Protestantism

» pink101 - Is Genesis Credible?

In response to Is Genesis Credible? posted by BrianTubbs:

.
If my understanding of the word, plausible, is correct, then evolutionary theory is the plausible one.
.
That said, there is nothing in the theory that claims God did not put it in motion.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Two different things

In response to Is Genesis Credible? posted by pink101:

We're talking about two different things here.

1) Does evolution (in and of itself) disprove God? The answer is....NO. It does not. As you say, "there is nothing in the theory that claims God did not put it in motion."

2) Does evolution disprove a literal Genesis? That is the focus of my first comment (and your original question). It disproves Genesis ONLY IF we accept the presuppositions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. Otherwise, it does not. Therefore, a rational, intelligent person can embrace Genesis - and do so credibly.

» pink101 - Two different things

In response to Two different things posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Therefore, a rational, intelligent person can embrace Genesis - and do so credibly.
.
The idea of being rational comes to the forefront in your statement. And, I guess your statement makes some sense.
.
But, evolution doesn't set out to disprove a literal Genesis anymore than it sets out to disavow any belief in a god of any stripe.
.
What evolution presents is a rationale for the existence of the different levels and forms of life in existence. And, it does so using scientific methodology.
.
To be rational has something to do with using the human intellect. And, much in the Book of Beginnings can easily be discounted using rational thought. But, that doe not mean that an intelligent person cannot embrace Genesis. Unless, of course, by embrace we mean that one must accept the idea that the time frame extrapolated using the Book of Genesis has to be taken literally--word for word.
.
Plus, I expect--being rational in my thinking--that men and women have evolved into our present state of being in exactly the same way.
.
I watched Kenneth Copeland this morning telling a story about the creation and he cracked a little joke. Something to the effect that women appear to have a higher degree of sensitivity; but, then, we men are from dirt.
.

.
I'm sure a lot of women can jump up to attest to that difference.
.
By the way. The idea that God put a soul in man by breathing breath into his lungs seems to say that the soul enters the human body with its first breath. So, then, does the embryo have a soul?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Soul

In response to Two different things posted by pink101:

By the way. The idea that God put a soul in man by breathing breath into his lungs seems to say that the soul enters the human body with its first breath. So, then, does the embryo have a soul?

That is how God implanted the soul into the human race. It does not necessarily follow that the soul enters the body through physical inhalation. God implanted the soul into the human race at the very beginning, and now each and every human being (being a descendant of Adam and Eve) has a soul.

» Brian Tubbs - Genesis Time-frame

In response to Two different things posted by pink101:

Unless, of course, by embrace we mean that one must accept the idea that the time frame extrapolated using the Book of Genesis has to be taken literally--word for word.

My point is that the Genesis time frame CAN be taken "word for word" IF we call into question naturalism and uniformitarianism. If we refuse to question naturalism and uniformitarianism, then the Genesis time frame has to be taken as allegorical at best.

» pink101 - Soul

In response to Soul posted by BrianTubbs:
.
That is how God implanted the soul into the human race
.
For what it's worth, that's how Kaballah explains the gift of the soul to humanity.
.
And, they continue that the same soul is shared by all human beings--we all have our own part of it.
.
They explain our desire for God as the desire to reunite all the parts of the original soul back into one soul.
.
That is a over simplified explanation; but, you get the idea.
.
Brian uses these words, naturalism and uniformitarianism
.
Over my head.
.
I thought naturalism had something to do with a nudist life style. Shows you how dumb I am.
.
Are you going to explain them in your own words?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Naturalism

In response to Soul posted by pink101:

I thought naturalism had something to do with a nudist life style. Shows you how dumb I am.

Well, you're right. Not dumb at all. Just not the context I had in mind.

I know you asked for my own words, but I decided to play it safe and use Dictionary.com. The Naturalism I'm referring to is a philosophical framework, and Dictionary.com defines it as...

a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.

b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

» pink101 - Naturalism

In response to Naturalism posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Natural Science would qualify as being as aspect of Naturalism, if my guess is correct.
.
I get the sense that Genesis would fall in more closely with the Social Sciences.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Having it both ways

In response to Naturalism posted by pink101:

Modern scientists agree with you, but here's where they try to have it both ways. On the one hand, they will say that Creationism (be it of the Genesis variety OR the more, generic "Intelligent Design") doesn't qualify as "science," because it brings in the supernatural element. Okay, but then...

Once they've ruled out Creationism and ID (according to naturalism, which IS a philosophical framework - a philosophical approach to science), they then turn around and ridicule those who DO still hold to Creationism (esp those who hold to Genesis).

Modern scientists like Richard Dawkins can't have their cake and eat it too here. If they are going to rule Creationism and ID out of bounds right away, then they surrender all credibility in ridiculing those who still believe in Creationism and ID.

They canNOT say that science has essentially proved Darwinian, naturalistic evolution - which is precisely what Dawkins and other hardcore evolutionists claim. They canNOT do that, with any sense of objectivity, fairness, and/or credibility.

The ONLY thing that they can claim is that, WITHIN A NATURALISTIC FRAMEWORK, Darwinian, naturalistic evolution is the best explanation for the origin of the universe that we have. They surrender all rights to criticize origin theories OUTSIDE of that naturalistic framework.

» pink101 - Having it both ways

In response to Having it both ways posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Your argument is well taken and understood.
.
But, I do not agree with you.
.
It is NOT the natural scientist that has the problem here--it is the person who wants Creationism to be considered an aspect of natural science that creates the problem.
.
The problem is the demand that Creationism be seen as science and that evolution be seen as no more than a philosophical opinion.
.
The objection to your position is that it cannot be demonstrated in the same way that evolution is demonstrable. THAT is what puts Creationism outside the parameters of science. Once you are able to demonstrate that it is, in fact, able to be proven through some repeatable experiment, natural science will have no choice than to accept it as legitimate.
.
Just because 9,999,999 out of 10,000,000 believe something to be true doesn't make it so. Truth does is not verifiable using the democratic process.
.
Sorry, but, your argument that men like Richard Dawkins can't have their cake and eat it too falls flat on its face.
.
Your comment, based on the idea that "naturalism" is "a philosophical approach to science" is a quantum leap beyond logic if what you mean by "naturalism" is the natural sciences. Or, to put it out as a question, can you prove that claim?
.
We--each one of us--live in different worlds from each other. There is a word, intersubjectivity, that helps us understand that our worlds do intersect. And, where they do, we can discuss our commonsense understandings of reality. But, where our worlds differ, it is like the poem by Rudyard Kipling that says,
.

"OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho' they come from the ends of the earth!"
By Rudyard Kipling

-- posted by pink101