The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

Ham's ludicrous Creation Museum is due to open in under two hours and features -- wait for it! -- "life-sized people", "misty sea breezes" and "rumbling seats". Firearms are not allowed and you've to pay for wheelchairs -- Ryanair eat your heart out!

Meanwhile, in less than three weeks, almost nine hundred PhD-level university educators in Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio have signed a needlessly courteous online petition expressing "concern" at AiG's "misrepresenting" and "scientifically inaccurate materials".

I'm intrigued about Ham's "planetarium" though -- I presume they'll be showing the solid dome of the sky and the waters "above the firmament" about which our creationist colleagues have been needlessly silent. Come on, JC, can you tell us where these waters are!?

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Ham's ludicrous Creation Museum is due to open in under two hours and features -- wait for it! -- "life-sized people", "misty sea breezes" and "rumbling seats". Firearms are not allowed and you've to pay for wheelchairs -- Ryanair eat your heart out!

Meanwhile, in less than three weeks, almost nine hundred PhD-level university educators in Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio have signed a needlessly courteous online petition expressing "concern" at AiG's "misrepresenting" and "scientifically inaccurate materials".

I'm intrigued about Ham's "planetarium" though -- I presume they'll be showing the solid dome of the sky and the waters "above the firmament" about which our creationist colleagues have been needlessly silent. Come on, JC, can you tell us where these waters are!?

It's almost fabulously bizarre, you know - building a modern state of the art planetarium to show a 3000-year old model of the "heavens" - not to demonstrate ancient history, but because you believe it's correct.

Odd chap, Ham.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, but when any evidence is produced that suggests you are wrong, I detect - even in the sensible and cordial Scofflaw - a certain nervousness.

When has Scofflaw become nervous? He usually maintains the same tone in most of his posts.

Also what evidence has made us nervous? May I remind you that the most common arguments presented here against evolution are:

1. The "What if stuff worked differently" argument.
This is usually based on the lack of knowledge that different parts of science are not just easily alterable unrelated facts. For example the common "What if decay worked differently", is based on a combination of ignoring the fact that there are experiments which show it never worked differently and the fact that decay is part of the entire electroweak theory. Creationists will mainly take one fact, such as "the pressure of the water formed canyons instantly" and isolate it from its contingent facts (such as the stress properties of the rocks and the actual equations of motion of the water). So for instance water will be given the capability of exerting tremendous pressure, but nobody will actually work out how the flow of water changes in such situations.

2. "Whatiffery" in general, e.g. What if it all just looks old!
This stuff is usually unassailable and untestable.

3. "Science has got stuff wrong in the past", e.g. Brontosaurus was named incorrectly.
This usually based on a knowledge of science that doesn't incorporate the self-supporting nature it gained in the 19th and 20th century. As per 1. isolated instances of failures of descriptive sciences are used to imply doubt on framework based predictive sciences.

4. Conspiracies mixed with apocalyptic imagery, e.g. "The dark slavering beast of evolution is the great lie of the end days. It's sweet tongue shall seduce the nether regions of unfaithful men"
This stuff is just outright stupid.

5. Complete Inanity, e.g.
Sperm is God's most magnificent creation,
Zebras can be cooked by water and lions don't mind the taste,
If evolution happened why don't people swim in chemical vats.
This stuff is usually so ridiculous that I don't understand how the person who says them is still taken seriously by others. That they are is a testament to how the content of what is said doesn't matter only that Genesis is adhered to. I seriously don't understand how Zebras being cooked by water seems reasonable to anybody. Can the creationists here explain what prevents this statement from being dismissed. Do you cook your dinners with several billion gallons of water for example?

wolfsbane wrote:

the Law of Entropy seem to me to be strong indicators of Creation

Why? What is the "Law of Entropy", because in all my years of physics I've never heard of it. Also how is the generic-ness of a state indication of divine creation?

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Why? What is the "Law of Entropy", because in all my years of physics I've never heard of it.

