The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

rockbeer

Wicknight wrote: »

God doesn't want to send us to hell (any more, he did in the past, and yes it is a bit funny for an omniscient deity to change his mind), but he is bound by his earlier decrees to send all sinners to hell.

If god doesn't want to send us to hell, why doesn't he just stop sending us to hell? If his past decrees are a problem for him why doesn't he just decree that he shouldn't have decreed what he decreed before and that from now on there's a new decree that replaces any past decrees the new one contradicts? He's supposed to be omnipotent after all.

No, it's clear he must quite like sending at least some of us to hell or he'd just stop, what with the debt having been settled up when he sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself.

Oh, but hang on, isn't he supposed to love us?



No matter how you spin it this whole 'he died for our sins' angle doesn't stand up. How can anyone die for anyone else's sins anyway, god or not? What's that even supposed to mean? And even if he could and did, how come our sins are still a problem two thousand years later? He sacrificed himself for us and it didn't even work. Now that is a bit of a disaster.

In fairness he could have made a better job of creating us, surely, if only he'd applied a bit of the old omniscience to the task.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

it is arrogant for any to claim all the evidence is unambiguous.

Just as it is arrogant for Ken Ham to claim that his personal interpretation of the bible is incapable of error.

The point you miss is that for Ken credibly to assert omnipotence and omniscience on behalf of something -- be it his deity or one religious text or another -- he really needs to be omnipotent and omniscient himself. Or else, he just needs to think that he is.

You can draw your own conclusions about which one is the more likely

AtomicHorror

rockbeer wrote: »

No matter how you spin it this whole 'he died for our sins' angle doesn't stand up. How can anyone die for anyone else's sins anyway, god or not? What's that even supposed to mean?

I'm not sure "sin" exists so I couldn't even begin to work that one out.

robindch

Jaw-dropping "science" achievement of the week -- not only did they drop a lander onto Mars, but they took a photo of it on the way down. Wow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuYMOWyawe8

Perhaps thankfully, AiG hasn't yet pronounced on the Phoenix lander but an earlier screed on SETI (which also searches for off-earth life) claims that such a search is "willingly ignorant".

Giblet

J C wrote: »

....and Evolution DIDN'T spontaneously morph muck into Man EITHER!!!!:pac::):D

You keep coming back to this line even though you've been told time and time that
a: Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life
b: There was nothing spontaneous about it.

You are a complete and utter moron for believing this and a sneaky little man spreading this doctrine. You and people like you, if they ever got any power in schools (They won't, we're not all idiots) would destroy science and cause a Noah type flood of idiots to drown everyone in insane babbling. You are not a scientist, any moderators allowing you and your trollish behaviour to continue obviously have some sort of bias. As a previous long serving moderator, the fact that this has gone on so long and been so obvious speaks volumes to the quality control now exhibited.

AtomicHorror

The Hitcher wrote: »

You keep coming back to this line even though you've been told time and time that
a: Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life
b: There was nothing spontaneous about it.

You are a complete and utter moron for believing this and a sneaky little man spreading this doctrine. You and people like you, if they ever got any power in schools (They won't, we're not all idiots) would destroy science and cause a Noah type flood of idiots to drown everyone in insane babbling. You are not a scientist, any moderators allowing you and your trollish behaviour to continue obviously have some sort of bias. As a previous long serving moderator, the fact that this has gone on so long and been so obvious speaks volumes to the quality control now exhibited.

Well if he continues to portray evolution by his own definition of it (sounds like Hovind to me really) and imply that it is what we believe in (when we've repeatedly stated that we agree that "spontaneous evolution" is crap), then he is being misleading and I would hope that PDN will act on that. If PDN has not noticed, I'll draw his attention to it.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Jaw-dropping "science" achievement of the week -- not only did they drop a lander onto Mars, but they took a photo of it on the way down. Wow.

Yep, the crater shot in particular is simply awe-inspiring. The sense of scale when you realise the perspective (Phoenix landed 20km in front of the crater) is stunning.

The probe is not set up to positively identify martian microbial life bit from reading the specs on its microscope setup, it should be able to directly image microbes on the larger end of the bacterial scale (5-10um across) if they are present. It's so so unlikely to happen- but there's a slim chance that we might detect extra-terrestrial life for the first time in history this year. That's an astounding thought really.

Galvasean

Just taught i'd post this here as there seem to be quite a few regular posters with interests in evolution and ancient creatures:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080528-mother-fossil.html

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Just taught i'd post this here as there seem to be quite a few regular posters with interests in evolution and ancient creatures:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080528-mother-fossil.html

A nice find Galvasean, thank you.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yep, the crater shot in particular is simply awe-inspiring. The sense of scale when you realise the perspective (Phoenix landed 20km in front of the crater) is stunning.

Totally amazing. I think it was the badastronomy guy (?) who pointed out that somebody on this planet managed to tell a bullet flying around another planet, to take a photo of another bullet landing on it, and get the photos out onto the internet in time for tea. Reminds me of this one from the onion:

http://members.shaw.ca/rlongpre01/moon_tiny.jpg

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It's so so unlikely to happen- but there's a slim chance that we might detect extra-terrestrial life for the first time in history this year. That's an astounding thought really.

Quite!

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Just as it is arrogant for Ken Ham to claim that his personal interpretation of the bible is incapable of error.

The point you miss is that for Ken credibly to assert omnipotence and omniscience on behalf of something -- be it his deity or one religious text or another -- he really needs to be omnipotent and omniscient himself. Or else, he just needs to think that he is.

You can draw your own conclusions about which one is the more likely

I doubt Ken has ever claimed his personal interpretation of the Bible is incapable of error. I would expect him to hold to the historic Evangelical position: that we all are capable of misunderstanding and error in interpretation.

The only exceptions were the holy prophets and apostles, who were empowered by the Holy Spirit to teach only infallible truth.

Also, your logic is faulty regarding being able to ascribe omnipotence and omniscience to another. We can ascribe great power to Olympic weight-lifters, without possessing that power ourselves. We just recognise the truth. So with God - Christians recognise the truth of His omnipotence and omniscience.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yep, the crater shot in particular is simply awe-inspiring. The sense of scale when you realise the perspective (Phoenix landed 20km in front of the crater) is stunning.

The probe is not set up to positively identify martian microbial life bit from reading the specs on its microscope setup, it should be able to directly image microbes on the larger end of the bacterial scale (5-10um across) if they are present. It's so so unlikely to happen- but there's a slim chance that we might detect extra-terrestrial life for the first time in history this year. That's an astounding thought really.

Yes, remarkable achievement. When man puts his head to anything, no telling what he can accomplish.

As to finding ETLs, so so unlikely to happen gets near. Impossible captures it. That's my creationist prediction.

wolfsbane

The Hitcher wrote: »

You keep coming back to this line even though you've been told time and time that
a: Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life
b: There was nothing spontaneous about it.

You are a complete and utter moron for believing this and a sneaky little man spreading this doctrine. You and people like you, if they ever got any power in schools (They won't, we're not all idiots) would destroy science and cause a Noah type flood of idiots to drown everyone in insane babbling. You are not a scientist, any moderators allowing you and your trollish behaviour to continue obviously have some sort of bias. As a previous long serving moderator, the fact that this has gone on so long and been so obvious speaks volumes to the quality control now exhibited.

You are correct in saying biological evolution says nothing about the origin of life. But with its usual accomplice, cosmogolical evolution, it presuades the gullible public that science has established the origin and development of life.

JC has already explained his use of Spontaneous - not that it had no immediate material cause, just that it was a chance coincidence of material circumstances rather than a necessity of physical laws or Intelligent design.

Do you have an alternative form of abiogenesis you think more likely?

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to finding ETLs, so so unlikely to happen gets near. Impossible captures it. That's my creationist prediction.

An a-ETL-ist! :eek:

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Logic then. Kinds are not defined by their inability to interbreed, though it is a feature of all of the kinds. Are you saying that there is a heirarchical level below "kind", subsets, that also does not allow interbreeding? If so, how did these arise?



Genera in modern taxonomy is the second lowest level of order used to group organisms. It sits just above species, the lowest level. In biology when naming a species we name it this way:

Homo (the genus) sapiens (the species).

Above genera are many other levels of organisation. The genus Homo has been known to contain a number of species, two of which became intelligent tool users during the neolithic age. These species were Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. Perhaps because they lived side-by-side, only Homo sapiens now remains. Most genera contain a great many species, most of which cannot interbreed.

The number of genera is not in the hundreds of thousands- we were trying to establish the number of kinds following your definition. Kinds as defined by their inability to interbreed would number in the hundreds of thousands. Genera tend to disallow interbreeding, but so do most species within those genera. I threw out a rough figure of 90% of these as being not requiring of rescuing by the ark by dint of being micro-organisms, insects, aquatic... does 10% of known species being land animals sound too high?

As far as I can follow the argument, defining kinds as interbreeding species only partially covers a definition, as many species are asexual. As for those that reproduce sexually, I reckon any that can breed would be of the same kind, even if their off-spring were infertile. I'm unlearned concerning the details that might lead to such genetic incompatibility that produces sterility.

This 10% of land animals: how many of them can interbreed - horse/zebra, etc?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
....just like Evolution, there is an element of truth in your statement!!!!!

Evolution is a half-truth.....in that Natural Selection and variation within Kinds does occur......BUT evolution across Kind boundaries DOESN'T occur!!!
You might want to check with Wolfsbane about that one

I can confirm JC is - once again - completely correct.

Regretably, I can also confirm that you have - once again - completely misunderstood my position.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Yeah, but what has he done for us lately? :pac:

Spared your life; given you not only the air you breathe but also food, clothing, shelter, a great measure of freedom? Not to mention the fascinating friends you meet on the Christianity Forum.

Romans 2:4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

As far as I can follow the argument, defining kinds as interbreeding species only partially covers a definition, as many species are asexual. As for those that reproduce sexually, I reckon any that can breed would be of the same kind, even if their off-spring were infertile. I'm unlearned concerning the details that might lead to such genetic incompatibility that produces sterility.

Yeah, it was a given that interbreeding would make species of the same "kind"- thats why I disqualified some species as kinds. These would not be in the majority though I think. More common in plants, a lot less so in animals.

wolfsbane wrote: »

This 10% of land animals: how many of them can interbreed - horse/zebra, etc?

As I said, I accounted for that in my (very) rough estimate.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, remarkable achievement. When man puts his head to anything, no telling what he can accomplish.

If only you'd recognise that achievement in the theory of evolution.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to finding ETLs, so so unlikely to happen gets near. Impossible captures it. That's my creationist prediction.

I suspect you may live to retract that prediction. I meant unlikely only in that we are unlikely to detect microbial life on Mars within this year (the tech on mars isn't really set up to find it). There's a good chance that there's some kind of microbial life there- time will tell. Also, the existence of life, even complex life, in extrasolar habitable zones is highly probable.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah right, I see. So species within a "kind" may also not be able to breed with each other and still be part of the same "kind"

Have you realised yet why that won't work ... do you need a minute ... :rolleyes:

By the way, neither of those pieces define what a "kind" is (in fact the first says they don't know what the definition is, saying it may be genus it may be family)

How about you define the characteristics of a kind (if you like copy and paste from the definition you use, but please, no more linking to articles that don't contain a definition)

I've already said an exact definition is not available. There is need of further data. We could of do as you do with species - decide arbitarily and then adjust as new information comes in. But we seek to honestly deal with the matter:
Defining the Genesis kinds is very difficult because we do not know enough about genetics, and it is at the genetic level that the kinds need to be defined. Even the test of interbreeding is not a foolproof determination because we do not know how genetic defects (mutations, etc.) have built up over time to interfere with the reproductive process. From:
The elephant kind
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/appendix3.asp


Here's another definition:
Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.

Not very helpful, as it is self-defining, but it points to the central issue of genetic change.

See the article:
Variation, information and the created kindhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/kind.asp

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
This 10% of land animals: how many of them can interbreed - horse/zebra, etc?
As I said, I accounted for that in my (very) rough estimate.

So how many species of non-interbreedable land animals does that give?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, remarkable achievement. When man puts his head to anything, no telling what he can accomplish.
If only you'd recognise that achievement in the theory of evolution.

Oh, I do, I do. I put both on a par with building the tower of Babel:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2011:1-9%20;&version=50;

Just that the tower and the Mars probe were/are observable, real events but evolution remains an eloborate speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As to finding ETLs, so so unlikely to happen gets near. Impossible captures it. That's my creationist prediction.
I suspect you may live to retract that prediction. I meant unlikely only in that we are unlikely to detect microbial life on Mars within this year (the tech on mars isn't really set up to find it). There's a good chance that there's some kind of microbial life there- time will tell. Also, the existence of life, even complex life, in extrasolar habitable zones is highly probable.

Yes, it is as likely as evolution. We can both agree on that.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

I wonder how the hired hands felt about spending 120 years working on the ark, only to find out that they weren't allowed on board because God wanted to kill them all on purpose?

That whole generation were preached to by Noah. Obviously none of them repented and believed.

Same today - when a Christian employs unbelievers it does not mean they will become Christians too, no matter how faithfully he witnesses to them. He pays them their wages and prays for them. What they do about his gospel is up to them.

Mena

wolfsbane wrote: »

Spared your life; given you not only the air you breathe but also food, clothing, shelter, a great measure of freedom? Not to mention the fascinating friends you meet on the Christianity Forum.

Romans 2:4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

Ok this is an easy one that I'll pick up. Sorry, you must be delusional.

1. The few times my life has been saved has been through medical science, not Santa Clause.
2. The air I breathe - well we all know where that comes from, certainly not magic.
3. The food is bought in a store, before that grown/reared by farmers and the like. No deity has placed anything on my table.
4. Clothing has been manufactured and I purchased it with my own money thanks.
5. Shelter, I pay for that as well thanks
6. Freedom? A product of the country I live in
7. As for the facsinating friends, I can only say someone should have shut the door on the asylumn sooner when I consider some posts in here.

Thanks

wolfsbane

rockbeer said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Then too, why do you underestimate the skills of that age? Think of the great monuments that were erected not long after the Flood.
Can you give us some examples please?

The Great Ziggurat of Ur; the Egyptian Pyramids.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

That whole generation were preached to by Noah. Obviously none of them repented and believed.

Would it have mattered if they did repent, since God had decided a priori that he would wipe out the entire human race except for Noah and his family?

wolfsbane

Mena wrote: »

Ok this is an easy one that I'll pick up. Sorry, you must be delusional.

1. The few times my life has been saved has been through medical science, not Santa Clause.
2. The air I breathe - well we all know where that comes from, certainly not magic.
3. The food is bought in a store, before that grown/reared by farmers and the like. No deity has placed anything on my table.
4. Clothing has been manufactured and I purchased it with my own money thanks.
5. Shelter, I pay for that as well thanks
6. Freedom? A product of the country I live in
7. As for the facsinating friends, I can only say someone should have shut the door on the asylumn sooner when I consider some posts in here.

Thanks

You're welcome.

You have pointed to the immediate causes. Example of immediate an cause: a bullet to the brain causing death. It would not be a good defence for the accused gunman to plead it was the bullet, not him, that killed the victim. The accused was the real, determining cause.

Likewise, a loaf of bread may well sustain your life and it in turn be caused by the money you earned at work. But it was God who both enabled you to work and sent the harvest that produced the bread.

Mena

wolfsbane wrote: »

But it was God who both enabled you to work and sent the harvest that produced the bread.

Er.. nope. Sorry, I don't see how you can state this. I'm able to work due to my willingness, education and experience. Take it all the way back and I'm here because my parents either slipped up or decided to have a child.

The harvest was planted by a normal man and turned into bread.

Edit: Sorry, this may be turning infantile here but I feel perhaps only playground logic works with this type of argument...

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Would it have mattered if they did repent, since God had decided a priori that he would wipe out the entire human race except for Noah and his family?

Yes, it would, since God commits Himself to pardon all who repent and believe:

Ezekiel 33:14 Again, when I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, 15 if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 16 None of his sins which he has committed shall be remembered against him; he has done what is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

Acts 17:26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

wolfsbane

Mena wrote: »

Er.. nope. Sorry, I don't see how you can state this. I'm able to work due to my willingness, education and experience. Take it all the way back and I'm here because my parents either slipped up or decided to have a child.

The harvest was planted by a normal man and turned into bread.

Edit: Sorry, this may be turning infantile here but I feel perhaps only playground logic works with this type of argument...

You see only the material causes. You determine there could be no higher, spiritual one. You dismiss the evidence of an Infinite Designer all around you, claiming no doubt it is just the appearance of design. You ignore your conscience when it tells you there is a real world, outside the material one you see.

OK. That's up to you. The Christians here know different. One day you will too - but it will be too late if you continue as you are.

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

You're welcome.

You have pointed to the immediate causes. Example of immediate an cause: a bullet to the brain causing death. It would not be a good defence for the accused gunman to plead it was the bullet, not him, that killed the victim. The accused was the real, determining cause.

Likewise, a loaf of bread may well sustain your life and it in turn be caused by the money you earned at work. But it was God who both enabled you to work and sent the harvest that produced the bread.

What, so you just keep going back until you cannot trace the human causes, and then say "God did it"?

I think you would differ to most Christians in not thinking that God would act directly.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I doubt Ken has ever claimed his personal interpretation of the Bible is incapable of error.

Have a read again of his eye-wateringly pompous SOF, where he says that the bible is "inerrant throughout".

I think it's quite reasonable to assume that he's talking about his own personal interpretation, rather than a different one belonging to somebody else.