The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Wicknight wrote:

When Son says Bronze Age thinking he doesn't mean lack of intelligence. He means ignorance.

......OK...... but we already knew that they had ignorance i.e. Evolution back then!!!!:D

Wicknight wrote:

Bronze Age thinking is filling in the gaps in your understand with fantasies of agency, because "common sense" tells us that when it rains it rains because someone inside the rain clouds decides to make it rain.

......So, 'Bronze Age Thinking' is something like Evolutionists 'filling in the gaps' between Pondslime and Man ........with wishful thinking!!!:eek:

Zombrex

J C wrote:

......OK...... but we already knew that they had Evolutionists back then!!!!:D


......So, 'Bronze Age Thinking' is something like Evolutionists 'filling in the gaps' between Pondslime and Man ........with wishful thinking!!!:eek:

Your posts are becoming like how someone would do an over the top parody of your older posts .... its rather bizarre to watch.

JimiTime

http://celestialmechanic.com/audio/newevidence.htm

This is from 1994. i thought it was great. Just thought I'd put it out there.

5uspect

JimiTime wrote:

http://celestialmechanic.com/audio/newevidence.htm

This is from 1994. i thought it was great. Just thought I'd put it out there.

Oh dear, I wish this was a joke, I really do...:(

JimiTime

5uspect wrote:

Oh dear, I wish this was a joke, I really do...:(

Why is that. Is it all complete nonsense?

5uspect

JimiTime wrote:

Why is that. Is it all complete nonsense?

Wishful thinking would be how I would phrase it.

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

Why is that. Is it all complete nonsense?

Immense nonsense. It has several biographical, historical and physical errors. Simple case in point, matter in the universe is smooth, that is why textbooks describe it as homogeneous.

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

Immense nonsense. It has several biographical, historical and physical errors. Simple case in point, matter in the universe is smooth, that is why textbooks describe it as homogeneous.

Have you ever heard of the guy in question? Obviously I enjoyed his talk, as he is Christian, and doesn't present this, science or god typr of arguement.:) i like his philosiphy on a) Its not actually that important as a christian, b) We don't have to be at loggerheads, and, c) It doesn't have to be a young earth, in fact Genesis doesn't indicate how old the universe is.

But seriously, is it major manipulation of the facts, or is it reasonable analysis of the facts?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Bronze age man used to slaughter live stock as sacrifice to please the rain gods and ensure that the weather produced sufficient rain fall that session's crops.

When Son says Bronze Age thinking he doesn't mean lack of intelligence. He means ignorance.

I don't have a problem with him saying that either. Most of them were ignorant. Their worship of false gods was an example of how darkened their minds were.

Of course, some then and many now claim there is no god and that what others see as magnificent design is just how things are - no creator, no designer, it all just happened to be so. I suggest such thinkers are even more darkened -ignorant - than those who ascribe nature's design to the sun, moon or various idols.

Ignorance of how the natural world really works. There is no god in the rain clouds. There was no god in the rain clouds. The reason it rains or doesn't rain is due to the very complex yet completely natural system of weather on the planet.

Agreed. But who set up those natural laws? 'Just so', or the God revealed in the Bible? Those who have had the light shine in on their minds say God, who may decide to cause His laws to operate in blessing or judgement.

Bronze Age thinking is filling in the gaps in your understand with fantasies of agency, because "common sense" tells us that when it rains it rains because someone inside the rain clouds decides to make it rain.

My common sense tells me no such thing, so I must not be guilty as accused.

We continue to believe that until our understanding is raised to such a level that we see that there are no gods in the rain clouds. And then we look back wondering how were we so silly in the first place to believe that.

Yes, I experienced that when I became a Christian. Why had I believed in such a fairy tale as evolution?! Imagine, all the complexity revealed by science is the result of no designer, it just was and became vastly more complex of its own accord! The people I met from day to day, not spirits in bodies, just bodies. How anyone can delude themselves so is beyond me - but I was as blind as the rest. I rejoice in God's goodness to me:
2 Corinthians 4:6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

But seriously, is it major manipulation of the facts, or is it reasonable analysis of the facts?

It's not a manipulation of the facts, in the sense that I don't think he is twisting anything on purpose. However it is incorrect on several accounts and the whole argument is supported by being vague and glossing over the real meaning of certain measurements.

I do agree with this:

a) Its not actually that important as a christian, b) We don't have to be at loggerheads, and, c) It doesn't have to be a young earth, in fact Genesis doesn't indicate how old the universe is.

I'll give something more detailed tomorrow.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

What laws? The inverse square law can be derived from the fact that things are rotationally invariant, there is nothing mystic about it.

That is like saying America came into existence because Columbus discovered it! Nature's laws may be discovered by us, but they did not originate with us.

I mean seriously they are eclipses, when the Sun and the Moon come together to make a big shadow. Nothing more.

I agree. But it is why they exist that is the 'mystic' element. A small piece of lead and copper at high temperature is just that. But it may well be so because it was designed and used as a means of killing a man or woman.

Great, a vague statement that means nothing. However thinking the eclipse shows when God is mad is ridiculous.

It shows His power and by inference we may fear His wrath if we are in rebellion toward Him.

It's like saying rain is when God cries.

No, it's not. I can't speak for you, but I dare say most people feel a lot more awe when they see an eclipse than when they see a cloud.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Bronze Age thinking is filling in the gaps in your understand with fantasies of agency, because "common sense" tells us that when it rains it rains because someone inside the rain clouds decides to make it rain.

Yes, I experienced that when I became a Christian. Why had I believed in such a fairy tale as evolution?! Imagine, all the complexity revealed by science is the result of no designer, it just was and became vastly more complex of its own accord!

Hmm. The parallel Wicknight is drawing there is rather apt, since the weather is also an immensely complex system.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Wicknight
Can we take it that since you are now only making silly jokes and quoting scripture back to us (seriously, WTF?) that you concede that -

a) Information can by copied, non-intelligently or otherwise, with error without degrading the information.


a). Information CANNOT be copied, non-intelligently, with error, without degrading the information…..

……….and if you don’t believe me …..jut ty redin dis!!!!!.

......or click on this Mutation Generator......and watch the information degrade before your eyes!!!:eek:
http://www.randommutation.com/index.php

.....and have a look at how to differentiate between Natural Patterns and Intelligent Design here:- http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/intelligent_evolution_quick_guide.htm

J C

JimiTime wrote:

Have you ever heard of the guy in question? Obviously I enjoyed his talk, as he is Christian, and doesn't present this, science or god typr of arguement.:) i like his philosiphy on a) Its not actually that important as a christian, b) We don't have to be at loggerheads, and, c) It doesn't have to be a young earth, in fact Genesis doesn't indicate how old the universe is.

But seriously, is it major manipulation of the facts, or is it reasonable analysis of the facts?

Hugh Ross is a first rate scientist with a keen innovative mind.

He is 90% right ..... but I disagree with some of his attributed ages.:D

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

That is like saying America came into existence because Columbus discovered it!

No it isn't in the least. Derived means is a consequence of, not is figured out from. The inverse square law originates because things are rotationally invariant, there is nothing mystic about it.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, it's not. I can't speak for you, but I dare say most people feel a lot more awe when they see an eclipse than when they see a cloud.

And? Saying an eclipse in when God is mad is just like saying rain is when God cries. The "awe" you feel is irrelevant, it is simply a very primitive way to approach eclipses. If it isn't then I can tell you that God is going to feel angry at Russia on August 1st 2008 at 14:27. I also wonder why most eclipses happen in remote regions with a low population.
You can feel eclipses show the majesty of God's creation, but you have no way of knowing they mean he's angry. It would mean that God feels angry in accord with Kepler's laws.

Why not say stars go nova when God feels excited?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

I don't have a problem with him saying that either. Most of them were ignorant. Their worship of false gods was an example of how darkened their minds were.

It was nothing to do with how "dark" their minds were. Plenty of wonderful civilisations, far more ethical and moral than the Hebrews, thought like this.

It was to do with how they viewed the world, in terms of everything that occurred in nature as being the result of someone doing something.

wolfsbane wrote:

Agreed. But who set up those natural laws?

Now you are thinking exactly like a Bronze Age man.

Who made the rain fall last Tuesday?

Who decided my cattle would die from thirst last summer?

Who made the earth quake last year destroying my village, and why?

When Son says "bronze age thinking" he is talking about the inability to view the natural world as anything other than the result of some agency, with similar motivations as us, deciding to do something for a reason.

That seems to be the way our brains are set up, by evolution, to view the world around us, until we know better. There are evolutionary theories as to why this would be, but they are a bit complex to get into here.

But make no mistake, when you ask "Who made the natural laws" you are thinking in exactly the same way Bronze Age man though about the clouds, or the sun or disease. You have simply shifted this "agent" to a different position, because modern science has explained what actually happens in clouds, with the Sun or with disease.

wolfsbane wrote:

My common sense tells me no such thing, so I must not be guilty as accused.

You common sense tells you that someone must have made the universe the way it is.

Something we don't understand happened, therefore someone like us, an agent, must have made it happen, for a reason.

It is exactly the same thought process.

You view the universe in the same way Bronze Age man viewed the rain clouds.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

a). Information CANNOT be copied, non-intelligently, with error, without degrading the information…..

I have already copied something, nonintelligently, with error, and produced a sentence that contains exactly the same information as the original.

Let me demonstrate again -

after school I walked home

school after I walked home

home school walked I after

I after home school walked

home walked I after school

I school after home walked

I walked home after school

There, finished. A randomly generated sentence that is different from the original (a copy error) that contains the same information as the original.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

You view the universe in the same way Bronze Age man viewed the rain clouds.

Ah! You have correctly summed up the issue in this final sentence.:)

I agree. I was objecting to the idea that I was viewing the operation in the rain clouds in the same way as the Bronze age people. The crucial difference is between a deity intervening directly in every natural event, and One who creates the universe and its laws, and intervenes miraculously in exceptional circumstances.

Overall, He has predestined every event, but those events normally occur in the usual cause/effect of nature. God does not have to miraculously cause every effect.

So my common sense does indeed inform me that the universe has a Designer, but does not tell me He is sitting in the rain-cloud turning the tap on and off.

Your explanation for the super complexity of life is that it just is so. A logical possibility, but not one that accords with all of our other experience of order in life. Smacks of a desperate attempt at silencing the conscience.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

The inverse square law originates because things are rotationally invariant, there is nothing mystic about it.

So it is because it is. I say it is because a Master Designer made it so. From our experience of life, design seems to be the more probable explanation.

And? Saying an eclipse in when God is mad is just like saying rain is when God cries.

Who said an eclipse means God is angry? It displays His eternal power and Godhead:
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

It is the refusal of man to respond to that revelation and his rebellion against God that brings His wrath. For the Christian, an eclipse or a sunset, a flower or a snowflake, carry only evidences of His majesty.

Ekancone

It must take a huge effort to ignore the evidence there is to support the view that there may not be a God. I mean every single step forward in science is a step backwards for the big man himself. Is there ever going to be a stage where theists look at the mountain of evidence before them and just think: 'Ok, the jig is up'. How do you do it? How do you allow yourself to conviently ignore a certain selection of science (such as evolution) while obviously believing in others, such as the medicine we have all taken at times in our life. How is it possible to live in such a double standard?

Really, i would like to know.

Scofflaw

daithifleming wrote:

It must take a huge effort to ignore the evidence there is to support the view that there may not be a God. I mean every single step forward in science is a step backwards for the big man himself. Is there ever going to be a stage where theists look at the mountain of evidence before them and just think: 'Ok, the jig is up'. How do you do it? How do you allow yourself to conviently ignore a certain selection of science (such as evolution) while obviously believing in others, such as the medicine we have all taken at times in our life. How is it possible to live in such a double standard?

Really, i would like to know.

I don't think it's fair to tar all theists with the same brush here. We've heard of plenty of theists of all religion who have been unable to square scientific discoveries with the claims of their religion - and the more fundamentalist/literalist the religion, the more common such a phenomenon is. The more fundamentalist Baptist churches in the US, for example, grow only because they recruit faster than they lose people - but the rate of loss is, as far as I remember, something like 18% annually.

In addition, a large number of adherents to any given church are probably paying only lip-service to the more fundamental ideas and doctrines of their churches, while allowing a good deal more credit than one might suppose to the discoveries of science.

Those who are both fundamental in their outlook, and unpersuadable of the value of scientific evidence as opposed to the tenets of their faith, like JC and wolfsbane, are actually very rare. They stand out, if I can say so, in the same way as stubborn knots in a piece of wood do (no offence is intended, and I suspect none will be taken), and in much the same way, can be seen as characterising the piece of wood in question not by their statistical dominance but by their effects on the shaping of that piece of wood. Extending the analogy (or parable), they are also integral to the wood, and inextricably part of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

daithifleming wrote:

It must take a huge effort to ignore the evidence there is to support the view that there may not be a God. I mean every single step forward in science is a step backwards for the big man himself. Is there ever going to be a stage where theists look at the mountain of evidence before them and just think: 'Ok, the jig is up'. How do you do it? How do you allow yourself to conviently ignore a certain selection of science (such as evolution) while obviously believing in others, such as the medicine we have all taken at times in our life. How is it possible to live in such a double standard?

Really, i would like to know.

Its easy, I just put my hands to my ears and go, 'la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la';)

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Its easy, I just put my hands to my ears and go, 'la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la';)

And how, in turn, do you feel we manage to ignore the Christian message? A slightly unfair question, I'll grant you, since this is the second thread of asking.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

I agree. I was objecting to the idea that I was viewing the operation in the rain clouds in the same way as the Bronze age people. The crucial difference is between a deity intervening directly in every natural event, and One who creates the universe and its laws, and intervenes miraculously in exceptional circumstances.

But the point is that there is no difference. Its both "Bronze Age thinking". Both you and the bronze age man have trouble viewing things in terms other than an agent performing an action for a purpose.

The only difference, and its not a crucial one, is where you think God lives.

wolfsbane wrote:

So my common sense does indeed inform me that the universe has a Designer, but does not tell me He is sitting in the rain-cloud turning the tap on and off.

That is because science has explained to you how a rain-cloud works. If it was properly explained to bronze age man how a rain-cloud works he no doubt would not think God lived there any more than you did.

It hasn't been explained to you how the universe came into existence in the same convincing manner as rain clouds, so as with the man 4000 years ago, you fill in the gaps with an agent who thinks and acts similar to us, the exact same way bronze age man filled in the gaps of his understanding of the weather with an agent who thinks and acts like us.

wolfsbane wrote:

Your explanation for the super complexity of life is that it just is so.

Yes. In the same way that when it rains its raining because sometimes it "just" rains. Rain is the result of a complex system. It rains when the moister in the air cools to a point where water vapor forms.

That makes perfect sense to you now because it has been explained to you that the weather system on Earth, while incredible complex, is a natural process.

On the other hand if we went back in time and told the bronze age man that it rains just because sometimes it rains, it is a process in a vast weather system that is under no control from any agent, he would probably laugh at us for being utterly ridiculous.

Of course it rains for a reason, of course someone is controlling the rain! That is just common sense! Look, when our tribe when to war with the tribe in the next valley 6 years ago we had a drought for a summer! That proves that the rain god was angry with us for our war. And then when we killed our goats it rained 3 weeks later, proving that the rain god was happy with our sacrifice. It is nonsense to even suggest that he is not up there in those clouds watching over our tribe.

Besides water lives on the ground, in rivers and lakes. How could it possibly get into the sky! What, did another tribe just throw the water into the air really high? Nonsense. It requires a god to work such wonder, a god to give us water from heavens!! It is nonsense to suggest that the water just some how got into the sky. I can't even imagine how that would work!

You see the point I'm making.

All this comes from a) ignorance of what is actually happening and b) the human instinct to fill in the gaps of our actual knowledge with what we do instinctively understand, an agent, an agent of super power.

When you talk about the common sense of a designer for life, or the fact that it fits with other things in life (my TV is very complex and intelligently designed, so I can't imagine how something like the human brain could not be intelligently designed), you are doing exactly what the bronze age man did when he pondered the implausibility of water getting far into the sky without some magical god doing it.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

So it is because it is.

No "it is" because of rotational invariance, like I just said. Not "it is because it is".

wolfsbane wrote:

For the Christian, an eclipse or a sunset, a flower or a snowflake, carry only evidences of His majesty.

That's fine, it displays evidence of his majesty, just like everything else.
However you said originally of eclipses:

wolfsbane wrote:

Maybe they are also pictures of the partial judgements that precede the total one to come. As individuals, as nations, as a race, we have all experienced such judgements. They ought to warn us of the ultimate disaster that awaits unrepentant sinners.

That is they are warnings of God's coming judgement. You have no way of knowing this, even accepting that the Christian God exists and it is a silly way to think of what is simple a planetary scale shadow.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

So it is because it is. I say it is because a Master Designer made it so.

