Iucounu Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 OP, what about the graphic novels/e-books by James Dunbar? I have the Big Bang one and it's scientific but in an easy to understand and follow format (graphic novel/comic style and it rhymes). So far they only go through the origin of life on Earth, at least in the ones I found. It's free to view online. It looks like there should be another one eventually--a planned series of three. Another idea: the Cartoon History of the Universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 And that cdrumm and I agree is further proof that a miracle has indeed occurred! ;):D I was just as surprised as you! :D God works in mysterious ways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I have to disagree with you here. Answers in Genesis has improved. I was very pleased when they added their page on Arguments Creationist Should Not Use, but they have buried it, so it is hard to find. These are all arguments that AIG has used in the past, and surprisingly, articles on their site are still using many of the arguments that they say Creationists should not use. In spite of improvements, their science is often either inaccurate or misleading. There are other Creation oriented sites that do a much better job. I was looking for that page several months ago and couldn't find it. I thought they had removed it. :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Of course all Christians need to. You've chosen one particular way, which works for you; and I noted that as long as people had difficulty reconciling their faith with science, the pseudoscientific arguments would continue (as well as YEC textualism, which is another way of resolving the issue). :banghead::banghead::banghead: You don't seem to understand. There is nothing TO reconcile. I never, ever had to stop my belief in either science or my faith to ask myself which was true. They BOTH are. Full stop. Nothing to reconcile. Frankly, I'm thinking you have more to reconcile realizing that there are Christians who have no problem with science and thus faith and science can be harmonious. Edited February 6, 2012 by justamouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I was just as surprised as you! :D God works in mysterious ways... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iucounu Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 You don't seem to understand. There is nothing TO reconcile. I understand perfectly. Your religious document says one thing, and science says another. The way you reconcile them is by choosing to believe that the document is not literally true. I think that's more reasonable, in the face of the scientific evidence, than believing that the scientific evidence is false. And it certainly leads to an easier reconciliation than would a belief that the Bible is literally true in all respects; then you'd have to disregard some pretty compelling scientific evidence. I think you've made an entirely reasonable choice in reconciling your belief systems, under the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotsofpumpkins Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I understand perfectly. Your religious document says one thing, and science says another. The way you reconcile them is by choosing to believe that the document is not literally true. I think that's more reasonable, in the face of the scientific evidence, than believing that the scientific evidence is false. And it certainly leads to an easier reconciliation than would a belief that the Bible is literally true in all respects; then you'd have to disregard some pretty compelling scientific evidence. I think you've made an entirely reasonable choice in reconciling your belief systems, under the circumstances. So it's okay to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true? You're basing your salvation on the parts of this Book that you choose to believe, and yet you choose not to believe others. If the Bible is not 100% true, then how do you know the parts you choose to believe are true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotsofpumpkins Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Without literal creation, we are without adam and eve, and therefore is no gospel. So to believe God used evolution for his creation is without a doubt, denying creation, adam and eve, original sin, and our need for a Savoir, which totally invalidates Christ's death at the cross as well as our saving from eternal ****ation. It also insists that death occurred prior to adam and eve, if you still believe in Adam and eve, meaning the "first bloodshed" of their sacrifice after their sin wasn't truly the first. And that the curse of sin, which caused death and made what was good, not good, is in fact not true because there would have been death prior to adam and eve. You've destroyed the whole basis of the Bible by suggesting the very central core of it is false, your own system of beliefs crushed, if you are old earth creationist. The Bible and Evolution do not fit one another. :iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iucounu Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 So it's okay to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true? You're basing your salvation on the parts of this Book that you choose to believe, and yet you choose not to believe others. If the Bible is not 100% true, then how do you know the parts you choose to believe are true? Something's got to give. In the face of the scientific record, a person must believe that the Bible is 100% literally true and the record false wherever it conflicts; or that the Bible is not literally true, in at least some respects. Some people believe that the Bible is 100% false. {shrug} I only pointed out that justamouse's particular beliefs are fairly reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 One thing I would like to know is, for those of you who absolutely reject evolution, how in the world do you explain the Australopithecines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotsofpumpkins Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 One thing I would like to know is, for those of you who absolutely reject evolution, how in the world do you explain the Australopithecines? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/09/13/sediba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 So it's okay to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true? You're basing your salvation on the parts of this Book that you choose to believe, and yet you choose not to believe others. If the Bible is not 100% true, then how do you know the parts you choose to believe are true? First, keep in mind that truth and fact are not interchangeable terms. I find a lot of truth in the Adam and Eve story but I don't think it's a factual account. Second, for those who don't have a literal view of the Bible there are tools like textual criticism to decide what might be legendary/mythical/historical. There's also the gift of reason at our disposal. I don't think I've ever met someone who didn't apply reason and challenge the literal truth of the Bible. Just consider the gospels. Was the infant Jesus visited by magi or sheppards? If you answer both you've just used your reason to challenge how those two events are told in two very different accounts by merging them into one story. A non-literalist might say the two accounts are the witness of the faith and views two different writers but nor absolutely factual accounts of the birth. I'm not sure which approach is really more respectful to the truths the gospels are trying to communicate. Regardless, if you're curious about how other Christians view the Bible Bart Ehrman's books on Biblical criticism are great. He's not a believer himself but he's a Biblical scholar who gives a great account of Biblical scholarship that covers a lot of liberal and moderate Christian Biblical scholarship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/09/13/sediba Wow. Obviously the person who wrote this spent quite a lot of time reading the wiki before they looked at the fossils and said, "Hey, it looks like an ape, so it must be an extinct ape!" It's pretty apparent the person has no anthropological training whatsoever. So I suppose the Neanderthals were just extinct apes too, huh? Which is odd, given that some modern humans are carrying around a small amount of Neanderthal DNA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotsofpumpkins Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 First, keep in mind that truth and fact are not interchangeable terms. I find a lot of truth in the Adam and Eve story but I don't think it's a factual account. I, on the other hand, believe that it is a factual account. So, for me, truth and fact are interchangeable when it comes to the Bible. Second, for those who don't have a literal view of the Bible there are tools like textual criticism to decide what might be legendary/mythical/historical. There's also the gift of reason at our disposal. The gift of reason is nothing compared to the knowledge and wisdom of God. And yet so many people choose to pick apart His Word and view much of it as mythical. I'm sure that saddens Him. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotsofpumpkins Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Wow. Obviously the person who wrote this spent quite a lot of time reading the wiki before they looked at the fossils and said, "Hey, it looks like an ape, so it must be an extinct ape!" It's pretty apparent the person has no anthropological training whatsoever. So I suppose the Neanderthals were just extinct apes too, huh? Which is odd, given that some modern humans are carrying around a small amount of Neanderthal DNA... Actually, Neanderthals were a group of humans who were most likely suffering from rickets and arthritis caused by the cold, dark climate of the world after the Flood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Actually, Neanderthals were a group of humans who were most likely suffering from rickets and arthritis caused by the cold, dark climate of the world after the Flood.I can't help myself... It was a Long, Dark, Tea-time of the Soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/09/13/sediba That article lost me at the point where it started talked about a problem being that evolution would be going backwards rather then forwards. Evolution isn't a steadily progressing journey with a determined start point and determined end point. There's no forwards. There's simply adapting to the environment. If that means, looking back, that an adaptation that eventually led to us "regressed" for a time because of environmental pressure or demands, big deal. That article is a good example of how AIG sets up a strawman rather then truly address evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carpe Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 That article lost me at the point where it started talked about a problem being that evolution would be going backwards rather then forwards. Evolution isn't a steadily progressing journey with a determined start point and determined end point. There's no forwards. There's simply adapting to the environment. If that means, looking back, that an adaptation that eventually led to us "regressed" for a time because of environmental pressure or demands, big deal. That article is a good example of how AIG sets up a strawman rather then truly address evolution. What she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Actually, Neanderthals were a group of humans who were most likely suffering from rickets and arthritis caused by the cold, dark climate of the world after the Flood. The implication being that the modern study of anatomy is so shaky most scientists can't identify a human skeleton with a bit of rickets and arthritis. Yikes.:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carpe Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 The implication being that the modern study of anatomy is so shaky most scientists can't identify a human skeleton with a bit of rickets and arthritis. Yikes.:confused: It's possible that they suffered from some incredibly debilitating disease that we do not currently have, and homo erectus suffered from different diseases. And so on, but at some point that idea needs to be Occam's razored. It's less plausible that previous hominids had bizarre disfiguring diseases than they are different species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotsofpumpkins Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 The implication being that the modern study of anatomy is so shaky most scientists can't identify a human skeleton with a bit of rickets and arthritis. Yikes.:confused: No, the implication is that most scientists interpret the science in light of their beliefs. They want to find a piece of the evolution puzzle, and their explanation of the fossils reflects that. AIG (and other creation organizations) interpret science in light of the Bible, so their explanations reflect that. In a nutshell, we all have a bias. Even "facts" can be looked at differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) I understand perfectly. Your religious document says one thing, and science says another. The way you reconcile them is by choosing to believe that the document is not literally true. I think that's more reasonable, in the face of the scientific evidence, than believing that the scientific evidence is false. And it certainly leads to an easier reconciliation than would a belief that the Bible is literally true in all respects; then you'd have to disregard some pretty compelling scientific evidence. I think you've made an entirely reasonable choice in reconciling your belief systems, under the circumstances. Well, at least I understand why you are saying what you say. You're very ignorant of what my religious document says. Genesis is not a science manual. It's a literary story. It has nothing to do with HOW to world was created--it has to do with there being ONE God and WHY it was created. I don't HAVE to look at it as false, there's nothing to be false about. It's not *meant* to be literally true, and you saying that it is, and telling me that's what I believe is ... perhaps you should stop stooping to straw men. You may want to look at how Catholics view Genesis before telling ME what I believe, which is highly arrogant of you and rude, beyond that. Edited February 6, 2012 by justamouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 No, the implication is that most scientists interpret the science in light of their beliefs. They want to find a piece of the evolution puzzle, and their explanation of the fossils reflects that. AIG (and other creation organizations) interpret science in light of the Bible, so their explanations reflect that. In a nutshell, we all have a bias. Even "facts" can be looked at differently. This is a common assertion and represents a basic misunderstanding of how science works. Regardless, you've made a rather extraordinary claim about neanderthals. Is there evidence that would support that claim? Studies that have compared the skeletons of modern humans to the skeletons of neaderthals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[email protected] Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 And...now we're done. These threads, while sometimes interesting, cover the same ground again and again. And again. And again. And again. Moderator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts