Ogg

The following video details how Christians explain away the failure of Harold Camping's prediction.

As in what Christ was claimed to have said or not:

Please note this video was made BEFORE May 21st.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mro-Q-D3qq0

I am hoping that people will take a look at the above video and have a good think. Then relate it to what groups like ACCESS are trying to indoctrinate our children with.

Ammonite,
Thanks for your post. I am interested in promoting healthy discussion and understanding (rather than just 'winning' a debate.) To this end is my impatience for name calling. Good discussion is rarely served by calling another an 'extremist' or 'liar' for taking a contrary view.

So, I'm sorry if I'm curt at times. I'll admit to sometimes aiming to be provocative, but I try to provoke ideas rather than abuse.

Much of my motivation for joining this discussion was for your and other's criticism that Christians are not prepared or even willing to explain or defend their beliefs. This is why I am happy to defend the Biblical account of origins.

Continued...

Ammonite.
You say evolution is primarily not about origins. 'Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin,' you claim. I suppose that Darwin's most famous book, Origin of Species, might have been poorly named or was only concerned with exceptional cases rather than central data.

But according to Richard Dawkins, it was impossible to be an ‘intellectually fulfilled atheist’ until they had an alternative to creation to explain the wonders of life, supposedly provided by evolutionary ideas.

In this belief system, matter, left to itself, produced all things, including the human brain. This brain then invented the idea of the supernatural, of God, of eternal life, and so forth. This evolutionary view of origins is totally contrary to the planned, purposeful creation describe in Christian scripture.

So evolution has various meanings depending on context. Natural selection is an observable process that all see and agree with. It was a process being documented before Darwin wrote about it. If we were only talking about natural selection then there would be no controversy.

The foremost evolution controversy is whether the process of natural selection could possibly form a man or a melon from lower life forms.

This issue is not about defining a 'kind'. For example, we may all agree that bacteria, a banana, and a bartender are different kinds (though evolutionists believe they share common ancestors.)

It's the creationist claim, backed up by our knowledge of genes, mutations, DNA etc. that the processes of natural selection are not the types of process that will ever change a bacteria to a banana or bartender.

Natural selection is a conservative process. It helps to eliminate the weak, and preserve the favored genes, thus assisting the adaptation and survival of the organism. Yet it is not a creative process; it is without capacity to form new genes for new forms and functions not already present in the parent population.

But if you wish you can surprise me, in Ogg's long list of links, did he provide any observable evidence of new genes arising creating new forms and functions?

A thoroughly worthy ideal, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Much of my motivation for joining this discussion was for your and other's criticism that Christians are not prepared or even willing to explain or defend their beliefs. This is why I am happy to defend the Biblical account of origins.<<

I for one am really looking forward to you doing so.

But to avoid confusion, will you be making a defence of the Bible read literally, or allegorically/metaphorically? That is, are we assuming the measurements are correctly recorded - cubits, days, years etc., and all the other trivial little details are to be taken as being factual?

It helps to know these things ahead of time, so we don't go blundering down the wrong path.

Dan S

Thank you for saying you wish to discuss life's origins in civil terms.

However, I find that difficult to do given you don't have even a working knowledge of evolution. There are mountains of evidence for this, you have, over the years at OLO, been provided with many serviceable links that explain in lay terms the process of evolution.

Or are you asking about Abiogenesis? The Origins of life? There are many scientific theories, and each day as we study the universe and, closer to home, the chemistry of the planets and moons of our own solar system we are closer to an accurate definition.

You could start here:

http://darwiniana.org/abiogenesis.htm

If you wish to say that god started it all, then the onus is not only for you to prove the claims you make (saying it is in the bible is wholly inadequate), which then leaves YOU with the question where did god come from?

You benefit from science each and every day of your life, from your morning cuppa to sitting in front of your computer monitor. Your appearance is from the combinations of DNA passed on by your parents and their ancestors. Some humans are born with a vestigial tails - a remnant of our tree-dwelling ancestors.

http://www.livescience.com/11317-top-10-useless-limbs-vestigial-organs.html

Dan, your spiritual beliefs are as personal as they are valid - to you. As are mine. Deliberately trying to enforce your religion onto others because you believe that the bible is the only truth about the world is akin to locking children into dark rooms without human contact until they reach adulthood.

Your god gave you a brain to think for yourself. Why do you insult your creator by basing all your thinking around a single ancient text that has more holes than a termite mound and was written for its era, not the present?

I'm really warming to this idea.

>>Much of my motivation for joining this discussion was for your and other's criticism that Christians are not prepared or even willing to explain or defend their beliefs. This is why I am happy to defend the Biblical account of origins.<<

To kick off your defence, Dan S de Merengue, I'd like to offer the following proposition:

"That because so many of the descriptions of the origins of life on this planet contradict everything we now know about physics, chemistry, biology and human physiology, the Bible cannot be read as factual reporting."

This would require, I think, an explanation from you of how to reconcile the Bible stories with the knowledge we have gathered together in the last two thousand years. It also avoids all the to-ing and fro-ing on evolution, and focuses on the core issues.

What exactly was built over those six days? Mankind created from earth? An ark 300 cubits long made of Gopher wood? Noah lived to be 950 years old?

All these stories contradict everything we now know. How do you reconcile them with your conviction that they are somehow factual?