The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

That their articles that are perceived to threaten evolutionary understanding are not published.

Only because they are not submitted! Where are the reviews and the rejection letters i.e. the proof? Let's see the unreasonable decisions made by editors. Where are they?

wolfsbane wrote: »

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.’ This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent ‘the range of opinions received.’ e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

The important thing here is letters - not science, not investiagtions, not studies. Letters. The letters page. A single page of non peer-reviewed editor-selected comment. Not science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * ‘Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps’ to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review.

Let's see the unfair review that proves he was rejected purely because he was a Creationist. If it's true, they can only have sent him bull**** reasons that we will all see through easily. Where are they? And that last bit about not wanting to send it through official review is a joke - every submitted article has to go through review - there isn't an option! He still got reviewed, where are the comments?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a ‘slight bias’ exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

On the basis of this one unsubstantiated claim? Hardly a reason to stop fighting the good fight... if they have good science behind them. Either way, you can't cry censorship when you don't get censored. Seems like they're censoring themselves, if anything.

wolfsbane wrote: »

(You are aware of the Smithsonian incident?

I'm aware of the incident and I'll freely admit I don't know all the details. I do know that there are a lot more allegations of discrimination than there is evidence. And the initial spark involving the unorthodox review for a creationist article that came to false conclusions was certainly bizarre and worth investigating.

Eschatologist

You are quite right Wolfsbane, I am biased and I concede the point. To me, there is just so much about flood geology and creationism which just does not hold up. I simply can't discount centuries of scientific data and research; and not just ideas, but actual empirical data, the progression from idea to hypothesis to theory if it withstands repeated and independent testing and further observation to become accepted fact.

When did people start trying to provide and/or collect data to support creationism? And not just broad arguments against evolution or old Earth which have been around for just as long, like when Darwin first proposed his theory. As in, has any creationist gone out into the field for example, and mapped the globally contemporaneous deposits from the flood and can say 'yes, they are of biblical age' or 'here are my/our radiometric dates of the minerals in the flood sediments which support the claim'.

As far as I understand it, evidence for creationism only really started coming out during the 1960s onwards, but I'm open to correction.

Ekancone

Creationists, do you believe in the theory of gravity?

If so, take 18 mins to watch these videos and see why a young universe is impossible. Thanks.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sEW1oQBZu-I

robindch

Eschatologist wrote: »

As far as I understand it, evidence for creationism only really started coming out during the 1960s onwards, but I'm open to correction.

Correction -- no evidence came out, since there is no evidence for creationism.

What happened instead is that many religious outlets noticed that if you said that whatever you were saying was 'scientific', then lots of people would believe you. Especially the people who wouldn't recognize a bit of science when it tripped by anyway.

Hence the continuing popularity of creationism, despite a complete lack of both evidence and honesty on the parts of the people who make money out of selling the belief.

sdep

Eschatologist wrote: »

As far as I understand it, evidence for creationism only really started coming out during the 1960s onwards...

robindch wrote: »

What happened instead is that many religious outlets noticed that if you said that whatever you were saying was 'scientific', then lots of people would believe you.

The rise of scientific creationism is commonly linked by commentators to America's response to the 1957 Sputnik launch. America found itself in a science race with the USSR, and the revived interest in science led to a challenge to the traditional Biblical world view. Creation science was set up by and for people who could see the need for science but weren't prepared to accept scientific findings that contradicted their religion. The phenomenon of Islamic scientific creationism spreading from Turkey has been attributed to similar causes.

GhostInTheRuins

Excuse my laziness (Don't fancy reading 400+ pages) but are there really posters here that genuinely believe in creationism/young earth?

Unfortunately I think I know what the answer is going to be.

Ekancone

D.T. Jesus wrote: »

Excuse my laziness (Don't fancy reading 400+ pages) but are there really posters here that genuinely believe in creationism/young earth?

Unfortunately I think I know what the answer is going to be.

There are two left: JC and Wolfsbane.

