The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

stevejazzx

'The ending was predictable right from the start but an altogether enjoyable romp nonetheless'.

The Kildare Post

Scofflaw

"...Groundhog Day, but without the surprises.."

Monaghan Messenger


cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

More naughty misdirection from God - making it look like we've spotted a 10-million year old planet. As if planets just, you know, formed from the dust discs round stars, rather than needing to be specially created. Outrageous!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sorry to burst your Hubble (sorry, bubble), but all this can claim to show is "This demonstrates that planets can form within 10 million years, before the disc has been dissipated by stellar winds and radiation,". That is, it does not show that planets were not specially created, just that if they did evolve they might have done so from the dust clouds. It does not show one being formed, nor does it show a sequence of protoplanets from dust to planet. Just a planet and dust. Evolutionary imagination is required to make the former into the latter.

You guys certainly have plenty of it!

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is, it does not show that planets were not specially created

No, it show that planets look like they were not specially created but instead formed by a natural process.

As Scofflaw says there are two options, 1) planets were naturally created or 2) God creates planets with magic and then fakes it to make it look like they were naturally created.

God is putting the natural process in front of us to look at. If you wish to believe in a deceiving god then ahead.

But then if the universe is a deception and God deceives then it is possible that everything that appears to be one thing is actually something else, including your Bible.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

It's not essentially, it is. Take a look again at AiG's self-important "Statement of Faith" here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

I mean, he's not exactly hiding the fact that he's cheerfully ignoring anything that suggests that his interpretation of his chosen holytext could be wrong.

It's as though declamation were equal to proof. Which I suppose it is in the banal, vain and evidence-free parallel universe of the imagination that Ham and his dizzy acolytes choose to create and inhabit.

I think we covered this before, but you guys are very slow to grasp anything that contradicts your straw-man image of Creationism, so I'll remind you of it.

AiG and similar Creationist sites are not not solely scientific: their stated (not hidden) aim is to evangelise the lost and edify the believers by way of showing how real science does not contradict the Biblical account of Creation.

If something in scientific research comes up that seems to do so, they are not at liberty to think that the creation account is in error. They are at liberty - indeed are morally obliged - to frankly admit that the research seems to contradict it. They then labour to find out where the research erred or how it has been misinterpreted.

Their faith is faith - their science, science. Being people of faith does not prevent them being people of science too.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

No, it show that planets look like they were not specially created but instead formed by a natural process.

As Scofflaw says there are two options, 1) planets were naturally created or 2) God creates planets with magic and then fakes it to make it look like they were naturally created.

God is putting the natural process in front of us to look at. If you wish to believe in a deceiving god then ahead.

But then if the universe is a deception and God deceives then it is possible that everything that appears to be one thing is actually something else, including your Bible.

What is deceiving about a sun having both dust rings and planets? Is God only allowed one or the other? Just because you see dust rings and they seem to be the only possible material from which to evolve a planet, does not mean it has to be so. It is just story-telling.

Maybe if you showed us a sequence from dust-to-planet you would have some credibility. What you really have is a Just-So story.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

What is deceiving about a sun having both dust rings and planets? Is God only allowed one or the other? Just because you see dust rings and they seem to be the only possible material from which to evolve a planet, does not mean it has to be so. It is just story-telling.

Maybe if you showed us a sequence from dust-to-planet you would have some credibility. What you really have is a Just-So story.

Well, you'd need to wait the 10 millions years, then, making your request impossible. You simply cannot always observe a particular process, so you come up with a theory that explains the process and makes predictions about what you would expect to observe if your theory is correct. That's falsifiability. If we could simply observe every single process of interest there's be no need for theory at all - but we can't, and there is.

The claim that science can "only work from observation" means that scientific theories has to fit with real observations - not that it consists only of observation, as you seem to think. Mere observation is not science, but a constituent part of it. By your definition, any explanation is a "just-so" story. Science, like any explanatory endeavour, is an attempt to join the dots, not just to record the dots.

