Attn: Tear Apart Evolution In This Thread!

[travis2]

^^^^^^^I'm not sure how you came to your conclusion that I inferred that Christians can't reconcile evolution and God. Read it again travis.


I did. And if you look at the quote from you which I posted above...the implication is quite clear.

You are not talking about individual scientists. You are talking about the theory of evolution itself.

[Extra Stout]

Evolution itself is what's problematic regarding Christianity in that it denies the Genesis account of creation and has therefore pitted itself against Christianity, not the other way around.Evolution in no way denies the Genesis account of creation. It denies a very narrow, very Western, scientific reading of the Genesis account of creation. You are assuming not only that the Biblical writers of the Old Testament think the way Westerners do, but that God does as well.

That makes little sense, since he picked an Eastern nation to be his chosen people in the Old Testament through whom his truth would be revealed. You never even consider how the Jews communicate truth because Christianity has been dominated by Greek and Western thought nearly since its inception. Nearly all of the New Testament, save Matthew, James, and Revelation is written in the Greek way of thinking. Virtually none of the Old Testament is.

Basically what I'm saying is that you are reading Genesis totally wrong and coming up with ridiculous conclusions because of it, and so is pretty much every evangelical/fundamentalist Christian in the West. You are seeing God in your own image, rather than the other way around, and reaping error because of it.

Christians do not apply this strict a hermeneutic elsewhere in the Bible. When Caesar Augustus is described as the emperor of "all the world" in Luke's literal historical account, nobody reads that to say that Augustus was the emperor of China or the Americas. When Paul says that the gospel already has been preached to "all the world" in his pragmatic, frank, and literal epistles, nobody believes that the gospel had reached Polynesia by then.

When the Old Testament describes the heavens as a vault held up by pillars, nobody believes that it actually means that literally, especially since Isaiah confirms that the earth is a "circle."

But you among other Christians insist that Genesis 1 and 2 have to be taken absolutely literally, though the way it's written is obviously poetic. I guess you have to believe that a bat is a kind of bird, too, says Genesis 1 says that. I mean, the two chapters don't even match one another in their accounts of the creation of man. They're parallel accounts. Which one is right? In the Psalms and in the Proverbs, when that's seen, everyone says, "Oh, that's Hebrew poetic parallelism." But, oh no, seven-day creation and the young earth, that has to be literal.

Genesis pinpoints the location of the Garden of Eden. It is in the valley between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in modern Iraq. It is guarded by seraphim which prevent humans from entering. Taken literally, shouldn't our troops have stumbled upon it by now? Oh, you mean it's not there? Where is it? Oh, you mean the earth and indeed the whole universe has been fundamentally altered by sin in a way that transcends our understanding? Then why are we being such sticklers about scientific details in the time prior to that?

I suppose there are other cases where evangelical/fundie Christians tie their brains in knots to maintain the reading they want out of the Bible. One big one is the contrast in chronology between Matthew and Luke. They describe the same events in a different order, sometimes years apart. Someone familiar with Eastern thought would figure Luke's chronology is more accurate, because Matthew as a Jew is prioritizing theology and the fulfillment of prophecy in his account. American evangelicals instead rationalize it away by deciding that Jesus must have done and said the exact same thing twice at different times.

But why does chronology matter to God? He exists outside time. He created time. He is not bound to the way we perceive it. We cannot take action that changes the past. God can, and the Bible testifies to that when it describes how Jesus absolved the sins of all the believers who came before his time on Earth.

Your perspective of God is too narrow. You read Genesis in terms of what your mind understands, and cannot fathom that the account could be written from God's perspective, and that the rules that apply to your experience do not apply to his. Have you considered taht the Bible conveys spiritual truth, not objective scientific truth to those who believe it, and that it could be communicated in ways that defy human logic? Why? Well, think about what God has to do -- he has to communicate his transcendent act of creation in the limited language of the limited minds of human beings. Of course it's not going to sound like the way we perceive it in the physical world.

Do you really believe that there is a spiritual dimension? Do you not understand that science is only a subset of truth, and that the scientists who worship it as the means to all knowledge are fools? All spiritual people understand this.

That's part of the truth that the Bible conveys, isn't it? Does it not say that God's ways are not our ways, and his thoughts are not our thoughts? Then, if the Bible is his inspired Word, why would we insist upon reading it in terms of our own ways and thoughts? Why do evangelicals decry the overreach of science, and yet read God's word with a scientific mind and not a spiritual one? Might one not know God better by getting that stronghold out of one's mind?

Think about how many other bits of theology are the same way. For example, take predestination versus freewill. From God's perspective, he elects those who will believe in him and be saved even before they come to believe in him. But from our perspective, it's the other way around -- people have the free will to hear the gospel and choose to be saved.

From God's perspective, salvation is instantaneous and assured. From man's perspective, he must persevere all his life in faith.

The Bible even says that we can learn about God from what has been created. Theologians call that "general revelation." The Bible is "special revelation." Western Christians maintain that the former must always be interpreted in terms of the latter, without ever considering that the latter can be interpreted in terms of the former.


The "standard scientific theory" of evolution is "that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. -Shermer- No "standard scientific theory" can deny the presence of God in any process. Any scholar who says otherwise is a liar. Period. Science by definition can only explain the physical world. God transcends the physical world.

I do not deny that atheists like to use evolution to deny the existence of God, because evolution does not require the intervention of a Creator. But neither does your drive to work today. You can explain exactly how you got from Point A to Point B without invoking God, even though the Bible clearly says it is God who watches over you and protects you. You can clearly explain how crops are grown and harvested, even though the Bible says it is God who provides your food.

Maybe you want to believe that God supernaturally intervened to create things rather than by doing so through natural mechanisms that he created. But that is up to you, and you have to deny the objective evidence around you to uphold that belief. Christianity as presented in the Bible does not require that belief. I can believe that God is responsible for gravity without believing that he has an invisible hand actually pushing me down towards the ground.

You are fighting for your own sectarian dogma. You are not fighting for Christianity as a whole.

[Extra Stout]

Overall, what I'm saying is that the creation account of Genesis is absolutely true regardless of the differences between it and what science reveals, because Genesis is communicating a different and higher truth than natural science.

Genesis is metaphysical; science is physical.
Genesis is supernatural; science is natural.
Genesis is eternal; science is temporal.
Genesis is transcendant; science is concrete.

The two cannot conflict because their intersection is so small.

[travis2]

Nicely done, Stout..nicely done...

[Extra Stout]

I agree with joch that completely omitting any discussion of God from the curriculum is not a neutral treatment, but rather one biased towards atheism.

I also acknowledge that atheists abuse science to hammer their beliefs on others, because to them, naturalism is the only truth, and they want to set the ground rules of debate based on that.

Given the prominent role of religion in so many aspects of human civilization, its culture and learning, just leaving that out of education is a disservice to students.

The First Amendment does not require such drastic steps, nor does the history of American jurisprudence prior to the rise of radical secularists. While it would be improper to indoctrinate students in a particular religion, neither is it proper to indoctrinate them against religion.

Where Christians fail in their fight is that their state of mind trails that of the secularists so badly that they always end up figthing on the secularists' terms, and don't even realize it. It's like a lot of other issues in politics --> whoever can frame the debate usually wins.

[Extra Stout]

Nicely done, Stout..nicely done...
Christians should simply note 1 Corinthians 13:2 before thinking I'm all wonderful.

[jochhejaam]

Overall, what I'm saying is that the creation account of Genesis is absolutely true regardless of the differences between it and what science reveals, because Genesis is communicating a different and higher truth than natural science.
Genesis is metaphysical; science is physical.
Genesis is supernatural; science is natural.
Genesis is eternal; science is temporal.
Genesis is transcendant; science is concrete.

The two cannot conflict because their intersection is so small.



I agree with joch that completely omitting any discussion of God from the curriculum is not a neutral treatment, but rather one biased towards atheism.

I also acknowledge that atheists abuse science to hammer their beliefs on others, because to them, naturalism is the only truth, and they want to set the ground rules of debate based on that.

Given the prominent role of religion in so many aspects of human civilization, its culture and learning, just leaving that out of education is a disservice to students.

The First Amendment does not require such drastic steps, nor does the history of American jurisprudence prior to the rise of radical secularists. While it would be improper to indoctrinate students in a particular religion, neither is it proper to indoctrinate them against religion.


Good explanation of these things, at least for me.
Thanks


1 Corin 13 : 2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

[jochhejaam]

T[QUOTE=travis2]

the evidence for a "big bang" beginning for the universe is damn near conclusive.


Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory... Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time


Monday, August 29, 2005
The Big Bang Theory may have been disproved
The Big Bang Theory that has informed all of modern cosmology and science down to the origins of space, time, and life, has hit a major snag: it's probably all wrong. Thanks to observations by Halton Arp, the use of redshifting to determine distances between objects in space -- and the premise behind the Big Bang -- has proven to be incorrect. Having found supposedly distant quasars in front of nearby galaxies, the Big Bang may be snuffed out. http://www.haltonarp.com/


Overview:
You'd never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can't be fixed.
The Big Bang has lost its theoretical foundation, which was the Doppler interpretation of redshift (linking redshift to the stretching of light wavelengths as objects move away from us).
It is now known that, while almost all observed galaxies are redshifted, the Doppler interpretation of this shift does not provide a reliable measure of velocity or (indirectly) of distance.
Quasars, whose high redshift would place them at the outer edges of the visible universe, are in fact physically and energetically linked to nearby low-redshift active galaxies.
In the rise and fall of the Big Bang hypothesis no name looms with greater distinction than that of Halton Arp, the leading authority on peculiar galaxies.
For established science the greatest embarrassment could come from public realization that, for decades, astronomers suppressed the warning signs.
To his credit, Cornell astronomer Carl Sagan acknowledged the problem when he was writing Cosmos (published in 1980).
But in the following years the politically influential looked the other way, and the word quietly went out to science editors at major newspaper and news magazines that Arp had been fully answered and no more time was needed on the question.
While big bang theorists have cobbled together "explanations" for small-scale examples of the effect, the picture as a whole can only be illusory.
The failure of the Big Bang hypothesis could be the tipping point in the collapse of modern cosmology, with reverberations affecting all of the theoretical sciences.
Electric currents are required to sustain cosmic magnetic fields.
And now, everywhere we look we see magnetic fields at work: electricity is flowing across immense distances in space.

[travis2]

Incidentally, the American astronomer Halton Arp has hypothesised in many papers over the last several decades that redshift is not actually a function of speed of recession due to the expansion of the Universe - that low-redshift galaxies and high-redshift quasars which appear close together as seen from Earth are physically connected by gaseous bridges, which is obviously an impossibility if the quasars are billions of light-years further way However, it has been shown that Arp's bridges are almost certainly nothing more than either photographic artifacts or statistical anomalies (e.g. Sharp 1985, 1986; Newman & Terzian 1995; Wehrle et al. 1997; Hardcastle et al. 1998; Crawford et al. 1999; Hardcastle 2000).


Next...

[Extra Stout]

Arp's theories are interesting.

In some ways, the "dark matter" and "dark energy" of modern cosmology could be analogous to the tortuous paths of the planets and other heavenly bodies that geocentrists theorized.

[Extra Stout]

Next...
Don't dismiss Arp's theories so quickly. Ever hear of the "Fingers of God?"

It's a phenomenon that when galaxy clusters are mapped based upon the assumption that redshift=distance, they all form elongated V's that point at Earth. It doesn't mean that the universe actually is shaped like long fingers pointing back at us.

It either means there's a problem with the assumption "redshift=distance," or that somehow the gravity of the galaxy cluster screws with its redshift.

