The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

Firstly, welcome to the thread. Most of what you have said tallies with the general Christian view I think, though you have some in depth knowledge that seems to back that up further. The translations of "day" and "40" I find very interesting, are there versions of the bible which differ in their translations in that respect?

SwinterTarot wrote: »

but the chances, the chances of earth being a planet close enough to the sun for heat and energy, but not far enough for cold. That the moon orbits just the right time to bring the tides away from shore and not flood, that the day and night cycle is just right for plant life.. i mean these are just basic concepts but the chances..

I wouldn't contend that Earth is an average planet by most measures, but I would doubt that it is unique or even optimal.

Several billion planets doubtlessly exist at various distances from their stars (themselves of a wide variety of configurations), with natural satellites of various masses and numbers and with fellow planets which may act as quite effective shields against bombardment... With so many permutations, we were always most likely to arise (or at least progress to such complexity) on one of the better-suited worlds. One could imagine ways in which a world might be better suited than Earth for the development of complex life and it is extremely likely that such worlds exist. The inhabitants may be even more convinced than we of their special place in the universe.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

.......something like an Evolutionist believing that the veracity of Darwins 'Origin of Species' is derived from it being all about the Dot Com bubble!!!!!:D:)



.....WHERE are the gaps in the Genesis Account of Creation......God simply spoke......and it all came into being under the power of His magnificent omnipotence......with NO gaps!!!!!! :)



.......I use to believe that too......but since I was Saved I have seen the tremendous damage that Evolution has done to the Christian Faith ............ a whole generation of young people have largely rejected the Bible.....on the (logical) basis that none of it could be trusted if the Genesis account couldn't be trusted .......
The belief that Evolution is true.....and Genesis isn't.......is the greatest 'recruiting agent' for Atheism.......and the most difficult stumbling block for potential Christians!!!!

.....if you don't believe me.......then just ask yourself WHY are the Atheists here defending Evolution 'to the hilt'......IF Evolution is the 'minor issue' that you claim it to be???

......the Atheists know that their ENTIRE Atheistic worldview is at stake here.......and THAT is why they have laboured so hard on this thread.......and elsewhere, defending the impossible......as if their very lives depended on it!!!!

.....'tis a pity that many Christians don't show a similar burning zeal to defend and promote their faith!!!!:D:)

Actually, I think creationism does far more for the advancement of atheism than evolution alone. Firstly because creationists have been attacking biologists with their watery nonsense for decades, and I think that the vehemence with which people like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers attack religion is a direct result of that; and secondly because any sane person who sees the way that creationists argue their nonsense will eventually become more and more frustrated with them, and lean more and more in the opposite direction. (The second is certainly what has happened to me over the last few months.)

Galvasean

You don't suppose some of the creationists are a secret propaganda movement created to scare normal people away from religion?

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

You don't suppose some of the creationists are a secret propaganda movement created to scare normal people away from religion?

Not so much in the conspiracy theory sense, but I think that some creationists are trolling to deliberately get up the noses of atheists.

Flamed Diving

SwinterTarot wrote: »

but the chances, the chances of earth being a planet close enough to the sun for heat and energy, but not far enough for cold. That the moon orbits just the right time to bring the tides away from shore and not flood, that the day and night cycle is just right for plant life.. i mean these are just basic concepts but the chances

There are an estimated million trillion trillion stars in the universe. Lets say that each star has an average of say, ten planets orbiting them? So multiply the above number by ten. Are you saying that of all these planets, Earth is the only one where life could survive?

sdep

For anyone interested, I see there's a brand new Boards palaeontology forum.

AtomicHorror

Thanks sdep, will check it out.

I wonder if there would be much interest in setting up an Evolutionary Biology forum. It might allow debates like this to be discussed in a broader context. And allow us to actually discuss new findings outside of the debate context.

AtomicHorror

On the above note:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56659345#post56659345

Support and criticism welcome

Galvasean

sdep wrote: »

For anyone interested, I see there's a brand new Boards palaeontology forum.

I like how there is a special reference to Creationists in the charter.

Standman

Would it not be worth making a new forum for this subject? I mean, 773 pages of posts is just a waste of space really isn't it? Who's going to sift through all that?

AtomicHorror

Standman wrote: »

Would it not be worth making a new forum for this subject? I mean, 773 pages of posts is just a waste of space really isn't it? Who's going to sift through all that?

Well that's what I linked above... not sure it'll get the go ahead though. If you're for it, please do post there.

SwinterTarot

Flamed Diving wrote: »

There are an estimated million trillion trillion stars in the universe. Lets say that each star has an average of say, ten planets orbiting them? So multiply the above number by ten. Are you saying that of all these planets, Earth is the only one where life could survive?

as i said, no where in the bible does it say god created only the earth. The bible is a hand selected library of books, and many others didnt make the cut in 327ad.. a mix of jewish and the new christian religion.. even the torah is a selected group of books.. there are many many other early hebrew documents.. and these speak of gods creations outside of earth.

The main target of enquiry here seems to be is life on earth 'divine' or is it 'natural'

yes the universe is full of planets, and there is every chance there is, was or will be life on others. I saw a post where someone likend the chances of creation to a lottery, where every one had a unique number so someone was bound to win.. im not so sure on this theory.. doesnt it follow that that means theres some order or share given to planets? 1 has water 1 has fire 1 has an atmosphere 1 has water and an atmosphere etc until one has every thing life needs...

the answer here wont be found in science. It can only be found in faith. Every one has it.. Either in man or godm or a little in between.

btw thanks for the welcome to the thread, im no scientist.. im a gamer nerd with a mind for theology and messianic judaism.. so some of your posts are a little high brow for me. But its interesting reading

Standman

Do you think it is more likely that god may have created life on a statistically probable amount of planets or that life may exist on other planets because it is statistically probable?

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

I like how there is a special reference to Creationists in the charter.

Indeed the Charter of the Paleontology forum states (doubtless with tongue in cheek) that all dinosaurs were created by God.

SwinterTarot

Standman wrote: »

Do you think it is more likely that god may have created life on a statistically probable amount of planets or that life may exist on other planets because it is statistically probable?

texts outside thats of the bible and torah, tell us that God has created other planets and races. Asides from Angels etc if god chooses to place life on any number of planets i dont feel this has anything to do with statistics.. its to do with his will..

SwinterTarot

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Firstly, welcome to the thread. Most of what you have said tallies with the general Christian view I think, though you have some in depth knowledge that seems to back that up further. The translations of "day" and "40" I find very interesting, are there versions of the bible which differ in their translations in that respect?



its not so much that words that differ as much as they are not fully explained..

that said the catholic bible has extra books in it to the baptist or protestant.

as far as the words go. must hebrew letters and there for names have other things attached and as you read the bible a whole world of imagery is wasted..

as an exp.. Bethlehem -
this word means.. house of gods bread/live.. bread and live are linked in judaism.. instead of 'cheers' jews toast 'l'hem' to live...

beth meaning town or abode..

the original spelling would be Beth'el'hem EL is always god..

Micha'el ... gods warrior angel..
Gabri'el ... gods messanger ...etc..

so this place was named.. hundreds of years before christ..
' the place/house/abode of Gods Bread/Live..'



theres alot people dont read.. i wont ramble on but the more info you get the more it seems to tie every thing together.. i find it very compeling.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

There are an estimated million trillion trillion stars in the universe. Lets say that each star has an average of say, ten planets orbiting them? So multiply the above number by ten. Are you saying that of all these planets, Earth is the only one where life could survive?

What are the criteria for life? That is, for the origin and sustainance of the simplest lifeform. When those essentials are fed into the million trillion trillion x10 planets, what is the probability of such necessary conditions occurring?

Worse than 1 in 1057800:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1416

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

No (as has been explained countless times already)

The circumstances (a planet forming around a sun providing engery and the chemical components necessary for self replicating molecules to form, such as water) are relatively random but certainly not beyond credibility.

And even if they were evolution is not spontaneous, anymore than randomly picking a ball and dropping it means the ball falling is spontaneous.

Some times I really wonder about you Wolfsbane ...



Wow, ok, lets try this yet again

If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 8 million, and 8 million people play each with a unique number, what are the odds that one out of those 8 million people will win the Lottery Wolfsbane? Thats right 1 in 1. It is a certainty.

How many planets are there in the universe Wolfsbane?

If the odds of a planet forming with the circumstances being right for simply self-replicating molecules to form are 1 in 100 billion then life has appeared at least 4 times in our galaxy alone, just one of billions of galaxies.

Life forming in the universe is not only highly likely, it would be safe to say it is a certainty.

See my previous post.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The analogy is horribly flawed. It assumes one player for starters. Lotteries are deliberately designed to present the player with a negligible chance of winning even once. Please explain to me how this system is analogous to evolution.

Not only is the chance of any lifeform occurring beyond credulity, the chance that it will survive and evolve is even less credible. The supposed circumstances for the origin of life are contrary to those needed for its evolution, so you have to keep winning the lottery to hold your previous winnings.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But our discussion relates to the death of the organism - man and beast - not to genetic code. It is the organism that the RCC dogma refers to.
The RCC dogma refers, kind of, to the phenotypical results, but the dogma was thought up before there was much real understanding of biology, or how biology works.

It really does need to be updated to reflect reality, in the same way that creationism does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Aquinas
The truth of our religion becomes a matter of scorn amongst the unfaithful if any Catholic who is not skilled with the necessary learning, presents as dogma what scrutiny shows to be false.

Which is just my point: the RCC has to abandon its infallible dogma if it embraces evolution.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

What are the criteria for life?

The right level of energy (enough to cause reaction but not enough that the reactions are consistently unstable) and an abundance of atoms such as hydrogen, carbon and oxygen that can easily chemically react with each other to form more complex molecules. And quite a lot of time (a planet destroyed after only a few millions years won't produce life)

That is of course to produce life as we understand it on Earth (carbon based life forms as they say in Star Trek). That is only one form of possible life.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Worse than 1 in 1057800:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1416

Oh for crying out loud. That is the odds that a modern cell would randomly form.

Are you simply trolling now?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

What are the criteria for life? That is, for the origin and sustainance of the simplest lifeform. When those essentials are fed into the million trillion trillion x10 planets, what is the probability of such necessary conditions occurring?

Worse than 1 in 1057800:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1416

That figure does not relate to the pre-conditions required for life. Taken merely as the likelihood of cell formation, that figure is incorrect. It is the chance of individual atoms coming together to form a fully functional proto cell at random. This is not an idea to be found in any of the current abiogenesis hypotheses.

The same criteria would find the likelihood of formation of a crystal lattice to be similarly negligible. So all observed crystals would have to have been created specifically by God. Of course we can grow crystals in a lab with no intelligent intervention, just materials and time. So what's been left out of the probability calculation? All the laws of physics and chemistry.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not only is the chance of any lifeform occurring beyond credulity, the chance that it will survive and evolve is even less credible. The supposed circumstances for the origin of life are contrary to those needed for its evolution...

Nonsense, the point of evolution is to survive in changing circumstances. Nothing about the circumstances amenable to abiogenesis contradict survival. We've found simple life in the harshest environments on Earth.

wolfsbane wrote: »

...so you have to keep winning the lottery to hold your previous winnings.

Unless you can explain to me how the lottery analogy actually applies to abiogenesis and evolution I'd suggest you let that one go.

For even a simple fit, the analogy would need to be modified to firstly assume several trillion players at all times. The lottery would be run over the course of approximately 1 billion years and would be run several times a second over that time. Also for each lottery win, the odds of a specific player winning the next lottery would have to be modified positively or negatively. This would be recursive. Also we'd have to assume that any offspring generated by our winning players would have the same enhanced potential.

The above would still be woefully inaccurate since it fails to account for just how much of abiogenesis happens with high probability. Cell membrane formation is, as J C will be excited to learn, spontaneous and happens if you just chuck some lipids into water. No crazy probabilities in there.

Galvasean

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080709-evolution-fish.html

Same old arguments.
'Look we found something which evolved.'
'But its still only a fish'.

thebaldsoprano

Okay, I'm fairly new to posting on boards and probably a bit naive, but jeepers...

'Flamed Diving' and 'wolfsbane' I stayed well clear of any scientific arguments on the atheism forum because my beliefs afford me the luxury of doing so, thankfully.

What's the deal with coming onto a forum about Christianity and posting about areas of science ye've obviously gone into no depth on and are using whatever the hell you can find on the 'net to support your arguments.

I've some formal training in mathematics/theoretical physics, but none in biology and at least some training would be needed to add to the debate and not recycle the same old well known arguments.

And I can tell you this much about astronomy, the estimates re stars and planets change. A lot.

If ye're interested in these subjects why not consider doing a course in them rather than wasting your and other people's time with this ****.

Wicknight, where do you get your patience from?

Flamed Diving

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Okay, I'm fairly new to posting on boards and probably a bit naive, but jeepers...

'Flamed Diving' and 'wolfsbane' I stayed well clear of any scientific arguments on the atheism forum because my beliefs afford me the luxury of doing so, thankfully.

What's the deal with coming onto a forum about Christianity and posting about areas of science ye've obviously gone into no depth on and are using whatever the hell you can find on the 'net to support your arguments.

I've some formal training in mathematics/theoretical physics, but none in biology and at least some training would be needed to add to the debate and not recycle the same old well known arguments.

And I can tell you this much about astronomy, the estimates re stars and planets change. A lot.

If ye're interested in these subjects why not consider doing a course in them rather than wasting your and other people's time with this ****.

Wicknight, where do you get your patience from?

:rolleyes:

thebaldsoprano

Flamed Diving wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Right, enough said on that then.

Flamed Diving

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Right, enough said on that then.

Quite.

thebaldsoprano

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Quite.

Yeah, make some faces try, some nerd tricks - whatever makes you happy.

After getting myself banned from your forum, if you're trying to get me banned from this one, good start.

Hopefully the mods here have a little more sense. Ehm, mods, hello?

AtomicHorror

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Okay, I'm fairly new to posting on boards and probably a bit naive, but jeepers...

'Flamed Diving' and 'wolfsbane' I stayed well clear of any scientific arguments on the atheism forum because my beliefs afford me the luxury of doing so, thankfully.

What's the deal with coming onto a forum about Christianity and posting about areas of science ye've obviously gone into no depth on and are using whatever the hell you can find on the 'net to support your arguments.

I've some formal training in mathematics/theoretical physics, but none in biology and at least some training would be needed to add to the debate and not recycle the same old well known arguments.

And I can tell you this much about astronomy, the estimates re stars and planets change. A lot.

If ye're interested in these subjects why not consider doing a course in them rather than wasting your and other people's time with this ****.

Wicknight, where do you get your patience from?

Not sure I get what you're driving at... do you feel they are ill-qualified to debate on an internet forum?

Wolfsbane is a conservative Christian who professes no authority on science. I'm not sure he understands all that the science side post here but I'm quite sure he's arguing from solid knowledge on the scripture front, if not solid interpretation. I'm not sure what Flamed Diving's experience with science is but I haven't seen him make any unfounded claims that I can recall. While both use sources on the internet, both also form their own arguments based on said sources. You can call it recycling if you like but then I guess any references to Darwin or Dawkins would have to be labelled as such too.

If banning is your goal then too much of the needless profanity will certainly get you banned by PDN with no help at all from Flamed.

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Not sure I get what you're driving at... do you feel they are ill-qualified to debate on an internet forum?

Wolfsbane is a conservative Christian who professes no authority on science. I'm not sure he understands all that the science side post here but I'm quite sure he's arguing from solid knowledge on the scripture front, if not solid interpretation. I'm not sure what Flamed Diving's experience with science is but I haven't seen him make any unfounded claims that I can recall. While both use sources on the internet, both also form their own arguments based on said sources. You can call it recycling if you like but then I guess any references to Darwin or Dawkins would have to be labelled as such too.

If banning is your goal then too much of the needless profanity will certainly get you banned by PDN with no help at all from Flamed.

Psst. I'm not sure, but I think he's mixing up Flamed Diving and J C...