The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Schuhart

pH wrote:

That is either

• galaxy NGC 1309 (100 million light-years from Earth)
• Some swirly dust much closer to us
• A smear on Hubble's lens

Astronomers remain baffled.

You left out a few options:

• God put it there to test our faith
• God put it there because he can
• Satan put it there to distract us
• Satan put it there and forgot where he left it

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Well it's either posting here or on another thread about whether atheism is a 'logical choice', and tbh reading this thread makes me feel dead clever.

At some stage J C will post his unanswered list of questions (You know the one - muck to man and all that) and we can start all over again.

Never show weakness!!! Chin up there Scoff. Get some sleep, you'll be your old argumentative self in the morning.

I appreciate the kind words - being reduced to arguing against conspiracy theories is both banal and depressing. Frankly I had thought more of wolfsbane.

I did find this article quite cheering, as well as this one.

thanks,
Scofflaw

pH

Schuhart wrote:

You left out a few options:

• God put it there to test our faith
• God put it there because he can
• Satan put it there to distract us
• Satan put it there and forgot where he left it

No I deliberately didn't include them - J C has already conceded:

"God doesn’t lie or play games with Humanity!!"

(Now that I think about it - maybe he does, why otherwise would he have put a sly, evil, talking snake1 in the garden of Eden?)

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

bonkey

J C wrote:

It could be some 'swirly dust' around a star......
......OR possibly a micro-GALAXY much closer to us!!!:cool: :cool:

Just how much of established science do you not disagree with?

I ask because I'm getting confused how anyone can claim ID / Creationism are scientific in nature whilst simultaneously dismissing so much established scientific theory on non-scientific grounds, ultimately leading us to such comments as the above....which are in themselves pseudo-scientific at best.

The cynic in me would say that its all a clever ruse to change the understanding of what science is amongst that larger portion of society who are not strongly scientifically versed.

Holding scientists to frequent derision and ridicule, whilst simultaneously attacking the very notion of just what constitutes science is a trait that one sees again and again by those proponents of ID and/or creationism.

Its a double-fronted attack, trying to diminish the respect that scientific mathodology is due whilst simultaneously trying to hijack as much of that respect.

When Einstein had his theories attacked as, for example, in "100 Authors Against Einstein", he retorted "one would be enough, were he correct". Another famous attribution for the man is that No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Einstein understood what science was about and he showed it succinctly and without employing tactics of denigration when discussing the issue.

Its enlightening to see how often this is the case - that little can drown out correct scientific theory. And you know why that is? Its because science doesn't run as a democracy or as a mob. Even when various oppressive forces have tried to stifle scientific knowedge, all they have managed is localised, temporary suppression.

The catholic church tried their damndest to make the earth the centre of the universe but no matter how many fire-and-brimstone sermons they delivered, how many books they burned, or how many scientists they persecuted, the earth did not become the centre of the universe.

Believe in ID or Creationism. Thats your choice. Attack and undermine science if you wish - ultimately you will fail.

But I can certainly accept any specific theory I, or more importantly, any scientist may have is open to correction. What is not open to correction is the assertions of the Bible

If the assertions of the bible are not open to correction, then they have no place in science. There is no aspect of science which can be assumed to be inviolably true. Falsifiability is at the heart of science. You cannot seperate science and falsifiability.

If you insist that certain things must be so, even as a basis for further reasoning, then you are no longer dealing with science.

Similarly, while you insist that certain things (e.g. ID) are scientific theory, despite their not making any falsifiable predictions, you are no longer dealing with science.

In short, when you dealing in inviolable truths, you are not dealing with science. When you are dealing with the unfalsifiable, you are not dealing with science.

The worrying thing for me is that I believe you know this.

jc

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. [/I] http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

Yes, and if I looked like Brad Pitt my life would be easier.

But unfortunately I don't look like Brad Pitt and unfortunately the average cage size theory would not work, 75,000 cm3 is far far too small for the average mammal to survive in for 190 days.

Its all very well stating that sheep can survived in a small confined space for a 3 day trip from Belfast to France, but the sheep would be long dead if you kept it enclosed for a month, let alone nearly a year.

The simple fact is that even if you could fit all those animals on the ark, they would all have died due to confinment and diease after about a 4 months.

Even if you image that only half, you have still added another 16,000 animals that have to fit onto the Ark.