By which logic, you must conclude that either God is because God is, or because a Master Designer made God so.

From our experience of life, design seems to be the more probable explanation.

And so you should believe that God was designed...

However, here I'm willing to bet that you can find why your logic shouldn't apply....despite your inability to do so regarding the origins of the universe.

I'm also willing to bet that you can't actually form a solid argument which could explain why this reasoning doesn't apply to God without also allowing that it doesn't apply to the very thing you've just applied it to - the origins of the universe.

It displays His eternal power and Godhead:

Surely everything displays "His eternal power and Godhead" by your reasoning/ It all comes from the same designer, and is the result of the same design. The barely-detectable blinking of a stranger in the street standing 50m away from you is as much a display of God's eternal power and Godhead as an eclipse is, so why single one out for awe, rather than just saying we should be constantly aweful of everything?

2Scoops

An eclipse is more awe-inspiring than any other object casting a shadow by virtue of what, exactly? Its rarity or, perhaps, its scale? In any case, it is no evidence of the existance of a deity, Christian or otherwise.

Incidently, anyone remember the solar eclipse in Ireland a couple of years ago? Entirely underwhelming. I certainly don't recall people being 'in awe' of it. I believe the headlines in the tabloids the next day were something along the lines of: "The Eclipse - Wasn't it Weird?"

Shadow puppets ftw.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

It must take a huge effort to ignore the evidence there is to support the view that there may not be a God. I mean every single step forward in science is a step backwards for the big man himself. Is there ever going to be a stage where theists look at the mountain of evidence before them and just think: 'Ok, the jig is up'. How do you do it? How do you allow yourself to conviently ignore a certain selection of science (such as evolution) while obviously believing in others, such as the medicine we have all taken at times in our life. How is it possible to live in such a double standard?

Really, i would like to know.

Glad to help:

I mean every single step forward in science is a step backwards for the big man himself.

Scientists who are Christians find it quite the reverse. The more one discovers, the more one is convinced it is the result of a Great Designer rather than time and chance. Even Theistic Evolutionists would agree with that.

How do you allow yourself to conviently ignore a certain selection of science (such as evolution) while obviously believing in others, such as the medicine we have all taken at times in our life. How is it possible to live in such a double standard?

In the same way Big-Bangers dismiss alternative theories of cosmology, yet are not thought to be operating a double-standard. Evolution is one theory of the origins of today's biosphere; Intelligent Design is another. Scientists who hold to the latter find no double-standard.

I have no problem calling Evolution scientific, in that it advances scientific arguments in its favour, even though I find them wanting. I expect Creation Science to be accorded the same respect.

I do of course recognise the inherent prejudice that infects all men, including scientists, and inclines them to rubbish those who disagree. Creationists have touched a raw nerve in many scientists, since if it is correct not only will some scientific theories have to be abandoned but also it makes it possible that there is a God to whom all must give account. Very uncomfortable.:eek:

To support my allegation of inherent bias, consider this:
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
Sound familiar?

Check out full article:
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004): http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

You see the point I'm making.

I do - but you are mistaken. You want to equate the cause 'god in the clouds makes it rain' with the ultimate cause of all things. The first errs by not seeing the rain as many causes removed from the ultimate cause. You err then in thinking there must be no ultimate cause:

All this comes from a) ignorance of what is actually happening and b) the human instinct to fill in the gaps of our actual knowledge with what we do instinctively understand, an agent, an agent of super power.

Bronze age man seems to have been less gullible than you.:D

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

No "it is" because of rotational invariance, like I just said. Not "it is because it is".

And rotational invariance is because...?

That's fine, it displays evidence of his majesty, just like everything else.
However you said originally of eclipses:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Maybe they are also pictures of the partial judgements that precede the total one to come. As individuals, as nations, as a race, we have all experienced such judgements. They ought to warn us of the ultimate disaster that awaits unrepentant sinners.

That is they are warnings of God's coming judgement. You have no way of knowing this, even accepting that the Christian God exists and it is a silly way to think of what is simple a planetary scale shadow.

Note the 'also' before 'pictures of the partial judgements'. I was not saying they are only warnings of the coming Judgement. They convey something of God's majesty to the minds of the beholder - what that strikes there depends on one's conscience toward God.