“If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no.” (I couldn’t agree more with that).

Oh, I agree with that. Evolution says nothing about either the creation of the world or the creation of life itself. It deals strictly with what happens after the world exists and there is life in it.

It does, however, rule out intelligent design.

Anyway, I’m off to get some lunch, have a great holiday weekend.

You too.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

I believe there are many important truths said on this site that strict evolutionists need to consider! In particular:

“If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no.” (I couldn’t agree more with that).

Anyway, I’m off to get some lunch, have a great holiday weekend.

I guess I don’t know what to say Simen, I feel the same way (the head slamming thing) when people contend the theory is fact.

Here’s some recommended reading for you: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.

On a side note, the fact that God is not subject to the scientific method does not exclude Him from existence. In fact, using the scientific method in regards to God is really a poor decision – I wrote a post on the subject on my blog, but aA and I have talked and I think he will be putting it up on here sometime in the future.

The existence of a personal god is very much a scientific issue. I’ll grant you, a deistic god that creates the universe and runs off isn’t exactly within the reach of science. However, a god that is active in the world will leave evidence, and that evidence can be studied scientifically. Now, the reason you don’t see much research about gods is that believers aren’t willing or able to make accurate predictions that would render their gods falsifiable. If Christians compiled a list of predictions that would be true if their god existed, we might be able to test them and falsify your god. But since no Christians are doing it, we can’t falsify the Christian God. We can reasonably assume this god would leave some evidence, though, and we have yet to see evidence that e.g. prayer is effective.

God Bless.

You’re right, biology and physics cannot change logic, but they can lead to illogical explanations (earth is the center of the universe). In this case, the sciences were not utilized correctly which resulted in a illogical explanation of how the solar sytem worked.

Again, there is no logical contradiction in the idea. Geocentrism is logically valid, it just happens to be wrong. Do you see the difference between logically valid and true? All true claims must be logically valid, but all logically valid claims must not be true.

I am confident that mistakes in our sciences do exist still, and years down the road we will discover the flaws (like we have of our previous generations).

True.

The answer isn’t black and white because who can really say for sure what it is. What you or I believe doesn’t change what really was the case, and, we can’t know it with 100% certainty without employing a degree of faith (in God, science, etc.).

The answer is indeed black or white, there is no middle ground. It is our understanding of the answer that is lacking, but for practical purposes, we know it.

One question without a 100% verfied answer? Easy – how did creation come to be? Evolution is still a theory but people will use faith to say that it (the big bang and the like) is for certain. Similar to the way the believer does in reference to God.

Every time someone brings up this, I feel like I’m slamming my head into a stone wall. Evolution is a theory the same way the earth is round is a theory. Faith in evolution is on the same level as faith that gravity will still work tomorrow. It is not, I repeat, not in any way similar to belief in God.

It is a testable hypothesis about the world, one that we will reject if its predictions turn out to be untrue. They haven’t.

“Just a theory” is an incredibly weak defense. It’s utterly wrong. There is no “just” in it. How do you know of the existence of other minds? Just a theory. How do you know the earth is more than a week old? Just a theory.

You’re right, biology and physics cannot change logic, but they can lead to illogical explanations (earth is the center of the universe). In this case, the sciences were not utilized correctly which resulted in a illogical explanation of how the solar sytem worked. I am confident that mistakes in our sciences do exist still, and years down the road we will discover the flaws (like we have of our previous generations).

The answer isn’t black and white because who can really say for sure what it is. What you or I believe doesn’t change what really was the case, and, we can’t know it with 100% certainty without employing a degree of faith (in God, science, etc.).

One question without a 100% verfied answer? Easy – how did creation come to be? Evolution is still a theory but people will use faith to say that it (the big bang and the like) is for certain. Similar to the way the believer does in reference to God.

For another question, we need only to return to your last post: “Why would God be so stupid to write/inspire/whatever his grand work in a way that is so easily misunderstood if he wanted to be understood?

Perhaps there is a greater truth that He wishes us to seek for (similar to gnosticism maybe) – perhaps we are reading wrong (spiritually vs. literal vs. poetic vs. allegorically). Maybe we are being the “stupid” ones? I don’t have all the answers, I’m not God nor pretend to be.

God Bless.

You mentioned that logic implies that p exists at the same time as -p, which creates logical contradiction. According to the dictionary, logic is defined as, “The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference”.

Logic is a science in the way mathematics is a science. It’s not empirical reasoning. All the sciences employ logic, of course, but it is a separate field of study itself. I didn’t say that logic implies both p and its negation, I said that that’s the definition of a logical contradiction. If an inference contains a contradiction, it’s obviously invalid.

In this case, p is the inference that the various biblical characters lived extensive lengths of time, and -p is the inference that they did not. I would contend that scientific disciplines such as biology and physics are not different from logic, but rather are very much so intertwined with it in that they set the paradigm and principles for supposed logical inferences.

That’s wrong. No result in biology or physics can change logic.

In regards to the actual ages of these individuals, I don’t look at the issue as black and white.

You don’t? How about this: did Metuselah live 969 years? That is a simple black/white, yes/no question. We’re not interested in its spiritual or allegorical value, but its truth value. Is the question true? Is this how it really happened? No amount of interpreting will lead us away from that.

Simply put, our logic/reasoning/knowledge is really stupidity compared to God’s.

God’s logic works in mysterious ways?

Is the age in years? Is it something else? Was the bible entirely inspired by God, or were just the events His doing (and man became responsible for recording them)?

Why would God be so stupid as to write/inspire/whatever his grand work in a way that is so easily misunderstood if he wanted it to be understood?

In other words, there are countless questions with no definite answer unless you have faith (i.e. faith in religion, faith in God, faith in science).

Name one such question, please.

In this case, p is the inference that the various biblical characters lived extensive lengths of time, and -p is the inference that they did not. I would contend that scientific disciplines such as biology and physics are not different from logic, but rather are very much so intertwined with it in that they set the paradigm and principles for supposed logical inferences. In regards to the actual ages of these individuals, I don’t look at the issue as black and white. Simply put, our logic/reasoning/knowledge is really stupidity compared to God’s. Is the age in years? Is it something else? Was the bible entirely inspired by God, or were just the events His doing (and man became responsible for recording them)? When arguments about the Bible or religion come up, they usually address only one area of belief; perhaps one or two “camps” of thought. In other words, there are countless questions with no definite answer unless you have faith (i.e. faith in religion, faith in God, faith in science).

Unfortunately, this is the type of thing we could discuss day in and day out, and really not get anywhere.

in regards to the ages of the characters, feel free to check out this link for a possible explanation: http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ages.htm

God Bless.

Misconceptions:
“The numbers are months, not years”.
Since the longevity appears to be about 10 times the modern lifespan, a natural conclusion is to doubt their authenticity. Converting the pre-flood figures to months seems to bring the ages within comfortable limits – Methuselah’s 969 years becomes 81. But there are some fatal flaws with this theory.
– The fathering age is too low. Enoch was 65 when he fathered Methuselah, and 65 months makes him a father at the grand old age of 5. In fact most of the lineage would have been fathered by children who had yet to reach puberty!

Don’t you think it interesting that they’re arguing positively for people living to be very old despite some of the biological issues Simen laid out but they’re using those same biological argument to judge the age of puberty.

It’s just as probable (using faith not science) that they could have reached puberty at 5 as it is that they lived 900+ years.
aA