The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Originally Posted by Son Goku
Good, so I take you agree that galaxies are actually several million light years away then?

Originally Posted by J C
Some galaxies, probably are……
……..and some probably are not

Son Goku
So how do we see the light from them then, since it would take millions of years?

The Bible states in Ps 19:1 that “the heavens declare the glory of God; the skys proclaim the work of his hands” (NIV).
God is present everywhere in the Universe and He obviously created the light beams linking the stars and galaxies to the Earth AT THE SAME TIME that He created the stars themselves so that He could display His glory to people on Earth by allowing us to observe the light from ALL of the stars and galaxies in the Universe.
The alternative of allowing the light to travel over millions of years to get here, would ensure that we would never see God’s full glory – by the time the light arrived from the most distant galaxies, the nearer stars, including our Sun would have been extinguished, and us with it.
We should remember that God’s time-scale in His dealings with Human Beings is decidedly NOT ‘astronomical’ – we have been here for less than 7,000 years, our lives last less than 120 years and we are told that the return of Jesus Christ is imminent. Under these circumstances, it would be imperative to create the light beams at the same time as the stars – otherwise God would have been unable to declare his glory to mankind as stated in Ps 19:1.

Genesis 1:16 neatly summarised what happened on the Fourth Day of Creation – it says that “God made two great lights – the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars”(NIV).
Quite obviously merely making the stars without allowing them to show their presence on Earth through creating the light beams down to the Earth from them would be a waste of time, when the objective of creating them, in the first place, was to proclaim God’s glory to Humans.
And don’t say that this is impossible – the God that created the Universe and all life therein, is able to link every star to the Earth by light beams – it would be a mere ‘trifle’ to Him.:cool:

Please note that the above are faith-based speculations – and so too is the evolutionary assumption that it took millions of years for the light from distant stars to reach the Earth - as this is also not repeatably observable either.:eek:


Wicknight
Evolution. Its real. Get over it.

Evolution. It’s ILLOGICAL. Get over it!!!!:D

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Please note that the above are faith-based speculations – and so too is the evolutionary assumption that it took millions of years for the light from distant stars to reach the Earth - as this is also not repeatably observable either.:eek:

What do you mean evolutionary? It's cosmological, not evolution.
Can you explain why you used the word evolutionary?

Also perhaps you can explain why the light shows signs of weakening if it has really travelled far less of a distance than we think. Did God make it appear weakened?
I agree that it would be a trifle for him, since he is God.

philologos

I think he is claiming that those who believe evolution also take into account that it took millions of years for the light to get there and believe in the Big Bang. Although not all who believe Evolution took place would believe the Big Bang took place, its an assumption on his part.

I'm happy to accept that my Lord took full responsibility in creating the world. For as long as I'm alive, I'm willing to accept that He created it. I can understand how this whole Creationist theory could appear illogical to an atheist. That is why I claim that Atheists just can't understand us as they haven't felt God's presence before.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

I think he is claiming that those who believe evolution also take into account that it took millions of years for the light to get there and believe in the Big Bang. Although not all who believe Evolution took place would believe the Big Bang took place, its an assumption on his part.

I'm happy to accept that my Lord took full responsibility in creating the world. For as long as I'm alive, I'm willing to accept that He created it. I can understand how this whole Creationist theory could appear illogical to an atheist. That is why I claim that Atheists just can't understand us as they haven't felt God's presence before.

What Catholics would call a "mystery of the faith", then, that one accepts if one has faith, and cannot even comprehend if one does not.

Well, as I've said before, I don't have a problem with that, as long as one accepts that part of the mystery is that science cannot see anything of the kind...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Since the other thread got closed I'll put my last post to wolfsbane here.


Okay, watch. I will be as removed as possible.

Step 1. There appears to be some scientists who disagree on evolution, a very small fraction that falls outside acceptable p-values for a conclusion.
I would hence rule out the disagreement based on this and the fact that actual peer review articles against evolution are incredibly rare. The global warming case is not similar because the disagreement is well within acceptable p-values.

On this same basis I would rule out light superpartners in physics, even though some claim they exist, they are extremely small in number.

However let's say I'm more lenient than usual and allow the disagreement because our origins are important, then I move to step 2.

Step 2. The majority of claims are written from a non-scientific perspective and involve an awful lot of "spin" and distortions of what the actual scientific theories say. If somebody criticises a caricature of a scientific theory, rather than the theory itself then they are not worth listening to.
However let's say I'm even more lenient and assume that these people are cranks that actually don't represent proper thought that's critical of evolution.
I then move on to step 3.

Step 3. Now, I'm looking at the well written criticisms of evolution that actually deal with the theory itself. These divide into two broad classes.
The first class is those who think that evolution is only part of the history of biological organisms and that there is a second mechanism that is equally important that we haven't found yet. They form 95% of this group. I'll leave them for now because they aren't related to what we're talking about, but I can speak about them if anybody wishes.
The remaining 5% are Creationists. I'll turn to step 4 to deal with this group.

Step 4. Now we have the Creationists who write decent material against evolution. I've given criticisms of their writings in several places so I won't go into here. Instead I'll mention something else. This group also appears to have problems with the Big Bang and abiogenesis. All of which are from completely unrelated fields.
Big Bang is from Cosmology.
Abiogenesis is from Chemistry.
Finally Evolution itself is from Biology.

Now, these three separate theories which stand independently of each other. Any two could be proven wrong without effecting the third. However the seem to be lumped together in Creationist literature as one single entity. Particularly Abiogenesis and Evolution get put together as molecules-to-man.

Okay why does this group have a problem with three unrelated theories.
(The Big Bang is especially, in fact completely unrelated to the last two.)
It turns out that this group consists entirely of fundamentalist Christians and all these theories go against their preferred reading of their holy book.

This extremely suspicious and remember I've already been overly lenient twice.


Let me give you a hypothetical example in reverse.
Imagine there was the possibility of making a drug from a plant I'll call the ABC plant. 99.95% of scientists are of the opinion that this drug can be manufactured from the plant, given enough R&D.
Upon reading the literature I find there is a small group, 0.05% of scientists (just on the p-value), who say this won't work. I read up on them and find out that they are all from culture X. In culture X this plant has always been considered harmful. I would suspect they are not being honest in their judgement. I then find out they also write papers criticising other areas which disagree with their culture. Not only that, but they lump all the areas together as if they are one consistent whole.


The fact that there is a dispute is not enough for the opposing opinion to be considered.
The opposing opinion must have:
1. A decent number of proponents.
2. A well founded literature
3. Not be based around a culture which requires the opposing opinion to be true.

I'd be willing to allow an opinion away with one of these, but not all three together.

Just in case you feel that this post got ignored - it's an excellent summary. Thanks!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Copied from the now closed thread, because they are important points.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, I wasn't asking that. I was asking for evidence that, for instance, a bacteria changed into a non-bacteria.

Why? Such a mutation would be so rare in nature that it would not concern modern medicine.

wolfsbane wrote:

Is this multicelluar lifeform still an alge?

Yes the multicellular life form is still algae, since algae can be multi-cellular (remember "algae" is simply a classification we give it)

wolfsbane wrote:

Hmm. So 20 generations give unicellular to multicellular and you extrapolate that out to microbes-to-man evolution.

I am beginning to think you are not getting "evolution"

Microbes did not change into man in one or two mutations. If this is what you think evolution says happened I can understand why you think it is nonsense. The DNA of a bacteria didn't mutate once or two and all of a sudden it contained the blueprint to make a fully grown human.

This is part of the problem of Creationism that people with rational minds like yourself dismiss something like evolution simply because they think evolution is something that the Creationists define.

The change from a single cell to a multicellular life form is a very significant change. This experiment shows that in lab conditions it can happen relatively quickly. But in the wild it would have been much rarer. For it to happen to a number of species across the globe so that these multicellular organisms become plentiful enough to form the bases for the rest of us it could have taken hundreds of years. Or thousands of years. For something that will happen in the lab within a few days.

Now think that to actually go from microbe to man it takes in millions, if not hundreds of millions, of these types of mutations. All building in parallel and on top of each other.

But remember we have a few billion years to work with,and trillions upon trillions upon trillions of mutating life forms (over the space of the billion years) work with.

The point is that Creationism has never put forward a reason why these mutations wouldn't slowly increase complexity over this time frame.

If a small set of mutations, within a few generations, can cause such a fundamental change in structure as to cause a unicellular life form to change into a multi-cellular life form, why cannot it not produce all the other billions of mutations needed over 2 billion years to increase complexity up to a human level.

wolfsbane wrote:

Let's say even over 10 years

We aren't talking about 10 years, we are talking about 2 billion years. And we aren't talking about a single dish of algae. We are talking about trillions upon trillions of life forms mutating all the time.

Very quickly we get into very big numbers. If a small dish of algae cells can mutate into a multicellular lifeform with a few days, what do you think a trillion cells spread out over the surface of the Earth can do in 2 billion years?

wolfsbane wrote:

On top of that, there are the scientists who scientifically challenge evolutionary theory.

You can find a scientists that will challenge any scientific theory. That is what they are supposed to do. The point is that they have been so far unsuccessful. If they had been successful we wouldn't be discussing this. We would be discussion their theory.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, all I'm after is evolution of one organism into another - it should be possible to observe in the short-lived species like bacteria.

The algae example I gave you was an example of a fundamental change of a unicellular life form into a multicellular organism. That is a massive change in structure and function Unicellular and Multicellular lifeforms are very very different.

You ask is it still algae. It still is algae simply because algae is a very general term. Its like watching a deer mutate into a rabbit in one generation and being unimpressed because it is still an mammal.

wolfsbane wrote:

So a child being born with an extra finger is on the way to becoming a new species?

Yes. A few hundred thousand more mutations like that, over a 5 or 6 million years, and you could have a new species.

Of it actually might happen a lot shorter time than that, since the differences between species is quite defined and to make a animal change species you could be luck (or unlucky) enough to get mutations that target the specific areas of difference, such as chromosome size and sexual reproduction.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Because God is holy, He cannot just ignore our sin.

Well God is omnipotent, so I assume you mean he doesn't want to just ignore our sin. He can just ignore our sins if he wants to.

wolfsbane wrote:

That would be to condone it. Only a perfect man could be our substitue, anyone less would be under God's judgement themselves and so unable to help us. And he must atone not only for one person, but for countless millions.

Atone to whom?

wolfsbane wrote:

Only God Himself could become such a Saviour.

That is ridiculous. If God creates a perfect man to atone for our sins to God, that is exactly the same has God both condoning and ignoring our sins because we don't do anything. Its just a more elaborate away of going about it.

Think of it this way.

A sinful man comes before God. God looks at him and says "You have sinned have you not?"

The man says "Yes my Lord, I have sinned against you. For that I'm truly sorry"

God says "Well I know from your heart that you are sorry. But my son I cannot simply ignore your sins. You must atone for them"

The man says "Oh please Lord, is there nothing you can do?"

God says again "My child I cannot simply ignore your sins. You must atone for them. It is my way, my law."

Then God gets an idea. "My child I have an idea. I will create another man, who will be part of me, and as such he will be perfect"

And in a flash a man appears beside the sinful man. And God said "I will now transfer your sin to this man, because you are truly sorry for what you have done" The sinful man felt his sins washed away and transferred to the new man beside him

God said to the man "Now go, you are forgiven. I will torture to death this man beside you and he will atone to me for your sin."

"Oh thank you oh Lord" said the man as he left. "Just one question oh Lord? How is this any different than you simply just ignoring my sins in the first place?"

