that evolution theory states we evolved from monkeys. So, according to the law of non-contradiction, creation and evolution theories cannot both be true at the same time and at the same sense. And now I don't understand how can you and other unknown to me Christians believe in God's creation theory and macroevolution theory at the same time?

Once more ... consider the implications of the genre (as explained by Didaktikon) of the first chapters of Genesis.

I'm not sure where you get  "... as many RF followers believe that evolution theory states we evolved from monkeys" from. Micro-evolution is accepted, but macro-evolution is taught against.

BTW I said that I find that the scientific evidence weighs against  macro-evolution. What I did say was that some (highly educated and logical) Christians find it possible to believe that macro-evolution fits the scientific evidence and believe that Genesis is part of God's word. It all hangs on the genre and context. When I initially posted I wasn't sure of the genre, but given Didaktikon's field of expertise I'll take his statement as confirmation of other stuff I've read.

What the problem does 'principle of empirical verifiability' have with the 'law of non-contradiction'.?

Read the book.

---

What the problem does 'principle of empirical verifiability' have with the 'law of non-contradiction'.?

---

the problem is that the principle of emperical verifiabillity says that only if you can reproduce the results in different circumstances over a long period of time and it always comes out with the same results can you say it is true

the law of non-contradiction can only be proved if you accept that it is true in the begining. it has never been proven by the principal of empirical verifiabillity.

Hi RF -on the edge

You really puzzle me, guys. We do confuse each other, indeed. You mentioned 3 times about implication of the genre of genesis1.1 and 1.2 explained by Didaktikon. This is really helpful! Where is it? In another thread? How the genre can explain such inconsistencies between ch 1 and 2?

 fficeffice" />

Are you saying that the fact that we are not able to find some missing links in fossils actually proves that evolution theory is wrong? How on earth the fact that we cannot find God, except that in the Bible or our imagination, does not prove the creation theory is wrong?

The Cambrian explosion has occurred during a "narrow" period of time of 65 million years! Yep. "Explosion" is a very big word. Oh, the explosion is impossible to exist without a cause and this cause certainly is God. That is an incredible logic! Compare that we only need 5 generations of mice for a microevolution! And all we need is a biologist. How much time will be that? Now compare it with 65 million years.

You said Cambrian "explosion" represents the "geologically simultaneous appearance of virtually all the major body plans that exist today "... I saw some articles on the Internet as they say, "almost all", "virtually all", and even "all" body plan. There are great variations in how many basic body plans were found and how many we have today. Depending, probably, at what time period they are looking.   I bet they did not find a poodle skeleton between those 25 body plans in the fossils of the Cambrian explosion.  I honestly can't see, how the Cambrian explosion presents an inconsistency of Darwinian theory. The life on earth flourished in waves, there were explosions, there were extinctions, and some evolved. Nothing wrong with that. Don't take Darwinian theory as a bible however, it is an old theory, biology progressed since the time of Darwin!

Hm, I thought you were biologist. I am loosing trust now. Or may be you are just not in the right church? Why are you here anyway?

You say

Be careful in your assumption that science (whatever you mean by that) will reveal all truth.

I don't assume. Especially as the Bible forbids to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge and the fruit from the tree of life. If you mean that "truth", and we all will follow the Bible we will never find all truth!

I really do think you would be wise to come to some sort of conclusion as to that there might be a 'supreme being' before you get fussed about whether or not the bible is true.

the problem is that the principle of emperical verifiabillity says that only if you can reproduce the results in different circumstances over a long period of time and it always comes out with the same results can you say it is true

the law of non-contradiction can only be proved if you accept that it is true in the begining. it has never been proven by the principal of empirical verifiabillity.

You're not there, but you might be on the way. Maybe you should read the book too.  

Clue 1: You've only got about half the definition of the 'principle of empirical verifiability'. Have a look at Hume's definition of what constitutes 'truth'. (Or better yet read the book.  I got it from Koorong.)

Clue 2: I accept the law of 'non-contradiction' but have been questioning the 'principle of empirical verfifiabilty'.

(One (medieval?) wit commented that anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be whipped and burned until he admits that being burned is not the same as not being burned, and being whipped is not the same as not being whipped. )

Clue 3: OK ... here's another clue ... It's got nothing to do with the 'law of non-contradiction'  not being proven by 'the principle of empirical viability'

You mentioned 3 times about implication of the genre of genesis1.1 and 1.2 explained by Didaktikon. This is really helpful! Where is it? In another thread? How the genre can explain such inconsistencies between ch 1 and 2??

Hmmm .... can't find it myself now.  Sorry. If I recall correctly it was along the lines that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are Hebrew religous poetry.  (I thought it was in a post addressed to you, so that's why I didn't repeat it.) I'm sure Ian will correct or expand as needed.

FWIW, I drafted a reply to more of what you wrote, but didn't post it as it was mostly just going over old ground.

Just so there's no confusion, memo to the forum: I am not a biologist. I never said I was one. If I recall correctly, I said I was tertiary trained in applied biology. I do have such an accredited degree from one of the Australian 'bluestone' universities.

PS I just amended my comment in light of Zion's post. Again, sorry.
PPS Thanks Z

---

Reply to : worriedmumYou mentioned 3 times about implication of the genre of genesis1.1 and 1.2 explained by Didaktikon. This is really helpful! Where is it? In another thread? How the genre can explain such inconsistencies between ch 1 and 2??Hmmm .... can't find it myself now.Sorry.If I recall correctly it was along the lines that thefirst elevenchaptersof Genesis are Hebrew religous poetry. (It was in a post addressed to you, so that's why I didn't repeat it.) I'm sure Ian will correct or expand as needed.FWIW, Idrafted areply to more of what you wrote, but didn't post it as I'd just be going over old ground.Just so there's no confusion, memo to the forum:I am not a biologist. Ineve

---

You can find this at the end of page 2 in the 'Bible and Beliefs Room' under 'An open invitation'...

	Date Posted: 28/09/2007 10:07:31 AM
Reply to : brolga Hi, Ralph. That might get the man going hey! Oh, I knew exactly what E5 was asking, I was simply waiting to see if he did Anyway, the first few chapters of Genesis are Hebrew poetry; what we find in relation to Creation recorded in chapters one and two is simply parallelism: there was one Creation, and there was one Adam. Blessings, Ian P.S. 'Oops'. Upon reflection I should also have added that the first few chapters of Genesis are Hebrew religious poetry. The intent isn't necessarily to describe the 'process' of origins, rather than the 'Processor' of the same (i.e. God). Understanding this goes a loooong way to properly appreciating the purpose, scope, and intended meaning of Genesis chapters 1 through 11

---

Reply to : break freethe problem is that the principle of emperical verifiabillity says that only if you can reproduce the results in different circumstances over a long period of time and it always comes out with the same results can you say it is truethe law of non-contradiction can only be proved if you accept that it is true in the begining. it has never been proven by the principal of empirical verifiabillity.You're not there, but you mightbe on the way. Maybe you should read the book too.Clue 1: You've only got about half the definition of the 'principle of empirical verifiability'. Have a look at Hume's definition of what constitutes 'truth'. (Or better yet read the book.I got it from

---

lol i stand corrected

i did know i gave a very simplistic explanation of the principal of emperical veriafibillity and that there was alot more to it than i said.

but your right i should read the book