The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Thousands of years ago many things were untestable. Anyone positing the existence of black holes, the earth orbiting the sun, the theory of relativity etc would have had no way of testing them. However, that would have no bearing on whether they were true or not.

The fact that people can imagine false untestable ideas does not mean that all untestable ideas are false. That is an unwarranted leap of logic.

I see your point, but I think MJ is talking about absolute unverifiability, if there is such a thing... To test a God with absolute power over the observable is not possible since no such observation could ever be verified as real so long as the existence of an omnipotent God is one's starting point. Certainly as you say it is illogical to assume the untestable to be untrue, but it is certainly illogical and unscientific to assume the opposite.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Thousands of years ago many things were untestable. Anyone positing the existence of black holes, the earth orbiting the sun, the theory of relativity etc would have had no way of testing them. However, that would have no bearing on whether they were true or not.

The fact that people can imagine false untestable ideas does not mean that all untestable ideas are false. That is an unwarranted leap of logic.

Well yes but then a thousand years ago people weren't sitting around discussing black holes. They were sitting around discussing all manner of imaginary phenomena that had little bearing on reality.

The untestable bit doesn't imply that these things aren't real. As you rightly point out just because something is untestable doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The bit that implies that they aren't real is that they are untestable yet people still go into great detail about what they think they are.

This suggests that the people are using their imaginations to come up with these details, often in a manner to ensure these details cannot be demonstrated to be wrong.

As Atomic says, a large number of people proclaim the all powerful nature of this or that god. This is completely untestable, since you would require vast power yourself to actually test if this is true or not. So why are there lots of people going around proclaiming the existence of an all powerful god? Have they determined he is all powerful in some logical or consistent manner? Or are they just saying he is because it sounds good?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes but then a thousand years ago people weren't sitting around discussing black holes. They were sitting around discussing all manner of imaginary phenomena that had little bearing on reality.

The untestable bit doesn't imply that these things aren't real. As you rightly point out just because something is untestable doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The bit that implies that they aren't real is that they are untestable yet people still go into great detail about what they think they are.

This suggests that the people are using their imaginations to come up with these details, often in a manner to ensure these details cannot be demonstrated to be wrong.

As Atomic says, a large number of people proclaim the all powerful nature of this or that god. This is completely untestable, since you would require vast power yourself to actually test if this is true or not. So why are there lots of people going around proclaiming the existence of an all powerful god? Have they determined he is all powerful in some logical or consistent manner? Or are they just saying he is because it sounds good?

That all makes perfect sense if you arbitrarily refuse to allow the possibility that an all-powerful God might have chosen to reveal His existence in one way or another. Once you allow such a possibility then the non-testability of God may indeed be true or false.

Either way, I believe both yourself and Atomic Horror have concurred with my critique of Moosejam's logic. I guess that when Moosejam weighs in on a subject it is as welcome to you as it is to me when one of our, er, less thoughtful Christian posters starts bringing ill thought and dogmatic assertions into a thread.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Again, you miss the point: my quote was of official RC dogma, yours was merely a cardinal's opinion.

It was the cardinal's opinion on how to interpret official RC dogma. The dogma, like all good religious dogma, is significantly vague to allow for various interpretations, including one where the passages refer to spirituality and spiritual death.

Being a Christian I would have though you would understand that better than most

You think they used bodily in the statement of dogma to mean spiritually? The statement was an explanation of their position, so can be expected to use words in their obvious sense.
The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.) [emphasis mine].

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes but then a thousand years ago people weren't sitting around discussing black holes. They were sitting around discussing all manner of imaginary phenomena that had little bearing on reality.

.........some people are STILL sitting around discussing all kinds of imaginary phenomena........that have little bearing on reality
........they're called EVOLUTIONISTS!!!!:pac::):eek::D


......and, as Professor Gould has confirmed, Evolutionists often find that, even their imaginations fail them........and they are unable, even in their imaginations, to construct functional intermediates....... for the supposed intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design!!!!!!:D

The Evolutionists labour under the not inconciderable handicap.......of trying to prove that something which never happened.......did happen....

.....and that is why, even a five year old child wouldn't believe in Evolution....

.......but grown men DO believe in Evolution......DESPITE all logic and evidence to the contrary..........
For the Atheists amongst them, Evolution is the 'only game in town'......because it excludes God!!!:D

Prominent Evolutionist, Harvard University Biochemist and Nobel Laureate......Prof. George Wald, summarises the utterly illogical position of the Evolutionist as follows:-
"When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!":D

.....so ALL logic and evidence leads us to scientifically conclude that life was Created.......but Atheism demands blind faith, in Aboigenesis and the Evolution of Man ......for religious reasons.....and without ANY supporting evidence or logic!!!!:D

.....so, because Atheists cannot accept Divine Creation for religious reasons...... Materialistic Evolutionists choose to believe in the scientifically IMPOSSIBLE........
......and WHY and WHAT the Theistic Evolutionists believe in, is anybody's guess!!!!!:D

I would like to hear from any Theistic Evolutionists on this thread, as to what EXACTLY they believe in.....when it comes to Evolution.......do the believe in a 'God of the (Evolutionary) Gaps'.....or do they believe in something even more bizzarre ?????

MooseJam

PDN wrote: »

I guess that when Moosejam weighs in on a subject it is as welcome to you as it is to me when one of our, er, less thoughtful Christian posters starts bringing ill thought and dogmatic assertions into a thread.

lol How very Christian of you, in polite company it is considered rude to point out the failings of your lessers.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.........some people are STILL sitting around discussing all kinds of imaginary phenomena........that have little bearing on reality
........they're called EVOLUTIONISTS!!!!:pac::):eek::D

You mean the guys who produce thousands of publications a year showing observations which support evolution? They must be deluded? How much new data has the creationist movement produced to support their claims? Is it thousands, even hundreds of publications in a year? If we exclude the publications whose sole aim is to discredit some piece of currently accepted science, does it even come to tens of publications a year?

J C wrote: »

......and, as Professor Gould has confirmed, Evolutionists often find that, even their imaginations fail them........and they are unable, even in their imaginations, to construct functional intermediates....... for the supposed intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design!!!!!!:D

A personal statement by a scientist is not science. It is opinion. I have great respect for the scientific publications of Professor Gould, but the quote you so often misuse was part of his effort to justify his exploration of punctuated equilibrium. I personally have no difficulty in imagining the intermediary stages in any organ I have yet seen. To suggest that such a difficulty would invalidate evolution is pure nonsense. Relativity is far more incomprehensible to most, yet it is tried and tested.

J C wrote: »

The Evolutionists labour under the not inconciderable handicap.......of trying to prove that something which never happened.......did happen....

On the contrary, this has already been established for over a century. The vast majority of scientists are satisfied. All we now labor under is your inability to understand evolution and your fear of what it means for your story-book version of a much more sophisticated faith.

J C wrote: »

.....and that is why, even a five year old child wouldn't believe in Evolution....

Any random 5 year old or just the ones with creationist parents? It would be a very gifted 5 year old that could understand either Genesis or Evolution.

J C wrote: »

.......but grown men DO believe in Evolution......DESPITE all logic and evidence to the contrary..........

You keep on mentioning the logic and evidence that falsifies Evolution. I keep asking you to show it to us. It certainly doesn't seem to be present elsewhere in this thread but if it is perhaps you could post it.

J C wrote: »

For the Atheists amongst them, Evolution is the 'only game in town'......because it excludes God!!!:D

False dilemma time again. Evolution does not exclude God, it simply makes no assumptions that it cannot demonstrate to be true. For all that evolution can say, God could be all over abiogenesis, or could invisibly be involved in evolution itself. All Evolution states is what we can observe. When objects fall to the ground, we can make measurements and observations to explain why. We cannot observe God in this and so to announce that God makes things fall down would be unscientific. An unwarranted leap of reason at best, or a lie at worst.

Atheists believe in evolution because it is the currently accepted scientific consensus. It is not the only option, historically there have been alternate theories which also "excluded" God.

J C wrote: »

Prominent Evolutionist, Harvard University Biochemist and Nobel Laureate......Prof. George Wald, summarises the utterly illogical position of the Evolutionist as follows:-
"When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!":D

The Origin of Life is not a part of Evolution. This has been explained to you so many times that it is amazing to me that you seem unable to make the distinction. "Spontaneous generation" was certainly disproved as Wald says above. But he says nothing about evolution, nor abiogenesis.

J C wrote: »

.....so ALL logic and evidence leads us to scientifically conclude that life was Created.......but Atheism demands blind faith, in Aboigenesis and the Evolution of Man ......for religious reasons.....and without ANY supporting evidence or logic!!!!:D

How does a statement by one scientist, not even one taken from a research paper for that matter, lead us to conclude that "all logic and evidence" can lead us to "scientifically conclude" anything at all?

J C wrote: »

.....so, because Atheists cannot accept Divine Creation for religious reasons...... Materialistic Evolutionists choose to believe in the scientifically IMPOSSIBLE........

If it were known to be impossible, the believers would be in the minority. Most of evolution is very much self-evident to me, so to suggest it is impossible is a reflection only on your capacity to understand.

J C wrote: »

......and WHY and WHAT the Theistic Evolutionists believe in, is anybody's guess!!!!!:D

That evolution and God are not incompatible. Easy guess really.

J C wrote: »

I would like to hear from any Theistic Evolutionists on this thread, as to what EXACTLY they believe in.....when it comes to Evolution.......do the believe in a 'God of the (Evolutionary) Gaps'.....or do they believe in something even more bizzarre ?????

Yes I bet they'll jump at the chance to have you punctuate at them.

mthd

AtomicHorror

mthd wrote: »

Funny, but Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God. It just disproves the literal truth of Genesis. The picture works though. Needs more animal poo in it.

PDN

MooseJam wrote: »

lol How very Christian of you, in polite company it is considered rude to point out the failings of your lessers.

And in polite company I would certainly refrain from doing so.

MooseJam

PDN wrote: »

And in polite company I would certainly refrain from doing so.

lol You really hold yourself in very high regard don't you, all kneel before the great PDN, in case you haven't come across it Here you go

Galvasean

I know its kind of bad taste but I really want one of these:



I'm also aware that the dinosaur's toes are woefully inaccurate.

edit: shopping list updated
http://cellsinculture.blogspot.com/2008/03/t-rex-ate-giant-melons.html

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That all makes perfect sense if you arbitrarily refuse to allow the possibility that an all-powerful God might have chosen to reveal His existence in one way or another.

Well firstly, it isn't a question of refusing to allow that possibility, it is a question of looking at which is more likely. There actually is an all powerful deity that exists out side time and space who happens to like communicating with the humanoid primates on a small planet in the corner of one of the vast galaxies that fill this universe. Or, Christians are simply doing what a lot of humans do, applying imaginary agents to events and happenings that appear significant to them.

Secondly, the fact that none of this is testable at all in any shape or form is rather convenient.

PDN wrote: »

Once you allow such a possibility then the non-testability of God may indeed be true or false.

Anything that is untestable may or may not be true (in fact anything may or may not be true, since testability is limited).

But the rush humans have to assume it is true without it actually being testable, would strongly suggest that this perception that it is true comes not from reality, but from human desire that it would be true.

PDN wrote: »

Either way, I believe both yourself and Atomic Horror have concurred with my critique of Moosejam's logic.

Well no. You are missing the point some what.

Something like your God is totally untestable in any meaningful fashion (Ideas like you feel he is real aren't tests).

You don't know he actually exists in any fashion. Therefore your concept of him is imaginary.

You are filling in the blanks with both your own imagination and borrowed imagination from things like the Bible, with no proper method of testing if anything your imagination, or their imagination, is coming up with actually maps to reality in anyway.

It might all map to reality, but that would be a coincidence rather than your concepts actually being true.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You think they used bodily in the statement of dogma to mean spiritually? The statement was an explanation of their position, so can be expected to use words in their obvious sense.
The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.) [emphasis mine].

Well yes. Don't all Christians believe they will have a "body" in heaven?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Prominent Evolutionist, Harvard University Biochemist and Nobel Laureate......Prof. George Wald, summarises the utterly illogical position of the Evolutionist as follows:-

That is a non-truth (a lie? I'll leave that to the audience to determine), coupled with an out of context quote. Wald in the very next part of that discussion goes on to answer exactly why it isn't an impossibility.

It might be a good idea not to get your quotes JC from Out-of-context-quotes.com :rolleyes:

Galvasean

Reminds me of that Origin of Species line about the eye that Creationists always quote. The very next line is Darwin explaining how the eye came about.

J C

mthd wrote: »

.........great to see the Atheists taking an interest in Genesis.......even if they get a few details wrong.......like the sheer size of the Ark......and the quiescence of the animals under the power of God during The Flood!!!!:):D

......and BTW the use of foul language DOESN'T help your case!!!!:)

.....as for your contention that God doesn't exist......please read the following quote from Prominent Evolutionist, Harvard University Biochemist and Nobel Laureate......Prof. George Wald AGAIN........
......It shows that it is the Evolutionists who are the ones in denial over the invalidity of Evolution.......and the existence of a Creator God :-
"When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!":pac::):D
(emphasis mine).

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

I know its kind of bad taste but I really want one of these:

......it must be one of those so-called 'Darwin Fishes'......that NEVER actually sprouted legs or turned into an Amphibian......that the Dinosaur is eating!!!!!:pac::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
I would like to hear from any Theistic Evolutionists on this thread, as to what EXACTLY they believe in.....when it comes to Evolution.......do the believe in a 'God of the (Evolutionary) Gaps'.....or do they believe in something even more bizzarre ?????

AtomicHorror
Yes I bet they'll jump at the chance to have you punctuate at them.

........so does that mean that there are NO Theistic Evolutionists on the thread.....and all of the original Theistic Evolutionists have now become CREATIONISTS?????:pac::):D

J C

.....here is an interesting site on 'Darwinian Fundamentalism' that I came across recently:- http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.com/2005/07/darwinian-fundamentalist-manifesto.html

.....I particularly enjoyed reading the following quote from a (former) Darwinian who has 'lost his faith'......in Darwinian Evolution:-

"I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence. It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the mainstream media and general public."

.....a 'Macroevolution Agnostic'......on the way to becoming a Creation Scientist......no doubt!!!!:pac::):D

Fanny Cradock

J C wrote: »

[/B]........so does that mean that there are NO Theistic Evolutionists on the thread.....and all of the original Theistic Evolutionists have now become CREATIONISTS?????:pac::):D

You wish, JC :rolleyes:

There are a few of us around. I just don't see evolution as an important enough topic to warrant discussion.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
........so does that mean that there are NO Theistic Evolutionists on the thread.....and all of the original Theistic Evolutionists have now become CREATIONISTS?????


Fanny Cradock
You wish, JC :rolleyes:

There are a few of us around. I just don't see evolution as an important enough topic to warrant discussion.

I don't 'wish' one way or the other!!!

I'm sure that there are a few Theistic Evolutionists still around on the thread..........but they are probably feeling a lot less talkative and 'cocky' than they were at the start of the thread!!!!:D

THREE Questions:-

1. IF you DON'T see Evolution as important enough to warrant discussion....then WHY are you on the Bible, Creationism and Prophecy Thread discussing it???


2. As a Theistic Evolutionist what EXACTLY DO you believe in.....when it comes to Evolution.......do you believe in a 'God of the (Evolutionary) Gaps'.....or do you believe in something even more bizzarre and unbelievable?????


3. Is your signature named after 'Fanny May' .......or her sister 'Fanny May Not'......
.........or their neighbour 'Sweet Fanny Adams'????D

J C

mthd wrote: »

.........it looks like the 'Good Ship Evolution' .......
.......is 'up the creek without a paddle' and sinking fast!!!:pac::):D

......and it perfectly illustrates WHAT 'macroevolution' can ONLY do.......which is to KILL & DESTROY......as distinct from 'improving and perfecting'!!!!:pac::):D


.....and with some foul language thrown in for 'good measure'......the Evolutionists are really excelling themselves tonight!!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

[/B]
I'm sure that there are a few Theistic Evolutionists still around on the thread..........but they are probably feeling a lot less talkative and 'cocky' than they were at the start of the thread!!!!:D

Considering cockyness is not a trait associated with a good Christian they are probably happy to be humble in their own beliefs.
Or possibly the other theists shy away from this thread so they are not mistaken for lunatics.

J C wrote: »

2. As a Theistic Evolutionist what EXACTLY DO you believe in.....when it comes to Evolution.......do you believe in a 'God of the (Evolutionary) Gaps'.....or do you believe in something even more bizzarre and unbelievable?????

Since you seem to have made up the God of the Gaps, presumably on the spot, I doubt they believe in it. You calling anything bizarre and unbelievable is exceptionaly ironic.

AtomicHorror

I wonder why I bother refuting your posts sometimes J C. It seems whenever I make the effort you simply wait until the next page to post and ignore the substantive points. I'd re-post but I think that would constitute spamming. You addressed the least meaningful comment in that post of course...

J C wrote: »

J C
I would like to hear from any Theistic Evolutionists on this thread, as to what EXACTLY they believe in.....when it comes to Evolution.......do the believe in a 'God of the (Evolutionary) Gaps'.....or do they believe in something even more bizzarre ?????

AtomicHorror
Yes I bet they'll jump at the chance to have you punctuate at them.

J C
so does that mean that there are NO Theistic Evolutionists on the thread.....and all of the original Theistic Evolutionists have now become CREATIONISTS?????:pac::):D

This exchange acts as a wonderful illustration of your capacity to derive whatever pre-conceived meaning you like from absolutely nothing at all.

J C wrote: »

"I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence. It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the mainstream media and general public."

.....a 'Macroevolution Agnostic'......on the way to becoming a Creation Scientist......no doubt!!!!:pac::):D

J C, do you believe in "microevolution"?

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Since you seem to have made up the God of the Gaps, presumably on the spot, I doubt they believe in it.

On rare occasions, J C uses terms that actually mean something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Try looking up spontaneous evolution though...

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Try looking up spontaneous evolution though...

From dictionary.com:

Spontaneous
adjective
1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.
2. (of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.
3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.
4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.
5. produced by natural process.

Presumably 'spontaneous evolution' would therefore be a legitimate term to use to describe evolution that is not planned or directed by an external agency - evolution that is purely a result of natural processes. It seems to me, as a non-scientific layman, that such a term neatly describes theories of evolution that differ from theistic evolution, or any theory of evolution that incorporates Intelligent Design.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

From dictionary.com:


Presumably 'spontaneous evolution' would therefore be a legitimate term to use to describe evolution that is not planned or directed by an external agency - evolution that is purely a result of natural processes. It seems to me, as a non-scientific layman, that such a term neatly describes theories of evolution that differ from theistic evolution, or any theory of evolution that incorporates Intelligent Design.

Only if you don't count local environment, planetary environment and solar radiation as external influences. The rather large and very much external space rock which killed the dinosaurs would need to be disregarded. Organisms evolve, if influences external to the organisms interact with that system, the system is not spontaneous.

One could decide to define the entire system as "internal" of course, but this is not something that would be automatically assumed. Your definition also ignores spontaneousness in terms of chemical reactions, which when talking about science would be the first meaning a person might assume. Evolution involves such reactions but not exclusively. To describe the overall process as spontaneous is very much inaccurate.

If you have to presume or guess at the meaning of a term, if the term itself cannot be found fully defined anywhere and user's stated definition shifts from time to time, is it really appropriate to use that term? In a debate which may often become technical, ambiguity is very much undesirable.

Evolution, not being directed by an intelligence, has several well-defined names. "The modern synthesis" is one. "Evolution" is another. Qualifiers are only needed when one speaks of versions of the theory that are considered unusual. "Theistic evolution" being an example.

Finally, the definitions that J C has applied to "spontaneous evolution" appear at odds with the theory of evolution. And so he is attempting to discredit a concept which the evolutionist side of the debate to not actually defend, whilst implying heavily that we do. I think the tactic is rather disingenuous and would be equivalent to adding misleading or derogatory adjectives to "creationism" upon every use. I think it would be fully correct for you as a moderator to take a dim view of such school yard antics, and for other posters to ask me to stop.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It seems to me, as a non-scientific layman, that such a term neatly describes theories of evolution that differ from theistic evolution, or any theory of evolution that incorporates Intelligent Design.

Not really. If you dropped a ball would you say it spontaneously fell to the ground? Or would you say the Earth spontaneously rotates around the Sun?

JC uses "spontaneous evolution" to misrepresent how evolution works. He attempts to paint it as a chaotic random process. But it is no more like that than a process such as gravity is.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really. If you dropped a ball would you say it spontaneously fell to the ground? Or would you say the Earth spontaneously rotates around the Sun?

JC uses "spontaneous evolution" to misrepresent how evolution works. He attempts to paint it as a chaotic random process. But it is no more like that than a process such as gravity is.

Ironically, evolution is at least as well-understood and as firmly supported as gravity. Perhaps better understood, since there is ambiguity regarding many elements of gravity and its origins.