The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Nodin

J C wrote: »

....In my own case, (.........)!!!!:D

If Grasping at Straws ever becomes a recognised system of phillosophy, you will doubtless be commended for your tireless efforts on its behalf.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I mean, you don't just suddenly decide you were wrong all along after so many years refuting God's existence.

Flew still refutes God's (your god's) existence.

He may be nuts, but he ain't that nuts

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Flew still refutes God's (your god's) existence.

He may be nuts, but he ain't that nuts

:pac:

In fairness, I never claimed that he was a convert to Christianity. But his move into a deistic belief is still about as far from his former atheistic position as you can get. While it's an interesting development for Christians (and probably an embarrassment for some atheists) ultimately 'conversions' such as this really have no bearing on the big question asked of God's existence. This is why I'm always puzzled by the amount of knicker twisting that goes on over whether the likes of Einstein was a deist, agnostic, atheist or whatever.

P.S. Santa told me he's bringing you a bag of soot for your crap jokes.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This is why I'm always puzzled by the amount of knicker twisting that goes on over whether the likes of Einstein was a deist, agnostic, atheist or whatever.

Yes, but you'll notice that's not an argument the "evolutionists" tend to bring up as part of this big 'ol debate. It's got exactly nothing to do with the veracity of either evolution or creationism. Yet it's one of those side issues that for some reason seems to keep getting thrown into the mix.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes, but you'll notice that's not an argument the "evolutionists" tend to bring up as part of this big 'ol debate. It's got exactly nothing to do with the veracity of either evolution or creationism. Yet it's one of those side issues that for some reason seems to keep getting thrown into the mix.

The scientific side of the debate tends to stick with models, evidence, experiment etc (understandable since science teaches to disregard the personal feelings of individuals), where as the Creationist/Religious side of the debate puts a lot more (a lot lot lot more) emphasis on the personal opinions of the individuals involved, because they are coming at it from a religious background (where personal experience is really all they got)

So you have someone like JC quoting endlessly the personal opinions of individual scientists, apparently oblivious to the fact that they don't actually matter that much.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

The scientific side of the debate tends to stick with models, evidence, experiment etc (understandable since science teaches to disregard the personal feelings of individuals), where as the Creationist/Religious side of the debate puts a lot more (a lot lot lot more) emphasis on the personal opinions of the individuals involved, because they are coming at it from a religious background (where personal experience is really all they got)

So you have someone like JC quoting endlessly the personal opinions of individual scientists, apparently oblivious to the fact that they don't actually matter that much.

In fairness to J C, he used to engage in the scientific arm of the debate (if only to cart out the standard AiG lines), but of late he seems more interested in what could best be described as diversionary tactics. Wolfsbane reproduces scientific arguments on an authority basis, which I guess is part and parcel of creationism too.

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But his move into a deistic belief is still about as far from his former atheistic position as you can get.

Oh I don't know. Most atheists I know strongly reject an interventionist god since all the available evidence points against it. They typically have far less to say against a deist, non-interventionist god located outside this universe. I would say a conversion to christianity would be far more remarkable for a committed atheist than embracing a cautious deism.

Fanny Cradock

The would be many reason for that - chiefly because there isn't an accompanying doctrine that will invariably generate opposition. I would certainly reject the notion that all the evidence rejects the notion of an interventionist God. However, I'm glad to see that many atheists appear quite open to the idea of there being a God - whatever his role in our lives. Halfway there, lads!

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The would be many reason for that - chiefly because there isn't an accompanying doctrine that will invariably generate opposition. I would certainly reject the notion that all the evidence rejects the notion of an interventionist God. However, I'm glad to see that many atheists appear quite open to the idea of there being a God - whatever his role in our lives. Halfway there, lads!

Acceptance of a negligible probability of the existence of a thing is somewhat less than halfway there

Anyway, we have a thread for the Dawkins Spectator article etc already. So let's talk science.

Fanny Cradock

Ah, I was just trying to rile you up.

OK, 0.00000001% there, lads!

Better?

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah, I was just trying to rile you up.

OK, 0.00000001% there, lads!

Better?

Science finds this satisfactory. Thank you.

Fanny Cradock

You're science?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, I'm glad to see that many atheists appear quite open to the idea of there being a God - whatever his role in our lives. Halfway there, lads!

Most atheists are open to the idea of there being a "god" (if by god you mean an intelligence who created the universe). What they reject is the notion that you guys know anything about it.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You're science?

We are Science.

Wicknight wrote: »

Most atheists are open to the idea of there being a "god" (if by god you mean an intelligence who created the universe). What they reject is the notion that you guys know anything about it.

Nonononono. Not in this thread too.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Most atheists are open to the idea of there being a "god" (if by god you mean an intelligence who created the universe). What they reject is the notion that you guys know anything about it.

OK, I admit that is a new definition of atheist to me. I always took it to mean one who denies the existence of God/gods.

But it seems odd that they can be sure what knowledge anyone but themselves as individuals might know. Maybe I have had communication with this unknown God they think might exist. How do they know I haven't?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, I admit that is a new definition of atheist to me. I always took it to mean one who denies the existence of God/gods.

But it seems odd that they can be sure what knowledge anyone but themselves as individuals might know. Maybe I have had communication with this unknown God they think might exist. How do they know I haven't?

You can't test the entirely subjective. That's the issue.

Can we not have the rationale for atheism discussion here pleeeeeease?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, I admit that is a new definition of atheist to me. I always took it to mean one who denies the existence of God/gods.

It shouldn't be, since atheist is an a-theist, the opposite of a theist. It is a rejection of theism.

A theist claims that there belief in a supernatural God is real. An atheist so "No it isn't"

Atheism is a rejection of theist beliefs.

You say "I know God exists"
We say "No you don't"

You say "Jesus was God and he died on a cross and rose to heaven"
We say "No he wasn't"

You say "I know when I die I'm going to go to heaven and meet God and the angels"
We say "No you don't"


By some amazing cosmic fluke your completely made up concept of a god might match exactly to a real cosmic super being. But that would be a fluke, in the same way that when I close my eyes and imagine my perfect holiday island there is a small remote chance that this island actually exists. But I don't know that, my island is simply imaginary. And if I said "I know my island is real" the response from most people would be "No you don't"

Your "God" concept is made up. Humans made him up. When you say you are talking to him, you aren't. When you say the Bible was inspired by him, it wasn't. When you say sin makes him sad, it doesn't.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But it seems odd that they can be sure what knowledge anyone but themselves as individuals might know.

Not really.

I was talking to a drunk this afternoon (he sat down beside me) and he told me that I would have good luck for the rest of the evening. I am sure he didn't know if that was true.

Is it possible I could be wrong? Certainly, anything is possible. He could have been a time travelling alien. But how likely do you think it was that he was?

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

I was talking to a drunk this afternoon (he sat down beside me) and he told me that I would have good luck for the rest of the evening. I am sure he didn't know if that was true.

Is it possible I could be wrong? Certainly, anything is possible. He could have been a time travelling alien. But how likely do you think it was that he was?

How was your evening?

I always liked Nietzsche's quote on this subject: 'A stroll through the lunatic asylum will demonstrate that faith proves nothing.'

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

How was your evening?

I missed my bus by 30 seconds and stepped in a puddle

JoBlog

I do not believe in a literal 6 days of creation or an earth a mere few thousand years old. Neither do I have any theological objection to a universe evolving to its present state of complexity without the aid of divine intervention. If it has so evolved without such meddling, I would consider it quite a "feather in God's cap" that he has brought it about in a fully automated fashion.

But I do have doubts that this has been the case. Here is a sample of the things which give rise to this skepticism.

There has been no satisfactory hypothesis as to how the biological process of evolution might have got started. The jump from non living to living seems to involve too big a step from simple to immensely complex to have happened by some happy fluke assemblage of the many components.

James Lovelock in one of his recent books on global warming and Gaia theory recounts discussions he had with Richard Dawkins on the incompatibility of his Gaia theory with evolution. Gaia is the theory that the earth's physical systems and biological systems work together to provide an environment which tries to conditions for life. Dawkins naturally felt that this was not "the blind watchmaker" at work and Lovelock concedes that Dawkins "won" the discussions (both are aetheistic evolutionists). But Gaia is now widely accepted as fact by the scientific community, but there is no satisfactory theoretical bridge between the force of natural selection and the gaian outcome of the process. In the book, Lovelock quotes two of the UK's top scientific establishment figures saying that "we need another Newton" to figure the answer to this conundrum. But some purposeful meddling from on high would do the trick.

