The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Given that you do not know anything about science, you are not really in a position to say if one person is or is not, a scientist. Neither are you in a position to make pointed value judgments on whether or not somebody claiming to be a scientist is "fine" at it.

You would be more accurate to say that "many people disagree", though we know that already.

You have the lists I provided many times. You ignore them.

One more for your blind-spot:
Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3566

Ciaran500

wolfsbane wrote: »

They aren't doing so. They are looking for the mechanisms that explain the answer. Just as evolutionists are.

Its exactly what they are doing. They have predefined answers that can't change, they are working any "research" around those answers.

"Evolutionist" research is trying to explain why things are how they are, no set answers.


How many times are you going to need this explained to you?

Galvasean

creationresearch.org

:rolleyes:That says it all really. They have clearly already made up their minds as to what they know to be right.

The introduction on creationresearch.org's home page wrote:

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to the scientific special creation.

Sounds like they are being REALLY open minded alright.

edit: Ooh a magazine "Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists"
Cool. It would be nice to say who the scientists are and if their degrees relate to the subject matter they review.
http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

One more for your blind-spot:
Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3566

Last known scientific publication was 12 years ago. No peer-reviewed creation science at all. Yet another creation journalist, wolfsbane?? C'mon, surely you can point to at least one scientist to give your argument the veneer of scientific authenticity you crave, in lieu of actual. :pac:

Killbot2000

wolfsbane wrote: »

Killbot2000 said:

So you believe all current scientific theories? Not many scientists would follow you there. What will you do when one is discarded for a better? Pack them all in?


No, it doesn't.
Check the verse in:
http://www.tektonics.org/TK-LEV.html


I agree with the first bit. Substitute creation for evolution and I'll agree with the last bit too.:D

Science is not a belief system, the theories are supported by evidence. You can disagree with a theory but you must have evidence for doing so. Stating that the Bible is the infallible word of God doesn't cut the mustard.

If I take a single generation of animals and let them breed, a new population consisting of the new generation i.e. the children will dominate. The genetic frequencies of these populations will have changed. This is evolution.

Your link still maintains that rabbits don't chew the cud, they engage in coprophagia. Only ruminants chew the cud. An analogy does not mean the same thing.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html This link is cringe worthy.

I don't think you do agree with stratigraphy which shows that the Earth is billions of years old and shows the evolutionary development of life on the planet.

If you don't like Tiktaalik, how about the evolution of whales, the evolution of the inner ear in mammals, the evolution of the horse, the evolution of ceratopsian dinosaurs.

Creationism has no evidence supporting it, save for "God did it". It is the highest form of wishful ignorance.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for that insight into your position. That being so, I accept you are a non-religious evoutionist. Very commendable.

As to my position, it is not like yours in that I have other absolutely certain information that makes agnosticism about origins redundant. It would not be commendable of me to ignore that.

As i said, that is perfectly fine. As far as i am concerned you are free to believe whatever you wish. But I hope you share my belief that the state should remain secular, for the benefit of all. The only thing that troubles me about religion is when it gets political, such as the US.

Ekancone

If one believes that God created the earth and heavens, then surely the earth and heavens are God's primary work. Study of the earth and heavens should be foundational. Placing an object such as the Bible before them is idolatry, is it not?

Eschatologist

Apologies in advance for my exuberant use of geological nomenclature! Off the top of my head, applying the basic principles of geology, if the Earth were 6000 years old: some 'extinct' radionuclides should still be around; no kimberlites or lamproites should exist (and therefore no diamonds) since they only occur in stable cratonic settings (almost exclusively 500 to 2 billion years old); we should still be feeling the aftershocks and significant measurable isostatic rebound worldwide from all that catastrophic plate tectonic activity - the pillar of the Flood geology model! - not just localised like in Scandinavia for example, after the removal of the ice sheet; snowball garnets and crenulation cleavages should not be visible in thin section, as such vigorous plate activity should not allow such recrystallisation textures to form never mind all the myriad metamorphic assemblages that rely on precise geothermal regimes (glaucophane+lawsonite in accretionary wedges for example), and all oceanic crust should be much younger than 180 Ma as a result of faster consumption at active margins; in fact, such rigorous convection would also release so much heat energy as to melt the planet, obliterating all the rocks! (life too). But the rocks are still there so with this in mind, all basalt on the planet past and present should instead be komatiitic in composition due to the higher degree of mantle melting (at least 30-50%) - so the Hawaiian islands should not exist in their present form and geochemical composition. The shape of the Hawaiian hot spot chain is inexplicable if this is true (it's not); still on the topic of komatiites, greenstone belts (relics of the first stabilised and sutured microcontinents of the late Archaean) should be prevalent worldwide rather than being restricted to Archaean (3.8-2.5 Gyr) terranes; trondjhemites and tonalites should also be ubiquitous (again, they're not - surprise surprise!) and carbonatites too - they should be more common than they are and not lost to lack of preservation; granites should still be molten blobs of partially crystallised mush, as granites can take 30,000 years or longer to crystallise, so greisens (altered granites) should also not exist; the planet should still be covered in a considerable amount of unconsolidated alluvium from the erosion of all those mountain belts and zircon data everywhere should show similar corroborative dates - they don't - if the sediment source area was everything everywhere under the Flood; in fact, I would expect the (1 billion year old) Grenville mountain belt to be as jagged and proud as the Himalayas, rather than being reduced to the basement of later orogenies - the dynamics must have been awesome to miraculously combine the results of the Grenvillain, Laxfordian, Grampian, Caledonian, Variscan, Cimmerian, Appalachian, Acadian, Taconic, Alpine orogenies etc; I would also expect structural deformation worldwide to be dominated by brittle rather than ductile failure in the light of catastrophic plate tectonics (of course the opposite is true according to accepted geological principles) - consolidated rocks fracture under high strain rates so chevron, parallel and similar folds should be much rarer than they are, so too schists, gneisses and migmatites; refolded folds and boudinaged folds should not exist. The purpose of this geological rant is to show that so few creationists understand the principles behind that which they argue against. This is just a taste of the vast amount of data behind geology, utilising principles from all fields of science. Anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of geology cannot ignore the ancient age of the Earth. The geology questions in this thread are so often ignored because I think the creationists fear what geology can reveal to them about the true age and nature of the Earth. I have a feeling JC, as the resident young Earth scientist, will attack this post with gusto, however I await with amusement his dismissive one-line emoticon- infused 'explanations' as they expose just how little he and others know about the subject.

Ciaran500

Wall o' text.


It gets very hard to read text when its not split up into paragraphs, so much so I'd imagine alot of people would skip your post Eschatologist.

Eschatologist

I did try to edit it but wouldn't let me. Pretty frustrating!

Ekancone

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Wall o' text.


It gets very hard to read text when its not split up into paragraphs, so much so I'd imagine alot of people would skip your post Eschatologist.

Agreed, break it up matey.

Ekancone

Apologies in advance for my exuberant use of geological nomenclature! Off the top of my head, applying the basic principles of geology, if the Earth were 6000 years old: some 'extinct' radionuclides should still be around; no kimberlites or lamproites should exist (and therefore no diamonds) since they only occur in stable cratonic settings (almost exclusively 500 to 2 billion years old); we should still be feeling the aftershocks and significant measurable isostatic rebound worldwide from all that catastrophic plate tectonic activity - the pillar of the Flood geology model!

- not just localised like in Scandinavia for example, after the removal of the ice sheet; snowball garnets and crenulation cleavages should not be visible in thin section, as such vigorous plate activity should not allow such recrystallisation textures to form never mind all the myriad metamorphic assemblages that rely on precise geothermal regimes (glaucophane+lawsonite in accretionary wedges for example), and all oceanic crust should be much younger than 180 Ma as a result of faster consumption at active margins; in fact, such rigorous convection would also release so much heat energy as to melt the planet, obliterating all the rocks! (life too).

But the rocks are still there so with this in mind, all basalt on the planet past and present should instead be komatiitic in composition due to the higher degree of mantle melting (at least 30-50%) - so the Hawaiian islands should not exist in their present form and geochemical composition.

The shape of the Hawaiian hot spot chain is inexplicable if this is true (it's not); still on the topic of komatiites, greenstone belts (relics of the first stabilised and sutured microcontinents of the late Archaean) should be prevalent worldwide rather than being restricted to Archaean (3.8-2.5 Gyr) terranes; trondjhemites and tonalites should also be ubiquitous (again, they're not - surprise surprise!) and carbonatites too - they should be more common than they are and not lost to lack of preservation; granites should still be molten blobs of partially crystallised mush, as granites can take 30,000 years or longer to crystallise, so greisens (altered granites) should also not exist; the planet should still be covered in a considerable amount of unconsolidated alluvium from the erosion of all those mountain belts and zircon data everywhere should show similar corroborative dates - they don't -

if the sediment source area was everything everywhere under the Flood; in fact, I would expect the (1 billion year old) Grenville mountain belt to be as jagged and proud as the Himalayas, rather than being reduced to the basement of later orogenies - the dynamics must have been awesome to miraculously combine the results of the Grenvillain, Laxfordian, Grampian, Caledonian, Variscan, Cimmerian, Appalachian, Acadian, Taconic, Alpine orogenies etc.

I would also expect structural deformation worldwide to be dominated by brittle rather than ductile failure in the light of catastrophic plate tectonics (of course the opposite is true according to accepted geological principles) - consolidated rocks fracture under high strain rates so chevron, parallel and similar folds should be much rarer than they are, so too schists, gneisses and migmatites; refolded folds and boudinaged folds should not exist.

The purpose of this geological rant is to show that so few creationists understand the principles behind that which they argue against. This is just a taste of the vast amount of data behind geology, utilising principles from all fields of science. Anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of geology cannot ignore the ancient age of the Earth. The geology questions in this thread are so often ignored because I think the creationists fear what geology can reveal to them about the true age and nature of the Earth. I have a feeling JC, as the resident young Earth scientist, will attack this post with gusto, however I await with amusement his dismissive one-line emoticon- infused 'explanations' as they expose just how little he and others know about the subject.

I think that might do it!

Eschatologist

Many thanks! I've had nothing but bad luck with computers today, give me rocks any day...

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

You have the lists I provided many times.

I suspect like most of the posters here, I don't generally waste my time reading the things that you link to. If you can't express it yourself, there's certainly not much point debating by exchanging links, is there?

However, I did look at this one as you did ask me directly. And as with every other thing that I've looked at from you, it's really quite pathetic. This guy Jerlström (whom I've never heard of, and I suspect you've probably never heard of before today either) starts off his professional life with a respectable qualification in microbiology, publishes lots of stuff related to microbiology up until 1996, then publishes nothing for three years, then starts writing about sharks, genes and bits of rectangular stone in unreviewed, religious agitprop publications.

Like, do you know what peer-review is for? Do you know what universities are for? Do you know what study is? Have you ever sat down yourself and studied for several years to become entirely fluent in some topic?

Can you not see why this guy -- quite apart from what he actually says (which seems to be rubbish to judge from the few lines that I read) -- has no history of study in the weirdly-unconnected areas he's writing about, does not submit it to his peers for correction, and can therefore reasonably be expected to be publishing completely biased crap?

I thought you didn't like publication bias? Or do you just ignore it when the text suggests that your personal prejudices are, in some sense, right?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

He doesn't - neither do we. We relate history and expect folk to take it as such, unless we indicate it is a parable, or a simile or metaphor.

So, the Iliad is what, exactly? I don't recall an introduction that says "hey, this is a fable". And the Bhagavad Gita, the Avesta, the Nibelungenlied, all the other transmitted epics?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Where Jesus deliberately concealed His meaning, the apostles indicated it:

I accept metaphor has meaning even though not literal. What I don't accept is treating as metaphor what is given as apparent historical narrative. There is no hermeneutic that can account for treating Genesis as myth or metaphor, without treating almost all the history of the Bible the same. That was not how it was understood from the beginning.

What? There are clearly historical pieces in the Bible, and there are clearly ahistoric pieces. The 'hermeneutic' is that it represents a collection of material from different periods - which we happen to know it does. Some of those sources are history/oral history, some of them are myth.

It seems bizarre to me to insist that the Bible is a straight narrative thread and should be read as one, when we know it isn't. Not only that, but even a straight narrative thread by a single author could still start with myth, and go on into history. It's a very common pattern.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

If it were only me, or even all the creationists alive today, you might have a point. But my position is the historic Christian and classical Judaic one.

Yes but that isn't actually true

Doesn't stop websites like AiG keep stating it though. Seems you have been duped by more Creationistist nonsense that you even realize

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm

"The truth is there really was no universal consensus on interpreting Genesis but the fact that there was such a diversity of views proves that organizations like AiG and ICR are telling people what is clearly not true. It saddens me to think that Christians would use such apologetics in the name of Christ."

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but that isn't actually true

Doesn't stop websites like AiG keep stating it though. Seems you have been duped by more Creationistist nonsense that you even realize

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm

"The truth is there really was no universal consensus on interpreting Genesis but the fact that there was such a diversity of views proves that organizations like AiG and ICR are telling people what is clearly not true. It saddens me to think that Christians would use such apologetics in the name of Christ."

Ah well, so now we move into interpreting the so called Church Fathers - that's another science!

I looked up the link you gave, it didn't impress me. Let's reply with another link with quotes from (often the same Church Fathers) about the creation:

http://www.creationism.org/articles/EarlyChurchLit6Days.htm

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

Ah well, so now we move into interpreting the so called Church Fathers - that's another science!

I looked up the link you gave, it didn't impress me. Let's reply with another link with quotes from (often the same Church Fathers) about the creation:

http://www.creationism.org/articles/EarlyChurchLit6Days.htm

I'm not really following that link, it says (without pointing to actual quotes) that the "Church Fathers" all accepted Genesis literally, but then gives examples when they clearly didn't.

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not really following that link, it says (without pointing to actual quotes) that the "Church Fathers" all accepted Genesis literally, but then gives examples when they clearly didn't.

