The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

doctoremma

monosharp wrote: »

mathemagician

Missed this before - brilliant. Is it yours?

Fanny Cradock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemagician

doctoremma

Livnat wrote: »

If gravity had to evolve like all the rest of it what was happening in the interim you big evolutionist know it alls

Eh? Gravity evolving?

Livnat wrote: »

how do evolutionists explain the finding of flesh in the hollowed bones of said reptilians which are these days defunct

Eh? What does this mean?

Livnat wrote: »

jc like the dinosaur these guys in here will eat you alive such is the ferocity of their rebellious nature:)

Eh? I'm pretty sure no human has ever been eaten by a dinosaur.

Livnat wrote: »

evolution is not a science it's a religion because it is completely groundless..it evolved in a little french backroom some three hundred years ago

Lol, the theory of evolution evolved? And you might need to go back further to find the first recorded ponderings on evolutionary theory.

Livnat wrote: »

and was supported by the likes of Erasmus and Darwin

Darwin provided a mechanism for evolution, one which is biological fact. We see natural selection operating in the natural world all the time.

Livnat wrote: »

what were we looking to 'see' in the darkness

Eh?

Honestly, I have no idea where you are coming from...

Sam Vimes

Livnat wrote: »

If gravity had to evolve like all the rest of it what was happening in the interim you big evolutionist know it alls

LOL. Gravity didn't evolve

Sam Vimes

Livnat wrote: »

or photosynthesis or the human eye...how do evolutionists explain the finding of flesh in the hollowed bones of said reptilians which are these days defunct

an answer to one of your questions:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

However, it has also been rightly pointed out that such a god seems redundant. If materialism can account for all there is, what need is there for this god?

To kick the whole thing off. If god created everything then he set the laws that mean that gravity keeps our planet in orbit and that gives us light and heat from the sun and that allows our bodies to evolve from simple amino acids to the complexity you see today. A world that's created by a god doesn't necessarily have to be mysteriously magical and unexplainable. Creating a universe that can produce you and me just by following the preset laws of physics is still a pretty amazing feat.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But to the practical issue: if evolution is true, much of the Bible is either false or inscrutable. Neither of those options can be reconciled with Christianity.

When Christian evolutionists begin to explain the whole of Scripture in an evolutionary world-view, the contradictions are enormous - and can only be resolved by conceding the Bible can mean whatever we want it to mean.

These brethren can only exist by ignoring the logical effects a metaphorical Genesis has for the rest of Scripture. That is a mental/spiritual dialectic.

It makes the bible more difficult to interpret but not impossible and the overwhelming majority of christians do it just fine.

And the thing you appear to have missed there is that unfortunately for people who think that evolution is incompatible with their religious beliefs, that does not mean it's wrong and it's one of dozens of scientific disciplines that is incompatible with your beliefs. Creationists like to think the enemy is evolution but creationism is in direct conflict with, for example, geology, astronomy, anthropology, history, archaeology, chemistry and physics. The only place where I see enormous contradictions is in the mental gymnastics that creationists have to endure to maintain their ludicrous position in the face of such overwhelming evidence. I can understand how the lay person can be taken in but any major proponent of creationism who claims to know what they're talking about is necessarily dishonest.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
However, it has also been rightly pointed out that such a god seems redundant. If materialism can account for all there is, what need is there for this god?
To kick the whole thing off. If god created everything then he set the laws that mean that gravity keeps our planet in orbit and that gives us light and heat from the sun and that allows our bodies to evolve from simple amino acids to the complexity you see today. A world that's created by a god doesn't necessarily have to be mysteriously magical and unexplainable. Creating a universe that can produce you and me just by following the preset laws of physics is still a pretty amazing feat.

A world created by God in the Genesis method is no more mysteriously magical and unexplainable than the evolutionary version. Just different unknowns to face. Both types would indeed be pretty amazing feats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But to the practical issue: if evolution is true, much of the Bible is either false or inscrutable. Neither of those options can be reconciled with Christianity.

When Christian evolutionists begin to explain the whole of Scripture in an evolutionary world-view, the contradictions are enormous - and can only be resolved by conceding the Bible can mean whatever we want it to mean.

These brethren can only exist by ignoring the logical effects a metaphorical Genesis has for the rest of Scripture. That is a mental/spiritual dialectic.
It makes the bible more difficult to interpret but not impossible and the overwhelming majority of christians do it just fine.

No, they don't. They have no defence that does not undermine their arguments for historical reality in the other parts of the Bible they must regard as historical. So they live with the dichotomy. You will find them very reluctant to specify where they think metaphor/ framework ends and actual history begins in the OT. And they have no hermeneutic to explain why they take such parts as history and others not.

And the thing you appear to have missed there is that unfortunately for people who think that evolution is incompatible with their religious beliefs, that does not mean it's wrong

It's only wrong if my religious beliefs are right. I do make that assertion to you, but I do not offer it as a scientific defence.

and it's one of dozens of scientific disciplines that is incompatible with your beliefs. Creationists like to think the enemy is evolution but creationism is in direct conflict with, for example, geology, astronomy, anthropology, history, archaeology, chemistry and physics.

Defences of YEC have been offered in all these disciplines. The actual laws are no different from those the evolutionists use - only the interpretation of evidence differs. Even evolutionists differ among themselves on interpretation of evidence.

The only place where I see enormous contradictions is in the mental gymnastics that creationists have to endure to maintain their ludicrous position in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

Last I looked at it, evolutionists had their own problems. Certainly, creationists are constrained by the Biblical record in how wide they can speculate about solutions to a problem - and evolutionists have a virtual infinity of positions to jump to. Today's assured fact becomes tomorrow's mistake. It is good to turn from error of course, but it a pity the materialist scientist has such faith in his theories in the first place.

I can understand how the lay person can be taken in but any major proponent of creationism who claims to know what they're talking about is necessarily dishonest.

Ditto for evolution, but I willing to think better of many of those scientists who hold to it; I ascribe their error to blinkered thinking driven by peer-pressure, rather than to dishonesty.
__________________

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

A world created by God in the Genesis method is no more mysteriously magical and unexplainable than the evolutionary version. Just different unknowns to face. Both types would indeed be pretty amazing feats.

Well actually the genesis version is a lot more mysterious because in that version there are vast swathes of our reality where we cannot get any more of an explanation than "god did it" but at least you're acknowledging that both would be amazing feats so that's the answer to your question "if materialism can account for all there is, what need is there for this god?"

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, they don't. They have no defence that does not undermine their arguments for historical reality in the other parts of the Bible they must regard as historical. So they live with the dichotomy. You will find them very reluctant to specify where they think metaphor/ framework ends and actual history begins in the OT. And they have no hermeneutic to explain why they take such parts as history and others not.

You see wolfsbane you have a problem here. You can argue all you want that the way other christians interpret the bible undermines their arguments for other historical realities but your interpretation undermines everything that human beings know about the universe. If your interpretation of the bible is correct then every single thing that human beings have learned since the dawn of reason is wrong and your god is deliberately trying to trick us into thinking that the universe is 14 billion years old and that life evolved. Every day a new piece of evidence is uncovered or a new discovery is made that creationists have to deny and it makes their position that little bit more ridiculous.

The god of other christians is unfalsifiable but yours was falsified hundreds of years before Darwin was born. If your beliefs require you to believe that the universe is 10,000 years old then all I have to do is point out that we can see light from stars that are billions of light years away and your god is falsified. I never even have to mention evolution.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Defences of YEC have been offered in all these disciplines. The actual laws are no different from those the evolutionists use - only the interpretation of evidence differs. Even evolutionists differ among themselves on interpretation of evidence.

That is one of many creationist lies. The defenses offered by creationists are laughed out of science. These people are not being censored, they are simply putting forward nonsense that is completely inconsistent with reality and in most cases they know it is and are attempting to dishonestly get their ideas accepted because they think that belief in god is more important than being honest about science

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is good to turn from error of course, but it a pity the materialist scientist has such faith in his theories in the first place.

Another creationist lie. Scientists can and have dropped entire scientific disciplines when they have turned out to be false. Some scientists might have agendas but if science is solid then it's solid. The only people with agendas in this case are creationists

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ditto for evolution, but I willing to think better of many of those scientists who hold to it; I ascribe their error to blinkered thinking driven by peer-pressure, rather than to dishonesty.
__________________

I used to say that for creationists but you can only point out that someone is not even wrong so many times with unequivocal proof only to have them say the same things that have already been proven wrong again and again before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt in this situation; the major creationists are deliberately lying because they think that society will collapse and we'll all start murdering each other if they admit that their interpretation of the bible has been proved wrong and I can say that because all I have to do to prove them wrong is point at a star

J C

...please note that the best the Evolutionists can now do is to repeat a few 'one liners' that have been shown to be false ... and make a few ad hominem remarks about Creationists in general and me in particular.

They are like a bird whose nest is threatened, who runs around in circles faking a broken wing in a desperate attempt to distract onlookers so as to protect its nest.
The Evolutionist 'nest' is completely empty ... but this doesn't stop them squawking and flapping about the place and generally creating a mighty racket ...
However, the giveaway that the Evolutionist 'bird' is a Dodo with a fertility problem ... is the fact that they NEVER provide any evidence to support the ludicrous idea that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' using selected MISTAKES ... even a 5-year old could tell them that this is ridiculous!!!!:)

liamw

J C wrote: »

.. 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' using selected MISTAKES ... even a 5-year old could tell them that this is ridiculous!!!!:)

I highlighted the important word for you. It looks like you might be learning something JC.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...please note that the best the Evolutionists can now do is to repeat a few 'one liners' that have been shown to be false ... and make a few ad hominem remarks about Creationists in general and me in particular.

They are like a bird whose nest is threatened, who runs around in circles faking a broken wing in a desperate attempt to distract onlookers so as to protect its nest.
The Evolutionist 'nest' is completely empty ... but this doesn't stop them squawking and flapping about the place and generally creating a mighty racket ...
However, the giveaway that the Evolutionist 'bird' is a Dodo with a fertility problem ... is the fact that they NEVER provide any evidence to support the ludicrous idea that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' using selected MISTAKES ... even a 5-year old could tell them that this is ridiculous!!!!:)

Right so, I'll go tell all the scientists to throw out their science books and write new ones that just say "god did it" over and over again. Let's see how far that gets us eh?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.. 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' using selected MISTAKES ... even a 5-year old could tell them that this is ridiculous!!!!

liamw
I highlighted the important word for you. It looks like you might be learning something JC.

...and I highlighted the most important word in the sentence as it is the determinant of the other word!!!:eek:

...just think about it ... how long would a company last if it had a manufacturing plan that involved selecting mistakes???

...nothing it ever produced would ever work!!!!:)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right so, I'll go tell all the scientists to throw out their science books and write new ones that just say "god did it" over and over again. Let's see how far that gets us eh?

...as God most certainly 'DID IT' ... what you propose would actually be a very good start!!!!

...the alternative idea that Pondscum 'lifted itself up by its own bootstraps' to become Man doesn't merit any consideration by anybody claiming to be a rationalist!!!!!

liamw

J C wrote: »

...and I highlighted the most important word in the sentence as it is the determinant of the other word!!!:eek:

...just think about it ... how long would a company last if it had a manufacturing plan that involved selecting mistakes???

...nothing it ever produced would ever work!!!!:)

'Mistakes' is the wrong word also but I'll take it you mean random mutations.

I thought about trying to fit that analogy to evolution by natural selection but it's just so ridiculous there's no point

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...as God most certainly 'DID IT' ... what you propose would actually be a very good start!!!!

...the alternative idea that Pondscum 'lifted itself up by its own bootstraps' to become Man doesn't merit any consideration by anybody claiming to be a rationalist!!!!!

I suppose we'll just go back to living in caves so, since you want us to drop every area of science that conflicts with creationism. Let's hope we don't get sick eh?

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I suppose we'll just go back to living in caves so, since you want us to drop every area of science that conflicts with creationism. Let's hope we don't get sick eh?

I think it's pretty hypocritical that J.C. dismisses science so easily and yet he's sitting there on his computer surfing the internet.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...please note that the best the Evolutionists can now do is to repeat a few 'one liners' that have been shown to be false ... and make a few ad hominem remarks about Creationists in general and me in particular.

