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:
Ok, then please indentify the location where the first replicating cell occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I don't have to prove the existence of the garden - it is a given for my argument's starting point.
If you can't even verify your starting point, what hope does the rest of your argument have. I was under the impression that you were willing to have a logical debate.
Two reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes, that is an alternative to a straight defiance of God. It is listed in the Bible as the method the devil uses to con people who would be unsettled by an obvious defiance of God. It is called delusion - any lie that is designed to replace the Truth in men's minds. Anything that assures them there is a better explanation than that given in God's word.
As to motivation, at bottom it is still defiance of God, but self-deluding oneself that one is being an honest pursuer of truth.
The above is largely the same as the "defiance of God" motive. The only difference being the followers' ignorance of the underlying cause. It's a real convenient one too, another cop out. You can ascribe "delusion" to any and all who appear to you subjectively to be contradicting scripture. My question was how you can tell that these are the motives of those who accept the theory of Evolution?
1. I was once one of you.
2. The Bible tells me so.
The atheist disobeys God because he believes He does not exist. The religious hypocrite disobeys God because he believes in a god totally unlike the God of the Bible. His idea of God is one that condones his sin. The hypocrite is a practical atheist.
We don't require the justification of atheism for our hypothetical immorality? You've just contradicted yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You don't. They share with you - indeed excel you - in an underlying antipathy to God. Hypocrisy stinks, and the more outwardly religious one is while being godless within, the greater the stink.
The two reasons given above.And again, you assume an antipathy towards God, but how do you know this to be the case?
What, and humble themselves to confess the God of the Bible is real? That His word about origins has been confirmed? I doubt it. But if they brought strong evidence to support any other theory - panspermia, whatever - that would bring them great cudos and inflate their pride even further.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
AtomicHorror: 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?
Yes - Pride.
Considered a negative characteristic by Christians. Certainly many scientists have it. But that is no cause for self delusion or mindless herd behaviour. Pride did not save Franz Gall's theories of phrenology from being debunked, nor Maxwell's luminiferous aether. Even Isaac Newton, one of the giants of physics, was eventually cast down by the constant self-analysis of the scientific community. Like Newton, Darwin was found lacking too. We discarded that of his work which did not fit observations in order to formulate the modern synthesis. And the names of those who debunked the others are remembered well too. Einstein put an end to Newtonian gravity as anything more than an approximation. Were evolution found wholly lacking, there would be no shortage of scientists ready to tear it down and place their own mark in scientific history.
Well, not dismissing intellectual effort, but firmly putting it in its place. God's revelation is supreme, and is the test for all else. The intellectuals and powerful of this world have an especial difficulty with that.Uhuh. So, essentially a broad anti-intellectual message? "Don't mind those clever types telling you that you're wrong. They're the ones who are wrong. Trust me, God told me that."
The different disciplines seek to fit in with one another - always in the billion year scenario. Uniformitarianism was there before Darwin, but evolution and the long ages scenario reinforce one another. If a dating doesn't fit, it is cast aside as anomalous. All is made to fit or is discounted.No, my point was that your assertion that science is merely trying to fit into the framework of evolution is incorrect. Much of the framework came first. Evolution just happened to fit neatly into it. Every day new observations are made which continue to fit into the theory of evolution without any difficulty. Next to some fields in science, we biologists have a pretty easy job. Most of the really big questions have been answered.
As I said, any date that suited their theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I think you are really saying they would have accepted any dating that fitted their theory - 100M or 4.5B.
Nope. When Darwin wrote Origin, the time needed for evolution from a common ancestor was not known. Nor was it clear that a single common ancestor was actually the starting point. Later that notion became a widely accepted hypothesis that could only be tested once the nature of the gene were discovered. The fossil record soon demonstrated that a whole lot of time was actually needed. This was not news to geologists, but it was to biologists and physicists. Later, when Watson and Crick identified DNA as the genetic material, the single origin hypothesis could finally be tested. It held.
Does it fit in with what is known of the decay in the magnetic field, or the salinity of the oceans, or the rate of recession of the moon, for example? And why do some geologists dispute your claims on scientific grounds?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Radiometric dating has its own assumptions, which creationists challenge and have shown not to be inviolable.
Radiometric dating encompasses more than a dozen techniques, each best suited to differing time scales which overlap. All are known to be error prone. However, as with the Egyptian chronology, only the creationist posit that these errors are on a scale grand enough to allow the world to be less than 10,000 years old. This fits in with what is known of tectonics, erosion, and all the general rules of geologists, who had long held that the world was billions of years old before the physicists came along and said "oops, actually you were right".
They have that as a theological standard. It does not form a part of their scientific model.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
None. For that is not the starting assumption of their scientific theory. It is part of their theology.
Let me get this straight. The "hypothesis" of creationism is not that Genesis is literally true? Do they not hold that any evidence which appears to contradict scripture cannot be true?
Indeed it encompasses all that. But in its dispute with evolution, it accepts whatever starting point the evolutionists limit themselves to. In this case, the first life, not how that life came to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They start with a perfect, mature creation. You start with the first self-replicating life. Neither you nor they have to account for how that came about for the respective theory to stand.
Evolution stands without an explanation of the origin of life. But creationism is not equivalent to the theory of evolution in terms of scope. Creationism is equivalent in scope to the Standard Model of Physics, Inflation Theory, Stellar and Planetary Formation Theory, Geology, the putative Origin of Life hypotheses and Evolution.
Rather, the current understanding of those.Essentially, it holds itself as an alternative to all of the natural sciences combined.
That point only happens when science can go no further. Or are you saying science asks what brought the universe into being, and what brought that into being, etc?Science, as a whole framework, is obligated to ask questions as long as there are questions to be asked. Creationism will stop asking when someone says "God did it".
Yes - I'm not sure if the evolutionist debaters also issued copies of the debates - but these give the full debate, not just the creationist part.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Thanks for the concession. But you need to read more or listen to some of the creationist vs evolutionist debates on DVD. Didn't seem to me that the evolutionists came through unmarked - to say the least!
Would those DVD debates happen to be published by creationists?
If any of you would like a FREE copy of this:
https://store.creationontheweb.com/uk/product_info.php?cPath=23_32&products_id=646&osCsid=00f7c7ba01580d6fa6bc99145569d854
just email your address to:
http://www.icmbooks.co.uk/ and say wolfsbane said to sent you a copy of 'Facing the Fire'. No need to give your forum/thread details - this should keep your anonymity safe.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
AtomicHorror said:
Ok, then please indentify the location where the first replicating cell occurred.
Its location is unknown, but under investigation as a part of abiogenesis research. This will of course have relevance to evolution. Its existence, location unknown, is already proven by genetic analysis.Two reasons:
1. I was once one of you.
2. The Bible tells me so.
1. Whether you subjectively believe yourself to have been acting in defiance of God has no bearing on anyone else.
2. Your interpretation of that source is disputed by the vast majority of Christians. The source itself has never been fully verified.
And an added point:
3. You cite delusion as a tool that Satan uses to make us wicked types act in defiance of God. Assuming this delusion is powerful enough to make us discard rationality entirely, as it would have to be, how can you establish firmly that you are not deluded?The atheist disobeys God because he believes He does not exist. The religious hypocrite disobeys God because he believes in a god totally unlike the God of the Bible. His idea of God is one that condones his sin. The hypocrite is a practical atheist.
Not an answer to my question. You stated that atheist seek to destroy the belief in God so that we may act imorally without guilt. I asked you to demonstrate how atheists are acting less morally than theists. If the "hypocritical" theists are no more moral than we, then why do we need to abandon God in order to be immoral?What, and humble themselves to confess the God of the Bible is real? That His word about origins has been confirmed? I doubt it. But if they brought strong evidence to support any other theory - panspermia, whatever - that would bring them great cudos and inflate their pride even further.
I didn't say that they would prove God real if the opportunity arose. I said that they would happily prove evolution false. Your equation of these two things is part of the problem. Evolution does not disprove God. Disproving evolution does not prove God. The dichotomy is false.
So the question remains. Given that scientists will not accept the existence of God in either case, why have they not disproven evolution?Well, not dismissing intellectual effort, but firmly putting it in its place. God's revelation is supreme, and is the test for all else. The intellectuals and powerful of this world have an especial difficulty with that.
So essentially, if it were written in the bible that the world were flat, you would at this moment be disputing its roundness in the face of all evidence. Or if there were an ambiguous meaning to that line, one literal and the other metaphorical, you would still choose the literal. Good to know what we are up against.The different disciplines seek to fit in with one another - always in the billion year scenario. Uniformitarianism was there before Darwin, but evolution and the long ages scenario reinforce one another. If a dating doesn't fit, it is cast aside as anomalous. All is made to fit or is discounted.
Utterly untrue. Anomaly is one of the triggers of scientific revolution. For example, when evidence began to emerge in opposition of Newton's laws, some scientists did indeed dismiss the measurements as erroneous. But the measurements were reproducible and so modifications to the existing framework were made to explain them. It didn't work. The physics community were thrown into crisis, and this was not resolved fully until Einstein published General Relativity.
