Creation Debate

JW shared CBC News‘s photo.
But these never existed…. Sigh
Turns out, woolly mammoths ate more than just grass. Their diet mystery has been solved by DNA analysis. </p><br /> <p>Here's how it compares to your own diet:
Turns out, woolly mammoths ate more than just grass. Their diet mystery has been solved by DNA analysis.
Here’s how it compares to your own diet:
Unlike ·  · Share · February 5 at 6:08pm · 
  • You and RB like this.
  • Bert Amsing Or maybe they did….sigh….creationists have at least four different positions….all of which make sense…..only one of which would suggest that these never existed….sigh….if only people would do their homework….
  • JW Faith vs science. One written by man translated repeatedly and Interpreted. The other proven over and over. There is no argument to be had.
    I do my homework. RB would you care to discuss this.
  • JW Do you pick and choose what you take from the bible as word or as metaphor. We already know that a “flood” the magnitude as described in the bible, didn’t happen. So who interprets the size to let everyone know…So did these poor fellows above trip and fall face first into a puddle? 4 different arguments as to how they were possible. You have a definitive book, It should say.
    You know how it tells all the Christians to be bigots, oh wait it doesn’t! it’s just how over half the Christians I know interpret it as gay people are evil. Not much love when it is a Christians first edict.
    Ham doesn’t deserve a platform. Where is his supporting material for proof?
  • Bert Amsing RB is more than welcome to discuss….but you be part of it as well….if you have done your homework….show it… far, I see mockery…..innuendos….inaccuracies…..and irrationality…..where is your homework?
  • Bert Amsing The interpretation of the Bible is not haphazard, nor arbitrary….even though on issues that are not central to the message, there may be more than one interpretation….quite normal for any ancient book written in another language….it is a normal part of the Historical Method…..
  • Bert Amsing Four different arguments for creation…..not for the Flood…..and no, the Bible doesn’t have to SAY which one is correct….the purpose of the Bible is not to be a scientific discussion of the origins of the universe….it has a much more important role and purpose… you know what the four positions are? Ham believes in Young Earth Creationism, but there is also Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolutionism… you know what they say? All are compatible with the belief that God created the earth…they disagree as to HOW he created the earth….the real issue is NOT creation, but rather belief in God…..which is a game changer in anybodies life….if taken seriously…..
  • Bert Amsing The people that you talk to about saying that gay people are evil ….are either not Christians… matter what they say….or they are Christians who don/t have a clue….just like there are a lot of evolutionists who don’t have a clue….
  • Bert Amsing Christianity is not defined by Christians anymore than evolutionism is defined by people who believe in it….rather Christianity is defined by God through the Bible as interpreted by the community of believers…..just like evolutionism is defined by science through the community of professional scientists….
  • Bert Amsing You can agree or not agree… can believe in God or not….but mockery is the last resort of ignorance….
  • Bert Amsing Much more interesting to have an intelligent look at the evidence and at the worldviews of those who interpret the evidence….just saying….
  • DV JW all you are sharing when you speak is angry ego.
  • DV And PS., you’re not sharing facts, you’re sharing your religion.
  • Bert Amsing You are right….I am sharing a certain interpretation of the facts…which you call religion…..the fallacy is to think that just because you believe in evolution that you don/t think that it is an interpretation of the facts but rather the facts themselves….not true….it is not called the theory of evolution for nothing…Nietzche claimed that there is no truth, only interpretation….I would agree….unless, of course, God exists and He has spoken…then his point of view would be truth, wouldn’t it? I am not sharing my religion….I am sharing God’s point of view….whether you agree with it or not is up to you…
  • DV I was speaking to JW actually, Bert.
  • DV I was speaking about the religion of secularism and naturalism and the faith that is required to have a belief in evolution, and the belief in the meandering findings of science as at every irritating step along the way they proudly trumpet, “There is no God, we’re scientists!” Truly pathetic, sad, ego driven, short sighted…
  • Bert Amsing Well, I wouldn’t put it that way….I do believe that many people have made science into something that it was never meant to be…not because of science but because of anthropology….the problem is in us….science is useful and helpful ….but we always have to be careful not to allow it to say more than it says….there is a difference between the science of origins and the science of today….two different processes….not often recognized….still, for me, it is an understandable mistake…or a forgiveable arrogance….since they don’t believe in God….I would probably fall into the same trap if I had not had my own encounter with God while I studied the evidence….it’s a bit like falling in love….if you haven’t experienced it….there is no adequate way to explain it to someone else…lol
  • JW Show me anything to support your position that isn’t in the bible. Your interpretation is emotional, isn’t it? What is the position of Muslims? Jews? Why do you think your position is correct ( considering it conflicts with other texts)?
  • Bert Amsing You miss the point….sorry….I started with the position that the Bible was the actual point of view of a God that exists….no other religious text is needed…or allowed….the right question to ask is whether that position is reasonable or warranted by the evidence….what is the evidence that ONLY the Bible is the truth from God’s point of view? Now that is an interesting question….and it has an awful lot of evidence supporting it and practically no evidence supporting any other religious texts…most of which do NOT make the claim to be the historic, factual account of God’s interaction with the human race….interesting, no? Most people make too many assumptions about what the other religions actually claim….so if you are asking about the evidence supporting the claim that only the Bible has the truth that comes from the God who is actually there….well, let’s talk about that…..very interesting….
  • Bert Amsing At the same time, I would also say that an awful lot of evidence…factual, scientific and historical evidence….supports the claims of intelligent design….the reliability of the Biblical text…even with multiple translations and interpretations….and the historicity of the events portrayed in the Bible..especially about Jesus, his ministry, his death, and his resurrection…..a very important point to make is that the Apostle Paul, himself, said that if Jesus did not actually, historically, rise from the dead….we are the biggest fools around….Christianity is the most scientific and historical religion around….including the Jews…the claim is that it actually happened…and if there is evidence that proves that it did not happen…then we are in trouble….but none of this ….well, I just can’t believe in that kind of stuff…type of argument….agreed, it is hard to believe….but the evidence is compelling….if you have the guts to really look into it…..
  • JW DV. If there is a consistency in the findings it is not ego. It becomes recreating “gods will”, isn’t it. Otherwise it can only be the work of the devil. Ultimately you have a problem with the delivery, ok. But arguing with imperial data like carbon dating is daft.Now I agree that arrogance can lead a scientist down questionable roads. The answers lie in repeating the same test getting the same result. Recreating it in a multitude of ways, consistently getting the same results.I believe the bible talks about science, and tells you to embrace it. I do not interpret it to mean that the earth is a young earth. That to me is silliness. Borderline crazy. Serious.
    In regards to each theory Bert I will read through them in the next few days and address them. You are kind enough and respectful enough to get a thorough reply.
    Ultimately I think that if god truly wrote this through Jesus and crew (if he did do the things proclaimed) would have been more direct. There would not really be interpretation or debate. He demands order every where else in his universe but allows this one flaw, his book.
    It’s not that I have a problem in god. Or the thought of it.
  • Bert Amsing Interesting point of view, JW…not sure that I agree entirely….lol….but I like your openness….a couple of things….carbon dating is not empirical data….and it is not 100% reliable…but the concept of carbon dating is solid…….and should be respected as solid scientific data….but if you remember what I said about starting with the existence of God and then working backward from there….it is very possible that God created a young earth in a mature form…..if God CREATED…how else would he do it…..a tree would have to be CREATED at a certain age…..or were they all seeds to start with?….I suppose that it is reasonable to assume that God CREATED some seeds, some saplings, some mature trees and some old, gnarled trees…..did they have rings inside them? Did they have a history…that never actually happened…..did those rings in the trees show signs of a forest fire years before that never happened? Possibly….if you are open to the idea of God and therefore the idea of CREATION (rather than evolution), then how else could it have been done….in the writing world we would call it BACKSTORY…..but it never actually happened….did Adam and Eve have a bellybutton? I think so….though it was never used…..they were created mature….who knows at what age… the same could be said of geology as with tree rings….geology….or the study of rocks and sediment and carbon dating….are like the tree rings….they are there as part of the creating of a mature earth but they never actually happened…..or so the argument goes….this is the young earth in a mature form theory…..Mr. Ham has taken a slight twist on this theory to suggest that dinosaurs were around before the flood and were destroyed in the flood….that is pure supposition on his part and is not at all representative of the young earth in mature form position… addition, as I have said, there are three other positions on the relationship between science and evolution…..theistic evolution would say that God is the initiator of the big bang and CREATED the world through an evolutionary process over millions of years….and that the DAYS in the book of Genesis refer to eons, not 24 hour days …..since it is in poetic form….this is a well accepted view of CREATION that includes most (but not all) evolutionary points of view….for example, we would still take acception to the notion that humans evolved from apes….even non-religious scientists and philosophers today would have problems with the original form of darwinism… they talk about neo-darwinism….and mutation and the Cambrian explosion…..(hence movies like ALPHAS and THE X MEN etc)…that evolution moves forward in great leaps and bounds due to a genetic mutation….not through a long process of adaptation…..but I digress….I have given you both ends of the spectruum…..theistic evolution on the one hand and young earth creationism on the other…..the two in the middle are old earth creationism and intelligent design…all of them are within the Christian family and although we often like to disagree with one another….these are all IN HOUSE arguments….Mr. Ham is on the extreme side AWAY from evolutionism and his thoughts on dinosaurs are NOT well accepted by the majority of Christians….intelligent design is what is being taught in Christian schools together with evolutionism to give two perspectives on the same topic….it does create some skepticism on the SCIENCE of evolutionism but, frankly, there already is ALOT of skepticism about the approach of darwinism….it no longer fits the facts….and neo-darwinism is a new attempt to find a new fit….and now there are many who are questioning whether we need a new approach altogether….something other than evolutionism or darwinian evolutionism at least…those are the facts….no longer can we equate darwinian evolutionism with uncontested science ….any more than we can equate the mechanical theory of the universe to physics….we have gone on to see that it is more about quantum physics….and now we have gone beyond even that…it is exciting how our understanding of our universe has grown in the past 100 years….and arrogance about what we think we know is not conducive to an inquisitive mind and the scientific method….any theory of origins affects the very foundations of life….meaning, significance, identity and purpose…so it matters that we get it right….NO, it is not silly, or crazy or anything else…it matters….and if God exists…and if He created the world….however he did it….THAT is what matters…..evolutionary theory comes with all kinds of baggage about the materialistic worldview and secular humanism….which has taken meaning, purpose, significance and identity out of play…and that has affected morality and productivity and happiness and has led to evils of all kinds at alll levels of society….but that is a discussion for another day….hope that helps….
  • Bert Amsing One last comment….do not impose on God an order or directness that you want to have….there is a good reason for being indirect and not so clear….do you think that the 6000 to 10000 years of human history that we know about would have understood the concept of a singularity at the beginning of time….God was talking to all people….throughout history….intelligent and non-intelligent about a new relationship with Him…..he was telling them that He created them….that they rebelled against him and that He is trying to rescue them….but he is a gentleman and is trying to woo us back….not with logice and reason and science and proof…but with character and love and intervention into this world of evil and discrimination and willing to be slapped, and mocked and spit upon and killed by the very people he was trying to love…I don-t want a God who will scare me into heaven or convince me with logic that he loves me….and that I can trust him with my life….I want a God who is willing to die for me to save me….and that is what I have….that is a God that I can trust….just saying.