The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

J C wrote:

God did say in Gen 6:6 that He regretted ever creating Mankind, such was the deplorable behaviour of nearly everyone on Earth at the time, just before the Flood.

However, I for one, thank God for allowing me to be born and for saving me to spend an eternity with Him in Heaven.

That is nonsense JC. Complete nonsense.

How can you considered Genesis literal when it states your god regretted creating mankind. That statement is complete nonsense.

GOD SEES THE FUTURE

God knew exactly what mankind would do BEFORE he created man kind. How can he regret creating mankind if He knows and understands everything that that creation will produce because He sees everything. How can God be pained by His creation when He knew EVERYTHING that His creation would do BEFORE He created it.

If any Christian or Jew or Muslim wants proof that Genesis is not a literal word of God it is right there in black and white.

The simple irrefutable fact of the matter is that Genesis CANNOT BE LITERAL because if it is then the god that you believe in DOES NOT EXIST.

Instead what exists is a nonsense paradox. God sees all time, yet regrets his decisions? What? Nonsense.

God sees all time but is pained later by something He did? What? Nonsense.

Genesis is not literal. It was written by men who did not understand what they were writing about. If Genesis was literal your faith, your belief, would be in a nonsense idea of god.

Schuhart

J C wrote:

……but God doesn’t DIRECTLY CREATE life anymore!!!!

But surely you are utterly contradicting yourself, as you later say that human reproduction only takes place when he decides.

J C wrote:

The Second World War or Baked Alaska aren’t mentioned in the Creeds because they aren’t required Articles of Faith of the Episcopal Christian Churches.

And, pardon me for probably joining the conversation late, but why does God feel bound by the Articles of Faith of the Episcopal Christian Churches.

J C wrote:

but Creation Science is not only DISCOVERING that God Created life perfectly and rapidly – it is also forensically PROVING that this is the case, as well!!!

How is it proving that God was involved at all, whether life was created rapidly or not?

J C wrote:

We DO have the free will to have sex whenever we decide – but the outcome ISN’T determined by us – but is overseen by God’s omnipotent sovereignty!!!!

Just to be clear, are you saying that God will actually reach out with his noodly appendage to prevent conception where the physical conditions would make it inevitable, if he chooses not to create life on that occasion.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Yes, but that would be valid if there were only one dating method. Why do all radioactive processes give a date around 4.57 billion years for Earth.

Why do they all give the same wrong answer?

So again why do all (over thirty), physically independant methods of dating all give the same wrong answer?

A confident claim - but do they?
http://trueorigin.org/old_earth_evo_heart.asp
http://trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.asp
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

The original crystals used in dating are specified - we know exactly what their crystal structure was.

If there's anything there that is either incomprehensible, or that you find unbelievable, please ask.

I appreciate your effort to simplify the argument for me. I am indeed unclear as to the process. Perhaps you would take me through a scenario and I'll pose a few questions?

I find a bird-like fossil whilst digging foundations. It can't have originated there, I assume, as the ground is soil overlaying a thick deposit of clay. So we have no guidance as to its age from the layers in which it was found. Perhaps the minerals in the fossil and its encasing rock will help us date it?

What will a radio-dating of the minerals tell us?

Thanks.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I appreciate your effort to simplify the argument for me. I am indeed unclear as to the process. Perhaps you would take me through a scenario and I'll pose a few questions?

I find a bird-like fossil whilst digging foundations. It can't have originated there, I assume, as the ground is soil overlaying a thick deposit of clay. So we have no guidance as to its age from the layers in which it was found. Perhaps the minerals in the fossil and its encasing rock will help us date it?

What will a radio-dating of the minerals tell us?

In this case, almost certainly nothing.

Fossils are usually found encased in sedimentary rocks, the minerals in which are almost invariably too altered to yield dates (and if they did, would not yield the date of the sedimentary rock). It will not be possible to date the fossil directly.

Second, it sounds from your description as if the fossil is encased in rock, but as a cobble or boulder in soil? Unless we can definitively identify the rock your fossil was originally encased in, it will not be possible to date your fossil indirectly by reference to the rock. If we can, of course, then we are in luck, because we can see if the rock itself can be dated, directly or indirectly.

So, unless your fossil is encased in identifiable rock, there is nothing we can do - and even if it is, there is almost certainly nothing we can do with direct radiometric dating.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

What you are basically saying is how do we know that God didn't make a mature Earth 6,000 years ago that looked like it was 4 billion years old.

There are a few problems with that theory.

Firstly, why? is the obvious question. I know that might not be that important to you as you seem to not mind just following what the Bible says, but if you want others to consider it then "why" is a very important question.

I would have thought the 'why' was obvious: for the same reason Adam and Eve weren't created as day-old embryos. It had to work from the 'off' - hit the road running - function.

Not only would God have to create the Earth in a mature state, but he has created an Earth that simulates events on Earth that would have actually never happened.

Not so.

For example over the years Earth has been hit by some pretty big asteroids. These have left quite large crater formations around the world.

Yes.

If the Earth was created in a mature state some 6,000 years ago these asteroid hits never actually happened. There was no asteroid, there was no Earth to hit. God made these craters as they are to look like an asteroid hit the Earth at such a point in time before time actually existed. Does that make much sense?

Indeed it makes no sense, for God did not make it like that.

YEC creationists sometimes claim that all these impacts did actually happen during the last 6,000 years, either during creation week or during the Flood, despite the fact that even a simple geological survey of them will tell you that they clearly didn't.

Creationists who are geologists say different.

Neither theory holds up with the evidence or even much thought, considering that the Earths surface would have been turned to liquid if 20,000 large asteroids hit it in a single year, let alone a single day.

Yes, I'm sure 20,000 hits in a day or year would be terminal. But I note your reference site acknowledges only some 120 can be located, the rest allegedly having been erased by erosion and redeposition as well as by volcanic resurfacing and tectonic activity. Even among evolutionists the major one of the 120 is disputed:
Book review: The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy
Book by Charles Officer and Jake Page
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i2/dinosaur.asp

YECs seem to spend more time arguing among themselves over which theory is correct than with geologists (who like most scientists view young earth creationism with mild indifference and amusing bewilderment).

Being scientists, the geologists who are Creationists certainly debate the pros and cons of various mechanisms that might account for the evidence. Their evolutionists colleagues seem to have the same approach among themselves - although the pressure to conform keeps some quiet, as the previous article indicates.

Probably sensing that they were betting on the wrong horse by attempting to fit the actual evidence with a Young Earth model, Answers In Genesis took the not unsurprising position of simply lying and saying that the Earth is almost "crater free", the largest detectable crater on Earth is the Meteor Crater in Arizona. Which isn't true, but sure when has that ever stopped AiG!

Depends on what almost "crater free" meant. I mean, 120 craters over the surface of the Earth is not overwhelming. Next, on checknig the AiG article I note you left out an important qualifier. The actual claim was: The largest well-preserved crater on earth is the Arizona Meteor Crater. I have underlined your ommission.

The second issue is that science can only go on what the universe actually looks like. If the Earth looks billions of years old then the Earth looks billions of years old.

One second after Adam was created he would have looked like a man of about 30 years - for he had to function as a mature man. Likewise for the universe. All the minerals, magnatism, moon-light, mud, meadows, ...

A Creationists saying "Well yes it looks 4 billion years old but my special book that God has confirmed to me is true tells me it is only 6,000 years old" is rather pointless.

We only do so to let you know our agenda, not to make a scientific claim by that statement.

They can certainly believe that if they wish, but the Earth looks the way it looks. If people want to believe that it isn't actually how it looks that is up to them.

But it is science's responsibility to study how it actually looks and report back on that.

Then we agree. Science cannot comment on anything but what it sees. Science can validly say the universe appears to be X billion years old, given certain assumptions. It can also say it is 6000 years old, given a different set of assumptions. It is the assumptions that separate the Creationist scientist from the Evolutionist scientist.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Fossils are usually found encased in sedimentary rocks, the minerals in which are almost invariably too altered to yield dates (and if they did, would not yield the date of the sedimentary rock). It will not be possible to date the fossil directly.

Second, it sounds from your description as if the fossil is encased in rock, but as a cobble or boulder in soil? Unless we can definitively identify the rock your fossil was originally encased in, it will not be possible to date your fossil indirectly by reference to the rock. If we can, of course, then we are in luck, because we can see if the rock itself can be dated, directly or indirectly.

So, unless your fossil is encased in identifiable rock, there is nothing we can do - and even if it is, there is almost certainly nothing we can do with direct radiometric dating.

So radiometric dating cannot be used to date fossils? Perhaps you can give me an example of what can be dated radiometrically?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

So radiometric dating cannot be used to date fossils? Perhaps you can give me an example of what can be dated radiometrically?

Hmm. I shall have to be careful exactly how I put things....

Radiometric dating cannot be used to directly date fossils. That is, the fossil itself cannot be directly dated, nor can the sedimentary rock it is found in be directly dated.

What can be dated are sufficiently unaltered minerals of the right type. For a mineral to be datable it must fulfil the following criteria:

1. it must be a mineral whose crystalline structure contains the necessary radioactive atom, either directly or by substitution. In other words, if we want to do dating using Uranium-Lead (U-Pb), then the mineral which we use for dating must be one that has, or accepts, uranium in its crystal structure. U-Pb dating is usually done on zircons (a common mineral ZrSiO4), which will accept uranium atoms as a substitute for zirconium, but strongly rejects lead.

2. the actual minerals chosen must be reasonably unaltered (unaffected by weathering). Again, zircons are good choices, since they are mechanically strong and chemically inert. The amount of unaltered material need not be much - radiometric dating can be done on samples as small as a billionth of a gram.

3. the mineral should be in situ. Picking up nearby fragments always seems tempting compared to using the sledgehammer, but it's unreliable for obvious reasons.

From point (3), it should follow pretty obviously that sedimentary rocks are not good candidates for direct dating - they're composed of weathered bits of other rocks...

So, how do we date sedimentary rocks, and by implication, fossils? Elementary, my dear Watson - by eliminating the impossible until we have a rough answer.

First, a sedimentary rock cannot ordinarily be older than its materials. If the sandstone contains datable pebbles that show an age of 46MYa, then the sandstone can't be older than 46MYa.

Second, a sedimentary rock cannot be younger than igneous rocks intruding into it. That is, if the sandstone has a basalt dyke cutting through it, and the primary minerals in the dyke date at 36Mya, then the sandstone cannot be younger than 36MYa.

**How common is it that we can do that sort of age bracketing? The answer is that it's extremely common. Most sediments of any thickness are laid down in so-called 'extensional tectonic settings' - where the crust is thinned by being pulled apart - and that's where you get intrusive igneous rocks.**

Third, if we're really lucky, we have a contemporary lava flow or the like to date. The absolutely perfect setting for a sedimentary rock, in terms of dating, is for it be sandwiched between two lava flows.


So, to come round to your question, what are datable are igneous rocks (and metamorphic, although they have their own complexities). Fortunately, there are enough of these to make dating more of a rule than an exception, even for sedimentary rocks. Of course, we wind up with date ranges, not dates - in the example given above, we'd have an age of 36-46MYa. Fossils found in this rock are then assigned that age.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Indeed it makes no sense, for God did not make it like that.

He did actually Wolfsbane. Even creationists admit that he simulated things in the past.

wolfsbane wrote:

Creationists who are geologists say different.

Who are these "geologists" and what do they say?

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, I'm sure 20,000 hits in a day or year would be terminal. But I note your reference site acknowledges only some 120 can be located, the rest allegedly having been erased by erosion and redeposition as well as by volcanic resurfacing and tectonic activity.

Yes, that is the scientific number. We know this from the number that hit the moon. Of course creationists claim God stopped the meteors from hitting the Earth. So I suppose there is not much point arguing the issue, since Creationists can all use the "God did it" card.

wolfsbane wrote:

Even among evolutionists the major one of the 120 is disputed:
Book review: The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy
Book by Charles Officer and Jake Page
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i2/dinosaur.asp

Please don't link to AiG to tell us what geologists (evolutionists have very little to do with meteor impacts Wolfsbane) think or say.

wolfsbane wrote:

Being scientists, the geologists who are Creationists certainly debate the pros and cons of various mechanisms that might account for the evidence. Their evolutionists colleagues seem to have the same approach among themselves - although the pressure to conform keeps some quiet, as the previous article indicates.

Again with the conspiricy theory ... :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote:

Depends on what almost "crater free" meant. I mean, 120 craters over the surface of the Earth is not overwhelming.

Yes actually it is. Considering that 40 of these were large enough to be cause extintion level events even if 40 of them hit in one day we would not be here. But then out comes the "God did it" card, and everything is ok again ....

wolfsbane wrote:

Next, on checknig the AiG article I note you left out an important qualifier. The actual claim was: The largest well-preserved crater on earth is the Arizona Meteor Crater. I have underlined your ommission.

That "ommission" doesn't change my statement. AiG is lying.

wolfsbane wrote:

One second after Adam was created he would have looked like a man of about 30 years - for he had to function as a mature man. Likewise for the universe. All the minerals, magnatism, moon-light, mud, meadows, ...

Why? You work on the assumption that the universe needs to be in the state of a 10 billion years old universe. Why? You work on the assumption that the Earth needs to be in the state of a 4 billion year old planet. Why?

Neither of those assumptions, which are not supported by the Bible by the way (I love the way the Bible is the literal word of God unless it doesn't support Creationists theories and then it is ok to "fill in the gaps"), make any sense.

wolfsbane wrote:

We only do so to let you know our agenda, not to make a scientific claim by that statement.

Yes, that is actually exactly what "you" do. You make the scientific claim that the Earth, while it may appear to look 4.6 billion years old, it is in fact only 10,000 year old.

wolfsbane wrote:

Then we agree. Science cannot comment on anything but what it sees. Science can validly say the universe appears to be X billion years old, given certain assumptions. It can also say it is 6000 years old, given a different set of assumptions.

The "assumption" that science uses to date the universe as billions of years old is that everything is how it looks.

The "assumption" creationists use to date the universe as 10,000 year old is the Bible and the assumption that everything isn't how it looks, it is in fact completely different to how it looks.

