The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

philologos

PaintDoctor wrote: »

JC, no chance you'd edit your sig to make it smaller? Half the scrolling on this page is just to get past your sig!

Use the relevant authorities if you have a problem, read the OP to see if JC breaks the guidelines.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=252965

Mickeroo

PaintDoctor wrote: »

JC, no chance you'd edit your sig to make it smaller? Half the scrolling on this page is just to get past your sig!

It's actually much the same length as your own, altho it has a bit more girth.

:pac:

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Plenty of creationists have used that argument, and similar ones suggesting that light was created in transit, to create the impression that stars were very far away, so that the universe would appear old, so that the strength of religious believers would be tested.

As an argument it lacks the vital ingredient of credibility.

I know of no creation scientists who have ever suggested the fossils were 'planted'. Sorry, there was one back in Darwin's time. You know of others in this or the last century?

In-transit light has been suggested in the past by some non-scientist creationists. It once struck me as a possibility, but on reflection about the supernova that it shows, I saw it was not possible. I read up on the actual Creation Science on it, (for example: Starlight and Time by Dr Russ Humphreys) and saw other possibilities. e.g:
Starlight and time—a further breakthrough
http://creation.com/starlight-and-timea-further-breakthrough

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Starlight and time—a further breakthrough
http://creation.com/starlight-and-timea-further-breakthrough

A million physicists turn in their graves. :rolleyes:

Talk about misrepresentation modern scientific theory. That article is like a atheist writing a book on how Jesus was evil based on the "sword" quote alone.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

I know of no creation scientists who have ever suggested the fossils were 'planted'.

I know of no Creation scientists.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

I know of no Creation scientists.

Ah, the bliss of self-imposed ignorance.

When you feel well enough to face the real world, check out this list for a start:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ah, the bliss of self-imposed ignorance.

When you feel well enough to face the real world, check out this list for a start:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Not quite Wolfie.

Perhaps next time provide a list of Creation Scientists (scientists doing research work in the field of Biblical Creation) rather than a list of scientists (mostly in fields where their views would never be challenged, like Mathematics) who happen to believe in Biblical creationism.

That list would be the equivalent of me listing all the Software Engineers I know who happily accept Darwinian evolution.

Mickeroo

Wicknight wrote: »

That list would be the equivalent of me listing all the Software Engineers I know who happily accept Darwinian evolution.

Are you suggesting theres no such thing as an evolutionary programmer?

Owen

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's actually much the same length as your own, altho it has a bit more girth.

Being a Mod, my sig complies with the sig rules. JC's on the other hand doesn't. Anyway, the comment wasn't directed at you, and I don't want to drag this thread any further off topic - apologies Mods!

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ah, the bliss of self-imposed ignorance.

wolfsbane wrote:

When you feel well enough to face the real world, check out this list for a start:

As per Wicknight's request, how about some actual Creation Science?

The Mad Hatter

Another disappearing act, J C?

Come on, there are questions to be answered if you want to fill any of the glaring holes in your case.

Mickeroo

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Being a Mod, my sig complies with the sig rules. JC's on the other hand doesn't. Anyway, the comment wasn't directed at you, and I don't want to drag this thread any further off topic - apologies Mods!

Apologies, i was being far from serious.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Not quite Wolfie.

Perhaps next time provide a list of Creation Scientists (scientists doing research work in the field of Biblical Creation) rather than a list of scientists (mostly in fields where their views would never be challenged, like Mathematics) who happen to believe in Biblical creationism.

That list would be the equivalent of me listing all the Software Engineers I know who happily accept Darwinian evolution.

OK, here's a few involved in creation research:
Austin, Steven A., Ph.D.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/s_austin.asp

John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_baumgardner.asp

Dr. Todd Wood
http://www.bryan.edu/wood.html

But I think we've been through this before: They're not scientists - OK, they are scientists, but they're not doing creation research - OK, they are doing research but it's bad science. But bad science seems just a synonym for anything contrary to evolutionary dogma.

