Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

Ok, then let’s start there. We see flaws in the evolutionary chain. We find little or no evidence in a common ancestor. We also see during the Cambrian explosion that changes occur too rapidly to support the evolutionary thought of slow changes over time. So this is a step in the right direction. Now, how do we go about proving what we believe is true?[/quote]

It is nowadays quite commonly accepted among biologists that evolution is a fast process. A proof for this is seen in the domestication of dogs. Wolves that scavenged the waste our ancestors created, were more daring than the wilder wolves, that ran away at the mere sight of a human. This 10 min. snippet is about an russian experiment with foxes.
If you consider evolution to be a self-evident fact, as I do, this is a strong indication for fast evolution. But even if you don’t believe in it, this short film is interesting nevertheless, if you like dogs and it makes you think about us, too.

[/quote]

Are you even remotely implying that creationists don’t believe adaptation occurs? Microevolution?

Dogs beget dogs. Simple. In fact one type of dog can, with enough time beget all different types of dogs. That is something that can be experimented within the hallowed scientific method. It works.

What doesn’t work, and I’ll be a little facetious here and stray slightly outside of conventional evolutionary thinking in order to make a point, is dogs don’t beget giraffes…or anything between dogs and giraffes. It’s ALWAYS dogs. Always has been. Always will be.

A dog has always been in the dog family whether he be a wolf, fox, chihuahua or St. Bernard. You will never be able to breed the dog out of the dog. You will never get any type of dog whatsoever to successfully breed with any type of aardvark. You never have nor ever will see a dogvark.[/quote]

Push - you know this is another round of kicking that dead horse, right? How many times have you and I tried to explain inter-species evolution versus intra-species evolution.

a dogvark? I was hoping to call it the aarog . . . .

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MBH wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
The first thing God created was Jesus in his heavenly position. Colossians 1:15 [/quote]

Ahhhhh…you wanna go Mormon on us, do ya? Sorry, bud, the “firstborn” translation as you are presenting it does not work. You are grossly misinterpreting the passage.

Look at it in the New Living Translation:

15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,
16 for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we can�?�¢??t see�?�¢??
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.
17 He existed before anything else,
and he holds all creation together.

You have to read the verses after vs. 15. Always read scripture in context.

"The question is regarding the interpretation of Colossians 1:15, a very important passage and one that is attacked continuously by cults and various �?�¢??isms.�?�¢?? Colossians 1:15. Now, in reference here to Christ, it says, �?�¢??Who is the image of the invisible God�?�¢??�?�¢??now, here comes the problem part to some people�?�¢??�?�¢??the firstborn of all creation.�?�¢??

Now, some would say that because Christ is called the �?�¢??firstborn of all creation,�?�¢?? that He was the first one created; therefore, He is a created being. Therefore, He is less than God, and the cults love to come to this verse to prove that.

Well, let�?�¢??s look at what it says. First of all, it calls Christ �?�¢??the image of the invisible God.�?�¢?? Notice it doesn�?�¢??t say �?�¢??Christ is in the image of the invisible God;�?�¢?? it says �?�¢??He is the image.�?�¢?? He is the image.

If you want a clear understanding of that, all you have to do is go to Colossians 2:9 and Paul makes it very clear what he means: �?�¢??for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead in a body.�?�¢?? When it says He is the image of God, it means He is God in a body.

The word �?�¢??image�?�¢??�?�¢??�?�¢??eikon�?�¢??�?�¢??means �?�¢??a precise copy or a replica.�?�¢?? Today it would be the equal of a photograph. Jesus is the �?�¢??eikonion�?�¢?? (sp.); He is the perfect portrait of God. He is God made visible in a portrait. He is the manifestation of God.

In verse 19, it says, �?�¢??It pleased the Father that in him should all�?�¢??�?�¢??�?�¢??pleroma�?�¢??�?�¢??�?�¢??all fullness dwell.�?�¢?? What fullness? The fullness of the Godhead (2:9). He is the manifestation in a visible picture, in a physical body, of all that God is.

Now, it also says, �?�¢??He is the firstborn of all creation.�?�¢?? Now, this word �?�¢??prototokos�?�¢?? has been so maligned and so misunderstood. What does it mean that He is the firstborn? People, it has nothing to do with time! It has only to do with position.

It has nothing to do with origin! It has only to do with position. The �?�¢??prototokos�?�¢?? was the �?�¢??primary one.�?�¢?? The primary one. If you would rather translate it that way in your Bible, it is proper.

For example, look at verse 18: �?�¢??He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning�?�¢??�?�¢??now watch�?�¢??�?�¢??the firstborn from the dead.�?�¢?? Now, let me ask you a question. Was Jesus, in time, the first person raised from the dead? No. There were some in the Old Testament. There were some previously in the New Testament that Christ himself raised from the dead.

He is not the first �?�¢??in time�?�¢?? from the dead. He is, however, of all of those who have ever been resurrected, the primary one. Do you see? That�?�¢??s what it means. So when you go back to chapter 1:15, it is not saying the first one created was Christ; he is saying, of all of God�?�¢??s total creation, of all that there is in God�?�¢??s universe, the primary being is Christ.

He is the Son who receives the inheritance rights. His is the place of privilege. His is the honor. He is the Father�?�¢??s heir, the head of God�?�¢??s household.

Now, this also ties in with another scripture in Revelation 3:14: �?�¢??And unto the angel of the church�?�¢??the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness,�?�¢??�?�¢??now watch�?�¢??�?�¢??the beginning of the creation of God.�?�¢??

Now here again, the word translated �?�¢??beginning�?�¢?? is not really a word that can always or must always mean �?�¢??beginning.�?�¢?? It is the word �?�¢??arche.�?�¢?? The English here is terribly ambiguous. �?�¢??Arche�?�¢?? means �?�¢??first cause.�?�¢??

It sometimes could be translated �?�¢??the author�?�¢?? or �?�¢??the pioneer�?�¢?? or �?�¢??the generating power.�?�¢?? �?�¢??The first cause�?�¢??�?�¢??read it that way. He is the first cause of the creation of God.

That is not saying He was created by God; that is saying He is the Creator. When Jesus is seen in his incarnation as the Son, He is the primary one of all of God�?�¢??s creation. When He is seen here in Revelation 3:14, He is the cause of creation.

John puts it clearly in John 1, �?�¢??Without him was not anything made that was made.�?�¢?? He is the source of all creation and in his incarnation was the supreme creature God ever made. And that refers, of course, to his physical body."

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-A-6.htm

[/quote]

Regarding Col 1:15 “He is…the firstborn of all creation” is talking about the fact that Jesus was the first person to be born spiritually alive (because he was conceived of the Holy Spirit). Adam was created spiritually alive, but immediately died spiritually when he sinned (and he eventually died physically as a result)…

…Also, see Col 1:18 “He is…the firstborn from the dead.” Who are the dead? Everyone not born again of the Spirit. Because of Adam we are all born spiritually dead and need life. Jesus was the firstborn; I don’t know who the second was, but I know there have been many after him born of the Spirit…
[/quote]

You’re dead wrong but there’s not much sense arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness. You and other JWs have grossly misinterpreted this verse and it is a travesty. To deny the deity of Christ is heresy. You have to piss all over the rest of the Bible to make this perverted point about Christ.

Don’t take this as being uncivil though. Not my intent.[/quote]

Push,
I am not a Jehovahâ??s Witness. I agree with you that JWs grossly distort the scriptures. I do not deny the divinity of Christ as do JWs, but believe that Jesus is God.

I do not disagree with what you wrote. I was adding my input on the topic of Jesus being the firstborn, and don’t see where it contradicted you. But, I can see where I was probably being too succinct and what I wrote could be misunderstood.

I wonâ??t try to re-explain on that topic, but relative to that topic I will just say that I believe that man was created to be indwelt by God to be functional as God intended. God is able to accomplish this through the expression of Himself by His Holy Spirit indwelling His creation. Adam and Eve rejected God, and God withdrew Himself, effectively removing His Spirit from within them, so that they died spiritually.

Everyone who has been born from Adam and Eve are then born spiritually dead, not having the life of God within them. Everyone is therefore born in a condition that demonstrates what it is like not to have God.

Salvation involves solving this problem. The problem being that we are born into this world spiritually dead, and we need to be resurrected from the dead by receiving the life of God that had been lost in Adam. Jesus solved this problem by dying for our sins and then offered to us the free gift of life.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

Push - you know this is another round of kicking that dead horse, right? How many times have you and I tried to explain inter-species evolution versus intra-species evolution.

a dogvark? I was hoping to call it the aarog . . . .[/quote]

But you can’t expect to see a new species in one round or even two, can you? There is only inter-species evolution, there can’t be intra-species evolution, you must realize that, don’t you? That’s absurd.

The mating animals must be genetically close to each other, otherwise they can’t breed. you can’t talk about evolution if you don’t accept the element of geological time and numerous bouts of genetical changes.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Little to no evidence in macro-evolution… If you don’t want to believe it because it contradicts your religion then fine, but there is an abundance of scientific evidence for macro-evolution. When I was in church, most arguments against it were straw-man arguments.

They would take one example of bad science and use it to say that all the scientific evidence for macro-evolution was false. There are so many, it’s ridiculous so I’ll give you the first google website I found when I typed in ‘macroevolution evidence’.

[/quote]

Ok, then let’s start there. We see flaws in the evolutionary chain. We find little or no evidence in a common ancestor. We also see during the Cambrian explosion that changes occur too rapidly to support the evolutionary thought of slow changes over time. So this is a step in the right direction. Now, how do we go about proving what we believe is true?[/quote]

I’ve heard this one before, so let me tell my side. There is evidence of multicellular life in the pre-cambrian era so to say multi-cellular just came out of nowhere is incorrect. Also, even in the many different phyla and body forms that diversified in the cambrian, there were still key similarities between the seemingly radically different species.

Are you familiar with punctuated equilibrium? I’ve gotta go out soon, so I’ll give the abbreviated version. It suggests that most organisms that produce sexually evolve quickly over a relatively shorter time generally as a result of competition or environmental change, than remain fairly constant for a longer amount of time.

In the case of the Cambrian era, there were huge environmental changes occurring (greatly increased atmospheric oxygen levels) that would spur on relatively fast evolution especially considering the magnitude of the changes.[/quote]

Punctuated equilibrium was/is a necessary hypothesis to make up for the vast gaps of transitional fossils that are so foundational to the macroevolutionary model. You talk about an act of desperation; that’s essentially what it is.[/quote]

A) Of course there are gaps in the fossil records and gaps are commonly being narrowed as the fossil record increases. Even with the gaps, there are still transitional fossils in the records.

B) Certain circumstances lead to faster evolution than other circumstances. Why is it an act of desperation?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Little to no evidence in macro-evolution… If you don’t want to believe it because it contradicts your religion then fine, but there is an abundance of scientific evidence for macro-evolution. When I was in church, most arguments against it were straw-man arguments.

They would take one example of bad science and use it to say that all the scientific evidence for macro-evolution was false. There are so many, it’s ridiculous so I’ll give you the first google website I found when I typed in ‘macroevolution evidence’.

[/quote]

Ok, then let’s start there. We see flaws in the evolutionary chain. We find little or no evidence in a common ancestor. We also see during the Cambrian explosion that changes occur too rapidly to support the evolutionary thought of slow changes over time. So this is a step in the right direction. Now, how do we go about proving what we believe is true?[/quote]

I’ve heard this one before, so let me tell my side. There is evidence of multicellular life in the pre-cambrian era so to say multi-cellular just came out of nowhere is incorrect. Also, even in the many different phyla and body forms that diversified in the cambrian, there were still key similarities between the seemingly radically different species.

Are you familiar with punctuated equilibrium? I’ve gotta go out soon, so I’ll give the abbreviated version. It suggests that most organisms that produce sexually evolve quickly over a relatively shorter time generally as a result of competition or environmental change, than remain fairly constant for a longer amount of time.

In the case of the Cambrian era, there were huge environmental changes occurring (greatly increased atmospheric oxygen levels) that would spur on relatively fast evolution especially considering the magnitude of the changes.[/quote]

Punctuated equilibrium was/is a necessary hypothesis to make up for the vast gaps of transitional fossils that are so foundational to the macroevolutionary model. You talk about an act of desperation; that’s essentially what it is.[/quote]

A) Of course there are gaps in the fossil records and gaps are commonly being narrowed as the fossil record increases. Even with the gaps, there are still transitional fossils in the records.

B) Certain circumstances lead to faster evolution than other circumstances. Why is it an act of desperation? [/quote]

Look the ol’ conventional evolutionary model wasn’t working. The transitional fossils simply weren’t there. Honest evolutionists recognized this. But that just couldn’t stand. So Gould comes along and essentially says, “Hey dudes, I can fix this for you…watch this!” And out pops p.e. in all of its desperate glory.

Evidence - evolutionists both see and examine it.

An evolutionist sees a fossil of a plant or animal that doesn’t exist anymore and says, “See Spot. Spot must be transitional life form. See Spot develop gradually over long period of time (or quickly via punctuated equilibrium) into entirely new type life form.”

A creationist sees a fossil of a plant or animal that doesn’t exist anymore and says, “See Spot. Spot must have gone extinct.”

Now here’s the deal…who’s on the more solid scientific ground here? We KNOW extinction happens because…we HAVE observed it. We don’t know that life forms can change beyond “kinds” because we have NOT observed it.[/quote]

So you’re suggesting that because a theory has add ons and modifications do to additional evidence, it becomes nullified… that’s ridiculous if that is so.

Transitional fossils are there. Take for example that of quadrapeds. We see species of fish with adaptations leading to this in the fossil record. That’s one example of many.

Black holes can’t be directly observed, that’s why we use technology to indirectly observe them. Even though the observations are indirect, most astrophysicists accept their existence. Now, even though we can’t directly observe evolution at work we can still see evidence for evolution.

In the case of evolution, much of it is in the fossil records (however not all of it is). This is why the majority of the scientific community accepts evolution. It’s just too hard for most scientists to deny the evidence for evolution.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too.

If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Little to no evidence in macro-evolution… If you don’t want to believe it because it contradicts your religion then fine, but there is an abundance of scientific evidence for macro-evolution.

When I was in church, most arguments against it were straw-man arguments. They would take one example of bad science and use it to say that all the scientific evidence for macro-evolution was false. There are so many, it’s ridiculous so I’ll give you the first google website I found when I typed in ‘macroevolution evidence’.

[/quote]

Ok, then let’s start there. We see flaws in the evolutionary chain. We find little or no evidence in a common ancestor. We also see during the Cambrian explosion that changes occur too rapidly to support the evolutionary thought of slow changes over time. So this is a step in the right direction. Now, how do we go about proving what we believe is true?[/quote]

I’ve heard this one before, so let me tell my side. There is evidence of multicellular life in the pre-cambrian era so to say multi-cellular just came out of nowhere is incorrect. Also, even in the many different phyla and body forms that diversified in the cambrian, there were still key similarities between the seemingly radically different species.

Are you familiar with punctuated equilibrium? I’ve gotta go out soon, so I’ll give the abbreviated version. It suggests that most organisms that produce sexually evolve quickly over a relatively shorter time generally as a result of competition or environmental change, than remain fairly constant for a longer amount of time.

In the case of the Cambrian era, there were huge environmental changes occurring (greatly increased atmospheric oxygen levels) that would spur on relatively fast evolution especially considering the magnitude of the changes.[/quote]

So if evolution can take place over a short period of time then maybe we have to rethink how old the Earth is. Suppose what scientists once thought took millions of years to happen really only took a fraction of the time. The same could be true for geology, astronomy, etc.

There isn’t a definite correlation, but if calculations in one field of science were off significantly then it’s a possibility that they were off elsewhere. Now to say the Earth is only 10,000 years old, I’m not sure. Even as a Biblical literalist, nowhere in the Bible does it actually mention when the Earth was created.[/quote]

 I'm having a little trouble figuring out what your main point is so I'll do my best here to address your post.  Adaptations and speciation can occur over relatively short periods of time due to various changes (competition and environmental changes for example), followed by long periods of relatively little change.  

No where in my post did I suggests that life existed and evolved to modern species in a shorter amount of time than previously predicted (oldest fossil found at about 3400mya, oldest indirect evidence at about 3500mya).

And yes, sometimes discoveries in one scientific field affect others. New discoveries, ideas, and theories are being discovered, modified, added to, and discounted constantly in science. When I see a strong scientific alternative to evolution I myself will reconsider, but the more I study the theory the harder it becomes to disregard it.[/quote]

I wasn’t implying that you said the Earth was created 10,000 years ago. That is what some creationists have said. I don’t personally think the Earth is only 10,000 years old, but then again I’m not geologist or anything else. I can only go on what scientists have said.

My point was that the typical age of the Earth is given at about 4.5 million years old. However, some of this is based on evidence that is still debated. Carbon-14 dating for instance is still debated over accuracy. Some claim that Carbon-14 cannot exist for millions or even several thousand years.

Others claim that fossil records can never be found of the supposed common ancestor and that the vast majority of fossils that can be found are of species that are still in existence. So if even evolutionists agree that adaptations can occur over short periods of time then there may need to be revisions to the age of Earth.

Not to make this into yet another creation vs. evolution thread.

^

I can’t agree that the evidence for evolution is scientifically lacking.

Evolution is falsifiable. If you have a deer from the pre-Cambrian era, then evolution is false. There’s one example. Also, there is no scientific evidence that man existed before the extinction of other species based on various dating techniques. If other species went extinct before man (implying death’s existence before man), then a crucial point in Genesis become moot that you discussed early in the thread (man’s sin is the reason for death).

Going back to the black hole theory analogy, astrophysicists are taking observations and evidence of an event that happened in the distant past for which future evidence could modify or falsify the theory. I don’t want to go into detail on this one because this isn’t what the current discussion is about.

I mentioned it as an analogy. The person studying evolution is looking at evidence that exists today from the past too that I as mentioned previously in this post could falsify evolution. Also, there is technology that we have today that be used to observe evidence and test hypotheses about evolution. One example is C14 dating.

Fair enough on the ‘majority’ argument. I didn’t think that one through. You have my apologies.

Underlying assumptions are the fulcrum. Moving the fulcrum changes the leverages… I don’t follow… an example would be appreciated.

I’ve heard about the ‘using the fossils to date the rocks and using the rock to date the fossil’ discussion. Awe… the oldest trick in the creationist’s book. I’m glad you brought that point up. I’ll admit, this has happened on occasion in the past, but for most part it hasn’t. With as many formations that have been studied, I’m not surprised some bad science has happened in this area. This goes in line with the straw-man argument since it’s attacking a minority of bad science then saying all the science behind the theory is bad. The truth is that most geological strata are dated relative to other strata and radiological methods. C14 dating is one of a few.

Anyway, the analogy may not be perfect, but the point I was making is that you can use observations and evidence to test hypotheses of events that happened in the distant past. Essentially, I’m saying that just because you can’t directly observe something doesn’t mean that you can’t disprove it.

Many assumptions are made in different scientific experiments, theories, laws, ideas, and the fundamental scientific method itself. Assumptions are made in everyday in life too and damned well should be made. A few particular assumptions are made about events of the distant past. I agree with you on that point.

I take issue with the idea of creationism because at its core are ideas and concepts that can never be scientifically tested. I do feel that many hypotheses can be made about the theory the of evolution which can disprove or modify the theory much like any other sound theory. As knowledge and technology has increased since evolution’s conception, more hypotheses have been tested.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

…I’m saying that just because you can’t directly observe something doesn’t mean that you can’t disprove it…[/quote]

You are NOT using the scientific method when you are not observing.

We CAN observe adaptation. We can test it. We can prove it.

But when we take scientifically proven biological adaptation and “imagine” (to use the words of Senor Kaaleppi) that it happened in the distant past in a different manner than what we observe today we are using speculation - not the scientific method.

But you know why it still gets successfully bought and sold on the marketplace of ideas? Because the alternative is soooooooo repulsive. Oh my God, not God…we can’t have that…[Invoke space genie diatribe][/quote]

Why do we have to ‘imagine’ that biologigical adaptation happened any differently in the past then it does now? And I’ve already mentioned and been left unaddressed about examples that can disprove evolution but instead have supported it. And the observations are primarily observations of the fossil record and the observations can be used to nullify or modify hypotheses… in creationism the fossil records can’t disprove or modify anything.

As far as the last paragraph of that post… lets really not go there. If we go there it turns into a dick waving shit flinging contest. I could just as easily say that the reason creationism is common among Christians is that the alternative is ‘soooooooo repulsive’. Oh my God, there’s no Christian God…? We can’t have that…

I’m out for the night. Need plenty of rest after dynamic effort squats and I have things to do and places to be for tomorrow.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Really? A rehashed version of why don’t apes give birth to humans?

What a moron.

[quote]anonym wrote:
Kirk Cameron ftw?[/quote]

Wait, here it is!