The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

If you follow that logic, you come to one of two conclusions:

1. the uncomfortable (or comfortable, depending on your level of racism) conclusion that everywhere that did not originally receive the Bible was populated by people who utterly failed to appreciate these things, being, presumably, unregenerate sinners

We were all unregenerate sinners.

2. the ecumenical conclusion that many of the other "native religions" in the world were inspired by God, and are at least as valid as Christianity.

Not by the same God who gave us the Bible, as He there emphatically rejects all other ways to Himself except by Christ.

However, Christ appeared only in the Middle East, which rather messes up the neat picture you present.

As I said before, God reveals Himself to whom He will, when He will. He has commissioned the Church to take His saving message to all the world. That's our duty. It does not mean we will reach everyone before they die, for He has not willed that. But we will reach everyone He has chosen to save. We don't know who they are, but He does and He arranges the circumstances to bring them to hear the gospel.

God chooses who to save, then. Fair enough - I shall simply wait until he so decides in my case (or not, in which he'll presumably send me to Hell).

He has both ordained the ends - who is to be saved - and the means, belief of the gospel. If you continue to refuse to believe, then you will indeed suffer your end. If you hear the gospel and fear Him, you can with certainty come to Him in repentance and He will save you. Rebellion is a mark of the damned; repentance a mark of the elect.

I would accept that, in general, someone who considers themselves as being saved will find it difficult to reconcile their salvation with such lifestyles. However, that it is not impossible is shown clearly by a number of fraud cases amongst evangelists.

I will mention specifically Peter Sutcliffe, the Yporkshire Ripper, who believed he was ordered by God to kill prostitutes. You would deny that he was actually saved, I would argue that he certainly believed he was, and why would you know better than he?

As I said, even true Christians can fall into sin. But most of those we see who talk of God and live immoral lives are just frauds. The tele-evangelists are among the worst of this type.

Regardless of what a man says, or even believes, if his life does not match the basic standards of the Bible, he is a fraud. Christ put it like this: Luke 6: 46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? 47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock. 49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.”

Admittedly, I might still eat the chickens afterwards, but then I don't claim to be perfect!

Except that while this is now the case, this was not so when Social Darwinism was dreamed up.

The belief of those missionaries and their sending churches was that God was going to save great numbers of those foreigners - blacks, yellows, reds. They also held that most of their white nation were unconverted and likely to die in their sins.

I can't, but then I don't believe that to be the case. You assume the inerrancy of the Biblical account - I could be said to "believe" in its "errancy". Eye-witness accounts are famously unreliable, particularly if they get written down a long while later!

Yes, that's my point - one can't hold the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God and at the same time deny the world-wide Flood. It makes sense for an unbeliever to deny it, but not for a Christian.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

Married people most certainly do suffer from unwanted pregnancies and domestic violence. Perhaps STIs as well. And rape.
Or perhaps you don't believe a husband could ever rape his wife.

The circumstances of the pregnancy are much better controlled in marriage, and the effect of an unplanned one usually much less stressful. Yes, there is domestic violence, just as any other sort of violence. Marriage is no guarantee of your partner's qualities - just improves your chances, especially if you marry someone who shares your morality. STDs do not occur between faithful couples. Rape happens in marriage and out of it. But usually out of it.

That is why I advise young people to seek a suitable partner and be faithful to them. Don't marry a promiscious person. Don't marry a bully. Don't marry a drunkard. Don't marry a slob. If the young person decides to sleep around instead of the marriage route, then consequencies will follow.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

We were all unregenerate sinners.

A snappy one liner that doesn't actually deal with what Scofflaw said.

Do you believe that the ancient Asháninka will be condemned because they didn't believe in the God of the Hebrew Bible?

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

wolfsbane, do you really believe that just because a couple aren't married in the eyes of your particular religion or law that they are comitting an evil against society?

If they aren't married, they are commiting an evil against God.

How does this hurt anyone if the couple is comitted when having kids or using contraception otherwise?

Hmmm. I'm not saying it significantly hurts society, if they are so comitted. Usually, refusal to marry is an indication of absence of such commitment.

Why should monotheology have a monopoly on monogamy? (say that ten times fast!)

As long as we keep to the Maker's instructions, we can benefit from using His provision even if we are ignorant of Him. Folks who practise monogamy while not knowing God will be blessed in that nevertheless, for they are practising the marriage relationship even if they have never formally said the words.

You seem to think that in Ireland today that the greater sexual freedom we enjoy is a bad thing

Yes, it has brought much sorrow and disappointment.

and we should go back to the repressed, fearful, days when the church ran the country. We're still picking up the pieces from this.

That's the last thing I want. What I want (on the purely human level, rather than the spiritual one) is for us all to treat one another with the respect God made us for. Part of that is to not abuse our sexuality; to express our sexual nature in the confines of a life-log commitment as man and wife.

Much of Catholic Ireland, the Ireland hopefully of the past, was indeed repressed. It had not the liberating self-control that Biblical understanding encourages, but was almost gnostic in its formal view of sex; and informally, the perversions of the religious orders shows us that man-made restrictions are no help in controlling the desires of the flesh.

If a society behaves in a manner that gives everyone a fair go at living their life free from any form of oppression (sexual, religous or other) then that shouldn't conflict with the basic ideals of any religion.

I agree. But it depends on how you work that out. I don't believe the homosexual's freedom to be one gives him the right to deny me the right to say his lifestyle is evil.

When religion tries to restrict the actions/freedoms of real people solely for fear or upseting their imaginary god, it has overstepped its mark.

True religion should not seek to enforce itself. We are to preach the gospel to all. If they give heed, great; if not, God has appointed a Day in which He will judge them.

But if you are saying that society should not restrict sexual behaviour at all, then I disagree. No one should be allowed to offend whatever the consensus on decency involves: If it is a head-covering for women in an Islamic society; or a ban on having sex in public in our own society; or nudity in public, etc., then whether that is down to thinking it offensive to God or not doesn't matter. It is offensive.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
I have found that Newton’s Laws have continued to remain valid whilst being tested repeatedly for several hundred years.
Bluewolf
Eh, not in relativity or quantum mech... they're pretty outdated at this point

Newton’s never claimed that his Laws apply at atomic levels of resolution or approaching the speed of light. All of his Laws remain scientifically valid - and they are not in the least 'outdated'.

Are you suggesting that Newton be declared to be a non-scientist because he was a great Creation Scientist?


Bluewolf
Your evidence for something regarding the universe (it’s infinity) is "we dont know" + "the bible says so"?

MY evidence is that Galaxies are OBSERVED to continue beyond the limits of resolution of our most advanced instruments – and it is therefore REASONABLE to assume an infinite Universe.

YOUR evidence for a 20 billion light year diameter Universe is based on indirect measurements that used unproven ASSUMPTIONS!!!!


Matthewthebig
Em if Adam and Eve were the first people ever and they had 2 children, both male, where did everyone else come from?
God directly created TWO people – Adam and Eve. He told them in Gen 1:28 to “Be fruitful and increase in number”(NIV). Cain, Abel and Seth as well as many other unrecorded children were conceived by and born to Adam and Eve. Gen 5:4 confirms this fact “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters”(NIV). Such was the perfection of Humans and the newly created environment, that Adam lived for 930 years!! The number of children produced by such long-lived healthy people would be very large indeed.

There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any significant danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is the main historical reason for banning incest among consenting adults).
Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood when background radiation apparently greatly increased the mutation rates (as measured by the rapid collapse in longevity from several hundred years to an average of 70 years) – and a Law was then given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.
Although not advisable because of our increasing ‘mutation loads’, near cousins may still legally marry – so there shouldn’t be any great wonder about close relatives marrying each other during the immediate subsequent generations from Adam and Eve.


Matthewthebig
And another question how old do you believe the world is?
Not very!!!!


Son Goku

It is difficult with Euclidean geometry to measure those distances, but with Riemannian geometry it is simple and has been done for the past eighty years that way.

George Fredrich Riemann’s Geometry cannot definitively measure these distances. While Riemannian multi-dimensional Geometry is essential to do the calculations it doesn’t overcome the ASSUMPTIONS made in establishing the direction in which a star is actually travelling, it’s position relative to other stars (and their actual positions/distances) or indeed the star’s actual rate of speed.


Son Goku
If a supernova occurred within 300 light years of us JC, we would be dead. All the stars energy, except the binding energy, is released. Which is an enormous amount of energy.

Most stars lose only about one hundred thousandth part of their total matter in a Nova – and it is believed that a Supernova throws off only about 10% of it’s matter in the explosion.

Either way, the energy is predominantly given off as radiant hot gas – and not as a nuclear conversion of the matter to energy.

A distance of 300 light years (which is 380,000 times the distance from the Sun to Pluto) should protect us from almost any effects of a Supernova at a distance of 300 light years!!!!!!!


Son Goku
What is your area of science JC, specifically?
Aside from the "numerous and varied" you claimed earlier.
You seem to be criticising everything from fairly advanced bioinformatics, right through to General Relativity.
Nobody has the training necessary to do this at a scientific level JC.

Nobody except me and a relatively small number of other scientists!!

Increasing specialisation among scientists is needed to cope with the explosion in scientific knowledge over the last century.
However, this increasing specialisation has come at a price – and it has led to overview and cross-discipline information transfer problems.
Attempts have been made to address these problems with the training of Philosophers of Science. While this does help to address the ‘overview deficit’ – scientists, like myself, who are trained across all of the major disciplines, can also make a significant contribution to cross-discipline information transfer as well as issues requiring broad scientific expertise – such as the ‘Origins Question’.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

So are you acknowledgeing that two gay men or women can be in love and have a deeply comitted relationship just as much as a man and a woman?

If that question is to me, I do indeed believe they can be as in love and as commited as a man and woman. But that does not make it right. We can be in love with and committed to many things that are wrong. Some people are in love with their dog, horse, etc., and have sex with it. No doubting their love and commitment.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

Nature is far from perfect, we are a product of nature and we've done a great job taking care of the place. The Earth is a relatively stable open system, but like all systems it is imperfect and finite

True of the earth. Not true of God.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Do you believe that the ancient Asháninka will be condemned because they didn't believe in the God of the Hebrew Bible?

Yes. Just like the ancient Irish, the ancient British, etc. Man turned away from the True God and turned to idols. God in His justice gave them up to their rebellion. But in His mercy, He determined to save many and sent His Son to bear the justice that was due their sins. They hear His gospel and turn to Him in repentance and faith. A great number, from every nation and tribe.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes. Just like the ancient Irish, the ancient British, etc. Man turned away from the True God and turned to idols. God in His justice gave them up to their rebellion. But in His mercy, He determined to save many and sent His Son to bear the justice that was due their sins. They hear His gospel and turn to Him in repentance and faith. A great number, from every nation and tribe.

How could they have known?
An Asháninka child didn't even know of the idea of a monotheistic God, how is it fair to condemn them?

Matthewthebig

ok JC.

i have a question.

one word question.

dinosaurs

Son Goku

J C wrote:

George Fredrich Riemann’s Geometry cannot definitively measure these distances. While Riemannian multi-dimensional Geometry is essential to do the calculations it doesn’t overcome the ASSUMPTIONS made in establishing the direction in which a star is actually travelling, it’s position relative to other stars (and their actual positions/distances) or indeed the star’s actual rate of speed.

Explain to me, with reference to Riemannian geometry what these assumptions are and how Riemann's geometry doesn't overcome them. Or perhaps I should explain how Riemannian Geometry works in this regard in a separate PDF file and you can point out the flaws in my Tensor Calculus.

I find this an odd assertion given that only the use of Riemannian geometry can correctly predict some stellar motion, but take your choice from the above.

and it is believed that a Supernova throws off only about 10% of it’s matter in the explosion.

What? Does that even matter.
We're talking millions of yotta-joules being released into a 300 light sphere. Almost all of that will condense into cosmic rays or ultra-relativistic pions. Anything within that radius would be in for some unpleasantness.

Either way, the energy is predominantly given off as radiant hot gas – and not as a nuclear conversion of the matter to energy.

It is beyond hot JC and the fact that it is radiant is the bad thing.

A distance of 300 light years (which is 380,000 times the distance from the Sun to Pluto) should protect us from almost any effects of a Supernova at a distance of 300 light years!!!!!!!

No it won't.

Nobody except me and a relatively small number of other scientists!!

Again you either lying, or you are spreading yourself incredibly thin.

Increasing specialisation among scientists is needed to cope with the explosion in scientific knowledge over the last century.
However, this increasing specialisation has come at a price – and it has led to overview and cross-discipline information transfer problems.

I agree that the price is heavy but it is unavoidable.

Attempts have been made to address these problems with the training of Philosophers of Science. While this does help to address the ‘overview deficit’ – scientists, like myself, who are trained across all of the major disciplines, can also make a significant contribution to cross-discipline information transfer as well as issues requiring broad scientific expertise – such as the ‘Origins Question’.

So let me get this straight. You not only know the ins and outs of the concepts of information in a genetic context, you also are well versed in Riemannian Geometry and, seemingly, organic chemistry.
You must be one hell of a guy.

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

If they aren't married, they are commiting an evil against God.

you'd think god would be more worried about the rapists and murderers, is there an evil scale or is the living in sin evil on par with slaughtering innocent people sin?

wolfsbane wrote:

As long as we keep to the Maker's instructions, we can benefit from using His provision even if we are ignorant of Him. Folks who practise monogamy while not knowing God will be blessed in that nevertheless, for they are practising the marriage relationship even if they have never formally said the words.

aren't these sinners getting off light compared to those who know about god but refuse to marry because of their own strong beliefs? Once again, the sin scale question?

wolfsbane wrote:

... and informally, the perversions of the religious orders shows us that man-made restrictions are no help in controlling the desires of the flesh.

So do you think priests and nums should be allowed to marry?

wolfsbane wrote:

I agree. But it depends on how you work that out. I don't believe the homosexual's freedom to be one gives him the right to deny me the right to say his lifestyle is evil.

once again this concept of evil against god. if you go around preaching these beliefs do you not generate homophobia which will ultimately leads to violence and hatred against gay people? Granted a "true" christian would wash the feet of the sinner or something (but history doesn't show us much feet washing) but does this discrimination not reduce the humanity of homosexuals in your eyes? Can you accept that a gay man can love another gay man in the same way as a man can love a woman? Or is the fact that they may indulge in naughty unspeakable things the bit that is wrong?

wolfsbane wrote:

True religion should not seek to enforce itself. We are to preach the gospel to all. If they give heed, great; if not, God has appointed a Day in which He will judge them.

you should be pope
So there aren't very many true religions or christians around then?

wolfsbane wrote:

But if you are saying that society should not restrict sexual behaviour at all, then I disagree. No one should be allowed to offend whatever the consensus on decency involves: If it is a head-covering for women in an Islamic society; or a ban on having sex in public in our own society; or nudity in public, etc., then whether that is down to thinking it offensive to God or not doesn't matter. It is offensive.

Offense is a matter of taste. most well adjusted people don't want to see public acts of naughtiness. Generally the level of offense is down to cultural and hense religous beliefs. Personally I find Islamic head scarfs offensive. however if no one is hurt or demeaned by peoples actions then there shouldn't be a problem. The problem is that all too often it is religion that decides the sensitivity of people to offense.

J C

Scofflaw
There is no evidence for a worldwide flood, although there is a model of earth evolution that suggests that the world was covered with water prior to the production of the continents (and thus effectively consisted entriely of oceanic crust). In addition, almost every part of the world is known to have been underwater at some time (based on sedimentology), but not at the same time.
OK Scofflaw, so there is no evidence for a worldwide flood – even though Evolutionists accept that the World was COMPLETELY COVERED in water in the past – and "almost every part of the world" underwent some kind of ‘rolling’ Global Flood but "not at the same time".

Come on, Scofflaw – it really is OK to accept that Noah’s Flood DID occur.
It really is OK.

5uspect

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
There is no evidence for a worldwide flood, although there is a model of earth evolution that suggests that the world was covered with water prior to the production of the continents (and thus effectively consisted entriely of oceanic crust). In addition, almost every part of the world is known to have been underwater at some time (based on sedimentology), but not at the same time.
OK Scofflaw, so there is no evidence for a worldwide flood – even though Evolutionists accept that the World was COMPLETELY COVERED in water in the past – and "almost every part of the world" underwent some kind of ‘rolling’ Global Flood.

Come on, Scofflaw – it really is OK to accept that Noah’s Flood DID occur.
It really is OK.

why should we accept anything without evidence? The evidence regarding water/landmass distribution on the surface of the earth (what you call a rolling flood) would have occured over millions of years. Now how old was Noah? I know some materials scientists who would love to get their hands on a boat that could survive intact for that lenght of time! Also what types of animals do you think Noah brought on this million year voyage of his?

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The OBSERVATIONS of Astronomy indicate a Universe of INFINITE size.

And .....

As I said, the laws of physics prove you wrong.

J C wrote:

There are no Laws of Chemistry that will spontaneously generate life – and the Biological Law of Biogenesis proves me RIGHT.

Yes, there are. And the "law" of Biogenesis isn't a law in any meaningful scientific sense, any more than Moores law in electronics or Murphy's law in statistics.

Maybe you should actually read up on the "law" of bogenesis.

J C wrote:

Once again the Biological Law of Biogenesis proves me RIGHT – and ‘molecules to Man’ Evolution WRONG.

Its not a "law" JC. Just because you stick "law" in front of it doesn't make it an unbreakable rule. We had Jane's "law" in college, which meant the dishes wouldn't be done on Monday morning when we all got back to the flat. Doesn't mean it was a scientific law.

Oh and the real laws of chemistry prove you wrong, again.

J C wrote:

Just replace the words “4000”, “few men” and “Middle Easter desert” with
“150”, “one man” and “Kent”!!!!

They knew a little bit more about stuff 150 years ago that 4000 years ago JC. Just a little bit more :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

I mean that mutation (which is the supposed ‘engine of evolutionary progress’ from primeval molecules to Man) is OBSERVED to always DEGRADE i.e. destroy genetic information

No it hasn't, methods to increase in genetic complexity has been predicted and observed.

You have been told this before. Please stop lying.

J C wrote:

but it ALWAYS uses extant pre-existing genetic diversity to do so

No its not. As you have been told before. Again, please stop lying.

J C wrote:

but I have never OBSERVED any repeatably verifiable evidence that unambiguously supports this belief.

Maybe htat is because you keep ignoring it ...

J C wrote:

The evidence must be posted by the claimant to the validity of these measurements – not the other way around

They have already been proved as valid. In fact they are one of the most valid measurements in astromomy.

Now you are claiming that they are in fact incorrect, aparently based on your reading of a 4000 year old book from the Middle East. So if you have a evidence or proof that these measurements are not in fact valid, please present it. I'm sure the astomomy world will be shocked, and most of known physics theory will have to re-written. They will probably give you a Nobel prize, I'm amazed you haven't come forward with this astonding information before.

J C wrote:

I would point out, however, that the assumptions of indirect methods of astronomical measurement PREVENT definitive conclusions being reached about Supernovae being hundreds of thousands of light years away.

Only if the "assumptions" are wrong. "Assumptions" such as light having a constant general speed through the universe. "Assumptions" such as gravity being the same through the universe.

If they are independently proved as correct, then they don't. As I said above, if you have evidence that assumptions made in modern physics are wrong, please present it. Sweden will be very interested, it will probably make you rich and famous.

It seems a little strange that you would attack these, quite well establised and logical "assumptions" based on your own religious assumptions that have no logical backing and which contradict everything we know about the universe in so many different scientific fields. Basically for your assumption to be correct, everything else has to be wrong. Which is more likely JC?

J C wrote:

My point is that it is impossible to definitively measure distances beyond 300 light years

It is impossible to defnitively measure anything. What is possible is to measure stars beyond 300 light years with a very high level of certainty.

J C wrote:

Is it REALLY ridiculous to believe that a planet with enough SEA-WATER to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres (or 1.6 miles) could be entirely covered by this water at some time?

It is REALLY ridiculous to believe that a planet with enough sea water to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 kilometers could be entirely covered by this water at in recent times when the high of the surface of the earth extends to 8.9 kilometers

So, in 6000 years you have to lower the Earths surface by about 5 kilometers. Or claim the earths surface rose by 5 kilometers in a few years.

As I have repeatable said, there is no known way that could happen.

Basically you are making that theory up because the evidence doesn't fit your religious ideas of the Earth.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw in the next quote confirms that even Evolutionists believe in a WORLWIDE FLOOD!!!!!

No they don't.

Geologests know that 2.5 billion years ago large portions of the Earth were underwater. There was also no free oxygen in the atmosphere, and the surface of the Earth was 100 times more volcanic.

So JC if you want to claim that is when your world wide Biblical flood took place, be my guest, but I would not that Noah would have to own a pressure suit and breathing device. Did God put those on the Arch too?

J C wrote:

I can give you the date!!!!
It is 2,500 +/- 300 years BC.

Close JC, but you are out by about 2.5 billion years.

J C wrote:

It is indeed interesting and probably an inaccurate account of Noah's Flood. If you want the definitive account read Gen 6-10.

An account by a people who were supposed to be dead? So if they got the details wrong that is still quite impressive that they managed to write anything, since they were all supposed to be killed.

as I said, out .. the .. window ...

J C wrote:

A dirt mount hanging around for 3 billion years – I thought I had heard it all – but this really ‘takes the biscuit’!!!

Sigh ... read JC .. read!

What people thought to be just a mount of dirt, inside a mountain, turned out to be fossils. From 3 billion years ago.



Of course I'm sure all independent dating methods used were naturally all wrong, even though they all came up with the same answer ... ummm

What are the odds of that happening ....

J C wrote:

Ever see a volcano LOCALLY explode or an earthquake LOCALLY move land several metres into the air?

Yes.

Ever seen a volcano produce a mountain range the size of the Alpes JC, in a week? How about a year? 10 years?

Ever seen an earthquake raise a landmass 5 kilometers into the air in a few hours? A few days? How about 100 days? A 1000 days? While underwater?

What nonsense.

ISAW

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
There is no evidence for a worldwide flood, although there is a model of earth evolution that suggests that the world was covered with water prior to the production of the continents (and thus effectively consisted entriely of oceanic crust). In addition, almost every part of the world is known to have been underwater at some time (based on sedimentology), but not at the same time.
OK Scofflaw, so there is no evidence for a worldwide flood – even though Evolutionists accept that the World was COMPLETELY COVERED in water in the past – and "almost every part of the world" underwent some kind of ‘rolling’ Global Flood.

Come on, Scofflaw – it really is OK to accept that Noah’s Flood DID occur.
It really is OK.

The earliest geological period in the Earths life perdates any evidence for life life. It is called the Hadel period. At this time it is unlikely due to vulcanism that there was any water. I would suggest that water was delivered from space over at least hundreds of millions of years. Note this is before ANY life let alone man.

5uspect

Wicknight wrote:

Basically you are making that theory up because the evidence doesn't fit your religious ideas of the Earth.

Psychologists have a name for this: cognitive dissonance

J C

Matthewthebig
ok JC.

i have a question.

one word question.

dinosaurs

Dinosaurs were great big beasts with bad breath and a bad attitude!!!

Dinosaurs ARE referred to in the Bible – where they are called, among other things, 'Dragons'. An accurate description of a Brachiosaurus-like Dinosaur and it’s habitat is contained in Job 40:15-24. The word “Dinosaur” doesn’t appear in the Bible because the name wasn’t invented until 1841 when Sir Richard Owen, first Superintendent of the British Museum (and a Creationist), coined the term Dinosaur from the Greek words meaning “terrible lizard” upon seeing some newly discovered fossil bones of an Iguanadon and a Megalosaurus.


Son Goku
Explain to me, with reference to Riemannian geometry what these assumptions are and how Riemann's geometry doesn't overcome them.

As I have already said, while Riemannian multi-dimensional Geometry is essential to do the calculations it doesn’t overcome the ASSUMPTIONS upon which the indirect measurements that are ‘fed into’ the equations are based. The usual warning of ‘assumptions in’ – ‘assumptions out’ applies.


Son Goku
I find this an odd assertion given that only the use of Riemannian geometry can correctly predict some stellar motion

Riemannian multi-dimensional Geometry may indeed accurately predict RELATIVE stellar motion – but it cannot definitively determine ABSOLUTE distances.


Son Goku
We're talking millions of yotta-joules being released into a 300 light sphere. Almost all of that will condense into cosmic rays or ultra-relativistic pions. Anything within that radius would be in for some unpleasantness.

Most of it will actually condense into light and heat energy.

The volume of a 300 LY radius sphere is ten billion, billion, billion million times greater than the volume of the exploding star. I think we would be pretty safe on the edge of such a sphere at a 300 LY distance and with that dilution effect!!!


Son Goku
You must be one hell of a guy.

Amazingly my wife is aways saying that to me as well!!!

I thank you for the compliment, but I am really only a fallible Human Being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit and an unworthy sinner saved by Jesus Christ.

ISAW

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
I have found that Newton’s Laws have continued to remain valid whilst being tested repeatedly for several hundred years.
Bluewolf
Eh, not in relativity or quantum mech... they're pretty outdated at this point

Newton’s never claimed that his Laws apply at atomic levels of resolution or approaching the speed of light. All of his Laws remain scientifically valid - and they are not in the least 'outdated'.

Whether Newton claimed anythign is not the point. whether his LAWS were correct is the point. Let us even forget about atomic or sub atomic sizes or about travelling near light speed. cosmology deals with larger and slower things as well. Newtons laws explained how planets the Sun and the shape of their orbits. When accurate measurements were available Newtone laws did not explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Gravitational lensing is also an effect plain to see.

Are you suggesting that Newton be declared to be a non-scientist because he was a great Creation Scientist?

Do you believe that Newtons views on Creation are authoritiative given that he was a heritis who did not accept the Trinity?

MY evidence is that Galaxies are OBSERVED to continue beyond the limits of resolution of our most advanced instruments – and it is therefore REASONABLE to assume an infinite Universe.

My experience suggests that the Earth is curved and we can not see beyond the horizon. THat does not mean that the surface of the Earth is infinite. It would not be resonable to conclude that it is.

YOUR evidence for a 20 billion light year diameter Universe is based on indirect measurements that used unproven ASSUMPTIONS!!!!

actually done to the horizon problem we will never see the whole universe. all theories are based on unproven axioms and assumptions. e.g. we assume the laws of physics ar the same everywhere ot that matter is evenly spread throughout the Universe or the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Similarly we can assume God exists.

There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God).

You are sailing close to the winfd here. what is a "genetic defect"?

5uspect

J C wrote:

and it’s habitat is contained in Job 40:15-24. The word “Dinosaur” doesn’t appear in the Bible because the name wasn’t invented until 1841 when Sir Richard Owen, first Superintendent of the British Museum (and a Creationist),

Its kind of difficult to be pro-evolution seeing how Darwin didn't publish the Origin of Species until 1859 and the theory wasn't wildy accepted until after Owen died in 1892. Although didn't Owen claim to have discovered evolution first at one stage?

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Explain to me, with reference to Riemannian geometry what these assumptions are and how Riemann's geometry doesn't overcome them.

As I have already said, while Riemannian multi-dimensional Geometry is essential to do the calculations it doesn’t overcome the ASSUMPTIONS upon which the indirect measurements that are ‘fed into’ the equations are based. The usual warning of ‘assumptions in’ – ‘assumptions out’ applies.

What assumptions and how do they enter the formula? Answer me that.
Or would you rather me to show you my calculations in a PDF and you can decide what I did wrong.

Riemannian multi-dimensional Geometry may indeed accurately predict RELATIVE stellar motion – but it cannot definitively determine ABSOLUTE distances.

General Relativity 101, we only discuss local coordinate maps.
(And I know you don't have a clue what I'm talking about)
It can predict Stellar Motion and Distance.
If you think not, say what is wrong with the Tensor Calculus specifically or I'll do it and you point out the flaws.

Most of it will actually condense into light and infra red energy.

Light and infra-red energy?
Infra-red is a form of light.
Aside from that though, condense into Infra-Red?
JC this hugely upper-range temperatures/energies, how could it possibly transition into infrared? The amplitude for that is miniscule.
You right that a lot of it will condense into light, high-energy light.
"Very bad for life"-light. As well as ultra-relativistic particles.

The volume of a 300 LY radius sphere is ten billion, billion, billion million times greater than the volume of the exploding star. I think we would be pretty safe on the edge of such a sphere at a 300 LY distance and with that dilution effect!!!

No we wouldn't. I just calculated it. It's a simple Intensity solid angle integral. We would be in for a minor extinction event.
Not a major extinction event because our atmosphere would do a lot of shielding.
In other words, it's our atmosphere that would save us, not the distance.

I thank you for the compliment, but I am really only a fallible Human Being and unworthy sinner saved by Jesus Christ.

Cute. How did you have sufficient time to treat all of these varied areas in detail?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

1. Most 'sectarian' crimes are not motivated by disagreement on theology, but by ethnic competition. It is more British/Irish than Protestant/Catholic. It so happens that the respective ethnic origins mainly correlate to the respective religious affliations. So if you want to beat up a Taig, someone coming from Mass is a likely candidate. If you want to do the same for a Brit, your local church or Orange Hall will provide indications of suitable targets. Mostly it is just watching to see where they live, as we live mostly segregated here. A Rangers or Celtic top is another good indicator.

A good point - religious allegiance is effectively a tribal marker.

wolfsbane wrote:

2. From my experience, most of those actively involved in the late killing campaign were not devout members of any religion. Most were in fact very godless. There were exceptions, especially in the Republican camp. A few of their leaders did seem religious. Especially in the early days, a few Christians were involved in the Loyalist groups. The slide into wanton brutality, robbery, extortion and drug-dealing caused them to remove themselves. Many Republicans were of course militantly socialist and anti-religion. That was true of an element of Loyalism too, but mostly they were ungodly patriots or just ungodly thugs with an eye to power and profit.

And their supporters and fellow-travellers such as the Roarin' Rev? Is it the case that because they do not commit the violence, but "only" condone it and assist in the creation of the conditions for it, that they are innocent of it?

wolfsbane wrote:

3. Unlike most of my Evangelical brethren, I do not regard the Troubles as mere criminality. I accept it was a war. And in war, even good people use force to accomplish their ends. As in all wars, the justness of their cause is the debate. One side at least must be fighting an unjust war. But war it is, nevertheless.

Tricky one - I agree that it's war, rather than crime. As you say, good people can and do use force to achieve their ends, which they feel justify the means. I can only find it morally acceptable where those killed are complicit in the war.

I have a simple metric for wars - number of children (under 12) and infants (under 2) killed. It is never acceptable to kill the innocent, and only children can be assumed to be innocent, since they lack the experience and/or judgement to be guilty.

wolfsbane wrote:

I note there is debate about the reality of the profession of faith of many. I can certainly say that most of those who call themselves 'born again' show no sign of being so. They think God is a vending machine for their lusts and the underwriter of an insurance policy against hell.

OK.

wolfsbane wrote:

In addition, even where credible professions of faith exist, some will prove by their eventual actions that they were deceivers from the beginning - just as Judas walked with the disciples unnoticed for over three years, but was a thief from the beginning.

Finally, even true Christians can fall into sin. If they commit adultery and for a time refuse to repent, their spouse may justly divorce them.

All of which makes the "profession" of Christianity effectively irrelevant - someone who adheres to Christianity is neither more nor less likely to be a good person than someone who doesn't, since you claim that in effect, they are the same except in a very small number of cases (the "elect" to coin a phrase). I think you may have painted yourself into a corner.

wolfsbane wrote:

Illicit sex is that outside the marriage bond. The dangers are STDs, unwanted pregnancies, violence from spurned lovers who feel used. We see it all around us.

Not knowing your circumstances, I can't say if you have had illicit sex. Again, from my experience, most men have.

It seems I have, then - without STD, pregnancy, or violence. To push on with points made by other posters - marriage does not reduce the impact of violence within a relationship, it merely limits the perpetrator to one person! STD's can be transmitted by non-sexual routes, particularly mother-to-child during birth, but also by various routes of ordinary contagion.

Again, it is clear from the stats that populations that are more religious do not have lower rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but higher. I can see that you have to think what you think, but your opinion is in conflict with available statistics.

wolfsbane wrote:

Let me suggest it is not the locality that restrains the person of faith, it is their beliefs. In the real world, those who are coming out of prayer-meetings are very unlikely to go somewhere else and mug someone. The religious person in the city centre late at night will not be beating up passersby.

No, it's the social context - those who are coming out of atheist lectures are equally unlikely aggressors, despite their unbelief! Your argument is fundamentally a class distinction, I think.

wolfsbane wrote:

Certainly some unbelievers do attend church. But the type of unbeliever who does so is also very unlikely to have the mindset of the hedonist. They usually have some awareness of God and are restrained by that knowledge. And young Christians do wander in groups too, but they are very much less in evidence in our estates. So again, the real world has real threats from gangs of godless youths and they are the ones most likely to be encountered if you walk through our estates.

Essentially, then, we're not really talking about a question of faith - we are talking about people who are immoral or amoral. They choose not to "truly accept" Christianity because to do so would hinder their self-indulgence. They would refuse humanism, or social-contract morality, for exactly the same reason. That in turn suggests that Christianity as a force for morality has little or no advantage over humanism, despite its godly backer!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

No coincidence. They are both reports of the same event, passed down to the descendants of the survivors. As to Moses account being later, it is only true that Moses was later, not the account he passed on. You are reading into it that he borrowed from the other account rather than passing on a separate account of the same incident.

Here we head off into exegesis...matters of "fact" could of course simply be the same between accounts. We would have to look for stylistic similarities, or similar contradictions before we could be sure. Of course, I cannot imagine that you would accept it anyway.

I am amused, as ever, by the simultaneous Creationist claims that worldwide flood myths validate the Biblical account, while also claiming that everyone but Noah and his family were wiped out. Clearly Noah's family did not write the flood myths of the Native Americans. Or did they?!

Please choose your preferred claim and stick to it. I cannot allow you to have both and not deride you!

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, God could have made us unable to sin. He does not say why He chose not to. The closest He comes to answering our objections is the words He inspired Paul to write:
Romans 9:14-24: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%209:14-24;&version=50;

Having read the passage, I see even less difference between the God of the Bible and the various other primitive deities of the region. It looks like "shut up and don't question God".

wolfsbane wrote:

Actually, sex with children has 'respectable' advocates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile_activism and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

As did slavery. And genocide has had the ultimate backing, of course.

wolfsbane wrote:

I agree that paedophilia involves both sexs as perpetrators and victims. My point was the defence of being born gay is used also by many paedophiles about their orientation.

Indeed - it is also used by those with no legs to explain why they're not on the England team.

A paedophile may indeed be "born that way", but that does not lessen his/her moral guilt for giving in. I am sure you would say the same about homosexuals. However, the two are different, and should not be confused by apparently linking them.

wolfsbane wrote:

However, in my experience many who have sex with kids are not exclusive: they are more interested in sex than where it comes from. They shag (pardon the shorthand) whatever is available. Women, men, kids, animals - though will have preferences. Pure hedonism motivates them more than a perverted desire that arose as a reaction to something in their childhood, which would be the case of exclusive or strongly biased perversions.

I dare say most paedophilia is of the hedonist type - heterosexuals who take whatever extra opportunities that come up to express themselves.

I have dealt with both types in prison.

Quite possibly so. It's often a power thing as well, even for obligate paedophiles. I don't know whether there are any available statistics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
There is no evidence for a worldwide flood, although there is a model of earth evolution that suggests that the world was covered with water prior to the production of the continents (and thus effectively consisted entriely of oceanic crust). In addition, almost every part of the world is known to have been underwater at some time (based on sedimentology), but not at the same time.
OK Scofflaw, so there is no evidence for a worldwide flood – even though Evolutionists accept that the World was COMPLETELY COVERED in water in the past – and "almost every part of the world" underwent some kind of ‘rolling’ Global Flood but "not at the same time".

Come on, Scofflaw – it really is OK to accept that Noah’s Flood DID occur.
It really is OK.

Ho ho ho. You funny man! I like the idea of a "'rolling' Global Flood" - which is to say, a flood that isn't global. Are you backtracking? C'mon, JC, let it all out!

ISAW is nearly correct - the latest period when the earth was probably flat enough to be entirely sea is the early Archaean (3800Myr - 3300Myr), which immediately post-dates the Hadean. At this point micro-continents were forming through accretion at subduction margins - the Canadian Shield is formed from several such micro-continents, and they are well-studied (mining). Resemblance to Noah's Flood - zero.

I am sure that you will have studied this at some point in your all-embracing scientific career, although now I come to think of it they don't teach it to first-year Ag students, so maybe not.

amused,
Scofflaw

robindch

JC -- good to have you back again -- we missed your thousand-word postings and broken capslock key!

> [JC] I accept that speciation is observed. I also accept that
> Natural Selection occurs

Repeat after me: "I have evolved from a creationist into a Darwinist"!

J C

J C wrote:

Are you suggesting that Newton be declared to be a non-scientist because he was a great Creation Scientist?

I'm actually stunned at this question. Where on earth did you come up with that?

YOUR evidence for a 20 billion light year diameter Universe is based on indirect measurements that used unproven ASSUMPTIONS!!!!

Last I checked, I hadn't said a single word about this.
What on earth are you talking about?

MY evidence is that Galaxies are OBSERVED to continue beyond the limits of resolution of our most advanced instruments – and it is therefore REASONABLE to assume an infinite Universe.

So, again, it's "I don't know, and the bible says so anyway"?


Also, nice dodging of son goku's question as to what science you are "trained" in.
What and where have you trained in, and what do you do?
Or is there any point to asking you anymore?

wolfsbane:

http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_mrape.php
10-14% is high enough for America, given its population. No "usually out of marriage" there. And that was 10 years ago, goodness knows how it's increased there.
As for the unwanted pregnancy - maybe it's preferable to one with an unmarried couple, but an unwanted pregnancy is still an unwanted pregnancy and marriage certainly does not prevent it.

"If the young person decides to sleep around instead of the marriage route, then consequencies will follow." - sleeping around is not the only alternative to marriage.

Fallen Seraph

I'd like to join bluewolf in asking you, JC, to cite a complete list of your scientific qualifications. You have so far dodged that question several times while claiming that most of modern science is invalid and that you are one of the most learned living scientists.

5uspect

i'll third that

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

It was their descendants who wrote the accounts.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I thought there descendants wrote the Biblical account. Are you saying there are lots of different accounts of the Flood, from different tribes? Some of which didn't follow the Hewbrew God, despite the fact that he just wiped everyone in the world out

wolfsbane wrote:

Hatred, bitterness, lust, pride, envy, etc. are all part of our nature.

True. Which would beg the question why did God make us that way if it displeases him so much.

wolfsbane wrote:

But they are not the way God originally made us to be. Neither is being homosexual.

Well they are the way God originally made us to be. So I guess the question is why

wolfsbane wrote:

It undoubtedly occurs in nature. The point is, is it the nature as God originally made it to be, or a perversion of it?

What force can perverse nature beyond God's original plan? Surely this power would be great than God's, if it can change the fundamental biological structures of nature away from what God originally wanted

5uspect

Wicknight wrote:

What force can perverse nature beyond God's original plan? Surely this power would be great than God's, if it can change the fundamental biological structures of nature away from what God originally wanted

Satanic cosmic rays perhaps? I would like to know what is it exaclty that makes the bilbe so infallible? Why do people trust this highly edited man made jumble over vasts chunks of the scienfitic literature which back ups its statements with observation?