The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that they are not creationists, any more than theistic evolutionists are. They hold to a theistically-directed millions-of-years gradual development of the biosphere. If you want to prohibit them calling that evolution, that's between them and you. It certainly is not creationism.

Hey, theres all types of creationism. From wikipedia (and this is only the Christian types):

* 4.1 Young Earth creationism
o 4.1.1 Modern geocentrism
o 4.1.2 Omphalos hypothesis
o 4.1.3 Creation science
* 4.2 Old Earth creationism
o 4.2.1 Gap creationism
o 4.2.2 Day-age creationism
o 4.2.3 Progressive creationism
* 4.3 Neo-Creationism
o 4.3.1 Intelligent design
* 4.4 Theistic evolution

Creationism is the belief that the universe was actively created. The time frame doesn't really matter.

wolfsbane

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Where did you think this ****e up from.

Why can't you accept some religious people have made an objective decision that they think creationism is wrong. There no big conspiracy, you're starting to sound like Stein now.

Some people have.

But many are driven by their atheism to admit no possibility of any other than a naturalistic explanation:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that they are not creationists, any more than theistic evolutionists are. They hold to a theistically-directed millions-of-years gradual development of the biosphere. If you want to prohibit them calling that evolution, that's between them and you. It certainly is not creationism.

I reckon most of them are creationists who are afraid to come out of the closet.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some people have.

But many are driven by their atheism to admit no possibility of any other than a naturalistic explanation:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept.

It is excluded because they have yet to formulate such a hypothesis, not because it has been rejected. If there was so much scientific "data" this should be a fairly trival task.

A statement such as "There must be a inteligent designer because everything is so complex" is a long way short of an acceptable scientific hypothesis.

Ciaran500

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some people have.

But many are driven by their atheism to admit no possibility of any other than a naturalistic explanation:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept.

I'm not going to bother any more if you're going to be like this. This exact point has been explained to you before.

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

Hey, theres all types of creationism. From wikipedia (and this is only the Christian types):

* 4.1 Young Earth creationism
o 4.1.1 Modern geocentrism
o 4.1.2 Omphalos hypothesis
o 4.1.3 Creation science
* 4.2 Old Earth creationism
o 4.2.1 Gap creationism
o 4.2.2 Day-age creationism
o 4.2.3 Progressive creationism
* 4.3 Neo-Creationism
o 4.3.1 Intelligent design
* 4.4 Theistic evolution

Creationism is the belief that the universe was actively created. The time frame doesn't really matter.

That's their definition, not the definition creationists on this list accept, nor which the many sites we refer to use.

When we are talking about creationism, we mean creation ex nihilo, as per the Genesis account. We would also accept as creationist, but non-historical, any account that had a similar instantaneous appearance of the lifeforms.

Any form of evolution molecules to man is not creationism, whether they stick God on to it or not.

wolfsbane

Ciaran500 wrote: »

I'm not going to bother any more if you're going to be like this. This exact point has been explained to you before.

Did you note it said not naturalistic - not, not scientific? But of course you want to define science as naturalistic. Others don't.

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's their definition, not the definition creationists on this list accept, nor which the many sites we refer to use.

When we are talking about creationism, we mean creation ex nihilo, as per the Genesis account. We would also accept as creationist, but non-historical, any account that had a similar instantaneous appearance of the lifeforms.

Any form of evolution molecules to man is not creationism, whether they stick God on to it or not.

Seriously? The word creationism had the word "creation" in it!! Your favourite kind is YEC but the vast majority of Christians are Theistic Evolutionists. They still believe that God created the universe.

The refutation of evolution is just a small part of certain kinds of creationism. Creationism itself refers to the creation of the entire universe, it just happens that evolution is especially argued over.

wolfsbane

marco_polo said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm just pointing out that they are not creationists, any more than theistic evolutionists are. They hold to a theistically-directed millions-of-years gradual development of the biosphere. If you want to prohibit them calling that evolution, that's between them and you. It certainly is not creationism. I reckon most of them are creationists who are afraid to come out of the closet.

. If so, and there is a lot of fear out there, it seems they've got the worst of both worlds. Neither creationists nor evolutionists accept them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Some people have.

But many are driven by their atheism to admit no possibility of any other than a naturalistic explanation:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept.

It is excluded because they have yet to formulate such a hypothesis, not because it has been rejected. If there was so much scientific "data" this should be a fairly trival task.

A statement such as "There must be a inteligent designer because everything is so complex" is a long way short of an acceptable scientific hypothesis.

That's not what Dr. Scott Todd said: such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic [underling mine].

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

Seriously? The word creationism had the word "creation" in it!! Your favourite kind is YEC but the vast majority of Christians are Theistic Evolutionists. They still believe that God created the universe.

The refutation of evolution is just a small part of certain kinds of creationism. Creationism itself refers to the creation of the entire universe, it just happens that evolution is especially argued over.

Seriously, we are talking at cross-purposes if you don't understand what we mean by creationism. If I called you a creationist because you said you and your missus created a baby, should that be included in the definition?

Creation by God using evolution is not what the debate here or in the scientific and academic world has been about. It is soley about creation ex nihilo. An instantaneous, mature creation.

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

We'll never get to 20,000 posts with an attitude like that

The key point is that evolution works just fine without the presence of God. ID proponents inserting him into the theory because they dislike his absence is clearly not science.

And since it Evolution isn't going towards any particular goal, it doesn't need a guide.

Creationism agrees with you on that.

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seriously, we are talking at cross-purposes if you don't understand what we mean by creationism. If I called you a creationist because you said you and your missus created a baby, should that be included in the definition?

Creation by God using evolution is not what the debate here or in the scientific and academic world has been about. It is soley about creation ex nihilo. An instantaneous, mature creation.

I mention before that creationism refers to the entire universe, so no baby production would not count.

Yeah sure I know the creationist posters on here are (all?)YECs, but the debate worldwide includes other types such as ID. And as everyone knows ID is creationism dressed up in a cheap tux...

We are talking semantics here. Most of the world thinks of creationism as a dogma of creation, of which there are many types. But you seem to think that only your version in the one true creationism.

You adhere to biblical YEC creationism.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed they would - but the atheists among them would be none too pleased. You see, it would be atheism being overthrown, not science.

Firstly, I don't agree that atheism dominates science. It certainly doesn't dominate the field of biology which is the most relevant to this debate.

Secondly, Atheism (and by extension Agnosticism) is not some kind of organised religion. There's no power base, heirarchy, pecking order. No benefits or funding. It's not even a desirable life philosophy.

Quite the opposite in fact, and here's why; I accept that there is a proportion of "atheists" who decide to reject God as some sort of rebellion. A rebellion against authority, perhaps their parents or just their schooling. It's the spiritual equivalent of dressing emo when you're not sure if you get the music. However, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of "real" atheists and agnostics found their "unfaith" much as I did. They probably struggled against it for several years, unwilling to accept the quite frankly depressing and yet very clear reality that their knowledge was starting to show them. The ones that don't either slip back into the comfy fuzziness of the fairytale or go the other way and become utterly nihilistic, are forced to find a new kind of subjective meaning and purpose. Often this occurs in the context of great sadness and despair. It's not easy, it's not fun and it's not at all desirable. Nobody wants to be an agnostic, but if you're really, really honest to yourself it's the life philosophy that best fits the known facts.

Of course, there are many, many people who would jump at the chance to re-embrace that faith, but then there are many people who'd love to re-embrace the Santa delusion. Christmas just hasn't been the same since and neither has life, but that's reality and we must make the best of it or give up. Like most agnostics, I plan to make the very best of it.

So, I return again to the motive thing. Why would anyone, particularly a happy theist, want to cook up some elaborate tale to make the existence of God look a bit fishy? That's all evolution does, it says nothing about the actual existence of God, the origins of the universe or the nature of the origins of life really.

Whatever the hypothetical motive would be, it certainly isn't fear.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sadly, many theists have gone with the flow, rather than stand against all the ridicule heaped on non-materialist explanations of origins.

Or maybe they used their scientific intuitions and decided that the significantly larger body of evidence supports old Earth theory and evolution.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

marco_polo said:

. If so, and there is a lot of fear out there, it seems they've got the worst of both worlds. Neither creationists nor evolutionists accept them.


That's not what Dr. Scott Todd said: such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic [underling mine].

I don't suppose he happened publish any such non natural hypothesis with the letter so his peers could try it out?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Are you claiming most scientists aren't atheists? Or that if they are, their worldview would not influence their reaction to a colleague making a strong case for a young earth?

I'm claiming it doesn't matter either way because the religious beliefs of the scientist, or the personal beliefs in any regard, are irrelevant to the model being assessed.

This is the point you (and JC) are missing. You think science is about looking at stuff and each person coming up with their own interpretation of what they are looking at. JC is constantly harking on about the "conclusions" that can be drawn from looking at nature (ie the "inescapable" conclusion that life was designed). You keep harking on about how both Creationists and "Evolutionists" look at the same evidence and simply interpret it different.

THAT IS NOT WHAT SCIENCE IS!!!

Seriously, this has been explained (in depth) to you over and over and you just keep ignoring the point over and over.

What the individual scientist "concludes" from his work is totally irrelevant to the science involved, to the scientific model being work upon.

All scientists can be influenced by their own feelings on any matter. Einstein hated the idea of the randomness in some quantum physics models for years and years. All that, even if he was right (he turned out to be wrong) is irrelevant. Einstein's hatred of quantum physics models was irrelevant. It did not effect the model in any shape or form, nor did it effect how the model was tested or how it's accuracy was gauged.

The model (the theory) is independent to the personal feelings of the scientists working on it. Their personal feelings, their personal conclusions, are irrelevant, be they die hard atheists or fundamentalist Christian Creationists. While they can shape the model they cannot shape the accuracy of the model. An inaccurate model is an inaccurate model.

You cannot make a model accurate simply by wanting it to be accurate, be you an atheist or a Christian or a Muslim or a Communist

You can take the model from one group of scientists and give it to another group of scientists (or completely different personal ideology) and it is still the same model, the tests that are run to gauge the accuracy of the model are still the same tests.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's their definition, not the definition creationists on this list accept, nor which the many sites we refer to use.

When we are talking about creationism, we mean creation ex nihilo, as per the Genesis account. We would also accept as creationist, but non-historical, any account that had a similar instantaneous appearance of the lifeforms.

Any form of evolution molecules to man is not creationism, whether they stick God on to it or not.

Please! :rolleyes:

Biblical literalists do not have exclusive rights to the term "Creationist". They don't even have exclusive rights to the term "Young Earth Creationist" (plenty of religions believe in a young Earth who aren't Christian or Jewish)

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Correct - as the many creationist scientists attest. It is the atheist scientists who would cause big trouble for any colleage who 'proved' the earth was young.

If someone actually came up with convincing evidence that the earth was young, they would be lauded, not lynched. In fact, their discovery would be of such monumental significance that they would be celebrated the world over. It is the dream of every scientist to discover something *big* or make an important breakthrough. No scientist would be afraid of finding such a thing.

However, there is, as of yet, no credible evidence that the earth is young! None. The second it shows up, we'll all pay attention. Surely the brave scientists who are creationists at Liberty University or similar, who have nothing to fear fro the atheistic orthodoxy, are working on it? Show me the science, Jerry, SHOW ME THE SCIENCE! :pac:

Gegerty

wolfsbane wrote: »

Gegerty said:

Only one God, who made all things.

The fossils were just creatures like we have today, only many of them from species no longer existing. Some remain to this day:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4975/

All came from the original kinds created in he beginning, some 6000 years ago - just as we do.

Thanks for the link. First up, I have to admit to being an amatuer scientist (call me an athiest if you like but I prefer to think of myself as a scientist). Alot of people of similar beliefs tend to laugh at creationism so I thought I should actually look into what it is actually saying, instead of jumping on the band wagon.

One thing I think stands out as obvious to me is that creationists sometimes tend to misunderstand science. To say that scientists prove that humans and dinosaurs never coexisted is incorrect. What scientists say is that there is no evidence and therefore it cannot be taken as fact. Until there is evidence it cannot be debated in the scientific world. The link points out a few animals that still exists that were thought to have been extinct for millions of years, I would like to see some scientific data on these before believing it. I'm guessing they are either descendants or some kind of mutation.

Another thing I have noticed is that Creationists sometimes give the same arguments as scientists, only they come to different conclusions. For example the argument that biodiversity is due to micro-evolution, man adapting to his environment. Well this is the same as evolution and leads me to another point, that creationists are incapable of fathoming just how long 4.5 billion years is or even 65 million years. It is actually physically impossible to fully understand how long that is but scientists would have the ability to understand that millions of years of adpating to your environment and survival of the fittest can lead to physical advances in creatures.

I think if there are serious creationists out there they need to come out with scientific evidence in order to be taken seriously.

Ciaran500

Gegerty wrote: »

Another thing I have noticed is that Creationists sometimes give the same arguments as scientists, only they come to different conclusions. For example the argument that biodiversity is due to micro-evolution, man adapting to his environment. Well this is the same as evolution and leads me to another point, that creationists are incapable of fathoming just how long 4.5 billion years is or even 65 million years. It is actually physically impossible to fully understand how long that is but scientists would have the ability to understand that millions of years of adpating to your environment and survival of the fittest can lead to physical advances in creatures.

Thats because of this gem:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/43
# By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

If they look at all the evidence and it all points towards something that contradicts the bible it must be wrong. In their eyes the bible is infallible.

Gegerty

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Thats because of this gem:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/43
# By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

If they look at all the evidence and it all points towards something that contradicts the bible it must be wrong. In their eyes the bible is infallible.

But are there not creationists who are trying to debate with the scientific community? They aren't seriously using this as their argument?!!

Ciaran500

Gegerty wrote: »

But are there not creationists who are trying to debate with the scientific community? They aren't seriously using this as their argument?!!

I've yet to see a creationist site that doesn't use reasoning like this.

Akrasia

Gegerty wrote: »

But are there not creationists who are trying to debate with the scientific community? They aren't seriously using this as their argument?!!

well they usually start out with pseudo scientific arguments, and when they are debunked, they retreat to the infallable bible argument or start accusing scientists of having a kind of religious faith of their own.

marco_polo

Gegerty wrote: »

Thanks for the link. First up, I have to admit to being an amatuer scientist (call me an athiest if you like but I prefer to think of myself as a scientist). Alot of people of similar beliefs tend to laugh at creationism so I thought I should actually look into what it is actually saying, instead of jumping on the band wagon.

One thing I think stands out as obvious to me is that creationists sometimes tend to misunderstand science. To say that scientists prove that humans and dinosaurs never coexisted is incorrect. What scientists say is that there is no evidence and therefore it cannot be taken as fact. Until there is evidence it cannot be debated in the scientific world. The link points out a few animals that still exists that were thought to have been extinct for millions of years, I would like to see some scientific data on these before believing it. I'm guessing they are either descendants or some kind of mutation.

Another thing I have noticed is that Creationists sometimes give the same arguments as scientists, only they come to different conclusions. For example the argument that biodiversity is due to micro-evolution, man adapting to his environment. Well this is the same as evolution and leads me to another point, that creationists are incapable of fathoming just how long 4.5 billion years is or even 65 million years. It is actually physically impossible to fully understand how long that is but scientists would have the ability to understand that millions of years of adpating to your environment and survival of the fittest can lead to physical advances in creatures.

I think if there are serious creationists out there they need to come out with scientific evidence in order to be taken seriously.

That link is typical of creationist websites, it tends to focusing on very specific areas where scientific knowledge is incomplete. The formation of fossils is a indeed a very rare occurance that goes against the laws of nature that favor reusing of resources. It can only happens under very specific conditions. The amazing thing is not that there are so many 'missing' fossils in the record but that there are so many that have been found.

And as sure as night follows days scientists will eventually find some younger Laotian rat fossil specimens, all references to it will be silently erased from creationist websites and they will scramble along to loiter in the next gap they can find in the fossil record.

Zombrex

Gegerty wrote: »

But are there not creationists who are trying to debate with the scientific community? They aren't seriously using this as their argument?!!

They are all using that as their argument, and they "seriously" try to debate with the scientific community using it.

The point is that they don't accept they can be wrong, and as such everyone else must be wrong.

Mark Hamill

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Surely someone has pointed out to the creationists that this reasoning applies to the Scriptures as well?

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote:

many are driven by their atheism to admit no possibility of any other than a naturalistic explanation

Don't be so ridiculous wolfsbane, or so paranoid - you know as well as I do that there is scarcely an atheist on the planet who wouldn't instantly believe in god, santa and the tooth fairy if only there were some actual evidence for these things. Scientists are no exception. There may be a few intransigent diehards here and there, but on the whole, given reasonable evidence, you must acknowledge that the vast majority of scientists would accept it gladly. The problem you repeatedly fail to engage with when arguing your delusional case is the absence of evidence.

Don't forget that biblical literalism used to be scientific orthodoxy. It is primarily an increased level of scientific knowledge and evidence that has changed that orthodoxy. Against, let me remind you, the ignorant refusal of the church to accept much of the new evidence as it posed such a threat to faith. But let me remind you that even the church had to bow, by degrees, to the inevitable in the end. All this tells me that you would really like nothing better than to wind back the clock to some pre-renaissance dark age. In that sense, bizarrely, you are in fact a sort of Lazarus taxon, an evolutionary relic like the Coelacanth.

Forget it Wolfsbane, it's not going to happen.

Gegerty

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some people have.

But many are driven by their atheism to admit no possibility of any other than a naturalistic explanation:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept.

This is not true. Many astronauts are devout Christians, some becoming born again Christians after being in space. If you watch "In the Shadow of The Moon" you'll see all the Apollo astronauts talk about looking down on the Earth and feeling a sense of divinity. They even read passages from the bible when first orbiting the moon. This does not interfere in their scientific pursuits, because basically its got nothing to do with it.

btw, interestingly enough they got sued by an American woman for mixing state and religion :-)

Ekancone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBoqKF52FU8

This video was made by a Christian, for Christians. Some may find it interesting.

and Part II:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBaOFKoLlZk

Galvasean

Part one doesnt seem to be working.

edit: wait, yes it is

mehfesto2

Part One was interesting enough, but he kinda shot himself in the foot in part two, 'picking and choosing' excerpts from the Bible to prove his point, despite condemning this in part one re: Darwin & the eye.
I'm not faulting anything else, really, but it weakened his case.


I enjoy reading this post, but don't feel too well informed on the whole topic, as large as it is, to make an interesting contribution. But I'd just like to applaud those involved. I've read a fair bit of it by now, and it rarely gets petty oor childish. It's refreshing to see this topic debated in such a manner!

Keep it up!