Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
AtomicHorror said:
Don't worry yourself, Wickie has trouble separating what he dreams we say from what we actually do. This is one of his nocturnal insights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicknight
Nonsense, JC and Wolfsbane have already proven beyond all doubt that all that is just dust approx 6 miles outside of the Earth's atmosphere (ie the edge of the known universe)
Then where have we been sending all of those probes!?
NASA must be in on the atheist materialist conspiracy too!!!!!!
0 -
AtomicHorror said:
Don't worry yourself, Wickie has trouble separating what he dreams we say from what we actually do. This is one of his nocturnal insights.
Perhaps he's credited that one wrongly, I don't remember you guys mentioning the topic. I have seen similar claims made by fundamentalists before, mind you. One who actually did claim that "other planets" were a NASA conspiracy. Presumably everyone with a telescope in their back garden is also in on it.
I am curious though, do you consider only the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old or is that the universe in general?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Came across this, thought people might be interested. Basically its a list of 101 scientific facts "predicted" by the bible. There are a few real doozers in there, but 28 is one of the best 0
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »Came across this, thought people might be interested. Basically its a list of 101 scientific facts "predicted" by the bible. There are a few real doozers in there, but 28 is one of the best
"Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity"
Oh yeah baby, that is the best type of depravity :cool:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Gaviscon said:
No, I trust their character not so much on what science they espouse, but on their faith in Christ. I agree, it is not science - but truth is not limited to science.
The claim to most supporting data is a subject of the dispute.
Not really. How many original research papers do the "evolutionists" release every year? How many do the creationists release? The bulk of their material focuses not on producing research, but on discrediting whatever research happens to disagree with scripture. They are very selective in that respect.
You might say that creationism...... produces no new information!!!!!!!!
:eek::D:pac: 0 -
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »Came across this, thought people might be interested. Basically its a list of 101 scientific facts "predicted" by the bible. There are a few real doozers in there, but 28 is one of the best
Wonder how many pearls of wisdom lie in the holy books of other faiths? Or the bits of the bible that got cut out...
So people knew stuff about stuff ages ago. That's a massive non-surprise.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Came across this, thought people might be interested. Basically its a list of 101 scientific facts "predicted" by the bible. There are a few real doozers in there, but 28 is one of the best
Abortion, pornography, genocide, etc.?!0 -
-
You should note the research articles at sites like :AtomicHorror wrote: »Not really. How many original research papers do the "evolutionists" release every year? How many do the creationists release? The bulk of their material focuses not on producing research, but on discrediting whatever research happens to disagree with scripture. They are very selective in that respect.
You might say that creationism...... produces no new information!!!!!!!!:eek::D:pac:
http://creationresearch.org/
And of course discrediting is a worthwhile enterprise, for it shows the unwary how untrustworthy are the strong assurances of evolutionists.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Gaviscon said:
No, I trust their character not so much on what science they espouse, but on their faith in Christ. I agree, it is not science - but truth is not limited to science.
Good to see we can agree on that much.Mark Hamill wrote: »Came across this, thought people might be interested. Basically its a list of 101 scientific facts "predicted" by the bible. There are a few real doozers in there, but 28 is one of the best
I know the 'archaeoraptor' case quite well. The fake was not exposed sooner because National Geographic Magazine (not a legitimate scientific paper for the record) did not give the palaeontologists enough time to study the specimen properly as they wanted it as their big cover story. Shortly after the article's publication palaeontologists studying the specimen exposed it as a fake, much to the embarrassment of National Geographic.
It was a sad case of tabloidism overshadowing scientific integrity.
Unfortunately the realm of palaeontology is riddled with hoaxes. Many amateur fossil hunters will try to salter their discoveries to make them more appealing and so they can sell them at a higher price.
Some other notable frauds include:
Irritator, the South American spinosaur. It got it's name because the scientist studying it had to remove all the extra bits that had been glued onto the skull to make it look more impressive.
Then there was that giant North American oviraptorid that was uncovered a few years ago. It showed up at an auction as a complete and fully articulated skeleton. When it was eventually studied by scientists they discovered that it was made up of the remains of several different animals. Therefore the specimen is not considered valid in the eyes of science. Such mixed specimens are often referred to as 'chimeras' by palaeontologists.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Indeed, but the perfect condition would only have existed in the short time in Eden, a totally stable enviroment. Since then our genes have been subject to disorder like everything else.
No environment is totally stable. Unless you can point to proof of the garden of Eden, it's location, composition, well then all of this is just speculation.I could, but I would then be as guilty as you. You may well be unaware at a conscious level of your motivation, but I have no excuse for taking that course. I in fact would be happy to change my views to accord with the bible, if shown that they differ. I have done so before.
I asked you how you can discern that my motive is mere defiance of God rather than the pursuit of a truth that you have not grasped. You have not told me how you would make the distinction. Rather you have simply suggested, once again, that defiance of God is my motive. It's a cop out, and it is beneath you.I would put it rather that some atheists are as outwardly moral as any theist. I'm sure you would admit that many however do not feel constrained to observe many of the Christian mores - regarding sexual purity, sobriety, worship of God, etc. Those areas provide enough sin to warrant a conscience-stifling denial of God, even if it means accepting there is no real meaning in life.
Again, I asked a question you have not answered. Is there evidence to support the notion that we whom you claim are acting purely in defiance of God are in fact less moral than those that follow Him? I would suggest that the sins you list here are committed quite readily by a great many supposed Christians. You would consider them not to be "real" Christians, and I see that point, but they keep God in their lives and still do as they please. Why do we need further justification of our immorality, assuming it exists, than they do?