You haven't addressed why God bothers to fill the place up with phenomena that fit the materialistic models. Seems deceptive - like giving your accountant a set of figures that belong to an entirely different business.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

AiG and similar Creationist sites are not not solely scientific:

And you are missing the point that through their declaration Answers in Genesis demonstrate that they are not, in any way, scientific.

You can't be scientific with a declaration that says you have decided to operate in a manner that is the exact opposite of scientific.

It would be like a Satan worshipper saying "I'm all for Jesus!"

For some strange reason this doesn't seem to stop you spending 95% of your posts quoting or linking to their "research"

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

What is deceiving about a sun having both dust rings and planets?

What is deceiving about making a solar system look 10 million years old when it is actually 6,000 years ago and was created in the middle of formation?

What is deceiving about providing a glimpse of a young solar system that fits every theoretical model we have about how our own solar system formed when in fact neither solar systems ever formed, they were just created as whole by magic a few thousand years ago?

Nothing Wolfsbane, nothing at all :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just because you see dust rings and they seem to be the only possible material from which to evolve a planet, does not mean it has to be so.

You are right it doesn't. But then that isn't what this is.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Maybe if you showed us a sequence from dust-to-planet you would have some credibility.

Maybe if you showed us a god creating a universe you might have some credibility.

As it stands it is an argument between a very supported theory (the natural formation of solar systems over millions of years) and the idea that God decided to just make them all, all in various stages of development, an idea (I wouldn't use theory) with absolutely no support at all and which goes against every single piece of observational evidence ever discovered about the universe.

Ummm, let me think ...

Zombrex

Wolfsbane you are also ignore the corner stone of scientific enquiry, that being prediction

If all the scientific models and theories of the formation of stars and planets are in fact made up nonsense, how come they can predict observed stellar phenomena before they are discovered

The the man who discovered this 10 million year old star says

"That lines up with what scientists had previously thought, he says, "but it is nice to see our ideas confirmed by a specific case"."

If these theoretical models were false they shouldn't be able to predict any real world cases. In fact that opposite is true.

Creationists can't explain this.

There are only two alternatives, 1) these models are close to what is actually happening. 2) God has created a young universe to look very like an old universe

From the point of view of science those two things mean the same thing.

Meadows

Wicknight wrote: »

Creationists can't explain this.

Creationists can't explain anything.

The blanket answer is "God made it that way".

Its the lazy zero think answer.

I know its a same to see people with such a narrow childlike view on life.

Now let the creationists go back to sleep and let the rest of us continue learning about the universe and our actual origins.

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Their faith is faith - their science, science. Being people of faith does not prevent them being people of science too.

Just like the Atheist Evolutionists are ALSO people of even GREATER faith!!!:D

You see, the first principle of Evolutionist 'logic' is wrong ......
random changes to any complex system are statistically likely to be deleterious....and as the number of random changes increases linearly.....the probability of disaster increases exponentially!!!!

....IF you doubt me ......try making random changes to your computer or your TV......and watch the probability catastrophic failure increase exponentially!!!!

Eventually, the likelihood of disaster becomes a statistical certainty.......without an intelligently designed auto-correction system!!!

......and that is why people don't drive randomly or don't randomly operate manufacturing processes.......and then use a selection process to sort out the resultant mess......
......the mess would be so great that it would confound ANY selection system......
....but the Evolutionists' faith is so stromg that they believe, against all the odds, that they were evolved randomly.....and NS has 'rescued' the process, so to speak.......

.....but luckily for them.....the faith of Evolutionists does not extend to believing in the 'creative powers' of mutagenesis for themselves, right here and now.......they reject this ......
.....but they DO believe in the 'creative powers' of mutagenesis to spontaneously 'move' molecules to become Man!!!:D

......oh, ye of great faith.......in Evolution!!!:D:)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Wolfsbane you are also ignore the corner stone of scientific enquiry, that being prediction

If all the scientific models and theories of the formation of stars and planets are in fact made up nonsense, how come they can predict observed stellar phenomena before they are discovered

The the man who discovered this 10 million year old star says

"That lines up with what scientists had previously thought, he says, "but it is nice to see our ideas confirmed by a specific case"."

If these theoretical models were false they shouldn't be able to predict any real world cases. In fact that opposite is true.

Creationists can't explain this.

There are only two alternatives, 1) these models are close to what is actually happening. 2) God has created a young universe to look very like an old universe

From the point of view of science those two things mean the same thing.

Ok ......so SOMEBODY discovers a star......and using self-serving assumptions, concludes that it is 10 million years old......

.......and YOU then argue that because it is supposedly 10 million years old, the case for an old Universe is somehow proven.

Unproven premise.......unproven argument!!!:eek::D

Ciaran500

J C wrote: »

that they were evolved randomly.....and NS has 'rescued' the process

I can only assume you're trying to piss people off now.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
the Evolutionists' faith is so stromg that they believe, against all the odds, that they were evolved randomly.....and NS has 'rescued' the process

Ciaran500 wrote: »

I can only assume you're trying to piss people off now.

The basis of the Evolutionist Faith is that random mutation produced random changes in the genome......which would produce overwhelming deleterious effects......and N S sorted out the mess by selecting the fittest organisms to survive......

.....this is ILLOGICAL......and unworkable!!!!

just like ......people driving randomly and randomly operating manufacturing processes.......and then use a selection process to sort out the resultant mess......is also ILLOGICAL and unworkable!!!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Ummm, let me think ...

Now THIS really is progress....an Evolutionist starting to THINK!!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't be scientific with a declaration that says you have decided to operate in a manner that is the exact opposite of scientific.

...and WHAT exactly do you mean by that?

J C

Meadows wrote: »

Now let the creationists go back to sleep and let the rest of us continue learning about the universe and our actual origins.

Which was WHAT exactly?

J C

The 8,000th Post on the 400th Page.......and still going strong....

......and we haven't even got around to prophecy yet!!!!:D;):p:):eek::cool:

J C

Originally Posted by Meadows
I know its a s(h)ame to see people with such a narrow childlike view on life.

Yes indeed, the unfounded and highly irrational idea, that people are spontaneously descended from Pond Slime.....is "a narrow childlike view on life"........but there you go ......many grown men believe in it!!!:D

J C

Originally Posted by Wicknight
If all the scientific models and theories of the formation of stars and planets are in fact made up nonsense, how come they can predict observed stellar phenomena before they are discovered.


The predictions about stellar phenomena have nothing to do with Evolution......and the stars declare the glory of God.......and provide objective support for Creation !!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Maybe if you showed us a god creating a universe you might have some credibility.

Do you have to see a videotape of the building of the Egyptian Pyramids to accept that they were built by an intelligent agent?

.......so WHY do you not accept that applying similar rules of evidence and logic would indicate that life was ALSO built by an intelligent agent?:eek::)

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

Do you have to see a videotape of the building of the Egyptian Pyramids to accept that they were built by an intelligent agent?

.......so WHY do you not accept that similar evidence and logic indicates that life was ALSO built by an intelligent agent?:eek::)

Wait - now we don't need to actually observe it? Handy!

very amused,
Scofflaw

robindch

J C wrote: »

The 8,000th Post on the 400th Page.......and still going strong....

Eight posts in a row? Must be a record.

J C

Originally Posted by Wicknight
Maybe if you showed us a god creating a universe you might have some credibility.
Originally Posted by J C
Do you have to see a videotape of the building of the Egyptian Pyramids to accept that they were built by an intelligent agent?
.......so WHY do you not accept that applying similar rules of evidence and logic indicates that life was ALSO built by an intelligent agent?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Wait - now we don't need to actually observe it? Handy!

very amused,
Scofflaw

NEITHER the Evolutionist nor the Creationist can observe the creation of life happening.......it is a fait accompli........

.......but the precision and order observed, as well as the astronomical levels of interactive functional complexity found in living organisms, indicates that a transcendent entity with an effectively infinite creative capacity, produced it!!!:D:)

J C

robindch wrote: »

Eight posts in a row? Must be a record.

The WHOLE THREAD must be a record!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by Wicknight
Maybe if you showed us a god creating a universe you might have some credibility.
Originally Posted by J C
Do you have to see a videotape of the building of the Egyptian Pyramids to accept that they were built by an intelligent agent?
.......so WHY do you not accept that applying similar rules of evidence and logic indicates that life was ALSO built by an intelligent agent?



NEITHER the Evolutionist nor the Creationist can observe the creation of life happening.......it is a fait accompli........

.......but the precision and order observed, as well as the astronomical levels of interactive functional complexity found in living organisms, indicates that a transcendent entity with an effectively infinite creative capacity, produced it!!!:D:)

Ah - that would be an interpretation based on the available evidence, wouldn't it? What wolfsbane likes to call a "just-so" story.

even more amused,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C

The basis of the Evolutionist Faith is that random mutation produced random changes in the genome......which would produce overwhelming deleterious effects......and N S sorted out the mess by selecting the fittest organisms to survive......

.....this is ILLOGICAL......and unworkable!!!!

just like ......people driving randomly and randomly operating manufacturing processes.......and then use a selection process to sort out the resultant mess......is also ILLOGICAL and unworkable!!!!:D

Emmm...you've claimed all that before in the same jumbled up fashion and it has been explained to you carefully and patiently, at this stage you're simply grasping at straws I'm afraid. What is illogical and unworkable is a young earth. Nearly every scientist alive - 99.9% of them anyway - (as in the statistics that were posted here before showed) believe in an old earth.
Saying that someone put two of every animal on boat is an unworkable process. Denying the various methods used by science to age the earth is illogical as the results allign (as per the graph I posted a couple pages back) they correlate.
And lastly this notion that human beings plopped, yes plopped out of thin air at the behest of a supernatural entity into the middle east 6,000 thousand years ago is not only illogical, but pathological. It is litreally insane. Denying the origin of species by substituting an untestable hypothesis (GOD) is illogical and unworkable, it is especially so given the knowledge and evidence that is currently available.

fatmammycat

Why do people keep arguing with these religious anti-evolution folk? They are willfully obtuse and seem intent to stay that way. There is a mountain of scientific evidence out there, available and tangible, in support of evolution. If creationists choose to ignore it let them dwell in their fantasy diety driven world.
My Gamma used to say, 'don't wrestle with pigs, you'll only get dirty and the pig likes it.' This thread a very apt example of that.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Ok ......so SOMEBODY discovers a star......and using self-serving assumptions, concludes that it is 10 million years old......

.......and YOU then argue that because it is supposedly 10 million years old, the case for an old Universe is somehow proven.

Unproven premise.......unproven argument!!!:eek::D

No, I argue that some of the best minds in science (most of the theists btw) have for the last 200+ years build up detailed theories about solar systems form through natural processes, and along the way they check the predictions of these models against observation to see if the models are accurate or not.

Creationists cannot explain why if these models are so wrong they some how manage to predict observations.

Just like they can't explain why if all radiometric dating is totally wrong independent radiometric dating of objects ends up with similar dates.

In fact that is quite a lot Creationists can't explain ....

J C wrote: »

...and WHAT exactly do you mean by that?

Exactly what I said. A person or group cannot claim to be scientific while putting forward a mission statement that is the exact opposite of scientific, that being that they will ignore or discard evidence and observation if it appears to contradict the Bible.

In fact if as you claim all the evidence does really point to a young Biblical Earth, this should actually be totally unnecessary. It is quite telling that an organisation such as Answers in Genesis needs a mission statement like this. It is pretty much admitting that there is a wealth of evidence and observation that does in fact contradict the Bible.

J C wrote: »

Do you have to see a videotape of the building of the Egyptian Pyramids to accept that they were built by an intelligent agent?

Well no, you don't need to observe something directly to understand how it works based on the study of the evidence left behind by the process.

Which is why evolutionary biologists can understand very well how life on Earth evolved naturally over 3 billion years without have to observe the entire process on some massive time laps video tape.

Wow, you really walked into that one didn't you :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: