The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

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

The value of pi has been calculated to at least 1.241 trillion decimal places. However, if we post that here then this thread will more than double in size. Also, since the number of decimal places of pi are actually infinite, any numbers we post here will be inaccurate. Would you prefer me to round it up or down a bit?

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

The value of pi has been calculated to at least 1.241 trillion decimal places. However, if we post that here then this thread will more than double in size. Also, since the number of decimal places of pi are actually infinite, any numbers we post here will be inaccurate. Would you prefer me to round it up or down a bit?

Well recognising that it is not exactly three would be sufficient for me. A flat earth anyone? No? How about a solid sky which stars fall out of? No? Anyone? God said it, so it must be true!

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Well recognising that it is not exactly three would be sufficient for me. A flat earth anyone? No? How about a solid sky which stars fall out of? No? Anyone? God said it, so it must be true!

Christians believe that the Bible contains normal usage of language (including round numbers - no pun intended about pi) and figures of speech, as does any form of written or verbal communication.

For example, if I state that I am 45 years old and 5 feet 11 inches then nobody will accuse me of failing to tell the truth because I am actually 45 years + 8 months + a few hours, minutes and seconds, and I am actually 5 feet 11 and one quarter inches.

Another example. If the BBC weather report states a given time for sunrise then we do not accuse them of teaching that the sun actually revolves around the earth.

Everybody uses idioms. For example, in 2006 the University of London hosted an series of botanical drawings entitled "From the Four Corners of the Earth". Should we demand the university have its accreditation removed for teaching a flat earth?

Historians speak about the Russian bear halting the advance of Hitler at Stalingrad. Should we object that Hitler was not personally at Stalingrad? Or indeed that literal bears were remarkably absent from the Soviet battle formation?

To 'expose' the Bible as inaccurate for using such common linguistic conventions is straw manning of the highest order.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

The value of pi has been calculated to at least 1.241 trillion decimal places. However, if we post that here then this thread will more than double in size. Also, since the number of decimal places of pi are actually infinite, any numbers we post here will be inaccurate. Would you prefer me to round it up or down a bit?

Since this thread isn't the scientifically accurate word of God intended to last down the generations as the path to truth, you may make your choice freely.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

Christians believe that the Bible contains normal usage of language (including round numbers - no pun intended about pi) and figures of speech, as does any form of written or verbal communication.

For example, if I state that I am 45 years old and 5 feet 11 inches then nobody will accuse me of failing to tell the truth because I am actually 45 years + 8 months + a few hours, minutes and seconds, and I am actually 5 feet 11 and one quarter inches.

Another example. If the BBC weather report states a given time for sunrise then we do not accuse them of teaching that the sun actually revolves around the earth.

Everybody uses idioms. For example, in 2006 the University of London hosted an series of botanical drawings entitled "From the Four Corners of the Earth". Should we demand the university have its accreditation removed for teaching a flat earth?

Historians speak about the Russian bear halting the advance of Hitler at Stalingrad. Should we object that Hitler was not personally at Stalingrad? Or indeed that literal bears were remarkably absent from the Soviet battle formation?

To 'expose' the Bible as inaccurate for using such common linguistic conventions is straw manning of the highest order.

Indeed, but can you not apply this logic to all parts of the bible? Why is it that we treat the bibles description of the earth being flat as loosely as you do whilst we are to believe the rest of it is to be taken as direct word?

For example: Thou Shalt Not Steal

I bought a t-shirt the other day which I considered to be a 'steal'. Am I breaking this commandment? Or does this passage have a very specific meaning?

A few creationists are honest enough to admit that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is irrelevant as far as they are concerned: as it contradicts the "Word of God", it simply has to be wrong.

Some Christians regard the text of the Bible as literally true or, to use their term, as "inerrant". If people reject evolution on this basis, it is only fair to ask whether this belief stands up.

Whichever translation of the Bible you look at it is not hard to find errors. The texts are full of internal contradictions as well as historical and scientific inaccuracies.

There are so many examples it is hard to know where to start. Take its cosmology: according to the Bible, the earth is flat and immovable, the moon emits its own light, the sky is solid and the stars can be shaken from the sky by earthquakes.

Its mathematics is also poor. How many sons do you count: "The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six" (I Chronicles 3:22). Such errors are common. The value of pi is given as 3, even though many other cultures had already worked it out with greater precision.
Bible biology

Its biology is no better. The Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats' coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents.

So how reliable is the chapter that relates to evolution? Let's leave aside the long-standing evidence that Earth is older than 6000 years and that there was no world-wide flood, and look at what else Genesis says.

Genesis 1 gives the order of creation as plants, animals, man and woman. Genesis 2 gives it as man, plants, animals and woman. Genesis 1:3-5 says light was created on the first day, Genesis 1:14-19 says the sun was created on the fourth. Genesis 7:2 says Noah took seven pairs of each beast, Genesis 7:8-15 says one pair.

The list goes on. The fruit of the tree of knowledge is said to kill within a day of being eaten, yet Adam and Eve don't die after eating it. Genesis says there were giants (Nephilim) before the flood and that the flood annihilated all creatures other than those on the ark, but Numbers says there were giants after the flood.
Sorting it out

Attempts to resolve these contradictions are almost as old as the Bible itself. Those who regard the Bible as inerrant tie themselves in knots trying to explain them away (hands up who believes that T. rex was once a peaceful vegetarian?), or even take it upon themselves to rewrite the Bible to expunge them.

However, there are far too many errors, inaccuracies and contradictions to dismiss them all. The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that the Bible is not inerrant.

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Indeed, but can you not apply this logic to all parts of the bible? Why is it that we treat the bibles description of the earth being flat as loosely as you do whilst we are to believe the rest of it is to be taken as direct word?

For example: Thou Shalt Not Steal

I bought a t-shirt the other day which I considered to be a 'steal'. Am I breaking this commandment? Or does this passage have a very specific meaning?

The Bible contains figures of speech that would be specific to the cultural and linguistic language in which it was written. That is why a major branch of biblical theology is to research biblical languages and ancient near east culture and history.

No sensible person would expect the Bible to use a 20th Century English idiom such as 'steal' to denote a bargain. Of course it's Saturday night so alcoholic influence may explain your use of this example.

Your anonymous quote shows either deliberate deceit, or else a stunning ignorance of what Christians mean when they speak of the Bible as being 'inerrant'.

If you would like to discuss this from a more informed standpoint then I would recommend you read The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

The Bible contains figures of speech that would be specific to the cultural and linguistic language in which it was written. That is why a major branch of biblical theology is to research biblical languages and ancient near east culture and history.

No sensible person would expect the Bible to use a 20th Century English idiom such as 'steal' to denote a bargain. Of course it's Saturday night so alcoholic influence may explain your use of this example.

Your anonymous quote shows either deliberate deceit, or else a stunning ignorance of what Christians mean when they speak of the Bible as being 'inerrant'.

If you would like to discuss this from a more informed standpoint then I would recommend you read The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

Well it was an intentionally silly example but it was in response to what I regard was an equally silly response to the value of pi. As that article I quoted (from the New Scientist link that Scofflaw provided above) said, the value of pi was already known at the time of the writing of the bible, or at least it was known not be be exactly three. You can forgive god for not giving us the value of pi to the 10^infinity decimal place, but surely 3.14 would have been sufficent, no?

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Well it was an intentionally silly example but it was in response to what I regard was an equally silly response to the value of pi. As that article I quoted (from the New Scientist link that Scofflaw provided above) said, the value of pi was already known at the time of the writing of the bible, or at least it was known not be be exactly three. You can forgive god for not giving us the value of pi to the 10^infinity decimal place, but surely 3.14 would have been sufficent, no?

If you bothered to read the Bible reference in question you would see that the Bible does not pretend to give a value of pi at all.

It simply states the dimensions of a large basin rounded to the nearest cubit. :rolleyes:

bonkey

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.

My understanding is that they didn't date roots at all.

They found remains of previous generations of above-ground growth. They dated these remains, and verified genetically that they match the living tree.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

The value of pi has been calculated to at least 1.241 trillion decimal places. However, if we post that here then this thread will more than double in size. Also, since the number of decimal places of pi are actually infinite, any numbers we post here will be inaccurate. Would you prefer me to round it up or down a bit?