They are like a bird whose nest is threatened, who runs around in circles faking a broken wing in a desperate attempt to distract onlookers so as to protect its nest.
The Evolutionist 'nest' is completely empty ... but this doesn't stop them squawking and flapping about the place and generally creating a mighty racket ...
However, the giveaway that the Evolutionist 'bird' is a Dodo with a fertility problem ... is the fact that they NEVER provide any evidence to support the ludicrous idea that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' using selected MISTAKES ... even a 5-year old could tell them that this is ridiculous!!!!:)

You cannot complain about ad hominem attacks when you have repeatedly been caught out in lies during this thread. All evidence points to the fact that you have deliberately lied and deceived people about evolutionary theory and about your own knowledge of of science. You have claimed to be expert in areas in which you are demonstrably not. When you repeatedly display such dishonesty, you cannot expect people to refrain from pointing it out. Unwarranted ad hominem attacks are reprehensible. Pointing out the lies and deception of people like you is not an unwarranted ad hominem attack. It is merely stating the fact. Anyone who doubts this can easily finds hundreds of instances of your dishonesty in this thread.

PS I find it particularly ironic that you will implore people to listen to God's word and repent of their sins, when you clearly have absolutely no qualms about lying and misleading people inorder to promote your young earth creationist views. You are particularly shameless in this regard.

Fanny Cradock

You must not have read my post. Stick to the topic at hand and please refrain from making accusations about other members. If you have a specific concern then use the report function. Last warning.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

They are like a bird whose nest is threatened, who runs around in circles faking a broken wing in a desperate attempt to distract onlookers so as to protect its nest.

What the heck kind of bird uses that strategy? Can't say I've heard of any birds try that. Got a link? Might be interesting to see.

J C

liamw wrote: »

'Mistakes' is the wrong word also but I'll take it you mean random mutations.

I thought about trying to fit that analogy to evolution by natural selection but it's just so ridiculous there's no point

...yes, Spontaneous Evolution is indeed ridiculous!!!:D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I suppose we'll just go back to living in caves so, since you want us to drop every area of science that conflicts with creationism. Let's hope we don't get sick eh?

...which part of the 'Chicken Licken' henhouse do you come from???
... is it the one where they are all going around in circles waiting for the sky to fall in ... or the one where they just go around in circles waiting for pondscum to lay an egg???:):D

J C

equivariant wrote: »

You cannot complain about ad hominem attacks when you have repeatedly been caught out in lies during this thread. All evidence points to the fact that you have deliberately lied and deceived people about evolutionary theory and about your own knowledge of of science. You have claimed to be expert in areas in which you are demonstrably not. When you repeatedly display such dishonesty, you cannot expect people to refrain from pointing it out. Unwarranted ad hominem attacks are reprehensible. Pointing out the lies and deception of people like you is not an unwarranted ad hominem attack. It is merely stating the fact. Anyone who doubts this can easily finds hundreds of instances of your dishonesty in this thread.

PS I find it particularly ironic that you will implore people to listen to God's word and repent of their sins, when you clearly have absolutely no qualms about lying and misleading people inorder to promote your young earth creationist views. You are particularly shameless in this regard.

As a Christian I must 'turn the other cheek' to such unwarranted and unfounded slurs.
I have always spoken the truth ... and the truth will set you free.

J C

liamw wrote: »

I think it's pretty hypocritical that J.C. dismisses science so easily and yet he's sitting there on his computer surfing the internet.

...I don't dismiss science ... indeed, as I have confirmed numerous times I am a qualified practicing scientist myself!!!!

...and of course your real problem is the fact that I am fully embracing science and pointing out that science supports Creation.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

As a Christian I must 'turn the other cheek' to such unwarranted and unfounded slurs.
I have always spoken the truth ... and the truth will set you free.

So the numerous times that I've pointed out diagrammatically that the point you keep bringing up about "functional combinational space is a singularity" etc is just a circular argument and you just ignored me and kept repeating it that was what exactly?

equivariant

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You must not have read my post. Stick to the topic at hand and please refrain from making accusations about other members. If you have a specific concern then use the report function. Last warning.

But if any poster continually and brazenly misleads people (without any censure), what should one do? If I make accusations, they are not without basis in fact. J C has claimed that he is a qualified mathematician. That is a matter of fact. It is also true that he is demonstrably not mathematically competent - he has demonstrated this in many many posts in this thread. With his level of mathematical incompetence there is no way that he could have obtained any degree that would justify his claim to be a qualified mathematician. Bear in mind that a key point of his 'argument' is the suposedly mathematical concept of 'CSI'. If J C withdraws his claim to be a 'qualified mathematician' (or offers some real independent assessment to support it) then I would have to reconsider.

Part of the topic at hand is the attempt by many YECs to pass off their beliefs as science. Indeed imo, nothing could be more relevant to the topic at hand. The pseudo science of YEC has been refuted and debunked conclusively on this thread and in many other forums.