A wee essay on the structure of scientific revolution, for your consideration:
It's Revolution, BabyAs I said, any date that suited their theory.
Did you read what I said? The old Earth came first. This gave the biologists far more time than they thought they needed. It wasn't until later that they realised that the geologists had pre-empted their need.Does it fit in with what is known of the decay in the magnetic field, or the salinity of the oceans, or the rate of recession of the moon, for example? And why do some geologists dispute your claims on scientific grounds?
Creationists do, geologists do not. They certainly revise those radiometric techniques whenever a new parameter can be shown to be influencing the results. Old dating results are cited and adjusted constantly.
The salinity of the oceans speaks of an old Earth, not a young one. As to the rate of recession of the moon, what of it?They have that as a theological standard. It does not form a part of their scientific model.
Then if they were presented with evidence that refuted their "hypothesis", they would abandon the literal interpretation of genesis?Indeed it encompasses all that. But in its dispute with evolution, it accepts whatever starting point the evolutionists limit themselves to. In this case, the first life, not how that life came to be.
Why then, do we continue to debate abiogenesis as if it were a part of evolution? Why does J C insist on bringing up "combinatorial spaces" with reference to nucleic acids and proteins when these are elements of abiogenesis and not evolution?Rather, the current understanding of those.
Science requires no external body to challenge it's current understanding. It is self challenging. Anyone who wishes to use science as a method becomes part of that self challenging system. Creationists are excluded because they're not using science. I've already mentioned the nature of scientific revolution and change above. To use J C's patented argument by analogy, what you are suggesting is rather like claiming that a rugby team can win Wimbledon. It's not just that we aren't playing by the same rules, we're not even playing the same game.
We're playing "Prove it" and you guys are playing "God did it".That point only happens when science can go no further. Or are you saying science asks what brought the universe into being, and what brought that into being, etc?
Yes. At this time we cannot see an end to questioning. If we happened to find God in there somewhere, we'd carry on questioning even then.Yes - I'm not sure if the evolutionist debaters also issued copies of the debates - but these give the full debate, not just the creationist part.
If any of you would like a FREE copy of this:
https://store.creationontheweb.com/uk/product_info.php?cPath=23_32&products_id=646&osCsid=00f7c7ba01580d6fa6bc99145569d854
just email your address to:
http://www.icmbooks.co.uk/ and say wolfsbane said to sent you a copy of 'Facing the Fire'. No need to give your forum/thread details - this should keep your anonymity safe.
Interesting, I may actually take you up on that Wolfie. Thank you.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AtomicHorror said:Quote:
Does this analysis show that life is all from that first replicating cell, or that more than one such incident occurred? I'd be glad of refs. for the analysis in any case. Thanks.Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Ok, then please indentify the location where the first replicating cell occurred.
Its location is unknown, but under investigation as a part of abiogenesis research. This will of course have relevance to evolution. Its existence, location unknown, is already proven by genetic analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Two reasons:
1. I was once one of you.
2. The Bible tells me so.
1. Whether you subjectively believe yourself to have been acting in defiance of God has no bearing on anyone else.
2. Your interpretation of that source is disputed by the vast majority of Christians. The source itself has never been fully verified.
1. My experience is supported by the witness of many Christians. I know what the sinful heart can do. That is not absolute proof it is so in your case, but point 2 covers that.
2. My interpretation of the Bible on creation is the historic position of the Church - that many today have abandoned it is a comment on their ability to hold two conflicting propositions at once.
I have the Bible to test my ideas. I can appeal to any reasonable critic to give a coherent interpretation of its teaching on origins, and be certain to have mine confirmed. Even the liberal scholar who does not regard the Bible as the word of God is able to honestly state what it says.And an added point:
3. You cite delusion as a tool that Satan uses to make us wicked types act in defiance of God. Assuming this delusion is powerful enough to make us discard rationality entirely, as it would have to be, how can you establish firmly that you are not deluded?
Of course, one could say the Bible is mistaken and my belief in it therefore mistaken or delusional. To that I can only say that my inward spiritual assurance has been confirmed many times by outward circumstances - God answering prayer, for example.
You don't, but I thought it would be obvious why you would pick atheism over hypocrisy. You both arrive at the same liberation from God, but at least you are not juggling with keeping up a pretence. Your personal liberation is more complete, in that they have to limit some of their sins if they are to maintain the show. Your liberation is limited entirely by your ability to quell your conscience, and has no creed to bear in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The atheist disobeys God because he believes He does not exist. The religious hypocrite disobeys God because he believes in a god totally unlike the God of the Bible. His idea of God is one that condones his sin. The hypocrite is a practical atheist.