But on to some good news: to mark Darwin's Origins 150th and his 200th, creationists have produced a professional documentary, The Voyage that Shook the World.
http://www.movieguide.org/articles/1/316

The DVD will be released by September, but you can catch the public screenings in various places. There is one so far listed for Ireland, Sat. 10 Oct. @ 8.00pm - public meeting, Silversprings Moran Hotel, Harbour Suite, Tivoli, Cork.

marco_polo

Wow they have really been churning out the research in the past 25-30 years.

.......................
As a boy, Darwin also liked to fabricate stories.
...............

No prizes for guessing what road the documentary is heading down.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I think we've been through this before: They're not scientists - OK, they are scientists, but they're not doing creation research - OK, they are doing research but it's bad science. But bad science seems just a synonym for anything contrary to evolutionary dogma.

No "bad science" is what happens when you start off with a conclusion and ignore or deride evidence that disagrees with the conclusion you want to reach.

See section 4.6 in AIG's pompous Statement of Faith:

AIG wrote:

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

If you can't see why this constitutes "starting off with a conclusion and ignoring what you don't like" then there's little I can do to help you.

It really is very simple.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

No "bad science" is what happens when you start off with a conclusion and ignore or deride evidence that disagrees with the conclusion you want to reach.

See section 4.6 in AIG's pompous Statement of Faith:If you can't see why this constitutes "starting off with a conclusion and ignoring what you don't like" then there's little I can do to help you.

It really is very simple.

Once again you are confusing AiG's religious standards with their scientific arguments. They do not suggest their scientific defence of creationism incorporates their religious views in its argument.

As to ignoring and deriding evidence that disagrees with the conclusion you want to reach, evolutionists are the No.1 seed. :pac:

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Once again you are confusing AiG's religious standards with their scientific arguments. They do not suggest their scientific defence of creationism incorporates their religious views in its argument.

Ahem ...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/creation-compromises

Editor’s note: AiG stands firmly on the authority of Scripture. From our study of the Bible, we are persuaded that Creation occurred in six normal-length days about 6000 years ago, and that God destroyed the earth with a global Flood about 1600 years later. Many Christians who profess to believe that the Bible is God’s Word do not accept the straightforward interpretation of Genesis and accept millions of years (and sometimes evolution also). They often admit that their interpretation of Scripture is controlled by the findings of “science,” which, in reality, are the naturalistic, uniformitarian interpretations of scientific data.

Some young-earth creationists are persuaded by Bible-based arguments that there are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. They therefore believe the creation is up to 10,000–12,000 years old. While AiG does not agree with this view, we do not break fellowship with such creationists but stand shoulder to shoulder with them in opposing the evolutionary idea of millions of years.

Can't get much clearer than that

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to ignoring and deriding evidence that disagrees with the conclusion you want to reach, evolutionists are the No.1 seed. :pac:

You have the floor sir, examples please.

darjeeling

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, here's a few involved in creation research:

[...]

Dr. Todd Wood
http://www.bryan.edu/wood.html

But I think we've been through this before: They're not scientists - OK, they are scientists, but they're not doing creation research - OK, they are doing research but it's bad science. But bad science seems just a synonym for anything contrary to evolutionary dogma.

We have been through this before! I pointed out (here, here and here) that your Dr. Wood knocked up a review paper in 2006 (arguably, he didn't do any real science, but never mind) where he found that the human and chimp genomes are more similar than are the genomes of other species that creationists grudgingly admit share a common ancestor.

Wood was stumped, and remains so as far as I know. The data is telling him that either (a) apparently closely-related species don't actually share a common ancestor after all, or (b) humans and chimps do share a common ancestor. Wood prefers option (c) - he hasn't got a clue. Still, at least he's honest, up to a point.

So, leaving aside whether Wood is a real scientist doing any real original research, he comes down in favour of the evolutionary case for chimp-human co-ancestry - even if he can't finally bring himself to say so. I notice you omit this option from your list. I also notice that no creationists replied last time I highlighted Wood's 'findings'.

Am I entitled to one of these :pac:?

[Wood's review paper here]

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I think we've been through this before: They're not scientists - OK, they are scientists, but they're not doing creation research - OK, they are doing research but it's bad science. But bad science seems just a synonym for anything contrary to evolutionary dogma.

That's not quite how it went. It was more like: they are creation scientists - OK, they are scientists who are creationists... or creation journalists... or people doing science that has nothing to do with creation even though they say it is. OK - but the fact that they don't believe in evolution proves that it is false, because why would they lie?

I would LOVE to see some of this bad science that is 'contrary to evolutionary dogma.' PLEASE show me some of this evidence, however bad those evil-illusionists will say it is! Data from a single experiment concerning creation will do. PLEEEEASE!!!!!!!!

Lady Athame

Okay guys sorry for just posting here out of the blue, I study religion in college (I've studied bout creationisms and prophecy as separate modules) alls I can say is I tend to lean more towards the creationist approach to life. Prophecy doesn't really explain much to us in terms of how we can to be. A prophet in Old Testament time is not what we believe they are today, they were people who revealed messages that were SUPPOSSED to happen, not that they actually did. Prophets didn't reveal the future they actually just proclaimed the word of God, like everyday priests today. I mean no disrepect here whats so ever its just my own opinion from what I've studied. Science explains how the world came to be perfectly and I can't explain how unless I go into the intelligent design argument (which is interesting). Really interesting thread guys!

philologos

Lady Athame wrote: »

A prophet in Old Testament time is not what we believe they are today, they were people who revealed messages that were SUPPOSSED to happen, not that they actually did. Prophets didn't reveal the future they actually just proclaimed the word of God, like everyday priests today.

Right, but do you not think prophesies foretold the future?

Messianic prophesies spoke about Jesus 600 years before He ever came on earth?

Additionally, what of the prophesies concerning end-times given throughout the Biblical text?

Lady Athame

"Right, but do you not think prophesies foretold the future?

Messianic prophesies spoke about Jesus 600 years before He ever came on earth?" - Jackkass

No they spoke of a Messiah, not of Jesus. The Jews expected four types of Messiah's that can be found in the Torah. (A Davidic messiah, a priestly messiah, etc) And in reality when Jesus did actually come into existence he didn't live up to any of these expectations. The Jews are still waiting for their messiah even after the life and death of Jesus. Prophecies were revealed by true and falses prophets who mostly were either dreaming or under the influence of other things when they had these prophecies. There are too many facts that go against prophecy for me to believe in it. Jesus was not prophesised in the first place, a messiah was and he still hasn't come for the Jews. So I don't think that it foretold the future, its like a form of mythology its how people back then tired to explain their existence and the existence of great figures of history. There are no facts... just hopes and dreams.

philologos

Yes, but one can look to the Jewish prophesies and compare them with events with the Gospels, quite strikingly. You are correct that they don't mention by name, they do mention explicit events that took place during Jesus' life time.

Why do you think that the New Testament quotes so many of these prophetic passages to bear witness to Jesus' life as the Messiah if they weren't trying to put Him forward as the Messiah?

Lady Athame

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but one can look to the Jewish prophesies and compare them with events with the Gospels, quite strikingly. You are correct that they don't mention by name, they do mention explicit events that took place during Jesus' life time.

Can you give me an example of this please?

philologos

Lady Athame wrote: »

Can you give me an example of this please?

I can give you several:

Jesus born in Bethlehem:

Micah 5:2 wrote:

But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient of days.

Jesus not objecting to Pilate or the Jewish priests to His execution:

Isaiah 42:1-3 wrote:

Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.
He will not cry or lift up His voice; or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed He will not break, and a dimly burning wick He will not quench; He will faithfully bring forth justice

Jesus preaching in Galilee (this is directly quoted in Matthew chapter 4):

Isaiah 9:4 wrote:

But there will be no gloom for those who were in anguish. In the former time He brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time, He will make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light, those who lived in a land of deep darkness - on them a light has shined.

John the Baptist would lead the way for Jesus Christ (also referred to in Luke chapter 3):

Isaiah 40:3 wrote:

A voice cries out; "In the wilderness prepare for the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God"

Malachi 4:5 wrote:

Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes.

Even the phrase "I will" should tell you it's a prophesy of the future.

Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey (quoted directly in Matthew 21:5):

Zechariah 9:9 wrote:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Jesus would be buried in a rich mans tomb (Joseph of Arimathea):

Isaiah 53:9 wrote:

They made His grave with the wicked, and His tomb with the rich, although He had done no violence, and there was no deceit in His mouth.

Jesus would be mocked at the cross, and the soldiers would cast lots for His clothes (see Matthew 27):

Psalm 22:6-8 wrote:

But I am a worm. and not human; scorned by others and despised by the people. All who see me mock me, they make mouths at me and they shake their heads; "Commit your cause to the LORD; let Him deliver - let Him rescue the one in whom He delights"

(See Matthew 27:42-43 for a direct comparison to this verse here)

Psalm 22:18 wrote:

They divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots

(See Matthew 27:35).

I mean, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Some think that Jesus fulfilled 300 Tanakh prophesies (I personally haven't counted how many there are but what I am sure of is that Jesus is true to the Jewish prophets and is the Jewish Messiah, no other claimant has come close to Him), and that they do concern the future. I mean, Jesus couldn't be credibly regarded as the Messiah unless He showed Himself to be true to the Jewish Messianic prophesies.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

They do not suggest their scientific defence of creationism incorporates their religious views in its argument.

Let's try this one word at a time.

AIG wrote:

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

If you take out the bits that I've highlighted, you get this

AIG wrote:

[...] no [...] evidence [...] can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

And if you boil this further, you get:

If it doesn't support the bible, then it's false.

Are you able to see yet why this might not suggest an unbiased approach to evidence?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but one can look to the Jewish prophesies and compare them with events with the Gospels, quite strikingly. You are correct that they don't mention by name, they do mention explicit events that took place during Jesus' life time.

The OT "prophesies" are highly non-specific and could have applied to many preachers, and no doubt, many preachers did claim that they were the Messiah, just as lots of people these days claim to be Jesus, as they have done for centuries.

Even the NT itself fails to prophesy Jesus -- Matthew 1:23 tells us that the virgin/young lady will give birth to a guy who'll be named "Immanuel".

Lady Athame

robindch wrote: »

The OT "prophesies" are highly non-specific and could have applied to many preachers, and no doubt, many preachers did claim that they were the Messiah, just as lots of people these days claim to be Jesus, as they have done for centuries.

Even the NT itself fails to prophesy Jesus -- Matthew 1:23 tells us that the virgin/young lady will give birth to a guy who'll be named "Immanuel".

You hit the nail on the head there

philologos

robindch wrote: »

The OT "prophesies" are highly non-specific and could have applied to many preachers, and no doubt, many preachers did claim that they were the Messiah, just as lots of people these days claim to be Jesus, as they have done for centuries.

I'll concede. Some aren't specific. Some are incredibly specific though. Some of the ones I cited for example are very specific, right down to hometown, particular actions, preaching area, how they were buried, what happened at the Crucifixion right down to people casting lots over clothes. You have to be kidding me to say that that isn't specific.

However this is on a particular basis.

When you bring them all together, there is no other Messianic claimant that fulfilled these prophesies apart from Jesus of Nazareth. They provide an entire sketching together of His mission.

As such I think it is a cop out to dismiss the whole scheme of Messianic prophesy because you find some Messianic prophesy aren't very specific. The point is when you look through all the Messianic prophesies, you get a very very full image of who the Messiah was to be, and you also notice that Jesus' character seems to match it very closely.

robindch wrote: »

Even the NT itself fails to prophesy Jesus -- Matthew 1:23 tells us that the virgin/young lady will give birth to a guy who'll be named "Immanuel".

PDN has explained this to you aptly before.

darjeeling

robindch wrote: »

AIG wrote:

[...] no [...] evidence [...] can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

And if you boil this further, you get:

If it doesn't support the bible, then it's false.

Are you able to see yet why this might not suggest an unbiased approach to evidence?

Exactly. And how does this work in practice? Let's take a look.

The Wood chimp/human genome review gives a nice example of a creationist overriding scientific evidence. Wood brings up a whole load of separate lines of evidence indicating a close genetic relationship between chimps and humans. He doesn't offer anything to refute this closeness, and indeed knocks down all the naive creationist arguments used in this thread to deny or explain away the similarity. However, instead of following where the evidence is leading, he just says:

Todd Charles Wood wrote:

Since I do not accept the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, [...]

Does he say why not? No. But my guess is it's a case of AiG creed, article 4.6. Faith in independent, special human creation trumps all contrary evidence.

.