So what is a reasonable course of action? To continue to pretend that there is some point of YEC that deserves serious scientific analysis - there is not. On the other, one can address the real issue which is the deception both of themselves and of others that is practised by YECs. This is surely the real issue here.

monosharp

doctoremma wrote: »

Missed this before - brilliant. Is it yours?

I actually thought it was but Fanny Cradock has shown me its not an original creation. Now I need to think of something else. :pac:

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...just think about it ... how long would a company last if it had a manufacturing plan that involved selecting mistakes???
...nothing it ever produced would ever work!!!!:)

I'm sorry JC but I don't believe you are a biological scientist. This phrase just typifies how little you understand natural selection.

Neither companies nor nature select "mistakes" randomly, companies because they would lose money and populations because they would lose reproductive fitness. In fact, while companies would have the power to actively select negative "mistakes" if they choose to do so, it's very difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which nature can actively select for negative "mistakes".

How do you think the manufacturing process as we see it today has come about, if not through trial and error? How about the slow "evolution" of the internal combustion engine that powers some of the most beautiful machines ever built? Do you think it was an always positive, steadily increasing process or do you think there might have been a few wrong turns along the way. Wrong turns ("mistakes") which were quickly lost from the final product...

(And let's not get hung up on the fact that manufacturing is a "designed" process - it's irrelevant for this point)

X-rays and penicillin were both "mistakes". "Mistakes" which have radically changed our lives for the better and have been "selected for" in our society. I made a full-on, dizzy-headed "mistake" in the lab the other day and found I could knock about 30 mins off a 2 hour process and get a higher product yield. Was it a mistake? Yes. Will the people who I teach to repeat it consider it a mistake? No. Will it be viewed as a beneficial alteration to the process? Yes.

Basically, your analogy was bobbins.

doctoremma

equivariant wrote: »

But if any poster continually and brazenly misleads people (without any censure), what should one do? If I make accusations, they are not without basis in fact. J C has claimed that he is a qualified mathematician. That is a matter of fact. It is also true that he is demonstrably not mathematically competent - he has demonstrated this in many many posts in this thread. With his level of mathematical incompetence there is no way that he could have obtained any degree that would justify his claim to be a qualified mathematician. Bear in mind that a key point of his 'argument' is the suposedly mathematical concept of 'CSI'. If J C withdraws his claim to be a 'qualified mathematician' (or offers some real independent assessment to support it) then I would have to reconsider.

Part of the topic at hand is the attempt by many YECs to pass off their beliefs as science. Indeed imo, nothing could be more relevant to the topic at hand. The pseudo science of YEC has been refuted and debunked conclusively on this thread and in many other forums.

So what is a reasonable course of action? To continue to pretend that there is some point of YEC that deserves serious scientific analysis - there is not. On the other, one can address the real issue which is the deception both of themselves and of others that is practised by YECs. This is surely the real issue here.

Equivariant, a thanks from me is not enough. I am in full support of everything you say above. I find it outrageous that lying appears to be overlooked. JC is lying, randomly making up stuff to try and defend his increasingly-ridiculous point of view. This is not an attractive trait nor one that should be condoned.

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ditto for evolution, but I willing to think better of many of those scientists who hold to it; I ascribe their error to blinkered thinking driven by peer-pressure, rather than to dishonesty.

I guess that's better than being accused of willfully bullying the religious faction into submission....

Still, if I were a scientist who cared about fame, glory, a place in history and the Nobel of Nobel prizes, what topics do you think I'd be researching?

A cure for cancer - sure, that might do it.
A clean, renewable, cheap energy source - more likely.
Empirical evidence that god exists - I think this would nail it.

So, given that if I could generate data to show god exists and that this would make as famous as Darwin and Newton, why am I not doing it? If a scientist is self-interested, this is an obvious research path, no? You've got to ask - why aren't scientists doing it?

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

So, given that if I could generate data to show god exists and that this would make as famous as Darwin and Newton, why am I not doing it? If a scientist is self-interested, this is an obvious research path, no? You've got to ask - why aren't scientists doing it?

to pre-empt his answer: because we don't want to live under god's laws so we fool ourselves into thinking he doesn't exist and censor anyone who tries to tell "the truth"

Is that close enough woflsbane?