If I read it correctly the author gives one possible exemption. And even that person is an exemption because he accepts Genesis but put he applies the 1 day is a thousand year (with God) rule.

Scofflaw

I have to admit I also read it as a variety of very symbolic interpretations of day - trying to fit various things into the scheme of six days.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

santing wrote: »

If I read it correctly the author gives one possible exemption. And even that person is an exemption because he accepts Genesis but put he applies the 1 day is a thousand year (with God) rule.

Quite. I'm afraid the dishonesty lies with the deniers - or at least those of them who know better. The cases used by the young man show his failure to grasp, for example, the different uses of 'day' being discussed by the ECF. That it can mean 1000 years in a certain context was not being used to suggest a mythical interpretation of the Creation Days.

Thanks for the link.

GhostInTheRuins

This might interest people here, There's a program on rte1 in 15 minutes called "Genesis vs Darwin", tvguide says its about "The views of American creationists".

I don't know anything else about it so don't blame me if it's ****e

GhostInTheRuins

Just started now

bogwalrus

sure ill go have a watch and yap about it tomorrow. be warned i might be arguing on the creationist side this time;)

Eschatologist

D.T. Jesus wrote: »

There's a program on rte1 in 15 minutes called "Genesis vs Darwin"

So God was responsible for the rise of dictators, disease, the Al Qaida attacks and hurricanes - even by their own admission, in this day and age God is responsible for natural disasters. Blaming a supernatural being doesn't hark back to the Dark Ages at all, no. How incredibly progressive and insightful :pac:

So-called 'creationist geologists' are the epitome of an oxymoron. Yes my geological 'wall 'o text' above may be a bit dry (well I think it's interesting!) but I have never seen any creationist models which have addressed any of the points I made because they can't, not rationally or in ways that make any sense.

pH

Eschatologist wrote: »

So-called 'creationist geologists' are the epitome of an oxymoron. Yes my geological 'wall 'o text' above may be a bit dry (well I think it's interesting!) but I have never seen any creationist models which have addressed any of the points I made because they can't, not rationally or in ways that make any sense.

I still think that you geologists are getting away too easy, with evolutionists taking all the flack. In many many ways modern geology is a bigger impediment to creationism than evolution is, and yet somehow this is overlooked (by creationists), it's always evolution is wrong and even when they're rubbishing the big bang theory, carbon dating or the formation of the grand canyon somehow they're *still* disproving evolution!

Creationism is not compatible with pretty much everything in modern science, a win in the biology classroom for the teaching of ID would lead to new creation compatible geology, cosmology, archaeology, linguistics etc.

Also for some bizarre reason this is the second time today I've heard about this no death before the fall idea, and it reminds me of a question I've long wanted answered by a creationist:

What was God's original plan (proceeding on the basis that Adam & Eve would obey God and not eat the fruit)?.

No death means no heaven and hell (did he create them before or after the fall?) and no death/disease plus the ability to breed surely means a huge population explosion - this plan doesn't seem to be worked out very well to me, so I was just wondering if a biblical literalism could explain to me their understanding of what God's original plan for us humans was (before the we messed it all up).

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

I still think that you geologists are getting away too easy, with evolutionists taking all the flack. In many many ways modern geology is a bigger impediment to creationism than evolution is, and yet somehow this is overlooked (by creationists), it's always evolution is wrong and even when they're rubbishing the big bang theory, carbon dating or the formation of the grand canyon somehow they're *still* disproving evolution!

I think that's because the fundamental problem most Creationists have is that we (or they) might not be terribly special in the grand scheme of things.

It's a hell of a step down to go from "God's masterwork and the point of all Creation" to H.sapiens (hominid sp., related to great apes, prob. origin Africa(?)).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think that's because the fundamental problem most Creationists have is that we (or they) might not be terribly special in the grand scheme of things.

It's a hell of a step down to go from "God's masterwork and the point of all Creation" to H.sapiens (hominid sp., related to great apes, prob. origin Africa(?)).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Or even worse, that we are in fact, animals. They shudder at that thought.

Eschatologist

Indeed. To quote, Kent Hovind 'the evolutionists believe life sprang from a rock'. Of course, being a geologist that thought kinda appeals to me.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

If I read it correctly the author gives one possible exemption

The author gives one exemption because he clearly hasn't read any of the text he gives as examples. They are the examples I speak off, and they are dealt with in the original link, which "didn't impress" you :rolleyes:

His first example is from St. Augustine, which is rather ironic consider Augustine did not take Genesis to be scientifically literal (he considered Creation Week literal but as a spiritual event, and dealt with spiritual awakening, not a physical one) and believed in a very very old Earth. He even gave this warning 1500 years ago

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men"

Lesson in there for all I think ....