Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

The Watchmaker - story


rudywoofs (Pam)

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Shane

    58

  • bevin

    40

  • David Koot

    25

  • Bravus

    23

Top Posters In This Topic

Quote:
Don't you believe in a "Designer" of the universe, Bevin?

Of course I do. and I believe He doesn't create a deliberate deception

Our world looks like large life-forms have been on it for millions of years BECAUSE large life-forms have been living on it for millions of years

Quote:
How much faith do we have in the Bible? Do we dismiss it whenever our human knowledge tells us it is mistaken?

We know they Bible was written by inspired people. We know they made mistakes. We know it was selected by not-inspired people. We know they made mistakes. We know it was not written as a science book.

When the evidence is overwhelming against particular interpretations of particular books, then we reject those interpretations of those books.

That is the stage I have reached with literal short-age creationism. I think the evidence is ooverwhelmingly against it.

/Bevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really an issue of different philosophies based on different assumptions.

Quote:
Our world looks like large life-forms have been on it for millions of years

This should read: To me, our world looks like large life-forms have been on it for millions of years because of assumptions I accept as being more likely than other assumptions accepted by short-age creationists.

The simplest explantion for so many universal flood stories is that there actually was a universal flood. Of course naturalists will not ever want to concede to a universal flood because it causes havoc with most all of their assumptions. Of course there are other explanations of why so many universal flood stores can be found in different cultures and religions but they are more complex - like local floods being confused with a universal flood and stories being distorted from generation to generation. Of course that is possible, but a more complex explanation nonetheless.

Once a person concedes that there may have been a universal flood, the age of the earth really starts to come into question. As does the dating methods used to date the earth and life on it.

Many naturalists want to paint it as a decided issue. Many creationists also want to paint naturalists as simply being anti-God and anti-Bible. Many naturalists really try to paint creationists as ignorant and stupid - as people that willingly ignore evidence. Creationists really try to paint naturalists as undermining religion, faith and morality. The creation/evolution debate is at the very heart of the culture war.

Quote:
We know they Bible was written by inspired people. We know they made mistakes. We know it was selected by not-inspired people. We know they made mistakes. We know it was not written as a science book.

This summarization basically tells us we cannot trust the Bible. We cannot trust the creation story. We cannot trust the Ten Commandments. We cannot trust the words of Christ (He believed in creation, universal flood, 10 C's and even Jonah & the fish). And if we are going to accept the naturalist assumptions about origins, that it is indeed true that we cannot trust the Bible - including the words of Christ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
The simplest explantion for so many universal flood stories is that there actually was a universal flood.

True - that is why I commented earlier that short-age creationists don't LOOK.

You can't just choose the facts you like and ignore the rest.

/Bevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to post #135613 to find the context. Bravus implied that Occam's Razor seems to support the naturalist philosophy more so than the creationist philosophy. While I conceded that in some things it does, I gave universal flood stories found in various cultures and religions as an example of when the Occam's Razor supports creationism more than it does naturalism.

The creationist philosophy of natural selection seems to be another example. Creationists believe that when God created the animals He already had the vast varieties programmed into their genes. The animals reproduced and spread out across the globe. Different environmental conditions and circumstances favored certain mutations more than others. Thus new species were formed from the master kinds which were created by God. All the genetic information contained by these new species came from their ancestors although mutations had occurred. That is a pretty simple explanation, easy to understand.

The naturalist believes that something came from nothing. That something than grew large until it produced the big bang. Then non-organic matter somehow transformed into organic matter. Then life began as a simple cell organism. Ok. This is an important point in the process. We have now arrived at life. Somehow these simple cell organisms mutated into multiple celled organisms. To do that they had to gain genetic material that their ancestors did not have. That is a complexed process, if even possible. On top of that, the process had to occur at random chance!

So natural selection from the creationist view was something God planned for when creating the original kinds of animals and plants. God programmed each to be able to mutate and create new species. Contrast that to the naturalist view that life evolved from nonlife and gained genetic information from outside itself by random chance.

Which one is best supported by Occam's Razor? "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you appply Occams Razor, you must shave the whole face - not just the piece that you like. A Universal Flood does provide for a simple explanation of a Universal Flood Story, but it does NOT account for

(a) Why the Gilgamesh Epic differs from the Genesis Account

(B) Why the detailed physical evidence does NOT line up

© Why the various accounts around the world differ the way they do.

Cherry-picking the evidence is a wrong way to reach the truth.

Quote:
Different environmental conditions and circumstances favored certain mutations more than others. Thus new species were formed from the master kinds which were created by God. All the genetic information contained by these new species came from their ancestors although mutations had occurred. That is a pretty simple explanation, easy to understand.

And like most Creationist arguments, omits most of the details and does not explain most of the facts.

In this case it does not explain the fossil record.

It does not explain how this incredibly rapid dispersal and mutation occurs in the NEGATIVE thousands of years between Genesis date of the Flood in about 2000BC and the earliest records of civilisation at about 3000BC.

Shane, at least you are thinking about the issues.

You are where I was thirty years ago.

I hope you keep looking with a mind at least as open as yours is today - many people don't get even this far.

/Bevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note of clarification.

While creationists believe God created the animal kinds with the ability to mutate into new species that isn't to say they believe God controlled the process. Because sin entered the world and creation was cursed, many negative mutations have and continue to occur. However those were/are outside of God's original plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which requires a successful mutation rate far higher than anything we measure around us today....

again, because we only have 2000 years to develop those nasty carnivores between the Fall and the Flood

Why did the unbelievably high rate of carnivorous species development suddenly stop?

/Bevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

That takes us back to the issue of uniformitarianism.

According to the Bible, there were no nasty carnivores before sin. We know that the fall changed nature. The serpent lost his wings and bushes started growing thorns. Drawing on Isaiah, we can conclude that lions became carnivores. So to a certain degree, there was a re-creation after the Fall.

The creationist view has most of the fossil record being created by the flood. It is not a flawless explanation but is plausible. The naturalist view of the fossil record may seem simpler, but is far from being without flaws as well. Standing in the present and looking back trying to figure out how history unraveled is not simple regardless of a person's philosophical assumptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
The creationist view has most of the fossil record being created by the flood. It is not a flawless explanation but is plausible.

It is only plausible if you don't look at the details. As soon as you examine the details, it doesn't fit.

Quote:
The naturalist view of the fossil record may seem simpler, but is far from being without flaws as well.

There are no properly documented cases of the fossil record being incompatible with the theory of evolution.

There are cases where the short-age creationists, with their over-simplifying and (in some case, lies), claim there are problems but these problems always evaporate when the experts study them.

For some weird reason, the short-age creationists keep trotting out their discredited examples...

/Bevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

I don't believe that the original manuscripts had any errors, at least not important ones. During copying processes over hundreds of years, a relatively small number of mistakes did creep into the text. (The copying of the NT books was much less carefully done than the OT.) These mistakes, however, can almost always be identified because we have so many hundreds of ancient manuscripts, far more than for any other ancient book.

Some of the "mistakes" are not really mistakes at all but simply result from the story being told from a different viewpoint or with a different emphasis. Such "mistakes" actually show that the writers were not trying to eliminate all differences. If they agreed in every detail, the critics, like a district attorney, would no doubt raise the cry of collusion.

The minute some people hear that the Bible contains "misakes," they cease to accept it as God's Word. They begin to try to separate truth from error, and in this way they often end up rejecting the whole. In my opinion, we would be better off accepting the whole Bible as truth rather than rejecting much truth in order to avoid a little bit of error. People lose their faith and relationship with Christ because of their exaggerated view of the so-called mistakes in the Bible. I have a physician cousin who did this, and it all started with his learning that Ellen White made mistakes. Now he no longer even believes the Bible, because it too has some "mistakes."

I've been deep in a project for the last few years of comparing word-for-word about 15 different printed NT Greek texts, along with the supporting manuscript evidence for each of the different readings. There are thousands of so-called varients. In fact, there are no two pages of ancient NT manuscript that are identical in every detail. Most of the varients are matters of spelling, which don't affect translation. Many others also do not affect translation.

I haven't found any varients that affect essential doctrine. For instance, I can accept either the Majority text or the critical text of 1 Tim. 3: 16. Similarly for Rev. 22: 14 or John 1: 18. 1 John 5: 17 was certainly not part of the original manuscript, yet as it happens, it agrees with the rest of Scripture on the Trinity. It appears clear to me, then, that God didn't allow changes to creep into the texts that would alter the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Quote:
When the evidence is overwhelming against particular interpretations of particular books, then we reject those interpretations of those books.

Quote:
That is the stage I have reached with literal short-age creationism. I think the evidence is ooverwhelmingly against it./Bevin

What will we do when Lucifer counterfeits Christ's coming? What decision will we make if creatures supposely from another planet come to earth and claim to tell us the truth about our origins, and contradict the Bible in significant ways. Will we believe our senses or will we trust the Bible as God's Word? There will be verifiable proof of the existence of these "interterrestial beings" and they will no doubt be extremely persuasive on the basis of scientific method. It seems to me we will be faced with the same test that Eve faced-- whether to believe the naked word of God or to believe our senses and human judgment. I think we're practicing every day now for that eventuality. Who we choose to trust now will decide finally who we will trust then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fossil record does present some major problems for naturalist but we shouldn't expect them to admit it. A tree being fossilized into several rock layers seems to indicate the layers of rocks were formed over a short period of time. Fossils of animals that still exist today have been found deeper than dinosaur fossils. Animals and plants appear abruptly with no transitional fossils. Yet based on their naturalist assumptions, naturalists come up with complexed explanations which in their mind discredits the simplicity of creation. Many naturalists actually believe that the watchmaker analogy has been discredited when in fact, it still exposes one of the weakest positions of naturalism - complexity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
melvin mccarty

In the final analysis we are all on the same footing. Where did God come from? I can no more handle that question than I can imagine matter creating itself! So what are we argueing about?

mel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! It is an matter of philosophies. Neither is on a stronger footing than the other. Both use circular reasoning and both are based on assumptions that cannot be proven.

Creationists believe in an eternal God because the Bible teaches it. God is eternal. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. We cannot comprehend what it means to be eternal - without beginning - because nothing in our world is eternal. We have no frame of reference. Perhaps inside of heaven's gates we will grasp it. However I believe that is why many turn to naturalism.

Rather than accept something like an eternal god which they cannot comprehend, they turn to nature, which they think they can comprehend. Yet, nature fails to answer all of man's questions too.

So there we are. Is there an eternal God that created everything OR did everything evolve from nothing? The answer to that question is what divides two great philosophies of the world today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shane, can I introduce you to

http://www.answersincreation.org/

as a counter to that spinning-you-with-their-misinformation AIG that your incorrect information seems to come from...

Quote:
The fossil record does present some major problems for naturalist but we shouldn't expect them to admit it.

Name ONE that actually holds water. The handful you then give here have been dealt with so thoroughly that it is absurd that you even raise them yet again...

Quote:
A tree being fossilized into several rock layers seems to indicate the layers of rocks were formed over a short period of time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations. "

Quote:

Fossils of animals that still exist today have been found deeper than dinosaur fossils.

So what? No-one has EVER claimed that ALL species die out...

Quote:
Animals and plants appear abruptly with no transitional fossils.

This was simply never true, and as we have discovered more and more fossils we find more and more of the gaps in the jigsaw getting filled in.

Quote:
Many naturalists actually believe that the watchmaker analogy has been discredited when in fact, it still exposes one of the weakest positions of naturalism - complexity.

It is an ANALOGY.

It never had a solid argument in its favor to start with, and was and is completely blown away by the concept of mutation and natural selection.

/Bevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I am familiar with Dawson's naturalist explanation for the phenomenon. Again, we go back to assumptions and circular reasoning. Nauturalists observe a phenomenon and come to a different conclusion because they hold different assumptions. Just because a naturalist can come up for an explanation for a given phenomenon doesn't mean the creationist's challenge has been discredited. Nor the fact that a naturalist can get an entire community of other naturualists to agree with him or her does it discredit an opposing theory. The two philosophies are completely opposing - like light and darkness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you knew Dawson had an explanation for it, then you should not have used it in a conversation starting "The fossil record does present some major problems for naturalist but we shouldn't expect them to admit it"

If you can not point to a single major problem, then your statement is clearly false.

/Bevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, we are back to philosophies and assumptions. The naturalist has different assumptions than the creationist. The naturalist hopes to use evidence to convince the creationist that his or her assumptions are wrong. The problem isn't that the naturalist cannot come up with an explanation for a fossilized tree penetrating various layers of sedimentary rock. After all, naturalists believe that something evolved from nothing and that inorganic substances became organic substances. The problem is their presentation of evidence to a creationist fails to cause the creationist to question his or her world view. This is where a fossilized tree penetrating various layers of sedimentary rock creates a problem for the naturalist. Such a fossil will only reinforce creation and the Biblical flood to the creationist.

The whole issue is philosophy and assumptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
The problem is their presentation of evidence to a creationist fails to cause the creationist to question his or her world view.

This is like the creationist claiming "I know a problem with mathematics". When asked what, they reply "What does 1+1 equal?". The evolutionist replies "2". And the creationist replies "I don't believe it, therefore there is a serious problem with mathematics, and all mathematics is wrong".

All it shows is that the creationist has chosen their position without any regard to the facts. Yes, this is their philosophy. And it shows how bankrupt it is.

/Bevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the evidence is ooverwhelmingly against it.

/Bevin

Won't you be surprised by the final evidence!

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11 KJV

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is..." Exodus 20:11 KJV

"Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not." Luke 12:40 KJV

Regards!! flower

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of us will...

Fortunately I don't believe God makes a salvation issue out of it, and so I believe we will be able to truely appreciate the experience together

/Bevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of us will...

Fortunately I don't believe God makes a salvation issue out of it, and so I believe we will be able to truely appreciate the experience together

/Bevin

While it is possible that God may not make it a salvation issue, what you believe about evolution or creation has salvational consequences. If man is the product of a series of chance happenings, I see no room for sin & a Savior, the lost & the saved in evolution. Nay, it has no room for God!

Gerry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
This is like the creationist claiming "I know a problem with mathematics".

Awwwww, but we are not discussing mathematics. We are discussing two different philosophies and in the philosophical world facts are subjective. We are, after all, standing in the present and looking back in time. We have no eye witnesses. Well, I guess there the naturalist is at a disadvantage because the creationist believes he or she does have an eye witness. "In the beginning was the Word... "

There is a culture war taking place in the world. The creationist/evolution debate is at its very core. We see societies like Europe that almost completely embrace evolution (naturalism for clarification) and other societies like Latin America that almost completely embrace creation.

Unlike math arguments, those that prevail are those arguments that sway people from one side to other. Creationists weakest area is the fossil record. Although their philosophy provides a workable explanation, many young Christians either are never taught it, don't understand it or are presented it in such a way that it competes with naturalism on naturalist terms. Then when these young Christian reach high school or college they are swayed by naturalism which is taught as scientific fact rather than philosophy.

The weakest area for naturalists is the complexity of life. Anthony Flew is the poster child for this if we will. A prominent atheist and lecturer for decades, Flew became convinced of a deity as he studied DNA and saw its complexity. While there is no mass movement from the naturalist camp to the creationist camp, Flew is not alone and many others that make the move do so because of the complexity of life.

The naturalist wants to argue on his terms. Those terms are what he or she considers scientific facts. Like the mathematic example shown here. The naturalist wants to move away from the philosophical argument. In the scientific arena he or she feels they are standing on firm bedrock. In the philosophical arena they can feel the sand shifting below their feet. Yet it really is a philosophical issue. Operational science is about observing phenomenons that can be repeated again and again. The study of origins is pseudo-science or historical science in that assumptions must be made, no eye witness exist that observed the phenomenons in question and the phenomenons cannot be repeated. Thus the study of origins cannot be placed on the same terms as what takes place in a pharmaceutical laboratory or a medical doctor's office.

The creationist comes out on the losing end of the argument whenever he or she engages the naturalist on the naturalist terms. If we are going to compete for the hearts and minds of the lost souls in Europe and around the world, we must maintain our ground on that of philosophy. If the naturalist wants to argue with us about the "facts", let him or her step into the arena of philosophical ideas and stop hiding behind supposed science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
I don't believe God makes a salvation issue out of it

It violates the First Commandment. Naturalism makes a god out of nature - much like ancient gods like the sun, fire, earth, water, wind, etc. It places more importance on man's interpretation of nature than on the written Word of God.

"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Luke 16:31)

Whether or not it is an issue of salvation is not for me to judge but I would certainly caution anyone who thinks they can place man's philosophy above God's Word and still maintain a saving relationship with Him. Those are egg shells I would rather not walk on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears then that Creation Science has completely lost - because science is all about building a model that predicts.

Having completely failed in the scientific arena, the Short-Age Creationists are now resorting to ...

"My simple literal understanding of the Bible fails to predict what I find when I study geology, biology, history but I feel it is right even though it doesn't match the world - end of story"

In short, Short Creationists require a God that is a creator of a huge deception.

They require a God that has created a lie, and is going to punish people for believing that lie.

I don't believe in such a God.

/Bevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...