Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Four Big Bangs: Theism Defended Against Atheism With Science

BCSpace

By BCSpace
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Your "report" was your opinion, not what he actually said, as I pointed out, the two quotes are not the same. 

 

Incorrect. Mine was a verbatim report of what he said from his own site.

MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ken Ham believes in Macro-Evolution 

 

"It is important to understand that the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances."

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/11/01/how-many-kinds/

 

The wolf, the chihuahua, and the fox belong to the same family level of classification. 

Chimps and humans also belong to the same family level of classification. 

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Ken Ham believes in Macro-Evolution 

 

"It is important to understand that the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances."

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/11/01/how-many-kinds/

 

The wolf, the chihuahua, and the fox belong to the same family level of classification. 

 

The ever nebulous meaning of "kind".

SEE http://ncse.com/cej/2/3/defining-kinds-do-creationists-apply-double-standard

danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted

Ken Ham believes in Macro-Evolution 

 

"It is important to understand that the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances."

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/11/01/how-many-kinds/

 

The wolf, the chihuahua, and the fox belong to the same family level of classification. 

Chimps and humans also belong to the same family level of classification. 

 

And yet God tells us that we aren't descended from a common ancestor with Chimps. Of which we only share about a 70% similarity to.  http://blog.drwile.com/?p=9851

MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted (edited)

And yet God tells us that we aren't descended from a common ancestor with Chimps. Of which we only share about a 70% similarity to.  http://blog.drwile.com/?p=9851

 

That point is the Ken Ham and AnswersinGenesis believe in Evolution in the family level because of the scientific evidence. 

 

"For many animals it appears that the “kind” is taxonomically at the “family” level, sometimes producing some unexpected hybrids. All animals alive today as well as many extinct ones are varieties that developed within the descendants of the animal kinds that were preserved on Noah’s ark." 

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/genetic-links-between-lion-lineages-traced-common-ancestor/

 

Humans and chimps do belong to the same family. 

 

More than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)

 

 

 

primate-family-tree-780x520_0.gif

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted

That point is the Ken Ham and AnswersinGenesis believe in Evolution in the family level because of the scientific evidence. 

 

"For many animals it appears that the “kind” is taxonomically at the “family” level, sometimes producing some unexpected hybrids. All animals alive today as well as many extinct ones are varieties that developed within the descendants of the animal kinds that were preserved on Noah’s ark." 

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/genetic-links-between-lion-lineages-traced-common-ancestor/

 

Humans and chimps do belong to the same family. 

 

More than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)

 

 

 

primate-family-tree-780x520_0.gif

 

Did God tell us we were decedents from a common ancestor or did he tell us he made us in one day, in his image? 

 

Who do you trust? 

Nofear Grand Master

Nofear

Posted
Posted

Part of the problem I think some Mormons sometimes have with evolution is that somehow having a biological predecessor who isn't human somehow detracts from our divine heritage. Others Mormons do not. Until one understand the core of the argument by the opposing view, much of the "debate" about the validity of evolution is and will continue to be moot.

 

 

For the record, however, I do believe in evolution. Though one of the most powerful arguments the anti-evolution crowd could employ in Mormonism (but for reasons unknown to me they do not) is that our species, our human forms -- even in our mortal phase, span countless stars. Nonetheless, even that approach does not obviate the necessity of making clear your ability to understand the other viewpoint instead of just talking pointlessly around it.

1
MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted

Did God tell us we were decedents from a common ancestor or did he tell us he made us in one day, in his image? 

 

Who do you trust? 

 

God did not tell us many things in the Bible, but scientists learned in the book of nature that we do share a common ancestor. 

Do you trust the book of nature? Or do you believe in a Matrix philosophy?  

 

More than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Since your reporting is old (2002!) then I will just say that we agree, it's not 99 or 98%, it's less than they originally thought. Newer reports suggest it's even less. 

 

I've never claimed it was greater than 95%.

danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted

God did not tell us many things in the Bible, but scientists learned in the book of nature that we do share a common ancestor. 

