The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm confused. If we replace evolution, then it isn't sacred, is it? Evolution will almost certainly be replaced in time, or at least will find itself becoming rather like Newton's laws. An approximation within a grander theory. I'm sure the likes of you will point to that as some sort of dogma.

And again you contradict yourself. Claiming on the one hand that we scientists change our minds too often, and on the other that we are dogmatic. Make up your mind.

.....you are BOTH dogmatic and changing!!!
.....you cling onto anything that props up your Atheistic Dogma!!!!

...and if something new comes along that you can use to support your dogma....you run with it....and if it doesn't you will reject or ignore it!!!:D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....you are BOTH dogmatic and changing!!!
.....you cling onto anything that props up your Atheistic Dogma!!!!

Indeed ... is that like Jesus being both God not a man, and a man not God ... :pac:

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Examples?

I can give you examples but you'll claim that they're all misinterpretations. So what's the point? A literal interpretation of genesis is ruled out by findings in archaeology, palaeontology, geology, biology and cosmology. Most of the major contradictory findings pre-date the theory of evolution and the rise of atheism in the scientific community.

I realise that you are big on subjectivity, but does the weight of the sheer numbers of people to whom these findings make sense hold no sway over your opinion at all?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed - but I welcome any attempted proofs of the allegation.

Not really, you mostly seem to be here to post links to creationist websites.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have experimental proof of the truth of the word, and an internal witness to it. But I also am happy to try to resolve any objections unbelievers might bring.

But you call the bible infallible. If that's your starting point then what heed will you pay to evidence against that. You first assumption will be that it is a mistake.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I pointed out, no one individual would be given much credibility, but the creationist scientific position is supported by many scientists whose integrity I have no reason to doubt. Some are known personally to me, and many others are known to these friends of mine. That rules out con men.

But it tells you nothing of the quality or credibility of their work. And you have no means to judge that. You're still just accepting one authority over another. Curiously though, you choose to believe the authority that matches your views even though it is a minority opinion within the community it claims to be a part of.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I said, I have experimental and internal evidence of the truth of the Word.

But you profess not to understand that evidence, or be able to rate the relative merits of differing scientific conclusions. So what is that worth? So all you have is a single subjective viewpoint. "I believe the Word". And everything else hangs off that assumption.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed. That's why it takes God to do the converting. I only bring His Word to the lost soul and urge it upon him. God changes the heart and mind.

You seem unable to see the similarity between your subjective position and that of other belief systems. Even a scientist must question science itself at times.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The pseudo-evangelism we see from many pulpits - the psychological manipulation - produces changes of mind, but not of heart.

A cozy hypothesis. How do you test that?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The deluded may talk of being born again, but their lives eventually prove otherwise.

Got any data on that? Or on the relative merits of religious and atheistic life?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....you are BOTH dogmatic and changing!!!
.....you cling onto anything that props up your Atheistic Dogma!!!!

...and if something new comes along that you can use to support it....you run with it....and if it doesn't you reject or ignore it!!!:D

Were that the case then we would have expected the scientific community to be atheistic first and then to find the evidence for it, disregarding that which did not fit the model. Rather as the creationist community has started from the assumption that scripture is infallible and has disregarded or "re-interpreted" whatever does not fit their framework.

However, quite to the contrary, science was primarily the preserve of the religious for many centuries before a series of scientific findings, and the refinement of scientific philosophy, resulted in most scientists coming to the conclusion that to assume any given religion to be correct is irrational. Quite a gradual process.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Indeed ... is that like Jesus being both God not a man, and a man not God ... :pac:

...He was simply both God and man!!:cool:

robindch

Two snippets:

wolfsbane wrote: »

http://www.bryancore.org/

'bryancore', the 'center for origins research', is a part of Bryan College a fundamentalist christian organization named in honor of William Jennings Bryan, the agrarian Populist, three-times failed presidential candidate and counsel for the prosecution in the Scopes trial of 1925.

J C wrote: »

Philip Johnson isn't the only one 'slow clapping' the Royal Society this week

...while according to Wikipedia, it seems that the lawyer Phillip E Johnson and Jonathan Wells of the DI (responsible for the Wedge Strategy) are both AIDS-denialists. New one on me anyway, but it's hardly surprising.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I pointed out, no one individual would be given much credibility, but the creationist scientific position is supported by many scientists whose integrity I have no reason to doubt.

Creationists don't have a scientific position - that is the point.

Fanny Cradock

Flamed Diving, unless I've missed the relevance from a previous post, that picture is quite the cheap shot. Possibly you have some deeper intent beyond shock value, but given that no one here has ever agreed with what those nuts say, I can't quite figure it out. I see absolutely no reason for posting the rather disturbing image.

Asiaprod

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I see absolutely no reason for posting the rather disturbing image.

Thanks, graphic gone

[Moderator's note to all] This type of graphic is unacceptable, future graphics of this nature earn the poster infractions or bans. PDN, you might want to include a note in the charter to this effect.

Flamed Diving

It was just for a larf. Apologies to those offended, I didn't think that people would take it seriously.

The Mad Hatter

Asiaprod wrote: »

Thanks, graphic gone

[Moderator's note to all] This type of graphic is unacceptable, future graphics of this nature earn the poster infractions or bans. PDN, you might want to include a note in the charter to this effect.

Um...clarification, please?

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....and I will believe in Evolution when a single meaningful sentence is written on this thread by an ultimately non-intelligently directed source!!!!:):D

...you?

J C wrote: »

....except the 'Sacred' Evolution Model....or any other equally 'Sacred' replacement model that may come along!!!:pac::):D

Contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Nice one.

Galvasean

Asiaprod wrote: »

Thanks, graphic gone

[Moderator's note to all] This type of graphic is unacceptable, future graphics of this nature earn the poster infractions or bans. PDN, you might want to include a note in the charter to this effect.

Can I ask what the graphic was?

Fanny Cradock

Hold on, let me just find a copy and post it here :pac:

FD, it's not that it was particularly bad or caused great offence *whimper*, it just that it had no relevance to anyone or anything here.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Can I ask what the graphic was?

A motivational poster meme attacking religion in general. Two kids wearing t-shirts advertising one of Fred Phelps' hate-mongering websites. It made me smile, though the image itself is just saddening.

AtomicHorror

J C, still waiting on examples of people in the creationist leadership/PR arm also working in high profile science jobs. I promise I won't use my connections to the Atheist Conspiracy to get them sacked.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A motivational poster meme attacking religion in general. Two kids wearing t-shirts advertising one of Fred Phelps' hate-mongering websites. It made me smile, though the image itself is just saddening.

.....BOTH the image and the message are saddening....and certainly nothing to smile about!!!

....God LOVES and wants to save EVERYBODY !!!!!

....Jesus Christ came to save sinners....and Christians are ALL sinners saved by His unmerited Grace!!!:):cool:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....BOTH the image and the message are saddening....and certainly nothing to smile about!!!

....God LOVES and wants to save EVERYBODY !!!!!

....Jesus Christ came to save sinners....and Christians are ALL sinners saved by His unmerited Grace!!!:):cool:

Yes but the poster certainly highlights the motives of some less conventional "religious" leaders such as old Phelps. Such a curious man. I suspect he is mentally ill.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes but the poster certainly highlights the motives of some less conventional "religious" leaders such as old Phelps. Such a curious man. I suspect he is mentally ill.

Money & power are the great motivators for the ungodly, and a snare for the unwary believer. Phelps is no believer, but he may be more crazy than wicked, as you say.

A Bible text for the unwary:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:9-11;&version=50;

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Phelps is no believer, but he may be more crazy than wicked, as you say.[/URL]

He sure thinks he's a believer. You could never convince him otherwise I would imagine. He thinks that his interpretation of the bible is perfect and that it validates his beliefs.

The reason I suspect that he is mentally ill is that in his youth he was a civil rights lawyer at a time when that was a very brave thing to be indeed. Then one day with no provocation he decided to abusively cross-examine a defendant in a civil action. It just seems to have gone to pieces for him from that point onwards.

Galvasean

I should hope in the case of someone like Phelps he is crazy, as opposed to just evil.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

He sure thinks he's a believer.

Isn't that all it takes?

Flamed Diving

Some swimmer, though.

AtomicHorror

So a general round up.

Any chance of responses (again) on the following points, J C?

AtomicHorror wrote:

J C:Evidence for such an Act of Creation would include the instantaneous emergence of all basic life-forms with full PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity. Such genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards.
Oh good, some predictions. So, in biological terms, in genetics, what does "genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards" mean? How would you measure this?

How do we measure the above?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

J C, still waiting on examples of people in the creationist leadership/PR arm also working in high profile science jobs. I promise I won't use my connections to the Atheist Conspiracy to get them sacked.

I really promise.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

J C:.....you are BOTH dogmatic and changing!!!
.....you cling onto anything that props up your Atheistic Dogma!!!!

...and if something new comes along that you can use to support your dogma....you run with it....and if it doesn't you will reject or ignore it!!!:D

Were that the case then we would have expected the scientific community to be atheistic first and then to find the evidence for it, disregarding that which did not fit the model. Rather as the creationist community has started from the assumption that scripture is infallible and has disregarded or "re-interpreted" whatever does not fit their framework.

However, quite to the contrary, science was primarily the preserve of the religious for many centuries before a series of scientific findings, and the refinement of scientific philosophy, resulted in most scientists coming to the conclusion that to assume any given religion to be correct is irrational. Quite a gradual process.

Any comments on the above?

Perhaps I could set the creation scientists a little project. Firstly, give me a hypothesis that would support creationism specifically. A testable, falsifiable and above all simple hypothesis. Secondly, propose an experiment which might test the hypothesis.

If the positive outcome of either would be an equally good fit for the theory of evolution then it's no good. This needs to be something unique to Creation.

Asiaprod

AtomicHorror wrote: »

He sure thinks he's a believer. You could never convince him otherwise I would imagine. He thinks that his interpretation of the bible is perfect and that it validates his beliefs.

Interesting to note that an overwhelming majority of his congregation are related to him. Thats pretty damn close to a cult in my book

2Scoops

So what's the deal with unicorns? /seinfeld

They are mentioned in the Bible approximately 8 times and it clearly is not meant to be a rhino or anything like that. Do unicorns exist, or did they used to exist? Biblical literalists, what's you take on all this unicorn business?

Galvasean

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Some swimmer, though.

I just gaot that now.

Asiaprod wrote: »

Interesting to note that an overwhelming majority of his congregation are related to him. Thats pretty damn close to a cult in my book

I suppose they are a sect. Considering they are a bizarre offshoot frokm one of the larger churches.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

I just gaot that now.

I suppose they are a sect. Considering they are a bizarre offshoot frokm one of the larger churches.

I think "sect" gives them a little too much credibility. The standard denominations of Christianity are sects. Hence the term "sectarianism" when speaking of protestant versus catholic discrimination. The WBC lot are a cult.

I think the thread is straying a bit.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think the thread is straying a bit.

Aw AH, I was enjoying not arguing over evolution/creationism for a day.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Aw AH, I was enjoying not arguing over evolution/creationism for a day.

The soldiers of the Atheist Materialist Conspiracy never take breaks. Drop and give me 50 reasons why Creationism is Stoopid.

Edit: Dammit, I made a new page.