The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, and others who have specific scientific expertise disagree with you. And of course I have used several other sources for Creationist explanations, e.g. http://creationresearch.org/

I was referring specifically to posters here...

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, and others who have specific scientific expertise disagree with you. And of course I have used several other sources for Creationist explanations,

Scofflaw
I was referring specifically to posters here...

......whether you are looking for posters or scientists ......the Big Bang has fizzled out.......

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

.......and this open letter from leading scientists with appropriate expertise has confirmed the fact that the Big Bang has scientifically IMPLODED.....

.......so where now for all of the Theologians who have ignored the advice of Creation Scientists....and 'eloped' to 'marry' the Big Bang.......I guess, they have been 'widowed'!!!!!!!!!:eek::pac::pac::pac::)

.....and the following quote from the above Open Letter indicates that it is not only Creation Scientists whose dissent isn't welcomed.

"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."

...........with love


Happy St Patrick's Day!!

J C

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

daithifleming said:
Quote:

I was saying the Big Bangers held that inflation was faster than light, in contrast to the faster-light scenario. Care to read it more carefully?

As i said, provide a peer-reviewed journal paper that states this or keep it to yourself.

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

......whether you are looking for posters or scientists ......the Big Bang has fizzled out.......

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

.......and this open letter from leading scientists with appropriate expertise has confirmed the fact that the Big Bang has scientifically IMPLODED.....
.......so where now for all of the Theologians who have ignored the advice of Creation Scientists....and 'eloped' to 'marry' the Big Bang.......I guess, they have been 'widowed'!!!!!!!!!:eek::pac::pac::pac::)

.....and the following quote from the above Open Letter indicates that it is not only Creation Scientists whose dissent isn't tolerated

"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."

...........with love

J C

1. the simple statement of there being possible alternatives to a theory is not actually the death-knell of that theory. The alternatives may or not be superior.

2. the unsupported claim, by proponents of alternative theories, that these alternative theories are superior to the current theory can likewise not be taken at face value - particularly when the claim, as here, is that insufficient funding has been provided to explore those theories.

3. much of science ordinarily proceeds by paradigms, which, while dominant, attract the majority of the funding, and which are eventually found wanting and discarded (the earliest of which was the Biblical paradigm you are so keen to resurrect). Those who work on theories that do not conform to the paradigm will always feel unjustly excluded from the main sources of funding - but the fact that paradigms do get overturned suggests their protests that "the enquiring spirit has gone out of science" are excessively dramatic.

4. the letter in question was published in New Scientist, and its signatories have not been hounded and persecuted as you claim for "Creation scientists", nor have articles covering non-standard theories been suppressed in any way (indeed, there's one covered in this week's New Scientist). The complaint of the signatories is also quite specific to their field.

You really must get out of this habit of accepting things as not only true but important simply because they happen to agree with your prejudices.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Want to give it another go?

Want to read what I linked to? :rolleyes:

Face it Wolfsbane, the Flat Earthers are pretty much a carbon copy of Young Earth Creationists. They have "scientists", you have "scientists". They base everything on the Bible, you base everything on the Bible. They reject all evidence that doesn't suit their cause, you reject all evidence that doesn't suit your cause.

JC claimed that anyone can demonstrate Flat Earth is false by looking out the window of a space shuttle. Well anyone can demonstrate Young Earth is false by any number of dating methods. To get either to work one must assume some scientific conspiracy.

I must say it is rather amusing to watch you object to Flat Earth as being ridiculous ... and I'm loving this "My list is bigger than your list" argument :pac:

I'll let you into a little hint ... my list is bigger than both of yours

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, you miss the point about Gould.

Oh please tell me what the point about a quote from Gould is :pac:

In fact perhaps you should read this quote ...

"Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices."
Stephen Gould

:pac: (loving this new smilie)

wolfsbane wrote: »

So anyone thinking Shaw believed in a flat Earth would likewise be lacking in logical skills. Too much :pac:, not enough THINKING?

Which sums up the Creationist position :pac:

Pompey Magnus

Wicknight has spent too long debating with J C and has become infected with his overuse of smilies condition :pac::pac::eek::pac::D;):pac::pac::cool:.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. Please list these Flat Earth scientists - as I said to Wickie, I can't find the reference.

All I said was that they claimed to have scientists among their membership. You're going to have to take their word for it since I can find a list of names. Perhaps they're afraid of the conspiracy against the flat earth hypothesis costing them their jobs? Similar to why J C won't reveal his name or even his alma mater. :pac:

wolfsbane wrote: »

You can check on individual's publications there. But you might mean their creationist material never sees the light of day in establishment journals? That generally is true. I've posted some feed-back I've got on the censorship involved with that, and will continue to do so as I get it.

Yes, I was referring to their creationist research. You haven't posted anything remotely close to evidence of censorship of creation science in 'establishment' journals. What I saw was a legitimate (albeit rude and patronizing) rejection of a single flawed review of literature. No science. I will continue to wait for more substantial information from you. But, again, not holding my breath. :pac:

Zombrex

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Wicknight has spent too long debating with J C and has become infected with his overuse of smilies condition :pac::pac::eek::pac::D;):pac::pac::cool:.

Can't beat them join them.

I am genuinely finding the Flat Earth debate hilarious though

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

I'll let you into a little hint ... my list is bigger than both of yours

Suddenly, we werent talking about scientists anymore... :eek:

roadruner

One question for all the debaters

Where is there 100% irrefutable proof?
Of any of the human beliefs either scientific or religious

Ekancone

roadruner wrote: »

One question for all the debaters

Where is there 100% irrefutable proof?
Of any of the human beliefs either scientific or religious

None of the posters debating on the side of science would argue that they have 100% proof, scientific or otherwise. The creationists, however...

Zombrex

roadruner wrote: »

One question for all the debaters

Where is there 100% irrefutable proof?
Of any of the human beliefs either scientific or religious

The Creationists argue that the Bible cannot, ever, be wrong and neither strangely can their interpretation. All evidence must be interpreted to fit within a literal interpretation of the Bible.

This gives a strong insight into the motivation of the Creationist movement.

J C

Wicknight

wrote:

1. the simple statement of there being possible alternatives to a theory is not actually the death-knell of that theory. The alternatives may or not be superior.

But this open letter is PRIMARILY a statement on the scientific problems with the Big Bang!!!
…….what these leading scientists call “fudge factors” in the following quote

“The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.”


Wicknight

wrote:

2. the unsupported claim, by proponents of alternative theories, that these alternative theories are superior to the current theory can likewise not be taken at face value - particularly when the claim, as here, is that insufficient funding has been provided to explore those theories.

……the primary point being made is that the Big Bang is clearly invalid……..
……and any alternative theories may or may not be valid either…….and the only way to find out is to scientifically evaluate them.


Wicknight

wrote:

3. much of science ordinarily proceeds by paradigms, which, while dominant, attract the majority of the funding, and which are eventually found wanting and discarded (the earliest of which was the Biblical paradigm you are so keen to resurrect). Those who work on theories that do not conform to the paradigm will always feel unjustly excluded from the main sources of funding - but the fact that paradigms do get overturned suggests their protests that "the enquiring spirit has gone out of science" are excessively dramatic.

It is ordinary conventional scientists who are complaining loudly at their treatment in this open letter…….

While Science may validly hold to established paradigms…….it should always be open to evaluating alternative paradigms…….
I hope that you’re not suggesting that science should become a dogma-bound ‘religion’ !!!!! :eek::D


Wicknight

wrote:

4. the letter in question was published in New Scientist, and its signatories have not been hounded and persecuted as you claim for "Creation scientists", nor have articles covering non-standard theories been suppressed in any way (indeed, there's one covered in this week's New Scientist). The complaint of the signatories is also quite specific to their field.

They certainly sounded quite unhappy with their lot!!!

Wicknight

wrote:

You really must get out of this habit of accepting things as not only true but important simply because they happen to agree with your prejudices.

Touché Wicknight!!!!


Wicknight

wrote:

Face it Wolfsbane, the Flat Earthers are pretty much a carbon copy of Young Earth Creationists. They have "scientists", you have "scientists". They base everything on the Bible, you base everything on the Bible. They reject all evidence that doesn't suit their cause, you reject all evidence that doesn't suit your cause.

You have FAILED to cite a SINGLE modern scientist who holds that the Earth is Flat!!!
……and the Flat Earth book that you linked to here
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm
was written in the mid-1800’s……..around about the time that Darwin was writing up his ideas on the Origins Question!!!!!


Wicknight

wrote:

JC claimed that anyone can demonstrate Flat Earth is false by looking out the window of a space shuttle. Well anyone can demonstrate Young Earth is false by any number of dating methods.

Could I gently point out that looking at the Earth from space is a direct and repeatable observation …….and therefore scientifically valid………

……….while radiometric dating is INDIRECT and based on a number of assumptions, any one of which could invalidate the result!!!

Wicknight wrote: »

:pac: (loving this new smilie)

.....and I LOVE it too.....but I prefer this one at the moment

Scofflaw

roadruner wrote: »

One question for all the debaters

Where is there 100% irrefutable proof?
Of any of the human beliefs either scientific or religious

Strictly, science does not deal in proofs, but in disproofs. Only in mathematics (and other formal logic systems) can there be a 100% irrefutable proof. All science has is theories that have not yet been disproven.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

Scofflaw wrote: »

All science has is theories that have not yet been disproven.

...........except the theory of evolution............which has been proven time and again to be TOTALLY false!!!!!!!!!!!!! :):D:D:pac::pac:

..........all you need to is accept jesus, etc, etc, etc

roadruner

Scofflaw wrote: »

Strictly, science does not deal in proofs, but in disproofs. Only in mathematics (and other formal logic systems) can there be a 100% irrefutable proof. All science has is theories that have not yet been disproven.

cordially,
Scofflaw

How can a theory e.g the big bang be disproven when it is only a theory, these are only hypothesis, no one can say that it did or did not happen even with all the calculations in the world it will still have no fundamental proof

Wicknight wrote: »

The Creationists argue that the Bible cannot, ever, be wrong and neither strangely can their interpretation. All evidence must be interpreted to fit within a literal interpretation of the Bible.

This gives a strong insight into the motivation of the Creationist movement.

Well the way I look at The literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis is the fact that it was written by man who interpreted it from scriptures who where written supposedly on firsthand accounts of the disciples and others on what they interpreted to be true
Again where is the proof from these gospels and scriptures that all the events written about are true and actually took place?

Ekancone

roadruner wrote: »

How can a theory e.g the big bang be disproven when it is only a theory, these are only hypothesis, no one can say that it did or did not happen even with all the calculations in the world it will still have no fundamental proof

Do you understand the difference between and theory and a hypothesis?

roadruner wrote: »

Well the way I look at The literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis is the fact that it was written by man who interpreted it from scriptures who where written supposedly on firsthand accounts of the disciples and others on what they interpreted to be true

I don't think the disciples wrote Genesis. No one knows who wrote them, for sure.

roadruner wrote: »

Again where is the proof from these gospels and scriptures that all the events written about are true and actually took place?

I would agree to an extent, but i think you have a rather overly purist idea of what proof is. Where is your proof that Hitler existed? How do you know that it wasn't all a lie? Sure there is evidence, but where is the proof?

Killbot2000

J C wrote: »

The 'Dragons' were the lizard-like Dinosaurs.....such as T Rex, for example.

The 'Unicorns' were Rhinoceroses....and Triceratops!!!!!

The 'Cockatrices' and 'Fiery Serpents' were venomous snakes.

The Behemoths were large land-based Dinosaurs like Brachiosaurs.

The 'Leviathans' were large aquatic Dinosaurs like Plesiosaurs.

The 'Satyrs' were wild Goats!!!!

and the 'flying snakes which are on fire' were venomous flying reptiles like Pterodactyls.



The Plesiosaurs and Pterodactyls were created on the Fifth Day......and all the rest on the Sixth Day!!!

Noah did have (juvenile) 'Behemoth' Dinosaurs on board the Ark!!!



The 'Satyr' of the Bilble was a wild Goat .....so your question about it's soul doesn't arise!!!
The half man half goat 'Satyr' is an invention of Pagan Mythology:D.

Just a quick question, where did all the varied habitats for these animals come from after the flood? It's just that many species are utterly dependent on particular sections of their given ecosystem e.g. birds nesting in trees, earthworms underground etc.

Surely a landscape that has been completely flooded would make for a poor habitat for many of the surviving species.

Anticipating your answer somewhat, many plants would not be able to survive in a submarine environment due to the salinity and the lack of light due to the overlying water. Noah must have brought a lot of seeds along for the ride!

2Scoops

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Noah must have brought a lot of seeds along for the ride!

Yes, two of every kind of seed - one male, one female. Of course, the herbivores had to make do with rotting beached whale flesh until these seeds grew into edible plants in the salinated soils of antiquity. :pac:

Scofflaw

roadruner wrote: »

Strictly, science does not deal in proofs, but in disproofs. Only in mathematics (and other formal logic systems) can there be a 100% irrefutable proof. All science has is theories that have not yet been disproven.

How can a theory e.g the big bang be disproven when it is only a theory, these are only hypothesis, no one can say that it did or did not happen even with all the calculations in the world it will still have no fundamental proof

A scientific theory (or hypothesis) makes predictions. If those predictions prove to be incorrect, then the theory is incorrect.

A hypothesis becomes a theory by making successful predictions, and no wrong ones. After a century of doing so, it graduates to a Theory.

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

roadruner wrote: »

... no one can say that it did or did not happen even with all the calculations in the world it will still have no fundamental proof

If you want to apply such a stringent definition to acceptable proof, then you can't believe in anything at all. It just isn't practical.

Also, just because both sides of this non-debate lack absolute proof does not mean that both sides have equal merit to their arguments. Evidence and probability weigh strongly against a literal interpretation of Genesis. If that isn't good enough for you then you are making an irrational decision. Which is fine. :pac:

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

Could I gently point out that looking at the Earth from space is a direct and repeatable observation …….and therefore scientifically valid………

How do you know, unless you've been in Space yourself? Also, the Earth could appear round from space but still not be a sphere and so looking at it from space wouldn't prove anything! :eek::pac:

2Scoops

Here is a genuine question to J C and Wolfsbane, apologies if it's been covered before:

Is a belief in the literal veracity of Genesis necessary to be saved? What happens to otherwise good Christians who take it as a metaphor only?

roadruner

daithifleming wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between and theory and a hypothesis?

I don't think the disciples wrote Genesis. No one knows who wrote them, for sure.


I would agree to an extent, but i think you have a rather overly purist idea of what proof is. Where is your proof that Hitler existed? How do you know that it wasn't all a lie? Sure there is evidence, but where is the proof?

1 I think you should revert that question back to yourself!

Theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
"Theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis is a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
"A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"


2 Genesis, I was generalizing and using genesis even though as you said yourself no one knows who wrote them
Which again substantiates my point on proof and beliefs; religious beliefs are born from these writings that have no definite proof or proof of origin


3 As you quote me as having “a purist idea of what proof is” I’d rather have a precise and correct answer to believe in than only a theory to actual events

“Where is your proof that Hitler existed? How do you know that it wasn't all a lie? Sure there is evidence, but where is the proof?”
Well I think religion and Hitler are two completely different subjects
But as you’ve just verified the meaning of my question about proof about religion etc all I can say is if Hitler was a made up character where did the millions of people who died in concentration camps go to or was that all fiction?

roadruner

2Scoops wrote: »

If you want to apply such a stringent definition to acceptable proof, then you can't believe in anything at all. It just isn't practical.

Also, just because both sides of this non-debate lack absolute proof does not mean that both sides have equal merit to their arguments. Evidence and probability weigh strongly against a literal interpretation of Genesis. If that isn't good enough for you then you are making an irrational decision. Which is fine. :pac:

People’s decisions and beliefs are guided by practical experience and observation rather than theory.
I’m not an agnostic I do have my own beliefs, I believe there is something there that brought the being of the universe and all its contents.
I am merely debating on the ‘guesswork or theories’ that human beings put their trust and faiths in.

Every debate has an equal merit to it’s argument otherwise all debates would be one sided therefore not a debate

“Evidence and probability weigh strongly against a literal interpretation of Genesis” well there again raises my point
Evidence needs proof to be 100% correct, Probability leads to theory

roadruner

Scofflaw wrote: »

A scientific theory (or hypothesis) makes predictions. If those predictions prove to be incorrect, then the theory is incorrect.