[travis2]

Don't dismiss Arp's theories so quickly. Ever hear of the "Fingers of God?"

It's a phenomenon that when galaxy clusters are mapped based upon the assumption that redshift=distance, they all form elongated V's that point at Earth. It doesn't mean that the universe actually is shaped like long fingers pointing back at us.

It means there's a problem with the assumption "redshift=distance."

Stout, I don't have to dismiss them quickly. The astronomical community has dismissed them after much study.

There are many articles and discussions on this.

He's a lone wolf in this one.

[MannyIsGod]

Travis the way you handle yourself in regards to your religion never fails to impress.

[jochhejaam]

Personally...if creation happened exactly as Genesis states, in that order, 6000 years ago, then that makes God the liar. Not evolution.


For God to create a 6000 year old earth, with everything as it is now...and with stars out there with distances that are obviously in the millions and billions of light-years...in other words, created to look like it's old when it's not...sorry, that makes God a liar.

^^^Let me know how your confrontation with God turns out.


Your arrogance lends great credence to the verses found in Romans;

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator

Let God be true, and every man a liar.
"So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

(see sig.)

[LittleGeneral]

It's funny how "Creations" like jochhejaam love to quote scientists out of context. Reminds me of tactics used by Holocaust deniers and other select groups...

[jochhejaam]

I don't have to dismiss them quickly. The astronomical community has dismissed them after much study.
He's a lone wolf in this one.



Being the "lone wolf" means being wrong? That's asisine and he's actually not the lone wolf (read attached article) so either retract that false notion or be branded a liar by your own erroneous statement.

Dismissing years of research by Arp amounts to suppression of evidence that refutes the findings of those that are resistant to new discovery. Also known as blackballing.


Unpublished Review of
Halton Arp Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations 2003, Apeiron, Quebec

Seldom can so much theory have hinged upon an observation.

Halton Arp's new book, reviewed here by N Kollerstrom, features a paradigm-shattering colour photo of this galaxy plus quasar.
(For picture and more on this article visit http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/Arp_controversy.htm )

The photograph was taken by David Strange, a Dorset amateur astronomer, clearly showing ( figure opposite) the 'luminous bridge' between them .

Does this picture reveal the secret of the universe, that galaxies bud to form quasars of higher redshift?




A recent Astronomy & Astrophysics report, based on observations at La Palma, has endorsed the notion that a galaxy (NGC 7603) and its nearby companion of very different redshift, are physically linked: it is its "authors" found 'the most impressive case of a system of anomalous redshifts discovered so far' 1. As early as 1971 Fred Hoyle described this galaxy plus companion as 'The case where it is hardest to deny the evidence 2' - and the evidence here concerns what one might call a 'forbidden link,' impossible within modern cosmology: then in 1983 Hoyle alluded to 'the manifest fact that NGC 7603 is connected to its satellite3 ' Is this indeed a manifest fact, or is it a mere error in perception as modern cosmology would have it? Do the new observational data comprise a crucial experiment, and if so what implications would there be? For an answer this we turn to the theories and the new book of Mr Halton Arp.

If one views the form of a spiral galaxy, it can appear more as having unfolded out from a centre, rather than having condensed inwards from homogeneous matter in space. That antithesis does quite well express the contrast between Arp's views, and current cosmological theories. We have become conditioned to the idea of black holes at galactic centres, as a logical consequence and end-result of the Big Bang. Let's try instead to envisage Arp's view, of galactic centres as white holes, from which the matter of galaxies has emerged. Creation, out of nothing?


Sir Fred Hoyle - Sir Fred Hoyle (June 24, 1915 – August 20, 2001) was a British astronomer, notable for a number of his theories that run counter to current astronomical opinion, He spent most of his working life at the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge, and was director of the institute for a number of years.