Wolfbane, face it you are grasping at straws. Even if one man could build such as structure, even if he could actuall managed to get the animals on the ark (funny the animals were all just standing around waiting to get on isn't it), even if he had the food and fresh water to feed them (he couldnt have had by the way), the simple fact is that the animals would not have survived the trip. Or at the very least a large amount of them would not have survived the trip, which means the Ark must have had a lot more animals on it that you originally thought, and then the cage sizes get ridiculously small

wolfsbane wrote:

Forgive my ignorance of biology, but I'm given to understand the species today are numbered as:
Mammals: 4,629
Reptiles: 8240

and .... ? Are you claiming that only mammals and reptiles were on the ark? What happened to the rest of the animals? did they float?

wolfsbane wrote:

I suppose your figure included insects?

Amoung others

wolfsbane wrote:

What size of cage would a million or so insects require?

None, they would all be dead. Insects could not have survived in "cages" on the Ark, they would have died within a few days.

I think even YEC realise this, which is why you get silly theories like they survived on floating pieces of wood (which is also impossible)

wolfsbane wrote:

I would have thought many more could just as well survived in floating foliage and other debris.

You would be wrong. Unless you think entire eco-systems could survive on these floating pieces of wood? For a start a large number of insect species require green leafs as food. They also only live a few days, they would need to establish nests and colonies, which I think we would agree would not be possible on a bit of wood floating on the ocean for a year.

When you think about it insects are the most damning evidence the flood didn't happen, since most have very short lives and require quite complex systems of living. For example how did a catapilar turn into a butter fly on a piece of wood floating in the ocean with it constantly raining?

Face it, it didn't happen :rolleyes:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

And I do not make a distinction between one sort of godless elitist and another - the atheist scientists and legislators are of one mind, working to one agenda.

You are aware that the vast majorty (the vast vast majority) of western biologiest are Christian, and the vast majority of eastern biologiest are religious (Hindu, buddiest etc).

This talk about an atheist conspiricy to surpress the truth you have imagined is just a tactic to deflect attention away from the serious flaws in Creationist theory, away from the real reason why Creationist theories are not accepted by science (ie because they are nonsense)

Creationist only start talking about it when they started getting challanged on their own theories. Why have no evidence for Flood ever been found? Why did no other civilisation seem to have been effected by the Flood? etc.

You can hark on about atheists all you like, but do you not think that the 99% of scientist over the last 100 year who where Christian would have discovered evolution and old earth theories were not actually correct if that were true? Are you honestly claiming that the 1% who were not religious managed to surpress this knowledge? If you are then sorry Wolfbane but your ideas have entered conspiricy theory nonsense land.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

The simple fact is that even if you could fit all those animals on the ark, they would all have died due to confinment and diease after about a 4 months.

And even had they survived, it still wouldn't explain the genetic diversity within a species today, starting from only one male and one female, within the timeframe since this alleged flood.

Oh well...yet another area of science we'll just have to throw out because the literal interpretation of the bible "proves" it wrong, eh?

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

When you think about it insects are the most damning evidence the flood didn't happen, since most have very short lives and require quite complex systems of living. For example how did a catapilar turn into a butter fly on a piece of wood floating in the ocean with it constantly raining?

Face it, it didn't happen :rolleyes:

At last something I know something about; insects.
That was a very good point Wicknight. The more I think on the various needs of insects, the more I agree with the idea that insects are indeed the most damning evidence the flood didn't happen. Interesting we never touched on all the preserved in Amber samples of insects from how many years ago? Ah, but I forgot that all of our dating systems are of course inaccurate.

bonkey

Asiaprod wrote:

The more I think on the various needs of insects, the more I agree with the idea that insects are indeed the most damning evidence the flood didn't happen.

I would have argued that the volume of water necessary is sufficient proof to damn any global flood theory.

There is simply nowhere for the rain to have come from, nor for the flood-waters to have receded to.

Unless, of course, we throw out some other established science.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

I would have argued that the volume of water necessary is sufficient proof to damn any global flood theory.

There is simply nowhere for the rain to have come from, nor for the flood-waters to have receded to.

Unless, of course, we throw out some other established science.

bonkey where have u been!

Everyone knows the Earth was a lot flatter in 2300 BCE than it is now, and the seas were a lot more shallow. Near the end of the flood the land masses all raise up about 7km (why you ask? the question should be why not bonkey!) creating the mountains such as the Alps and Everest and what not, and the water flows into the oceans, which are now much deeper.

The fact that there is no known tectonic system that could ever do this in a year, or the fact that the mountains would rise out of the flood waters a few days after they start moving, or that fact that such rapid tectonic activity would have destroyed most of the Earths surface boiling the seas and killing all marine life, doesn't matter!