A hypothesis becomes a theory by making successful predictions, and no wrong ones. After a century of doing so, it graduates to a Theory.

cordially,
Scofflaw

but still these theories are without proof in the this instance i.e the big bang or creation of the universe where scientist say all life started from.

Even after centuries of predictions all these theories are only calculated guesses which do not make them correct and still leave them lying on a bed of unprooven idea's

2Scoops

roadruner wrote: »

Every debate has an equal merit to it’s argument otherwise all debates would be one sided therefore not a debate

True (the second part).

roadruner wrote: »

“Evidence and probability weigh strongly against a literal interpretation of Genesis” well there again raises my point
Evidence needs proof to be 100% correct, Probability leads to theory

Nope. I say probability in the statistical sense of the word. If you need 100% proof then you have NO evidence. But that is not really the case. :pac:

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

How do you know, unless you've been in Space yourself? Also, the Earth could appear round from space but still not be a sphere and so looking at it from space wouldn't prove anything! :eek::pac:

......are you sure that YOU are not a 'closet' Flat Earther???

......the 'flat disc' theory would be disproven on your first orbit from East to West!!!!

.......and 'on the ground' the hypothesised 'southern ice boundary' walls are ALSO missing.......and a degree of longitude is SHORTER in Australia than at the Equator!!!!

.......and you still have to produce even ONE conventional scientist who is claiming that the Earth is Flat.......or any book about the subject that doesn't pre-date Darwin!!!!:D

Ekancone

roadruner wrote: »

1 I think you should revert that question back to yourself!

Theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
"Theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis is a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
"A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"

Yes, i can reference dictionary.com too. Here is what you said:

How can a theory e.g the big bang be disproven when it is only a theory, these are only hypothesis

Perhaps i misunderstood what you were saying here, is it a theory or a hypothesis. You do know the actual difference, right?

roadruner wrote: »

2 Genesis, I was generalizing and using genesis even though as you said yourself no one knows who wrote them
Which again substantiates my point on proof and beliefs; religious beliefs are born from these writings that have no definite proof or proof of origin

I would agree, although i suppose they are some form of evidence at least.

roadruner wrote: »

3 As you quote me as having “a purist idea of what proof is” I’d rather have a precise and correct answer to believe in than only a theory to actual events

Again, i don't believe you know what a theory actually constitutes. A theory is the highest form of 'proof' you can reach in science, ie. >95%, any higher and you would be in the realm of mathematics. The justice system works under a similar system, 'proof beyond reasonable doubt', if people like you ran the justice system demanding 100% proof, nothing would get done. Because in order to be 100% right, the infinite number of alternative possibilities need to be ruled out, which is impossible. So the sane portion of society accept that absolute truth is both subjective and impossible to achieve, and therefore set a realistic standard of 95-99%.

roadruner wrote: »

Well I think religion and Hitler are two completely different subjects
But as you’ve just verified the meaning of my question about proof about religion etc all I can say is if Hitler was a made up character where did the millions of people who died in concentration camps go to or was that all fiction?

Hmm, sounds like a lot of evidence you have there, but where is the PROOF? How do you know all those millions of people weren't brain washed? Did any of those people who ended up in those camps actually see Hitler? Did you see any of this happen? If you did, how do you know you weren't mistaken? Perhaps you were mindwashed? I need you to 100% disprove these and whatever other wacky ideas i come up with before i accept the 'theory' of Hitlers existence.

Zombrex

roadruner wrote: »

but still these theories are without proof in the this instance i.e the big bang or creation of the universe where scientist say all life started from.

Even after centuries of predictions all these theories are only calculated guesses which do not make them correct and still leave them lying on a bed of unprooven idea's

I think you aren't quite following what a theory is.

A theory is a theoretical model of what scientists think is happening with a certain natural phenomena.

To test this model scientists compare it's results to what they can observe is happening. Even better they test predictions of this model against observations.

Depending on how accurately the model does at describing what we can observe happening around us it is upgraded in terms of worth, because this demonstrates that it is closer matching what is actually happening. A very accurate model is considered more valuable than a model that is kinda sort of accurate (which will probably be improved upon to make it more accurate).

Science is a process of constantly trying to make models more accurate, making models describe things better than they did before.

"Proof" has very little to do with it. You can't prove a model is 100% accurate.