The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> Evolution didn't happen so it doesn't affect me on a daily basis.

I don't wish to sound rude in saying this, but in allowing other people to control your opinions in the light of your own apparent inability and apparent lack of interest in understanding the world, most certainly does affect you on a daily basis!

Not being rude.

I don't allow others to control my opinions in any way shape or form. Ho wcan you make such a statement?

I have an interest in my world, I don't have time to delve into and study science, so the question remains, with so much conflicting eveidence out there, why should I believe you, Songoku, Scofflaw and Wicknight and allow you guys to control my opinions?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

The Bible literally states that God caused the sun to stop moving. He didn't, because the sun doesn't move, the Earth does. .

The sun does move. It is orbitting around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy, talking our solar system with it. Sooo, maybe the Biblical authors knew a little more than we think they did.

Wicknight wrote:

Saying the sun moves across the sky is either a lack of understanding or it is a metephor for what is actually happening. If one assumes God does actually know this, then the story is being metephorical. If this can be metephorical why can't Genesis be metephorical? Why when God says "a day" in Genesis is that literal, yet when God says "I shall stop the sun" in Josh he is not actually being literal, it is being framed in a way a human on Earth would understand it?.

It is a description of an event from the viewpoint of the viewer. The writer witnesses the sun stopping its path through the sky.

Wicknight wrote:

Think about it, a human in 3000 BCE would no more understand 6 billion years, or the process of a sun exploding and creating a planet, as they would understand the concept of the earth rotating causing the sun to appear to move. So why not use metephor in both? The Bible "dumbs it down" for the read in Josh because the reader would not understand the concept of a rotating Earth, so is it not logical that Genesis is also "dumbed down" because a reader in 3000 BCE would not possibly grasp star formation, or something like evolution?

I would point out that I don't believe any of it, so that isn't my argument, that is the argument against a literal Genesis that a lot of Christians, including my friends, would use.

And I'm Ok with what you have written. And I'm Ok with the comparison with Genesis 1, howoever in light of Peter talking about Adam as a historical figure I have to understand that Adam was real and did exist. Which corroborates the Genesis account of creation.

Wicknight wrote:

Lots of scientists will claim they don't think God exists, which is fair enough. I think a lot of their arguments are very good and convincing. Others will disagree, and lots of other scientists will put forward argumenst as to why they think God does exist. There is not some atheist conspiracy to try and trick the world into thinking science has proven God does not exist. That is nonsense, despite what the Creation Scientists claim

Just to let you know I don't go with conspiracytheories. I have also stated that the answer will be ultimately answered when I get to Heaven. And I could be wrong.

The sad thing about the whole topic, which gets my back up is that people will use the theories of evolution and Big Bang to say that the Bible is hogwash and then say that there is no God.

GuanYin

BrianCalgary wrote:

The sun does move. It is orbitting around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy, talking our solar system with it. Sooo, maybe the Biblical authors knew a little more than we think they did.

So basically what you're saying is, if you retrospectively apply metaphor and interpret the Bible in a way that suits you, you can make it fit to current science. Well done. However, I can do exactly the same thing with Nostradamus's writings and even Mystic Meg's daily horoscopes.

The fact of the matter is, the Sun was (according to the Bible) supposed to revolve around the earth, which was the centre of the galaxy. Unless perhaps, God is just an alien from a planet in the centre of the milky way and that what the Bible was referring to - this has as much credence as your suggestion as to what the Bible meant.

BrianCalgary

psi wrote:

So basically what you're saying is, if you retrospectively apply metaphor and interpret the Bible in a way that suits you, you can make it fit to current science. Well done. However, I can do exactly the same thing with Nostradamus's writings and even Mystic Meg's daily horoscopes..

Whenever you read any historical account it is imperative that you see it through the eyes of the writer. that way you can determine what it is they are seeing and how they interpreted it.

it is obviuos that the writer witnessed the sun stopping it's daily treck across the sky and from his viewpoint and understanding it did.

I live in a pretty flat place on the Canadian prairie and can watch the sun travel from the east to the west every single day. Now I know the appearance of this daily event when viewed from space actually shows the sun being stationary but the Earth turning.