God looks puzzled and said "Ummm, I'm not sure. But I bet it is!"

wolfsbane wrote:

God the Father accepted that atonement and Christ rose from the dead

What do you mean "God accepted the atonement"

Jesus was God or at least part of him. At the very most he was created by God to do this. God accepted his own atonement from himself?

wolfsbane wrote:

By this act He has obtained pardon for all who repent from their sins and trust in Him.

Pardon from whom? God created Jesus and then based on the actions of Jesus, the actions that God created him for, he pardoned man kind.

As the man in the example above asked How is this any different than God simply pardoning man kind.

God might as well had said "I cannot just pardon mankind. First I will bake a cake. Then I will eat the cake. This cake will atone for mankind, and then it will be fair and just for me to pardon mankind"

Its nonsense. God makes his own atonement. Why bother?

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, God the Son died so that God the Father would forgive our sins.

God created Jesus. Jesus died, as he was supposed to. Because of this God forgave our sins. Why the middle bit? How is this different from God simply forgiving our sins?

wolfsbane wrote:

Jesus (the Son of God) offered up Himself to His Father.

Which is what God the father created him to do, and knew he would do.

wolfsbane wrote:

He did this because God is holy and could not just ignore our sins.

How is this not ignoring our sins. We don't do anything. God does everything. He creates a little bit of himself in human form. This little bit of himself then dies, as he is supposed to. Then because this little bit of God dies, as God knew he would, God forgives our sins.

God knew he was going to forgive our sins before he created Jesus. Jesus didn't convince God that he should forgive our sins. Jesus was created for the purpose of dying so our sins would be forgiven. So God knew before he created Jesus that he was going to forgive our sins.

So what is the purpose of Jesus. To say that God couldn't forgive our sins without Jesus dying is nonsense. God can do what ever he wants. To say that Jesus shouldered our sins is equally nonsense, since Jesus was God and therefore is the judge not the accused.

As I said its like God saying - First I will bake a cake. Then I will eat it (or throw it out). Then I will forgive the sins of humanity.

It is God's own actions that atone to God for our sins.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

If you want me to explain the passion of Christ without the Bible, it would be unexplainable.

I would like you to actually explain it, rather than just saying something along the lines of Well the Bible says it happened, so it must be true, which isn't an explanation.

The Bible doesn't explain it. It simply says it happened, and says that it had to happen.

Its like something out of the Simpsons. A travelling freak show comes to town and Marge says to Homer "You don't have to join a freak show simply because the opportunity presents itself", to which Homer looks blankly at Marge and simply says "Our outlook of life is very different dear".

It is the idea, presented in the Bible, that all this just had to happen this way that is nonsense.

If God wanted to forgive our sins why did he have to create a small bit of himself, send that bit to Earth to get tortured to death to have it rise back up to heaven and rejoin him. Its pointless. It cannot atone for anything because Jesus is still God, and was created for the entire purpose of dying. God knew this would happen.

Jakkass wrote:

Actually, eh... you could pop down to Extravision and rent out Passion of the Christ

But that doesn't explain it. That just repeats what the Bible says.

The explanation in the Bible is that Jesus died for our sins. That doesn't explain why Jesus had to die for our sins, or explain the nonsense of the idea that a tiny bit of God had to die so that God would/could forgive us our sins.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

God is present everywhere in the Universe and He obviously created the light beams linking the stars and galaxies to the Earth AT THE SAME TIME that He created the stars themselves so that He could display His glory to people on Earth by allowing us to observe the light from ALL of the stars and galaxies in the Universe.

You Christians are an egocentric bunch of people are you

God created entire universe, all 10+ billion light years of it, most of which cannot be seen with the naked eye (or within the visible spectrum of light) so we would have something to look at.

JC do you think there is life on other planets in the universe?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Er, no - and again I can't quite see how you come to even ask that. Some of the scientists who were interviewed for the program said that the program misrepresented their views, presenting what they had said in a form that made it seem they were saying the opposite of what they wanted to say.

Some of them, yes. But my comment relates to the interviewed scientists who stand by their rejection of man-made global warming. Seems to me they must be accorded scientific credibility.

That's misrepresentation, yes? It has no bearing on the impartiality of the scientists involved, since they were being falsely portrayed...

Yes, if they were misrepresented, I agree. I have seen such misrepresentations before by either unskilled or unscrupluous reporters. But I have also seen slimey politicians and others try to explain away what they did in fact say. I haven't looked any further into this particular event yet.

If I took what you said against evolution, and chopped it up to make it look like you supported evolution, that would be misrepresentation, but would hardly reflect on your impartiality.

Indeed.

Some links:

Evangelical Society
The Evangelical Outpost

I couldn't raise the 2nd link, but got the 1st.
I didn't see anything denial of the possibility of climate change there. Indeed, the opposite: Still, the best records available suggest that global temperatures rose slightly over the past century. However, this is hardly unusual. Global temperatures naturally change, and have done so for thousands of years before the invention of the internal combustion engine. Over just the past millennia, global temperatures swung by several degrees.

Overall, I think there is quite a lot of concern, but there is also a huge deadweight of ordinary Christians in the US who seem excessively "skeptical" - I'm not now thinking of strong voices, but rather of the commenters on others posts/blogs/news. The defence given is often that 'it is arrogant to think that we can change the world - only God can do that'.

It certainly bears no relationship to what the Bible says. Man is a polluter and destroyer when given his head. God will require an accounting for all abuses of our stewardship.

Perhaps this is rather more the crossover between conservative politics (and Fox News, and all that that implies) and evangelical religion than evangelical religion itself.

Yes, I think that likely. For example, reaction against communism can lead the unwary to idolise capitalism. Whatever the other side says, one can just have a knee-jerk reaction against it. And many genuine Christians are naive in the ways of the world, too trusting of men who present themselves as honest politicans, etc.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Some of them, yes. But my comment relates to the interviewed scientists who stand by their rejection of man-made global warming. Seems to me they must be accorded scientific credibility.

Sure. I don't have any problem with scientists who have scientific issues with anthropogenic climate change. My problem is with those who misrepresent them, or those whose views are actually non-scientific.

Say we get someone who is a professor in physical chemistry, who doesn't accept climate change, and trot them out to say they don't. It would sound impressive, and people would say "ok, he's a professor, he should know" - but physical chemistry is an industrial science more closely connected to engineering than anything else, so the professor has relatively little relevant knowledge. He may well have made his mind up from media reports, and be no better informed than the next bloke in the pub.

To some extent, there's a line of demarcation between people who have studied science, who would be aware of this, and those who haven't, to whom scientists are interchangeable experts.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, if they were misrepresented, I agree. I have seen such misrepresentations before by either unskilled or unscrupluous reporters. But I have also seen slimey politicians and others try to explain away what they did in fact say. I haven't looked any further into this particular event yet.

Here's part of Carl Wunsch's response - he is one of the scientists who claim they were misrepresented on the program.

wolfsbane wrote:

I couldn't raise the 2nd link, but got the 1st.
I didn't see anything denial of the possibility of climate change there. Indeed, the opposite: Still, the best records available suggest that global temperatures rose slightly over the past century. However, this is hardly unusual. Global temperatures naturally change, and have done so for thousands of years before the invention of the internal combustion engine. Over just the past millennia, global temperatures swung by several degrees.

Hmm. I know that such a statement doesn't immediately seem like 'denial' of climate change, but it contains one really important implied denial - "it's fine, the climate does this, it will all sort itself out".

That's what you might call 'stage 2' of the denial routine - which is the same for almost every problem.

First, you deny that there is a problem.
Second, you claim that these things 'just happen' - no-one can be to blame.
Third, you deny any involvement in the problem - there may be blame, but it doesn't attach to you.
Fourth or fifth, you accept a limited amount of blame - but other people are guiltier, and everyone is basically guilty really.
Fifth or fourth, you accept the blame, but claim it seemed reasonable at the time.

Hopefully, people will have stopped worrying about it before they actually get around to proving it was you. At all stages one should do one's best to muddy the waters, in the hope of being able to step back a stage.

wolfsbane wrote:

It certainly bears no relationship to what the Bible says. Man is a polluter and destroyer when given his head. God will require an accounting for all abuses of our stewardship.

Yes, I think that likely. For example, reaction against communism can lead the unwary to idolise capitalism. Whatever the other side says, one can just have a knee-jerk reaction against it. And many genuine Christians are naive in the ways of the world, too trusting of men who present themselves as honest politicans, etc.

I don't regard it as a specifically Christian problem. I comment in a sense because the Bible specifically says that man has this duty of care. I'm not sure what other religions' points of view on the matter would be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> I don't regard it as a specifically Christian problem. I comment in a
> sense because the Bible specifically says that man has this duty of care.

I'd be interested in hearing what text claims this duty of care.

All I'm aware of is that bit in Genesis 1:26 that says that man has "dominion" over the world, which in my experience of christianity, can be used to legitimize any activity that a self-appointed believer wants to carry out within it. But I'm not aware of any sizable group of believers who use this verse to spread the idea that the earth should be preserved, rather than controlled.

Is there another verse that's more appropriate here?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> I don't regard it as a specifically Christian problem. I comment in a
> sense because the Bible specifically says that man has this duty of care.

I'd be interested in hearing what text claims this duty of care.

All I'm aware of is that bit in Genesis 1:26 that says that man has "dominion" over the world, which in my experience of christianity, can be used to legitimize any activity that a self-appointed believer wants to carry out within it. But I'm not aware of any sizable group of believers who use this verse to spread the idea that the earth should be preserved, rather than controlled.

Is there another verse that's more appropriate here?

The following can work when put in light with the verse you quoted.

Genesis 2
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

It is one of lifes wee perplexing things that I have always wondered is why perception has Christians being right wingers who give a rats butt about the environment yet the godless lefties will tie themselves to trees?

Ahh, the hypocrisy of man. Don't you love it.

In the end we should all do our bit.

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is one of lifes wee perplexing things that I have always wondered is why perception has Christians being right wingers who give a rats butt about the environment yet the godless lefties will tie themselves to trees?

Ahh, the hypocrisy of man. Don't you love it.

I prefer the irony of you complaining that perception has Christians as right-wing and concervative....but then choosing not to compare to "the godless who are perceived as leftwing and wanting to save the planet", but rather "the leftwing godless [who] will tie themselves to trees".

Actually...maybe you're right. Maybe it is hypocrisy rather than irony. Could it be both?

Me...I don't combine someone's environmental, political and religious stances, into two neat combined categories at all.

You can be Christian, of a different faith, or godless.
You can be left- or right-wing to varying extremes (including being centreist).
You can be pro-, anti- or generally neutral on environmental issues.

None of these necessarily influence the other.

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

Genesis 2
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

But didn't he then remove man from Eden? Did he give man further instructions when being kicked out to say "and ye shall attend to this non-paradise in a similar manner" ???

Zombrex

The argument used by the American conservative Christians is that we have moved into the end times, the second coming is, er, coming so who gives a fig about global warming when the world is going to end.

Can't really argue with logic like that ....

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

But didn't he then remove man from Eden? Did he give man further instructions when being kicked out to say "and ye shall attend to this non-paradise in a similar manner" ???

Actually, I was thinking of God giving man "dominion over all the earth" - Genesis 1:26. Dominion (or rule) to me implies the duty of care.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, I was thinking of God giving man "dominion over all the earth" - Genesis 1:26.

Aye - the quote originally from robindch, which BC was responding to.

Dominion (or rule) to me implies the duty of care.

Fair enough. I would differ, in that I would say a tyrant has dominion over his domain just as much as a benevolent dictator does.

Indeed, I would go further and say that "dominion" has more in common with "dominate" then anything else. The quote, to me, suggests that man was made the material ruler of earth. It does not imply at all how that rule should be carried out.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

Aye - the quote originally from robindch, which BC was responding to.


Fair enough. I would differ, in that I would say a tyrant has dominion over his domain just as much as a benevolent dictator does.

Indeed, I would go further and say that "dominion" has more in common with "dominate" then anything else. The quote, to me, suggests that man was made the material ruler of earth. It does not imply at all how that rule should be carried out.

Well, I would presume that as a Christian believes that God is good, then He cannot have intended man's dominion to be evil. That He as tyrant should hand over to man as tyrant is, I think, an atheist perspective, and rather irrelevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote:

I prefer the irony of you complaining that perception has Christians as right-wing and concervative....but then choosing not to compare to "the godless who are perceived as leftwing and wanting to save the planet", but rather "the leftwing godless [who] will tie themselves to trees"..

Don't quite get you here. But like your term the godless who are perceived as leftwing and wanting to save the planet

bonkey wrote:

Actually...maybe you're right. Maybe it is hypocrisy rather than irony. Could it be both?.

Could be both.

bonkey wrote:

Me...I don't combine someone's environmental, political and religious stances, into two neat combined categories at all..

Nor do I.

bonkey wrote:

You can be Christian, of a different faith, or godless.
You can be left- or right-wing to varying extremes (including being centreist).
You can be pro-, anti- or generally neutral on environmental issues.

None of these necessarily influence the other.

I admit, I at one time in my life thought that they would influence one another. Maybe I have grown up a bit.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

The argument used by the American conservative Christians is that we have moved into the end times, the second coming is, er, coming so who gives a fig about global warming when the world is going to end.

Can't really argue with logic like that ....

Then whack them with the idea that God wants us to care for the planet, as no one knows the time of the end.

Arm yourselves with the word.:D

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Then whack them with the idea that God wants us to care for the planet, as no one knows the time of the end.

Arm yourselves with the word.:D

Sure. Add in the parable of the talents, with the earth considered as a talent. We'll be in a much worse position than the lazy servant who was only able to return the single talent he'd been given...

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

Please warn me if this has been mentioned already, it may be worthwhile to discuss some of the theories that Christian philosophers have come up in relation to proving Gods existence.
St Thomas Aquinas came up with 5 proofs for the existence of God.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Please warn me if this has been mentioned already, it may be worthwhile to discuss some of the theories that Christian philosophers have come up in relation to proving Gods existence.
St Thomas Aquinas came up with 5 proofs for the existence of God.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html

I think we may have done. We certainly went over the ontological proof, but I don't know if we covered all five.

I was going to say that the thread isn't really about the existence of God as such, but it often is...

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Here's part of Carl Wunsch's response - he is one of the scientists who claim they were misrepresented on the program.

Yes, a good example of what I was saying. I note both the Prof's assertion that he was misrepresented and the response by Dr. John Ray, in which he says he can't see how. Others suggest the Prof is just trying to avoid the heat (excuse pun!). I'm inclined to side with the Prof, but again I haven't diligently investigated his complaint.

Hmm. I know that such a statement doesn't immediately seem like 'denial' of climate change, but it contains one really important implied denial - "it's fine, the climate does this, it will all sort itself out".

We may be talking a cross-purposes. I'm saying they do not deny climate change, not that they deny man as the significant cause of it.

That's what you might call 'stage 2' of the denial routine - which is the same for almost every problem.

First, you deny that there is a problem.
Second, you claim that these things 'just happen' - no-one can be to blame.
Third, you deny any involvement in the problem - there may be blame, but it doesn't attach to you.
Fourth or fifth, you accept a limited amount of blame - but other people are guiltier, and everyone is basically guilty really.
Fifth or fourth, you accept the blame, but claim it seemed reasonable at the time.

Hopefully, people will have stopped worrying about it before they actually get around to proving it was you. At all stages one should do one's best to muddy the waters, in the hope of being able to step back a stage.

Yes, if they really believe man is the cause of Global Warming, then they are being deceptive. But if they really believe he is not, then they are being honest. They may of course still be mistaken.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Okay, watch. I will be as removed as possible.

First, let me support what Scofflaw said:

Just in case you feel that this post got ignored - it's an excellent summary. Thanks!

It was a big help in understanding your position.

Step 1. There appears to be some scientists who disagree on evolution, a very small fraction that falls outside acceptable p-values for a conclusion.
I would hence rule out the disagreement based on this

I would caution that such an approach may exclude any unpopular but neverless ultimately to be vindicated position.

and the fact that actual peer review articles against evolution are incredibly rare.

The difficulty here is the Catch-22: being Creationist, most scientific presentations are rejected out of hand. They are treated as non-science and not to be given credibility by review.

The global warming case is not similar because the disagreement is well within acceptable p-values.

I'm not sure of what you mean by p-values here, as I gather the calculation of a p-value is based on the assumption that a finding is the product of chance alone (Wiki). What that has to do with the probability of an argument being true or not dependant on the number of scientists holding it, eludes me.

On this same basis I would rule out light superpartners in physics, even though some claim they exist, they are extremely small in number.

OK, I get you to mean small number of adherents = false beliefs. Statistically that may well be the best bet, but not a certainty.

However let's say I'm more lenient than usual and allow the disagreement because our origins are important, then I move to step 2.

Step 2. The majority of claims are written from a non-scientific perspective and involve an awful lot of "spin" and distortions of what the actual scientific theories say. If somebody criticises a caricature of a scientific theory, rather than the theory itself then they are not worth listening to.

I agree. I am ruling out all religious commentary on the Creation/Evolution debate. I don't expect a scientific debate on that. I do expect it on the scientific case made by scientists in rejection of evolution.

However let's say I'm even more lenient and assume that these people are cranks that actually don't represent proper thought that's critical of evolution.
I then move on to step 3.

Fine.

Step 3. Now, I'm looking at the well written criticisms of evolution that actually deal with the theory itself. These divide into two broad classes.
The first class is those who think that evolution is only part of the history of biological organisms and that there is a second mechanism that is equally important that we haven't found yet. They form 95% of this group. I'll leave them for now because they aren't related to what we're talking about, but I can speak about them if anybody wishes.

Yes, the Theistic Evolutionists are Evolutionists.

The remaining 5% are Creationists. I'll turn to step 4 to deal with this group.

Step 4. Now we have the Creationists who write decent material against evolution. I've given criticisms of their writings in several places so I won't go into here. Instead I'll mention something else. This group also appears to have problems with the Big Bang and abiogenesis.

Yes.

All of which are from completely unrelated fields.
Big Bang is from Cosmology.
Abiogenesis is from Chemistry.
Finally Evolution itself is from Biology.

Now, these three separate theories which stand independently of each other. Any two could be proven wrong without effecting the third. However the seem to be lumped together in Creationist literature as one single entity. Particularly Abiogenesis and Evolution get put together as molecules-to-man.

I agree, one can isolate evolution from them, as the Theistic Evolutionists do. But when it comes to materialistic/atheistic evolution, then these (especially abiogenesis) are key objections. Evolution is only the end result of the whole process. If the process is shown to be impossible before biological evolution kicks in, then it too is bogus.

Okay why does this group have a problem with three unrelated theories.
(The Big Bang is especially, in fact completely unrelated to the last two.)

I agree the Big Bang is sort of a red herring - depends on what is meant by it. The act of Creation of the universe is described:
Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God the LORD,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it,
Who gives breath to the people on it,
And spirit to those who walk on it:
That implies an expansion process in getting the stars where they are, rather than an in situ creation.

It turns out that this group consists entirely of fundamentalist Christians and all these theories go against their preferred reading of their holy book.

More than Christians reject evolution.

This extremely suspicious and remember I've already been overly lenient twice.

Unnaturally suspicious, rather. And not too lenient, as I've indicated. But caution is good, provided it doesn't lead to paralysis.

Let me give you a hypothetical example in reverse.
Imagine there was the possibility of making a drug from a plant I'll call the ABC plant. 99.95% of scientists are of the opinion that this drug can be manufactured from the plant, given enough R&D.
Upon reading the literature I find there is a small group, 0.05% of scientists (just on the p-value), who say this won't work. I read up on them and find out that they are all from culture X. In culture X this plant has always been considered harmful. I would suspect they are not being honest in their judgement.

A reasonable suspicion.

I then find out they also write papers criticising other areas which disagree with their culture. Not only that, but they lump all the areas together as if they are one consistent whole.

Should everyone not be free to comment on any aspect of their culture? And if they perceive a connection between this drug and, say, mental illness in its effect in their community, why should they not mention it? You might insist the mental illess issue is unrelated, but that is part of the debate.

What you should not do is deny there is a debate, nor accuse these scientists of being non-scientists and their objections as personal opinions rather than science. If you did, I would properly suspect you had something to hide (shares in the drug company?) or some religious or philosopical position that must be defended regardless of the facts.

The fact that there is a dispute is not enough for the opposing opinion to be considered.
The opposing opinion must have:
1. A decent number of proponents.

Creationism has that. Not a few crazies, but men of reputation and learning.

2. A well founded literature

They have that, only it is classed as non-literature because it is Creationist.

3. Not be based around a culture which requires the opposing opinion to be true.

I assume you mean false (or by opposing opinion you refer to the minority position). I wouldn't let that stop me from considering anyone's position. It is either in line with the facts or it is not. If they believe they have some other non-scientific support for their position that makes them certain of their case, that is nothing to me. I want to hear their case.

I'd be willing to allow an opinion away with one of these, but not all three together.

Hopefully, I have reduced the incredulity of Creationism's argument for you. I'm not expecting to have convinced you of its case, just that it is one that deserves a scientific hearing.

J C

Son Goku
Step 1. There appears to be some scientists who disagree on evolution, a very small fraction that falls outside acceptable p-values for a conclusion.

The vast majority of scientists could be described as ‘Passive Evolutionists’ – i.e. they assume that the Evolutionist Biologists who have studied the subject are correct, in their ASSERTIONS.

However, only a tiny minority of scientists are ‘Committed Evolutionists” – i.e. they have an a priori commitment to Evolution - and this minority is so numerically small that would also fall outside an acceptable p-value !!!!!:D


Son Goku
Step 2. The majority of claims are written from a non-scientific perspective and involve an awful lot of "spin" and distortions of what the actual scientific theories say.

The obvious invalidity of ‘big picture Evolution’ refutes your claim of ‘spin’!!!!:eek:


Son Goku
Step 3. Now, I'm looking at the well written criticisms of evolution that actually deal with the theory itself. These divide into two broad classes.
The first class is those who think that evolution is only part of the history of biological organisms and that there is a second mechanism that is equally important that we haven't found yet. They form 95% of this group.

……as Evolution is incapable of increasing genetic information – I suppose Evolutionists have to ‘clutch at straws’ such as a belief in “a second mechanism that is equally important that we haven't found yet”!!!!

…….dream on!!!!!:D


Son Goku
Step 4. Now we have the Creationists who write decent material against evolution. I've given criticisms of their writings in several places so I won't go into here. Instead I'll mention something else. This group also appears to have problems with the Big Bang and abiogenesis. All of which are from completely unrelated fields.
Big Bang is from Cosmology.
Abiogenesis is from Chemistry.
Finally Evolution itself is from Biology.

The Creation scientists who “write decent material against evolution” also write decent material against the Spontaneous Generation of life and the validity of The Big Bang.

They also produce decent evidence in favour of Direct Creation!!!:D


Son Goku
The fact that there is a dispute is not enough for the opposing opinion to be considered.
The opposing opinion must have:
1. A decent number of proponents.
2. A well founded literature
3. Not be based around a culture which requires the opposing opinion to be true.

I'd be willing to allow an opinion away with one of these, but not all three together.

Your proposed test has just invalidated Evolution ……
……although “a decent number” of LEADING scientists may BELIEVE in Evolution, it fails the other two tests in that it DOESN’T have a well founded (scientific) literature and it is based around an Evolutionist culture that a priori requires it to be true!!!

On the other hand, Creation has “a decent number” of LEADING scientists who are proponents and it also comes with a well founded scientific literature, with practically all of the ‘fathers of modern science’ being Creationists.
So, even on your terms, Creationism is actually a more valid alternative than Evolutionism!!!!!!!:cool:


Son Goku
perhaps you can explain why the light shows signs of weakening if it has really travelled far less of a distance than we think.

The Sun’s light, that reaches the Earth, is seriously ‘weakened’ by diffusion over a distance of only 8.6 LIGHT MINUTES!!!!!

Just imagine what would happen to sunlight diffused over a distance of even one LIGHT YEAR!!!!:D


Originally Posted by Wolfsbane
No, I wasn't asking that. I was asking for evidence that, for instance, a bacteria changed into a non-bacteria.

Wicknight
Why? Such a mutation would be so rare in nature that it would not concern modern medicine.

Such a ‘mutation’ would be 'so rare in nature’ that it would NEVER happen – and THAT is (one of the reasons) why ‘Molecules to Man Evolution’ has NEVER happened!!!:D


Wicknight
If a small dish of algae cells can mutate into a multicellular lifeform with a few days, what do you think a trillion cells spread out over the surface of the Earth can do in 2 billion years?

Algae freely change or 'mutate' between single cell AND filamentous forms – but that ISN’T Evolution - it is the use of high quality PRE-EXISTING Complex Specified Genetic Information!!!!!

A tadpole will freely change or ‘mutate’ into a frog over a few weeks – but equally this ISN’T Evolution – it is the use of high quality PRE-EXISTING Complex Specified Genetic Information!!!!!

A foetus will freely change or ‘mutate’ into a newborn baby over a few months – but again this ISN’T Evolution - it is the use of high quality PRE-EXISTING Complex Specified Genetic Information!!!!!:D


Wicknight
God created Jesus. Jesus died, as he was supposed to. Because of this God forgave our sins. Why the middle bit? How is this different from God simply forgiving our sins?

The reason for the ‘middle bit’ is because God’s perfect justice demands that we atone for our sins.

…….. God’s holiness means that He can’t just ignore our sin nor can He, in justice, forgive our sin without proper reparation - but Humans are unable make proper reparation for sin.

………and so the only way that God could reconcile His perfect love with His perfect justice and holiness was to sacrifice HIMSELF to forgive our sin.

God didn’t create Jesus – God WAS Jesus!!!
…..and so God took on our Human Nature (and died in atonement for our sins) so that we might be reconciled to Him.

The fact that Jesus was God meant that He knew that He was going to rise again – but because He was Man He directly experienced ALL of the psychological and physical pain of the Human condition during His crucifixion.

What is amazing is that God loved you and me so much that He humbled Himself to atone for our sins and to save us – and all we have to do is to believe on Him.:cool:


Wicknight
It is God's own actions that atone to God for our sins.

Got it in one, Wicknight!!!!:D

……..what is amazing however, is that the Creator God of the entire Universe, PERSONALLY loves an unworthy sinner like me so much, that He bothered!!!!!


Wicknight
God created entire universe, all 10+ billion light years of it, most of which cannot be seen with the naked eye (or within the visible spectrum of light) so we would have something to look at.

The Heavens do indeed declare the glory of God – and that also includes celestial objects within the invisible electromagnetic spectrum!!!!:D


Wicknight
JC do you think there is life on other planets in the universe?

Close encounters of the first, second and third kinds do occur – but, on balance, I don’t think that there is life on other planets in the Universe.


Bonkey
I would go further and say that "dominion" has more in common with "dominate" then anything else. The quote, to me, suggests that man was made the material ruler of earth. It does not imply at all how that rule should be carried out.

God is a God of moderation – He doesn’t want us to go ‘tree hugging’ nor does He want us to gratuitously pollute the Planet, either.

God gave us everything, from sex and food, to coal and oil for our USE – but NOT for our abuse.

Dominion implies the RESPONSIBLE and INTELLIGENT use of the Earth’s resources, and with considerable personal discretion as to how each person does so.:D

Son Goku

I'm not sure of what you mean by p-values here, as I gather the calculation of a p-value is based on the assumption that a finding is the product of chance alone (Wiki). What that has to do with the probability of an argument being true or not dependant on the number of scientists holding it, eludes me.

It's a very general statement. I should say the general values for applicable n-tests, depending on what table I'm using, but I really don't want to go into the details (It's boringly detailed, never read statistics ). p-value sums up what I mean quickly in intent, but not in technicality.

I would caution that such an approach may exclude any unpopular but neverless ultimately to be vindicated position.

True. The whole point is that 99.95% of the time I'll be right. I remind you that accepting scientific theories is largely statistical. Don't try to see my arguments in an absolute light as they don't hold up in that regard.

OK, I get you to mean small number of adherents = false beliefs. Statistically that may well be the best bet, but not a certainty.

No, no. Small number of adherents = argument very likely to be flawed, not always but most of the time.
In science, whenever the number of adherents passes below a certain number and stays beneath that number for five decades, in 99.95% of cases it will be incorrect and never vindicate itself.
Example: I'd say it's very unlikely that the tides will turn and all Quantum Mechanical phenomena will once again be explained by Newtonian Physics. I could be wrong, but it is unlikely.


Remember this is more a general statistical argument for ruling out creationism.

Yes, the Theistic Evolutionists are Evolutionists.

Funnily enough, they're not the group I was talking about. This is a very small group that holds there is a hidden mechanism that we haven't found yet.

I agree, one can isolate evolution from them, as the Theistic Evolutionists do. But when it comes to materialistic/atheistic evolution, then these (especially abiogenesis) are key objections. Evolution is only the end result of the whole process. If the process is shown to be impossible before biological evolution kicks in, then it too is bogus.

Alright, but materialistic/atheistic evolution isn't really "evolution the scientific theory". Abiogenesis could be completely incorrect and evolution could still work given single-celled organisms. If your doing a scientific criticism you can't link them like that, as tempting as it might be.

More than Christians reject evolution.

They were ruled out in step 2, I've never seen those groups mount an undistorted criticism.

Should everyone not be free to comment on any aspect of their culture?

Yes they should. I'm only saying why they are likely to be wrong.

Creationism has that. Not a few crazies, but men of reputation and learning.

It isn't enough. I know this might seem harsh, but if I allowed it to be enough, I'd have to allow a lot of other things that I'd be very dubious of. (Non-Turing computing being an example.)

They have that, only it is classed as non-literature because it is Creationist.

Looking at Creationist Cosmology, I have read all I could find. I even e-mailed Answers in Genesis for material. There's only really five papers and none of them contain Tensors, which are needed for modern cosmology.

I assume you mean false (or by opposing opinion you refer to the minority position).

Sorry, I mean the later.

I wouldn't let that stop me from considering anyone's position.

It doesn't stop me from considering their opinion. Again I'd allow it on its own, but not combined with the other two. Even with the other two I'd still be able to consider it.


Perhaps a better example than my plant one, would be the physicists who think classical physics will once again explain all Quantum Mechanical phenomena. I'm capable of considering their argument (You'd have to, most of them know their classical physics extremely well and you have to really think about what they're saying). I've even debated these people in a thread which is about half the length of this thread. However they are still a very small group, their papers are small in number and they often hold to the philosophy of determinism. This leads me to be suspicious. Combined with the fact that all other research scientists say QM is supported by experiment and CM isn't, this makes me rule it out.
I could be wrong but I doubt it.


I'll see what you make of this. I hope you see I'm not being overly unreasonable.

Bear in mind though, this is a statistical argument and I intend none of my arguments to read in an absolute manner. In a scientific sense I can never reduce to zero the chance that the world was created 6,000 years ago.

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

The Sun’s light, that reaches the Earth, is seriously ‘weakened’ by diffusion over a distance of only 8.6 LIGHT MINUTES!!!!!

You may be thinking of the spreading effect...

JC wrote:

Just imagine what would happen to sunlight diffused over a distance of even one LIGHT YEAR!!!!

It's not necessary to imagine. Those little twinkly things up in the sky are "stars", which are "suns that are far away", indeed more than 4 light years in every case.

We look at them through devices we call "telescopes", which make distant things seem closer - so we can actually find out the answer to your question!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Creationism has that. Not a few crazies, but men of reputation and learning.

Very few are in the field that they express Creationists ideas about though (example a theoretical physicist stating that biological evolution is impossible), and very very few who are not devoutly Christian. And how many have actually done scientific research that is both repeatable and peer-reviewed on the theory of Biblical Creationism or Intelligent Design? I would imagine I could count them on my left hand. Compare that with the millions of scientists that do scientific research based on evolutionary theory every day.

wolfsbane wrote:

They have that, only it is classed as non-literature because it is Creationist.

In 2005 Michael Behe, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, admitted at the Dover trail that so far no intelligent design theory had ever been published in a scientific peer review journal.

The trial the judge (not a member of the scientific community, but a independent judge) commented that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing. At the trial the supporters of intelligent design cited only one paper that didn't even mention intelligent design. Behe said "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."

Despite this sworn testimony the Discovery Institute continued to publically lie and state that Intelligent Design is backed by proper scientific peer reviewed research.

A conspiracy you say! Scientists won't let any papers into their journals that mention intelligent design or Creationism?

Well how many Creationist scientific peer review journals are there? (hint Answers in Genesis isn't one). How many scientific papers have been submitted and rejected. Can I read them anyway?

If Creationists are really "doing science" to support this idea of theirs then there should be a mountain of scientific papers to read, even if based on your conspiricy, none of them are getting into the scientific journals. Where are they?

wolfsbane wrote:

I assume you mean false (or by opposing opinion you refer to the minority position).

No he means falsiability.

Can a Creationists Scientists put forward a paper that states that God didn't create life on Earth, that nothing in the Bible is true, and that Intelligent Design doesn't work and have said paper taken seriously by any of the major Creationists groups? Of course not. The answer is no, because the axion of Creationism is religious faith, not science.

Creationists are starting from the position that their initial assumption (God created the world as described in the Bible) cannot, and will never be shown to be false. Therefore anything that does cast doubt on it is wrong, even if you don't know why it is wrong, and should be discarded.

As Dawkins often points out in science if the evidence contradicts your theory then your theory is wrong and needs to be updated, as has happened to the theory of evolution (and every other scientific theory) thousands of times in the last 150 years. But in Creationism if the evidence contradicts your theory then the evidence is wrong and should be ignored because the theory that God created the world as describe in the Bible cannot be wrong or even slightly incorrect.

This is not science, it is religious arrogance.

wolfsbane wrote:

Hopefully, I have reduced the incredulity of Creationism's argument for you. I'm not expecting to have convinced you of its case, just that it is one that deserves a scientific hearing.

Wolfsbane it is the Creationists that skip around scientific standards. No one is stopping them having a scientific hearing, but they don't have the science to back up what they are claiming, and they know it.

Long ago on this thread I asked yourself and JC for peer reviewed scientific papers outlining any of the theories you are talking about. I didn't even require that they were peer-reviewed in established scientific journals (since you claim there is a conspiricy against Creationists), peer reviewed in Creationists journals would be enough.

I got nothing back.

Well I got a lot of links to Answers In Genesis which isn't peer reviewed nor is it a scientific journal. After a lot of flustering JC pointed me to Google :rolleyes:

The simple fact of the matter is that Creationists don't do science. They don't do science because science doesn't help them in their religious cause.

If someone has been telling you Wolfsbane that Creationists do real science they have either been lying to you or they themselves don't understand what science actually is.