I mean it so obvious, its all in the Bible ... oh wait, actually it isn't, no mention of mountains rising up at all ... oh well

And Wolfbane thinks there is a conspiricy to supress this cr@p? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Asiaprod

bonkey wrote:

I would have argued that the volume of water necessary is sufficient proof to damn any global flood theory.

There is simply nowhere for the rain to have come from, nor for the flood-waters to have receded to.

Ah, but you know a lot more than me on this issue, twas a very good post. I know a little about insects.

Unless, of course, we throw out some other established science.

I'm not sure there are any left to throw out, we've gone as low as carrion lions. Where is there left to go:( A hollow earth filled with water?

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

bonkey where have u been!

Ireland. I was on holidays

Everyone knows the Earth was a lot flatter in 2300 BCE than it is now, and the seas were a lot more shallow. Near the end of the flood the land masses all raise up about 7km (why you ask? the question should be why not bonkey!) creating the mountains such as the Alps and Everest and what not, and the water flows into the oceans, which are now much deeper.

Ah. I see. Its all clear now.

Well...its clear at least which bits of established science I need to throw out to get past the intractable problems I saw.

I mean it so obvious, its all in the Bible ... oh wait, actually it isn't, no mention of mountains rising up at all ... oh well

True, but you use such technical-sounding language it must be scientific.

jc

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

True, but you use such technical-sounding language it must be scientific.

Lol

robindch

And on the third(*) day, it came to pass that the Thread of Origins arose again and news of its resurrection went forth amongst the people. And they were afraid lest it destroy anew the working of the forum from a base corruption within the spirit of the index. And they were sore vexed, too, for rumour of the Thread had spread to all corners of the Republic and over the seas and the deserts and unto the uttermost limits at the four corners of the earth. And its alll-to mortal form recorded in infinite detail the silent loss of uncounted hours of keyboard-time from the truly great and the truly good. And the truly not-so-great and the truly not-so-good. But, ofttimes though assuming its semblance, the Thread was more powerful than death, and rose again, a second time. This time with a better backup. Here endeth the Lesson. Blessed be the name of the Board.

Anyhow, with this posting hopefully going to hang around a bit longer than it did earlier today, I thought it would be interesting to bring everybody up to date on some of the doings of the man who probably banked more cash than anybody else alive from pushing the creationist hoax - the (honorary) Dr Ken Ham, the Prophet of Ignorance!

Ham started off selling creationism in the 1970's in Australia and moved to the USA to join Henry Morris's 'Institute for Creation Research', then the biggest company in the business. In the mid-90's, Ham left the ICR to form his own competing organization which he branded 'Answers in Genesis' and which included the Australian outfit he'd worked for before. Over time, additional branches were opened in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the UK. However, late last year, rumblings within the organization became became too loud to ignore and in March of this year, AiG suffered a major schism, with the Australian, South African, New Zealand and Canadian offices splitting off to form a separate group called Creation Ministries International. Only the tiny UK office remained with Ham and even there, one of its leading lights, Philip Bell, departed. The reasons for the schism are unlikely ever to be fully known, however it seems that AiG did not want to be "subject to an international representative system of checks/balances/peer review involving all the other offices bearing the same 'brand name'. " (See the CMI statement here). If this is accurate, it's certainly interesting, if hardly surprising, to note that Ham is reported as being more interested in marketing opportunities than actually checking the accuracy of anything that he publishes. Frequent referrers to AiG, please note. Anyhow, more on the schism is here:

http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/03/answers-in-genesis-schism-us-group.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/AiG_cow.htm
http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger (click on 'View Blog »')

Actually, the last guy's blog is worth a quick look through (click on the 'Next >' link in the top-right) because it documents the clever political fraud which is carried out as a necessary adjunct to the more obvious scientific fraud taking place.

In other news, the convicted fraudster (diploma-mill) Dr Kent Hovind was up in front of the beak again in Florida, this time for, er, fraud again! He was arrested on the 13th of July on 58 separate charges related to non-payment of a range of taxes amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, as well as making threats against investigators:

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060714/NEWS01/607140333/1006

Turns out that he's had to surrender his passport, as the judge accepted prosecution arguments that Hovind was likely to flee the country if permitted to leave. Meanwhile, the folks who invited him for a tour of South Africa in early August and who'd collected an unknown amount of cash from ticket sales, requested that people don't ask for their money back and instead "consider making it as a donation". Anyhow, Hovind's case is due on October 17th - watch this space, since Hovind may not be able to update his own blog when the verdict arrives.

