The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

philologos

Humans are much more than merely soul. However to nourish ones soul I hear the Bible is good makes a lot of sense too if you give it a legitimate chance.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Humans are much more than merely soul. However to nourish ones soul I hear the Bible is good makes a lot of sense too if you give it a legitimate chance.

Which part?

I'm being semi-serious. I am constantly being told that if I just read the Bible I would understand all the wonderful stuff God has for us. But the thing is I have read the Bible. And it is full of some pretty horrible stuf.

So I suppose I am rather confuse about what theists such as yourself are actually reading, which bits jump out at you as being good for the soul. Do you just take the tiny bit where Jesus is saying nice things about loving thy enemy and neighbor and ignore the rest?

philologos

I take the whole Bible into account, Old and New Testaments, and my conclusion so far (although I haven't read all the books) is that God is a loving and caring individual. What you are finding sinister (most likely in sections of the Old Testament) was God's punishment on the people of Israel for disobeying him. However you fail to take into account how they prospered when they obeyed him and showed him love. He gave them love and gratitude in return. e.g Victories against enemies, faithful leaders and kings such as David, and initially Solomon until he rejected the Lord. No I don't pick and mix religion, I find that God exists through what he did throughout the Bible.

wolfsbane

Jakass said:

Just to bring this back to prophecy. I only really expect Christians to answer this question, but do you think that there are prophets among us today?

No. Because it was a foundational ministry, like that of apostle. They gave the church all it needed to be established and the teaching it needed to continue. After that the other non-foundational and non-sign gifts continued. Any today who claim to be apostles or prophets are deluded - and have often been proved to be so, when not actually deceivers. So with the Signs and Wonders Movement, Copeland, Hagan, Wimber, etc.

That said, God reveals to His servants the teachings and directions He wants them to show His flock. This is where the word of God is preached by men burdened by the message God has given them. The Holy Spirit moves them to preach and teach from the Bible the message God wants His people to hear at that particular time.

Dave!

I don't think infanticide can be justified because from time to time god shows his gentler side.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

There exists no nuclear pathway to iron through non weak force scattering, only the weak force will allow these transitions. The weak force doesn't come into existence until high energy densities, which are found in Stars and very heavy atomic nuclei.

Only Stars maintain the energy density.

Thanks for that. It was what I was looking for, a scientific explanation for the need of iron to be star-forged.

Now if I may point out the presumption underlying pH's problem:

I'm still waiting for J C (or indeed any other creationist) to explain scientifically the presence of Iron (or indeed any star-forged element) on earth.

Son Goku has given us the explanation required if the universe has only a materialist origin. That's fine.

But pH is objecting to the creationist giving any other scientific explanation, on the basis that immediate creation cannot be scientific. The reality is that immediate creation is just as scientific as any model science can come up with for ultimate origins. God did it is just as valid as it just happened. Iron was created immediately or it was derived from material that was either always there/came into existence immediately. If we want to say the origin of the universe is beyond scientific assessment, OK. But then we cannot rule out immediate creation as the origin of iron yet hold to star-forging as scientific.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I take the whole Bible into account, Old and New Testaments, and my conclusion so far (although I haven't read all the books) is that God is a loving and caring individual.

What parts make you think he is a loving and caring individual? Seriously, this is a genuine question.

Jakkass wrote:

What you are finding sinister (most likely in sections of the Old Testament) was God's punishment on the people of Israel for disobeying him. However you fail to take into account how they prospered when they obeyed him and showed him love.

I don't "fail" to take that into account Jakkass. Because they prospered (which means destroyed their enemies and took their land) under God doesnt in my opinion make anything less "sinister" as you put it. I see nothing in that that inspires my soul to think anything beyond please God and he will reward you, piss off God and he will destroy you and probably the people standing next to you.

Fear of unimaginable suffering isn't exactly chicken soup for my soul. But as I said above if there are passages or stories that show God's sensitive side in the Old Testament that I'm just missing please tell me.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

But pH is objecting to the creationist giving any other scientific explanation, on the basis that immediate creation cannot be scientific. The reality is that immediate creation is just as scientific as any model science can come up with for ultimate origins.

Alright, as it stands I am saying the only way an old universe could give rise to iron is through the reactions in stellar cores. However as that stands, even accepting an ancient universe, it would also have the problem that maybe there used to be other objects that aren't around anymore which could have made the iron.

What suggests more strongly that it's Stars, is the following. The main model of the solar systems formation is that it was a standard nebula collapsing to a star. A mostly pure hydrogen nebula, however it would have to have been forced into collapse by a nearby supernova. Simulations suggest it would have to have been several supernova. Still none of this suggests anything as it models what would be required.
In the kinds of Stars the model suggests we find a X amount of heavy elements is given out by the supernova and upon colliding with a nebula like the one which formed the Sun, it would dump a certain percentage of X into the nebula. If we knew how big X was would could see if our models are right by substituting for X and working out the percentage left behind in the nebula.
We are capable, by using stellar spectroscopy, to analyse the elements contained in Stars. When we analyse the type of stars that cause supernova, we find that for them X has a certain value. Putting this back into the model it says the solar system should have this much iron, this much uranium, e.t.c.

Those amounts are what we find in the Solar System. Not only that but the original ratios are preserved.
i.e., when we look at huge stars their Iron:Uranium:Iridium:........ ratios are the same as the Iron:Uranium:Iridium:........ ratios of the Solar System.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

The reality is that immediate creation is just as scientific as any model science can come up with for ultimate origins.

How is that a valid scientific model? For a start you don't have a model of any kind, either mathematical or observational. You can't say how God did this or what he did. You cannot model this in any way. You also can't test it in anyway.

If you think this is a scientifically valid as something like the Big Bang you understand very little about science.

wolfsbane wrote:

God did it is just as valid as it just happened.

Neither of those are valid from a scientific point of view. Science has never said "it just happened"

wolfsbane wrote:

But then we cannot rule out immediate creation as the origin of iron yet hold to star-forging as scientific.

Actually we can, and we do.

The universe can be modelled quite well right back to the singularity at the heart of the big bang. At this point no valid information from "before" that exists in this universe so we cannot, and possible never will, understand what happened before it or where it came from (this also means we cannot say it "just happened" or that it came from "nothing" as Creationist like to claim the scientific explanation is)

If you want to say God lives in the singularity, or before the singularity, science isn't going to stop you.

But we can say that iron didn't just appear out of nothing a few thousand years ago. We can say this because we have a quite detailed model predicting how it would happen and what would be produced, a model that matches what we observe to have been produced.

If if God did do this, magically produce iron out of nothing, he went to a heck of a lot of trouble to set up all the law of chemistry and physics to make it look like he didn't just produce it out of nothing.

Why produce iron on Earth out of nothing and then go to great lengths to structure the laws of the universe so that it looks like the iron on Earth was produced in a star a few billion years ago? It would be like driving from Dublin to Shannon but booking a whole lot of plane tickets across Asia and America to make it look like you went around the other way. It doesn't make sense. If God magically produced iron in the way you said he did God is basically lying to us by structuring the nature of the entire universe to fit a model that would produce iron naturally over a long period of time. Why would he do this?

If immediate creation is actually what happened then God is going to a lot of trouble to lie to us and make it look like this isn't what happened. To second guess everything in science by saying "how do we know God isn't lying to us about this" makes little sense. The much more logical and rational conclusion is that things actually are how they appear to be and that God isn't lying to us.

pH

wolfsbane wrote:

The reality is that immediate creation is just as scientific as any model science can come up with for ultimate origins. God did it is just as valid as it just happened.

As SG explains the scientific explanation is not "it just happened", it is a reasoned explanation of the process by which elements that were not formed in the initial big bang are created. This 'theory' is backed by experiment and observation. The real problem with this is that for us to find iron on our planet the iron must have been forged in a star which then went supernova and spread these newly forged element out. This process takes billions of years.

Sure there's another explanation that God magically created every atom of iron (and all the other elements) and placed every one in its place on this planet, and somehow made it all look like it has happened through a natural process, so we have a God that loves finely detailed work and has a sense of humour, but "God did it" is only a valid explanation if you accept it as a valid answer for every possible question about our physical world.

In fact, there must be a lovely analogy to the "argument from design" in all of this. If you find a sandwich on your table when you return home, would you immediately assume that God made it? And if someone then entered the kitchen as told you that your "God done it" claim was silly and in all likelihood it was your wife that made it, would you reject it by saying that "fine, if you only accept that the sandwich in question has a materialistic origin".

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Thanks for that. It was what I was looking for, a scientific explanation for the need of iron to be star-forged.

Now if I may point out the presumption underlying pH's problem:
Son Goku has given us the explanation required if the universe has only a materialist origin. That's fine.

Hmm. I sense a small verbal spin in there - "the explanation required if". Rather subtly, you are implying that the explanation is there to 'paper over the cracks'.

wolfsbane wrote:

But pH is objecting to the creationist giving any other scientific explanation, on the basis that immediate creation cannot be scientific. The reality is that immediate creation is just as scientific as any model science can come up with for ultimate origins. God did it is just as valid as it just happened.

As so often, you quote your side correctly, while misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint.

Your explanation for iron is that "God did it". The opposing explanation is not "it just happened" as you imply, now is it? Instead there's a theory that correctly predicts observation - once again, this is not something your "God did it" can offer, and is the reason it is not scientific.

As to ultimate origins, the two explanations are, respectively, "God did it", and "we don't know, and may never know". One is a confident assertion, the other an admission of ignorance. Importantly, an admission of ignorance is not the same thing as an explanation, so comparing their validity as explanations is an exercise in futility or falsehood.

wolfsbane wrote:

Iron was created immediately or it was derived from material that was either always there/came into existence immediately. If we want to say the origin of the universe is beyond scientific assessment, OK. But then we cannot rule out immediate creation as the origin of iron yet hold to star-forging as scientific.

Once again, you have jumped quickly from the uncertainty over the origin of the universe to imply that exactly the same lack of knowledge applies to stellar iron formation. This is incorrect.

The theory of stellar iron formation is scientific for the same reasons anything is scientific - it is logically rigorous, and has testable implications. Even if God created the universe, stellar iron formation can still be true - in which context it becomes an examination of God's methods.

Every scientific theory can still be tenable in a created universe - even evolution, even abiogenesis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

The reality is that immediate creation is just as scientific as any model science can come up with for ultimate origins.

Afraid not.

God did it is just as valid as it just happened.

Well, yes, if "it just happened" was the scientific explanation.

However, the scientific explanation offers a testable, falsifiable model for why it happened. It makes testable predictions other then the existence of iron.

"God did it" requires a reliance on a non-falsifiable, non-testable model which offers no other predictions. Ergo, it is by definition a non-scientific explanation.

Also relevant is that its not just that the explanation is that "God did it", but rather that "God did it, and made it look exactly like it would have had it come from an old universe based on a scientific model". Strangely, when we take that explanation and go back to science not professing to be truth, but rather professing to be a system of accurately modelling observations....the "God did it" explanation says that the scientific model is correct!!!

If we want to say the origin of the universe is beyond scientific assessment, OK.

Science doesn't rule out that the universe is a complex computer simulation, started nano-seconds ago made to look exactly like a universe formed billions of years ago from an expansionary model with electro-weak symmetry breaking.

It doesn't rule out that God made the universe 6000 years ago made to look exactly like a universe formed billions of years ago from an expansionary model with electro-weak symmetry breaking.

It doesn't rule out any of the infinite number of possibilities of how a universe could come about, where that universe is indistinguishable from...well...you get the picture.

This, unfortunately, is the problem with accepting the argument that the scientific model is valid, but that God still did it 6000 years ago. It actually opens up more possibilities for the origins of the universe, whilst getting rid of the one line of reasoning (science is wrong) that Creationists attempt to use to give their argument credibility other than the correctness of the bible.

Once you accept that the universe looks like what the scientific model says, then the only reason you;re left with to believe otherwise is because its written in the bible. Thats reasonable enough for the faithful, I guess, but it would also mean that all of the so-called creationist science is - by default - hokum. Hardly an endorsement that shows creationists in a good light.

Fallen Seraph

Jakkass wrote:

I take the whole Bible into account, Old and New Testaments, and my conclusion so far (although I haven't read all the books) is that God is a loving and caring individual. What you are finding sinister (most likely in sections of the Old Testament) was God's punishment on the people of Israel for disobeying him. However you fail to take into account how they prospered when they obeyed him and showed him love. He gave them love and gratitude in return. e.g Victories against enemies, faithful leaders and kings such as David, and initially Solomon until he rejected the Lord. No I don't pick and mix religion, I find that God exists through what he did throughout the Bible.

Indeed, if I might just quibble on this point also; how is God being loving to everyone when he's smiting the enemies of the Israelites and playing favourites? I really don't get that part? I genuinely don't understand the logic of him being loving yet indiscriminately killing and damning people because they're "not worthy".

philologos

If you had read the Old Testament yourself, you would find that they fought their enemies because they rejected the Lord and praised false idols such as Ba'al and Asherah. We as humans were judged directly for our sins at that time, until Jesus gave his life for them. They died because the Lord didn't want his people to be practising the same things that the people of Caanan were practising. It wasn't hatred of foreigners infact foreigners were welcomed to pray. Solomon prayed to the Lord and asked him to hear the prayers of foreigners. The Lord said in Leviticus and Exodus "Do not ill-treat foreigners, treat them as your fellow Israelite".

Shouldn't this discussion be taking place on the Bible, Prophecy and Creationism thread. or on the Bible Accuracy thread?

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

I take the whole Bible into account, Old and New Testaments, and my conclusion so far (although I haven't read all the books) is that God is a loving and caring individual.

Then can you explain 2 Kings 2:23-24, that verse has always confused me.

kmick

No one in this world who has any sort of rational thought process can deny the possibilty of evolution. Its so genius it can only have been thought up by God.

robindch

> If you had read the Old Testament yourself

Have a read of the following article:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=189

which lists, in detail, some of the old testament's ethical imperatives.

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

The reality is that immediate creation is just as scientific as any model science can come up with for ultimate origins. God did it is just as valid as it just happened.

Do you understand the epistemological concept of parsimony? It is the one principle upon which all reductionist thought, and therefore science, is based.

If you insist that "God did it" is as useful as "it just happened" (which is of course to say that it happend within the understood or understandable rules of a natural universe) then you ipso facto depart from the scientific method.

Please do some reading in epistemology, or leave discussion of what constitutes a scientific idea to those who know what they are talking about.

philologos

You all fail to look into other aspects of how God is treating the people who follow him.

Leviticus 19:9-10 wrote:

When you harvest your fields, do not cut the corn at the edges of the fields, and do not go back to cut the ears of corn that were left. Do not go back through your vineyard to gather the grapes that were missed or to pick up the grapes that have fallen, leave them for poor people and foreigners. I am the Lord your God.

What kind of God would order His people to be decent and compassionate to those living around them. Surely this shows that God is benevolent, and caring and loves His people with all his heart.

Leviticus 19:17-18 wrote:

Do not bear a grudge against anyone, but settle your differences with him, so that you will not commit a sin because of him. I am the Lord.
Do not take revenge on anyone or continue to hate him, but love your neighbour as yourself I am the Lord your God.

What kind of God would order His people to love eachother, and not to hold grudges against anyone or not to take revenge on anyone. Again another piece of the Old Testament that is often left out of consideration.

Leviticus 19:11-13 wrote:

Do not steal or cheat or lie. Do not make a promise in my name if you do not intend to keep it. I am the Lord your God.

Honesty. What kind of God would ask for honesty, so that all could benefit in His society? How is this callice, how is this intended to be bad in anyway. All this, left out from the view of the Lord who you see as hideous. A God that promotes honesty and compassion to his people. I would certainly bow down to this God any day.

Leviticus 19:33-37 wrote:

Show respect for old people and honour them. Reverently obey me; I am the Lord.
Do not ill-treat foreigners who are living in your land. Treat them as you would your fellow Israelite, and love them as you would love yourselves. Remember that you were once foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
Do not cheat anyone by using false measures of length, weight or quantity. Use honest scales, honest weights, and honest measures. I am the Lord your God.
Obey all my laws and commands. I am the Lord.

A God who supports the fight against racism. A God who rejects anyone who is trying to rip another off. Again a God I would most certainly worship and praise.

Exodus 23:2-3 wrote:

Do not follow the majority when they are wrong or when they give evidence that perverts justice. Do not show partiality to a poor person at his trial.

A God that supports justice, a God who demands what is morally right.

Exodus 23: 6 -8 wrote:

Do not deny justice to a poor person when he appears in court. Do not make false accusations, and do not put an innocent person to death, for I will condemn anyone who does sicj am evil thing.
Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe makes people blind to what is right and ruins the cause of those who are innocent.

A God who also rejects prejudices, he urges that the poor have the same rights as the rich. He urges the people to remain honest and not to accept bribes asking them to lean to one side of an argument. You can see why they are used to swear oaths on in the USA (not sure about Ireland but oh well).
As for kindness and benevolence,

Numbers 11:31 wrote:

Suddenly the Lord sent a wind that brought quails from the sea, flying less than a metre above the ground. They settled on the camp and all around it for many kilometers in each direction.

Exodus 16:31 wrote:

The people of Israel called the food manna. It was like a small white seed, and tasted like biscuits made with honey.

Exodus 17:6 wrote:

I will stand before you on a rock at Mount Sinai. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink. Moses did so in the presence of the leaders of Israel

The Lord sent quail, the Lord sent water to the people whenever they desired it. The Lord took care of them in the desert. He was a truly loving God, wherever they were, while these people continued to worship Him.
Food, water, the Lord ensured that they survived.

1 Samuel 16:7 wrote:

But the Lord said to him, "Pay no attention to how handsome he is. I have rejected him because I do not judge as people do. They look at the outward appearance but I look at the heart."

The Lord on guiding Samuel to choose the next king after King Saul sins against the Lord. The one he would pick would be King David, the best king ever to rule Israel and Judea. God blessed the people by providing such a king. Honest, compassionate, although he had human flaws.

1 Kings 17:13 wrote:

"Don't worry" Elijah said to her. "Go ahead and prepare your meal. But first make a small loaf from what you have and bring it to me, and then prepare the rest for you and your son. For this is what the Lord the God of Israel, says "The bowl will not run out of flour or the jar run out of oil before I, the Lord send rain"

The Lord through Elijah showed compassion by giving this poor widow food till the next harvest came in, and till they were able to have a decent meal. The land of Israel was suffering a famine at this time. Benevolent, no?

1 Kings 17:21-23 wrote:

Then Elijah stretched himself out on the boy three times and prayed "O Lord my God, restore this child to life." The Lord answered Elijah's prayer; the child started breathing again and revived.
Elijah took the boy back downstairs to his mother and said to her, "Look your son is alive"

1 Kings 21:28-29 wrote:

The Lord said to the prophet Elijah, "Have you noticed how Ahab has humbled himself before me?" Since he has done this, I will not bring disaster on him during his lifetime; it will be during his son's lifetime that I will bring disaster on his family".

Here the Lord forgives King Ahab for his sins, as he has returned to the Lord God of Israel. Here the Lord is also giving mercy to someone who has rejected him basically his whole life till this moment. It is not the only example either.

Conclusion. Even if Christ didn't exist (although thank God the Father for bringing us into His presence), I would still be a Jew as God's love and compassion is present even throughout his punishments on those who have rejected him. Also, those atheists who only pick out his punishments are clearly showing their bias, and are not considering what good the Lord has done in the Old Testament. However I cannot change your attitude, it is up to you to accept that God also shows these qualities throughout the Old Testament. These aren't the only passages of compassion in the Old Testament either.

Now after this can we move this discussion to the Bible Accuracy thread please?

ISAW

Seloth wrote:

I was curious to know if you believe in Evolution or Creatism.

Yes I do believe in God But I believe in Evolution too.Quiet frankly the only people who seem to believe in Creatism are either American or elderly people

Let us just clarify a few things shall we?

The proposition you assert isnt an exclusive or! i.e. one does not have to believe that Evolution is true and Creation isn't or that Cration is true and evolution isn't. they may be both be true ("theistic evolution" I think that is called) or neither may be true.

that second option may look dumb but one may aslo go into what yo mean by "true" and by "evolution". For example, I don't believe in strict "Darwinian evolution". In fact that is a gradualist theory i.e. "species change over geological (millions or tens of millions of years) time. I accept this can happen but ironically like the Bible stories ther is evidence to suggest "catastrophies" i.e. rapid changes and many many species disappearing. Now this may be from say comets hitting the Earth but it does hint at species NOT changing and settling down until another catasdtrophy arrives. For example, humans. Will we change in some way over the next million years without actually using technology to change our genes or enhance changes. I doubt it.

Anyway it isnt a choice of one OR the other is my point.

The problem most people seem to have is that they are fundamentalist i.e they believe the Bible (or some other book) must be right and taken literally or that science must be right. In fact thought loathe to admit it and allow astrologrs and the like a straw to grasp at, science changes over time. It however improves in its ability to measure things and throws out theories which dont hold up to scrutiny. But oddly so does religion! And science can be reticent in accepting some new changes. I mean in the application in particular. One example is the cause of stomach ulsers. And australian doctor had an effective treatment decades ago based on the fact they were bacterialogical in origin. The establishment made a pariah of him.

Back to the OP. Many priests are not neither old or American and believe God created the world. Be clear what you mean by "creationism". REad any Catholic Bible and you will probably note a footnote in Genesis at the first line claiming something like "this passage does not disagree with scientific evolution!".

ISAW

Seloth wrote:

I was curious to know if you believe in Evolution or Creatism.

Yes I do believe in God But I believe in Evolution too.Quiet frankly the only people who seem to believe in Creatism are either American or elderly people

Let us just clarify a few things shall we?

The proposition you assert isnt an exclusive or! i.e. one does not have to believe that Evolution is true and Creation isn't or that Cration is true and evolution isn't. they may be both be true ("theistic evolution" I think that is called) or neither may be true.

that second option may look dumb but one may aslo go into what yo mean by "true" and by "evolution". For example, I don't believe in strict "Darwinian evolution". In fact that is a gradualist theory i.e. "species change over geological (millions or tens of millions of years) time. I accept this can happen but ironically like the Bible stories ther is evidence to suggest "catastrophies" i.e. rapid changes and many many species disappearing. Now this may be from say comets hitting the Earth but it does hint at species NOT changing and settling down until another catasdtrophy arrives. For example, humans. Will we change in some way over the next million years without actually using technology to change our genes or enhance changes. I doubt it.

Anyway it isnt a choice of one OR the other is my point.

The problem most people seem to have is that they are fundamentalist i.e they believe the Bible (or some other book) must be right and taken literally or that science must be right. In fact thought loathe to admit it and allow astrologrs and the like a straw to grasp at, science changes over time. It however improves in its ability to measure things and throws out theories which dont hold up to scrutiny. But oddly so does religion! And science can be reticent in accepting some new changes. I mean in the application in particular. One example is the cause of stomach ulsers. And australian doctor had an effective treatment decades ago based on the fact they were bacterialogical in origin. The establishment made a pariah of him.

Back to the OP. Many priests are not neither old or American and believe God created the world. Be clear what you mean by "creationism". REad any Catholic Bible and you will probably note a footnote in Genesis at the first line claiming something like "this passage does not disagree with scientific evolution!".

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

It however improves in its ability to measure things and throws out theories which dont hold up to scrutiny. But oddly so does religion!

True, but I feel the difference is that science recognises that this is a good thing, and religion feels the opposite.

Change in science can quickly move to stage of universal acceptance if there is support for it (look how much physics has changed in the last 150 years), where as change in religion is slow, often bloody and hardly ever accepted universally. All Jews don't become Christian once Jesus arrives. A small handful do. All Catholics don't become Protestant once the reformation happens etc

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

More nonsense.


"Lyellian uniformitarianism" is simply the idea that slow moving geological events shape the Earth. It was a challenge in the early 19th century to catasrophism, the established idea of the time that massive catastrophic acts of God shaped the Earth.

Point of information for those just reading this thread. Uniformitarianism was the "accepted view" . It wasn't thought the Earth had been basically the same for millions of years. It was believed it could be thousands of years old ( based on Bible ageing). "gradualism" replaced it . In fact Darwin's is a gradualist's theory i.e. small changes over millions or tens of millions of years. They didnt think in hundreds or thousands of millions of years at first.

The modern"catastrophist " view (as opposed to Biblical ) came back into vogue with Strphen J Gould and Alvarez. This idea isnt that species change over time but that they actually do become fairly uniform until another catastrophy happens. It came about from two mathematician who started working with geological stats ( I love this interdisciplinary stuff- throws up all sorts of things) Raup and Sepskowsky I think they were.

Now as regards dating methods I am aware of four:

1. Tree rings (dendrochronology) which with petrified trees can go back about a million years.

2. Geological column. this is the different types of rock. Obviously older ones lie below newer ones. The coloumns "match up" on different sides of oceans on opposite continents for example. One can also see certain fossils only in some layers and not in others. This is a relative scale.


3. Radiometric dating. Using half lives of radioactive elements. Note some elements have half lives of tens of billions of years e.g. Zircon.

4. Came across this recently. Actually met the guy once. sadly he died in a car crash. eugene shoemaker (famous for training the Apollo astronauts and comet hunting - but it was his wife Caroline who discovered the one hitting Jupiter which shows it does happen!). He had an idea about using crater density. Only recently this has chalked up support since it had been abandoned because the Moon readings were wrong! In fact the Moon is so old for its size that new craters had covered older ones.

Saying modern geology is based "on nothing more" than this is like saying modern theories of gravity are based on nothing more than the assumption that gravity is a natural force rather than God simply pushing you down.

He should have stuckto "dating in geology". But as one can see there are SEVERAL dating methods. they all tie in with one another.

BTW I like the way radiometeric dating is just dismissed as completely wrong and based on "unfounded assumptions"

One may believe in radiometric dating and not even believe in atoms. The fact is one can measure things and confirm them. It certainly works with trees dead people and other things which we can confirm are so many hundred years old by historic records.

"Further, the mere occurrence of radioactive decay implies nothing about how long it has been happening. This is the fallacy of confusing the time to complete a process with the interval over which the process has been occurring."

In fact if take a lotto machine and it has 128 balls and a hole in the top i can work out how long a ball will take to come out the top. As balls come out the amount of time for the next to emerge will get longer. Radiometric dating is just saying that if it takes a minute for the first 64 to emerge then in another minute you eill get 32 more then 16 more then 8 then 4 then you should have them all out in another three minutes. Thats eight minutes. It is very unlikely it will take nine . ten is very very unlikely. It is possible. As is getting 49 or 51 in the first minute. But gettting 95 in the first minute is ver very unlikely. we can actually give you probabilities for all these and say something like "on 999 trials out of 1000" it is likely that after 5 minutes you will have between 3 and 5 balls still in the machine"
This can all be verified by expirement!

Whether the underlying philosophy of the atom is "true" has a bearing on how the theory evolved but whether it is or not it can be measured and confirmed! And being an exponential function the time taken co tomplete it and the numbers of balls present DO relate to each other!

This author doesn't seem to understand anything about radioactive dating. One has to wonder why he makes such simple mistakes when he is supposed to have a Ph.D in Chemistry.

to be fair. I had a tutor who was asked a "trick" question when doing his viva voce for his PhD. he was asked about electrons and based on his understand shouldnt they "spiral into" the nucleus. He had to admit he was flumoxxed and they had just undermined his understanding of the atom. THe examiner then said "not to worry it is a trick question based on quantum physics which you have never studied". he could still get by in chemistry! doesnt me an he was a bad chemist.

I find it very hard to believe that any of this crap is peer reviewed by anyone in the field it claims to be discussing.

I don't believe it is aimed at that audience. It is aimed at an audience of "believers" who need to be supplied some handwaving arguemnts from science which other averafe joe soaps can't take on due to lack of particular knowledge of that field. Which is why the public should inform themselves. but remember scientists too can be "believers" of a different kind as the above chemists indicate.

ISAW

Jakkass wrote:

Just to bring this back to prophecy. I only really expect Christians to answer this question, but do you think that there are prophets among us today?

I knew you would ask they question. Indeed I told people you would!

ISAW

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
What possible link could there be between an unfounded belief in the spontaneous generation of life from muck – and the production of Playstations, antibiotics, hospital scanners, telephones, etc??????



I fully accept the importance of science in the production of Playstations, antibiotics, hospital scanners, telephones, etc.........

..........but surely an unfounded belief in the spontaneous 'morphing' of Muck into Man - is some type of religious belief ........ and not in the least scientific?????

Let me just nail down what ois being claimed here shall we?

Let usa say the "muck to man " is a valid argument. It can be shown how bacteria and other simple life forms can over time change to more complicated ones and how evantually primates may be the upshot of this. But where the "Ape -like " species got concience self awareness or a "soul" is open to debate. Fair enough . Let us assume GOD gave man all these things. It still does not negate the validity of how the Earth evolved from inter steallr material and how life developed form simpler to more complicated forms!

Becaue the Greek Myths or Bible says a piece of muck was suddenly made into man does not mean that to be a Christian or Pagan one must believe that is how it happened. One may well believe God had a hand in creation but didnt just create all humans from nothing just at the right moment.

As for mutation, YOU still haven't explained why Evolutionists are so (wisely) reluctant to expose themselves to mutagenic chemicals and radiation IF mutation is the “fundamental process at the heart of evolution” – then ??

Evolutionists KNOW that mutation DESTROYS genetic information – and they therefore sensibly avoid increasing their own mutagenic potential – yet the tell everybody that will listen to them that mutagenesis was the mechanism that spontaneously generated Man from muck !!!!!:D

Yes and mutation might work just as you want it to and produce a "better person" or it might produce a "worse" one. In fact geneticists fiddle around with this every day. But to take a comic book analogy. bothe the Fantastic Four and the Hulk were genetically altered. there is no doubt they got enhanced their ability. Bruce banner tries several times to re do the experiment in order to change back to a lesser mortal. Others who undergo it become "evil hulks". Ben Grimm continually regrets becoming The Thing! that you know a change will improve your chances of survival or enhance your ability doesn't mean you will do it!

Furthermore humans have judgement in using technology and assessing the risks. Historically they didnt! And you eat food don't you. Meat and wheat are result of selective breeding of mutations into the food chain. so we DO mutate organisms. And i don't doubt some scientist somewhere wants to use genetic engineering on people. But your suggesting they do is a very dangerous and unethical suggestion!

And genetics doesNOT[n] say "man from muck" mythology and a particular fundamentalist interpretation of religious Scripture say that!

Genetics says "simple life from inanimate blocks" and more "complicated lifeforms from simpler ones" not "human race from inanimate building blocks"

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

I love this interdisciplinary stuff- throws up all sorts of things

It's a pity it's rarer these days, of course it's nobody's fault all the sciences have gotten so much harder that it's getting increasingly difficult to make interdisciplinary contributions.

ISAW wrote:

One may believe in radiometric dating and not even believe in atoms.

Would that not be really hard though, since radioactive dating is defined in terms of ratios from nuclei generations. Also in order to make the calculations you need to know the scattering of particles within the nucleus.
Is there a way in which radioactive dating can be defined without reference to atoms?

ISAW wrote:

He had to admit he was flumoxxed and they had just undermined his understanding of the atom. THe examiner then said "not to worry it is a trick question based on quantum physics which you have never studied". he could still get by in chemistry! doesnt me an he was a bad chemist.

That's an odd trick question, because to work that out isn't easy. For instance I assume that for the question to make sense the person being questioned would need to know Maxwell's Equations and the Lorenz force rule. However to actually see that this leads to an electron spiraling into the nucleus is a very difficult thing to understand and work out on the spot. Unless they just told him what he knew was incomplete, rather than him having to realise it was incomplete.

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

It's a pity it's rarer these days, of course it's nobody's fault all the sciences have gotten so much harder that it's getting increasingly difficult to make interdisciplinary contributions.

I disagree. science hasent gotten "harder" if that means "more difficult". then "hard" science e.g. maths (which I think one could regard as a branch of logic and not science) or physcis people might disagree. I think it has gotten more specialised and more applied from the special domain into products in every day use. Nor have people become dumber (though you might well disagree ).

Take your car. Mechanics are just as good as ever. But the models are so specuialises that you need a Renault mechanic trained and using a Renault computer on the car to check it out. So to for each make and model. I spoke to a guy some years ago who worked in R&D for Renault and asked him about engines. "I wouldn't know. I design wiper systems" was the reply.

Would that not be really hard though, since radioactive dating is defined in terms of ratios from nuclei generations. Also in order to make the calculations you need to know the scattering of particles within the nucleus.
Is there a way in which radioactive dating can be defined without reference to atoms?

One could possibly discover radiation and have detection equipment without having the theory I think. But I am really pointing to a deeper philosophical question i.e. what is an "atom". In that sence atoms photons etc. are theoretical constructs which though we think we under stand we really don't! But it doesnt matter for measurement purposes since the measurement works. Similar to some statistical sampling methods wher the curve is assumed normal but might not fir a true rendom distributiobn but can still be used anyway (Students T test is it?). Or take the Chemist or geneticist. Both can merrily work away on polymers or "chain reactions" (the PCR genetics ones not the Nuclear physics one) without having to understand what someone in CERN is saying about the nature of the matter in the Universe a fraction after the big bang, or even about the atoms which make up the constituents of the polymers or gene chains. Of course to design a PCR machine one would have to have an idea about "atoms". Could one design a GM tube without atomic theory? It is a good question. I cant not say one couldn't. But someone who never studied physics could use one and someone who isnt an engineer can use a car. We don't go rushing off to find how computerised machine code works so we can understand how the car's "brain" works. Im sure with enough thought i could find examples of application preceeding theory. I could be wrong though.

One might be the hguy in Scotland who used statistics to solve Cholera. He noticed "infection" ( thats an anachronistic word for it) followed water supplied and so he recommended changing how we used water. Germ theory didnt exist!

That's an odd trick question.

I can get back on to him. I thought of it because ironically the same guy was the chair of a viva voce board yesterday. I spoke to the candidate after and the questions were off into broad reaches of philosophy of the mind.
He got it by the way. Must be all the prayers.

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

There exists no nuclear pathway to iron through non weak force scattering, only the weak force will allow these transitions. The weak force doesn't come into existence until high energy densities, which are found in Stars and very heavy atomic nuclei.

Only Stars maintain the energy density.

I came across something on this recently. THe Old "B squared F H " Burbridge Geoffery and wife Fred Hoyle and who is the F ?

Fowler :
Burbridge, E. M., Burbridge, G. R., Fowler, W. A. & Hoyle, F. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 547 (1957).

Anyway this is what i came across:

Here is what I was looking for: http://www.supersci.org/presentation/woosley/stan_sn2.ppt

Now on page 7 of that is someting about "Advanced nucleaar burning" (over 20 stellar masses) and the bottom line has the Iron reaction.

Stunning! A thousand million kelvin to make Iraon and after the whole life (tens of millions of years for a massive star x20 our Sun) of the star it goes through this phase in a week!

This came originally looking up the paper on which the above presentation is based:
“The Evolution and explosion of massive stars” by S. E. Woosley, A. Heger, and T.A. Weaver, which appeared in Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol 74 (Oct 2002), page 1015 (see Table 3).

Which I found in:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/teachers/posters/elements/Elements_2005.pdf

And which you can download for free or get NASA to send you. Aren't they great?

Anyway the last one above shows how all the elements can be measured and where they came from!

Iron doesn't come from anywhere else! Unless you know something new?

philologos

I believe there is a small handful of Jews compared to Christians population wise? One could also argue that change in science doesn't go so smoothly all the time, especially in relation to the Big Bang and Evolution theories, which are still disputed in science.

Oh Wicknight, what did you think of the verses I gave on the last page?

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

I can get back on to him. I thought of it because ironically the same guy was the chair of a viva voce board yesterday. I spoke to the candidate after and the questions were off into broad reaches of philosophy of the mind.
He got it by the way. Must be all the prayers.

Oh, that's one freaking hard interview.

ISAW wrote:

I disagree. science hasent gotten "harder" if that means "more difficult". then "hard" science e.g. maths (which I think one could regard as a branch of logic and not science) or physcis people might disagree.

Well physics and maths have (I'd say)gotten more difficult and not as a result of specialisation. I'm not taking this as a random opinion, it has been a growing trend recognised by Hilbert, Riemann, Gauss, Feynman. You have to be increasingly more original to make a decent contribution. Particularly Pure Mathematics has gotten much harder since the 1950s. The only thing to counteract this (if we'd gotten stupider we'd be screwed) is that there are a lot more of us and the field is not as restricted to the upper classes as it used to be, leading to geniuses (e.g., Perelman) actually being educated. Possibly combined with the fact that mathematics was rewritten in a more foundational fashion during the 19th Century.
I'd mark the work of Galois as were things started to get quite hard and Riemann would be where it got very hard.
(Grothendieck and MacLane would be where it got unreal).
Physics has self-evidently gotten a lot harder and the less specialised the area the harder it is.

ISAW wrote:

One could possibly discover radiation and have detection equipment without having the theory I think. But I am really pointing to a deeper philosophical question i.e. what is an "atom". In that sence atoms photons etc. are theoretical constructs which though we think we under stand we really don't!

Are you saying we don't understand reality or that we don't understand our own constructs? Even if photons aren't "real" I still think we'd understand what we mean by the term. Plus a photon can be defined purely in terms of measurement and not in terms of some abstract "thing", like all particles in QM. You might prefer this way of defining the particles.