The biblical writer knew no such perspective and could only write from his. the point is God stopped the earth spinning and to maek it even more amazing is everything satyed put, on the planet.

psi wrote:

The fact of the matter is, the Sun was (according to the Bible) supposed to revolve around the earth, which was the centre of the galaxy. Unless perhaps, God is just an alien from a planet in the centre of the milky way and that what the Bible was referring to - this has as much credence as your suggestion as to what the Bible meant.

And where in the Bible does it say the Sun revolved around the Earth? Now don't let your biblical ignorance show here. You must know as you state it as fact.

robindch

> I don't allow others to control my opinions in any way shape or form. How
> can you make such a statement?

All I'm doing is summarizing your position -- sorry again if it's a bit stark! You've said that you "don't have time to delve into and study science" and all science is is the study of the world and all that's in it. What you're doing is handing over control of your opinion about the world to anybody who says that he shares your religious beliefs. This lack of responsibility for your own opinions about the world is a trifle unwise.

> with so much conflicting evidence out there, why should I believe you,
> Songoku, Scofflaw and Wicknight and allow you guys to control my opinions?

I've no interest in controlling your opinions or what you believe -- you have to be responsible for them, not me or anybody else. Please see my wikipedia page or the irish skeptic policy here where I make this distinction quite clear.

What I think would be good for you to do is for you to develop your interest in the world around you, so that you can make informed judgements about it. As far as I can remember, you've asked one question (the one about the difference between RNA + DNA) in this thread and I think you found the answers useful, despite the absence of any mention of any deity in the responses. Surely there's more we can help you with? That's what we're here for.

GuanYin

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sorry psi, but this is one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen and really shows your ignorance of the Bible.

Whenever you read any historical account it is imperative that you see it through the eyes of the writer. that way you can determine what it is they are seeing and how they interpreted it.

it is obviuous that the writer witnessed the sun stopping it's daily treck across the sky and from his viewpoint and understanding it did.

But it didn't. And in keeping with the topic, my so-called stupid statement makes a point. From the point of view of the writer, the facts were as he saw them - but they were incorrect.

You may now, in hindsight thanks to science, say that of course they meant that it just appeared that way and God wouldn't have his book say something factually incorrect. But then, quite a few people died horrible deatsh for heresy before science stepped in.

The main point is - how long did science argue the truth of the nature of the suna nd teh earth? How long are they going to argue evolution? The two are intrinsicly related.

I live in a pretty flat place on the Canadian prairie and can watch the sun travel from the east to the west every single day. Now I know the appearance of this daily event when viewed from space actually shows the sun being stationary but the Earth turning.

The biblical writer knew no such perspective and could only write from his. the point is God stopped the earth spinning and to maek it even more amazing is everything satyed put, on the planet.

And where in the Bible does it say the Sun revolved around the Earth? Now don't let your biblical ignorance show here. You must know as you state it as fact.[/QUOTE]

Oh come on. Apart from Joshua 10:12-13 we also have -

Ecclesiastes 1:5,
"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his
place where he arose."

Psalm 93:1
"the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."

Psalm 104:5
"Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."

1 Chronicles 16:30
"the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

Which were held as church Dogma for centuries as the definitive word on the sun revolving around the earth.

But of course, now in hindsight, you can interpret it a different way - because you have evidence to the contrary. But Christianity fought that evidence every step of the way until they could no longer deny it.

Exactly the same thing exists with the Bibles creationist view and evolution. Even the Pope has accepted evolution (although I've learned her ethat Catholics and the Pope aren't held in high esteem by Christians) - how long before evolution can't be denied and we all fall back on re-examining the Bible and making up another meaning for Genesis for ourselves?

Hence Mystic Meg and Nostradamus.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The sun does move. It is orbitting around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy, talking our solar system with it. Sooo, maybe the Biblical authors knew a little more than we think they did.

Well if the sun stopped moving in its orbit around the centre of the milky way it would appear to us to accelerate away from us an incredible speed, so I doubt it. And it would still not cause the day to be any longer as the say is caused by the rotation of the Earth, it actually has very little to do with the movement of the sun.

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is a description of an event from the viewpoint of the viewer.

That doesn't matter. From the viewpoint of the viewer or from the viewpoint of anyone else the sun does not stop, the Earth does.

The only person who would think the sun actually moves would be people who don't understand this. It would be like someone walking up on a train and saying that everything outside is moving passed him. The only people who would claim this are people who don't understand what is happening, don't understand they are the ones moving. It is assumed that God does understand it, so the question is why is it not explained literally in the Bible.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I have an interest in my world, I don't have time to delve into and study science, so the question remains, with so much conflicting eveidence out there, why should I believe you, Songoku, Scofflaw and Wicknight and allow you guys to control my opinions?

Who ever you believe will control your opinions. Right now the Christian religion, and the Creation Scientists control your opinions. If that works for you that is great. The only argument I and Scofflaw and others can put forward is that science works pretty well. If you don't accept that then there is not a whole lot more to say

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> I don't allow others to control my opinions in any way shape or form. How
> can you make such a statement?

All I'm doing is summarizing your position -- sorry again if it's a bit stark! You've said that you "don't have time to delve into and study science" and all science is is the study of the world and all that's in it. What you're doing is handing over control of your opinion about the world to anybody who says that he shares your religious beliefs. This lack of responsibility for your own opinions about the world is a trifle unwise..

Apologies always accepted.
I spend time in areas that are most important to me, and that is in mentoring teenagers. They are our future leaders and worthwhile. I don't expect others to join in on my passions as it takes all kinds to make our world. So with teaching Sunday School, studying the word and coaching two soccer teams, working and spending time with my wife, I rely on others to do the research and report to me. If I think it is hooey I do. I have disagreed with Dr. James Dobson on many things as an example.

robindch wrote:

> with so much conflicting evidence out there, why should I believe you,
> Songoku, Scofflaw and Wicknight and allow you guys to control my opinions?

I've no interest in controlling your opinions or what you believe -- you have to be responsible for them, not me or anybody else. Please see my wikipedia page or the irish skeptic policy here where I make this distinction quite clear.

What I think would be good for you to do is for you to develop your interest in the world around you, so that you can make informed judgements about it. As far as I can remember, you've asked one question (the one about the difference between RNA + DNA) in this thread and I think you found the answers useful, despite the absence of any mention of any deity in the responses. Surely there's more we can help you with? That's what we're here for.

I trust that you don't want to control me, and forgive me for coming across as being harsh. Yes I did find the answers useful, but our approaches are completely different. I look at the DNA + RNA and am completely impressed with how God made it. And Christians can ask the question of How God did it and get satisfactory answers from non-Christians.

Non-Christians will look at answers and say; wow how that evolved, isn't evolution marvelous?

So as a non-scientist who every now and again has a question to ask on how something works, I will ask a non-Christian or a Christian that has studied the topic, because they would be able to satisfy the answer.

BrianCalgary

psi wrote:

But it didn't. And in keeping with the topic, my so-called stupid statement makes a point. From the point of view of the writer, the facts were as he saw them - but they were incorrect. .

No they were not incorrect. How many times do you watch a football match and swear that a player was offside, then the replay shows thatthe ref was right? Yo ureport on what you see from your perspective. What did the writer see?

He sees the sun rise, he sees it set. In between it moves across the sky. I see it happen everyday. Do you see it differnt. Now remember that I have been to Ireland and watched the sun go down on Galway Bay. Darn Irish they think that the sun revolves around the earth as well?

psi wrote:

You may now, in hindsight thanks to science, say that of course they meant that it just appeared that way and God wouldn't have his book say something factually incorrect. But then, quite a few people died horrible deatsh for heresy before science stepped in.

The main point is - how long did science argue the truth of the nature of the suna nd teh earth? How long are they going to argue evolution? The two are intrinsicly related.


Oh come on. Apart from Joshua 10:12-13 we also have -

Ecclesiastes 1:5,
"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his
place where he arose."

Psalm 93:1
"the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."

Psalm 104:5
"Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."

1 Chronicles 16:30
"the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

Which were held as church Dogma for centuries as the definitive word on the sun revolving around the earth..

Now, psi, read the context of the above passages and tell me where it says that the Earth revolves around the sun?

And the church has been wrong in the past and still makes mistakes today.

Church dogma is sometimes quite different from biblical truths.

psi wrote:

But of course, now in hindsight, you can interpret it a different way - because you have evidence to the contrary. But Christianity fought that evidence every step of the way until they could no longer deny it.

Exactly the same thing exists with the Bibles creationist view and evolution. Even the Pope has accepted evolution (although I've learned her ethat Catholics and the Pope aren't held in high esteem by Christians) - how long before evolution can't be denied and we all fall back on re-examining the Bible and making up another meaning for Genesis for ourselves?

Hence Mystic Meg and Nostradamus.

The pope can accept evolution all he likes. He also accepts transubstantiation, Mary's ever virginity, Mary's assumption, and I certainly don't agree with the Pope on those issues.

Christianity did not fight the evidence, the church in Rome did.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

I have an interest in my world, I don't have time to delve into and study science, so the question remains, with so much conflicting eveidence out there, why should I believe you, Songoku, Scofflaw and Wicknight and allow you guys to control my opinions?

There isn't conflicting evidence, there is people who lie because they can't take the truth. The majority of Creationist Scientists didn't put in the work a regular scientist does. They don't go out into the field, they don't spend seven years getting educated. They buy their degrees from diploma mills and then essentially become armchair scientists.

Any search on google will show the dubious nature of their education.
However you have to admit that for you this isn't about evidence, evolution could have all the evidence in the world, but you would still trust people like Hovind more because they are Christians just like you. I can't help but think that most Creationists have an irreparably warped view of what science is, viewing simply as a crap religion because it can answer big "why" questions.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

What did the writer see?

I'm confused ... what did the writer "see" during the Genesis creation of the universe?

Was the writer of the Bible not supposed to be God, through humans?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

.
It is assumed that God does understand it, so the question is why is it not explained literally in the Bible.

Because it is written from the viewpoint of the writer and not God.

Wicknight wrote:

.Who ever you believe will control your opinions. Right now the Christian religion, and the Creation Scientists control your opinions. If that works for you that is great. The only argument I and Scofflaw and others can put forward is that science works pretty well. If you don't accept that then there is not a whole lot more to say

Not exactly. They influence, not control.
Biblical Christianity works pretty well too. As a Christian I can enjoy scientific discovery and the love of God all at the same time. Wheras those who deny God's existence can only enjoy science. I have the best of both worlds.

In the same vein I would not say that science controls you guys either, but influences your views.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

I'm confused ... what did the writer "see" during the Genesis creation of the universe?

Was the writer of the Bible not supposed to be God, through humans?

The writer of Genesis was Moses and would have been writing based on oral tradition or maybe God dictating to him or even compiling other writings. I don't know his sources.

But when Jesus comes along and affirms the writings, then I'm on board because He was there when it happened. and Jesus I trust.

The bible is a huge compilation of books written over 1500 odd years. As with any historical document you have to try and understand what the writer was intending to say.

GuanYin

BrianCalgary wrote:

No they were not incorrect. How many times do you watch a football match and swear that a player was offside, then the replay shows thatthe ref was right? Yo ureport on what you see from your perspective. What did the writer see?

No, you report what you think you see. There is a subtle but important difference. You might think you see a player offside and then subsequently see he is onside. You are still inccorect. The writer may have thought he saw the sun stand still. But he didn't, so he was incorrect.

He sees the sun rise, he sees it set. In between it moves across the sky. I see it happen everyday. Do you see it differnt. Now remember that I have been to Ireland and watched the sun go down on Galway Bay. Darn Irish they think that the sun revolves around the earth as well?

I've been to Ireland too. Just as a matter of interest, do you know how long you would have to watch the sun and how many reference points you would need to be able to perceive its movement? I mean, you can't look at it for 5 minutes and see it move. So - how long would it have to have been stopped for the onlooker to notice. Its a very simple physics question.

Now, psi, read the context of the above passages and tell me where it says that the Earth revolves around the sun?

Oh but it doesn't explicitly say it. But then it doesn't specifically say alot of things about creationism that many christians take as gospel (if you excuse the pun). That is my point. Like a horoscope the actual interpretation depends on who is reading it and what other facts are present. And historically, even when facts come to light, christians are slow to leave the dogma of what the bible has been perceived to say.

And the church has been wrong in the past and still makes mistakes today.

Indeed it does. I believe creationism is a good example.

Church dogma is sometimes quite different from biblical truths.

Yes, but you will agree that this tends to be on reflection of new evidence? So what current biblical truths may not be so?

You see information is in a constant state of change. Thats why school curriculums now are tougher than years ago. Because by and large the sum amount of knowledge the human race has, doubles in a generation. Christian faith and teaching has changed in many aspects to

The pope can accept evolution all he likes. He also accepts transubstantiation, Mary's ever virginity, Mary's assumption, and I certainly don't agree with the Pope on those issues.

Christianity did not fight the evidence, the church in Rome did.

But again thats perspective. Whatever branch of church youre from gets its doctrine from one that did. You see, your current church decided at some stage what it wante dto accept or not accept from other churchs doctrines and thats where you get your church beliefs from today.

Your intepretation of the bible may differ greatly from another church's. It may have consensus on others. So in reference to the bible, the faiths are matter of picking and choosing what you want to interpret as what.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not being rude.

I don't allow others to control my opinions in any way shape or form. Ho wcan you make such a statement?

I have an interest in my world, I don't have time to delve into and study science, so the question remains, with so much conflicting eveidence out there, why should I believe you, Songoku, Scofflaw and Wicknight and allow you guys to control my opinions?

Well, I for one certainly don't wish to control your opinions. You're entirely entitled to believe that God created the world exactly as per the Genesis account - as others are entitled to their beliefs, whatever they may be, as long as they are not harmful to the general good.

However, the minute Creationism stops being a private belief and has a public impact, my tolerance for it entirely vanishes - it stops being a question of your personal belief, and becomes a socio-political question.

Because science and religion alike are magic to the average person, Creationism and science are more or less on an equal footing to them - both make large and extravagant claims as to origins, explanations, etc. There is a difference, however, in that one advances knowledge from where it was 2000 years ago, and the other patently cannot, because the Bible has not changed.

I will tell you, as a scientist, that the "science" of creationism is entirely false. You do not believe me, and this is, at the moment, irrelevant. I aim to keep it that way.

I do not care what your religious beliefs are, and would not ordinarily intrude. However, the Creationist chooses to intrude on science, debasing and demeaning it in the name of his religious beliefs - an unwarranted and aggressive intrusion leading nowhere useful.

As long as you claim scientific backing for Creation, you're intruding on my world, not I on yours.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Biblical Christianity works pretty well too. As a Christian I can enjoy scientific discovery and the love of God all at the same time. Wheras those who deny God's existence can only enjoy science. I have the best of both worlds.

Oh rubbish. Quite aside from anything else, you've just delisted every other religion under the sun. When it comes to atheists, it's clear you don't have the first inkling of what makes us tick.

BrianCalgary wrote:

In the same vein I would not say that science controls you guys either, but influences your views.

Not really - I was an atheist before I even started studying science at school. I've said it before - to wolfsbane - the Christian religion, for me, is entirely rejectable without any outside help whatsoever.

regards,
Scofflaw

CiDeRmAn

You can't claim to be a biblical Christian and subscribe to science, you can't cherrypick the bits you like, it doesn't just stop being relevant because you don't understand it or it clashes with your world view, its not made up of discrete stages, its a continuum of thought, deduction and reasoning, once you accept even a part of it as true you have to accept the possibilty that the rest is too, then look at the evidence to say why you refute something.
You have a book that provides your answers and scienc simply put, doesn;t agree and in fact positively rejects whole swathes of it, now if you were to accept that the bible is in fact a moral tale, a set of stories that are open to interpretation then you can get somewhere, but to say that the bible is the only truth you preclude any notion of finding truth elsewhere.

bonkey

CiDeRmAn wrote:

Point being most of my friends are either atheists or Catholics and they all would concur with evolution and the current accepted view of the universe as having an ancient explosive origin, whatever the technical backdrop this is what they hold to be true, rather like the Catholic grouping accept the more technical aspects of the church like the turning of wine and bread into the blood and body of Christ at the eucharist.
...
I would hazard a guess that most C of I here would be of a similar disposition,

While its not entirely dealing with the same question, the following is a link to a chart of western nations, detailed the percentages who accept, reject, or aren't sure about evolution :

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html

Note that the question asked is supplied, so if anyone wants to quibble about what is being represented, they can do so.

One other thing thats bugging me, if the whole of creation is only 10000 years old, how did light get here from millions of lightyears away, given that it has a fixed top speed? or did god fix them in the heavens exactly 10000 years in the past and say "ready, steady, go!" ?.

Same way we have rocks which appear to be 4.5 billion years old but which are only 10,000 years old. "God made it look like that", or "the laws of physics changed" are two of the more typical mechanisms employed.

jc

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Because it is written from the viewpoint of the writer and not God.

But the "viewpoint" is irrelivent. If I am on a bus and I see outside moving passed do I think that I am standing still and the Earth is moving away from me? I would only think this if I did not understand what is happening. If I did understand what is happening I would know I was the one moving, even though my viewpoint has not changed. My view point is the same as the child on the bus who thinks the Earth is moving, but I know I'm the one moving. The difference is not the viewpoint, the difference is the knowledge we possess.

Is it not assumed that the writters of Josh or Genesis understood what they were supposed to be writing? If they didn't understand what they were writing about then how are they expected to get it correct?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not exactly. They influence, not control.

Well, I suppose that depends on your perspective. From my perspective religion tells people what to believe, and because it states that it cannot be wrong or make mistakes, this is a form of control

BrianCalgary wrote:

Biblical Christianity works pretty well too.

But it doesn't, thats the point. A Genesis model of the universe doesn't work at all. In fact a genesis model of the universe breaks pretty much every other model, from models of light and physics to biological models.

As has been repeatable stated on this thread, if Genesis is the model of how the universe was actually made, then everything else we think we know about the universe, from how your TV works to how antibiotics function, is wrong. Everything has to be thrown out and we need to start again, and everything we think we understand or have observed, was in fact a mistake.

I will let you decide on how likely that is, all I can tell you is that most scientists along time ago agreed that they think this is unlikely, and that the more likely explination is that Genesis itself is either incorrect or not literal.

BrianCalgary wrote:

As a Christian I can enjoy scientific discovery and the love of God all at the same time. Wheras those who deny God's existence can only enjoy science. I have the best of both worlds.

But you are picking the bits of scientific discovery you like and simply discarding the bits you don't. It doesn't really work like that.

For example, did you know that if the Genesis model is correct you TV should not work? Or your microwave oven? The models of how light and other electromagnetic energy contradicts the Genesis model. This is largely ignored by Creationists, probably because they like having TVs. Some times you get JC talking about it, but most of the time it is ignored. This is the same for a wide range of scientific models that do not fit Genesis. If Genesis is correct your car should not work, because the chemical reaction of the petrol should not happen the way it does. Again you rarely get Creationists discussing this, most likely because they like their cars.

Creationists have very cleverly made the Bible vs Science debate about evolution, because that is a long process that is hard for non-scientist lay people to fully understand. But there are tons and tons of modern science in areas far removed from evolution or biology that also contradict the Genesis model, which I'm sure some die hard Creationists plan to get around to after evoltuion.

Most of physics and chemistry contradicts Genesis, yet we happily use these same physics models to construct things like TV, computers and other electronic devices, cars, aeroplanes etc etc. If Genesis is correct, if Genesis is the model we should be using, then none of these things should work the way they do.

BrianCalgary wrote:

In the same vein I would not say that science controls you guys either, but influences your views.

That is because science can be wrong, and it can change. If science asserts something now it doesn't control future developments.

Creation Science is different. It is controlled by what was asserted 3000 years ago in the Bible, and as such controls all future developments. As has been repeatable stated Creation Science, by definition, can never be wrong.

The inability to admit to being wrong is a form of control. This applies to Creation Science and to religion itself.

robindch

> a chart of western nations, detailed the percentages who accept, reject, or
> aren't sure about evolution :

I see Ireland comes out reasonably well, though not as well as it could do

What's more interesting, though, is that the list could just as well be graphing each coutry's level of "social justice" or "social cohesion" (for want of better terms).

Thanks for the link!

JimiTime

Oh Dear. I thought we were turning a corner:( Its very difficult to keep this discussion on track when it keeps going back to, but the bible says this, this scientist said that type of thing.

How about ALL the Christians on the Forum, just stick to asking questions and clarifying views, instead of contradicting answers. I think its been pretty much established that we (Christians) on the forum, don't really know a hell of alot about the science we are discussing. So how about we just ask the people who do know about this subject. Our target not being to argue our point, but rather to probe and scrutinise the science? In turn, The science side does not use any refererence to, the bible says this, I thought Christians thought the other etc, it merely has an interest in answering questions to our science ignorant minds? What do you reckon folks???

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

> a chart of western nations, detailed the percentages who accept, reject, or
> aren't sure about evolution :

I see Ireland comes out reasonably well, though not as well as it could do

What's more interesting, though, is that the list could just as well be graphing each coutry's level of "social justice" or "social cohesion" (for want of better terms).

Thanks for the link!

It would be interesting to see what the response to a question like..

"There exists stars and galaxies over one million light years away from Earth, the light of which we can see using a telescope"

...would be. I imagine the "true" answers would be a lot higher that evolution, despite that fact that such a statement also contradicts the Genesis account of creation.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

What do you reckon folks???

I give it a week ...

Anyway, as always, ask away and I and others will hopefully do the best to answer

I would point out though that if one wishes to avoid the type of response above one should avoid questions along the lines of "why should I believe science", as these will almost certainly end up in a debate about what science is and why it is better than Creation Science.

bonkey

JimiTime wrote:

Our target not being to argue our point, but rather to probe and scrutinise the science?
...
What do you reckon folks???

I reckon you'll get very few questions which "probe and scrutinise" the scientic side of things that aren't designed to also argue the point of Creationists.

Having said that, I'd dearly love to be proven wrong.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

I would point out though that if one wishes to avoid the type of response above one should avoid questions along the lines of "why should I believe science", as these will almost certainly end up in a debate about what science is and why it is better than Creation Science.

TBH, 'Christendom', is its own worst enemy, and not just pertaining to science neither.

bonkey wrote:

I reckon you'll get very few questions which "probe and scrutinise" the scientific side of things that aren't designed to also argue the point of Creationists.

I'll nail my colours to the mast so. I am a Christian. I am not a scientist. I wish to ask probing questions, and seek genuine answers. I will not be trying to convert you, or arguing for 'creation science', as I have no right to argue with any scientific authority. So thats me anyway.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

I reckon you'll get very few questions which "probe and scrutinise" the scientic side of things that aren't designed to also argue the point of Creationists.

There is also the problem that science doesn't have the "God did it" excuse.

For example, if one starts to examine the model of the universe that would be constructed using Genesis one starts to run into a number of problems.

The most obvious one is that if the universe is only 10,000 old then how come we can see light from starts that are over 10,000 light years away? The Genesis model of the universe doesn't explain that, and you instantly start running into conflicts with the actual evidence.

If this was normal science the first response would be "well the model must be wrong". But since this is the Bible the model can't be wrong. At the same time the evidence isn't wrong. We have been looking at the stars for as long as civilisation, and we have been studying them carefully for the past 500 years. We know that the vast majority of stars and galaxies appear to lie outside of 10,000 light years. Put simply they would not all fit if they all had to be with in 10,000 light years.

So we have run into a paradox. The universe must only be 10,000 years old but 99.99999999% of all matter in the universe appears to be further than 10,000 light years away but we can still see it. Science would say something is wrong here.

But of course science doesn't have the "God did it" clause, Creation Science does. Instantly there is no paradox, no problem any more. Run into a problem, its no problem at all, because God must have done something. We don't know what that something is, but He must have done it.

Because of this all problems with Creation Science disappear. There are no problems with creation science, none what so ever. Anything that looks like a problem isn't actually a problem because we can be assured that God must have done something to make things work.

Now, what does science has? Tons of problems Fecking shed loads of the things. That is the very nature of science, it is how it develop, by tackling these problem. There are tons of various unknowns and problems with the various aspects of the evolutionary theories. There are tons of problems with something like the Big Bang. If there weren't then scientists would have very little to do

Which is why it is very incorrect (some would say unfair) to attempt to compare Creation Science with real science. Creation Science is not a science, it is a religion. It has the wonderful get out of jail clause that any problems it can simply claim "God did it," and instantly the problem disappears. Real science doesn't have this, only religions do. Your rocks look like they are 4.5 billion years old, but Genesis says they should only be 10,000? No problem, "God did it!", problem solved. Light takes longer than 10,000 years to travel through space from a distant star, but Genesis says that the light only existed for 10,000 years? No problem, "God did it", problem solved.

Therefore comparing the problems of a scientific theory like evolution with the problems of Creation Science "theory" is rather pointless.

We have tried, by God we have tried, and you end up with such a ridiculous discussion with JC claiming that lions were able to feed off microscopic sea life just after the flood when they came down of the ark. When the absurdity of this idea was pointed out to him his response was along the lines of that you cannot show God did not make it that way and then change it back. And you know something, he is right, we can't. You can't show God did or did not do something. Creation Science therefore believes it has a blank slate, it can claim anything it likes and simply say "God did it"

There are no problems in Creation Science, it is by definition a perfect theory because they have already factored in an all powerful super being that will make it a perfect theory as soon as it appears like it is running into a problem

So if you compare something in Creation Science that has absolutely no problems with it because by definition God can be assumed to have just fixed any apparent problems, with something in science that will naturally have lots of problems because we don't know everything, who is the lay person on the street, who already wants to pick something that is comforting and which appears to confirm his own beliefs, going to pick.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

I'll nail my colours to the mast so. I am a Christian. I am not a scientist. I wish to ask probing questions, and seek genuine answers.

Probe away JimiTime, probe away ... er ... i mean ... ask away, ask away

JimiTime

If I may first disassociate myself from 'creation science'. So there is no need to mention that they said whatever. If I may also disassociate myself from what you 'think' I believe as a Christian. Basically, if I may ask you not to answer my questions with the pre-conception that I think a certain way.

Firstly, I've previously stated that the age of the earth is not indicated in the bible, not to my knowledge anyway. The age of life is, but not of the universe. So the 10,000 years thing doesn't apply to me at present. I asked a question previously, and I'd like to ask it again.

The age of the earth dating techniques: If there were extreme conditions on the earth at some stage, i.e. widespread volcanic activity, different concentration of elements in the atmosphere etc. Would this have an impact on the dating methods used?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

The age of the earth dating techniques: If there were extreme conditions on the earth at some stage, i.e. widespread volcanic activity, different concentration of elements in the atmosphere etc. Would this have an impact on the dating methods used?

Yes, quite dramatically in some cases, often making the object appear much younger or older (most often than not they appear younger) than it actually is.

bonkey

JimiTime wrote:

The age of the earth dating techniques: If there were extreme conditions on the earth at some stage, i.e. widespread volcanic activity, different concentration of elements in the atmosphere etc. Would this have an impact on the dating methods used?

Possibly.

However, no single condition would effect all methods, and what methods it did effect would be effected differently.

That such a broad range of methods agree within such a small margin of error, however, almost certainly rules out the possibility of there still being a major perturbative effect that we haven't yet explained.

I linked to a site which discussed the age of the earth a few pages ago. One thing that was briefly mentioned there is that if the rate of decay (which is assumed to be constant over time) were significantly different in the past (which would be one theoretical candidate for an all-effecting factor we haevn't allowed for), then there would still be corroborative evidence from a broad range of other sources showing that this assumed-constant wasn't actually constant.

This is the true strength of the aging techniques. Not only are the various measurements remarkably consistent (within a very narrow range), but the very same measurements, as well as the theories on which they are founded are in agreement with many other observations to which they can be applied.

Figuratively speaking, if they're wrong then your washing machine probably shouldn't work either...or at least, if they're wrong then we can't explain why your washing machine works, because why we thought it worked and how it was designed to work is based on incorrect physics.

As I said...I'm speaking figuratively in the last paragraph, but modern science is so inter-dependant and inter-verified that if something as fundamental as the various techniques used for measuring aging are wrong, then the age of those rocks is the least of our worries. The "cascade" of things that are incorrect as a result is, quite litteraly, endless....until and unless we can explain why these knock-on effects don't occur (because clearly they don't).

Its possible that there is a logically-consistent perturbative effect that we haven't considered. However, to accept the existence of such an effect requires a falsifiable hypothesis - a test which if false says that this effect did not occur. Until such a test is provided, the perturbative effect is speculative and non-scientific.

And thats the kicker. We can hypothesize that such an effect exists, and that the age of the earth is wrong. But until we can falsifiably test for this effect, we're outside science.

So the earth could be older or could be younger than measured, but we've no falsifiable model to explain how.