The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

You will find many examples in these sites. You will also find theological discussion, but you can pass by that.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://creation.com/
http://www.icr.org/
http://creationresearch.org/
http://www.bryancore.org/
http://www.biblicalcreationministries.org.uk/b/index.php/welcome-to-the-bcm-website

Hmm, no creation science to be found. Can you pick out one example, in particular, that you think forms part of the scientific case for creationism?

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Pure procrastination. I'm currently writing my thesis and trying to re-write a research paper.

How you uh, how you coming on that thesis you're working on? Huh? Gotta a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Gotta, gotta nice little story you're working on, there? Your big review you've been working on for 12 months? Huh? Gotta, gotta compelling protagonist? Yeah? Gotta obstacle for him to overcome? Huh? Gotta story brewing there? Working on, working on that for quite some time? Huh? (voice getting higher pitched) Yeah, talking about that 12 months ago. Been working on that the whole time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? At the end your main character is richer from the experience? Yeah? Yeah? (voice returns to normal) Oh, I look forward to reading it.[/stewie]

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Amazing what we'd rather do when the alternative is a word document filled with tracked changes that you just know consist mostly of your PI snarking over what are (although he has forgotten it) actually additions he insisted upon four revisions ago.

Heh, my sympathies. :pac: Well, at least your procrastination has been productive!

Galvasean

It's been a wile since I read this thread properly. I see J C is still talking about something called 'spontaneous evolution' and Wolfsbane is still lazily pointing at non-specific web URLs when asked for creation science.
Proof that if evolution does happen, it is at best a slow process.

AtomicHorror

2Scoops wrote: »

How you uh, how you coming on that thesis you're working on? Huh? Gotta a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Gotta, gotta nice little story you're working on, there? Your big review you've been working on for 12 months? Huh? Gotta, gotta compelling protagonist? Yeah? Gotta obstacle for him to overcome? Huh? Gotta story brewing there? Working on, working on that for quite some time? Huh? (voice getting higher pitched) Yeah, talking about that 12 months ago. Been working on that the whole time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? At the end your main character is richer from the experience? Yeah? Yeah? (voice returns to normal) Oh, I look forward to reading it.[/stewie]

Believe it or not, you're not the first person to pull that one on me! :eek:

That and calling me Van Wilder!

kiffer

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, and they deal with those issues.

Sigh... you don't understand wolfsbane... they hand wave away major issues...
Their work is aimed at lay people such as you in order to give you some ammunition but they fail to address major issues for scientists.

Continuing to use the RATE groups accelerated decay hypothesis as an example: there are a fair few objections that ring out in my mind, even before we get to the obviously objectionable conclusion with regards to the age of the Earth... I assume that having at least sat through a primary degree the members of the group are aware of these objections... and aware that these objections will be the first things to pop into the minds of scientists from various fields...
You may think, as a trusting lay person, well if they have thought of these issues and still moved on with the hypothesis then they must have at least partially resolved them... but we think if they have thought of these issues, and have any means of resolving them they should make these resolutions clear before moving on with their hypothesis...


If you feel that the RATE group has dealt with the issues I previously raised please link to a document/webpage/text addressing them I'll be happy to read it and comment on it...

I understand that you don't see the problem with issues like the average geothermal gradient being >400°C/km at the time of Christ but it would be such a major issue that Snelling (for exampel) could not fail to be aware of the problem, and it's implications.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, and they deal with those issues. Objections exist in their models, just as in consensus ones.

To be fair, the objection that kiffer is raising is rather fundamental. There are no such objections to evolution, except from people who also happen to be religious conservatives. The objections to elements of evolution within the scientific community a more along the lines of arguments about punctuated equilibrium and whether the common ancestor of monkeys and apes was more like a tarsier or a lemur.

kiffer wrote: »

I understand that you don't see the problem with issues like the average geothermal gradient being >400°C/km at the time of Christ but it would be such a major issue that Snelling (for exampel) could not fail to be aware of the problem, and it's implications.

I don't know much about geology, but that rather sounds like something that would have produced other effects- like crazy plate tectonics, super-violent volcanos and geysers- that people would have commented on back then. You know, in contemporary sources like the bible.

It sounds like the geological parallel of the Ark speciation problem. Since the only animals that survived The Flood were a pair of each "kind" which gave rise to all the modern species just 4000 or so years ago, this implies that most of the kinds underwent speciation at an incredible rate for which there is no known mechanism. The kind that gave rise to the moths and butterflies would have needed to produce a totally new species every 10 days for the last 4000 years just to give us the currently existing species. That's just one kind. If there were mere dozens of kinds, this would mean that new species would have been appearing at a rate of 3-4 per day. That's only assuming that the creationists assume a constant rate (which presumably stopped just before Darwin showed up). If the rate was non constant, we're talking about the emergence of dozens or hundreds of new species per day in the time following the Flood. A phenomenon which no source, including Genesis or any other book of the Bible, reports at any time.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

To be fair, the objection that kiffer is raising is rather fundamental. There are no such objections to evolution, except from people who also happen to be religious conservatives. The objections to elements of evolution within the scientific community a more along the lines of arguments about punctuated equilibrium and whether the common ancestor of monkeys and apes was more like a tarsier or a lemur.



I don't know much about geology, but that rather sounds like something that would have produced other effects- like crazy plate tectonics, super-violent volcanos and geysers- that people would have commented on back then. You know, in contemporary sources like the bible.

It sounds like the geological parallel of the Ark speciation problem. Since the only animals that survived The Flood were a pair of each "kind" which gave rise to all the modern species just 4000 or so years ago, this implies that most of the kinds underwent speciation at an incredible rate for which there is no known mechanism. The kind that gave rise to the moths and butterflies would have needed to produce a totally new species every 10 days for the last 4000 years just to give us the currently existing species. That's just one kind. If there were mere dozens of kinds, this would mean that new species would have been appearing at a rate of 3-4 per day. That's only assuming that the creationists assume a constant rate (which presumably stopped just before Darwin showed up). If the rate was non constant, we're talking about the emergence of dozens or hundreds of new species per day in the time following the Flood. A phenomenon which no source, including Genesis or any other book of the Bible, reports at any time.

Brisk biters
Fast changes in mosquitoes astonish evolutionists, delight creationists.
http://creation.com/brisk-biters

Speedy species surprise
http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Fast changes in mosquitoes astonish evolutionists, delight creationists.

Knowing that god's busy in his basement updating a pest species, creationists must be baffled wondering why he wouldn't bother spending the one second needed to repair something lethal to humans like Cystic Fibrosis which is caused by a single-base coding error and blights life for thousands of people in this country.

To the creationist deity, mosquitoes must be way more important than humans.

Weird, but true.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Knowing that god's busy in his basement updating a pest species, creationists must be baffled wondering why he wouldn't bother spending the one second needed to repair something lethal to humans like Cystic Fibrosis which is caused by a single-base coding error and blights life for thousands of people in this country.

To the creationist deity, mosquitoes must be way more important than humans.

Weird, but true.

Sickness and death have been our lot sin the Fall - God is not going to abolish either until the Last Day. Nothing to do with mossies adapting.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, all the evolutionists.

Well yes, that is the point. Christian evolutionists, Muslim evolutionists, Hindu evolutionists, Tao evolutionists. The vast vast majority of biologists across the world are perfectly happy to accept evolution as a theory because it is so well demonstrated.

The only people who believe there is a discussion taking place as to whether evolution is an accurate theory or not are a handful of Creationists, the majority of which seem motivated by religious belief.

So, how is this any different to the Flat Earth Society?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Doesn't get us anywhere.

It gets us to the point where we have established that evolution is so well established in science that saying there is a discussion going on as to its validity is like saying there is a discussion taking place as to the roundness of the Earth.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Flat-Earthers have hundreds of well-qualified scientists arguing their position?

No, but then neither do Creationists. According to Answers in Genesis there are less that 200 biologists (ie qualified scientists) who reject evolution in favour of Biblical Creation.

What is the difference between 20 engineers claiming the Earth is flat against millions of engineers claiming it is round, and 140 biologists claiming evolution is false against millions of biologists claiming it is perfectly valid?

wolfsbane wrote: »

It demonstates well-qualified scientists disagree on the issue.

It demonstrates a tiny tiny minority of very religious biologists disagree for religious reasons.

Again how is this different to the Flat Earth Society?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You assert it fails scientific standards - but that is the issue.

It isn't the issue. It does fail scientific standards. Millions of biologists agree, along with a couple of impartial judges in America. The only ones who don't agree are the Creationists. Do you expect the Flat Earth Society to agree the evidence for a flat Earth fails scientific standards?

In fact institutes such as the Discovery Institute have gone so far as to admit that they need to lower scientific standards in order for ID to pass.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We disagree that we adulterate the standards.

Shocking.

Wolfsbane by your own admission you don't know what the standards are.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, being an expert does not prove you are right. Neither does being a majority of experts.

So why are you saying that Creationists have more qualified scientists than the Flat Earth Society?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Really? Care to give the sites?

Certainly, have a good read of this. It explains all the experiments you need to do to demonstrate that the Earth is flat.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creation scientists do more than claim - they offer scientific argument to support their claims

Arguments that fail scientific standards.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's why they so upset you. Just making religious claims could be dismissed - pointing to your lack of trousers is a real embarrassment.

I am as upset by Creationists as I am by Flat Earthers.

wolfsbane

kiffer wrote: »

Sigh... you don't understand wolfsbane... they hand wave away major issues...
Their work is aimed at lay people such as you in order to give you some ammunition but they fail to address major issues for scientists.

Continuing to use the RATE groups accelerated decay hypothesis as an example: there are a fair few objections that ring out in my mind, even before we get to the obviously objectionable conclusion with regards to the age of the Earth... I assume that having at least sat through a primary degree the members of the group are aware of these objections... and aware that these objections will be the first things to pop into the minds of scientists from various fields...
You may think, as a trusting lay person, well if they have thought of these issues and still moved on with the hypothesis then they must have at least partially resolved them... but we think if they have thought of these issues, and have any means of resolving them they should make these resolutions clear before moving on with their hypothesis...


If you feel that the RATE group has dealt with the issues I previously raised please link to a document/webpage/text addressing them I'll be happy to read it and comment on it...

I understand that you don't see the problem with issues like the average geothermal gradient being >400°C/km at the time of Christ but it would be such a major issue that Snelling (for exampel) could not fail to be aware of the problem, and it's implications.

As I recall, they admitted the problems of heat and of radiation in their concluding chapter. I don't think they had any strong solutions on offer - but that is true of many scientific models, surely?

Each of these additional mechanisms in support of galaxy formation brings much greater mathematical complexity to the problem. It is easy to maintain the standard line of evolution theory that a homogeneous gaseous universe evolved into a hierarchically structured galactic universe by invoking complex mechanisms such as these, for which the proof is still outstanding and must remain so for quite some time, because of the enormously increased complexity of the mathematics involved in the new explanations. However, the indications are quite clear that the effects of heat, energy transfers between fluid components, and turbulence are all disruptive to the growth of density fluctuations.

This is an example from one area of research of a major flaw in the evolution explanation from which evolution has never recovered. http://creation.com/john-r-rankin-mathematical-physics-in-six-days

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Knowing that god's busy in his basement updating a pest species, creationists must be baffled wondering why he wouldn't bother spending the one second needed to repair something lethal to humans like Cystic Fibrosis which is caused by a single-base coding error and blights life for thousands of people in this country.

To the creationist deity, mosquitoes must be way more important than humans.

Weird, but true.

You can safely say I will never be a creationist.If you accept the basic tenet that in the begining there was God then you have to accept the universe and whatever life mechaisms go with it.

You can read Noah and the Ark in lots of ways. Many of them to do with self preservation etc and " you have the technology and you should use it"would very much go with that. I imagine Noah as an Audi driver myself "Vorsprung durch Technik" being a good name for an Ark.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is easy to maintain the standard line of evolution theory that a homogeneous gaseous universe evolved into a hierarchically structured galactic universe by invoking complex mechanisms such as these

I seem to have missed that chapter in the origin of species. :rolleyes:

I find it amusing that you believe everything you read from someone who doesn't even know the difference between Cosmology and Evolution.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sickness and death have been our lot sin the Fall - God is not going to abolish either until the Last Day.

Having caused them in the first place, then choosing to do nothing to resolve them until the "Last Day", instead fiddling around with mosquitoes instead, your deity -- according to what I understand of your image of him -- is a distinctly sadistic being.

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

I seem to have missed that chapter in the origin of species. :rolleyes:

I find it amusing that you believe everything you read from someone who doesn't even know the difference between Cosmology and Evolution.

I thought it would be obvious that he was thinking of materialistic evolution, not theistic evolution. The former always requires an evolutionary cosmology.

But if you want to declare the earth came into being ex nihilo and biological evolution began there, then ignore his comments.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Hmm, no creation science to be found. Can you pick out one example, in particular, that you think forms part of the scientific case for creationism?

Try any of these:
Archive of Technical Papers Articles
www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=search&f_typeID=12

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

You can read Noah and the Ark in lots of ways.

You can read an earlier version of the same myth too. Try the Epic of Gilgamesh:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm

wolfsbane

CDfm wrote: »

You can safely say I will never be a creationist.If you accept the basic tenet that in the begining there was God then you have to accept the universe and whatever life mechaisms go with it.

You can read Noah and the Ark in lots of ways. Many of them to do with self preservation etc and " you have the technology and you should use it"would very much go with that. I imagine Noah as an Audi driver myself "Vorsprung durch Technik" being a good name for an Ark.

No, you can't read Noah and the Ark in lots of ways. Not and hold the Bible to be true in all it asserts. You could, if you regarded the Bible as merely the construction of religious men, seeking to give a framework for imposing their religion on the masses.

You really have to choose. God's word or man's.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

You can read an earlier version of the same myth too. Try the Epic of Gilgamesh:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm

If you wrote a garbled version of your grandfather's life, and five years later your father wrote the accurate version his father had told him - which would be the more reliable?

But later generations could jump to the conclusion that the one first committed to paper must the the original, from which the later inscription derived. Careless thinking.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Having caused them in the first place, then choosing to do nothing to resolve them until the "Last Day", instead fiddling around with mosquitoes instead, your deity -- according to what I understand of your image of him -- is a distinctly sadistic being.

Sickness and death are a punishment on mankind. That will end at the Last Day. Then the redeemed will be perfect in body and spirit, and the wicked will be sent to eternal punishment in body and spirit.

God is not mocked. What a man sows he will reap. You call His justice sadism, I call it holy wrath.

BTW, God is not recreating the mossies, their speciation follows God's natural laws.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Careless thinking.

Not at all.

The earliest editions of the first few tales from the bible appear to have been written sometime between 900BC and 450BC. The earliest versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh date from way, way before that -- around 2,000BC.

Later generations have concluded, quite safely, that the first one committed to clay tablets is the original, from which the later religious stories derived.

.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

God is not mocked. What a man sows he will reap. You call His justice sadism, I call it holy wrath.

I'm not too worried what you call it standing by and doing nothing when one can easily help is the prerogative of the moral derelict.

wolfsbane wrote: »

God is not recreating the mossies, their speciation follows God's natural laws.

Er, so creating "new genetic information" (what you need for speciation) is possible for mosquitoes, but not for humans?

Heavens, creationists really need to spend a bit more time keeping their story straight! :rolleyes:

Helix

wolfsbane wrote: »

God's word or man's.

what is the bible (or any religious text) if not man's word? unless of course you believe god physically wrote them all?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I thought it would be obvious that he was thinking of materialistic evolution, not theistic evolution. The former always requires an evolutionary cosmology.

But if you want to declare the earth came into being ex nihilo and biological evolution began there, then ignore his comments.

There is no such thing as evolutionary cosmology related to Darwinian evolution (ie theory of evolution). The cosmos is not a replicating system (at least not that we are aware of).

This usage of the term "theory of evolution" (which means the theory of neo-Darwinian biological evolution) to describe the vast array of scientific theories governing the cosmos, from Inflationary theory to General Relativity, is just silly.

It is a nonsense Creationist tactic of trying to make it sound like there is only one theory that is in conflict with them, where as in fact there are thousands of scientific theories that are in conflict with them.

CDfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, you can't read Noah and the Ark in lots of ways. Not and hold the Bible to be true in all it asserts. You could, if you regarded the Bible as merely the construction of religious men, seeking to give a framework for imposing their religion on the masses.

You really have to choose. God's word or man's.

I suppose we come from different Christian traditions and mine puts more of an emphasis on the moral, philosophical and ethical message.

“We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are unseen. The things which are seen are temporal and the things which are not seen are eternal.” (1 Corinthians 4:18 NIV)

I accept you have your beliefs and respect them but I also repect scientists explaining the world and universe as it is and cant see that as being incompatable with my beliefs.

baza1976

Dades wrote: »

I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism.

IMO prophesy has nothing to offer, as curiously it's meaning is always vague until after the event that was "prophesized".

Why are you posting for others' opinions without giving your own?

hmmm :rolleyes:

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Try any of these:
Archive of Technical Papers Articles
www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=search&f_typeID=12

Tried 'em. Essays or irrelevancies. No science. Which one do you think provides the scientific case for creationism? Seriously. We were making excellent progress on this a few months ago; I remember when you even found a report of an actual investigations (albeit nothing to do with creationism). Now you've withdrawn and are reposting the same stuff from before. Please identify a single example of creation science and shut me up for good!

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Brisk biters
Fast changes in mosquitoes astonish evolutionists, delight creationists.
http://creation.com/brisk-biters

Speedy species surprise
http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise

Hilarious articles. Simultaneously pointing to many examples of speciation whilst trying to stress that evolution "adds no new information" (whatever that means). The second one was clearly written in response to a Science paper that showed guppy evolution in action, demanding a creationist hijack (I predict something about Darwinius masillae any day now). I particularly love the frequent references to "surprised evolutionists". Anyway, what the article describes here is mostly adaptation, not speciation. Adaptation is known to happen on a much shorter timescale than reproductive isolation. We have indeed directly observed speciation many times, but even including these examples it does not occur at anything like the rate required to produce the known living and extinct species in 4000 years.

How about, instead of linking us yet another an essay filled with anecdotes and rhetoric, you give us a research paper with some numbers? What is the modern rate of speciation? What is the average rate required to generate the current pool of species from the post ark kinds? And remember, it's one thing for rapidly-reproducing organisms to undergo rapid speciation, quite another large animals.

I can give you some numbers. There is a minimum of 1.2 million animal species currently living. The majority of these are terrestrial and would thus require saving from the flood. If the rate of speciation was a constant over the 4000 years between the flood and whenever people started apparently paying attention, 300 new species would need to have appeared every year to give the current number of living species.

It's estimated that there may be closer to 10 million animal species (again, majority land species). These are almost entirely insect species, so we could forgive the ancients for failing to notice new kinds of bugs appearing all the time, especially since we're still identifying them ourselves (mind you the ancients sure knew their scarabs from their locusts, so they were looking). But this would still leave creationists needing to explain how speciation could occur at a rate of 2,500 new species a year. There's just no known means by which any kind of evolution, whether you call it macro or micro, could pull that trick off.

But let's throw out all the insects for a moment. Maybe they've been speciating away unknown to science or even the casual observer for millenia. How about just large land vertebrates. Ballpark figure on that would be about 30,000 living species. Are we to believe that in the centuries just following after the flood, when life was radiating from a single location, that nobody noticed and recorded that 7-8 new land vertebrate species were appearing every year? And we're ignoring all the insects and all the species that have gone extinct since the flood here. Does that really sound more plausible to you than an old Earth?

You still haven't answered my other question. Why, with many eukaryotic species being discovered alive or in the fossil record each year (and that's not because they just speciated!), why oh why do all of them fit perfectly into the nested tree structure predicted by evolution? Why do none of them exhibit combinations of traits which break the tree? Where are the rodents with chitin exoskeletons? Where are the arthropods with lens eyes? Or where is any animal species at all that lacks nucleated cells? If we eukaryotes are not all inter-related, why won't that darn tree go away?

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

You can read an earlier version of the same myth too. Try the Epic of Gilgamesh:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm

Thanks for the link - fairly interesting topic for us liberal Christians like Catholics doncha know.

Pope Benedict the Liberal LOL:D

Can see memes howling out from the article though. But its great to be able to appreciate the slant of an article by knowing the cultural theory used and Im glad I read up on it.

kiffer

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I recall, they admitted the problems of heat and of radiation in their concluding chapter. I don't think they had any strong solutions on offer - but that is true of many scientific models, surely?

... sigh ... you really don't get the problem do you?