• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Problem of Complexity

javajo

Well-Known Member
Ice is water. :p
Ok ok. I believe he walked on water not ice. :p

So one verse is enough then.... as long as that one verse hasn't changed you're still good.
Why bother with the rest of the book?
Yup, just the one, jk. Just my belief, Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass, Peter said Jesus is the same forever, and in the OT it says God does not change and his words are preserved forever. I think we have God's Word today.

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim.3


I do not think science means what you think it means. :cool:

wa:do
Ok. I had more biology in High School and College than physics or chemistry. But that was a long time ago. All my studies are on my own now and I gave away some of my favorite books and my videos are so old, they are for vcr instead of dvd.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I don't need billions of years for creation as you do for evolution. I believe the flood was global as God promised never to destroy the earth again by water, as there are still local floods today.

I hate to nitpick, as I think you are doing a wonderful job of explaining your views patiently and coherently in the face of some pretty harsh interrogation, but we don't need billions of years to make evolution true. The evidence is unambiguous and absolutely crystal clear that the earth is billions of years old. Even if you reject radiometric data (which is unwise, since scientists use a dozen different isotopes to measure geological time, each with a different half-life that overlaps one or more of the others - it isn't just carbon), there is still evidence of an old earth in the form of ice core samples, tree rings, sedimentary layering and the entire field of physics.

IOW, we don't believe the earth is ancient because it has to be for evolution to make any sense. On the contrary, Darwin himself said a big problem with his theory was that, at the time, the earth was only thought to be a few hundred thousand years old, even by the most liberal estimates. We have since discovered - quite separately - that the earth is indeed much older than we thought at Darwin's time. That piece of the puzzle has become part of the evidence for evolution because Darwin's theory predicted exactly such a discovery (as well as DNA, incidentally). This is one of the clearest examples a layman can get of how the scientific method works and why it is so persuasive.

Have you ever read any Bill Bryson? He's a very funny travel writer, but he wrote a wonderful,fascinating book on the history of science and scientists: A Short History of Everything.

If you are interested in a non-confrontational, entertaining read about how the world's most famous and influential scientists made their discoveries, I can't recommend it highly enough. I would read it again and again - even buy it new rather than getting it out of the library or a second hand shop - and that's saying a lot. :)
 

javajo

Well-Known Member
It doesn't work that way.
Yes it does. Operational science measures and conducts experiments on things in the present so we have computers and cars and stuff. Historical science deals with the past and is limited cuz we can't do experiments on past events. Observations we make now are used to make inferences about the past. There is some guesswork, and the further in the past, the more inferences and chance for error. This is where all the conflicts come, not with operational science, which btw, started with Christians in Europe. Depending on one's beliefs, two people can look at something and reach a different conclusion as to how it came to be.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
Yes it does. Operational science measures and conducts experiments on things in the present so we have computers and cars and stuff. Historical science deals with the past and is limited cuz we can't do experiments on past events. Observations we make now are used to make inferences about the past. There is some guesswork, and the further in the past, the more inferences and chance for error. This is where all the conflicts come, not with operational science, which btw, started with Christians in Europe. Depending on one's beliefs, two people can look at something and reach a different conclusion as to how it came to be.

Lol.


:shrug:
 

javajo

Well-Known Member
I hate to nitpick, as I think you are doing a wonderful job of explaining your views patiently and coherently in the face of some pretty harsh interrogation, but we don't need billions of years to make evolution true. The evidence is unambiguous and absolutely crystal clear that the earth is billions of years old. Even if you reject radiometric data (which is unwise, since scientists use a dozen different isotopes to measure geological time, each with a different half-life that overlaps one or more of the others - it isn't just carbon), there is still evidence of an old earth in the form of ice core samples, tree rings, sedimentary layering and the entire field of physics.

IOW, we don't believe the earth is ancient because it has to be for evolution to make any sense. On the contrary, Darwin himself said a big problem with his theory was that, at the time, the earth was only thought to be a few hundred thousand years old, even by the most liberal estimates. We have since discovered - quite separately - that the earth is indeed much older than we thought at Darwin's time. That piece of the puzzle has become part of the evidence for evolution because Darwin's theory predicted exactly such a discovery (as well as DNA, incidentally). This is one of the clearest examples a layman can get of how the scientific method works and why it is so persuasive.

Have you ever read any Bill Bryson? He's a very funny travel writer, but he wrote a wonderful,fascinating book on the history of science and scientists: A Short History of Everything.

If you are interested in a non-confrontational, entertaining read about how the world's most famous and influential scientists made their discoveries, I can't recommend it highly enough. I would read it again and again - even buy it new rather than getting it out of the library or a second hand shop - and that's saying a lot. :)
Thanks for your explanation. From what I have read on some of the different methods of dating like radiometric, there are many problems with it, more than I care to type. Ice-core samples, tree rings and sedimentary layering, depending on how you look at them, agree with the Flood and YET just fine for me. I am open minded so I will check out Bryson. I am not dogmatic on the science end of things but I do believe the Bible is God's Word and trustworthy and in the end God will show us just how he did all this. Peace!
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Thanks for your explanation. From what I have read on some of the different methods of dating like radiometric, there are many problems with it, more than I care to type. Ice-core samples, tree rings and sedimentary layering, depending on how you look at them, agree with the Flood and YET just fine for me. I am open minded so I will check out Bryson. I am not dogmatic on the science end of things but I do believe the Bible is God's Word and trustworthy and in the end God will show us just how he did all this. Peace!

If I'm not mistaken, it seems you have not read about how radiometric dating works from any source outside your church. No matter how much Evangelical Christian literature you read on the subject of science, you will never find an accurate description of what radiometric dating entails or why scientists know they can trust it in a creationist book about science.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that, despite all your reading on the subject indicating grave problems with radiometric dating, scientists still use it and trust it? Aren't you curious as to why geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists and many other scientists still use it and trust radiometric dating despite what you have been told are fatal flaws?

If you want to know how I can be so certain you are only reading creationist books, I can easily tell from your apparent misunderstanding of what radiometric dating entails. This is a consistent nugget of misinformation running throughout creationist literature. I know this because I have read quite a lot of it myself, but I have also read quite a lot about science, so I know for a fact that the claims of creationist writers about what radiometric dating entails are false.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Ok ok. I believe he walked on water not ice. :p
It's a good story.
Yup, just the one, jk. Just my belief, Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass, Peter said Jesus is the same forever, and in the OT it says God does not change and his words are preserved forever. I think we have God's Word today.
It's too bad no one can agree what they mean.

Ok. I had more biology in High School and College than physics or chemistry. But that was a long time ago. All my studies are on my own now and I gave away some of my favorite books and my videos are so old, they are for vcr instead of dvd.
I could suggest a few good resources if you want to brush up on your Biology. :cool:

wa:do
 

JustWondering2

Just the facts Ma'am
Javajo: You have to consider the souce of your beliefs and information. Believing what you read in a 2000+ year old Bible as being the absolute truth is like someone believing in a 2000+ year old science book! We as humans have learned a lot since then.
Luckily I was not indoctrinated as a child to believe blindly in fairy tales or to follow others who preach to me about what I should or shouldn't believe. I'll go with the evidence and not the anceint text of a bunch of goat herders. Sorry but Science makes sense where fairy tales fall short!
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Javajoe, there is a place on Earth in the Atacama desert where it hasn't rained for 23 million years.

Ice core samples are accurate. The science of them is a part of Paleoclimatology

Paleoclimatology: The Ice Core Record : Feature Articles


"Ice-core samples, tree rings and sedimentary layering, depending on how you look at them, agree with the Flood and YET just fine for me."

You have not looked far into this at all it seems. They don't work fine for science. We know the Earth is 4.57 billion years old. From Argon gas dating for one and it also matches the formation of the solar system We know how old the sun and the moon are as well.


Nor does plate tectonics proven by the navy and sonar mapping the oceans floors and Global Positioning satellites. Its billions of years. All the continents come together as one land mass roughly every 400 million years. Ever hear the words Rodina or Pangea? In the future it will be superpangea.
 

javajo

Well-Known Member
Friends, I'm not inclined to answer each and every one of your posts. I believe the Bible. I believe in Noah's Flood and that it was global. I believe complexity is a problem for you, its not for me. I was taught evolution from grade school through college. I don't believe it anymore, sorry. If I'm wrong and there is no God who has loved me and taken care of me all these years, oh well. Peace to you all and I wish you well in your studies and journeys.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Friends, I'm not inclined to answer each and every one of your posts. I believe the Bible. I believe in Noah's Flood and that it was global. I believe complexity is a problem for you, its not for me. I was taught evolution from grade school through college. I don't believe it anymore, sorry. If I'm wrong and there is no God who has loved me and taken care of me all these years, oh well. Peace to you all and I wish you well in your studies and journeys.

Why engage on a section of the forum specific to debate if you're uninterested in evidence that may disagree with your current worldview?
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
Friends, I'm not inclined to answer each and every one of your posts. I believe the Bible. I believe in Noah's Flood and that it was global. I believe complexity is a problem for you, its not for me. I was taught evolution from grade school through college. I don't believe it anymore, sorry. If I'm wrong and there is no God who has loved me and taken care of me all these years, oh well. Peace to you all and I wish you well in your studies and journeys.

For certain, human minds are not geared to seek the truth.
 
Top