The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

It would require such a hermeneutic that all of the bible could be made to mean anything. Once we allow what appears to be historical narrative to be taken as poetic/symbolic, we must in honesty apply the same standard to the birth, life, death, or resurrection of Christ, for example. And it has so been applied by liberal theologians. But if Christ is not raised, then your faith is in vain - or maybe Paul meant that poetically too? No doctrine can be determined, no event known as history.

With one or two minor edits, I could have written this myself.

Wolfie -- I'm impressed. You've made a considerable intellectual leap in realizing that what you have assumed is literally true may not be literally true.

The realization that one may not be right is the start of real wisdom.

robindch

J C wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

1+1=2 is not a "proposition", but a conclusion which results -- after much crunching of symbols -- from the application of rules to axioms. If you use different rules, or different axioms, you'll reach a different conclusion. For example, in Boolean Algebra, the string "1+1=1" is "true", while "1+1=2" is "false".

....and could I point out that the argument that 1+1=2 is "false" was made by an Evolutionist!!!!!

Not unexpectedly, you have committed your three most common sins -- misrepresenting somebody, missing or ignoring the point and worst of all, trying to be funny, but failing.

Just to be more specific, within Boolean Algebra, the string "1+1=1" is "true" for specific (and easily understood) meanings of "1", "+", "=" and "true", while the string "1+1=2" is "false" for the same meanings of "1", "+" and "=", alongside new definitions for "2" and "false". That's within "Boolean Algebra", not common arithmetic. "Boolean Algebra" -- remember that. "Boolean Algebra".

If you occasionally tried to understand what you were trying to make fun of before you clicked on the 'Submit Reply' button, you'd look a lot less dumb, and a lot more like a scientist, than you do.

J C

toiletduck wrote: »

JC, I know you claim you're a scientist but using what has been said about boolean logic to show up the "Materialistic views" of "Evolutionists" really shows that you haven't a clue.

.......if we can decide that 1+1 doesn't equal 2 using boolean logic......

.......then I can see how Evolutionists could also use their very own form of 'boolean logic' to decide that Spontaneous Evolution caused muck to lift itself up by it's own 'bootstraps' to become Man!!!:D

......equally we could 'logically' conclude that straw can be spun into Gold!!!!:D

......or that Robin is a Creationist!!!!:D

.......almost anything is possible......it's so liberating not to be constrained by 'normal' logic!!!

J C

robindch wrote: »

Just to be more specific, within Boolean Algebra, the string "1+1=1" is "true" for specific (and easily understood) meanings of "1", "+", "=" and "true", while the string "1+1=2" is "false" for the same meanings of "1", "+" and "=", alongside new definitions for "2" and "false".

.....I'm so glad that you cleared that one up, Robin!!!:eek::pac::):D

toiletduck

J C wrote: »

.......if we can decide that 1+1 doesn't equal 2 using boolean logic......

.......then I can see how Evolutionists could also logically decide that Spontaneous Evolution caused muck to lift itself up by it's own 'bootstraps' to become Man!!!:D

......equally we could logically conclude that straw can be spun into Gold!!!!:D

There is no 2... Sigh as someone trained in Electronic Engineering and doing a postgrad in software, it's astounding the level of misrepresentation you're doing.


Oh see Robin bet me to it! Cheers, you saved me a rant!

robindch

toiletduck wrote: »

Cheers, you saved me a rant!

Oh, go on, it must be somebody else's turn by now...!

toiletduck

I think I may be due one but not now. Regularly reading this since back before it hit a hundred pages... My last post here was about the area of evolvable hardware (my fyp was related to it) I think. Now it's nearly the 10,000th, post where does the time go.

J C

toiletduck wrote: »

There is no 2... Sigh as someone trained in Electronic Engineering and doing a postgrad in software, it's astounding the level of misrepresentation you're doing.

......I see......so "there is no 2" ........

......and that presumably means that there is no 3, 4, 5 or 6 EITHER!!:D

robindch

Looks like I was wrong in this post. Must be all the new contributors

Congratulations everybody!

toiletduck

J C wrote: »

......I see......so "there is no 2" ........

......and that presumably means that there is no 3, 4, 5 or 6 EITHER!!:D

In Boolean logic, there are only two values: 0 or 1. So it's binary. This logic system can be used in digital electronics, usually 0 is 0 volts and 1 is 5 volts (at the basic level), via the use of "gates" which can preform boolean operations e.g. ANDing (1.1=1 etc), ORing (1+1=1, 1+0=1 etc) and so on. I'm sure you've often heard that computers run on 0's and 1's, well that's why!

Edit: In electronics of course you need a way of representing higher numbers, hence the binary number system.

Is there anything not covered in this thread...

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

......I see......so "there is no 2" ........

......and that presumably means that there is no 3, 4, 5 or 6 EITHER!!:D

Here JC, why dont you try learn something, for once. Invented in UCC, no less!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra_%28introduction%29

pH

J C wrote: »

.......then I can see how Evolutionists could also logically decide that Spontaneous Evolution caused muck to lift itself up by it's own 'bootstraps' to become Man!!!:D

J C, you've already mentioned that you're happy that evolution by natural selection happens, and even grudgingly accepted that new species can arise.

And given a 6,000 year old earth, I (and I would expect all evolutionists) agree with you that evolution makes very little sense, so your main problem continues to be with geologists and cosmologists who insist on a 4.5 billion year old planet, and potentially with "Abiogenesisists" who believe that a self replicating organic molecule could form without some form of divine intervention.

So once again, what is your problem with evolutionists, why do you single them out for attack when you don't have any real problems with evolution any more and yet have major disagreements with geologists and cosmologists?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

They would be obliged to say that piece of evidence appears to contradict their theory.

Which they don't do, strangely.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If they believed it actually contradicted it, they would have to abandon it.

Which they have already determined cannot happen. Ergo, not science, not falsifiable.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you found a piece of evidence that falsified any date older than 6000 years, would you not do the same? Is that not science?

Yes, but where are you getting the idea that Creationists are prepared to "believe" that something can contradict the Bible?

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

So once again, what is your problem with evolutionists, why do you single them out for attack when you don't have any real problems with evolution any more and yet have major disagreements with geologists and cosmologists?

Because,

http://jmsoul.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/divinelolwut.jpg

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not really following what you are saying.

If you find two pieces of data to be mutually contradictory, would you therefore conclude that one of them is false? Or might they both be true?

No, its not about "true". We lack the ability to assert that an idea or model we have about the natural world is true.

What you do do is conclude that one model that explains the natural phenomena is more likely to be more accurate than the other model, based on how accurate each model appears to be at matching observation (obviously you need to be careful about observation too, which is why repeatability is a key aspect of science. "It worked fine in my lab" won't fly).

PDN wrote: »

So, according to science evolution is not true and Creationism is not false. But you believe that evolution is more probable than Creationism. Okey dokey.

Correct. Evolution is a scientific model. It may be 100% accurate at the moment, but that is almost certainly not true, and even if it were we would have no way of telling.

According to science neo-darwinian evolution is a very accurate model (theory) of what we believe is happening in the natural world. Biologists can say that because not only does the model match observation, but it also is very good at making predictions about various things that are later confirmed through observation.

If the model was very inaccurate to the point of being wrong, it would be very surprising for it to be not only matching observation but also accurately predicting things.

Biblical Creationism as a model, on the other hand, matches no observation and has never made an accurate prediction about anything. There isn't even really a Creationist model, as it is very hard to model "God did it". If you ask Wolfsbane what God actually did he will simply list you passages from the Bible.

Very few Creationists even hazard a guess at what actually is supposed to have happened in any kind of testable repeatable, measurable manner. This can lead to some rather amusing back and forth, for example Creationist arguing over the order in which God created the stars and light in the universe. The basically boil down to random guessing.

It is more of an idea or assertion than an scientific model. It is the difference between the super computer model they have in Met Eireann and a bloke saying "I've a feeling its going to rain tomorrow"

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Correct. Evolution is a scientific model. It may be 100% accurate at the moment, but that is almost certainly not true, and even if it were we would have no way of telling.

....SO we apparently have no way of telling whether a model that postulates the spontaneous emergence of life and it's equally spontaneous 'morphing' into Man is accurate or not........
.....a 5 year old could tell you that this is 99% WRONG!!!:D

Wicknight wrote: »

It (Creation) is more of an idea or assertion than an scientific model. It is the difference between the super computer model they have in Met Eireann and a bloke saying "I've a feeling its going to rain tomorrow"

....funny thing........the last weather forecast I listened to said that it MIGHT rain in SOME areas tomorrow!!!!

......goes to prove that even a super-computer cannot fully model chaotic systems like weather!!!:D:)

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your discovery not only overturns years of consensus scientific opinion on the matter, but it also totally supports the Christian claim that God made the universe 6000 years ago and we are the descendants of the original couple.

Now your scientific view takes on a society-challenging implication. You are seen as not only being an innovative scientist but as one who has given credibility to Christian 'fundamentalists'.

Still happy to be the innovator? Still think your colleagues would be queuing-up to celebrate your discovery?

Delighted, and terrified.

Delighted at the progress science has made.

Terrified that many will see this as meaning that God has ceased to be supernatural, and instead has become merely a falsifiable part of reality, that can be scientifically addressed and thus (potentially, at least) scientifically understood. God will have become part of the framework, and thus, no longer be capable of being the 'ultimate' that is claimed, thus opening the question of who created the framework within which God exists.

Personally, I can't think of something that would be ultimately more damaging in the eyes of countless faithful, than to have Creationism or Intelligent Design succeed in being recognised as a science. Science would, naturally, benefit, because it would mean it had gained another useful facet....but the implications for religion, based on the understanding that many have of what science means would be quite-literally horrific.

I would additionally point out that immediately prior to your post, I will have (once again) stressed that science does not say what is, nor what is likely to be. Science produces a model which matches observation. I do not see that as the definition of reality, but rather as an approximation of it. It is no more a definition reality than the 'physics' produced in a computer game are real physics.

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

....funny thing........the last weather forecast I listened to said that it MIGHT rain in SOME areas tomorrow!!!!

......goes to prove that even a super-computer cannot fully model chaotic systems like weather!!!:D:)

Umm, exactly. No model can 'fully' predict the natural world. You should know this as a 'scientist'. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....SO we apparently have no way of telling whether a model that postulates the spontaneous emergence of life and it's equally spontaneous 'morphing' into Man is accurate or not........
.....a 5 year old could tell you that this is 99% WRONG!!!:D

We can tell if it is accurate or not by testing the predictions of the model against observation.

We can't tell though if the model is 100% accurate, and it is rather unlikely that any scientific model is 100% accurate

J C wrote: »

....funny thing........the last weather forecast I listened to said that it MIGHT rain in SOME areas tomorrow!!!!

Which was based on a forecast model. A forecast model that is not going to be very accurate because we lack the ability to model exactly the Earth's weather

J C wrote: »

......goes to prove that even a super-computer cannot fully model chaotic systems like weather!!!:D:)

Yes, it does.

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote: »

Umm, exactly. No model can 'fully' predict the natural world.

, yeah I did kinda wonder what point JC was trying to make there, considering that my original point was precisely as you said, no model can fully (100% accuracy) predict the natural world around us. Which is why "true" is rather irrelevant concept in science.

His comments seem rather peculiar for someone who is supposed to be a practising "scientist" who should be coming across scientific models (theories) constantly.

Hot Dog

still no word on what JC is qualified as. One might think he is guilty of bearing false witness against himself.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

All I've encountered is mention of bird-song changing and drug-resistant bugs, etc. Nothing about evolution. Creationists and Evolutionists both agree on selection and adaption.

Perhaps you should define first what you think you mean by the term "evolution"

Do you mean change from one species to another (an inaccurate way to use the term "evolution", but could possibly explain your comments above)

Zombrex

Hot Dog wrote: »

still no word on what JC is qualified as. One might think he is guilty of bearing false witness against himself.

Don't you know Hot Dog!

If JC told us what qualification he has we could find out who he is through are secret "Creationist" database using our secret atheist powers, and hound him out of the academic institution he is no doubt a well respected faculty member at.

He sterling scientific carer would be in tatters, and gone all hope of scientifically demonstrating that we are all descended from a naked bloke who lived in a garden in Iraq, work he obviously continues in secret and in his spare time in his secret underground labs (ok, might have made the last bit up :pac:).

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

I may be very dim,

I doubt it. I think you're a pretty smart guy.

You seem to have a curiously short memory, given that when we retread old roads, you don't seem to pick up the argument where it was left off, but insist on starting it all over again, but I really don't think that makes you dim.

All I've encountered is mention of bird-song changing and drug-resistant bugs, etc. Nothing about evolution.

As someone (Wicknight?) just suggested...maybe you should define what you mean by evolution in this sense.

I suspect that we're going to end up treading down the whole macro- vs. micro- road again,
and it will once again have to be explained why its a strawman....rather than picking that discussion up where we left off.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and hope that you're taking some other angle.

If not, then can I suggest ?the following...I'll find you a starting point to where you can re-read it the discussion, you go and read it, and come back with a continuation of that discussion rather than a recommencement of it? Given that both sides have already posted a wealth of material on that particular strawman, it would be easier for everyone concerned to merely re-read what we've written before than to expect that we'll somehow gain something from going to all the effort of rewording the same basic stances.

So...how about it? Are you talking about something different, or shall I go find a link to an old
part of this thread, and you agree not to post anything on the subject which is already covered in that previous discussion?

Creationists and Evolutionists both agree on selection and adaption.

Selection and adaption are fundamental predictions of evolutionary theory.

You agree on them, you agree that they exist, and that they have been (and are being) studied....but somehow still argue that predictions of evolutionary theory aren't being tested?

I think what you're trying to say is that specific predictions of evolutionary theory aren't being tested....but you're not clearing up what specific predictions they are?

Assuming its not the macro-evolution strawman, could you clarify what it is? If it is the macro-evolution straw-man, then I strongly urge you to accept my offer above and read-read the previous discussons on that topic that you've apparently forgotten.

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote: »

, yeah I did kinda wonder what point JC was trying to make there, considering that my original point was precisely as you said, no model can fully (100% accuracy) predict the natural world around us. Which is why "true" is rather irrelevant concept in science.

His comments seem rather peculiar for someone who is supposed to be a practising "scientist" who should be coming across scientific models (theories) constantly.

Yes... a 'scientist'...

To bonkey: I'm liking your approach mate, I'm going to take a step back and try help you see this out. I agree, we are needlessly going around in circles.

JimiTime

bonkey wrote: »

I would additionally point out that immediately prior to your post, I will have (once again) stressed that science does not say what is, nor what is likely to be. Science produces a model which matches observation. I do not see that as the definition of reality, but rather as an approximation of it. It is no more a definition reality than the 'physics' produced in a computer game are real physics.

Sorry, but a question just occurred to me. A bit off topic, but curious nonetheless. Who defined what science is and does? and has this definition changed over time/still changing? Just curious.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

It would require such a hermeneutic that all of the bible could be made to mean anything. Once we allow what appears to be historical narrative to be taken as poetic/symbolic, we must in honesty apply the same standard to the birth, life, death, or resurrection of Christ, for example. And it has so been applied by liberal theologians. But if Christ is not raised, then your faith is in vain - or maybe Paul meant that poetically too? No doctrine can be determined, no event known as history.


to me, the only sensible response to the conclusion that evolution is the 'how it happened' is agnosticism. Maybe God exists, but we cannot know anything about Him. All we can know is what we find out by science.

Genesis
1.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

There is no time here. He created the heavens and the earth. formless etc. There isn't actually a time line from this point to when he created the luminaries. So why must one believe in a young earth? BTW, I'm not looking to argue, just looking for some insight.

Soul Winner

Hot Dog wrote: »

still no word on what JC is qualified as.

It wouldn't it matter if he held a PhD in Physics, Microbiology and Quantum Mechanics, he'd still be regarded as a non reliable source by the Evolutionist because he also happens to also be a Creationist.

Creationist 'believe' that a creator did it without any proof that Evolutionists will accept, and Evolutionists 'believe' it was a done by natural processes without any proof that the Creationists will accept. The argument is stalemated. It will never be won or lost by either side because both sides have no proof of their underlying foundational arguments. The only ones that can possible win are the Creationists because God could peep his head out of the clouds one day and stop the whole argument, if He exist that is, which is what Christianity sort of says will happen some day. But how can evolution be proved unless we create a time machine? How can we have fossils of fully developed species show up in the earliest geologic period if evolution is true? Evolution is as much a religion based on faith as all other religions. There is nothing wrong with that but please stop preaching that Creationism is not Science, because if that is the case then Evolutionism is also not Science as science would define it. Evolutionism is as non-falsifiable as creationism because there is no way ever ever ever ever that it can be dis-proven to be the method by which all living things came into being and evolved thereby, evidence of evolutionary changes observed in nature today not withstanding.

PDN

JC's qualifications are not the subject matter of this thread. There are enough topics already under discussion - so let's stick with them.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry, but a question just occurred to me. A bit off topic, but curious nonetheless. Who defined what science is and does? and has this definition changed over time/still changing? Just curious.

My understanding is that originally 'science' referred to any system of knowledge. It is derived from the Latin word for knowledge scientia. Up until the Mid-Nineteenth Century Theology was known as "the Queen of the Sciences".

However, a process called 'the scientific method' was developed by clergymen (Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Copernicus), other Christians (Galileo, Francis Bacon) and Muslims (Ibn al-Haytham) during the so-called Dark Ages (expanding what had existed in rudimentary form in Classical Greece). This is what we normally now refer to as 'science'. It involves observing phenomena, making predictions based on those observations, testing those predictions by experimentation, and evaluating that experimentation by peer review.