I fail to see how that compares to saying the Earth is flat or the sun revolves around the Earth or they crammed all of those animals into the Ark.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The value of pi has been calculated to at least 1.241 trillion decimal places. However, if we post that here then this thread will more than double in size. Also, since the number of decimal places of pi are actually infinite, any numbers we post here will be inaccurate. Would you prefer me to round it up or down a bit?

Yeah people keep saying that but the problem with that logic is that Pi "rounded down" to 3 is unworkable. It is inaccurate to a level that is just wrong.

You might as well say that 1/3 of 100 is 30 (rather than 33.3333333) or that the square root of 2 is 1.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It simply states the dimensions of a large basin rounded to the nearest cubit. :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure "rounded to the nearest cubit" is not mentioned in the original text.

J C

wrote:

Daithifleming

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."

I was responding to what bonkey had said….and I hadn’t read the later posting where further details were provided!!!

wrote:

Daithifleming
I am just loving this. We have AiG on record to boot, brilliant. I consider this to be the knockout blow. Hung by their own bootstrap!

Here are a few of the problems with Carbon Dating and AIG have gone ON RECORD about them here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

wrote:

BBC NEWS
Swedes find 'world's oldest tree'

A tree said to be the oldest on the planet - thought to be nearly 10,000 years old - has been found in Sweden.

Scientists from Umeaa University discovered the spruce on Fulu Mountain in Dalarna province while carrying out a census of tree species there in 2004.

The age of its genetic material was recently calculated using carbon dating at a laboratory in Miami, Florida.

Scientists had believed the world's oldest trees were 4,000-year-old pine trees found in North America.

The oldest, a bristlecone pine named Methuselah located in California's White Mountains, is aged 4,768, according to the Guinness Book of World Records.

Cloning

The new record contender, which would have taken root just after the last ice age, was found among a cluster of around 20 spruces believed to be more than 8,000 years old at an altitude of 910m (2,985ft) on Fulu Mountain.

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.

Our results have shown the complete opposite, that the spruce is one of the oldest known trees in the mountain range
Leif Kullmann
Umeaa University

Umeaa's professor of physical geography, Leif Kullmann, said the 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 clones take root each winter as snow pushes low-lying branches of the mother tree down to ground level, Mr Kullmann added.

The discovery of the tree has been surprising, because the spruce had until now been regarded as a relative newcomer in the region.

"Our results have shown the complete opposite, that the spruce is one of the oldest known trees in the mountain range," Mr Kullmann said.

He explained that 10,000 years ago the spruce would have been extremely rare in the region and that it was conceivable Mesolithic humans might have imported the species as they migrated northwards with the receding ice cap.

The discovery also shows that it was much warmer in the region at the time than had been thought previously, perhaps even warmer than today, he added.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...pe/7353357.stm

Published: 2008/04/17 18:01:38 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

OK, so here we have a YOUNG tree with supposedly old roots……NEITHER of which can be assessed by Carbon Dating…….because they are both ALIVE.

The article then goes on to claim that a 10,000 year 'age' has been established using Carbon Dating for “its genetic material” …….. via the “analysis of four "generations" of remains - cones and wood - found underneath its crown showed its root system had been growing for 9,550 years”.

The article also confirms that the “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.”

Firstly, four generations of tree ‘clones’ at a lifespan of 600 years per ‘clone’ adds up to a maximium of only 2,400 years.:)

Secondly, the REMAINS of cones and wood (together with their genetic material) are likely to rapidly turn into Humus under bacterial and invertebrate action……and therefore it will contain a complete MIXTURE of carbon compounds of DIFFERENT ‘ages’……and nothing can be definitively concluded from any ‘date’ established for such mixed up material. Any deadwood in such an exposed environment would rapidly decay to be recycled by the tree.......that is how the Carbon Cycle works, after all!!!:D

The article also states that “the clones take root each winter as snow pushes low-lying branches of the mother tree down to ground level”. Even if only ten clones were formed each winter, the total clump of vegetation should have spread out over hundreds of square metres in 10,000 years…..rather than the ‘miserable’ few square metres evidently surrounding the tree in the photo…….
.......there is nearly as much vegetation surrounding the ‘prostrate spruce’ in my back garden…..and I only planted it 10 years ago!!!!:pac::):D

wrote:

MooseJam
sure lots of insects would have flown in and have been on animals, but they would just be a few insects local to the arc, insects live all over the world don't you know, what would happen to those ?

Insects can fly, walk and/or crawl.
They can equally be transported by all kinds of vectors……ranging from animals and birds to ‘flotsam and jetsam’ as well as being carried on air currents……so they could easily spread all over the World from the Ark…….
……..but they are likely to have been all over the World, ALREADY at the end of the Flood …..on floating vegetation mats as well as on other flotsam and jetsam!!!

wrote:

MooseJam
why don't creationists build a replica ark, if it floats it would put an end to so many objections

…if a replic Ark was built and did float……would it really put an end to the endless questions of Skeptics about the Ark????

….I think not….the response from the Skeptics would be something like…..
...."so a WOODEN Ark floats …big deal"

…….and Scofflaw has already said:-
“we have to see whether it floated under Flood conditions? Floating on a calm lake would hardly give the same kind of test as floating while the continents were rearranged, the heavens burst, and the fountains of the deep were broken open.

Rather more to the point, the Ark was God's chosen vehicle to allow Noah to survive a divinely mandated worldwide flood - not an easy situation to replicate.”

Anyway, the exact techniques used to build the Ark are not known…… so it would be like suggesting that we build a full scale replica of the Pyramids…….just to see how it could be done.!!!:eek:

….and the resources required for such a mammoth task could be put to much better use in other areas of Creation Science research.

As I have already pointed out, The Santiago was a very large barge …that did float ….for over 20 years….on the notoriously stormy Great Lakes.
Just like the Ark, it was made entirely of wood, carryied no steel bracing.
Like the Ark, it was built as a barge ...........and at 324 feet long, it proves that there isn't a 300 foot long 'barrier' to constructing wooden vessels.

wrote:

Robin
Creationists scoff at science when it suits them, but like them visiting real doctors when they're ill, they're quite happy to pick from the fruits of science when they need to.

Creation Scientists ARE conventional scientists ..and some are medical doctors THEMSELVES…..so they fully support scientific progress……
.......it’s just the unfounded belief in Spontaneous Evolutionists that Creation Scientists reject!!!!:D

BTW it has just been announced that the study of Humanism is to form part of the syllabus for a GCSE course in religious studies, for the first time.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/humanism-to-be-added-to-gcse-religious-studies-811232.html
……..as Spontaneous Evolution is the Humanist 'Origins Explanation'........ I wonder will it also be included in this religious studies programme ???

wrote:

Bonkey
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.

..…..Creation Science investigates the evidence for the PHYSICAL actions of God……and nobody is asking you to compromise your religious belief (that God doesn’t exist)…… by becoming a Creation Scientist……although you are perfectly free to become a Creation Scientist…..and continue to be an Atheist…… if you so wish!!!:)

BTW, Creation Scientists also support the continued scientific evaluation and study of Evolution …….
……as well as the teaching of the latest ideas on Spontaneous Evolution in the Humanist Modules of Comparative Religion classes!!!:pac::):D

wrote:

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

Everybody, other than hypocrites……believe what they say...and say what they believe!!!

….and in Acts 16:31 we are asked to verbally confirm our BELIEF in Jesus Christ in order to be Saved!!!!
.....so you do need to really believe/mean .......that you believe on Jesus Christ to Save you!!!!!!!!

wrote:

Wicknight
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.

daithifleming
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.

bonkey
My understanding is that they didn't date roots at all.

They found remains of previous generations of above-ground growth. They dated these remains, and verified genetically that they match the living tree

I’m not sure what they did EXACTLY ……and nobody on this thread seems to be much wiser either!!!:eek:

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm pretty sure "rounded to the nearest cubit" is not mentioned in the original text.

Leaving the pi question to one side, is there any evidence at all that it was possible to cast a bronze pond that could hold 20,000 gallons? Have any bronze castings of a similar size for this period ever been found or their existence verified?

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

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

Make that a common designer and we've a deal!

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If you would like to discuss this from a more informed standpoint then I would recommend you read The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

Do you subscribe to that statement?

bonkey

J C wrote: »

..…..Creation Science investigates the evidence for the PHYSICAL actions of God

I've no doubt that this is exactly what it does. However, this still involves non-falsifiable assumptions.

You can smilie ad infinitum, JC, trying to reword your position to avoid admitting this, but you still won't change that. Its like I was saying in the post with the experiment to falsify gravity...what you believe has no relevance, until you allow those beliefs to create non-falsifiable assumptions.

……and nobody is asking you to compromise your religious belief (that God doesn’t exist)……
by becoming a Creation Scientist……although you are perfectly free to become a Creation Scientist…..and continue to be an Atheist…… if you so wish!!!:)

Firstly, I would point out that I am not an Atheist. Indeed, I don't believe I have ever stated what my beliefs are on boards.ie, but it doesn't surprise me to find that some people assume I am atheist because I have an interest in discussions of this nature.

You'll also find that I have repeatedly allowed that I have no issue with your beliefs, nor anyone elses. Where I take issue is when you (or anyone) erroneously claim something to be science, when it is not, because it is based on non-falsifiable assumptions.

Everybody, other than hypocrites……believe what they say...and say what they believe!!!

Do you believe Creation Science to be falsifiable, JC? Do you believe it is possible to show that the Flood did not occur, or that the earth (and universe) are not in the region of whatever age you claim them to be?

If you believe it is possible, then please....tell us what is required to falsify these assumptions.
If you do not believe it is possible, then please have the honesty to admit that these assumptions, therefore, are non-falsifiable.

Say what you believe, JC. To do otherwise would be hypocracy, right?

Personally, I don't think you're going to answer those questions. I believe that you rely on one or more of the myriad of tactics that we've grown used to seeing you employ...mockery, smilies, ignoring the question...whatever it takes, right?

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

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.

Creationism is indeed not just science - as it points out in its various statements of faith. But the science it engages in is science.

Quote:
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.

The timespan is indeed a part of the model - just as billions of years is part of the evolutionary model. If either fell, the revelant model falls also. That doesn't mean either 6000 years or 13 billion years are non-falsifiable surely?

Quote:
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.

In my layman's understanding of the debate, the objection is they are based on assumptions: the level of parent/daughter present originally, and the uniformity of rate of change - neither of which have been proved.

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.

If evidence had only an evolutionary interpretation, the creationist could admit we have no science here to support our point. A case may come to light in the future, but we would have to acknowledge at the moment evolution had the high ground. But today we have conflicting ages given by several dating methods, indicating at least that none can be taken as definitive.

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.

Just as you say of the techniques that upset evolutionary timescales.

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

Then your system is also non-falsifiable?

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.

No, it doesn't. No 'God put fossils in the rocks to make them look old' arguments from us. We offer alternative explanations for 'old' dates arising from methods of dating devised by evolutionists using their 'old' assumptions.

Quote:
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.

Hmm. What examples can you give of these experiments in the field of evolution? Which ones indicated a young earth and who acknowledged that and refined their theory accordingly?

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

The timespan is indeed a part of the model - just as billions of years is part of the evolutionary model. If either fell, the revelant model falls also. That doesn't mean either 6000 years or 13 billion years are non-falsifiable surely?

No, it doesn't.

Science's 13-billion-year timeframe is based on a series of observations and resultant theories, themselves falsifiable.

If those theories were to fall, then the age of the universe would come into question. It could become older...it could become younger. It could become indeterminable.

Now...I admit that it is unlikely that we find the universe to be orders of magnitude younger...just like I'm sure you'll agree that its unlikely that our theory of gravity is so wrong that what we call gravity will disappear just when you next post to this board....but its possible, and science certainly doesn't rule out the possibility.

Let us not conflate (again) the distinction between a high-quality theory being unlikely to be wrong and a claim which is non-falsifiable.

In my layman's understanding of the debate, the objection is they are based on assumptions: the level of parent/daughter present originally, and the uniformity of rate of change - neither of which have been proved.

Firstly...as has been explained to you more times than I care to count, science does not and can not prove anything.

Secondly, you're right in that the objection is that these are assumptions. Where that objection completely misses the point is that they aren't just WAG (Wild-Asssed-Guess) assumptions, but rather assumptions built on a mountain of evidence, and assumptions which will be thrown out the window just as soon as someone shows them to be false....which can be done because those assumptions are falsifiable. If someone is basing a theory on the assumption that a certain rate is constant....then as soon as someone can show that its not constant, the theory falls.

Falsifiability....there's only so many times it can be explained.

Now...as I've asked JC, I also ask you. Is the Creationist age of the Universe falsifiable? Is it possible to show that the Flood did not exist?

As I've pointed out before, falling back on a claim like "well, if we had a reliable dating method..." doesn't cut it...because we both know that you will not accept any dating method as valid if it renders impossible the age of the Universe, or the occurrence of the Flood.

But today we have conflicting ages given by several dating methods, indicating at least that none can be taken as definitive.

None of those methods are considered to be exact methods of aging. No-one is trying to argue, for example, that the tree in Sweden started growing on the Fourth of January, 9100BC, at 4:10:28pm.

The dating techniques that science has produced, without exception, are accepted to be approximation techniques. What is important is that, without exception, the limits of those approximations are identifiable, are explicable, and....yes....you guessed it...are falsifiable.

Just as you say of the techniques that upset evolutionary timescales.

No. I do not say they are wrong because they upset evolutionary timescales. I say they are wrong because they simply do not agree with the evidence. The volume of evidence which they do not agree with is overwhelming...but time and time again, we're asked top believe that its not the evidence which is wrong, but the science which explains it.

Creationist timescales require effectively every field of science to be either wrong, or correct-by-coincidence. Given the abhorrence Creationists have demonstrated time and time again for long odds, I think its safe to say that we can rule out the second option here....which leaves us with the option that mainstream science is wrong. The science which makes your PC work....must be wrong. The science which makes nuclear reactors generate the electricity which lets your PC work...must be wrong. The science which will be behind whatever is used should you ever be taken to hospital...all wrong.

I could go on, but this is old ground. Its been covered time and time before on this thread, and yet here you are again asking the same questions, pleading the same ignorance and confusion as though the answers hadn't been provided previously. I wouldn't mind if you weighed in with a new argument, saying you had taken the previous arguments on board, and had new questions....but thats not where we are. We're back trying to get you to drop this fiction that mainstream science is based on non-falsifiable assumptions.

ETA: I would also add that these Creationist arguments are arrived at as follows:

1) The earth is approximately 6000/9000/10000 years old (I've lost track of whichever one you guys are using right now)
2) The current scientific explanation for X requires a timescale that cannot be correct given the assumption made in 1. above.
3) This new explanation of ours is consistent with 1. above, therefore is acceptable in our eyes.

(In some cases, replace the age of the earth with something referring to when the Flood is posited to have occurred, if that is the problematic stumbling block).

You start from the same old non-falsifiable assumptions, and throw everything out that disagrees with them. Even if you were right, this still wouldn't be science.

Hmm. What examples can you give of these experiments in the field of evolution?

Less than 48 hours ago, wolfsbane, you thanked another poster for the link to the New Scientist article regarding 'myths about evolution' and said you'd keep it close.

I suggest you go and use it, because either you didn't read the content linked to, or you've already forgotten it.

bonkey

I would additionally point out to the interested reader that in the last two posts from wolfsbane that I have responded to, he has firstly claimed that evolutionary scientists are not challenging their beliefs, and then asked what experiments in the field of evolutionary science are being carried out.

The implication being that wolfsbane has made claims about what is occurring in an area, and then suggested ignorance of what is occurring in said area.

(The alternative is that Wolfsbane is suggesting that no work is being carried out in the field of evolutionary theory which could possibly produce a result which could falsify such theory. If wolfsbane would like to clarify that such a falsifiable claim is indeed the position he is taking, I'll be happy to accept that, as long as he accepts that a single counter-example proves him wrong)

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Make that a common designer and we've a deal!

Either way it makes evolution a fact. If you want to believe that God did it, that is fine. It has no bearing on evolution.

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

OK, so here we have a YOUNG tree with supposedly old roots……NEITHER of which can be assessed by Carbon Dating…….because they are both ALIVE.

JC, they tested the remains of past trunks which are fed by the still living root system. The remains JC, they tested the remains. In other words, they tested the dead remains, which are dead. You know, the remains?

Do you get it?

The remains.

bonkey

daithifleming wrote: »

Either way it makes evolution a fact.

Unfortunately not. A common designer, who created innumerable species recently, would no make evolution a fact.

If the entire universe were created moments ago, by a single designer, who re-used bits of design as suited them and re-invented the wheel (or eye, or whatever you like) also as suited them, and made it all complete with a myriad of people believing a myriad of different origin-theories.....that would be a common designer in the absence of evolution, and would also not require that evolution occur moving from this point forward.

It would make the scientific stance as incorrect as the Christian Creationist.

It is, however, non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in scientific discourse. We need not concern ourselves with it from a scientific perspective.

Interestingly, there is a parallel of this which does not require a common designer, but which also would render evolutionary theory false. There is a (vanishingly small) possibility that the universe can - through processes such as quantum leaps - move from a higher to a lower state of entropy. We cannot prove false the notion that the current state of the universe is a mass-quantum-leap from a higher state of entropy, and only bears the semblance of having a consistent history, coming from a lower state of entropy.

This, too, is non-falsifiable and again, need not be of concern (at this time).

Ekancone

bonkey wrote: »

Unfortunately not. A common designer, who created innumerable species recently, would no make evolution a fact.

If the entire universe were created moments ago, by a single designer, who re-used bits of design as suited them and re-invented the wheel (or eye, or whatever you like) also as suited them, and made it all complete with a myriad of people believing a myriad of different origin-theories.....that would be a common designer in the absence of evolution, and would also not require that evolution occur moving from this point forward.

It would make the scientific stance as incorrect as the Christian Creationist.

It is, however, non-falsifiable and therefore has no place in scientific discourse. We need not concern ourselves with it from a scientific perspective.

Interestingly, there is a parallel of this which does not require a common designer, but which also would render evolutionary theory false. There is a (vanishingly small) possibility that the universe can - through processes such as quantum leaps - move from a higher to a lower state of entropy. We cannot prove false the notion that the current state of the universe is a mass-quantum-leap from a higher state of entropy, and only bears the semblance of having a consistent history, coming from a lower state of entropy.

This, too, is non-falsifiable and again, need not be of concern (at this time).

Sorry, I think you may have misunderstood me. I simply said that if you want to believe that evolution began via the process of abiogenesis or that god began the process doesn't make any difference to the theory itself. Because evolution begins with a simple cell and explains a process that delivers diversity. How that cell arrived is a matter outside of the theory.

JimiTime

To the Christian Posters: Do you believe that evolution as the 'how it happened' is a problem? if so why?

To Bonkey: Do you believe, that evolution is fact. By fact I mean, not just 'its the best explaination' or 'on the curremt evidence'. Would you as a person, not a scientist, say its a fact?

Ekancone

JimiTime wrote: »

To the Christian Posters: Do you believe that evolution as the 'how it happened' is a problem? if so why?

To how what happened?

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Make that a common designer and we've a deal!

How about both?

Galvasean

daithifleming wrote: »

JC, they tested the remains of past trunks which are fed by the still living root system. The remains JC, they tested the remains. In other words, they tested the dead remains, which are dead. You know, the remains?

Do you get it?

The remains.

damnit, Daith, you made me spit out my tea with laughter! :eek:

Ekancone

Galvasean wrote: »

damnit, Daith, you made me spit out my tea with laughter! :eek:

I please to aim.

JimiTime

daithifleming wrote: »

To how what happened?

Hmmm, let me see. We are talking about creation/evolution. I am asking a Christian who believes God is our creator, so I reckon you could hazard a guess on what the 'what' is.

I'll give you a clue: Method of creation;)