The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

I was asking what starting point had Big Bangers - if they start with the Big Bang, then that is indeed falsifiable. If they speculate what was before that, then they are no longer scientists I take it? Just as Creationists who speak of God creating disqualify themselves?

Non-falsifiable speculation of what comes before the Big Bang is just that...non-falsifiable speculation. It doesn't mean that the person doing the speculation is not a scientist...it means that the speculation is not science.

Speaking of God does not mean one cannot be a scientist...it means one cannot be speaking of science at the time. Given that God is central to the notion of Creationism, this means that Creationism is not and cannot be science.

But if the Creationist starts his science with a mature, 6000 year old universe, then it is falsifiable

The manner in which the 6000-year-old universe is presented is non-falsifiable. Everything that is part of Young Earth Creationism can only be true if it does not contradict this timespan. If it contradicts the timespan, then its wrong. The timespan is held as an inviolate truth.

a reliable dating method,

We have reliable dating methods. The only reason they are rejected by Creationists is that they do not agree with the Young Universe model, and therefore are required to be wrong.

This is a perfect example of why the model is non-falsifiable. When evidence does not agree with the age, then the evidence must be wrong. There is nothing which would be acceptable as falsification of the age of the universe to a Creationist.

You make claims, tp the efeect that if we had a reliable dating technique and if it could show the age to be older than 6000 years.....but you ignore the reality that any dating technique which shows the age to be older than 6000 years must - by virtue of that very aspect - be considered unreliable by Creationists.

For you, a dating technique is only reliable if it can be reconciled with your inviolate truth. Thus, you have no falsifiablility.

The notion of a 'mature young universe' is equally unfalsifiable. It simply says that anything which falsifies the young age of the universe was just made to look that way.

Problably for the same reasons evolutionists aren't battering away to disprove evolution - they are sure it is true.

I'd like you to do a small experiment. I'd like you to pick up something...anything...and drop it again. Have you done that? Good. Now...here's the thing...you've just tested the existence of gravity, and it has passed that test. Whether you accept the reality of gravity, or the correctness of current gravitational theory doesn't matter a whit...you've tested the existence of gravity and it passed that test.

If someone does this test and something unexpected happens...they try dropping a pen, and instead of falling it flies up to the ceiling and stays there....then our theory of gravity has been falsified. It goes out the window. Its wrong. We need to think again. OK..we need to make sure that there isn't a reason that the test produced unexpected results, but gravity is falsifiable.

Evolutionary theory is no different. Every time someone carries out tests or experiments in the field of evolution, they are testing evolutionary theory. Whether the experimenter believes in the truth of evolutionary theory matters not one bit...the theory is falsifiable, and all it will take is a result that falsifies it to show it to be wrong. Sure, we have to make sure the test wasn't flawed and so forth, but evolutionary theory is constantly being tested, and aspects of it - as with any field of science - are frequently shown to have been not-entirely-accurate, and our understanding progresses as we refine our theory.

Creationism is different. With creationism, if the test shows the wrong result, then the test must be flawed and a reason is found (or made up) as to why that is so.

No amount of sophistry will change that. Its not about what anyone believes to be true. Its about whether or not those beliefs can be falsified.

Evolutionary theory can be falsified. That it has not been shown to be false is a sign of its quality, not a sign that it is not being tested.

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions from New Scientist.


informatively,
Scofflaw

OK.....so Evolutionists (and others) believe in an enormous number of myths and misconceptions about Evolution.......surprise, surprise......when Spontaneous Evolution is itself one great enormous MYTH!!!!:eek::pac::):D

J C

bonkey wrote: »

In other interesting news....

There would appear to be a new record for the world's oldest living tree.

Dated using Carbon-14 techniques (which have previously in this thread been accepted by Creationists as the only accurate radiological dating method), the tree has been dated to between 9,000 and 9,500 years old.

Given that the YECs here have tended to put the earth's age at around 10,000 years, wouldn't this mean that we've found a tree that survived their alleged Flood?

Will carbon-14 dating suddenly become unacceptable? Will some other reason to reject this finding be invented? Will be asked to believe that spruce pine could have happily survived being submerged for the duration of the event?

I don't know WHERE you got this particular 'gem'.......and I doubt if anybody who knows ANYTHING about radiocarbon dating would have made such a claim.

The theoretical basis for raiocarbon dating is the decline in C14 AFTER something DIES.....and as this tree is still ALIVE.....Radicarbon dating CANNOT be used to age it!!!!:D

....and this is another reason why Creation Scientists are needed to pointout the obvious errors that some Evolutionists make!!!

...and you can 'brush up' on Radiocarbon dating HERE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Ekancone

JC, does merely saying you believe in Christ really enough to save you, even if you don't believe/mean it?

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

I don't know WHERE you got this particular 'gem'.......and I doubt if anybody who knows ANYTHING about radiocarbon dating would have made such a claim.

The theoretical basis for raiocarbon dating is the decline in C14 AFTER something DIES.....and as this tree is still ALIVE.....Radicarbon dating CANNOT be used to age it!!!!:D

....and this is another reason why Creation Scientists are needed to pointout the obvious errors that some Evolutionists make!!!

...and you can 'brush up' on Radiocarbon dating HERE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

JC, if you had bothered to read the article properly you would see how moronic this post is.

It says "The visible portion of the spruce was comparatively new, but analysis of four "generations" of remains - cones and wood - found underneath its crown showed its root system had been growing for 9,550 years, Umeaa University said."

It goes on to say that "spruce's stems or trunks had a lifespan of around 600 years, but as soon as one died, a cloned stem could emerge from the root system."


Im embarressed for you, JC.

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

OK.....so Evolutionists (and others) believe in an enormous number of myths and misconceptions about Evolution.......surprise, surprise......when Spontaneous Evolution is itself one great enormous MYTH!!!!:eek::pac::):D

I love a good cheap shot myself...but I'm not sure you're in the best position to start that kind of contest.


cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

J C wrote: »

I don't know WHERE you got this particular 'gem'.......and I doubt if anybody who knows ANYTHING about radiocarbon dating would have made such a claim.

And I would have thought that anyone who knows anything about research would have checked out why radiocarbon dating was useable....especially when an explanation was a mere two posts after the one I made and could be found with a google search for 'world's oldest tree' within about 30 seconds.

What with you having claimed plenty of times in the past, JC, to be a scientist, I'm disappointed in you.

....and this is another reason why Creation Scientists are needed to pointout the obvious errors that some Evolutionists make!!!

Whatever about that....I think you've adequately demonstrated just how carefully a 'Creation Scientist' researches their position before making it.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Very helpful in avoiding misunderstandings. I've added it to my Favourites. Thanks.

Thanks for listening.

Soul Winner

bonkey wrote: »

No, thats not all it says. Thats one piece of what it says.

It also says "The visible portion of the spruce was comparatively new, but analysis of four "generations" of remains - cones and wood - found underneath its crown showed its root system had been growing for 9,550 years, Umeaa University said."

It goes on to say that "spruce's stems or trunks had a lifespan of around 600 years, but as soon as one died, a cloned stem could emerge from the root system."


The genetic material contained in the remains.


By carbon dating parts that aren't still alive - the generations of remains.


Why shouldn't I refer you to the article again? It explains what was dated. It explains the features of a spruce tree that makes such a dating possible.


In order to explain it better, I need to know what part of the article you don't understand.

If your position was that you don't understand the explanation of trunks dying every few hundred years, while the root system lives on, then I could try explaining it differently. However, thats not your position...your position is that this explanation isn't in the article which it most clearly is.

Ah so!!! Thanks.

I think the New York Times puts it better:

"The oldest tree. Sometime around 7542 B.C., a spruce tree started growing on Fulu Mountain in Sweden. It is still growing. Spruce trees can produce exact clones of each other, and while the currently visible part of the tree is not 9,550 years old, scientists found pieces of wood beneath it that are that old with exactly the same genetic makeup as the above-ground part of the tree."

Galvasean

creationweb wrote:

a massive worldwide catastrophe did occur in the past, and it certainly did destroy much of the animal and plant life. It was, however, a global Flood—not a mere meteorite collision.

Yes, because everyone knows floods are MUCH more devastating than giant friggin' meteors...

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

Spontaneous Evolution is itself one great enormous MYTH!!!!:eek::pac::):D

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mfl/lowres/mfln130l.jpg

Ekancone

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ah so!!! Thanks.

I think the New York Times puts it better:

"The oldest tree. Sometime around 7542 B.C., a spruce tree started growing on Fulu Mountain in Sweden. It is still growing. Spruce trees can produce exact clones of each other, and while the currently visible part of the tree is not 9,550 years old, scientists found pieces of wood beneath it that are that old with exactly the same genetic makeup as the above-ground part of the tree."

Yay!

bonkey

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ah so!!! Thanks.

No worries...

I think the New York Times puts it better:

"The oldest tree. Sometime around 7542 B.C., a spruce tree started growing on Fulu Mountain in Sweden. It is still growing. Spruce trees can produce exact clones of each other, and while the currently visible part of the tree is not 9,550 years old, scientists found pieces of wood beneath it that are that old with exactly the same genetic makeup as the above-ground part of the tree."

The one criticism I'd have here is that this doesn't make clear that there would be a living root system throughout the entire time.

One could mistakenly think that it is saying that one tree entirely died, and another grew in its place with the same genetic structure....where in fact what happens is that one tree trunk dies, and another grows from the same, living root structure.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think the New York Times puts it better:

"The oldest tree. Sometime around 7542 B.C., a spruce tree started growing on Fulu Mountain in Sweden. It is still growing. Spruce trees can produce exact clones of each other, and while the currently visible part of the tree is not 9,550 years old, scientists found pieces of wood beneath it that are that old with exactly the same genetic makeup as the above-ground part of the tree."

As bonkey points out it isn't that they found dead wood that was 9,550 years old.

The visible part of the tree is the bit above ground, but the source of each new visible part (happens every 600 years or so) is the root system underground, which is still alive and 9,550 years ago.

The visible part keeps the root system alive. A world wide flood lasting a year or so would have killed the root system. The fact that this root system is still going after so long makes it highly unlikely that 5,000 years ago this part of Sweden was covered in water.

Killbot2000

I think the expression JC is looking for is D'oh!

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote: »

As bonkey points out it isn't that they found dead wood that was 9,550 years old.

The visible part of the tree is the bit above ground, but the source of each new visible part (happens every 600 years or so) is the root system underground, which is still alive and 9,550 years ago.

The visible part keeps the root system alive. A world wide flood lasting a year or so would have killed the root system. The fact that this root system is still going after so long makes it highly unlikely that 5,000 years ago this part of Sweden was covered in water.

Hmm, but the roots they dated are dead, but belong to the same tree. Maybe thats what you were saying and I read it wrong.

Scofflaw

A glowing review of "Expelled". By someone called L. Brent Bozell III.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Minder wrote: »

My interpretation. Do you find it inaccurate?

Yes. It requires 2's or 7's of every present and extinct species to be on the ark . That is not Creationism's position.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is a spare block at the end so I just stuck my own little sig on it. It's not interfering with the original Art work at all.

Wicknight's saved me the trouble of pointing out the broken rules, but AiG is quite clear on it -- no messing with anything that it creates -- and you've got to tell them that you're using it too -- I'm sure they won't mind (probably)

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm sorry for misrepresenting your mumblings and treating them as something you have strong views about. It won’t happen again, I promise.

Good to hear it (just fyi, I said "misinterpreting", not "misrepresenting"; ya gotta read that text more carefully!)

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is that your opinion of the book or Carl Sagan’s?

Er, that's my opinion -- good heavens, SW, when have you ever known me to recycle somebody else's art when I can deliver something straight from the hip myself?

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote: »

Hmm, but the roots they dated are dead, but belong to the same tree. Maybe thats what you were saying and I read it wrong.

Well every tree has dead bits, the outer shell (the bark for example). The dead bit will always be older than the living bit inside.

wolfsbane

Hot Dog wrote: »

Immanuel Velikovsky had a lot of wacky ideas. Some were clever though. Makes for entertaining reading.



So? Which god is right?

I do love history. It is very useful when assessing ancient claims to remember the problems we have in assessing modern ones.

For example, the Mahon Tribunal: which witness is right? Given our access to paper-work and living witnesses, you folk may just get to separate the liars from the rest.

Does it surprise you that in ancient times spins were likewise put on the original truth?

To answer your question: the God who has revealed Himself to our hearts as the Creator of the universe and the One to whom we must give account. His word to us is called the Bible.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

I do love history. It is very useful when assessing ancient claims to remember the problems we have in assessing modern ones.

For example, the Mahon Tribunal: which witness is right? Given our access to paper-work and living witnesses, you folk may just get to separate the liars from the rest.

Does it surprise you that in ancient times spins were likewise put on the original truth?

To answer your question: the God who has revealed Himself to our hearts as the Creator of the universe and the One to whom we must give account. His word to us is called the Bible.

So the bible is the exact word of god?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

To answer your question: the God who has revealed Himself to our hearts as the Creator of the universe and the One to whom we must give account. His word to us is called the Bible.

And all the other religions that claim their god(s) has revealed himself/herself/their selves in the our hearts?

How do you explain them? Are they lying?

robindch

Scofflaw wrote: »

A glowing review of "Expelled". By someone called L. Brent Bozell III.

Gosh, my clichemeter melted on the second para -- LBB3 should be writing for newsmax, not yahoo. He looks like a young, ginger version of Ken Ham too. Weird.

Elsewhere in the burgeoning creationist media industry -- heavens, what else is there to it? -- Ken Ham seems to be doing some cross-marketing for the film: see his signed endorsement here. He's also posted a splendidly one-sided review, from which (here's the cross-marketing bit) hardcore creationists can buy a really lame "Expelled Movie Action Kit" which is "a great tool for follow-up witnessing to family and friends".

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You have answered you own question.

Look at you text again.

So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind

There is no "from which many species devolved". That is again a modern distortion of the text by Creationists who realised that they had problems with literal interpretation.

The Bible is saying that God create ALL species of birds and fish, (and presumably wild animals), in creation week. To say that the text leaves open the idea that God merely created higher templates from which various new types of animals could emerge is going against the text. New types of animals didn't appear later on through "devolution", that is never mentioned in the text and goes against the meaning of these passages.

You can pervert the meaning of the text all you like to get the answer you want, but please don't hark on about how you are "true" to the original meaning.

If you want to be true to the original meaning and take it literally then you need to figure out a way to get every species of land animal on the Ark, because this modern invention of "kinds" from with new animals devolved is unsupported by Biblical text and goes against the clear meanings of these passages.

And giving out about Christians who are actually true to the actual meaning of the text (and therefore have determined it cannot be literal) is a bit rich.

Did you not see the word 'breeding' in my post, and the emphasis I said it had? Let me remind you: The emphasis is on the kinds breeding each according to its kind. Now if kind means each sort of finch, for example, then Noah had a problem. But if it referred to something from which many species devolved, then the ark was viable.

If Genesis 1 meant species, then it meant that species were not to breed with one another - no finches, for example, breeding with any but their own species, otherwise new 'kinds' would arise. That seems rather contrary to God's original design.

But if breeding defines what 'kind' meant, then we have a dramatic reduction in the number of creatures required for the ark.

You also did not answer my question, and it might help us understand what you actually are saying: BTW, you don't think horse and zebras are any more related than horses and lions? You think that all species are unrelated???

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

And all the other religions that claim their god(s) has revealed himself/herself/their selves in the our hearts?

How do you explain them? Are they lying?

Yes. That is rather the nature of things, if the Bible and today's news reports are accurate. There is one truth and many lies. You perhaps think the disagreement means all are lies - but that's a logical flaw.

Those who are of God will recognise God's voice at some moment in their lives and turn to Him. Those who are not of God won't.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

BTW, you don't think horse and zebras are any more related than horses and lions? You think that all species are unrelated???

Well the evidence from DNA suggests that all living organisms share a common ancestor.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

So the bible is the exact word of god?

The original books that make up the Bible were exact. The copies we have to translate from are not, so we compare the thousands of manuscripts and the consensus arrived at brings us all the truth God intends us to have.

By His preservation we have the Bible free from error in all it asserts.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

The original books that make up the Bible were exact. The copies we have to translate from are not, so we compare the thousands of manuscripts and the consensus arrived at brings us all the truth God intends us to have.

By His preservation we have the Bible free from error in all it asserts.

But there clearly are errors in the bible. What is the value of pi again?

Killbot2000

This 'kind' business is nonsense. The Bible is obviously making reference to species. I'm getting very bored of pointing out the biological impossibilities of the Ark story.

New biological 'concepts' like devolution and that every species can hibernate are only futile attempts to try and substantiate the story.