Not an answer to my question. You stated that atheist seek to destroy the belief in God so that we may act imorally without guilt. I asked you to demonstrate how atheists are acting less morally than theists. If the "hypocritical" theists are no more moral than we, then why do we need to abandon God in order to be immoral?
OK - I was thinking more that such a discovery would not so much disprove evolution, but strongly support the witness of the Bible to God as Creator.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What, and humble themselves to confess the God of the Bible is real? That His word about origins has been confirmed? I doubt it. But if they brought strong evidence to support any other theory - panspermia, whatever - that would bring them great cudos and inflate their pride even further.
I didn't say that they would prove God real if the opportunity arose. I said that they would happily prove evolution false. Your equation of these two things is part of the problem. Evolution does not disprove God. Disproving evolution does not prove God. The dichotomy is false.
Because the only alternative model present that can account for the evidence is that of Biblical Creation. Could they point to evidence for panspermia, etc., they would feel free to do so. They do not feel free to point to God.So the question remains. Given that scientists will not accept the existence of God in either case, why have they not disproven evolution?
No, if I saw something that obviously contradicted the Bible - like the flat-earth thing - I would have to question the Bible.So essentially, if it were written in the bible that the world were flat, you would at this moment be disputing its roundness in the face of all evidence.
No, if metaphor better fitted, I would choose metaphor. That is not the case with the Bible's treatment of creation.Or if there were an ambiguous meaning to that line, one literal and the other metaphorical, you would still choose the literal.
I was not refering to science in general, but to that which supports evolution in particular. On that subject no dissent is allowed - modifications are OK, but not the rejection of evolution itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The different disciplines seek to fit in with one another - always in the billion year scenario. Uniformitarianism was there before Darwin, but evolution and the long ages scenario reinforce one another. If a dating doesn't fit, it is cast aside as anomalous. All is made to fit or is discounted.
Utterly untrue. Anomaly is one of the triggers of scientific revolution. For example, when evidence began to emerge in opposition of Newton's laws, some scientists did indeed dismiss the measurements as erroneous. But the measurements were reproducible and so modifications to the existing framework were made to explain them. It didn't work. The physics community were thrown into crisis, and this was not resolved fully until Einstein published General Relativity.
Thanks for that. Very interesting. But if the anomalies that mounted all pointed to a recent mature creation, would they be received even by these brave souls who persevered against the status quo? I think not.A wee essay on the structure of scientific revolution, for your consideration:
It's Revolution, Baby
Yes. And they could live with that. But not with 6000 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I said, any date that suited their theory.
Did you read what I said? The old Earth came first. This gave the biologists far more time than they thought they needed. It wasn't until later that they realised that the geologists had pre-empted their need.
Geologists who do, for example:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Does it fit in with what is known of the decay in the magnetic field, or the salinity of the oceans, or the rate of recession of the moon, for example? And why do some geologists dispute your claims on scientific grounds?
Creationists do, geologists do not.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3574
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3481/
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3522
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3491
They are both creationists and geologists.
Only within the limits of the overall assumptions of ancient age.They certainly revise those radiometric techniques whenever a new parameter can be shown to be influencing the results. Old dating results are cited and adjusted constantly.
Granting the most generous assumptions to evolutionists, Austin and Humphreys calculated that the ocean must be less than 62 million years old. It’s important to stress that this is not the actual age, but a maximum age. That is, this evidence is consistent with any age up to 62 million years, including the biblical age of about 6,000 years.The salinity of the oceans speaks of an old Earth, not a young one.
The Austin and Humphreys calculation assumes the lowest plausible input rates and fastest plausible output rates. Another assumption is that there was no dissolved salt to start with. If we assume more realistic conditions in the past, the calculated maximum age is much less. from:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/578
So even with the max., 62 million years rules out all the dating methods that contradict it, and the evolutionary scenario.
Same again: the max. age destroys the current dating methods.As to the rate of recession of the moon, what of it?