And I ask, why is it that the majority of the most highly educated people in the world, those that occupy the highest ranks of intelligence and reason, just so happen to constitute the group that you assume must be acting merely in defiance of God? Why are so few scientists willing to support your literal interpretation of scripture? Is this some profession-specific curse of wickedness? Something that naturally comes with knowledge of nature?
Why is it that the only people denying what those wicked folk claim to be true, also just happen to be biblical literalists? These seem like very curious demographics.It is the interpretations of these disciplines that they question, not the discipline itself. If the interpretations are wrong - fitted to the frame of evolution - then of course creationism won't fit.
Nonsense. The age of the earth was considered by geologists to be in the billions of years long prior to Darwin. In fact, when Lord Kelvin estimated the world to be at most 400 million years old, it was not the followers of evolution who took issue with this, but the geologists. They based their own estimates not on the time that life needed to form, for at that time the great variety of life was not well understood, but from their basic knowledge of rock formation and stratigraphy.
Darwin's own son George supported Kelvin's estimates, even providing his own calculations suggesting an age of less than 100 million years. Amongst the biologists, only Huxley and his followers defied the physicists regarding the age of the Earth. The physicists and geologists had no interest in the nascent theory of evolution or what Huxley claimed it required. They had their own war. It was not until the end of the 19th century and the discovery of radioactivity that the dispute was put to rest. It was realised that Kelvin's calculations assumed a world and a sun cooling continuously, when in fact radioactive decay would produce yet more heat and push back the earliest formation time for the Earth.
With this new knowledge and the related emergence of radiometric dating the true extent of life's history was realised. It was greater even than Huxley might have imagined. The fossil record was not mere millions of years old, but stretched back to greater than 1 billion years.
We now know that the earliest fossils are at least twice that age, and there is debate over fossils formations from closer to 3 billion years ago.Or they are not willing to go along with a 'frame-up'.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what evidence would cause the creationists to alter their starting assumption that the Bible is irrefutably, entirely and perfectly correct? This is a paradox.
Without a falsifiable starting assumption, there is no science.Maybe, maybe not. Strange that all creationist material gets the same treatment.
I will qualify my statement then. All of the creationist material that I have read has been un-scientific, illogical and naive. I will give you "poorly written", as some of it is just fine. Some of it is quite wonderfully bad though.Millennia? The standard dating of the Flood is at 2304 BC ± 11 years. From the below I gather the revised chronology gives Egypt emerging c2100 BC - entirely consistent with the Biblical record.
By the currently accepted chronology, the Egyptian first dynasty predates the Flood by 1000 years. The Egyptian Old Kingdom predates the flood by 600 years. The Flood would have occurred just 50 years before the foundation of the Middle Kingdom after a time of invasion, strife and ironically widespread drought.
So you would need to move the Egyptian Chronology back by 1000 years plus whatever amount of time is needed for the "bulking up" of the human population, settlement and unification of the region. Let's say another 400 years, which would be conservative by the estimates of historians.
1400 years. The extreme changes suggested to made to the chronology in 100 years of Egyptology, has been about 400 years.Both articles are part of an expanding body of evidence that links the period once known as ‘predynastic’ so firmly to the ages of the pyramids and later, that the term should be abandoned.9
Williams has published several articles in archaeology journals, and his modern research appears to confirm the Genesis account.
I've read his work. His notions on the chronology have no been so much as considered by Egyptologists, let alone debated. They consider the idea unworkable as it would require an incredible development speed of the Egyptians.To quote the former director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.http://creationwiki.org/Clifford_Wilson
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/582
Once again, personal opinions do not scientific equal research. Less so in this case, since the Australian Institute of Archaeology is a research institute founded to "facilitate and monitor the scientific study of the Biblical period". Finding it historically questionable would hardly be in his best interests.Again, I don't mind scepticism from unbelievers. I do mind arrogant dismissal of even considering it might be right.
Scepticism is all I'm trying to push with reference to the Ark. Your scepticism. I think we can safely say I'm there already.No problem. But it cannot just dismiss all scientific argument in support of it. One should at least examine the possibilities.
Of course, but if the evidence is found lacking, it is dismissed.So unless we build the ark, it cannot be considered a possibility? It is OK to absolutely affirm that such a structure could not be made?
Doesn't sound much like science to me!
Until it can be shown how such a very unlikely occurrence could be achieved, it's not unreasonable to expect very extreme scepticism.It wouldn't get the man denied a tenure, for example?:rolleyes:
I fear their dreams would soon turn to nightmares, as they were branded closet creationists.
Large chunks of the old and new testament have been examined by scientists and historians and established as historically accurate. There is considerable mainstream research ongoing into the historical existence of Jesus Christ, and it would not at all be considered outrageous for him to have been a real historical figure. Finding Noah's Ark, minus the assumption of a global flood (lets imagine a large regional one instead) and minus spiritual speculations, that's going to make headlines in the mainstream press and certainly won't hurt an academic career.Proof for anything material is in the examination - for the ark, that would mean for a start showing that such a structure is possible (computer modeling?), and the only absolute proof of course being finding its remains. But even then, one could not prove it was the ark.
Finding an ark, even if it cannot be shown to be the ark, would go a long way to helping creationists, however inadvertently.Anyway, proof of the ark is not what creationists seek. Just to show that it was feasible.
Finding anything comparable that could be dated to the appropriate time would demonstrate feasibility. Mind you, it would also put creationists in rather a bind. The dating would be by stratigraphy and radiometric dating. Reject an ark that could be Noah's, or reject the age of the Earth... Now that would be fun. :pac:0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement