The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

> Why do people trust this highly edited man made jumble

Because it supplies the tranquil and tranquillising illusion of certainty in an uncertain world.

Zombrex

5uspect wrote:

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?

Me too TBH.

I never really got an answer as to why Christians (or Jews) have such faith in the Bible as a text. I can understand faith in God, but it seems that it is just a given that if you have faith in God you have to believe in the Bible, no matter what the Bible says. Is it just that the rest of the religion says "Yes, this is the text to follow" so everyone thinks it is the correct thing to do and goes along with it.

Has anyone really thought about that?

I went through a number of religious stages in my early life, before I got to "atheist". The rejection of the idea of a god was the hard bit, one of the first stages was a rejection of the Bible as a text to have faith in. That was easy I still kinda believed in God at the time, but nothing I could think of could make me believe the Bible was the word of God, and no one could explain to my why I should believe it is the word of God, beyond the cyclical (yet always amusing) argument that the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible.

So as you say, why do people believe and put huge faith in the text of the Bible when it seems more logical to believe the study of nature science and history itself.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

Me too TBH.

I never really got an answer as to why Christians (or Jews) have such faith in the Bible as a text. I can understand faith in God, but it seems that it is just a given that if you have faith in God you have to believe in the Bible, no matter what the Bible says. Is it just that the rest of the religion says "Yes, this is the text to follow" so everyone thinks it is the correct thing to do and goes along with it.

Has anyone really thought about that?

I went through a number of religious stages in my early life, before I got to "atheist".

Maybe you are just going theorug and athiest stage?

So as you say, why do people believe and put huge faith in the text of the Bible when it seems more logical to believe the study of nature science and history itself.

The Bible isnt a text book but it doesn't attack science or history. Isnt all you are asking not just simply"why do people follow what they believe God wants instead of not believing in God and doing as they like as long as it does what they believe does no harm? "
But that is not an arguemt for their base it is an arguemtn from yours.

Sorry but this really is NOT a discussion for this board. It is assumed if you want to discuss Chriatian issues that you either argue based on the Bible or on documents based on Church teaching or Congressess or Synods or the like. It is not really in line with proper discussion to start off from a position of disbelief and that the Bible is a silly book that is riddled with errors.

Now if you want you could start something on "what evidence is there for the Bible actually being written when it claimes to be or giving historic accounts" then I am sure a scientific discussion of dating the Bible is okay. But "I dont beliieve in the Bible. It has silly parts" isnt up for discussion on this board in my view. citing particular verses is up fior discussion. But it cant be discussed with the idea that you disregard christian literature. If you want to argue with Muslims refer to the Koran.If you want to argue with constitution lawyers refer to their constitution. If you want to discuss Christianity then refer to their source and not to your personal belief.

J C

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

How about Krakatoa II – a mountain that has literally risen out of the sea to replace the one blown to bits in Indonesia in 1883!!!

Before you start saying that the LOCALISED Krakatoa II volcano isn’t the Alps – let me say that the tectonic effects of Noah’s Flood WEREN’T localised, but were WORLDWIDE and therefore they were ‘scaled up’ to the Alps.


ISAW
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.

Water was delivered from space – how ?

Via some intergalactic raincloud?
Or
Was it dropped down as ice blocks from the toilets of passing Flying Saucers?

Your idea that the Earth had a volcanic origin is also in conflict with Gen 1:1-2 which indicates that the Earth was Created completely covered by water.

Ironically, Scofflaw’s Evolutionary Theory that the primordial Earth was “covered with water prior to the production of the continents” IS in line with Gen 1:1-2.


5uspect
Psychologists have a name for this: cognitive dissonance
I have never come across this condition – is it a disorder amongst Evolutionists by any chance?


ISAW
Do you believe that Newton’s views on Creation are authoritative given that he was a heretic who did not accept the Trinity?

Newton’s OBSERVATIONS of the evidence for Direct Special Creation are indeed scientifically valid – and as I have said before, they are NOT dependent upon his personal faith position.

There are excellent Creation Scientists who are Jews and Muslims, for example, and they do not accept the Trinity either.
As I have said before, I strictly differentiate between Creation SCIENCE and an individual’s particular faith position, which is ultimately a personal matter for themselves.


ISAW
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 reasonable to conclude that it is.

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 EXPERIENCE that the Earth is curved ISN’T beyond the limits of resolution of our most advanced instruments – and therefore, as you have confirmed above, it is UNREASONABLE to assume that the surface of the Earth is infinite.


ISAW
all theories are based on unproven axioms and assumptions

Theories that are based on unproven axioms and assumptions are not scientifically valid.

ALL scientific theories (and their axioms) must be capable of continuous testing and validation – otherwise science would rapidly degenerate into a collection of tentative “old wives tales” that are never tested.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God).
ISAW
You are sailing close to the wind here. what is a "genetic defect"?

I’m not at all ‘sailing close to any wind’ on this one.

It is a fact that all organisms have a considerable number of (mostly inherited) mutations on their genomes. Thankfully, most lethal/semi-lethal mutations are masked by dominant normal alleles in most individuals.
However, the crossing of closely related individuals (such as occurs in animal and plant breeding) is observed to significantly increase the expression of deleterious genetic conditions – resulting in the phenomenon known as ‘Inbreeding Depression’. It is caused by the increased production of homozygous recessive (i.e genetically mutant characteristics) being phenotypically expressed due to the close genetic allele matches between close relatives.
The opposite phenomenon (known as Hybrid Vigour) is also encountered when two completely unrelated strains of plant or animal are crossed resulting in very healthy and vigorous offspring. This is the reason why hybridisation is used extensively in commercial animal and crop production.

The same phenomena are observed in Human Beings. It is therefore advisable not to marry close relatives (and especially not to repeatedly marry close relatives over a number of generations) in order to reduce the risk of genetic disorders and general health and vigour in the resultant children of such marriages.

There was little / no genetic mutations 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).
That is why Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters were able to marry each other.
Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood when mutation rates apparently greatly increased (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 brothers and sisters shouldn’t marry.

The modern civil marriage laws on prohibited degrees of consanguinity trace their ultimate origins to Lev 20:11-21 (which also bans close legal relatives marrying as well).


5uspect
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.

There were over 30 years for Owen to ‘convert’ to Evolution from the publication of Darwin’s book in 1859.

Equally, the concept of Evolution didn’t start with Darwin – it traces it’s roots back to Ancient Greece and Darwin’s grandfather was also an Evolutionist.


Scofflaw
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?!

The American Indians were DESCENDANTS of Noah’s Family – just like Moses was a descendant.

All of these accounts of a worldwide flood were passed down by word of mouth, or in the case of Genesis, via the divine inspiration of Moses hundreds of years after the event.

Scofflaw
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,

Sounds like an eyewitness account – were you there at the time or do you know somebody who was?


Scofflaw
I like the idea of a "'rolling' Global Flood" - which is to say, a flood that isn't global. Are you backtracking?

Perhaps you like it because it was your idea in the first place.
Quote Scofflaw “almost every part of the world is known to have been underwater at some time (based on sedimentology), but not at the same time.”

I am NOT backtracking – merely pointing out the verbal and mental contortions that you are going through to deny the clear evidence for a (simultaneous) Worldwide Flood!!!

Son Goku

J C wrote:

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.

Except the WMAP studies show higher order octaves.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

Isnt all you are asking not just simply"why do people follow what they believe God wants instead of not believing in God and doing as they like as long as it does what they believe does no harm? "

No, thats not what I'm asking at all.

I'm asking why do people believe the Bible accurately describes what "God wants"

This is a serious question, which so far no one has been able to properly answer. I notice you didn't even attempt to answer it.

ISAW wrote:

Now if you want you could start something on "what evidence is there for the Bible actually being written when it claimes to be or giving historic accounts"

That issue is always brought up as a deflection. I am not claiming that the Bible was not written when it supposed to have been. Why do people always aledge that. I fully believe the Bible was written around the time Christians believe it was. But, as I have said in other posts, that isn't the point at all.

ISAW wrote:

But "I dont beliieve in the Bible. It has silly parts" isnt up for discussion on this board in my view.

I'm not asking you to discuss why the Bible isn't silly. I'm asking you why you believe it accurately represents the wishes of God.

ISAW wrote:

If you want to discuss Christianity then refer to their source and not to your personal belief.

But why is it there source. Thats what I'm asking. Why do Christians put as much faith in the Bible as they do it God.

I'm not trying to attack the Bible, but seriously, after asking that question about 5 times already, no one has given a proper answer.

Do you actually know? Is it simply because the religion as a whole says so, or is it a personal choice to accept the Bible as the spokes person for God?

J C

Wicknight
why did God make us that way if it displeases him so much…………….

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

God gave Mankind and the angels free will.

The upside (for God) is that we will freely love and honour Him.

The downside is that we will use our free will destructively.


5uspect
I would like to know what is it exaclty that makes the bilbe so infallible?

It is the Word of an omniscient God.

5uspect
Why do people trust this highly edited man made jumble over vasts chunks of the scienfitic literature which back ups its statements with observation?

Because it is the Word of an omniscient God.
It is also fully in line with all scientific literature which back ups its statements with observation.

Unfortunately ‘molecules to Man Evolution’ isn’t in line with the Bible and isn’t grounded upon repeatably observable evidence.


Wicknight
I went through a number of religious stages in my early life, before I got to "atheist". The rejection of the idea of a god was the hard bit, one of the first stages was a rejection of the Bible as a text to have faith in.

Undoubtedly a road travelled by many atheists from Christian backgrounds.
It is interesting that you have confirmed that your doubt in the existence of God began with doubts about the Biblical text.
I can empathise with you Wicknight, on this one – I might now be an atheist myself if I didn’t meet a Creation Scientist who restored my faith in the inerrancy of the Bible when I was a student many years ago.

Your path to atheism provides 'food for thought' for anybody who believes that people will come to God whilst doubting the veracity of any aspect of the Bible.

Wicknight
why do people believe and put huge faith in the text of the Bible when it seems more logical to believe the study of nature science and history itself.

Become a Creation Scientist and enjoy studying BOTH the Bible and Science!!

Wicknight
I'm asking why do people believe the Bible accurately describes what "God wants"

This is a serious question, which so far no one has been able to properly answer.

The Bible is a spiritually discerned Book. To fully appreciate it, you must be indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture because they believe it to be the very Word of God.

It is a faith based belief backed up by observation of the real world.

Jesus Christ Himself confirmed the ‘Human Condition’ and our need for practical physical reinforcement of our faith in God and the Bible (such as the literal truth of Direct Creation as described in Gen 1 and 2).

He confirmed that people would not believe in God’s role in ‘heavenly spiritual things’ unless they first believe in God’s role in ‘earthly physical things’ in Jn 3:12 “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”(NIV)

Zombrex

J C wrote:

How about Krakatoa II – a mountain that has literally risen out of the sea to replace the one blown to bits in Indonesia in 1883!!!

What about it?

Anak Krakatau raises about 13cm a week, due to lava flows. It would take approx 1000 years to raise 6.5 kilometers. And while it was doing that it would be destroying everything in its wake.

And this is one volcano. The Alpes contain hundreds of peeks. And if it were created in this way, most of Europe would have been destroyed by volcanic ash and lava.

So, JC, if you are finishing arguing about nonsense, I ask you again -

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

J C wrote:

Before you start saying that the LOCALISED Krakatoa II volcano isn’t the Alps – let me say that the tectonic effects of Noah’s Flood WEREN’T localised, but were WORLDWIDE and therefore they were ‘scaled up’ to the Alps.

What "tectonice effects" ... so far you have put forward no evidence there were even localised tectonic activity, let alone world wide tectonic activity.

J C wrote:

Via some intergalactic raincloud?

Ices clouds, such as comets, actually

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=142

J C wrote:

Your idea that the Earth had a volcanic origin is also in conflict with Gen 1:1-2 which indicates that the Earth was Created completely covered by water.

Oh my, reality conflicts with the Genesis.. shock horror ...

J C wrote:

Ironically, Scofflaw’s Evolutionary Theory that the primordial Earth was “covered with water prior to the production of the continents” IS in line with Gen 1:1-2.

Not really, only if you don't understand what Scofflaw was explaining to you. THe Earth started off as a ball of gas. It then formed, under gravity, into a liquid ball, which formed a hard crust. This crust eventually developed a layer of water (possibily originally H20 or that came later). Eventually, due to tectonic activity the contients arise out of the water.

So it goes gas -> rock -> water layer -> contients.

The Earth was not created covered in an ocean of water.

J C wrote:

I have never come across this condition – is it a disorder amongst Evolutionists by any chance?

No, its mostly found amoung religious people who have a hard time reconciling their religious beliefs with reality.

It was coined in 1950s to describe the process cult members went through when their prophey failed to come true.

J C wrote:

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

Thats not true

Son Goku

JC, I notice that you actually avoid performing scientific inquiry.
Are you going to tell me the details of the assumptions and calculation errors of stellar motion and distance arising from the use of Riemannian geometry?

Do some actual science and tell me what is wrong.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

God gave Mankind and the angels free will.

And he gave us the need to have sex, out side of marriage, to continue to exist, since we were having sex before the concept of marriage (being a YEC you no doubt reject that idea, since you believe all life magically appeared 6000 years ago, with humans being able to talk and communicate, with concepts like language and marriage already implanted in our brains).

It would therefore not seem logical that neither humans having free will, or having sex outside of marriage, displeases him, since he made it that way?

J C wrote:

It is the Word of an omniscient God.

You know this how??

J C wrote:

It is also fully in line with all scientific literature which back ups its statements with observation.

Actually it is in line with no scientific literature.

J C wrote:

It is interesting that you have confirmed that your doubt in the existence of God began with doubts about the Biblical text.

It was more when the Bible was shown to be wrong about so many things, I started to think that it was probably just a book written by a load of men sitting around in the Middle East trying to control and shape society the only way they know how, through religion. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with that, but it isn't a reason to believe the Bible is the word of God.

J C wrote:

Become a Creation Scientist and enjoy studying BOTH the Bible and Science!!

But a Creation Scientists rejects the study of nature and universe when it conflicts with the Bible. Judging by the way you find it necessary to make up ridiculous explinations to try and fit the Biblical account of the universe into "science", and continue to lie about what science does and does not know, I find the whole Creation Scientic thing quite silly. What is the point if you are just going to reject anything the disproves your pre-concieved idea of what must have happened?

I see no logical reason to believe the Bible over what we observe around us, and so far no one has given me one.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

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?

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
Leaving aside the question of children who die in childhood (another subject), the guilt of all mankind is established by both their practise - sin in all its forms - and their suppression of the knowledge of God that nature gives us and our consciences confirm.

Fallen Seraph

wolfsbane wrote:

Leaving aside the question of children who die in childhood (another subject), the guilt of all mankind is established by both their practise - sin in all its forms - and their suppression of the knowledge of God that nature gives us and our consciences confirm.

But nature gives us no knowledge of god. Science tries explain nature in a manner completely that requires no supernatural force, and is so far doing a pretty darn good job of it.

Moreover, assuming no scientific method, exactly what knowledge of god does nature give to a taihitan tribe that couldn't be explained in terms of pagan deities? That's simply not giving them a chance.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

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?

Yes, there is a scale of evil. All evil brings one to hell, but there will be different degrees of punishment there. Murder and rape are a greater offence than, say, fornication. But it is not as simple as what man does to man; the offense is more so against God. That being so, the greatest sins are those against the light of the gospel,
Matthew 11:23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”

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?

Yes.

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

Yes.

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?

We need to be saying both that homosexuality is wrong but that the homosexual needs to be called to repentance, not persecuted. We say the same about heterosexual sin.

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?

No. Some sinners are more wicked than others - the murderer, for example, and some are more degraded than others - the homosexual, for example, and some are more offensive to God than others, the self-righteous, for example. But all sinners are our fellowmen, made in God's image.

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?

It is wrong for them to have that sort of love toward someone of their own sex, not just the putting of it into practise. Men may love another man very deeply, but not in a sexually-desiring sense.

you should be pope

No thanks, the Lord Jesus forbad us from lording it over one another:
Luke 22:25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. 27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.

So there aren't very many true religions or christians around then?

Correct. Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

5uspect

J C wrote:

Water was delivered from space – how ?

Via some intergalactic raincloud?
Or
Was it dropped down as ice blocks from the toilets of passing Flying Saucers?

For someone who claims to be some sort of scientist you don't seem to know much actual science. Theories about comets depositing water on earth are well documented in the literature.

J C wrote:

I have never come across this condition – is it a disorder amongst Evolutionists by any chance?

Visit your Psychologist, you seem to be exhibiting the symptoms.

J C wrote:

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.

The "resolution" of the fossil record allows us to observe that life existed on earth for at least 3.5 billion years, therefore it is reasonable to assume that life existed on earth for at least 3.5 billion years, but you obviously disagree.

the resolution of an instrument allows measurement within limits, no matter how far our most advanced instruments can measure they cannot measure infinity so you cannot infer that universe is infinite. We can state that universe is at least X size but no more. And no matter how big X is infinity is a whole lot bigger!

wolfsbane

I will be in England for a couple of days, but I hope to respond to the points raised later this week. Bye for now.

5uspect

J C wrote:

It is the Word of an omniscient God.

Why? is this just your belief? Can you please distinguish between your Faith and Fact.

J C wrote:

Unfortunately ‘molecules to Man Evolution’ isn’t in line with the Bible and isn’t grounded upon repeatably observable evidence.

A lot of things aren't in line with the bible. Whats your point?

Microbes to men is based on scientific evidence. Now we need to finish the work on molecules to microbes beyond all doubt and see what kind of cognitive dissonance you under go then. We will observe your reactions and how you will attemt to reinforce your world view in the face of overwhelming evidence

J C wrote:

It is a faith based belief backed up by observation of the real world.

Observation is all well and good but you need to validate your observations through proper peer review (i.e. accrediated scientists) not something you dug out of some old book

robindch

> [5uspect] For someone who claims to be some sort of scientist you
> don't seem to know much actual science.

Ah, 5uspect, welcome to the wacky world of creationists!

J C

What strange ideas Evolutionists come up with to prop up their crumbling theory:-
1. That the Earth could never be flooded completely (even though there is enough SEA-WATER to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres (or 1.6 miles).
2. That although the Earth was never flooded completely, at any one time, the entire surface of the planet was flooded bit by bit in some kind of ‘rolling flood’ that deposited billions of dead fossilised things all over the earth in layers of sediment up to seven miles deep!!
3. That a Supernova exploding 300 LY away will supposedly cause a mini extinction event on Earth even though it’s effect is roughly the equivalent of an oil tanker exploding on Pluto (i.e. absolutely no practical effect).
4. Equally Evolutionists now claim that the water on Earth was supplied by comets - presumably ‘up close and personal’ - but not crashing into the Earth!! This also ignores the fact that all of the comets ever observed didn’t contain enough water to fill a small lake!!!

Wicknight
The Earth started off as a ball of gas. It then formed, under gravity, into a liquid ball, which formed a hard crust. This crust eventually developed a layer of water (possibily originally H20 or that came later). Eventually, due to tectonic activity the contients arise out of the water.

What type of gas would form a liquid ball that then presumably produced the silica, Iron, Aluminium and all of the other very solid elements that make up the Earth that we observe today?


Wicknight
(cognitive dissonance is) mostly found among religious people who have a hard time reconciling their religious beliefs with reality.

The scientific validity of Intelligent Design means that Cognitive Dissonance DOES apply to the faith proposition that ‘molecules evolved into Man‘ !!!!


5uspect
Visit your Psychologist, you seem to be exhibiting the symptoms.
As an Evolutionist, you should take your own advice – and do so yourself!!!


Son Goku
Are you going to tell me the details of the assumptions and calculation errors of stellar motion and distance arising from the use of Riemannian geometry?

Do some actual science and tell me what is wrong.

There is nothing ‘wrong’ with Riemannian multi-dimensional Geometry itself. Indeed it is used in many practical situations on Earth by engineers.

However, the problem arises when it is applied to astronomical calculations.
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 (which are all critical to the calculation) are just that (assumptions).


Wicknight
And he gave us the need to have sex, out side of marriage, to continue to exist, since we were having sex before the concept of marriage (being a YEC you no doubt reject that idea, since you believe all life magically appeared 6000 years ago, with humans being able to talk and communicate, with concepts like language and marriage already implanted in our brains).

You have just answered your own question (from a Creationist perspective). Gen 1 & 2 confirm that marriage was instituted by God during Creation Week.

I would be very interested though in how a Theistic Evolutionist would answer your very valid question (from an Evolutionist perspective).


Wicknight
Actually it (The Bible) is in line with no scientific literature.

There speaks a true Evolutionist!!!

Theistic Evolutionists please note.


Wicknight
It was more when the Bible was shown to be wrong about so many things, I started to think that it was probably just a book written by a load of men sitting around in the Middle East trying to control and shape society the only way they know how, through religion. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with that, but it isn't a reason to believe the Bible is the word of God.

I had a similar experience myself when I once attended a ‘modernist’ lecture entitled something like “The Bible proves Evolution”.
I was a student at the time, and I came out from the lecture a semi-convinced Atheist!!!!


5uspect
Observation is all well and good but you need to validate your observations through proper peer review (i.e. accredited scientists)
‘Done and dusted’ in Creation Science peer review groups every day!!!


Son Goku
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?

I don’t hold a pre-destinist position on this issue.

I believe that all Human Beings are created by God with an inner longing to be with Him. Equally, God desires that everyone should be saved – Jesus Christ said in Lk 9:56 “for the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (KJV).
Jesus Christ is a just and loving God who came to save sinners and not to destroy us. I believe that God’s justice will save everybody who doesn’t have the faculty to make a decision to be saved, either through personal incapacity or through never hearing the Word of God.
There are a number of different people who fit into this category – unborn children who die in utero, children who die before reaching the use of reason and all people who die without ever having the opportunity to hear the Word of God because of intellectual incapacity or because they have never been told that to be saved they must believe on Jesus Christ and repent of their sins.

Jesus Christ said in Mk 10:14 “let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to SUCH AS THESE” (NIV). This indicates that children and other people who are similarly innocent of the Word of God WILL be saved through God’s grace and justice.

However, anyone who dies unrepentant and rejecting Jesus Christ would seem to be lost.

Scofflaw

Red pen in hand...

J C wrote:

What strange ideas Evolutionists come up with to prop up their crumbling theory:-
1. That the Earth could never be flooded completely (even though there is enough SEA-WATER to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres (or 1.6 miles).

Assuming the earth was flat, which it hasn't been since continental production started 3.8 billion years ago.

J C wrote:

2. That although the Earth was never flooded completely, at any one time, the entire surface of the planet was flooded bit by bit in some kind of ‘rolling flood’ that deposited billions of dead fossilised things all over the earth in layers of sediment up to seven miles deep!!

Yes, JC, just like the Black Sea - there are buildings under the water about 300 feet down. On the Irish coast there are raised beaches which have come up 100 foot. Bits of the world go under, bits of the world come up. It all takes a long time, but it's repeatedly observable. You have this confused with something like Noah's flood only because you insist on fitting the evidence into the rigid mental box you have. Your inability to grasp any concept that doesn't resemble your pre-conceived notions is, in fact, a fine example of cognitive dissonance at work.

J C wrote:

3. That a Supernova exploding 300 LY away will supposedly cause a mini extinction event on Earth even though it’s effect is roughly the equivalent of an oil tanker exploding on Pluto (i.e. absolutely no practical effect).

Do the maths. Wait, no, that's a bad idea.

J C wrote:

4. Equally Evolutionists now claim that the water on Earth was supplied by comets - presumably ‘up close and personal’ - but not crashing into the Earth!! This also ignores the fact that all of the comets ever observed didn’t contain enough water to fill a small lake!!!

Kuiper Belt.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
The Earth started off as a ball of gas. It then formed, under gravity, into a liquid ball, which formed a hard crust. This crust eventually developed a layer of water (possibily originally H20 or that came later). Eventually, due to tectonic activity the contients arise out of the water.

What type of gas would form a liquid ball that then presumably produced the silica, Iron, Aluminium and all of the other very solid elements that make up the Earth that we observe today?

Gas and dust, probably plus some ice - an accretion disc similar to that observed around other stars.

J C wrote:

Wicknight: (cognitive dissonance is) mostly found among religious people who have a hard time reconciling their religious beliefs with reality.

So it DOES apply to the faith proposition that ‘molecules evolved into Man‘ then!!!!

A sure sign is more than 2 exclamation marks.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
And he gave us the need to have sex, out side of marriage, to continue to exist, since we were having sex before the concept of marriage (being a YEC you no doubt reject that idea, since you believe all life magically appeared 6000 years ago, with humans being able to talk and communicate, with concepts like language and marriage already implanted in our brains).

You have just answered your own question (from a Creationist perspective). Gen 1 & 2 confirm that marriage was instituted by God during Creation Week.

I would be very interested though in how a Theistic Evolutionist would answer your very valid question (from an Evolutionist perspective).

Eh? What's this? Adam and Eve were married? Where's the verses?

J C wrote:

I had a similar experience myself when I once attended a ‘modernist’ lecture entitled something like “The Bible proves Evolution”.
I was a student at the time, and I came out from the lecture a semi-convinced Atheist!!!!

Sort of like a lemon pip?

J C wrote:

5uspect
Observation is all well and good but you need to validate your observations through proper peer review (i.e. accredited scientists)

‘Done and dusted’ in Creation Science peer review groups every day!!!

Yes indeed. I am sure that it is, although I cannot imagine how they retain objectivity (part of peer-review requires that scientists do not review authors they have worked or published with) given their numbers. Possibly they are divinely inspired.

regards,
Scofflaw

5uspect

J C wrote:

‘Done and dusted’ in Creation Science peer review groups every day!!!

oh dear, and do any mainstream scientists (i.e. the vast majority) review any of your papers? Are any creation science papers published in any mainstream journals? (not creationist backed journals) Asking a creation scientist to review a creation science paper is not the same as asking a biologist to review a biology paper. Where as the biologist reviewer will review a paper solely on the validity of novel arguements put forward, the creationist reviewer will just double check his "facts" against the bible and then ignore (or lie about) thousands of man hours of painstaking, careful and logical research.

You can't call what you practise science until you can grasp what science is.
You can't demand that your unproven views be taught in schools until it has undergone significant discussion in the mainstream scientific literature like everything else in the science syllabus.
You can't ignore or reject scienctific work purely from incredulity.
If something is based on assumptions that you don't like explain why these assumptions are invalid. Show, if you can, how what you against is sensitive to small changes in such assumptions. There are many assumptions in science. They have to be a robust as possible or else they wouldn't survive peer review just like creation science

ASSUMPTION = BIBLICAL TRUTH

Seriously J C you need to read more regarding Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance especially how he and some collegues infiltrated a cult to observe their reaction when their doomsday didn't come.

Fallen Seraph

I don't mean to repeat myself, but I can't help but notice that JC hasn't addressed the issue of his credentials. I just thought I'd remind him because his lack of willingness to do so would make a skeptical atheist think he might be telling untruths.

5uspect

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I don't mean to repeat myself, but I can't help but notice that JC hasn't addressed the issue of his credentials. I just thought I'd remind him because his lack of willingness to do so would make a skeptical atheist think he might be telling untruths.

He does seem to avoid the question very time

So everyone else - name and shame your academic achievement!

First Class Honours Degree in Aeronautical Engineering
Currently working on PhD in fluid mechanics

Son Goku

J C wrote:

3. That a Supernova exploding 300 LY away will supposedly cause a mini extinction event on Earth even though it’s effect is roughly the equivalent of an oil tanker exploding on Pluto (i.e. absolutely no practical effect).

This is an entire galaxy, which is 86,000 light years across and a supernova just outside the galaxy's rim.

That thing is over 800 light years wide JC and that's just the high intensity area of the explosion.

It's effect is not roughly equivalent to a oil tanker exploding on Pluto. To say that is an outright lie.
However the only reason you're saying that is because you can't do the mathematics and your intuition makes you think nothing could have a 300 light year effect, because 300 light years is too large a volume.

I'm telling you JC, I've already calculated it would be capable of causing a minor extinction event.

You now have a problem with volume integrals apparently.
So do you wish to tell me what is wrong with the mathematics, or will I show you the calculations and you tell me what is wrong with what I did?

J C wrote:

However, the problem arises when it is applied to astronomical calculations.
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 (which are all critical to the calculation) are just that (assumptions).

And these assumptions would be?
And their effect on the calculations are what exactly?

Or if you can't tell me that, will I show you the calculations and you tell me what is wrong with what I did?

You're not getting out of this one.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

That the Earth could never be flooded completely (even though there is enough SEA-WATER to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres (or 1.6 miles).

The Earth could never be flooded completely by sea-water since the height of the Earth extends 8.8 kilometers. You have to go back over 3 billion years to a time where the height of the earth was less that 2.7 kilometers, and well there wasn't any sea-water back then, or breathable oxygen, so that kinda puts a dampener on that idea :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

That although the Earth was never flooded completely, at any one time, the entire surface of the planet was flooded bit by bit in some kind of ‘rolling flood’

The "flood" didn't roll, the contients did. Due to tectonic movement, large parts of land that were once under the oceans have slowly (very slowly) moved up out of the water, and vice versa.

And by the way, no one has ever claimed that all the surface of the Earth was at one point "flooded". They claimed that at one point or another they have been underwater, as in under the sea.

There has never been a global "flood"

J C wrote:

This also ignores the fact that all of the comets ever observed didn’t contain enough water to fill a small lake!!!

Wrong, again.

Seriously, its called Google, you might want to use it once and a while.

In 1992 in the Kuiper belt was discovered a huge amount of fozen water. This contains approx 50,000 to 100,000 "ice-rich" object at least 60 miles wide, and dozens as large as 600 miles wide. More than enought to fill the worlds oceans 100 times over.

J C wrote:

What type of gas would form a liquid ball that then presumably produced the silica, Iron, Aluminium and all of the other very solid elements that make up the Earth that we observe today?

A gas of the silica, Iron, Aluminium and all the other solid element that make up the Earth, that were originally formed in a star that probably went supernova.

J C wrote:

The scientific validity of Intelligent Design means that Cognitive Dissonance DOES apply to the faith proposition that ‘molecules evolved into Man‘ !!!!

There is no scientific validity of ID

J C wrote:

I would be very interested though in how a Theistic Evolutionist would answer your very valid question (from an Evolutionist perspective).

Probably by saying the Genesis is an old Hewbrew poem that isn't, and never was, supposed to be taken literally.

J C wrote:

There speaks a true Evolutionist!!!

If you have to make things up and lie to make the Bible fit, then that isn't science.

J C wrote:

I had a similar experience myself when I once attended a ‘modernist’ lecture entitled something like “The Bible proves Evolution”.
I was a student at the time, and I came out from the lecture a semi-convinced Atheist!!!!

So you reject anything that shows evolution correct, even if it is the Bible itself. You seem to just have a big (irrational) problem with the idea of evolution.

Zombrex

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I don't mean to repeat myself, but I can't help but notice that JC hasn't addressed the issue of his credentials.

JC doesn't address anything once he has been shown to be wrong or lying.

He just moves on to his next argument, igoring the fact that his previous argumetns have been shown to be complete nonsense. In about 2 weeks, when he thinks no one is paying attention, he will bring the previous argument up again and hope that no one notices that that it has been completely debunked a few pages back.

And the cycle of life continues

pH

J C wrote:

4. Equally Evolutionists now claim that the water on Earth was supplied by comets - presumably ‘up close and personal’ - but not crashing into the Earth!! This also ignores the fact that all of the comets ever observed didn’t contain enough water to fill a small lake!!!

The word you're desperately trying not to use is 'Scientists' - your position is not an anti-evolution one, but an anti-science one.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

So you reject anything that shows evolution correct, even if it is the Bible itself. You seem to just have a big (irrational) problem with the idea of evolution.

Perhaps he feels left out of it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

Perhaps he feels left out of it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

or is it just that he cannot accept that people are no more special than anything else that has survived the million of years of natural selection.
Evoution can often seem cold and brutal, religion is different as it can provide that warm fuzzy feeling by making things up.

J C

Scofflaw
Eh? What’s this? Adam and Eve were married? Where’s the verses?

Gen 2:23-25.

Jesus Christ confirmed that these verses in Genesis are also the basis of Christian Marriage in Mt 19:4-6 and Mk10:6-9.


Scofflaw
Your inability to grasp any concept that doesn't resemble your pre-conceived notions is, in fact, a fine example of cognitive dissonance at work.

In plain language, Cognitive Dissonance is DENIAL – and Evolutionist are themselves in permanent DENIAL of the reality of Creation and the invalidity of ‘molecules to Man Evolution’.


5uspect
do any mainstream scientists (i.e. the vast majority) review any of your papers?
Evolutionists are quite free to do so – but because they suffer from Cognitive Dissonance in relation to Creation Science, Evolutionists refuse to even read Creation Science literature.


5uspect
the creationist reviewer will just double check his "facts" against the bible and then ignore (or lie about) thousands of man hours of painstaking, careful and logical research.

Most Creation Scientists are former Evolutionists and this gives them a depth of scientific expertise and objectivity that is lacking amongst Evolutionists.


5uspect
There are many assumptions in science. They have to be a robust as possible or else they wouldn't survive peer review

There are indeed assumptions in science but they are all challengeable on the basis of objective evidence – and not just in peer review processes. Many of the assumptions surrounding Evolution are either completely invalidated by any objective assessment of the evidence or are logically ruled out.
For example the assumption that primordial molecules could ever spontaneously spring into life and evolve into Man is logically ruled out by the observed physical, chemical and biological Laws of the Universe.


5uspect
You can't demand that your unproven views be taught in schools until it has undergone significant discussion in the mainstream scientific literature like everything else in the science syllabus.

Unlike Evolutionists, Creation Scientists have no particular views on what should or shouldn’t be taught in schools.
The policies adopted by organisations such as schools and churches are entirely a matter for these organisations – and they are of no concern to Creation Science.

Parents have the ultimate responsibility for the education of their children.
Personally, I would encourage my children to fully evaluate all sides of an argument and I believe that it is counter-productive to isolate children completely from any paradigm – ‘forbidden fruit’ can be very attractive !!!!