The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

I think I asked you this before, but you do think there is no objective meaning to life?

I have no idea. There might be but until I find out what it is from a source a bit more reliable than a 2000 year old book of supernatural stories I'm just going to go on living my life

philologos

There would have to be at the very least an assumption that everything is material for you to take the position you do on these things.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

There would have to be at the very least an assumption that everything is material for you to take the position you do on these things.

No there absolutely wouldn't. Making the assumptions you claim that I make would bring me to my position, that is true, but making the opposite assumptions would not bring you to your position. These are the assumptions:

1) Not everything has to be material
2) There is a Creator God, and a universal meaning to life.

Making those two assumptions makes any supernatural claim every made throughout history equally reasonable. There is still no way to single out the resurrection as the one that's true among all the false ones. Someone who made those two assumptions would be in almost exactly the same position as someone who didn't make them (me) or someone who made the opposite assumptions (the theoretical person you're talking about): they wouldn't know which one, if any, to believe.

In order to get to where you are you can't just assume that there is a creator god, you must assume that it's the specific creator god described in the bible.

Is it reasonable to assume that not everything has to be material? Maybe

Is it reasonable to assume that there is a Creator God, and a universal meaning to life? Maybe, although narrowing it down to a god and one god for that matter is stretching reasonability a bit

Is it reasonable to assume that the creator god is the specific one described in one particular holy book and restrospecitvely believe the claims in the book because you've already assumed that the specific being described in it exists? No, not really. In order to believes the claims of christianity you have begun with the assumption that the christian god exists

philologos

Let's stay on topic until we establish what would make your thinking reasonable. Surely believing that everything is material, or that everything can be perceived through the senses (there is a problem with that from the get go if we consider God, but let's roll with it) would make your argument more plausible?

We need to establish what underlying assumptions you're bringing into this before we can start discussing it.

Bear in mind disagreeing with ones position does not make yours more credible.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Let's stay on topic until we establish what would make your thinking reasonable. Surely believing that everything is material, or that everything can be perceived through the senses (there is a problem with that from the get go if we consider God, but let's roll with it) would make your argument more plausible?

No actually it wouldn't because that would be an irrational assumption to make. I can't say either of those things for sure.

Jakkass wrote: »

We need to establish what underlying assumptions you're bringing into this before we can start discussing it.

The assumptions I'm bringing are:

1) People throughout history have had a tendency to use the supernatural to explain things they don't understand and make unsubstantiated supernatural claims in general.
2) All of the claims cannot be true because they are contradictory but they can all be false even if a god exists

From those assumptions I arrive at the position that in order to accept any one claim, independently verifiable evidence must be provided and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary must be the evidence

Those are the only assumptions I need to arrive at my position and one big difference between my assumptions and yours is that mine are demonstrably and undeniably true. Nowhere do I make an assumption that everything is material, I simply demand evidence before accepting a claim and am not prepared to believe that one particular claim is true by beginning with the assumption that the specific being that supposedly performed the act exists.

If you begin with the assumption that the specific god described by christianity exists then of course it's reasonable to believe the claims of christianity but the question is whether it is reasonable to make the assumption that the christian god exists. That's not the same as assuming that something more than the material exists.

liamw

Hey J.C, check out Biology on Page 4. That could have been you!

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/Celebrities%20and%20Science%202009.pdf

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

Why is it that a lot of atheists feel the need to regard themselves as being universally superior to theists?

...the Atheists are suffering from an inverted inferiority complex!!!

...deep down they know they are WRONG ... but they prefer to remain in deep denial, God Bless them!!:D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...deep down they know they are WRONG ... but they prefer to remain in deep denial, God Bless them!!:D

You see though the difference is JC can you accept that you may be wrong about God, creationism etc etc.?

J C

liamw wrote: »

Hey J.C, check out Biology on Page 4. That could have been you!

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/Celebrities%20and%20Science%202009.pdf

...yes Sarah is an amazing and formidable woman ... and her science comments are 100%!!!!

..she could have added that the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity AT EACH POINT on each biochemical cascade!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on the massive scale required to 'evolve' Pondkind into Mankind'.

...and that would have left Prof Dawkins with no comeback!!!!:D

...GO Sarah ... GO!!!:D

...what an amazing Christian woman ... who (among other things) put the sex back in specks!!!!:D

... and gave the 'pseudo-liberals' a run for their money!!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

You see though the difference is JC can you accept that you may be wrong about God, creationism etc etc.?

...of course I can personally accept that I could be wrong about Creation ... and that the Sun will 'rise' tomorrow morning ... but the evidence is so strong that both phenomena are established scientific FACTS!!!:D

...on the other hand the Evolutionists remain in denial of the overwhelming evidence in favour Direct Creation ... as they desperately cling to the totally laughable notion that Pondkind spontaneously evolved into Mankind with nothing added except time and MISTAKES!!!!

...May God Bless their INNOCENCE and gullability!!!:eek::D

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...yes Sarah is an amazing and formidable woman ... and her science comments are 100%!!!!

..she could have added that the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity AT EACH POINT on the cascade!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on the massive scale required to 'evolve' Pondkind into Mankind'.

...and that would have left Prof Dawkins with no comeback!!!!:D

...GO Sarah ... GO!!!:D

I doubt she'd be able to pronounce words with that many syllables, tbph.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...yes Sarah is an amazing and formidable woman ... and her science comments are 100%!!!!

..she could have added that the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity AT EACH POINT on the cascade!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on the massive scale required to 'evolve' Pondkind into Mankind'.

...and that would have left Prof Dawkins with no comeback!!!!:D

...GO Sarah ... GO!!!:D

In order to show irreducible complexity you must show that none of the components parts of any particular mechanism can perform any function whatsoever independently of each other. Pointing out that they cannot perform the specific function that is performed by all of the components working together is meaningless. It's not even in dispute. The ideas of irreducible complexity, complex specified information and creationism as a whole rely on the mistaken idea that not being able to perform one specific function is the same as not being able to perform any function at all

ninalucy1985

J C wrote: »

Quote Robin
BTW, just in the news last week, Michael Behe, a prominent creationist and member of the aggressively fundamentalist 'Discovery Institute', was in the dock in Dover last week for the "Scopes II" trial during which he claimed that, by redefining 'science' himself so that it could include his own creationism, that astrology becomes a "science" too:

Could I gently point out that Michael Behe is a believer in Intelligent Design i.e. the design of life by forces unknown over an undefined period of time.
He is therefore certainly neither a “creationist“ nor a Creation Scientist.
In fact, the Intelligent Design Movement is a breakaway EVOLUTIONIST GROUP that is somewhere on the faith spectrum between atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists.
I actually admire the efforts of the Intelligent Design proponents to give some logical and intellectual credibility to evolution by at least recognising that the complexity of life and the extreme specificity of it’s design is such that it’s production cannot be accounted for by undirected physical processes.

It is quite ironic that the current Dover School court case in Harrisburg PA is being billed as a ‘contest between Creation and Evolution’ – when in fact it is merely a dispute among two different types of evolutionists – the ‘Moronic Design’ proponents who believe that muck just happened to evolve into Man and the ‘Intelligent Design’ proponents who believe that (an undefined) intelligence played some (undefined) part in the process.

According to the New Scientist article on the Dover School Case, the US National Academy of Sciences defines a scientific theory as “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the Natural World that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses.”
This very limited definition fails to add that it must also be precisely defined and repeatably testable using objectively verifiable means – otherwise nobody will know what they are talking about and whatever they may think they are talking about can never be proven.

However, if we use the above very limited definition of a scientific theory, evolution still fails miserably when compared even with it!!!!!

For example, what “facts, laws, inferences or tested hypotheses” indicate that muck could EVER evolve into Man.

Equally, what “facts, laws, inferences or tested hypotheses” can satisfactory answer any of the following valid scientific questions in relation to evolution?

1. Have we observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true?
2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?
3. If the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, evolutioists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do evolutionists not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligence AKA God?
4. If evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures. Why has not even ONE continuum ever been observed among either living or fossil creatures for a functioning useful structure?
5. Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman?
6. Why do our Y-chromosome sequences (which are inherited in the male line i.e. 100% from our fathers) show that all men are originally descended from ONE man?
7. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind?
8. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design of the observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are multiple orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems?
9. Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an ”accident of nature” – while they know that the super computers and gene sequencers that they had to use to decode it, were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design?
10. Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual?
11. Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time?
12. Any putative ‘evolving organism’ is statistically just as likely to be taking two “critical amino acid sequence” steps backwards for every one step forwards, as it is to be going the other way around. If ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage – how can a population “work up” to the correct critical amino acid sequence through “genetic drift” or Natural Selection ?
13. Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true?
14. How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”?
15. Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if “upwards and onwards” Evolution is in action out there?
16. With odds in excess of 10 to the power of 1,800,000,000 against the production of the nucleic acid sequence of the Human Genome by accident – how do you explain it’s existence using random chance Evolution when the number of electrons in the known universe are only 10 to the power of 82?
17. Why is it claimed that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a scientific mystery?
18. What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
19. Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
20. Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
21. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?


Quote The Atheist
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.

This is your LUCKY DAY!!!

I'm amazed that you haven’t met at least one Creation Scientist (on or offline) – there are many out there!!!!

Michael Behe certainly isn’t one – BUT I AM!!!

BTW did you know that God doesn’t BELIEVE in Atheists?!!!!

In fact, Jesus Christ died so that YOU TOO could spend eternity with Him in Heaven. All you need to do is to stop believing in the plainly ridiculous idea that people are ultimately descended from muck, repent of your sins and believe on the ONLY person who can save you, Jesus Christ.

I too used be an evolutionist.
I was lost, but now I have found Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savour.

Over and Out!!

yikes!

good read!!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In order to show irreducible complexity you must show that none of the components parts of any particular mechanism can perform any function whatsoever independently of each other. Pointing out that they cannot perform the specific function that is performed by all of the components working together is meaningless. It's not even in dispute.

There is a world of difference between not being able to perform a specific function in a specific way and not being able to perform any function whatsoever and the ideas of irreducible complexity, complex specified information and creationism as a whole rely ignoring this fact

...but living systems require that SPECIFIC functions be perfeormed in SPECIFIC sequences in a SPECIFIC time and place ... and therefore irreducible complexity is a PROVEN phenomenon!!!!

...if you need to catch mice .... having a great big 'ball-breaking' paperlip in your pocket is USELESS!!!!!:D:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...but living systems require that SPECIFIC functions be perfeormed in SPECIFIC sequences in a SPECIFIC time and place ... and therefore irreducible complexity is a PROVEN phenomenon!!!!

...if you need to catch mice .... having a great big 'ball-breaking' paperlip in your pocket is USELESS!!!!!:D:eek:

Creationism also relies on ignoring the fact that even if an organism has come to rely on a particular biological mechanism today, that does not mean that all of its ancestors throughout its history also relied on the same mechanism.

A leopard needs to hunt its prey, without that ability it will die and a rabbit uses its long ears to hear predators, without that ability it will die. But both evolved from a common ancestor that was similar to a shrew. The shrew had neither the hunting ability of the leopard nor the hearing ability of the rabbit but it survived anyway because this particular ancestor did not require either of these adaptations for survival

philologos

It appears that we are back to YEC vs Evolution again

liamw

Hey J.C. would you mind responding to equivariants post. I'd be interested to see your rebuttal.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It appears that we are back to YEC vs Evolution again

No response to my post about the assumptions I make to arrive at my position no?

J C

ninalucy1985 wrote: »

yikes!

good read!!

....welcome aboard Nina!!!:)

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

... and gave the 'pseudo-liberals' a run for their money!!!

Before steamrolling Senator McCain's presidential campaign into the gutter...

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

It appears that we are back to YEC vs Evolution again

Well I'm still wondering why, even if you assume there's a creator, it has to be the Christian God and not anything else? I'm also wondering why you accept the particular supernatural stories of the Bible over any other ones. You claimed that the existence of God would explain why those were plausible, but you failed to show why it only makes those particular events more plausible and not other supernatural claims?

philologos

What is a substantiated supernatural claim?
What quantifies substantiated?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

What is a substantiated supernatural claim?
What quantifies substantiated?

Substantiated means the same thing it means when you're not talking about supernatural claims: strong, independently verifiable physical evidence. For example 2000 year old eye witness testimony from someone's dedicated followers is not strong, independently verifiable physical evidence.


But really you asking what quantifies substantiated is irrelevant. You are approaching these claims with the assumption that the specific god that is supposed to have done these acts exists so substantiation might be a bonus but it's unnecessary. If you assume that this specific being exists it's perfectly reasonable to believe these claims without substantiation, which is lucky because there is none for the supernatural* claims of the bible.

So the question being asked is why do you think it's reasonable to assume the existence of this specific god, while remembering that that assumption is very different to the assumption that something more than the material exists



*supernatural is underlined to prevent people trying to provide evidence to support the natural elements of the bible. I don't care if there was a guy called Yeshua living in Nazareth 2000 years ago because even conclusively proving that he existed would not bring you one iota closer to reasonably concluding that he walked on water.

Mjollnir

Galvasean wrote: »

Before steamrolling Senator McCain's presidential campaign into the gutter...

She was too busy with exorcisms and staring at Russia to bother w/a meaningful campaign.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Substantiated means the same thing it means when you're not talking about supernatural claims: strong, independently verifiable physical evidence. For example 2000 year old eye witness testimony from someone's dedicated followers is not strong, independently verifiable physical evidence.

We've found another root problem that causes issues when we discuss:

What qualifies as evidence?

I would claim that there is evidence for God's existence, and you would not. So we need to get right down to what evidence is. Would you agree that would be pragmatic?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But really you asking what quantifies substantiated is irrelevant. You are approaching these claims with the assumption that the specific god that is supposed to have done these acts exists so substantiation might be a bonus but it's unnecessary. If you assume that this specific being exists it's perfectly reasonable to believe these claims without substantiation, which is lucky because there is none for the supernatural* claims of the bible.

It isn't irrelevant at all. There's zero point discussing with you unless we are going to situate our terms, and our assumptions. We need to have an understanding of where we are starting from before we are going to have any discussion of merit on God. People who deal with God in philosophy have to situate their terms all the time.

You know full well how I establish how God exists. It's from Creation. That's why we have always started there. It appears we have a bit of groundwork to do before we even discuss God, or Creation though.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So the question being asked is why do you think it's reasonable to assume the existence of this specific god, while remembering that that assumption is very different to the assumption that something more than the material exists

We have a lot more to do before we can start. We need to establish what evidence is.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

*supernatural is underlined to prevent people trying to provide evidence to support the natural elements of the bible.

The reliability of the Bible as a text also has to be considered in any argument concerning it. Pointers to the accuracy of the Bible on certain issues, helps to establish it's reliability. It would be a gratuitous dismissal not to allow such considerations.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't care if there was a guy called Yeshua living in Nazareth 2000 years ago because even conclusively proving that he existed would not bring you one iota closer to reasonably concluding that he walked on water.

We have a lot to do first before we can even argue about miracles. The issue isn't with the miracle, it's with the God. You know this, I know this.

We have actually made quite a bit of progress though. I've recognised, if I regard the world as being material I would absolutely believe what you were telling me. You've recognised, if you believe there is a God, there is no inherent problem with miracles. That's quite a leap for me anyway. We need to establish certain underlying issues first.

philologos

liamw wrote: »

Well I'm still wondering why, even if you assume there's a creator, it has to be the Christian God and not anything else? I'm also wondering why you accept the particular supernatural stories of the Bible over any other ones. You claimed that the existence of God would explain why those were plausible, but you failed to show why it only makes those particular events more plausible and not other supernatural claims?

We work downwards. First one establishes that God exists, then one presents the case for the existence of the Biblical God. At least this is the way that most explanations of Christianity work.

J C

liamw wrote: »

Hey J.C. would you mind responding to equivariants post. I'd be interested to see your rebuttal.

equivariant wrote: »

I shouldn't really waste any energy on this, but I couldn't resist...



A qualified mathematician? Really? What was your dissertation on? Where did you study? What journals have you published in? Even if you haven't published in any journals, you should at least be able to quote one original theorem that you have proved. Can you? ...I'm a Mathematician qualified to primary degree level. I am also a 'working mathematician' utilising maths on a day to day basis in my scientific endeavours. One of the problems with modern science is that biologists know nothing about maths and mathematicians know even less about biology ... so when biological phenomena like evolution require the appliance of mathematics to evaluate them ... there is nobody who is fully qualified to do so!!!
This is where Creation Science comes into it's own. There are a number of polymaths who do great work in Creation Science ... and there is also great 'cross-pollination' between the leading scientists and the mathematicians who work in Creation Science today


Repeating the same nonsense again doesn't make it any less nonsensical. Touché!!


"for all practical purposes" is a meaningless phrase in a mathematical argument. ...it is applied mathematics!!!



Fair enough, so you don't like all this mathematical 'airy-fairy' baloney. First that seems a strange sentiment for a "qualified mathematician". Second, you can't have it both ways. If you want to claim mathematical proof then you have to adhere to mathematical rigour. ...I am using applied mathematics!!!


Many physicists make the mistake of believing that mathematics exists only for their benefit - it does not. It exists as a tool for all of human intellectual endeavour. This is one of the reasons why mathematics requires strict standards of rigour....Mathematical Physics is applied mathematics!!!
..and the so-called 'rigour' of pure maths often evaporates in a fog of irrelevancy



This is simply false. He wasn't much of a mathematician if he was unaware ot Russell's Principia. ....Russels Paradox 'cut no ice' with him ... and he DID claim that you cannot prove that 2+2=4



Again, this is just false. As any 'qualified mathematician' would know. Infinite sets are precisely the subject of much of classical set theory. They are well understood by mathematicians and consequently mathematics has a profound understanding of the concept of infinity, or in you less precise phrasing - they know exactly 'what it is'. ... I did say that Maths has a symbol for infinity ... and even though infinite sets are the subject of much of classical set theory ... infinity is still not a fully understood mathematical concept.


As pointed out above, mathematics does not exist solely for the benefit of physicists. Indeed, the pseudo mathematical gobbledygook that you spouted to begin this exchange puported to say something about information theory, which is one of the areas of applied mathematics that lies outside the domain of tradtitional mathematical physics. ... like I have already said, it is Applied Mathematics within ID Science!!!



Repeating a bad joke over and over again doesn't make it funny. ... it all depends on your point of view!!!!

.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Before steamrolling Senator McCain's presidential campaign into the gutter...

...one could argue that the reverse was actually what happened!!!!

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

We work downwards. First one establishes that God exists, then one presents the case for the existence of the Biblical God. At least this is the way that most explanations of Christianity work.

Your point was that if we assume that a God exists with certain characteristics (such as all-powerful), then we can more easily accept that supernatural events can occur, and that the God could temporarily suspend the laws of nature.

This is why you said you believed some of the Bible stories. But you can't use that argument just for Bible stories. You could apply it to any supernatural claim. If a person claimed that he didn't actually kill his wife but the knife flew up in the air by itself, and there were 12 people who attested to this, and all the other parts of the story fit together, would you say 'hmmm ye we should look at this... he may be telling the truth' ?

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...one could argue that the reverse was actually what happened!!!!

So he won the election now?