Which do you think is the more scientific "assumption"

wolfsbane wrote:

It is the assumptions that separate the Creationist scientist from the Evolutionist scientist.

No, actually it is the science that separate the Creationists from the scientists.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

So radiometric dating cannot be used to date fossils? Perhaps you can give me an example of what can be dated radiometrically?

Do you actually care Wolfsbane?

Its seems clear that you, like JC, do not accept science, and instead only accept Creationism (yes I know you are going to say you accept science when it explains things like toasters and microwaves, just not when it deals with anything in the past based on "assumptions", but that isn't accepting science)

With this initial bias clouding your view is there anything that Scofflaw, or Son, could explain to you about radiometric dating that you would accept that it does actually date things older than 10,000 years?

You have already started to do what JC does, and simply quote AiG any time anything is challanged. What support for the idea that radiometeric dating doesn't work? Quote AiG. What support for the idea that "evolutionists" are unsure about something? Quote AiG

Why are you not quoting scientific papers, scientific literature. In fact why is AiG not quoting scientific papers. Creationists are supposed to be scientists no, so where are all their scientific papers. I asked JC for scientific papers, ANY scientific papers, and he didn't give me any. Can you?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Radiometric dating cannot be used to directly date fossils. That is, the fossil itself cannot be directly dated, nor can the sedimentary rock it is found in be directly dated.

What can be dated are sufficiently unaltered minerals of the right type.

...

So, to come round to your question, what are datable are igneous rocks (and metamorphic, although they have their own complexities). Fortunately, there are enough of these to make dating more of a rule than an exception, even for sedimentary rocks. Of course, we wind up with date ranges, not dates - in the example given above, we'd have an age of 36-46MYa. Fossils found in this rock are then assigned that age.

Thank you, that's most helpful. If I've got you right you are saying the igneous intrusions in the sedimentary layer are the data-bearing rock. The minerals in the intrusion are the specific material that is dated radiometrically.

Now please explain to me how that date, say 36MYa, is determined by examining the mineral.

wolfsbane

Schuhart said:

I don’t see how this knits to your idea that God only brings the message to places where the elect are, when you were explaining why in some parts of the world a person might live their life without coming into contact with the faith. If someone wasn’t given the option, they can’t have turned away – particularly if they diligently followed whatever religion was on offer.

I didn’t say God only brings the gospel to places where the elect are. I said He always brings it to the elect. But He causes it to go to every nation, tribe, and language.

It is not the gospel the unreached have turned from, but the witness to God provided in Creation all around them.
Romans 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

I got the elect bit. You think God is inherently unfair. I understand that.

No, you think election is inherently unfair. I think it and God are both fair.

I still think you need to find another word to describe Islam. Heresy, maybe, from your perspective. But hardly idolatry.

I’m content to use idol to describe any false god, physical or mental.

That’s fine. Your picture of an unjust and misleading God is perfectly consistent. I guess the non-elect should respond by seizing control of creation and declaring the Republic of Heaven.

Your false accusation against God puts you on the side of the original rebel who tried to wrest control of Heaven.

If the ‘permission’ to exercise free will is only give when God knows a child will result, he just is part responsible.

Your position is that God is guilty for permitting sin to happen. God says otherwise. I go with God.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Thank you, that's most helpful. If I've got you right you are saying the igneous intrusions in the sedimentary layer are the data-bearing rock. The minerals in the intrusion are the specific material that is dated radiometrically.

That's right.

wolfsbane wrote:

Now please explain to me how that date, say 36MYa, is determined by examining the mineral.

OK. If we take a zircon crystal, formula ZrSiO4, then that crystal will contain some atoms of uranium substituting for zirconium. Let's say 1 atom in a million is replaced.

What the zircon does not contain, initially, is lead (Pb). Why not? Well, the zircon crystal structure rejects lead, so when the zircon is forming, it will push lead out of the way.

***To understand this, it's important to remember that the crystal structure of mineral is a regular lattice of defined proportions and connections. It can only accept the substitution of an atom by another atom of similar size and chemical properties.***

So, when our zircon initially forms, it contains a trace of uranium, and no lead.

Once formed, crystals are closed. They can be mechanically deformed, or replaced by other minerals, but these effects are noticeable. Crystals do not otherwise change. There is no way for lead to enter the zircon - the crystal structure of the mineral will not permit it, and zircon is impermeable, as nearly all mineral crystals are.

So, if we choose at some future date to examine a zircon crystal that has not been damaged mechanically or by weathering, then we are examining something that initially contained uranium, but no lead, and which cannot acquire lead from the environment.

Therefore, any lead that the crystal contains is the decay product of the uranium that was initially there.

Of course, we don't know how much uranium was there originally, but that doesn't matter, because the half-life of a radioactive atom measures how long it takes for half the initial amount to decay.

Therefore, if there are equal amounts of uranium and lead, then exactly half the uranium has decayed, and the age of the crystal is the same as the half-life of uranium-235 - which is 700 million years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw
Many rocks are effectively impervious to water and other fluids, so have suffered no alteration after crystalisation.

Show me a (completely) water impervious ‘rock’ and I will show you a Diamond!!!

……but then all Diamonds contain C14 Carbon – indicating that the Carbon from which Diamonds were made is only a few thousand years old, AS WELL!!!!!:D


Scofflaw
You couldn't cut something as deep as the Grand Canyon in soft sediment, because the walls would collapse, and you'd have the 'Grand Basin'.

……but the Grand Canyon wasn’t ‘cut’ through muck.
It was cut by torrents of (Post-Flood) water flowing off the continental United States, through deep layers of sediment and agglomerates that WERE IN THE PROCESS of petrification!!!1

…….and that is why the Grand Canyon is a several miles wide and over a mile deep!!!!:D


Robin
Anyhow, this Sunday is "Evolution Sunday" where Darwin's contribution to the sum of human knowledge will be acknowledged from pulpits and altars across the world

Quote from ‘Evolution Sunday’ website
More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy. Now, on the 198th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, many of these leaders will bring this message to their congregations through sermons and/or discussion groups. .

I thought that Theistic Evolutionists DIDN’T believe that the ‘origins question’ was IMPORTANT – and yet, here they are setting aside a special Sunday to focus on Evolution and Darwin!!!!!:eek:


Quote from ‘Evolution Sunday’ website
Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries

Indeed, Evolutionary Science and Theistic Evolution don't seem to be adversaries.!!

However, Creation Science is an adversary to Evolution - and by applying scientific objectivity and forensic analysis to the observable EVIDENCE, Creation Science is proving the existence of the God of the Bible and specifically His Act of Direct Creation.


Robin
Any time a religion talks about itself, it's lying.

…….and does this also apply to the religion of 'Materialistic Evolutionism’ then???!!!!:D

……..BTW Christianity ISN’T a religion – it is a saving FAITH in Jesus Christ.:cool:


Scofflaw
since we're wrong, our opinion is hardly reliable

I think you’re a bit hard on yourself and your fellow Evolutionists – but your conclusion is valid nonetheless!!!!:D


Scofflaw
scientific truth is not determined by posters on this thread

Who determines it then – God????:D


Scofflaw
You cannot do or be part of science if you refuse to recognise that you might be wrong.

So, if you recognise that you 'might be wrong' - but continue to promote Evolution anyway, are you thereby “a part of science”???

…….. in the following quote, (italics in the original) one of the top Evolutionary Biologists in the world, Prof. Richard Lewontin states that Materialists defend Materialistic explanations in spite of all evidence to the contrary, because their commitment to materialism is ABSOLUTE:-

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdities of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Professor Richard Lewontin, “Billions and billions of demons”. The New York Reviewof Books, January 9, 1997 pp 28.

Science is ALSO capable of examining the evidence for Direct Divine Creation – but the appliance of Science to objectively evaluating Direct Creation would be anathema to the Materialist, because it would actually “allow a Divine Foot in the door” !!!!!

Indeed, Creation Science could allow God to come 'right in through the door'......
......... and who knows, God might then save the Materialist!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
You have already started to do what JC does, and simply quote AiG any time anything is challanged. What support for the idea that radiometeric dating doesn't work? Quote AiG. What support for the idea that "evolutionists" are unsure about something? Quote AiG

I have quoted from many sources other than AIG - see my quote above from Professor Richard Lewontin!!!


Scofflaw
not required by Episcopal Christian Churches = not mentioned in Bible.

No…………..
………. not required by Episcopal Churches = not mentioned in the Creeds of Episcopal Churches!!:)


Scofflaw
For your hypothesis to have any chance of truth, you require mutations in the repair machinery as well as the mutations that cause the disease. Not observed, sorry.

………but nobody knows where the repair machinery is located or how it actually works.

The latest thinking is that it isn’t located in the DNA, as thought originally – but it may be in the RNA.

It is also subject to DEGRADATION via mutation, just like all other living processes.:cool:


Scofflaw
Now, pardon me if you don't like this, but a few pages back, you were claiming the impossibility of evolution based on the observed high rate of mutations in humans.

Now, suddenly, we have 3 billion perfect genes.* What happened to all the mutations?

Most mutations were repaired or masked in a heterozygous state – and some were eliminated through death – but NO mutation has ever added any new information to a Genome!!!!


Scofflaw
In essence, you have defined as 'mutations' every genetic change that causes harm, and defeined as 'genetic diversity' every genetic change that doesn't.

……but mutation IS observed to cause harm and to be external to the genome, while genetic diversity is observed to be inherent to the genome!!!!


Originally Posted by J C
……..and the PROOF that Evolutionists ALSO believe that MUTATIONS are almost invariably BAD – is their WISE reluctance to be irradiated or to ingest MUTAGENIC chemicals!!!!!!

Scofflaw
Curiously, though, our equally wise reluctance to be boiled alive doesn't prove that we believe water is always bad.

…….but mutagenesis IS the mechanism proposed to account for the supposed ‘Evolution of Man’ – while scalding with boiling water has NEVER been proposed to improve our phenotypes (or indeed our genotypes)!!!

I take your point though, that mutagenesis is equivalent to a good scalding in it’s deleterious effects – and it is therefore just as UNLIKELY to ‘improve’ our phenotype as a ‘dip’ in boiling water!!!!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
Which figure are you using there, out of interest? 3 billion base pairs, or 30,000 genes? Looks like 3,333,333,333 to me, so I assume base pairs? You're saying that genetic diseases are caused by a change in just one base pair, then. I don't think you'll find that's actually true

I am using the number of base pairs, as a single point mutation of only one base pair, on a critical sequence, can cause serious genetic disorders.

For example, according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old.


Scofflaw
'Varve-like'? You mean deposited in a lake environment as a sedimentary deposit, with alternating light (chemically deposited) and dark (organic sediment) bands, pollen peaking or only present in the upper part of the dark (winter) layer, where it was trapped in spring? With freshwater diatoms present at twice the abundance in the light (summer) layers as in the dark winter layers? Pollen grains showing the change over many layers from one type of vegetation (say oak/ash woodland) to another (wheat and field weeds)?

YES, I do mean millions of water sorted alternating micro-layers of physical/biological material laid down in a matter of months instead of millions of years – just like water sorting laid down thousands of alternate coloured and sized particles in micro-layers in 3 HOURS during the Mount St Helens Eruption.

The proof also lies in the fact that the polystrate fossil trees are observed ‘standing up through’ millions of sedimentary rock ‘varve-like’ layers that supposedly took millions of years to lay down – so, the logical conclusion is that that these layers were laid down rapidly and not over millions of years.

It is ridiculous to postulate that a dead tree stood upright for millions of years while slow deposition of sediment gradually buried it. The fact that the ‘bottom’ of the fossilised tree is observed to be as well preserved as the ‘top’ is also a ‘bit of a giveaway’ that very rapid burial took place. Deep sedimentary rock layers therefore do not indicate ‘long ages’ – only a catastrophic worldwide disaster!!!!:D

J C

Originally Posted by J C
It is indeed true that one repeatable observation that cannot be explained MAY mean that a theory is merely 'not complete'.
However, the lack of shadows and lensing in the CMB is so fundamental that it requires the rebuilding the Big Bang Theory from the ground up!!!!

Scofflaw
Tell you what - I'm not a physicist, so perhaps you could explain to me how that's the case?

Big bang advocates believe the supposed cosmic explosion of ‘The Big Bang’ is responsible for the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation we observe.
‘Big Bang’ Scientists have long predicted that galaxy clusters in the universe would deflect the CMB radiation, creating “shadows” in the observable radiation. But when the University of Huntsville scientists measured this effect, they did not find any strong “shadows” as expected.
Equally last year, the same researchers published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have also been seen, but weren't, if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant.
This indicates that the CMB radiation may not be “behind” distant galaxies, but is much closer instead. Since the big bang interpretation REQUIRES the CMB radiation to be behind the farthest galaxies, this new discovery is a devastating blow to the Big Bang Model, and indicates that the CMB radiation cannot be leftover radiation from a Big Bang. Of course, this isn’t the only evidence against a big bang.”
…..and you can read up on the accumulating scientific evidence AGAINST the Big Bang here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang

…or if you prefer an Evolutionist view, here is a quote from a recent edition of Science Daily on the matter:-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm


Scofflaw
Shame that organisms with no living counterpart so very heavily outnumber the ones that do....whither the dinosaurs, the graptolites, trilobites, agnathan fish, great groves of mares-tail trees, giant sloths, mammoths,

You are forgetting that Noah’s Flood was the greatest ‘Extinction Event’ in the history of the Earth.:cool:

Equally, a number of species that survived the Flood and some of their speciated descendents, have also become extinct since then!!!!!:cool:


Originally Posted by J C
Evolutionists have to try to convince themselves that in the 200 million years that Humans were supposedly evolving from something that looked like a 'Glorified Rat' - Ginko trees, Crocodiles, Coelacanth Fish, Wollemi Pines and Lampreys as well as assorted Salamanders, Turtles, Shellfish and insects remained completely UNCHANGED!!!!

Scofflaw
No, it's really not a problem. Some things work, and they don't change much in gross morphology. Other things don't, and they're gone, we don't see them around any more.

……but Rats are STILL around - and STILL looking suspiciously like our supposed 'rat-like' mammalian ancestor!!!!:D

……and the Ginko trees, Crocodiles, Coelacanth Fish, Wollemi Pines and Lampreys as well as assorted Salamanders, Turtles, Shellfish and insects ALSO remain completely UNCHANGED!!!

……so all Created Kinds have remained largely similar to how they were originally created – and the fossil record proves this fact!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
How can you considered Genesis literal when it states your god regretted creating mankind. That statement is complete nonsense.

The statement that you refer to is the Word of God – and NOT my words!!!

…..and God is quite entitled to express His regret – especially when Mankind have used their free will to defy Him.:cool:


Wicknight
GOD SEES THE FUTURE

God knew exactly what mankind would do BEFORE he created man kind. How can he regret creating mankind if He knows and understands everything that that creation will produce because He sees everything. How can God be pained by His creation when He knew EVERYTHING that His creation would do BEFORE He created it.

Knowing in advance that something will happen DOESN’T ease the pain when it actually happens.

For example, a person may be told by a doctor that a parent has only three months to live – and when the parent dies three months later, the pain can be very acute, even though the person knew in advance that the parent was going to die.:cool:


Wicknight
The simple irrefutable fact of the matter is that Genesis CANNOT BE LITERAL because if it is then the god that you believe in DOES NOT EXIST.

Instead what exists is a nonsense paradox. God sees all time, yet regrets his decisions? What? Nonsense.

God sees all time but is pained later by something He did? What? Nonsense.

IF your idea WAS VALID then the issue wouldn’t be whether Genesis is LITERAL or not.
Your idea would question the very EXISTENCE of God (as you have confirmed in the above quote yourself).

However, your idea is INVALID as God can, in His sovereignty, regret creating Mankind – because we have used our free wills to defy Him.

God can also know everything in advance, yet still be pained by what we do.

However, I am glad that God allowed life to continue and allowed me to be born and saved, despite His misgivings about my wilful and sinful Human nature!!!!:cool:


Originally Posted by J C
……but God doesn’t DIRECTLY CREATE life anymore!!!!

Schuhart
But surely you are utterly contradicting yourself, as you later say that human reproduction only takes place when he decides.

The conception of each Human Being is an interaction between our free will and God’s Divine Providence – and neither are completely autonamous (in God's case voluntarily so).

……just like our salvation is an interaction between God’s decision to save us and our decision to be saved.:D

......for God so loved the World that He humbled Himself to become a Man to save us.

......similarly today, God humbles Himself to co-operate with Humans to bring other Humans into existence - and He does so, because He loves us as a Father does!!!!!:cool:


Schuhart
And, pardon me for probably joining the conversation late, but why does God feel bound by the Articles of Faith of the Episcopal Christian Churches.

The original point was that the Episcopal Churches THEMSELVES are bound by their Articles of Faith – and they are therefore ‘Creationist Churches’ – because they require their members to proclaim Creeds that confirm God as ‘Creator / Maker’ of Heaven and Earth and all life therein!!!!:D


Schuhart
How is it proving that God was involved at all, whether life was created rapidly or not?

The reason why Materialists tenaciously ‘hold’ to gradual Evolution is because it is the ONLY explanation with a shred of ‘plausibility’ for a materialistic origin of life – but as this thread has shown, this ‘plausibility’ rapidly disappears under close scrutiny of the observable evidence!!!

On the other hand, Rapid Creation could ONLY arise via God.

Both Evolution and Creation COULD have been used by God – but Creation completely rules out a materialistic origin for life – and that is why, rejecting the fact that life was created rapidly is VITAL to the Materialist Position!!!!

…….and conversely, the reason why God chose to Directly Create life is so that there would be no doubt that life was originally produced by Him – and thus no doubt that He exists!!!!:D


Scofflaw
So, how do we date sedimentary rocks, and by implication, fossils? Elementary, my dear Watson - by eliminating the impossible until we have a rough answer.

Could I suggest that if Evolutionists 'eliminated the impossible' from their minds - they would no longer believe in Evolution - or indeed million year old fossils!!!:D

......and they would have a PRECISE answer that God created all life a few thousand years ago!!!:D

Schuhart

J C wrote:

The conception of each Human Being is an interaction between our free will and God’s Divine Providence – and neither are completely autonamous.

Hence God is not all powerful.

J C wrote:

they are therefore ‘Creationist Churches’ – because they require their members to proclaim Creeds that confirm God as ‘Creator / Maker’ of Heaven and Earth and all life therein.

Which brings us back to that question of a time limit - which is missing from the creeds you refer to. Hence it is possibleto interpret the 'creator' concept as a spiritual thing that means there is no conflict with evolution, as many, if not most, Christians do.

J C wrote:

Both Evolution and Creation COULD have been used by God

Thank you. All I've really wanted to see is an acknowledgement that there is no intrinsic conflict between belief in the Christian conception of God and the physical evidence that the human species is the product of evolution. Now that you've acknowledged that the Bible isn't intended to be a scientific explanation for the origins of life, I take it this thread is finally over.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Many rocks are effectively impervious to water and other fluids, so have suffered no alteration after crystalisation.

Show me a (completely) water impervious ‘rock’ and I will show you a Diamond!!!

……but then all Diamonds contain C14 Carbon – indicating that the Carbon from which Diamonds were made is only a few thousand years old, AS WELL!!!!!:D

Sigh. Diamond is a mineral, not a rock. When flow rates are measured in millimetres per million years, then thick rock units are effectively closed systems.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
You couldn't cut something as deep as the Grand Canyon in soft sediment, because the walls would collapse, and you'd have the 'Grand Basin'.

……but the Grand Canyon wasn’t ‘cut’ through muck.
It was cut by torrents of (Post-Flood) water flowing off the continental United States, through deep layers of sediment and agglomerates that WERE IN THE PROCESS of petrification!!!1

…….and that is why the Grand Canyon is a several miles wide and over a mile deep!!!!:D

I am afraid that you will find that the properties necessary to support near-vertical walls of that height, and the properties necessary to allow water to cut through material at the rate you imagine, are mutually exclusive. I am sure this won't trouble you.

J C wrote:

Robin
Anyhow, this Sunday is "Evolution Sunday" where Darwin's contribution to the sum of human knowledge will be acknowledged from pulpits and altars across the world

Quote from ‘Evolution Sunday’ website
More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy. Now, on the 198th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, many of these leaders will bring this message to their congregations through sermons and/or discussion groups. .

I thought that Theistic Evolutionists DIDN’T believe that the ‘origins question’ was IMPORTANT – and yet, here they are setting aside a special Sunday to focus on Evolution and Darwin!!!!!:eek:

I'm not sure where you got that idea - it's important enough to be at the start of the Nicene Creed, which you may remember?

J C wrote:

Quote from ‘Evolution Sunday’ website
Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries

Indeed, Evolutionary Science and Theistic Evolution don't seem to be adversaries.!!

However, Creation Science is an adversary to Evolution - and by applying scientific objectivity and forensic analysis to the observable EVIDENCE, Creation Science is proving the existence of the God of the Bible and specifically His Act of Direct Creation.

They're all out of step but my Johnny.

J C wrote:

Robin
Any time a religion talks about itself, it's lying.

…….and does this also apply to the religion of 'Materialistic Evolutionism’ then???!!!!:D

……..BTW Christianity ISN’T a religion – it is a saving FAITH in Jesus Christ.:cool:

A little sensitive, there, I think. Interesting claim - Christianity not a religion, evolution a religion.

I suppose if you're going to believe in Special Creation, you might as well enjoy the benefits of Special Definition.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
scientific truth is not determined by posters on this thread

Who determines it then – God????:D

Hmm. Those are not the only options, you know. It is determined by the agreement between prediction and observation.

You could, I suppose, claim "scientific truth" for Creationism in that it makes no predictions, and has no observations...but that would be a cheap shot.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
You cannot do or be part of science if you refuse to recognise that you might be wrong.

So, if you recognise that you 'might be wrong' - but continue to promote Evolution anyway, are you thereby “a part of science”???

Is that supposed to make sense? To be part of science is to recognise that you might be wrong.

J C wrote:

Science is ALSO capable of examining the evidence for Direct Divine Creation – but the appliance of Science to objectively evaluating Direct Creation would be anathema to the Materialist, because it would actually “allow a Divine Foot in the door” !!!!!

Indeed, Creation Science could allow God to come 'right in through the door'......
......... and who knows, God might then save the Materialist!!!!:eek:

We have definitely established at this stage that there is no such thing as 'Creation Science'. There are scientists who are Creationists, and they can do science or not, but there is no branch or method of science to which the term 'Creation Science' is applicable.

We cannot examine the 'evidence for Direct Divine Creation' as such, because there is no particular theory behind it, and it makes no specific predictions that cannot be changed at whim. The full 'theoretical basis' of Creationism is 'God said let it be so' - no mechanism is given.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
You have already started to do what JC does, and simply quote AiG any time anything is challanged. What support for the idea that radiometeric dating doesn't work? Quote AiG. What support for the idea that "evolutionists" are unsure about something? Quote AiG

I have quoted from many sources other than AIG - see my quote above from Professor Richard Lewontin!!!

Named as a "quotable quote" in the exact form you gave it in, on this page of AiG.

I don't wish to tempt Brian's wrath by pointing out the normal conclusion we would draw here, but I imagine that people can draw it for themselves.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
For your hypothesis to have any chance of truth, you require mutations in the repair machinery as well as the mutations that cause the disease. Not observed, sorry.

………but nobody knows where the repair machinery is located or how it actually works.

Really?

Really really?

...or do you just mean that you don't know? For one thing, it's a group of mechanisms, rather than a single magical agent. You might find the DNA Repair Interest Group useful in clarifying some of your concepts.

J C wrote:

The latest thinking is that it isn’t located in the DNA, as thought originally – but it may be in the RNA.

It is also subject to DEGRADATION via mutation, just like all other living processes.:cool:

What might be? If you mean the mysterious process which repairs things according to a divine template, I think it's entirely in your head (where it certainly does a good job of maintaining a change-free state).

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Now, pardon me if you don't like this, but a few pages back, you were claiming the impossibility of evolution based on the observed high rate of mutations in humans.

Now, suddenly, we have 3 billion perfect genes.* What happened to all the mutations?

Most mutations were repaired or masked in a heterozygous state – and some were eliminated through death – but NO mutation has ever added any new information to a Genome!!!!

The relevance of this remark being?

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
In essence, you have defined as 'mutations' every genetic change that causes harm, and defeined as 'genetic diversity' every genetic change that doesn't.

……but mutation IS observed to cause harm and to be external to the genome, while genetic diversity is observed to be inherent to the genome!!!!

Do you perhaps mean 'the causes of mutation are external to the genome'?

Either way, this remark is basically a tautology. Obviously genetic diversity is a property of genetic material - so? It's like saying that linguistic diversity is a property of language.

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
……..and the PROOF that Evolutionists ALSO believe that MUTATIONS are almost invariably BAD – is their WISE reluctance to be irradiated or to ingest MUTAGENIC chemicals!!!!!!

Scofflaw
Curiously, though, our equally wise reluctance to be boiled alive doesn't prove that we believe water is always bad.

…….but mutagenesis IS the mechanism proposed to account for the supposed ‘Evolution of Man’ – while scalding with boiling water has NEVER been proposed to improve our phenotypes (or indeed our genotypes)!!!

Sigh. For the umpteenth time, mutation is not proposed as the mechanism for evolution. Mutation is proposed as one mechanism for generating genetic diversity, and evolution depends on the operation of natural selection on genetic diversity.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

JC wrote:

For example, many of the genetic diseases listed above are caused by ONLY ONE defective gene out of over 3 BILLION other perfect genes!!!!

Which figure are you using there, out of interest? 3 billion base pairs, or 30,000 genes? Looks like 3,333,333,333 to me, so I assume base pairs? You're saying that genetic diseases are caused by a change in just one base pair, then. I don't think you'll find that's actually true

I am using the number of base pairs, as a single point mutation of only one base pair, on a critical sequence, can cause serious genetic disorders.

For example, according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old.

Er, this condition, while interesting, is rather the exception than the rule. There are 100 known cases, total, ever.

Are you seriously saying that this incredibly rare example somehow proves your contention that "many of the genetic diseases listed above are caused by ONLY ONE defective gene out of over 3 BILLION other perfect genes!!!!"?

One is not actually the same as many. Nor is the example you have given one of the diseases listed.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
'Varve-like'? You mean deposited in a lake environment as a sedimentary deposit, with alternating light (chemically deposited) and dark (organic sediment) bands, pollen peaking or only present in the upper part of the dark (winter) layer, where it was trapped in spring? With freshwater diatoms present at twice the abundance in the light (summer) layers as in the dark winter layers? Pollen grains showing the change over many layers from one type of vegetation (say oak/ash woodland) to another (wheat and field weeds)?

YES, I do mean millions of water sorted alternating micro-layers of physical/biological material laid down in a matter of months instead of millions of years – just like water sorting laid down thousands of alternate coloured and sized particles in micro-layers in 3 HOURS during the Mount St Helens Eruption.

No, those are not varves. The characteristics of varves are as given above. What you refer to are not varves.

I'm not sure how we can make this simpler...let me lay it out step by step:

1. varves must have the characteristics give above.
2. the layers you are talking about do not have those characteristics.
3. therefore they are not varves.
4. because the layers you are talking about are not varves, the fact that they are laid down in months is irrelevant to how long it takes to lay down varves.

Do you see? Your attempt to claim that these ash-fall layers are varves doesnt work, because ash-fall layers are not varves.

J C wrote:

The proof also lies in the fact that the polystrate fossil trees are observed ‘standing up through’ millions of sedimentary rock ‘varve-like’ layers that supposedly took millions of years to lay down – so, the logical conclusion is that that these layers were laid down rapidly and not over millions of years.

It is ridiculous to postulate that a dead tree stood upright for millions of years while slow deposition of sediment gradually buried it. The fact that the ‘bottom’ of the fossilised tree is observed to be as well preserved as the ‘top’ is also a ‘bit of a giveaway’ that very rapid burial took place. Deep sedimentary rock layers therefore do not indicate ‘long ages’ – only a catastrophic worldwide disaster!!!!:D

A 'polystrate' tree fossil may stand up through as many ash-fall layers, or beach layers, or delatic deposits, or several other kinds of layers that are known to be depositied quickly. What you don't have is a tree standing up through 'millions' of varves.

By the way, fossil trees are normally found to be rooted in palaeosols (fossil soils). These fossil soils are scattered throughout the supposed 'Flood sediments', even though we know from direct observation that soils form very slowly indeed - about 1mm in 200-400 years (c. 1-2t/ha/yr). To produce the minimum two foot (609mm) of soil mature trees require takes about 120,000 years.

In the 4000 years since the Flood, the earth has had time to produce a maximum depth of 20mm of soil in any given place - less than an inch.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The statement that you refer to is the Word of God – and NOT my words!!!

No, the statement that i refer to is the word of Genesis, a book written by men.

J C wrote:

…..and God is quite entitled to express His regret – especially when Mankind have used their free will to defy Him.:cool:

Under your own definition of "God" HE CANNOT HAVE REGRET JC. It is a paradox, like claiming God can be wrong or make a mistake.

And anything that claims he can, including Genesis, must be incorrect.

Therefore Genesis must be mistaken. Either that or your God does not exist as you have defined Him.

Those are the only two options JC.

J C wrote:

Knowing in advance that something will happen DOESN’T ease the pain when it actually happens.

You are once again talking absolute nonsense JC :rolleyes:

God, as defined by your own religion, sees all time in one go.

There is no "when it actually happens", that would make absolutely no sense. "When", from Gods point of view, is a totally irrelevant concept. God doesn't just "know" something is going to happen in the future, he actually sees all time in a single instant. All points in time, and all points in space, are visible to him in one go at a single instant.

If God is pained by something that happened at some point on the universe's time line, he is pained in the same instant of creation, at the same time feeling everything else in relation to what is happening.

Therefore it is absolutely nonsense to describe God having regret, feeling shock or anger at anything that happens. These are human emotions, because humans live inside the time line. We experience one moment to the next and as such our emotional state changes based on what moment we are in at the present time.

That concept doesn't apply to God. God's emotional state does not change because God exists out side of time and as such does not move through time from moment to moment as we do. Though I can understand why men living in a desert 4000 years ago who probably didn't think about this a whole lot, would think it would.

If anything states that God experiences these emotional changes it is wrong. Genesis does, therefore Genesis is wrong.

Or the other alternative is the definition of God is wrong. But since that definition comes from the Bible anyway then the Bible is still wrong.

J C wrote:

For example, a person may be told by a doctor that a parent has only three months to live – and when the parent dies three months later, the pain can be very acute, even though the person knew in advance that the parent was going to die.:cool:

Are either of those people gods? Do either of those people live outside of time and view all time as a single entity? No .... well then what are you talking about?

J C wrote:

IF your idea WAS VALID then the issue wouldn’t be whether Genesis is LITERAL or not.

Trust me, it is valid. I know this because after repeating this paradox for about a year or so on this forum everyone who disagrees just stops discussing it when I bring it up, which is a sure sign that they don't have a response, they can't figure out who it can be wrong though they wish it was, and would rather just not think about it.

I imagine you will do the same....

J C wrote:

Your idea would question the very EXISTENCE of God (as you have confirmed in the above quote yourself).

No, it questions the ability of the Bible to accurately describe God, or to speak for God. But then most Christians don't believe the Bible does accurately describe God, though they think it is a good stab at it.

J C wrote:

However, your idea is INVALID as God can, in His sovereignty, regret creating Mankind – because we have used our free wills to defy Him.

No He wouldn't That makes as much sense as saying God can, in His sovereignty, be wrong or make a mistake or cause Himself to not exist anymore.

It is an unworkable paradox.

God would not and cannot regret anything He does because God does not move through time like we do, and regret is a human emotion defined by our passage through time and the change in emotional state.

God, for a start, doesn't have memories. Memories require a movement through time, and a past to actually be remembers. God neither moves through time, nor does He have a past to remember in either. Therefore He cannot regret something He remembers doing in the past because God doesn't have a past.

Secondly God doesn't have a "future" because just like He doesn't move through time to have a past behind Him, He doesn't have a future time to move into. Therefore stating that when God gets to a certain moment He will be pained by something and feel regret is nonsense. There is no "when" from His point of view, He doesn't move through time, He exists above time viewing the entire past present and future of the universe as one single point.

You cannot apply any of the human emotions that require the passage of time to God because God does not move through time. Therefore anything that does this, including Genesis, is being incorrect or inaccurate.

So far the only way any Christians on this forum have ever attempted to explain away this conflict is by using examples based in our universe, using our system of time, and using our emotions that rely on this system of time, just like you did above.

So BC will say something like - I'm a dad and I can know that my child is going to fall over in the next moment, I allow it to happen and I get up set when it does. I've pointed out over and over that those analogies simply don't work when applied to a god because, as defined by your own religion, God does not exist in time the same way BC does, or in the way you do JC. BC may work out what is his child is going to do and what will happen, but BC is not viewing the future. BC, like all humans, is moving through time, and as such his emotions change state based on what is actually happening in the present. He may work out that he will be upset at some point in the future but that is not the same as actually being in that moment being upset.

You cannot use human experience to model God, it is nonsense. The rules of time and space do not apply to God so it makes no sense at all to suppose that His emotions are confined to time and space the way ours are.

Genesis, as describing God as really just a powerful human, is wrong.

I must say that I find it rather bizarre that most Christians seem largely blissfully ignorant of the full extent of their own definition of God and what that definition means. They were unaware of it 4000 years ago when the the Bible stories were first appearing and they are unaware of it now.

Judging by this forum most seem to simply view God as a very powerful human, albeit confined by the same emotional structures, and by the same rules of time, as we are.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

Genesis, as describing God as really just a powerful human, is wrong.

Just a quibble, really. Lets accept the notion that God is beyond human understanding. Hence, any effort by God to communicate to us must necessarily take account of that constraint. Therefore, he'd have no option other than to explain himself in terms that mortals could understand - anger, jealousy, whatever.

I'm clearly not suggesting that this means if God wanted to send us a dumbed-down message the tool he'd pick would be a collection of frequently incoherent scriptures compiled over millenia, possibly with a final message in the form of some similarly incoherent ramblings in Arabic. If scriptures were intended by God to be understandable, they'd look more like the Topsy and Tim series. But it is presumably unavoidable that any description of God, even one that tries not to give him human features, is limited by our outlook.

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote:

Just a quibble, really. Lets accept the notion that God is beyond human understanding. Hence, any effort by God to communicate to us must necessarily take account of that constraint. Therefore, he'd have no option other than to explain himself in terms that mortals could understand - anger, jealousy, whatever.

God, by definition, would not feel anger or regret or shock or surprise. Saying He would because we don't understand how He would actually feel doesn't make those descriptions any more accurate.

At the end of the day the emotions attributed to God in the Bible are either wrong, or the Biblical description of God is wrong. They cannot both be correct because that becomes a contradiction.

This doesn't say God doesn't exists. It just means the Bible is inaccurate, who ever wrote the books of the Bible was not describing the literal nature of God.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

who ever wrote the books of the Bible was not describing the literal nature of God.

I think that's a sound statement.

robindch

> If scriptures were intended by God to be understandable, they'd look
> more like the Topsy and Tim series

If a god wanted to send instructions to his creations, then I can't see why he wouldn't have written them in the kind of unambiguous prose which appears in documents like constitutions, legal frameworks and elsewhere -- rather than the flowery, imprecise, rambling prose which appears in most religious documents. Nor indeed, can I see why any god would bother to design creatures, then a long while later, deliver a user-manual which, for the most part, is either thought to be wrong, where it's not either ignored or unknown. Why not design the creatures with the rules inbuilt instead? Makes no sense at all.

> But it is presumably unavoidable that any description of God, even one
> that tries not to give him human features, is limited by our outlook.

In the case of the bible and elsewhere, I'm more inclined to think that the writers simply assumed that the überruler was simply a pastiche of the frequently violent earthly rulers they were familiar with.

And endowing god with infinite, but flatly contradictory, qualities doesn't suggest to me that god is undescribable, but rather that the people describing god were confused.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

And endowing god with infinite, but flatly contradictory, qualities doesn't suggest to me that god is undescribable, but rather that the people describing god were confused.

Exactly well stated.

The properties of God described in the Bible contradict themselves. One the one hand He exists outside of time and views all things including the future. The next He is getting upset when something happens.

These descriptions cannot be describing the same thing because as you say they flatly contradict themselves.

If I describe an ball as being red and then a bit later claim the ball is blue, that doesn't suggest that the ball is existing as all these things, or is beyond our comprehension and I'm making my best stab at it. It simply means I am wrongly describing the ball at least once, possibly twice.

pH

I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore...

Well then let's head straight back!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070213/ts_nm/usa_kansas_dc

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Exactly well stated.

The properties of God described in the Bible contradict themselves. One the one hand He exists outside of time and views all things including the future. The next He is getting upset when something happens.

These descriptions cannot be describing the same thing because as you say they flatly contradict themselves.

If I describe an ball as being red and then a bit later claim the ball is blue, that doesn't suggest that the ball is existing as all these things, or is beyond our comprehension and I'm making my best stab at it. It simply means I am wrongly describing the ball at least once, possibly twice.

Hmm. On the other hand, if you were to describe a photon as a particle, and then a little later as a wave...?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. On the other hand, if you were to describe a photon as a particle, and then a little later as a wave...?

Well my quantum physics is a little rough, but can a photon be a particle and a wave at the same time? A ball, by definition, cannot be red and green at the same time. I suppose a better example would be saying "This piece of string is very long" and then later saying about the same piece of string "This piece of string is very short" It is in the definition itself that you are saying something is the exact opposite of what you where saying before.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

If I describe an ball as being red and then a bit later claim the ball is blue, that doesn't suggest that the ball is existing as all these things, or is beyond our comprehension and I'm making my best stab at it. It simply means I am wrongly describing the ball at least once, possibly twice.

I think your essential point holds water, but I don’t find that specific comparison convincing. It would seem strange that an omnipotent God would be insecure enough to be jealous, for the sake of argument. But that does not strike me as equivalent to saying the ball is red and then saying it’s blue. It still strikes me as potentially explicable on the basis of some divine quality best explained to mortals as jealousy.

If we make the assumption there’s an omnipotent God who wants some relationship with humans, then it seems inevitable that things at our end need to be dumbed down.

That said, clearly my point is only relevant when we consider the principles that we might derive from holy writings. To dig those principles out involves, as we know, an amount of study and argument. The books simply don’t read coherently. I’d agree with suggestions that the lack of coherence suggests the authors did their best to accurately document the traditions they were recording. If they were knaves, then presumably they’d make sure it all fit together. But that incoherence does suggest that what we are reading is simply the cumulative attempts of people to make sense of their surroundings.

As robindch says

robindch wrote:

If a god wanted to send instructions to his creations, then I can't see why he wouldn't have written them in […] unambiguous prose

I’d still pick Topsy and Tim as the standard, rather than legal prose. But I think we all have the picture – something that clearly says “I’m God, welcome to the planet, this is why I made it and this is what I sort of hoped you’d do while you’re there.” There is no holy book of any religion that does that.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Well my quantum physics is a little rough, but can a photon be a particle and a wave at the same time? A ball, by definition, cannot be red and green at the same time. I suppose a better example would be saying "This piece of string is very long" and then later saying about the same piece of string "This piece of string is very short" It is in the definition itself that you are saying something is the exact opposite of what you where saying before.

Hmm. Again, this doesn't quite make the point - a piece of string may be very long considered in a domestic setting, but very short from an industrial point of view.

As to the quantum physics, I fear mine is rough as well. However, all particles have both a wave and a particle nature. The two slit interference experiment is perhaps the best demonstration of it - that if you fire photons at a pair of small slits in a screen, they will pass through one or other slits like particles, but give an interference pattern like waves as a result - even with just one photon being fired at a time.

However, I would go more with Schuhart's point that God may have an emotion best expressed as jealousy or regret, or whatever, in human terms, but that is actually something else entirely.

A good demonstration is trying to explain angst or schadenfreude to a small child. To them it comes across as 'sad' or 'happy'.

Finally, I'd agree that there is no apparent need for God to communicate via cryptic poetry. It's like writing a cleverly punned and allegorical haiku as instructions on how to operate a parachute. However, I think that our Creationist friends would actually claim that the Bible is both literal and clear.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Ok ok ok .. hold up, before JC starts yipping on about how "evolutionists" are arguing amount themselves.

Forget about analogies, getting back to the central point.

God is described in the Bible as existing outside of time, existing at all points at the same time, and existing at all points in time. This is "the ball is red"

But God is also described with characteristics we associate with humans, ie creatures that exist at a specific point in time along a time line and move through this time line with constantly changing states. This is "the ball is green"

The two claims contradict each other. By definition if the ball is red it isn't green, because the two are opposite of each other. If God exists outside of time He doesn't also exist inside time and constrained by time. At least not with out a pretty big paradox, but I suppose our friend God is no stranger to paradoxes.

As I explained to JC, God has no past present and future. He has no memories, nor does He have a future that He moves into, at least no in relation to our time line. There is no "when" as far as God is concerned. The idea that his emotional state alters as time passes in our time makes no sense since from Gods position time doesn't pass, it is viewed as one single entity.

Therefore stating that God's emotional state moves from happy to sad to angry to vengeful makes no sense. God's emotional state doesn't change because there is no time period for it to change in.

It makes even less sense to claim that God therefore can regret something He did or allowed to happen. Regret implies a present day assessment of memories in the past ("I remember what I did at the Christmas party, and I regret it). But past and present day are meaningless concepts with relation to God.

It is nonsense to say God regretted anything since God views time as a single instance.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Therefore stating that God's emotional state moves from happy to sad to angry to vengeful makes no sense. God's emotional state doesn't change because there is no time period for it to change in.

It makes even less sense to claim that God therefore can regret something He did or allowed to happen. Regret implies a present day assessment of memories in the past ("I remember what I did at the Christmas party, and I regret it). But past and present day are meaningless concepts with relation to God.

It is nonsense to say God regretted anything since God views time as a single instance.

I'd go with that.

cordially,
Scofflaw