Hoyle's View
Hoyle always supported Arp - as Dr Jane Gregory, who is composing a biography of Fred Hoyle, explained to me. Jane works in the same department as me (the STS Dept at UCL) and told me how she had an interview with Sir Fred before he died: he kept showing her images of the filaments linking galaxies to adjacent quasars). This was clearly expressed in his 1983 The Quasar Controversy Resolved as well as in his last (posthumous) book co-authored with the eminent cosmologists Burbidge and Narlikar: A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality. Hoyle coined the term 'Big Bang' in 1950, in a derisive and skeptical sense, and his last title politely informs the reader of its erroneous nature. Through this book Arp is cast as the heroic pioneer, e.g. concerning how astronomers terminated his profession of astronomy in America in the early 1980s: 'Thus, Arp was the subject of one of the most clear-cut and successful attempts in modern times to block research which it was felt, correctly, would be revolutionary in its impact if it were to be adopted 8'. The authors endorses Arp's argument, e.g.: 'It is clear that over the past 20 years a great deal of evidence has been found which shows that many QSOs [quasi-stellar objects = quasars] with large redshifts are physically associated with galaxies having much smaller redshifts 9. The closure of his US career was surely beneficial, inasmuch as it resulted in Arp moving to Berlin's Max Plank Astrophysics Institute, with its new, X-ray telescope. He could re-examine objects he had earlier viewed through an optical telescope at the X-ray wavelength, as revealed their most energetic parts.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/Arp_controversy.htm
(excellent article)

[travis2]

^^^Let me know how your confrontation with God turns out.


Your arrogance lends great credence to the verses found in Romans;

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator

Let God be true, and every man a liar.
"So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

(see sig.)

So now you are accusing me of not believing and worshipping God? Who's the arrogant one?

It always amazes me that there are "Christians" out there who's sole purpose in life is to be an asshole to anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do.

Sorry. I am comfortable in my theology and in my cosmology. I have no need to put God in a little box. I can let Him be whatever He is.

And I don't need to brand as heretics anyone who doesn't believe as I do.

[travis2]

Being the "lone wolf" means being wrong? That's asisine and he's actually not the lone wolf (read attached article) so either retract that false notion or be branded a liar by your own erroneous statement.

Dismissing years of research by Arp amounts to suppression of evidence that refutes the findings of those that are resistant to new discovery. Also known as blackballing.


Unpublished Review of
Halton Arp Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations 2003, Apeiron, Quebec

Seldom can so much theory have hinged upon an observation.

Halton Arp's new book, reviewed here by N Kollerstrom, features a paradigm-shattering colour photo of this galaxy plus quasar.
(For picture and more on this article visit http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/Arp_controversy.htm )

The photograph was taken by David Strange, a Dorset amateur astronomer, clearly showing ( figure opposite) the 'luminous bridge' between them .

Does this picture reveal the secret of the universe, that galaxies bud to form quasars of higher redshift?




A recent Astronomy & Astrophysics report, based on observations at La Palma, has endorsed the notion that a galaxy (NGC 7603) and its nearby companion of very different redshift, are physically linked: it is its "authors" found 'the most impressive case of a system of anomalous redshifts discovered so far' 1. As early as 1971 Fred Hoyle described this galaxy plus companion as 'The case where it is hardest to deny the evidence 2' - and the evidence here concerns what one might call a 'forbidden link,' impossible within modern cosmology: then in 1983 Hoyle alluded to 'the manifest fact that NGC 7603 is connected to its satellite3 ' Is this indeed a manifest fact, or is it a mere error in perception as modern cosmology would have it? Do the new observational data comprise a crucial experiment, and if so what implications would there be? For an answer this we turn to the theories and the new book of Mr Halton Arp.

If one views the form of a spiral galaxy, it can appear more as having unfolded out from a centre, rather than having condensed inwards from homogeneous matter in space. That antithesis does quite well express the contrast between Arp's views, and current cosmological theories. We have become conditioned to the idea of black holes at galactic centres, as a logical consequence and end-result of the Big Bang. Let's try instead to envisage Arp's view, of galactic centres as white holes, from which the matter of galaxies has emerged. Creation, out of nothing?


