The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

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

Yes JC but read the Flat Earth website. No one has ever gone into orbit. It was all an atheist conspiracy!! Satan's work!! To turn people away from the truth of the Bible!! :pac:

Young Earth can be disproved on your first radio metric dating, but sure that doesn't stop you does it. Whats that? Its an atheist conspiracy! Satan's work! To turn people away from the truth of the Bible!!

Wow, sounds familiar. :pac:

J C wrote: »

.......and you still have to produce even ONE conventional scientist who is claiming that the Earth is Flat.......

You have never produced one conventional scientist who is a Young Earth Creationist. :pac:

Galvasean

What is a 'conventional' scientist?

Scofflaw

roadruner 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.

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

Assume you cannot leave your unwindowed room at work, or directly ask anyone what the weather is doing - still, you want to know:

Hypothesis (made from inside): it is raining.

Corollary (observable from inside): people coming in will be wet

Test: observe people coming in - are they wet?

Now, if the people coming in are wet, your theory has passed its first test. However, it is not proven, since it may in fact be snowing, or so hot people are sweating madly - or there may be a burst water main, or they may have been sprayed with water for some other reason (water cannons, for example).

Is your hypothesis that it's raining simply a "calculated guess" lying on a "bed of unprovable ideas"? You can't, after all, actually prove it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

roadruner

Scofflaw wrote: »

Assume you cannot leave your unwindowed room at work, or directly ask anyone what the weather is doing - still, you want to know:

Hypothesis (made from inside): it is raining.

Corollary (observable from inside): people coming in will be wet

Test: observe people coming in - are they wet?

Now, if the people coming in are wet, your theory has passed its first test. However, it is not proven, since it may in fact be snowing, or so hot people are sweating madly - or there may be a burst water main, or they may have been sprayed with water for some other reason (water cannons, for example).

Is your hypothesis that it's raining simply a "calculated guess" lying on a "bed of unprovable ideas"? You can't, after all, actually prove it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thank you for your explanation
Next time I’m stuck in a windowless room I’ll ring someone outside to ask if it is raining, snowing, hot or if there's a burst water main or water cannons outside before I test my hypothesis and arrive at a theory

roadruner

daithifleming wrote: »

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?

Is it a theory or a hypothesis ?
Do I know the difference? Well it depends on which type of theory you are taking about a theory can have different meanings in different fields of knowledge, for example in science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of which can be falsified through empirical observation.
my words not dictionary.com, which I’ve never heard of until I read your reply, my preference for a dictionary meaning would be from a verifyable trusted source.

As for a hypothesis well use your dictionary if you don’t know what it means, again depends on which meaning you think you know, is it the usage in the 21st century or in the 17th century?

daithifleming wrote: »

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%.

I’ve held a Phd for the passed 7 years and yes doubt me if you like which you probably will, to say you don’t believe I know what a theory actually constitutes is a bit irrational.
If people like me ran the justice system well let’s just say I can’t comment on this issue as I do not run it, I have my own ideas on how a case and proven criminals should be treated but then again who doesn’t.
The context in which I asked my original question about proof was in the field of religion and science not in law.
You say the sane! portion of society accept that absolute truth is both subjective and impossible to achieve therefore Set a realistic standard of 95-99% does this cover all aspects of absolute truth or is this for a separate debate?
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt has to have proof of evidence before it can be beyond a reasonable doubt; ergo the proof is not 100% which leads a judge or jury to reach a decision on the evidence that has been put before them

daithifleming wrote: »

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 Hitler’s existence.

Well as regard to me actually being there the answer is no but my granduncle was who yes did see Hitler and did see a lot of people being executed and no he wasn’t brainwashed
So as for disproving that wacky idea, well let’s just say I’ve heard proof from a person who saw it happen first hand, now in my book that would be called proof!

Ekancone

roadruner wrote: »

Is it a theory or a hypothesis ?
Do I know the difference? Well it depends on which type of theory you are taking about a theory can have different meanings in different fields of knowledge, for example in science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of which can be falsified through empirical observation.

Well you used the words theory and hypothesis in the context of discussing the big bang:

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

So the type of theory we are talking about was as proposed by you. Which me and two other people in the this debate have expressed doubt as to your understanding of the word. By your definition, thats PROOF that you don't know what it is. By the way, nice dictionary definition again.

roadruner wrote: »

my words not dictionary.com, which I’ve never heard of until I read your reply, my preference for a dictionary meaning would be from a verifyable trusted source.

Not a holy book, then.

roadruner wrote: »

As for a hypothesis well use your dictionary if you don’t know what it means, again depends on which meaning you think you know, is it the usage in the 21st century or in the 17th century?

Well, i think that would be obvious. I mean, i know you holy types like to live in the past, but for the sake of expediency lets keep the context in this century?

To be honest all i see is squirming on your part.

roadruner wrote: »

I’ve held a Phd for the passed 7 years and yes doubt me if you like which you probably will, to say you don’t believe I know what a theory actually constitutes is a bit irrational.

I know lots of people with Phd's who haven't a notion of what they are talking about. The creationist lads here keep bringing them up!

roadruner wrote: »

If people like me ran the justice system well let’s just say I can’t comment on this issue as I do not run it, I have my own ideas on how a case and proven criminals should be treated but then again who doesn’t.
The context in which I asked my original question about proof was in the field of religion and science not in law.

I used an analogy to describe how your standard of what constitutes proof is unworkable in practical applications.

roadruner wrote: »

You say the sane! portion of society accept that absolute truth is both subjective and impossible to achieve therefore Set a realistic standard of 95-99% does this cover all aspects of absolute truth or is this for a separate debate?
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt has to have proof of evidence before it can be beyond a reasonable doubt; ergo the proof is not 100% which leads a judge or jury to reach a decision on the evidence that has been put before them

Right, what's you point with this? You seem to be defeating your own argument here.

roadruner wrote: »

Well as regard to me actually being there the answer is no but my granduncle was who yes did see Hitler and did see a lot of people being executed and no he wasn’t brainwashed
So as for disproving that wacky idea, well let’s just say I’ve heard proof from a person who saw it happen first hand, now in my book that would be called proof!

Ah here we are, YOUR definition of proof. Which is as subjective as any other form of 'proof'. Perhaps you would like to defend your definition of proof by providing more detail? If you want 100% proof, you need 100% disproof. I happen to think your granduncle was mistaken when he says he saw Hitler, because i believe that Hitler didn't exist. I happen to think that we have all been mindwashed by the Illuminati into thinking this through brainwave transmissions from space. 100% disprove this please. After that, i will have another idea for you to disprove.

roadruner

daithifleming wrote: »

Well you used the words theory and hypothesis in the context of discussing the big bang:

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

So the type of theory we are talking about was as proposed by you. Which me and two other people in the this debate have expressed doubt as to your understanding of the word. By your definition, thats PROOF that you don't know what it is. By the way, nice dictionary definition again.



Not a holy book, then.



Well, i think that would be obvious. I mean, i know you holy types like to live in the past, but for the sake of expediency lets keep the context in this century?

To be honest all i see is squirming on your part.




I know lots of people with Phd's who haven't a notion of what they are talking about. The creationist lads here keep bringing them up!




I used an analogy to describe how your standard of what constitutes proof is unworkable in practical applications.



Right, what's you point with this? You seem to be defeating your own argument here.




Ah here we are, YOUR definition of proof. Which is as subjective as any other form of 'proof'. Perhaps you would like to defend your definition of proof by providing more detail? If you want 100% proof, you need 100% disproof. I happen to think your granduncle was mistaken when he says he saw Hitler, because i believe that Hitler didn't exist. I happen to think that we have all been mindwashed by the Illuminati into thinking this through brainwave transmissions from space. 100% disprove this please. After that, i will have another idea for you to disprove.

"because i believe that Hitler didn't exist"

"If you want 100% proof, you need 100% disproof"

"I happen to think that we have all been mindwashed by the Illuminati into thinking this through brainwave transmissions from space."

What in the name of all thats sane are you on about?
Your talking circles around yourself!

And you ask me do I understand the word Theory! get a grip will you
Don't bother replying to this because anything you have to add will be a total waste of everyone's time!

2Scoops

roadruner wrote: »

Thank you for your explanation
Next time I’m stuck in a windowless room I’ll ring someone outside to ask if it is raining, snowing, hot or if there's a burst water main or water cannons outside before I test my hypothesis and arrive at a theory

The person on the phone could be lying to you - so, that wouldn't be 100% proof. :pac:

roadruner wrote: »

I’ve held a Phd for the passed 7 years and yes doubt me if you like which you probably will, to say you don’t believe I know what a theory actually constitutes is a bit irrational.

Depends on what field your PhD is in, exactly. Anyway, we're all scientists in here for the passed 8 years which trumps your passed 7 years. You'll have to take our word on it. :pac:

roadruner wrote: »

Well as regard to me actually being there the answer is no but my granduncle was who yes did see Hitler and did see a lot of people being executed and no he wasn’t brainwashed
So as for disproving that wacky idea, well let’s just say I’ve heard proof from a person who saw it happen first hand, now in my book that would be called proof!

What a wacky, troll-tastic double-standard on your part! :pac: :eek: :rolleyes:

2Scoops

Galvasean wrote: »

What is a 'conventional' scientist?

One who's afraid to challenge the agenda of Big Science. :pac:

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

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

I have equal faith in the Flat Earth theory as I have in Creationism. :pac: Both are equally compelling. Hence the use of this very subtle and clever conceit.

J C wrote: »

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

Assuming space travel is even possible - of which (according to roadrunner) no 100% proof exists!! :eek::eek::pac:

J C wrote: »

.......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

That's only because they won't come forward because they are afraid of losing their jobs because of Big Creationism's agenda of lying about the the truth of the Flat Earth. :pac:

roadruner

2Scoops wrote: »

Depends on what field your PhD is in, exactly. Anyway, we're all scientists in here for the passed 8 years which trumps your passed 7 years. You'll have to take our word on it. :pac:

Medicine, but then again You'll have to take my word for it

2Scoops wrote: »

The person on the phone could be lying to you - so, that wouldn't be 100% proof. :pac::

well I guess that depends on the weather

2Scoops wrote: »

What a wacky, troll-tastic double-standard on your part! :pac: :eek: :rolleyes:

Thank you

roadruner

2Scoops wrote: »

Assuming space travel is even possible - of which (according to roadrunner) no 100% proof exists!!

What you mean star trek has been fictitious all this time

2Scoops

roadruner wrote: »

Medicine, but then again You'll have to take my word for it

PhDs in medicine - whatever will they think of next? :pac:

Furkin_Bastage

2Scoops wrote: »

PhDs in medicine - whatever will they think of next? :pac:

???

2Scoops

Furkin_Bastage wrote: »

???

!!!

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

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?

There is ONE condition necessary to be saved .......and it is that you believe that Jesus Christ has the power to forgive ALL of your sins and thus save you.
...and IF you genuinely believe this you will also repent of your sins for the offense that they have caused to God and Man.
It is therefore possible to be saved while believing the Bible to be an allegory.

Speaking personally, I would have found it very difficult (but not impossible) to believe that Jesus Christ is God and died to make full reparation for the sins of Mankind, if I didn't believe in a literal Genesis.

The following summary of how sin entered the World
Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

.....and was ultimately atoned for
Ro 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one (Adam) many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

......kinda demands a literal interpretation of Genesis......or otherwise we must conclude that Jesus died to save us from an allegory!!!!:)

Furkin_Bastage

2Scoops wrote: »

PhDs in medicine - whatever will they think of next?

PhD in medicine, why the whatever will they think of next?

BrianCalgary

Furkin_Bastage wrote: »

PhD in medicine, why the whatever will they think of next?

tongue in cheek.

2Scoops

Furkin_Bastage wrote: »

PhD in medicine, why the whatever will they think of next?

Because, roadruner, there is no such thing as a PhD in medicine. A semantic error that only someone with no knowledge of medicine or PhDs would make. :pac:

No go away and troll somewhere else. This thread is serious business. :pac:

wolfsbane

Wicknight challenged JC:

You have never produced one conventional scientist who is a Young Earth Creationist.

You had your pick from the list of scientists I recently put up, but here is just one example:
Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci_gish/

Or perhaps you mean he can't be a conventional scientist since he is a Young Earth Creationist? That would follow your usual logic. :D

BrianCalgary

2Scoops wrote: »

Because, roadruner, there is no such thing as a PhD in medicine. A semantic error that only someone with no knowledge of medicine or PhDs would make. :pac:

No go away and troll somewhere else. This thread is serious business. :pac:

Hang on I've seen someone with an MD-PhD after their name.

Doesn't that mean Medical Doctor - PhD?

2Scoops

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Hang on I've seen someone with an MD-PhD after their name.

Doesn't that mean Medical Doctor - PhD?

Yes, but the PhD would not have been in 'medicine' - such people hold two degrees with the PhD earned through research, usually in a medical subspecialty or other science subject.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight challenged JC:

You had your pick from the list of scientists I recently put up, but here is just one example:
Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci_gish/

Well since you don't accept science from flat earthers because it's too old, surely Dr. Gish's work from the 1950s and 1960s, when biochemistry was in its infancy, is equally out of date? At what age does science suddenly become unreliable and and, hence, make it easy to dismiss?

Most strikingly. however, is that his research is not creation research so his occupation as a 'conventional,' and non-practicing, scientist is irrelevant. :pac:

BrianCalgary

2Scoops wrote: »

Yes, but the PhD would not have been in 'medicine' - such people hold two degrees with the PhD earned through research, usually in a medical subspecialty or other science subject.

Thanks.

wolfsbane

roadruner wrote: »

One question for all the debaters

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

Well, repeatable experiments could offer such proof - but that's only my non-scientist common sense speaking.

In the religious field, even miracles can be written-off as coincidences, etc. Or, as in the case of Jesus' miracles, even put down to the operation of demons. So for proof that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the sign miracles only gave 100% proof to those whose hearts were open to receive it.

They gave sufficient proof however to all who observed them - sufficient to condemn them. Even the witness of Creation to God's eternal power and Godhead is sufficient to leave man without excuse for his unbelief.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Well since you don't accept science from flat earthers because it's too old, surely Dr. Gish's work from the 1950s and 1960s, when biochemistry was in its infancy, is equally out of date? At what age does science suddenly become unreliable and and, hence, make it easy to dismiss?

Most strikingly. however, is that his research is not creation research so his occupation as a 'conventional,' and non-practicing, scientist is irrelevant. :pac:

That he graduated back then is true - but his work was only starting, as demonstrated by his Professional Experience:
1953-55 Lilly Postdoctoral Fellow in the Natural Sciences, Cornell University Medical College, New York City.
1955-56 Assistant Professor of Biochemistry, Cornell University Medical College.
1956-60 Assistant Research Associate, Virus Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley.
1960-71 Research Associate, Department of Hypersensitivity, Diseases, The Upjohn Company.

But, OK, try this modern graduate:
David A. Dewitt, Ph.D. Neurosciences
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci_dewitt/

My purpose in citing Dr. Gish in the first place was to answer Wicknight's demand for a conventional scientist who was also a Young Earth Creationist.

roadruner

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight challenged JC:

You had your pick from the list of scientists I recently put up, but here is just one example:
Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci_gish/

Or perhaps you mean he can't be a conventional scientist since he is a Young Earth Creationist? That would follow your usual logic. :D

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Hang on I've seen someone with an MD-PhD after their name.

Doesn't that mean Medical Doctor - PhD?

2Scoops wrote: »

Yes, but the PhD would not have been in 'medicine' - such people hold two degrees with the PhD earned through research, usually in a medical subspecialty or other science subject.

2Scoops wrote: »

Well since you don't accept science from flat earthers because it's too old, surely Dr. Gish's work from the 1950s and 1960s, when biochemistry was in its infancy, is equally out of date? At what age does science suddenly become unreliable and and, hence, make it easy to dismiss?

Most strikingly. however, is that his research is not creation research so his occupation as a 'conventional,' and non-practicing, scientist is irrelevant. :pac:

2Scoops wrote: »

Because, roadruner, there is no such thing as a PhD in medicine. A semantic error that only someone with no knowledge of medicine or PhDs would make. :pac:

No go away and troll somewhere else. This thread is serious business. :pac:

A semantic error eh, so a PhD in psychology is a figment of someone’s imagination is it?

http://www.apa.org/

Ask these guys about your SERIOUS BUSINESS

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

But, OK, try this modern graduate:
David A. Dewitt, Ph.D. Neurosciences
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci_dewitt/

My purpose in citing Dr. Gish in the first place was to answer Wicknight's demand for a conventional scientist who was also a Young Earth Creationist.

I accept that you're just responding to Wicknight but this whole avenue is a dead end. These are scientists who are creationists, NOT creation scientists [i.e those practicing creation science - I know it's not how J C or, indeed, ICR or AIG define them]. It has as much relevance as creation accountants, creation janitors, creation lawyers, creation professional athletes etc. So why are we even bringing it up??

This guy, like the last, does not pursue creation science. It appears he doesn't even practice any science at all since his last publication was in 2000. His existence does not mean anything with regard to the compatibility of creationism with science. What science he has published stands on its own merits.

2Scoops

roadruner wrote: »

A semantic error eh, so a PhD in psychology is a figment of someone’s imagination is it?

You and your zany non sequiturs! :pac: Well, there's no 100% proof that they aren't...

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

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?

No, it is not necessary to be saved. Many incorrect notions can be held without denying the essential beliefs. A non-literal interpretation of Genesis does however undermine a defence of any of the other apparently literal/narrative accounts in the Bible - the historicity of the gospel accounts, for example, including the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Christians who buy the metaphoric idea do not undermine their salvation - just their defence of it.

It like you give a history of Ireland from the 1969-2008. You end up with the Celtic Tiger, Bertie Ahern as Leader and a massive influx of immigrants.

But say a reader in 2080 has problems with believing Jack Lynch and his cabinet considered invading the North in 1969, or that some of his colleagues armed the IRA and were betrayed by Lynch. He claims that this part of the narrative was metaphorical for the emotional disturbance that accompanied economic changes at that time.

What would you say about such a hermeneutic? Dishonest? Desperate? Or if true, what about the 2008 account? Literal or metaphoric?