Over the approximately 6,000 years since the creation of the universe, the lunar recession rate has been essentially constant at the present value. However, assuming a multi-billion year age, lunar recession rates would have been much higher in the distant past than now. The currently accepted parameters indicate that the moon would have required 1.3 Ga to move from its origin at the Roche limit to its present position. This is the moon’s upper-limit age and shows that the conventional chronology is incorrect. If the solar system were actually 4.6 Ga old, the moon would have receded to a distance from earth approximately 20% beyond its present position. There is a widespread belief that the impact theory of lunar origin has neutralized these dilemmas for conventional chronology. However, this is not true. Lunar scientist Irwin Shapiro used to joke that ‘the best explanation [of lunar formation conundrums] was observational error—the moon does not exist’. The situation has not fundamentally changed, for lunar scientist Jack Lissauer recalled this anecdote as continuing to apply in a post-impact theory paper.11 from:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5728/
If it really was proof against it, then Yes. Like in proof against a flat Earth. But not as in a plausible interpretation that gives rise to a conflicting theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They have that as a theological standard. It does not form a part of their scientific model.
Then if they were presented with evidence that refuted their "hypothesis", they would abandon the literal interpretation of genesis?
It is the rationality of evolution that is under attack there, not the process itself. Evolution presupposes absurb events that led up to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Indeed it encompasses all that. But in its dispute with evolution, it accepts whatever starting point the evolutionists limit themselves to. In this case, the first life, not how that life came to be.
Why then, do we continue to debate abiogenesis as if it were a part of evolution? Why does J C insist on bringing up "combinatorial spaces" with reference to nucleic acids and proteins when these are elements of abiogenesis and not evolution?
No, as I've pointed out. Creationism, in its alternative to evolution is not dealing with how creation came into existence - it deals with the process from that. Just as evolution does not have to explain abiogenesis for it to be a theory of the process of life.Science requires no external body to challenge it's current understanding. It is self challenging. Anyone who wishes to use science as a method becomes part of that self challenging system. Creationists are excluded because they're not using science. I've already mentioned the nature of scientific revolution and change above. To use J C's patented argument by analogy, what you are suggesting is rather like claiming that a rugby team can win Wimbledon. It's not just that we aren't playing by the same rules, we're not even playing the same game.
We're playing "Prove it" and you guys are playing "God did it".
We are not appealing to an external body regarding the general process. That is testable by the laws of science. Even the catastrophe of the Flood is not being dealt with as to why it arose, but only as to the physics/biology of what actually happened then and since. Whether an asteroid caused it or God directly, etc., makes no difference to the assessment of the evidence and the modelling.
God, by definition, would end it by being the Self-Existent One.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That point only happens when science can go no further. Or are you saying science asks what brought the universe into being, and what brought that into being, etc?
Yes. At this time we cannot see an end to questioning. If we happened to find God in there somewhere, we'd carry on questioning even then.
Glad to be of any service.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes - I'm not sure if the evolutionist debaters also issued copies of the debates - but these give the full debate, not just the creationist part.
If any of you would like a FREE copy of this:
https://store.creationontheweb.com/u...bc99145569d854
just email your address to:
http://www.icmbooks.co.uk/ and say wolfsbane said to sent you a copy of 'Facing the Fire'. No need to give your forum/thread details - this should keep your anonymity safe.
Interesting, I may actually take you up on that Wolfie. Thank you.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Thanks for the article. It is certainly metaphorical of the evolutionary mindset.They are to science what The Onion is to current affairs.
EDIT: very fitting article.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin
MrP 0 -
-
[
Did they claim the fossil did not exist? No, and they merely point out the problems of making it to be a missing link:
Indeed, Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. The discoverers claim that this could have helped to prop up the body as the fish moved along a water bottom,3 but evolutionists had similar high hopes for the coelacanth fin. However, when a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938, the fins turned out not to be used for walking but for deft manœuvering when swimming.
I didn't say they dismissed the fossil outright. They dismissed it's place in evolutionary theory by comparing it to the coelocanth which is not a valid comparison as the two creatures were very different in build.
Tiktaalik:
Coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae):
As you can see from above images the front fins of the two creatures are very different. The coelacanth's are used for swimming while Tiktaalik's are somewhere between swimming fins and walking legs allowing it to do a bith of both. Although walking is perhaps a strong word as Tiktaalic's would probably drag itself about rather than walking as we are used to.
While we're talking about Tiktaalik I saw this and taught some of us might find it amusng:
http://gregtaff.com/blog/media/tiktaalik.jpg0 -
-
-
Why, thank you -- it's not often that you compliment the efforts or the integrity of people who disagree with your religious viewsI commend you for your extensive reading, and expertise in all the disciplines.
Well, looks to me like there's a fair degree of consensus on the crappiness of COTW and AIG's stuff.A pity you find them all crap. I leave that to the other readers to assess for themselves.
The reason really being quite straightforward -- that COTW and AIG both say that anything that they disagree with is automatically false. With such an attitude, it should not surprise you that they're viewed with little respect.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement