The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

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.

Sigh... OK, here is a conventional scientist with a list of his creation science work:
Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci_humphreys/

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

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

I agree that it involves the casual dismissal of the evidence at hand. But believing that Jack Lynch did not consider such a thing doesn't stretch credulity beyond established scientific fact or invoke the existence of an all-powerful God. :pac:

BrianCalgary

roadruner wrote: »

Well one things for sure you have just given 100% proof that human life can excist on one brain cell
Congratulations

One more remark like that and you will be banned. Absolutely uncalled for.

BrianCalgary

2Scoops wrote: »

Personal abuse - ban this foolish troll please. :pac:

He got a yellow card.

wolfsbane

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.

Yes, we do hold to the truth of Biblical inerrancy. As to our interpretations of it - they do err from time to time.

But one has to ask if a hermeneutic that turns an apparently narrative Biblical account into metaphor can be used to defend any narrative account. Can Jesus not be as metaphorical as Adam, His incarnation as metaphoric as Adam's creation, His atoning death as metaphoric as the Flood?

You either go with the narrative (literal) account or you abandon any pretence at objective hermeneutics.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sigh... OK, here is a conventional scientist with a list of his creation science work:
Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci_humphreys/

I see his creation work is unpublished in 'establishment' journals and, thus, has avoided the appropriate peer-review process. Also, it is also dwarfed by his 'conventional' work. A few vague paragraphs alluding to conference proceedings in the early 1990s and I can't see any further details.

It is entirely possible that his work has been claimed by creationists as supporting the Biblical world view rather than not directly contradicting it and, hence, it may be equally supportive of a naturalistic origin. A common sleight of hand I've seen used by J C, amongst others, but I can't tell without reading his work.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

I agree that it involves the casual dismissal of the evidence at hand. But believing that Jack Lynch did not consider such a thing doesn't stretch credulity beyond established scientific fact or invoke the existence of an all-powerful God. :pac:

To believe the metaphor version would mean your account of immigration and the ecomony of 2008 would be as likely to be non-literal. What sort of history is that?

My point was the Christian has a big problem trying to accommodate evolution and the Bible: the narrative allows only one hermeneutic, to be applied both to the Genesis and gospel accounts.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

I see his creation work is unpublished in 'establishment' journals and is also dwarfed by his 'conventional' work. A few vague paragraphs and I can't see any further details. It is entirely possible that his work has been claimed by creationists as supporting the Biblical world view rather than not directly contradicting it and, hence, it may be equally supportive of a naturalistic origin. A common sleight of hand I've seen used by J C, amongst others, but I can't tell without reading his work.

A place to start:
Seven Years of Starlight and Timehttp://www.icr.org/article/446/

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

My point was the Christian has a big problem trying to accommodate evolution and the Bible: the narrative allows only one hermeneutic, to be applied both to the Genesis and gospel accounts.

But in your example, the literal interpretation of Genesis is more closely analogous to believing the J Lynch affair was a metaphor, since that is what is flies in the face of the available evidence.

Hot Dog

The creationists here are still short on proof it would seem.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

A place to start:
Seven Years of Starlight and Timehttp://www.icr.org/article/446/

A non-peer reviewed book. From the detail they provided, it's not a science investigation but rather a speculation piece trying to resolve the speed of light to YEC. It's an opinion piece, not science. No experiments or data. And why avoid peer-review unless you wanted to shield it from educated criticism?

Ekancone

2Scoops wrote: »

A non-peer reviewed book. From the detail they provided, it's not a science investigation but rather a speculation piece trying to resolve the speed of light to YEC. It's an opinion piece, not science. No experiments or data. And why avoid peer-review unless you wanted to shield it from educated criticism?

That is what bugs me about the whole thing. They could at least come up with models for their ideas. At least then those who are interested could test them.

But no...

roadruner

Hot Dog wrote: »

The creationists here are still short on proof it would seem.

Very true

Scofflaw

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

Very good. Now if only we could do that for the Big Bang (that's JC's cue, by the way).

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Turns out that non-human species prostitute themselves too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/science/18angi.html?em&ex=1206072000&en=1d4af0557a03df49&ei=5087%0A

I wonder what Paley would have said?

robindch

Meanwhile, a scientist's beer consumption and his/her scientific output seem to be positively correlated:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/science/18beer.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Galvasean

Erm, Robin, are you sure this is the right thread?

robindch

Can't think of a better thread. Animal prostitution - well, that holes any claims about prostitution being "unnatural" well below the waterline. Beer input, well, perhaps all these heaps of creation scientists who exist, but unaccountably produce no output, are actually committed to beer as much as Jesus?

Anyhow, am a bit busy at the moment, so expand the context as you wish!

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Can't think of a better thread. Animal prostitution - well, that holes any claims about prostitution being "unnatural" well below the waterline. Beer input, well, perhaps all these heaps of creation scientists who exist, but unaccountably produce no output, are actually committed to beer as much as Jesus?

Anyhow, am a bit busy at the moment, so expand the context as you wish!

Soooo, if animals do it we as humans should be able to as well?

Dogs eat other dogs feces, what are you having for dinner tonight?
Other animals kill their young, soo.... oh wait we already do that.

Come to think of it I have always enjoyed picking lice out of others hair for snackie time.

Ciaran500

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Dogs eat other dogs feces, what are you having for dinner tonight?

Gimme about 5 seconds on google and I could post pics to show this goes on

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Soooo, if animals do it we as humans should be able to as well? Dogs eat other dogs feces, what are you having for dinner tonight? Other animals kill their young, soo.... oh wait we already do that. Come to think of it I have always enjoyed picking lice out of others hair for snackie time.

Gosh, calm down Brian!

I'm referring to the "well, it's unnatural" argument that many religious people use when they're condemning homosexual behaviour (which can be observed in many species, thereby sinking the argument). I've heard people use the "unnatural" argument used in the same way about prostitution, and this is the first time that I've heard of prostitution happening outside of humans.

Interesting, no?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Gosh, calm down Brian!?

I am quite calm, shoulda put a smilie after my comment.

robindch wrote: »

I'm referring to the "well, it's unnatural" argument that many religious people use when they're condemning homosexual behaviour (which can be observed in many species, thereby sinking the argument). I've heard people use the "unnatural" argument used in the same way about prostitution, and this is the first time that I've heard of prostitution happening outside of humans.

Interesting, no?

I find animal behaviour interesting so yes from that standpoint, but to relate animal behaviour to human behaviour, not interesting at all.

Homosexuality is an unnatural act for humans because we are accountable for our actions. Animals are not accountable, they can do whatever they like.

2Scoops

robindch wrote: »

Meanwhile, a scientist's beer consumption and his/her scientific output seem to be positively correlated:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/science/18beer.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

They're negatively correlated! Any studies investigating alcohol consumption in creation scientists?? :pac:

HammerHeadGym

BrianCalgary wrote: »

...Homosexuality is an unnatural act for humans because we are accountable...

How does our accountability make homosexuality any more or less unnatural?

BrianCalgary

HammerHeadGym wrote: »

How does our accountability make homosexuality any more or less unnatural?

We know what is right and wrong, the difference between what is and isnt natural. We have wisdom and discernemnt.

We are also made accountable for our actions because of our ability to discern.

We recognize what is and isnt natural. Animals can not nor are they accountable because they do not have the ability to discern right from wrong.

Dr Galen

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We know what is right and wrong, the difference between what is and isnt natural. We have wisdom and discernemnt.

We are also made accountable for our actions because of our ability to discern.

We recognize what is and isnt natural. Animals can not nor are they accountable because they do not have the ability to discern right from wrong.

ok I'd agree we know right from wrong, so thus we are accountable for own actions in that sense. animals are certainly not accountable for their actions, they just carry out their normal and natural behaviours depending on the situation they are in.

but natural and unnatural does not necessarily equate with right and wrong. surely the behaviour of an animal is purely natural and innate, for as you put it they have no sense of right, wrong or otherwise. Wouldn't that mean that they just do what comes..........naturally?

you seem to be trying to make the words fit your belief, in this case you see homosexuality as wrong, and to your mind unnatural.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We know what is right and wrong, the difference between what is and isnt natural. We have wisdom and discernemnt.

We are also made accountable for our actions because of our ability to discern.

We recognize what is and isnt natural. Animals can not nor are they accountable because they do not have the ability to discern right from wrong.

Stop Brian, stop....what you're saying there is that it's unnatural for animals too, but that they don't know any better!

extremely amused,
Scofflaw

Tim_Murphy

We recognize what is and isnt natural. Animals can not nor are they accountable because they do not have the ability to discern right from wrong.

What do you actually mean by natural in this context?

I wonder does it really make any sense to call something which naturally occurs in nature to be unnatural? I'm trying to see the logic in your last few posts but I'm struggling.

roadruner

Anything an animal does is a natural occurrence (i.e. nature)

What separates human actions from animal actions is self awareness IMHO

What humans consider "unnatural" is something we find taboo so when we see animals (or humans) involved in intercourse with a same sex animal (or human) its taboo therefore "unnatural" (outside nature),
Very confusing but then again so is prejudice against the so called “taboo” acts of others

In my humble opinion

R

J C

Wicknight

wrote:

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!!
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!!

NEITHER Space Travel nor Radiometric Dating are 'the work of Satan '……….they are both the result of Human effort using their God-given intelligence!!!!

Could I also 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!!!:D


Scofflaw

wrote:

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).

They could be a bunch of ‘wet’ Evolutionists!!!!:eek::D

......but if you are in an Ark.......chances are that a Wordwide FLOOD has just started.......
......and it is time to go for another pint of Amstel Beer!!!!!!!!!:D

wrote:

Originally Posted by Furkin_Bastage

I sincerely hope that you are not dyslexic!!!:)


Robin

wrote:

Turns out that non-human species prostitute themselves too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/sc...f49&ei=5087%0A

I wonder what Paley would have said?

……ALL of Creation is 'fallen'…….and in the case of the above creatures, they are both literally and metaphorically ‘fallen’ !!!!:D
…..and could I gently point out that socially deviant behaviour such as ‘cheating’ and ‘lying’ are actually quite ‘natural’ forms of behaviour in a ‘fallen’ sinful world!!!:)

I would also point out that while ‘fallen’ behaviour, such as stealing, killing and fighting may be a feature that is found amongst some animals…..Human Beings bear full MORAL responsibility before God and Man when they engage in this ‘fallen’ behaviour ………and our Jails are full of Thieves, Murderers and Thugs as proof of this reality!!!!!:)


Robin

wrote:

Meanwhile, a scientist's beer consumption and his/her scientific output seem to be positively correlated:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/sc...in&oref=slogin

So is it the case, that the more Evolutionists drink ……. the more Evolution makes sense to them???!!!:eek:

When I was an Evolutionist, I used to find that I only REALLY believed that ‘Muck spontaneously evolved into Man’…….after about 5 pints!!!!!
…….and when I sobered up again the next day, ALL my doubts about Evolution came 'flooding back' to me!!!!:eek:

In any event, the article that you cited above indicates that Scientific output is NEGATIVELY correlated with boozing……and it is NOT positively correlated as you have claimed.
“According to the study, published in February in Oikos, a highly respected scientific journal, the MORE BEER a scientist drinks, THE LESS LIKELY the scientist is to publish a paper or to have a paper cited by another researcher, a measure of a paper’s quality and importance.”:eek::pac::pac::)