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Also how is the generic-ness of a state indication of divine creation?

Not sure what you mean.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Yes, the second law of thermodynamics, which is a different statement and not about entropy. It implies or can be used to derive the fact that entropy increases in a system. However when Boltzmann et al were making Thermodynamics, entropy came very late in the day and the second law was formulated far earlier and does not refer explicitly to entropy.
If you reexpress the law in terms of entropy you get a statement roughly similar to what wikipedia says.
However for this to be meaningful you need to know what entropy is. Entropy is not disorder. They are occasionally related but they are not the same. Disorder is actually a different quantity all together. For instance when a planet forms entropy shoots way up, yet the thing is more ordered. For some reason people are obsessed with Entropy being disorder.

Entropy is measured in Joules per Kelvin. Is disorder measured in Joules per Kelvin?

wolfsbane wrote:

Not sure what you mean.

Entropy is a measure of how generic a system is or how non-unique its past is. How is the fact that the non-uniqueness of somethings past increases over time evidence of divine creation?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

The whole of science did so, and is now evolutionist...

You think all the scientists were Creationists originally?

I have to come back to this one. Thing is, wolfsbane, there's not really that much standing between me and salvation. I don't smoke, rarely drink, never gamble. I'm a faithful and loving husband, and a devoted father. I work hard, and try to use my abilities to do good. Heck, I barely even curse any more.

Sincerely, that is very commendable. As I had already guessed from your posts, you are the sort of guy one would be happy to have as a neighbour. Good citizens are God's gift to society.

There really isn't anything for me to give up to lead a Christian life - there's only the small matter of not believing in your god,

Your man-ward goodness does not change the fact that inwardly you are a sinful mess. God's restraint upon you gives you a tender conscience toward your fellowman, but that only continues as long as God keeps His hand upon you. Were He to remove it, your pleasant nature would vapourise and your sinful heart would manifest itself in all manner of wickedness. History has shown how paper-thin is civilisation; how it is only a short step from the art- galleries to the gas-chambers. Individual human nature is no different.

The real state of your heart is revealed by your unbelief. Rejecting the knowledge of God shows you are a god in your own eyes - and only the grace of God working in your conscience keeps you from living that out.

and thinking that if he did exist as the Bible describes him, I would reject him anyway as a tyrant.

Yes, measuring God by man's standard is bound to make Him look a bully. When you see it from God's side, it's totally different.

It isn't even intellectual pride any more. I know I'm smart, but (a) I assume everyone is unless they provide a lot of evidence to the contrary, and more importantly (b) so what? I'm prouder of working hard and doing good, because those are things I chose.

So, why would I worry about Creationists proving Genesis, or the whole Bible? All that I need to do is admit I was wrong (no big deal), and accept Jesus. If a murderer on death row can do it, what's to stop me?

Because it is the last thing a sinful heart wants to do. Loving God is its idea of hell. That's why most people still reject the gospel, even on their death-beds.

But God grants faith and repentance to some, changing their evil hearts so that they believe in and love Him. Murderers, rapists, thieves, homosexuals, adulterers,...

Unless of course, God has so hardened my heart that I will always reject him?

Maybe He has decided to leave you in your hardened state. But neither you nor I know that, so I'm glad to be able to tell you that He calls you to repent and believe in His Son, and if you do you will be saved.

If that's the case, I don't see the point in you arguing with me, or claiming that I would worry about proof of the Bible - obviously, no matter what happens, I'll be rejecting God, unless God chooses for me not to.

Yes, if God has decided to reject you, my words to you will always fall on deaf ears. But if He has chosen you, then my words (or some other gospel message) will be His means of imparting saving faith to you. God ordains the ends, and also the means.

Which is it, wolfsbane? Am I a damnéd rebel because God has hardened my heart, or through my own choice?

Through your own choice. God never damns those who trust in Him.

If it's my own choice, why do you think I choose to reject God, and why would it not be easy for me to repent and be saved?

As above, you will not repent and believe because you heart is evil.

