The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

> especially in relation to the Big Bang and Evolution theories, which are
> still disputed in science.

Please be accurate here -- these theories are are disputed by a large number of scientifically-uninformed religious believers and a very small number of scientifically-informed religious believers. They are not disputed by the vast majority of people who understand in broad (or fine) detail what these theories describe.

FrCrilly

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

I am evolutionist with no belief in God. Here are my thoughts and justifications.

Creationists say that all fossils of early life are animals who didn’t get on the ark. If that’s true, then why are they all arranged in a time line of evolutionary different layers showing a progression in evolution. Surely if they drowned in the flood they would be randomly scattered around.

Why are there fossils of marine life up high mountains hundreds of miles in from sea, when most of these creatures can only move a few feet a day under water. They could not have made the journey in the 40 days of the great flood. (Leonardo Da Vinci figured this one out hundreds of years ago).

Why would God pick the third rock from a star in no significant position in it’s galaxy or in the universe to put his special creation. Is it a case that God threw a dart at the universe or is it a case of a chance event that a big universe will produce a number of planets capable of supporting complex life and that a number of those planets will produce intelligent life. This early intelligent life will then wonder why they exist and have no means to find out, so will make up fictional stories involving gods to satisfy their needs.

All ancient religions seem to start with a story of creation. If a creationist met someone from another culture with a different story of creation, he/she has no evidence to say “I am right, you are wrong”. The only solution to the dilema is that both people are wrong.

The only respect I have for a creationist is that they don’t compromise between Creationism and Evolution. Either one is right and the other is wrong. If God and evolution co-exist, then the bible should state something to that effect (ie that the world is very old, we’re part of the animal kingdom and we only arrived recently). It doesn’t.

So in summary,

Either God exists and the Creation happened
Or
He doesn’t exist and the whole thing is a laissez-faire scientific process.

Just my opinion.

Citizen_Erased

Well there is a small flaw in that -> There are christians that believe in evolution , they just believe that god made it that way. And I believe this would be more than just a minority.

Jakk

Why would God pick the third rock from a star in no significant position in it’s galaxy or in the universe to put his special creation.

I don't get how we're supposed to be a special creation. Surely the chances of there being other sentient life in the universe are higher than none other. Maybe each set gets a "we're the special creation" book too
anyway, sure humans seem important when you are human and don't have much perspective, but assuming that some omnipotent being that can create a whole universe should be bothered spending a moment concerning itself with humans, nevermind all the intricate details like who's worshiping what and who's having sex with whom... I mean, it's a little farfetched. In the whole universe, if there aren't even more, a being is concerned about whether John is sleeping with Mary, of all things...
Easily explained if you have a bunch of humans who want to feel better about themselves when they already feel important, or want to decide who's in charge of their society but otherwise... I don't think so...

Sorry, this was a bit of a rant

Jakk wrote:

especially in relation to the Big Bang and Evolution theories, which are still disputed in science.

Not by anyone with decent scientific credentials specialising in the relevant areas, no
Or maybe everything I studied in cosmology really was wrong :rolleyes:

FrCrilly

bluewolf wrote:

Sorry, this was a bit of a rant

Just to clarify. As far as I'm aware, the bible states that God created us in his own image, hence why I used the term "special creation".

Dave!

Jakkass wrote:

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?

Evolution isn't disputed in science. Dunno about the Big Bang (haven't read much on it), but AFAIK the vast majority of the scientific community also accept it as fact.

FrCrilly

FrCrilly wrote:

Just to clarify. As far as I'm aware, the bible states that God created us in his own image, hence why I used the term "special creation".

Yeah my rant wasn't actually aimed at you, it was something I'd been meaning to say in general and you reminded me

philologos

robindch wrote:

> especially in relation to the Big Bang and Evolution theories, which are
> still disputed in science.

Please be accurate here -- these theories are are disputed by a large number of scientifically-uninformed religious believers and a very small number of scientifically-informed religious believers. They are not disputed by the vast majority of people who understand in broad (or fine) detail what these theories describe.

Did I say the majority disputed them. By the way what about Creation Science? Do you think that Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist because he believed that God created the universe?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
Do you think that these scientists don't exist either?

Citizen_Erased

Anyone who has seen David Gormans Googlewhack will be aware of what creationism scientists are like. (if you havent seen it , tis a good laugh all in all). The scientist was called Dr. T Geis and his entire anti evolution was based entirely on a misrepresentation of the law of thermodynamics. Basically he emitted a section of the law that is very vital to the law. As he quoted it , it may have disproved evolution but the fact of the matter was that he twisted it and falsely changed it so he was entirely incorrect. So yes , creation scientist do exist but their theories (chrisatian religion based ones that is) are based on horrible distortions of 'mainstream' science theories.

philologos

We should avoid making another Creationism discussion here. BC if you are around it would be good to merge some of this into the 254 page thread (and delete this post).

robindch

> Did I say the majority disputed them.

You said that these theories are in dispute, when they are not.

> By the way what about Creation Science?

What is referred to as "creation science" is not a science for the reasons that bonkey (AFAIR) gave in another thread recently -- it's not falsifiable, it makes no predictions, is not replicable, offers no control, etc. This article gives a good an overview of what scientists believe science is -- have a read up of it and you'll see why "creation science" does not meet any of the strict criteria by which proper science is defined and measured.

> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
> Do you think that these scientists don't exist either?

My previous post included the phrase "and a very small number of scientifically-informed religious believers" which covers the group who are listed on AiG (and ICR, DI and elsewhere). Most of the ideas provided by these good folks have been examined over on the big creation thread at one time or another and found to be wanting.

In form, creationism is quite similar to holocaust-denial, 9/11 conspiracists, fans of homeopathy etc etc -- a restrictive ideology with small number of cheer-leaders who lead a much larger group of well-meaning people who choose to support one side of the argument for reasons unconnected with facts, about which they are generally uninformed.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Did I say the majority disputed them. By the way what about Creation Science? Do you think that Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist because he believed that God created the universe?

It's not necessary to disbelieve in God, or Creation, to do science. Science works exactly the same way whether one believes or disbelieves - as long as one doesn't distort the process. Creationists generally do, either by claiming that the miraculous is part of science rather than outside it, or by other means less salubrious.

Jakkass wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
Do you think that these scientists don't exist either?

No, I just think that the total number of creationist scientists is very much smaller than the number of scientists called "Steve" - and yes, the comparison has been done. While science is not democratic, such tiny numbers (less than 0.01%) suggest a statistical outlier, most probably for psychological reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Jakkass wrote:

Do you think that Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist because he believed that God created the universe?

Not in the slightest.

Many scientists, including Darwin himself, believed firmly in a personal God who created the universe.

However, the emergence of modern science and the formalisation of the scientific method slowly forced scientists of the day to question the biblical account, Ussher's 6000-year timeline, and so forth. Why did it do this? It did so because they realised that it was incompatible with observational analysis.

Over time, science has managed to do away with such non-scientific dogma as a basis on which to rest its conclusions, or a measure by which to gauge them....as it led to the irrefutable conclusion that for such dogma to be correct, the scientific method must be wrong. The only problem was, that no-one could find any reason why the scientific method should be flawed other than that it led to contradictions with dogma.

Modern scientists - as I have mentioned elsewhere - are generally able to distinguish between what they hold to be true and what they can establish scientifically.

There are scientists today, qualified in appropriate fields, who believe Einstein to be wrong. Similarly, there are those who say Quantum Theory is an interesting and useful but ultimately incorrect theory. Indeed, take virtually any area of science you yourself believe to be firmly grounded, and there is almost certainly some scientist somewhere working on an alternate hypothesis because they do not accept the accepted theory.

If evolution and the Big Bang are disputed, then so is all of science. Does this mean that gravity is a figment of our imagination? That all of the science which has given us the wonders of our modern world was all just a series of lucky guesses? No, it doesn't.

Where there is meaningful debate about evolution or the Big Bang is in the finer details of same. Slashdot ran an article today suggesting that the understanding regarding the emergence of mamallian life may be undergoing a revision - that there is evidence to suggest it occurred earlier than believed. This means that the existing fine detail was wrong and that - to a degree - there is still ongoing dispute.

So is there dispute? Sure there is. But where that dispute is meaningful is not about whether or not something occurred, but rather how it occurred.

Imagine, if you will, a court case where someone is on trial for murder. The defense argue that it is manslaughter. The prosecution argue that it was cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder. Thus, it is correct to say there is dispute about the death of the victim...but the implication is not that the victim may actually still be alive....even if there's some conspiracy theory guy following the court-case and posting all over the internet about how the entire thing is a cover-up and that the victim staged their own death to reap a fortune in insurance fraud.

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> especially in relation to the Big Bang and Evolution theories, which are
> still disputed in science.

Please be accurate here -- these theories are are disputed by a large number of scientifically-uninformed religious believers and a very small number of scientifically-informed religious believers. They are not disputed by the vast majority of people who understand in broad (or fine) detail what these theories describe.

Eh Burbridge? Isn't he an athiest?
The problem he has isnt one of belief it is one of "establishment" and "authority". Galileo in that sense didnt have a run in with the Church. He had a problem with the academics authorities of the day. People in science are just the same as people elsewhere. the poijnt that "well but the SCIENCE is correct" in that sence is about a relevant as the Church saying of an abusive cleric that the "Moral teaching of the Church is correct even when the actions of some in authority is deplorable"

ISAW

Jakkass wrote:

Did I say the majority disputed them. By the way what about Creation Science? Do you think that Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist because he believed that God created the universe?

I think you miss the point. Presonal belief while it may affect someones work does not mean the laws of the universe change. People may have believed Jews or Slavs were lesser people and experimented on them. The expirements may have been unethical but that does not mean they were not scientific. They are two different domains.

And try think about Newton being a sicentist in spite of the fact that he also believed in God.

After all Newton was a aryan heretic.

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

Not in the slightest.

Many scientists, including Darwin himself, believed firmly in a personal God who created the universe.

Some philosophers of science ( Dawkings for example and I disagree with him) say that religion is harmfull to both science and society. But most would accep that religious belief may inform scientists or at the other extreme at least not interfere with objective measurement.

FrCrilly

Citizen_Erased wrote:

Well there is a small flaw in that -> There are christians that believe in evolution , they just believe that god made it that way. And I believe this would be more than just a minority.

So God said “I’ll create a special form of life in my own image, but instead of just magically zapping them into existence, I’ll f*ck about for billions of years beforehand and leave a fossil record that makes it look like the whole thing was a laissez faire scientific process.

So God said

Let loads of rock floating in space clumb together to form planets,

Let one of those planets be smashed by another planet so that a satelite moon will be created giving the planet a short day so that complex life can evolve,

Let all the chemical elements on that planet combine to create life,

Let all life on that planet be subject to evolution or extinction

After billions of years, let an apes forest environment thin so that that ape will have to evolve to stand up

Let that ape struggle to survive so that only the apes intelligent enough to use their hands to make stone tools will survive.

Let that intelligent ape go through such environmental struggles that it will evolve greater intelligence and the ability to imagine (which it will then use to make up fictional gods and stories about how we got here).

Either God really likes to f*ck about or we’re just the planet/ape in the big universe that got lucky.
(Granted a lot of the above is theory, it is the most likely explanation that we have.)

Just because Christians that believe in evolution may not be in the minority, it doesn’t mean they’re right. Think of all the Germans who voted for Nazi-ism.

bonkey

FrCrilly wrote:

Just because Christians that believe in evolution may not be in the minority, it doesn’t mean they’re right.

Think of all the Germans who voted for Nazi-ism.

What an amazing comparison. I never before realised that science and democracy had so much in common....that science is just based around a majority picking whatever appeals to them most.

Oh...no...wait...you're saying its choosing your religious belief thats like voting for Nazis, not science.

Thats ok then.

FrCrilly

bonkey wrote:

What an amazing comparison. I never before realised that science and democracy had so much in common....that science is just based around a majority picking whatever appeals to them most.

Oh...no...wait...you're saying its choosing your religious belief thats like voting for Nazis, not science.

Thats ok then.

Please note, that while I did use scientific arguments based on the views of the majority of the scientific community, I did take the time to state that it was only theory, not fact. If anyone wants to give me alternative scientific arguments, I’m all ears but this is probably not the forum to discuss it.

However, thank you for pointing the above out to me.

ISAW

FrCrilly wrote:

So God said “I’ll create a special form of life in my own image, but instead of just magically zapping them into existence, I’ll f*ck about for billions of years beforehand and leave a fossil record that makes it look like the whole thing was a laissez faire scientific process.

To me the "image" isn't about being intelligent bipeds but about people having "souls". One could then say god is creating every day since new sould are coming into existance with noew people. If it isn't like that then where were all the souls hanging around before all the people were born? Does God have them all in a "holding area"?

So God said
snip 6 items.

Actually God didnt have to do all those things. If God created the laws of physics then that was enough for planet and stellar formation.

Let that ape struggle to survive so that only the apes intelligent enough ... will survive.

Let that intelligent ape ...

Technically that is not the theory. It is assumed APES and HUMANS both evolved from an earlier common ancestor as far as i know. So humans didnt evolve from apes!

Either God really likes to f*ck about or we’re just the planet/ape in the big universe that got lucky.

If God enabled the universe which is interpreted with quantum physics then luck and probability has a lot to do with it.

Just because Christians that believe in evolution may not be in the minority, it doesn’t mean they’re right. Think of all the Germans who voted for Nazi-ism.

I didnt suggest they were right because of being a majority butu you do point a valid position even if it is a seperate issue. I was suggesting that non christioans might think Christianity is all about Biblical Creation being correct and the Bible being literal just as they might think Muslims support terrorists. They get to think that because the media (and that includes this board) may portray a conservative fundamentalist line. the media publish what they think is important. But it might not be. and they misuse "public intrest" and confuse it with "what the public are interested in".

bonkey

FrCrilly wrote:

Please note, that while I did use scientific arguments based on the views of the majority of the scientific community, I did take the time to state that it was only theory, not fact.

If you are talking about science, then :

a) There is no such thing as fact
b) "Only theory" means "only the most solid, best-formed, best-tested, never-proven-wrong-despite-being-falsifiable model we have produced in this field". Or "Only the closest thing to fact that science can actually produce" if you prefer something simpler and shorter.

Showing that you are apparently incapable of (or unwilling to) accurately portray what science is doesn't lend much credibility to your claims that your argument is based on science.

On a side note, I am vastly amused by the notion that you have a problem reconciling an omniscient and omnipotent God with the scientific model because from your perspective the scientific model took billions of years and involved loads of apparently-chance occurrences.

If God exists and is truly omniscient and omnipotent, then from such a perspective, the time-taken and all the rest of it are not factors. There was no chance. THere was no waiting around. Not for God....and it gave us a solid model by which to advance ourselves as his children. Win, win.

But hey...if you want to argue that God isn't the omniscient and omnipotent being that the bible makes out, I've no problem with that. Once you accept that the bible isn't completely true, there's not much left to support creationism, is there.

bonkey

FrCrilly wrote:

However, thank you for pointing the above out to me.

If thats not meant sarcastically, then you're welcome.

If it is meant sarcastically, don't blame me that I pointed out that your comparison only applied to the religious and how they choose what to believe in regarding the origins of the universe. You're the one who chose to introduce such a despicable comparison, so if you find my use of it distasteful, perhaps next time you'll think twice about introducing such vileness.

FrCrilly

ISAW wrote:

To me the "image" isn't about being intelligent bipeds but about people having "souls". One could then say god is creating every day since new sould are coming into existance with noew people. If it isn't like that then where were all the souls hanging around before all the people were born? Does God have them all in a "holding area".

In my opinion, the soul does not exist. It’s clear to me that early man wondered “where does the life go?”after someone dies and hence made up a soul that leaves the body. In Egypt, they believed the soul’s good deeds were weighed against their bad deeds, if good outweighed bad the soul went to the afterlife, otherwise it was destroyed. In Israel, they believed some other story about it going to heaven.

What we know now is that everyone’s personality is a unique brain structure called neronic pathways. When the body shuts down, these neuronic pathways disconnect and the brain becomes like a wiped disk. That’s a scientific explanation of where the life goes.

ISAW wrote:

Actually God didnt have to do all those things. If God created the laws of physics then that was enough for planet and stellar formation.

Fair point. The development of intelligent life is a low probability event. But this is counteracted by the fact that there are so many planets in the universe, so a number of planets will be lucky enough to develop intelligent life. However we’re also lucky that our laws of physics allow life to exist. We’re lucky that the Big Bang produced hydrogen which when burnt creates all the elements necessary for life (eg the calcium in your bones). Either God said “let that universe have the laws of physics that will create intelligent life in my image” or there is such a thing as infinite parralel universes (eg another universe’s Big Bang could have produced nitrogen and nothing happened.)

ISAW wrote:

Technically that is not the theory. It is assumed APES and HUMANS both evolved from an earlier common ancestor as far as i know. So humans didnt evolve from apes!.

Common misconception. Humans/Chimpanzees/Gorillas are all members of the ape family. Humans and Chimpanzees evolved from the same ape ancestor. (Our DNA’s are a 98% match).

However we’re also lucky that our laws of physics allow life to exist.We’re lucky that the Big Bang produced hydrogen which when burnt creates all the elements necessary for life (eg the calcium in your bones).

Only assuming that the only life that could ever exist in any type of universe is our type of life, which we have no basis to assume.

Juza1973

I only believe in God. I am not a scientist and this is not an important fact for my faith. I accept that the vast majority of scientists accept evolutionism, but I'm not going to say that I believe in evolutionism to look cool or more intelligent, since I'm still an ignorant in these fields and the fact doesn't change if I support a point without having a clue why.

Scofflaw

Juza1973 wrote:

I only believe in God. I am not a scientist and this is not an important fact for my faith. I accept that the vast majority of scientists accept evolutionism, but I'm not going to say that I believe in evolutionism to look cool or more intelligent, since I'm still an ignorant in these fields and the fact doesn't change if I support a point without having a clue why.

Fair point. You'd be taking it on faith either way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane, was it in this thread that wicknight asked why did children in some country get killed when they were innocent (it was that long debate you two were having), and you said it was because of their families sinning? I can't find the exact quotes

Cos I just came across this and I'd like to know your opinion

16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

So why should children have been killed...?
(It's deuteronomy)

philologos

Look at the thread about Elisha and the bears, it's on this forum somewhere. There are a number of reasons and good links about it aswell.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

Look at the thread about Elisha and the bears, it's on this forum somewhere. There are a number of reasons and good links about it aswell.

I know I replied on irc, but to clarify for anyone reading - that's not what I was referring to. Wicknight will remember if wolfsbane doesn't, I'm sure.

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote:

I know I replied on irc, but to clarify for anyone reading - that's not what I was referring to. Wicknight will remember if wolfsbane doesn't, I'm sure.

The Bible often has passages where a person is hurt by God in order to punish another. This most often is either the wife or the child or a man who has disobeyed God. For example a wife will be violently raped as punishment for the sins of the man, or his children will be killed.

The responses I can remember from the OT apologetics on this forum basically said that we are all God's to do as as he so fits. If he wants to torture my wife or kill my son because he is angry with me then that is what he can do and there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing immoral about it because God would not and cannot do something immoral.

Of course the issue with that justification is that you have to first accept that God cannot do something immoral to be able to explain these passages from the Bible as moral actions. A few posters have honestly said that they cannot see why it would be moral but it must be moral because God did it and God would not do something immoral.

I genuinely don't understand how someone can come to that conclusion which is why I started the thread about Bible passages that inspire the soul in an effort to try and appreciate what people are thinking when they say things like this, which in all honestly revolt me.