Posted on 07/23/2008 4:11:44 PM PDT by Soliton
Creationism is much more specific and much less plausible. Its central claim is that the precise mode of creation has been revealed in the Bible, and follows the pattern set out in the first chapter of Genesis. In thus identifying God’s action with a particular series of events and a particular timetable, rather than as the ultimate mystery underlying all reality, it lays itself open to the possibility of direct conflict with alternative scientific explanations. The main motive for risking this potential conflict has been to uphold belief in the verbal inerrancy of the Bible, and the literal interpretation of its statements about creation, which most mainstream theologians and biblical scholars have long read as myth, or poetry, or doctrine, rather than as history.
(Excerpt) Read more at entertainment.timesonline.co.uk ...
Amen.
Patently wrong.
Creationism central claim is that God created "it".
To deny that God played a role is to suggest that either God doesn't exist (pushing atheism/antitheism), God(s) evolved along with everything else, or God sprang forth from the big bang and was surprised by all of this.
It isn't just the Jews and Christians believing in a God, you know. You can't tie it to the JudeoChristian Bible exclusively.
Sure you can, Creationists believe in the creation story in Genesis, not in the Vedas.
The problem with Creationism is that it doesn’t give God enough credit. It assumes that we know everything and have it all written down to the last comma and fullstop.
I would call that hubris.
Let the solipsisms begin!
How will you know if they are real?
this is called ASSUMPTIVE LANGUAGE people! Everything this writer has blasted the Bible for is based on his own assumptions based on others assumptions...It is from the very PIT OF HELL and we need to STOMP out this heresy each and every time it rears its ugly head!
Right - no matter where you go in the world the people there have a belief in a Super Being - we call Him God - other’s have other names for Him. There is no earthly answer - it’s all faith based. I’ve read where this atheist said he could stand before God and tell Him why he didn’t believe in Him.
Regards,
Jane
Yes! Grab the pitchforks and grab some kindling we'll burn them at the stake!
Because I believe them of course!
Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion.
From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command.
Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.'
A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.
The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move.
The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma's creation.
Right? I mean, that's how it happened - that is the Creation story.
Any room for philosophy in your church of science?
“Creationism is much more specific and much less plausible. Its central claim is that the precise mode of creation has been revealed in the Bible....:
Precisely so! “Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” I understand that in the original it goes: “And God said, LIGHT BE! And LIGHT WAS!” God spoke and His will was manifested; INSTANTLY! The problem with the TIMESONLINE writer is that he insists upon a materialistic explanation of origins that excludes God.
The bottom line is this: God extends his offer of grace and mercy to WHOSOEVER will believe His Word; and God continues to offer it to them until they close their eyes for the final time. If they have the gall to go out into eternity without availing themselves of the FREE PASS they have been offered, they are without excuse, and without remedy.
Pro 29:1 He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
I find it funny that ultimately evolutionist come to their belief the same way religious people do. They are either taught it and believe it is right or someone introducing the idea. One would believe from the way evolutionist comment that they invented the idea by themselves.
One can ask a question for a few reasons
One can ask a question to seek answers or one can ask a question because they already think they have an answer or to achieve a desired answer, thus not really asking a question.
So is the questions of God and evolution are probably
1. if things evolve God did not create
2. Since God did not create things evolve
I would be willing to hypothesize that most evolution do not seek answers of science but seek to disprove God.
Philosophy is just rationalized religion at worst, or at best, rationalism without evidence. I have accepted scientific method as the foundation of my epistimology, sorry!
Enough with the “many paths to God folderol! The Scriptures are abundantly clear on the subject. Reject it, or minimize it, or add to it at your own peril!
Joh 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
Joh 14:2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
Joh 14:4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
Joh 14:5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
But you are simply my mental construct. You have no objective existence.
Someone needs to read the Ayn Rand thread.
I have accepted scientific method as the foundation of my epistimology (sic)
Funny, the scientific method cannot be the basis for epistemology. Do you even understand the concept?
I believe it. But then again, have I not drunk of the soma?
Hypothesize then read Darwin and use him as your first test case.
Maybe not philosophically, but then all philosophy is simply opinion. It can be empirically. Scientific method produces results, it has utility, it works.
Rand was NUTS
How will you know if they are real?
Depends on who you ask...
Cheers!
Leave Huxley out of this!
Great allusion pick up except in this case I was responding to his posting a Vedic creation story.
“Soma - Vedas. In the Vedas, or Vedic scriptures, Soma is portrayed as sacred and as a god (deva). The god is the plant and the drink; there is no difference. The plant is the god and the drink is the god and the plant is the drink — they are all three the same. Soma is similar to Greek ambrosia (cognate to amrita); it is what the gods drink, and what made them deities. Indra and Agni are known for drinking massive amounts of Soma. Mortals also drink it, giving access to the divine.”
This is what I was alluding to and where Huxley probably got the idea.
Cheers!
But since there was an atheist stream in the Huxley line, and you were indirectly inveighing against something typically associated with Christianity, I thought I'd throw in the reference.
I tend towards bad puns and wordplay.
Cheers!
A pun spelled backward is a "nup" and anup is anup!
Nonsense. I would be willing to hypothesize that most scientists just want to figure out how things work.
R. Gordon Wasson made a good case for the Amanita muscaria mushroom being Soma.
I lived in Scotland and they grew in my yard. Pretty, but dangerous.
Philosophy is just rationalized religion at worst, or at best, rationalism without evidence. I have accepted scientific method as the foundation of my epistimology, sorry!
______
I would have thought that some readings on the philosophy of science would be of some interest to you. Some fascinating articles I read in my undergrad days, specifically dealing with physical manifestations of ‘mental’ events.
So is the questions of God and evolution are probably
1. if things evolve God did not create
2. Since God did not create things evolve
What does it mean when people start stating conclusions and submitting that they are the questions?
I have dozens of books on the subject.
It was at one point, but I grew tired of it. There was philosophical discussions for two thousand years as to whether matter is atomic in nature or not. There were great minds on both sides. It took Boyle and a J shaped piece of glass to provide the first evidence. Philosophical arguments are stillborn hypotheses. Science is the answer to advancing our knowledge of the universe.
Can’t argue that the philosophy of science can get a bit tedious after a while ... and won’t argue that science is going to lead us to knowledge of our universe. I would disagree insofar as you suggest that philosophical pursuits cannot advance human knowledge (there being to knowledge than just knowledge of our universe). A very small point in the overall scheme of things.
I would be willing to hypothesize that (many of Soliton’s threads) do not seek answers of science but seek to disprove God.
I just ‘evolved’ your comments slightly....
Thanks for assuming I have not done so, perhaps some people read Darwin, Gould and Dawkins and come to the conclusion that they are not the be all know all. I keep forgetting no one is intelligent enough to question or challenge the one true Science Evolution and its Prophet Darwin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.