An example on a less grand scale of something in nature which I find incompatible with natural selection working alone is the reproduction rate of the golden eagle (for one). This is very low (a major problem for those trying to reintroduce it into areas where it is extinct). It is easy to understand why this species did not need a high reproduction rate before the invention of the gun. Its habit of nesting on cliff ledges where it was safe from predation combined with its tactic of swoping on small prey without landing meant that before the gun it had no significant predators.
So a pair lived an easy life and produced an egg or two every few years and spent a long time in rearing them into independent adults. Then the generally died of old age or its associated diseases. This worked for a long time and ensured the survival of that species. But we know from other birds that are victims of predation on a grand scale that rearing several broods per year is feasible for birds. My difficulty is that natural variation and selection would keep selecting the golden eagles that tended to reproduce the larger numbers of offspring until eventually they were breeding like sparrows and magpies. Why has this not happened? Tougher question: assuming that they evolved from a common bird ancestor with a much higher reproduction rate, how did they manage to go against natural selection and favour the variations which produced less offpring when they discovered cliff life?

sukikettle

p.s. A day is like a thousand years to God. It says so in the bible and would account to a six day creation. Do you really think His arm is so short as to not have enough time or wisdom to pull it together. Can you make it rain or snow or have the sun to shine? Where does humanity have the right to question Him. He asks us this quite pointedly in Job in the last chapters. Don't you need to read the bible to make such sweeping statements? Do you know the God you're all dissing?

AtomicHorror

JoBlog wrote: »

I do not believe in a literal 6 days of creation or an earth a mere few thousand years old. Neither do I have any theological objection to a universe evolving to its present state of complexity without the aid of divine intervention. If it has so evolved without such meddling, I would consider it quite a "feather in God's cap" that he has brought it about in a fully automated fashion.

That is, I think, the standard "theistic evolutionist" position.

JoBlog wrote: »

But I do have doubts that this has been the case. Here is a sample of the things which give rise to this skepticism.

There has been no satisfactory hypothesis as to how the biological process of evolution might have got started.

This is not really correct. There are several very plausible hypotheses regarding how abiogenesis might have occured, but no widely-accepted theory. At the moment, it seems most likely that the biggest barrier to our understanding is our knowledge of the environmental conditions early in the lifetime of Earth (ie it's not detailed enough). If we can model that, we can select and refine a model of abiogenesis. It's really not the conceptual jump you're making out here. We've actually got something of a wealth of abiogenesis hypotheses- suggesting that there are loads of ways that life could emerge from lifeless matter. We just don't know which, if any of these, happened here.

JoBlog wrote: »

The jump from non living to living seems to involve too big a step from simple to immensely complex to have happened by some happy fluke assemblage of the many components.

It may seem so, but if you think about the likely conditions and the various compounds that are likely to have been involved, it's really not that much of a fluke at all. There's a great summary video on YouTube that coincidentally summarizes more or less my favourite possible abiogenesis model.

JoBlog wrote: »

James Lovelock in one of his recent books on global warming and Gaia theory recounts discussions he had with Richard Dawkins on the incompatibility of his Gaia theory with evolution. Gaia is the theory that the earth's physical systems and biological systems work together to provide an environment which tries to conditions for life.

I don't think that this is really the way to look at it. No more than vapour in space tries to form stars. These are just outcomes of the laws of physics at work. To look at life an lifelessness as seperate in some manner, one might be forgiven for assuming that there's a cooperation of sorts between them. Instead, they are simply all obeying the same laws.

JoBlog wrote: »

Dawkins naturally felt that this was not "the blind watchmaker" at work and Lovelock concedes that Dawkins "won" the discussions (both are aetheistic evolutionists). But Gaia is now widely accepted as fact by the scientific community,

I am a biologist and, although I have certainly heard of the Gaia hypothesis, I can tell you that it is not a widely accepted concept in evolutionary biology or the field of biology as a whole. It is not taught in degree courses nor is it present in any mainstream textbooks that I know of.

It remains, at this time, a controversial hypothesis. Not a theory, and not an established fact. That said, I would not dismiss the concept without further reading.

JoBlog wrote: »

but there is no satisfactory theoretical bridge between the force of natural selection and the gaian outcome of the process.

Can you explain to me why natural selection and the other processes of evolution are insufficient to explain the current variation observed in species.

JoBlog wrote: »

In the book, Lovelock quotes two of the UK's top scientific establishment figures saying that "we need another Newton" to figure the answer to this conundrum.

The opinions of scientists are not evidence, as the pages and pages of copied and pasted quotes by J C will show us.

JoBlog wrote: »

An example on a less grand scale of something in nature which I find incompatible with natural selection working alone is the reproduction rate of the golden eagle (for one). This is very low (a major problem for those trying to reintroduce it into areas where it is extinct). It is easy to understand why this species did not need a high reproduction rate before the invention of the gun. Its habit of nesting on cliff ledges where it was safe from predation combined with its tactic of swoping on small prey without landing meant that before the gun it had no significant predators.
So a pair lived an easy life and produced an egg or two every few years and spent a long time in rearing them into independent adults. Then the generally died of old age or its associated diseases. This worked for a long time and ensured the survival of that species. But we know from other birds that are victims of predation on a grand scale that rearing several broods per year is feasible for birds. My difficulty is that natural variation and selection would keep selecting the golden eagles that tended to reproduce the larger numbers of offspring until eventually they were breeding like sparrows and magpies. Why has this not happened?

This depends on how quickly the species declined in numbers and what genes control reproductive rates in them. Remember that the gun has been in existence for some 500 years in various forms. This is the briefest moment in evolutionary terms. Given that the species reproduces slowly, and thus has a long generation time, we'd expect significant changes to occur slowly, especially if multiple mutations would be required.

JoBlog wrote: »

Tougher question: assuming that they evolved from a common bird ancestor with a much higher reproduction rate, how did they manage to go against natural selection and favour the variations which produced less offpring when they discovered cliff life?

Well, if producing lots of offspring in a given environment is detrimental (and this might be due to many factors), then the chance that you will survive to look after your offspring and thus that your offspring will survive to reproduce again is going to be reduced. In that situation, your less fertile cousin is actually going to stand a better chance of surviving overall, of reproducing, and of surviving to protect and feed offspring so that they survive. So natural selection favours the slower reproduction rate in this case.

That would be one simplified scenario, though we might imagine many other ones.

AtomicHorror

sukikettle wrote: »

p.s. A day is like a thousand years to God. It says so in the bible and would account to a six day creation. Do you really think His arm is so short as to not have enough time or wisdom to pull it together. Can you make it rain or snow or have the sun to shine? Where does humanity have the right to question Him. He asks us this quite pointedly in Job in the last chapters. Don't you need to read the bible to make such sweeping statements? Do you know the God you're all dissing?

Do you know the science that the creationists are dissing?

sukikettle

Atomic did you know science and evolution is all theory that not a single scrap of fossil can be linked one to the other. Go look it up

AtomicHorror

sukikettle wrote: »

Atomic did you know science and evolution is all theory

Theory does not mean the same thing in science as it does in common usage.

sukikettle wrote: »

that not a single scrap of fossil can be linked one to the other. Go look it up

I have, thanks. Turns out you've got no idea what you're talking about.

rockbeer

sukikettle wrote: »

Atomic did you know science and evolution is all theory that not a single scrap of fossil can be linked one to the other. Go look it up

Unlike your religious 'fact', uh?

suki, it would be great if you could read some of this thread before you start weighing in with your baseless opinions.

AtomicHorror

rockbeer wrote: »

Unlike your religious 'fact', uh?

suki, it would be great if you could read some of this thread before you start weighing in with your baseless opinions.

Or try providing some evidence to back up the statements.

Otherwise we're just going to ignore you entirely and you'll be left to talk to yourself.

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Or try providing some evidence to back up the statements.

Amen to this. Where is the evidence?? A single compelling fact that shows the veracity of God-manufactured life or, at the very least, something disproving evolution. Give us everything you've got, sukikettle! :pac:

And where is J C, for that matter? An adventure holiday, digging for lost treasures in the ancient Quote Mines of Evolutionia, perhaps.

AtomicHorror

2Scoops wrote: »

And where is J C, for that matter? An adventure holiday, digging for lost treasures in the ancient Quote Mines of Evolutionia, perhaps.

J C isn't around much these days. When he is, he just spams the opinions of people on evolution.

pH

JoBlog wrote:

I do not believe in a literal 6 days of creation
...

sukikettle wrote: »

p.s. A day is like a thousand years to God. It says so in the bible and would account to a six day creation.

p.s. ?

You know you switched user accounts when you added the postscript?