If it's God hardening my heart, why do you think I would worry about someone proving the Bible - after all I'll never believe it, come what may?

First, God only hardens sinful hearts. Sinners harden their hearts against God, and it is up to God to decide to change them or not.

You worry about someone proving the Bible because it would remind you of the Judgement to come. Not something a sinner wishes to dwell on. Most try to deny it is a reality, for knowing it is true brings a dread:
James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Your man-ward goodness does not change the fact that inwardly you are a sinful mess. God's restraint upon you gives you a tender conscience toward your fellowman, but that only continues as long as God keeps His hand upon you. Were He to remove it, your pleasant nature would vapourise and your sinful heart would manifest itself in all manner of wickedness. History has shown how paper-thin is civilisation; how it is only a short step from the art- galleries to the gas-chambers. Individual human nature is no different.

What a crock! When he sins it his his free will. However when he is good it is God's restraining hand. I've never heard another Christian say this. Surely it is possible for us to do good stuff ourselves, we aren't that bleedin' degenerate.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, if God has decided to reject you, my words to you will always fall on deaf ears. But if He has chosen you, then my words (or some other gospel message) will be His means of imparting saving faith to you. God ordains the ends, and also the means.

wolfsbane wrote:

First, God only hardens sinful hearts. Sinners harden their hearts against God, and it is up to God to decide to change them or not.

These two bits are decidedly against free will. God decides if we can understand the Good News and if our hearts can be changed, not us. We can only accept Jesus if God chooses. Again this is the complete opposite of what I hear from most Christians.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

What a crock! When he sins it his his free will. However when he is good it is God's restraining hand. I've never heard another Christian say this. Surely it is possible for us to do good stuff ourselves, we aren't that bleedin' degenerate.

These two bits are decidedly against free will. God decides if we can understand the Good News and if our hearts can be changed, not us. We can only accept Jesus if God chooses. Again this is the complete opposite of what I hear from most Christians.

The Doctrine of Election is less common amongst Christians than it was, but it seems that is what wolfsbane follows.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sangre

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Sincerely, that is very commendable. As I had already guessed from your posts, you are the sort of guy one would be happy to have as a neighbour. Good citizens are God's gift to society.

God gifted us with nice, atheist neighbours?

Your man-ward goodness does not change the fact that inwardly you are a sinful mess. God's restraint upon you gives you a tender conscience toward your fellowman, but that only continues as long as God keeps His hand upon you. Were He to remove it, your pleasant nature would vapourise and your sinful heart would manifest itself in all manner of wickedness.

Probably one of the most insulting things I've ever read.

Yes, measuring God by man's standard is bound to make Him look a bully. When you see it from God's side, it's totally different.

How would you know?

But God grants faith and repentance to some, changing their evil hearts so that they believe in and love Him. Murderers, rapists, thieves, homosexuals, adulterers,...

So we've no free will? So your belief has nothing to do with you?

Through your own choice. God never damns those who trust in Him.

You've made it quite clear we don't have choices in our post.

2Scoops

robindch wrote:

Well, let's take a look at the evidence for this PANIC and HORROR, shall we?

Thread 1, shut down here when Davros pointed out that the thread was, as expected, going nowhere. Wicknight's last posting on that thread said that he "couldn't be arsed" refuting JC's claims, because everybody had already done it "5 times each". That was over two years ago and thing haven't changed much, except that Wicknight clearly remains bothered about your continuing stream of penny dreadfuls.

Thread 2, shut down here when Davros pointed out a second time, that the thread was rutted:Thread 3, which pointed to the predecessor of this thread and which was prioritized by davros to make sure that everybody knew about it.

Er, where's the PANIC and HORROR? Or, by any chance, would you be trying to conjure up a controversy by being less than honest about the facts?