Sir Fred Hoyle - Sir Fred Hoyle (June 24, 1915 – August 20, 2001) was a British astronomer, notable for a number of his theories that run counter to current astronomical opinion, He spent most of his working life at the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge, and was director of the institute for a number of years.

Hoyle's View
Hoyle always supported Arp - as Dr Jane Gregory, who is composing a biography of Fred Hoyle, explained to me. Jane works in the same department as me (the STS Dept at UCL) and told me how she had an interview with Sir Fred before he died: he kept showing her images of the filaments linking galaxies to adjacent quasars). This was clearly expressed in his 1983 The Quasar Controversy Resolved as well as in his last (posthumous) book co-authored with the eminent cosmologists Burbidge and Narlikar: A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality. Hoyle coined the term 'Big Bang' in 1950, in a derisive and skeptical sense, and his last title politely informs the reader of its erroneous nature. Through this book Arp is cast as the heroic pioneer, e.g. concerning how astronomers terminated his profession of astronomy in America in the early 1980s: 'Thus, Arp was the subject of one of the most clear-cut and successful attempts in modern times to block research which it was felt, correctly, would be revolutionary in its impact if it were to be adopted 8'. The authors endorses Arp's argument, e.g.: 'It is clear that over the past 20 years a great deal of evidence has been found which shows that many QSOs [quasi-stellar objects = quasars] with large redshifts are physically associated with galaxies having much smaller redshifts 9. The closure of his US career was surely beneficial, inasmuch as it resulted in Arp moving to Berlin's Max Plank Astrophysics Institute, with its new, X-ray telescope. He could re-examine objects he had earlier viewed through an optical telescope at the X-ray wavelength, as revealed their most energetic parts.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/Arp_controversy.htm
(excellent article)

I stand by my statement. And I'm supposed to give credence to a review article written by a crank site?

I daresay I can follow the science a mite more than you can, thankyouverymuch. Once again, English and Theology majors feel the need to teach scientists about science.

Who's arrogant? Who's the "liar"?

I suggest you re-read Mt 7:3-5. Commit it to memory.

[travis2]

Travis the way you handle yourself in regards to your religion never fails to impress.

Thanks, Manny...

(But I'm still not going to call you God...:lol)

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=travis2]I stand by my statement. And I'm supposed to give credence to a review article written by a crank site?

^^Originally posted by Stout: I also acknowledge that atheists abuse science to hammer their beliefs on others, because to them, naturalism is the only truth, and they want to set the ground rules of debate based on that. (addendum, joch - And I don't care if you're atheist or not, the statement fits your opinions).

jochhejaam---> Dismiss all new science and articles that don't agree with you on the grounds that it's contrary to earlier, outdated science. :rolleyes


I daresay I can follow the science a mite more than you can, thankyouverymuch. .

And that's you're reasoning for dismissing the studies of Arp and others?
Laughable t2.



Who's the "liar"?

According to you, God is. And since you said Arp is the "lone wolf" which obviously isn't true, then you are.





I suggest you re-read Mt 7:3-5. Commit it to memory.

I know the verses well (planks and specks) and they have no bearing on this/our discussion.

[travis2]

[QUOTE]

^^Originally posted by Stout: I also acknowledge that atheists abuse science to hammer their beliefs on others, because to them, naturalism is the only truth, and they want to set the ground rules of debate based on that. (addendum, joch - And I don't care if you're atheist or not, the statement fits your opinions).

jochhejaam---> Dismiss all new science and articles that don't agree with you on the grounds that it's contrary to earlier, outdated science. :rolleyes



And that's you're reasoning for dismissing the studies of Arp and others?
Laughable t2.




According to you, God is. And since you said Arp is the "lone wolf" which obviously isn't true, then you are.






I know the verses well (planks and specks) and they have no bearing on this/our discussion.

I never said God was a liar.

But your actions make me wonder if you're really a Christian.