(*) ok, so it's the fourth or fifth day. But it was the third of september when this posting was first made, and that's close enough for me

.

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

And on the third(*) day, it came to pass that the Thread of Origins arose again and news of its resurrection went forth amongst the people.

And the people rejoiced for it was good. Well done Robindch, now I can get my routine back on track.
JC and Wolfsbae, hope you are both still with us, you were missed by your atheist/agnostic admirers:)

UU

Oh NO! Not this rick and rack nonscence again :rolleyes: - I sooooo thought we were past all this. Is over a 100 pages not enough? Help us all! :eek:

Asiaprod

UU wrote:

Oh NO! Not this rick and rack nonscence again :rolleyes: - I sooooo thought we were past all this. Is over a 100 pages not enough? Help us all! :eek:

Now, now UU. You can learn lots of fine things here on this thread. I am really glad it is back, I have learned so much.

athena 2000

Woo hoo! More fun with the big bang, slime, and really old rocks...
I'll pop my spicy popcorn for everyone.
I knew there was some resurrection life around here!

5uspect

Sigh, okay I'll post this again, if any of ye are looking for bit of the old thread to quote etc you can find cached copies in the "fossil record".
here
you can find older pages by going here, and if you're using the third party googlebar for firefox click the find cached copy button when you get the cannot find thread screen, Handy time machine that

robindch

...out of interest, do any creationists have views on the schism, departures and rejection of review within AiG, or Hovind's previous fraud, or his current legal problems?

Surely the guys out there leading the religious charge should not be suffering from the very kind of divisive and honesty-related "moral" problems that they say that their own religions are the solution to?

.

Scofflaw

I'm slightly confused here. If this is intended to be the Creationism thread, can we change its name to be the same as the older thread?

If that is not the intention, can that be clarified?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> can we change its name to be the same as the older thread?

Done.

UU

Asiaprod wrote:

Now, now UU. You can learn lots of fine things here on this thread. I am really glad it is back, I have learned so much.

Yes I learnt that such a discussion can leave somebody with traumatising effects like sever headaches, a short temper, and a desire to whack their head off a brick wall after the first few posts!!! Lol!

5uspect

I have a new smiley for that...

UU

5uspect wrote:

I have a new smiley for that...

Yes, that's what I meant 5uspect!

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

Sigh, okay I'll post this again, if any of ye are looking for bit of the old thread to quote etc you can find cached copies in the "fossil record".
here
you can find older pages by going here, and if you're using the third party googlebar for firefox click the find cached copy button when you get the cannot find thread screen, Handy time machine that

Actually, it's probably safer to go to Google, put in a couple of the usernames, and click for the cached versions - the Google cache referenced above (66.249.93.104) will not necessarily have the pages cached, because google rotates the caching (AFAIK).

Given it's a mySQL database, is there any way of pulling the thread in toto (say as table entries, dumped into tabbed CSV) - I can probably host it somewhere for reference. Of course, one could never be certain that I hadn't changed entries to make myself look cleverer - but any of the mods are welcome to PM me if interested.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Unfortunately I know little about the internal workings of this interweb thingy.
You've shown me for the ignorant fool that I am, I thank you.

I wonder where J C and Wolfsbane are? I'm sure they are as eagar to continue the debate as much as we are. I hope they weren't deleted when the mods had to remove the long threads?

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Given it's a mySQL database, is there any way of pulling the thread in toto (say as table entries, dumped into tabbed CSV) - I can probably host it somewhere for reference. Of course, one could never be certain that I hadn't changed entries to make myself look cleverer - but any of the mods are welcome to PM me if interested.
cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw, I have escalated this request to the "Gods of Admin." It is a nice idea, thank you, and I do feel that it is hard to get momentum going here again when we cannot read the original posts for reference.
Will let you know anything I hear.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

Scofflaw, I have escalated this request to the "Gods of Admin." It is a nice idea, thank you, and I do feel that it is hard to get momentum going here again when we cannot read the original posts for reference.
Will let you know anything I hear.

It certainly seems to be slow to start - although it's letting me get a lot more work done...

Also, and I hate to whinge, but I haven't particularly noticed any speed gains.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

It certainly seems to be slow to start - although it's letting me get a lot more work done...

Well that must be a good thing:)

Also, and I hate to whinge, but I haven't particularly noticed any speed gains.

I would imagine there are many factory, not just long threads, involved in this. The general consensus is to leave Cloud and his merry techs to get on with what they do best. Believe me, there are many forum users bitting their nails and pull hair out by the handfull.
Pull what you can from the archives to keep it going.