Do you trust the book of nature? Or do you believe in a Matrix philosophy?  

 

More than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)

 

God did tell us about our origins. Where we came from. I trust his reporting of those events. 

 

The "book of nature" as you call it requires interpretation. It doesn't tell us that we share a common ancestor, that is your interpretation of the data. I have a different interpretation of the same data. 

 

What 10,000 clergy believe doesn't really matter. I don't believe things based on 'majority rules.'

MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted

What 10,000 clergy believe doesn't really matter.

 

I agree, but it is the scientific evidence that matters. 

 

 

God did tell us about our origins. Where we came from. I trust his reporting of those events. 

 

Yes, he told us in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price. However, God did not tell us about the details, the scriptures are not a Biology course, they are a why course. 

 

You don't have to believe in Evolution, your Young Earth beliefs could be true if you believe in a matrix or illusion philosophy, but if you trust the Book of Nature, the Book of Nature clearly says that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. 

danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted (edited)

I agree, but it is the scientific evidence that matters. 

 

 

 

Yes, he told us in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price. However, God did not tell us about the details, the scriptures are not a Biology course, they are a why course. 

 

You don't have to believe in Evolution, your Young Earth beliefs could be true if you believe in a matrix or illusion philosophy, but if you trust the Book of Nature, the Book of Nature clearly says that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. 

 

the book of nature clearly tells me we didn't evolve over millions of years, but were created by God. 

Edited by danielwoods
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

the book of nature clearly tells me we didn't evolve over millions of years, but were created by God. 

 

The Bible is neither a book of nature, nor even "The Good Book" of how to treat each other.

Rodeo Community Regular

Rodeo

Posted
Posted

Incorrect. For just some of the evidences of Abiogenesis.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

Read through the entire article and they admit their ideas are just a "hypothesis" and as of yet no experiments have been done on the lab bench to even test the hypothesis. So basically they are just talking about maybes and not actual observations. They want something to be so, so they then talk about it, form a hypothesis and thats where they stand- no evidence, nothing tested, no real science. I believe that fits the definition of "blind" quite well.

1
Rodeo Community Regular

Rodeo

Posted
Posted

I have no problem with the historicity of the BoM. I do have problems with certain claims made by believers and nonbelievers alike. IE; That the Book of Mormon is the history of all Native Americans.

SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

 

The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups.6 At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”7

What American history class teaches that there was an ancient war where millions of warriors died in the battle?
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Read through the entire article and they admit their ideas are just a "hypothesis" and as of yet no experiments have been done on the lab bench to even test the hypothesis. So basically they are just talking about maybes and not actual observations. They want something to be so, so they then talk about it, form a hypothesis and thats where they stand- no evidence, nothing tested, no real science. I believe that fits the definition of "blind" quite well.

Real tests of real science in real labs.

 

RNA in the lab.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/04/rna-enzyme-makes-another-rna-e.html

 

DNA in the lab.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-life-with-alien-dna-created-in-lab/

 

Not so blind as you think.

Rodeo Community Regular

Rodeo

Posted
Posted

Yet in both articles they are not sure how life first evolved and that they are just guessing. Then, the intelligent designers (the scientists/biologists) use their intelligence and designs to create what they want in the lab in intelligently controlled circumstances. All they are doing is proving the case for Intelligent design. As for lifes true origins? They are blind as blind can get.

2
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Yet in both articles they are not sure how life first evolved and that they are just guessing. Then, the intelligent designers (the scientists/biologists) use their intelligence and designs to create what they want in the lab in intelligently controlled circumstances. All they are doing is proving the case for Intelligent design. As for lifes true origins? They are blind as blind can get.

 

Nonsense. We don't know exactly what electricity is. But we do use it. You are using it right now.

 

That is a perfect example of the fallacy of Ad Hoc ergo Post Hoc reasoning.

cdowis Grand Master

cdowis

Posted
Posted

Tried it both ways -- open and closed mind.  The closed mind approach was more simple, and seemed to work better.  The open mind requires alot of work.

1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...