GhostInTheRuins

daithifleming wrote: »

There are two left: JC and Wolfsbane.

Thanks for that. I'll have a flick through some random pages to keep myself amused so

Ekancone

D.T. Jesus wrote: »

Thanks for that. I'll have a flick through some random pages to keep myself amused so

It pretty much goes through the same cycle every 50 pages or so. There is no need to read all of it. Just keep up to date with what is happening now by readin g the last five pages or so.

MooseJam

So I just realised now yes I'm very slow but wasn't the ark a huge waste of time and effort, it was God we are talking about so he could have just flooded the place and them afterwards made a new set of animals, there was no need to put them on the ark at all so why bother eh ? well it could have been a much smaller ark anyway , just big enough for Noah and friends

Scofflaw

MooseJam wrote: »

So I just realised now yes I'm very slow but wasn't the ark a huge waste of time and effort, it was God we are talking about so he could have just flooded the place and them afterwards made a new set of animals, there was no need to put them on the ark at all so why bother eh ? well it could have been a much smaller ark anyway , just big enough for Noah and friends

He could have miraculously preserved them on an island, either. Or used a completely different method than a global flood, like pestilence - or simply turning people's switches off. On the other hand, perhaps the trilobites and dinosaurs were big sinners, as opposed to being collateral damage.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

MooseJam wrote: »

So I just realised now yes I'm very slow but wasn't the ark a huge waste of time and effort, it was God we are talking about so he could have just flooded the place and them afterwards made a new set of animals, there was no need to put them on the ark at all so why bother eh ? well it could have been a much smaller ark anyway , just big enough for Noah and friends

Erm, i think its because God moves in mysterious ways.

Eschatologist

Ha! Evil trilobites! 'And GOD did view the trilobites of the shallow Cambrian seas with disdain of their idol worship of Anomalocaris, so he smote them good with a great big deluge.'

Ekancone

wolfsbane

MooseJam wrote: »

So I just realised now yes I'm very slow but wasn't the ark a huge waste of time and effort, it was God we are talking about so he could have just flooded the place and them afterwards made a new set of animals, there was no need to put them on the ark at all so why bother eh ? well it could have been a much smaller ark anyway , just big enough for Noah and friends

You are correct - God could have brought judgement and preservation on the old world in various ways. He choose to do it by the Flood and the Ark.

Why? He doesn't say.

Does He owe us an explanation? No, for He is God:
Romans 9:20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are correct - God could have brought judgement and preservation on the old world in various ways. He choose to do it by the Flood and the Ark.

Why? He doesn't say.

Does He owe us an explanation? No, for He is God:
Romans 9:20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

Indeed, 'why?' is a word that religion does its upmost to suppress. For when people begin to use it, they see the fallacies in their beliefs. This is no more apparant than in the brutish clause regarding denial of the Holy Spirit. In otherwords, one you are in, there is no escape.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are correct - God could have brought judgement and preservation on the old world in various ways. He choose to do it by the Flood and the Ark.

Why? He doesn't say.

Does He owe us an explanation? No, for He is God:
Romans 9:20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

Creation Science - not only do you not know, you're not even entitled to ask.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

It pretty much goes through the same cycle every 50 pages or so. There is no need to read all of it. Just keep up to date with what is happening now by readin g the last five pages or so.

Yes, that is basically correct: the same arguments receive the same answers mostly.

That's why I have suggested several times that interested folk should first check out the Creationist and Evolutionist sites for their queries. Only if unsuccessful there need they raise it here. A lot of time is taken rehashing what various scientists have covered in articles on the sites.

But the debate still goes on. I continue mainly for the philosophical/moral issues that get thrown up, so that the reader has an opportunity to see what Biblical Christianity believes.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Creation Science - not only do you not know, you're not even entitled to ask.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hmm. Science is about the How, surely, not the Why. Creation science deals with the How. Christian Theology deals with the Why.

Evolutionary Science seemingly has bigger ambitions? Maybe that's why its devotees get so hot and bothered when it's challenged.:D:D:D

pH

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, that is basically correct: the same arguments receive the same answers mostly.

That's why I have suggested several times that interested folk should first check out the Creationist and Evolutionist sites for their queries. Only if unsuccessful there need they raise it here. A lot of time is taken rehashing what various scientists have covered in articles on the sites.

But the debate still goes on. I continue mainly for the philosophical/moral issues that get thrown up, so that the reader has an opportunity to see what Biblical Christianity believes.

These are *discussion* boards, and while I accept that some folks feel that once *they* have discussed something then that should be it ("Hey haven't we (meaning I) already discussed this?") I feel that misses the point of *discussion* boards, other people may want to discuss the same thing, and who are we to tell them they can't discuss it because me and you already have? If I feel that the discussion is over from my point of view then I would hope I had the good grace to leave it, without imposing conditions preventing others attempting to do what I had been able to.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Indeed, 'why?' is a word that religion does its upmost to suppress. For when people begin to use it, they see the fallacies in their beliefs. This is no more apparant than in the brutish clause regarding denial of the Holy Spirit. In otherwords, one you are in, there is no escape.

Why is a proper resonse for everything God has revealed. It is just that we cannot demand an answer. God does not owe us one. But He often gives it, revealing His truth in His word.

I'm not sure what you are referring to by the brutish clause regarding denial of the Holy Spirit. In otherwords, one you are in, there is no escape. If you clarify, I'll be glad to respond.

wolfsbane

pH wrote: »

These are *discussion* boards, and while I accept that some folks feel that once *they* have discussed something then that should be it ("Hey haven't we (meaning I) already discussed this?") I feel that misses the point of *discussion* boards, other people may want to discuss the same thing, and who are we to tell them they can't discuss it because me and you already have? If I feel that the discussion is over from my point of view then I would hope I had the good grace to leave it, without imposing conditions preventing others attempting to do what I had been able to.

I agree. I'm just pointing out the frustration of discussing things already well covered both here and on the sites. Hence my use of links.

But if folk want to do so, fine. I prefer to look and new angles, new information - but try not to leave unanswered any query/objection no matter how well it has been covered before. When I feel my time is being wasted, I'll drop out.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why is a proper resonse for everything God has revealed. It is just that we cannot demand an answer. God does not owe us one. But He often gives it, revealing His truth in His word.

I'm not sure what you are referring to by the brutish clause regarding denial of the Holy Spirit. In otherwords, one you are in, there is no escape. If you clarify, I'll be glad to respond.

What is the one unforgiveable sin?

wolfsbane

Eschatologist said:

As far as I understand it, evidence for creationism only really started coming out during the 1960s onwards, but I'm open to correction.

Basically right. The modern widespread revival of creationism began in the mid-20thC. Previous efforts were more isolated and mostly petered out.

An interesting article by one of the founders of the modern movement:
The Revival of Modern Creationism (II: ICR, For Such A Time As This)by Henry Morris, Ph.D.http://www.icr.org/article/791/

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

What is the one unforgiveable sin?

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit -which is ascribing the activity of the Holy Spirit to Satan. Of course if you don't believe in Satan then it is difficult to see how you could commit that particular sin. Quite what it has to do with suppressing the asking of questions is a bit of a mystery.

As for "denial of the Holy Spirit" - I'm not sure what that is all about. Do you think 'blasphemy' and 'denial' mean the same thing?

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

What is the one unforgiveable sin?

Blasphemy against the Spirit:
Matthew 12:31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

What has that to do with asking why, or one you are in, there is no escape?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are correct - God could have brought judgement and preservation on the old world in various ways. He choose to do it by the Flood and the Ark.

Why? He doesn't say.

Does He owe us an explanation? No, for He is God:
Romans 9:20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

Creation Science - not only do you not know, you're not even entitled to ask.

Hmm. Science is about the How, surely, not the Why. Creation science deals with the How. Christian Theology deals with the Why.

Evolutionary Science seemingly has bigger ambitions? Maybe that's why its devotees get so hot and bothered when it's challenged.:D:D:D

Alas, you are confusing a big "why" with a little "why". Science often asks "why did this happen, and not that?" - questions about causes. Since that's what the original question was about, your answer highlighted a very large difference between science and religion - our question about "why did X happen" is asked in terms of natural causes; yours in terms of supernatural motives.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eschatologist

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. Science is about the How, surely, not the Why. Creation science deals with the How. Christian Theology deals with the Why.

Evolutionary Science seemingly has bigger ambitions? Maybe that's why its devotees get so hot and bothered when it's challenged.:D:D:D

Yes, it does have bigger ambitions – trying to explain the world in a more detailed way rather than just saying it was created by a god with no empirical data or independent lines of reasoning. Just saw it in a book: God is great, he did it therefore its validity cannot be questioned so we’ll use that as the basis for this creation ‘science’ and force the science to fit rather than arriving at it through logical deduction by simply observing.

If I unearthed an ancient Greek book which depicted Zeus as the divine creator (putting aside Gaia and Uranus, to illustrate my point), would I believe that the word of Zeus was law? Because the book was hailed by many as a genuine depiction of how Zeus created the world, and He was quoted as saying 'I created the heavens and the earth', would I then believe it? How would I reconcile my observation that lightning happened by the forcible separation of positive and negative charges with the fact that Zeus was recorded in the book as having said 'I am the Lord Of Lightning, created from my master thunderbolt.' Which would be the more satisfying answer? Would either take away from the awe I felt at watching a thunderstorm?

The answer is no - whether God zapped it from his finger or the separation of charges did it, at the heart of things doesn’t really matter - lightning is beautiful, but knowing empirically how it happens only makes me appreciate it more.

If all we ever said to such questions as, 'How does electricity work?', 'God made it so, look it says so right here in this book', we would still be stuck in sandals and robes. If you then countered with, ‘Well then, God is everything’, then God and the Bible become metaphors rather than ‘fact’.

The simple fact is, the more we try to make better for ourselves, the more we discover about the world, and the more we need more conclusive answers than just 'Flood waters formed the entire landscape as we see it'. If we applied that logic now we never would have gotten to a point where we had to debate it in the first place!

wolfsbane

2Scoops said:

Only because they are not submitted! Where are the reviews and the rejection letters i.e. the proof? Let's see the unreasonable decisions made by editors. Where are they?...

The important thing here is letters - not science, not investiagtions, not studies. Letters. The letters page. A single page of non peer-reviewed editor-selected comment. Not science...

Let's see the unfair review that proves he was rejected purely because he was a Creationist. If it's true, they can only have sent him bull**** reasons that we will all see through easily. Where are they? And that last bit about not wanting to send it through official review is a joke - every submitted article has to go through review - there isn't an option! He still got reviewed, where are the comments?...

On the basis of this one unsubstantiated claim? Hardly a reason to stop fighting the good fight... if they have good science behind them. Either way, you can't cry censorship when you don't get censored. Seems like they're censoring themselves, if anything.

I take your point, and have contacted them for documentation/clarification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
(You are aware of the Smithsonian incident?

I'm aware of the incident and I'll freely admit I don't know all the details. I do know that there are a lot more allegations of discrimination than there is evidence. And the initial spark involving the unorthodox review for a creationist article that came to false conclusions was certainly bizarre and worth investigating.

Glad to know you are aware.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Alas, you are confusing a big "why" with a little "why". Science often asks "why did this happen, and not that?" - questions about causes. Since that's what the original question was about, your answer highlighted a very large difference between science and religion - our question about "why did X happen" is asked in terms of natural causes; yours in terms of supernatural motives.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The original question was about supernatural motives, why God did it by the Flood and not some other way. That is not about the science, but the theology.

Natural causes involve such things as why was the ark of such proportions, for example.