Wow, as a n00b reading these old threads, I see depressingly little has changed in 2 years. I love the way Davros closed the thread by saying if you can't reach a concensus in under 500 posts then it's going nowhere - this thread must be way over 5000 by now!

robindch

wolfsbane wrote:

God's restraint upon you gives you a tender conscience toward your fellowman, but that only continues as long as God keeps His hand upon you. Were He to remove it, your pleasant nature would vapourise and your sinful heart would manifest itself in all manner of wickedness.

Interestingly, this seems to be a common, but generally unspoken, belief amongst the religious: that humans are inherently evil and order can therefore only be maintained by retributive authorities. The idea that people can self-organize, or can behave socially once they do, seems -- despite conclusive evidence to the contrary -- to be largely rejected.

With that in mind, it's easy to see why religious people are selectively drawn to authoritarian frameworks like, er, religion! It also suggests that the creator didn't do much of a job creating humans, but I expect "The Fall" might show up as an explanation for why this might appear to be so.

bonkey

2Scoops wrote:

Wow, as a n00b reading these old threads, I see depressingly little has changed in 2 years. I love the way Davros closed the thread by saying if you can't reach a concensus in under 500 posts then it's going nowhere - this thread must be way over 5000 by now!

Its a bit of a catch-22 really...

If the science-supporting stop responding, the creationists claim victory.
If both sides agree that we're going nowhere, the creationsts claim their argument hasn't been defeated, thus they claim victory.

Science, on the other hand, cannot win.
It cannot even fight to a draw.
All it can do is prevent the other side from claiming victory.

Hmmm...

You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.

Sound familiar?

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

And it seems to provoke the fingers-in-ears-with-accompanying-mantra from many of you.

Wolfsbane...given that the last discussion you and I shared before this was a request for you to supply your understanding of something, I can't understand what you ground this claim on.

If you want to make a case that work is scientific, then make the case. At that point, there's something to respond to.

Until then, you don't get to shift the burden of proof by just repeating your assertions, claiming them to be true, then insisting the other side are the ones turning a deaf ear by refusing to address them.

You can continue to try, but doing so only adds weight to the assertion that either you don't know what science is about or you do know and are therefore being wilfully misleading. Needless to say, neither option is beneficial to your case.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

Its a bit of a catch-22 really...

If the science-supporting stop responding, the creationists claim victory.
If both sides agree that we're going nowhere, the creationsts claim their argument hasn't been defeated, thus they claim victory.

Science, on the other hand, cannot win.
It cannot even fight to a draw.
All it can do is prevent the other side from claiming victory.

Yes - it's a rearguard action whose only purpose is the action itself. We oppose, because they propose, and for no other reason.

On the other hand, the intellectual exercise has been invaluable!

cheerily,
Scofflaw

bonkey

J C wrote:

Bonkey
Being "a scientist" does not automatically qualify one to comment with authority on all areas of science - a point which is typically overlooked.

There are Creation Scientists who are qualified in every conventional science discipline – so your point ISN’T overlooked.:D

Apparently, it is.

The point I was making is that self-proclaimed Creation Scientists - like yourself - do not limit themselves to commenting on their areas of expertise, nor do they - again, taking yourself as an example - limit their comments to being scientific in nature despite claiming to speak as a scientist.

Its hard to reconcile such actions and the defence of same with neither ignorance nor duplicity, but I do my best. I try to see the good in people.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

You think all the scientists were Creationists originally?

All scientists were Creationists originally. Until the evidence became too overwhelming and Creationism had to be abandoned. This happened about 150-100 years ago.

wolfsbane wrote:

Your man-ward goodness does not change the fact that inwardly you are a sinful mess. God's restraint upon you gives you a tender conscience toward your fellowman, but that only continues as long as God keeps His hand upon you.

Universal Guide to Western Religion

Step 1 - Convince someone that there is a fault with them that is beyond their power to fix. Ignore any protests that the person believes they are fine/happy/content/moral and continue to convince them that even if they feel this it is a delusion and they really are broken (see Scientology for master class for this step)

Step 2 - Convince them that ignoring this fault will have devastating future effects. Again even if the person has a good life at the moment, believes they are happy/content/moral/good convince them that in the future this will change.

Step 3 - Tell them that only that religion A is able to fix this fault or save them from this problem. Emphasize that no matter what the person does it will not help unless they embrace the religion. Being a better person, professional help, doctors, moral teaching etc are all useless without the religion. The person must join the religion to be fixed

Step 4 - Convert and repeat. Once the person is suitably brainwashed they will happily attempt to convert future members using the above methodology. They will also have the advantage of actually believing it.

Wolfsbane you should really do a Scientology Personality Test sometime, you might be surprised by how familiar the "pitch" is .....

wolfsbane wrote:

Were He to remove it, your pleasant nature would vapourise and your sinful heart would manifest itself in all manner of wickedness.

see Step 2

wolfsbane wrote:

The real state of your heart is revealed by your unbelief.

see Step 1

wolfsbane wrote:

Rejecting the knowledge of God shows you are a god in your own eyes - and only the grace of God working in your conscience keeps you from living that out.

see Step 3

wolfsbane wrote:

Because it is the last thing a sinful heart wants to do.

see Step 1

wolfsbane wrote:

But God grants faith and repentance to some, changing their evil hearts so that they believe in and love Him.

see Step 3

wolfsbane wrote:

Through your own choice. God never damns those who trust in Him.

see Step 3

wolfsbane wrote:

As above, you will not repent and believe because you heart is evil.

see Step 1

I would love to stick Wolfsbane in with a standard for something like Scientology or any other religious cult and have them go at each other with this stuff ... I could sell tickets

jonny72

very sorry if it's been mentioned before, but this really sums up the ridiculousness of creationism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

Scofflaw

A handy guide to being persuasive. Amazingly, not all the techniques have been used in this thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

jonny72 wrote:

very sorry if it's been mentioned before, but this really sums up the ridiculousness of creationism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

It's an interesting conceit but it won't win any arguments here because God is obviously real and the Flying Spaghetti Monster obviously isn't.

To break the monotony, does anyone remember TMWRNJ that used to be on on Sunday mornings in the 1990s? There was a character called the unusual priest that parodies the mindset who wouldn't 'get' the FSM metaphor (links below for those interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fXm3Ivgr04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRFbNFf6Ig8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znGAQqQZ_Zg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVg0PBZO7SY

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

A handy guide to being persuasive. Amazingly, not all the techniques have been used in this thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Many a time I've used the "Strategic Compromise" with a girlfriend

pH

jonny72 wrote:

very sorry if it's been mentioned before, but this really sums up the ridiculousness of creationism

I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_believe_in_evolution_except

robindch

Not that I'm obsessing about Ham or anything, but nobody else seems to be taking much notice of him. Which is probably a good thing

Anyhow, Old Muttonjaw released this peculiar blog entry yesterday in which he claimed that the people outside his gates during the opening ceremony (handing out this useful guide to evidences for an old earth) actually "meant evil" and in which he writes in a surprisingly paranoid manner of 'hate', 'attack', 'trouble', 'persecution', 'propaganda' and so on. And that's only on the first half-page.

I must say, watching Ham's performance over what you'd have expected to have been his greatest and most dramatic act of self-publicity, I can't help but get the impression that something is wrong, quite apart from the distorted 'facts' contained within his multi-million dollar exhibition. A blog of his last week referred darkly to internal dissension and the video of the ribbon-cutting was downbeat and he looked quite distracted throughout.

I wonder what's up?

Fallen Seraph

In that article he argues that the use of logic by science is inherently flawed because logic is supernatural.... I'm utterly stunned...

J C

Wicknight wrote:

Originally Posted by Scofflaw
A handy guide to being persuasive.
http://www.rinkworks.com/persuasive/
Amazingly, not all the techniques have been used in this thread.cordially,
Scofflaw

Many a time I've used the "Strategic Compromise" with a girlfriend

Great site - however, it doesn't mention the devastating effectiveness which Smileys and exclamation marks can have !!!! :eek:

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

In that article he argues that the use of logic by science is inherently flawed because logic is supernatural.... I'm utterly stunned...

Yes, he's shaded his way from "naturalistic" to "materialistic", and conflated the latter with "concrete" to mean that science cannot use anything which is not actually physically solid - and assumed everything left over is the same as God.

It's about a five-pint leap, that, but he appears to be able to do it sober.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Great site - however, it doesn't mention the devastating effect of Smileys and exclamation marks on your opponent!!!! :eek:

Yes. That's true, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Not that I'm obsessing about Ham or anything, but nobody else seems to be taking much notice of him. Which is probably a good thing ?

I think deep down inside you actually really respect Ham. As you mention him so often.:D

I am curious about the 6,000 yaer age. Anything I have read has the Earth about 12-14,000 yaers. Where did the 6,000 number come from.

Also on the brochure by the RR folks, reason 10 states that the Big Bang is a fact, yet I get the impression by some on this thread that it is just a theory.

Can we clear these two things up?

2Scoops

BrianCalgary wrote:

I am curious about the 6,000 yaer age. Anything I have read has the Earth about 12-14,000 yaers. Where did the 6,000 number come from.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it was estimated using using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible.

BrainCalgary wrote:

Also on the brochure by the RR folks, reason 10 states that the Big Bang is a fact, yet I get the impression by some on this thread that it is just a theory.

I think this might be another example of the 'evolution is a theory, not a fact' type of argument. Simply put, science will shy away from making definitive statements without absolute certainty. Since absolute certainty is beyond the scientific method, which deals more with probability, the natural inclination of scientists would be to say something is almost certainly true. In this case, the Bang Bang cannot be definitively proven to have happened beyond all doubt but all the facts fit, there is no competing idea that fits so well with the available data, and all the new data being investigated also supports it. So, in the absence of an evidence-based alternative, and given the overwhelming amount of data in support of the idea, the Bang Bang can be considered a scientific fact.

Fallen Seraph

BrianCalgary wrote:

I think deep down inside you actually really respect Ham. As you mention him so often.:D

I am curious about the 6,000 yaer age. Anything I have read has the Earth about 12-14,000 yaers. Where did the 6,000 number come from.

Also on the brochure by the RR folks, reason 10 states that the Big Bang is a fact, yet I get the impression by some on this thread that it is just a theory.

Can we clear these two things up?

I can't say that I've been following thread too closely for the past while, but I assume that it has been mentioned that "theory" in scientific terms basically does translate to "fact". Theory means "the best description that we can come up with, and fits, exceptionlessly, with the evidence". But I might be missing the point... Apologies if this is so.

edit: ah! ya beat meh!

Scofflaw

2Scoops wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it was estimated using using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible.

Ussher, 17th century Archbishop of Armagh, calculated it from genealogies in the Bible. Ussher deduced that the first day of Creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC in the proleptic Julian calendar.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I am curious about the 6,000 yaer age. Anything I have read has the Earth about 12-14,000 yaers. Where did the 6,000 number come from.

As above. There's no reason, either scientific, or Biblical, to have an age of 12-14,000 years for the Earth. It doesn't match the genealogical dates, and it certainly doesn't match the scientific evidence.

2Scoops wrote:

I think this might be another example of the 'evolution is a theory, not a fact' type of argument. Simply put, science will shy away from making definitive statements without absolute certainty. Since absolute certainty is beyond the scientific method, which deals more with probability, the natural inclination of scientists would be to say something is almost certainly true. In this case, the Bang Bang cannot be definitively proven to have happened beyond all doubt but all the facts fit, there is no competing idea that fits so well with the available data, and all the new data being investigated also supports it. So, in the absence of an evidence-based alternative, and given the overwhelming amount of data in support of the idea, the Bang Bang can be considered a scientific fact.

I don't think that can be said often enough. It's a Theory, not a "theory".

cordially,
Scofflaw