The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

As above - the 'evolution' we observe occurs from existing information being selected. We have an explanation for where the information came from; you claim it arose bit by bit - but without the observational proof.

What sort of information?

Genghiz Cohen

wolfsbane wrote: »

A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_cosmology.pdf

TLDR Version: There are 5 theories consistent with a young earth model that adhere to the word of Genesis.

1. That the language of Genesis is phenomenological language (describing appearance). In this case, stars were made millions and billions of years before Day 4, but in such a manner that the light from all stars, no matter how far away, all arrived at the Earth on Day 4 and so would have been seen first at that moment.

2. That clocks in the cosmos in the past have run at much higher rates than clocks on Earth. Especially during Creation Week, clocks of the exact same type on the edge of the universe ran something like 1013 times faster than clocks on Earth and therefore light from such regions had plenty of time to get to Earth in a matter of days, not millions or billions of years.

3. That clocks on Earth in the past have run at much slower rates than clocks in the cosmos. Especially dur- ing Creation Week clocks of the exact same type on Earth ran about 1013 times slower than clocks at the edge of the universe and therefore light from the edge of the universe had plenty of time to get to Earth in a matter of days as recorded by Earth clocks, not millions or billions of years.

4. That the speed of light was enormously faster in the
past, of the order 1011c to 1012c. This may have been the case during Creation Week and then the light slowed enormously to the present value.

5. Mystery and miracles! This last option I have to include because the Creator God revealed in the Bible is a God of miracles.


/TLDR

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolution has not been observed to have been stretched out. That is your interpretation of the evidence, not the proof. If you just saw that it was a surmise that might be right or wrong, that would advance the debate.

Nothing in science is proven, as we have said a million times. Even if you observe something happening you have no proven it.

Equally nothing in science, such as decay rates, is just assumed to be the case.

If you realized that it might advance the debate. Your requirement that a million year evolutionary cycle be observed is frankly ridiculous given that you don't apply the same standard to any of the beliefs you hold to be true.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

I'm not here to cater to your wants, only your needs.

well then I need a source that isn't a pack of proven liars

wolfsbane wrote: »

Rubbish. Microevolution depends on a mass of pre-existent information, information that is then acted upon and selected, resulting in a modified organism. Macroevolution depends on minimal initial information being increased over billions of years.


As above - the 'evolution' we observe occurs from existing information being selected. We have an explanation for where the information came from; you claim it arose bit by bit - but without the observational proof.

That is not actually the case. Macro evolution occurs when two branches of the same species diverge enough that they are no longer able to inter breed. This type of macro evolution has been observed many times, it's just the cumulative effect of mico evolution.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution?wasRedirected=true
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[ 6] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one*– the only difference between them is of time and scale.

What creationists call macro evolution is not what the theory of evolution calls macro evolution. They made up their own ill defined and impossible to obtain definition for the purposes of claiming it has never been observed. So a creationist saying macro evolution has never been observed is meaningless, since their understanding of the term is not the one in theory of evolution. If you want to claim something never happened you cant redefine it to mean something totally different and then claim this totally different thing never happened. That's called a straw man

Also, new "information" has been observed to appear in the genomes of organisms that provided new functionality never before seen in that species but when this is pointed out to creationists they just claim that this information was there before, hiding away somewhere totally undetectably. They never provide evidence that it was there, they can't possibly because even if it was it was totally undetectable. They just claim it was there with absolutely no basis whatsoever, like all good pseudo scientists.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolution has not been observed to have been stretched out. That is your interpretation of the evidence, not the proof. If you just saw that it was a surmise that might be right or wrong, that would advance the debate.

Evolution has been observed to be stretched out. As well as the fossil record, far more compelling is the evidence in our DNA and that of other species that shows a family tree for all to see, all that is except creationists. For them the evidence that's as clear as day to everyone else isn't good enough. No their definition of "observed" involves physically seeing the entire process happen. Even reproducing it wouldn't be enough, we would literally have to build a time machine to go back and watch the entire process happen from start to finish, and I doubt even that would be good enough for them. Creationists have rejected evidence that any rational person would accept, set for their opponents a standard of proof that it is physically impossible to reach and lied a lot along the way, like all good pseudo scientists

The Mad Hatter

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What creationists call macro evolution is not what the theory of evolution calls macro evolution. They made up their own ill defined and impossible to obtain definition for the purposes of claiming it has never been observed. So a creationist saying macro evolution has never been observed is meaningless, since their understanding of the term is not the one in theory of evolution. If you want to claim something never happened you cant redefine it to mean something totally different and then claim this totally different thing never happened. That's called a straw man

The creationist idea of evolution, as has been said many times, would disprove evolution. They keep asking for an example of a modern species giving birth to a different modern species.

Galvasean

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The creationist idea of evolution, as has been said many times, would disprove evolution. They keep asking for an example of a modern species giving birth to a different modern species.

or magically transforming on the spot.

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

or magically transforming on the spot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhkORuTWGFY

Galvasean

That game/cartoon has a lot to answer for in relation to people's perception of evolution....

Overheal

not to mention the ever ridiculous digivolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzuuGdXOmSE

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane, even with your very limited knowledge of evolution you know that it comprises a combination of random mutation and natural selection. Take a look at this anti-evolution website:

http://www.randommutation.com/

You will notice that it has a select button but that it doesn't do anything, his simulator totally ignores natural selection. His reasoning for this is "The Random Mutation Generator does not have a pre-programmed "natural selection" function because if it did, the selection would be designed, not natural" and in response to the lack of fitness functions (a form of natural selection) he says "You can't have a fitness function in a computer program without designing one. That's Intelligent Design".


While he is correct to say that you can't have a fitness function in a computer without designing one and that any "natural selection" component in his simulation would also be designed, this is beside the point. The entire simluator is designed, even the random number generator. The fact that creating a simulator involves design does not automatically mean that the thing being simulated also involves design. What he is attempting to simulate is nature, where both natural selection can take place and fitness functions can be evaluated without design. To pick one random example, if the environment is very cold and covered in snow and there is one animal with fur and one without, the one with fur will survive better. This is natural selection evaluating a fitness function without any intelligence being applied. As I'm sure you will agree, the fact that one can design a simulator that simulates snow does not mean that snow is intelligently designed.

Given the fact that he has left out a natural selection component on the basis that to include one would involve design, even though the natural selection he is attempting to simulate does not involve design, do you think that his simulation accurately simulates Darwinian evolution or has he used bad reasoning to leave out one of the two main components of it so that he can mislead people into thinking that evolution is completely random?

Or do you think that if I design a snow simulator, that means that snow is intelligently designed?

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

wolfsbane, even with your very limited knowledge of evolution you know that it comprises a combination of random mutation and natural selection. Take a look at this anti-evolution website:

http://www.randommutation.com/

You will notice that it has a select button but that it doesn't do anything, his simulator totally ignores natural selection. His reasoning for this is "The Random Mutation Generator does not have a pre-programmed "natural selection" function because if it did, the selection would be designed, not natural" and in response to the lack of fitness functions (a form of natural selection) he says "You can't have a fitness function in a computer program without designing one. That's Intelligent Design".


While he is correct to say that you can't have a fitness function in a computer without designing one and that any "natural selection" component in his simulation would also be designed, this is beside the point. The entire simluator is designed, even the random number generator. The fact that creating a simulator involves design does not automatically mean that the thing being simulated also involves design. What he is attempting to simulate is nature, where both natural selection can take place and fitness functions can be evaluated without design. To pick one random example, if the environment is very cold and covered in snow and there is one animal with fur and one without, the one with fur will survive better. This is natural selection evaluating a fitness function without any intelligence being applied. As I'm sure you will agree, the fact that one can design a simulator that simulates snow does not mean that snow is intelligently designed.

Given the fact that he has left out a natural selection component on the basis that to include one would involve design, even though the natural selection he is attempting to simulate does not involve design, do you think that his simulation accurately simulates Darwinian evolution or has he used bad reasoning to leave out one of the two main components of it so that he can mislead people into thinking that evolution is completely random?

Or do you think that if I design a snow simulator, that means that snow is intelligently designed?

By this logic the weather is intelligently designed because the computer models out in Glasnevin at Met Eireann HQ are intelligently designed to model weather.

It would be easier to take Creationists more seriously if so many of their arguments weren't so freaking stupid. And Wolfsbane wonders why scientists ignore Creationists, they need to be given a public hearing no matter how stupid the arguments are or how many times they repeat them otherwise it is a conspiracy!! :P

smokingman

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Or do you think that if I design a snow simulator, that means that snow is intelligently designed?

Sam, I really don't know why you keep banging your head against their walls, I would've given up ages ago!

If they want to believe in magic, let them. It's only harmful to their own intelligence and the way things are going, their primative ideas will die out alongside their corrupt leaders and society will, dare I say it, evolve

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

By this logic the weather is intelligently designed because the computer models out in Glasnevin at Met Eireann HQ are intelligently designed to model weather.

Damn my dyslexia! Thought you were referencing me there.

liamw

Galvasean wrote: »

Damn my dyslexia! Thought you were referencing me there.

Galvasean

Overheal

.......moving onward,

Wacker

Overheal wrote: »

.......moving onward,

You bet me to it by about ten seconds!!!

Galvasean

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Morbert said:

I have presented it before, and I'm not here to waste my time hunting through posts for those who have already read and casually dismissed them. If you want them, look for yourself.

As above, check the posts for yourself. You read them like all who follow this thread.

Again, you have not backed up your claims. If you cannot back up your assertions with evidence then you are wasting my time. If finding the evidence wastes your time, then perhaps you should not be making assertions.

Glad to hear it:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66699570&postcount=22716

I was expecting an "I don't have time for this" but anyway...

Which established science is wrong, the dating that puts the tool-making men at this site c20kBC or the dating that puts them at c250kBC?

What dating are you referring to. Again, if you don't provide references then why should we take what you say as anything more than baseless claims. It is sloppy practise.

I said References prove nothing, not references are unnecessary. Giving references to works that support your claim is helpful, but not proof you are right

Who on earth said it was proof? I said references are needed to demonstrate that research has been carried out. They allow us to investigate the claims being tendered.

as your treatment of the creationist works I linked to shows.

Evidence?

I'm a non-scientist, so I'll only be able to follow the logic to any extent. This struck me as one interesting subject:
A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_cosmology.pdf

From the pdf:

"All of this was maintained under God's creative power before he allowed physical laws to operate 'on their own' at the end of the creation week"

"The Creation Week period, by definition, is not expected to be a period where natural law explanations apply."

The paper simply proposes that God supernaturally slowed time on earth. He inconsistently classifies this as supernatural, while at the same time criticising other supernatural explanations as 'implausible' (his 5th category of solutions). Why? Why would this miracle be any more or less plausible than,say, the immediate translation of light across great distances.

Furthermore, he says himself that the 'model' cannot be tested as it makes no predictions. That is the most important aspect of any scientific theory. Here is a paper from the scientific community. Notice the differences: The emphasis on testability of cosmological models; the rigorous quantifications; the pictures that convey data, and aren't just artistic padding. It is all absent from the paper you referenced. In fact, the creationist paper is nothing but an apologetic, and it was still published by creation 'scientists'. I think this makes it clear to all that creationist papers are rejected for very very very very very good reasons.

[edit]- Also, what the hell is with the integral formalism on page 4/5? dt/dt_0 is a constant. The integral is clearly just an attempt to make the reasoning appear more formal. And why is dt_dt_0 a partial derivative? It doesn't need to be at all.

ColmDawson

I think posts #22904 to #22909 were the most satisfying reading I've seen in this entire thread.:)

Sam Vimes

smokingman wrote: »

Sam, I really don't know why you keep banging your head against their walls, I would've given up ages ago!

Honestly, I have this nagging idea that if you speak clearly and logically enough to someone and make the facts absolutely clear they will realise their error and correct their position. I have no loyalty to ideas so if I'm wrong about something I want someone to tell me so that I can stop being wrong and so I don't go through life at best embarrassing myself and at worst basing my life on a falsehood. It seems I make the mistaken assumption that others are the same. Unfortunately I find all too often that people don't want to be told the truth and they'd much rather hold onto their comfortable falsehoods and blame me for trying to take their imaginary comfort blanket away from them and face reality

You might say it sounds arrogant to say that I'm telling the truth and people don't want to hear it, it's something that I often hear Christians say (that the only reason I don't believe an old story about a guy raising from the dead is my sinful nature keeping me from god or some such) and it irritates the **** out of me, but when someone can provide absolutely no justification for their position but still holds onto it it's the only conclusion I can come to. I've even seen several people openly admit that the arguments they're making are logical fallacies but they go on making them anyway, seemingly because if they didn't have fallacious arguments they'd have no arguments at all. Human beings are very strange creatures but I live in hope that presented with enough clarity people will eventually realise that black is not white and make the world a better place for everyone.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You might say it sounds arrogant to say that I'm telling the truth and people don't want to hear it, it's something that I often hear Christians say (that the only reason I don't believe an old story about a guy raising from the dead is my sinful nature keeping me from god or some such) and it irritates the **** out of me, .

Yes you do come across to me as arrogant sometimes and I am glad you admit that.
I would add it is quite easy to attack Biblical Creationism particularly the Young Earth variety. But to make sweeping statements and apply fallacy to all of Christianity is frankly, unfair. Blind faith irritates many Christians as well as does literal fundamentalism, whether to the Bible Koran Hadiths evolution or Big Bang.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

Yes you do come across to me as arrogant sometimes and I am glad you admit that.
I would add it is quite easy to attack Biblical Creationism particularly the Young Earth variety. But to make sweeping statements and apply fallacy to all of Christianity is frankly, unfair. Blind faith irritates many Christians as well as does literal fundamentalism, whether to the Bible Koran Hadiths evolution or Big Bang.

I deliberately said "something I often hear christians say" rather than "something christians say" so that my statement would not be interpreted as "applying fallacy to all of christianity". Another thing that I often see people in general do* is point out that a statement doesn't apply to every single person who identifies themselves with a particular label at all times in their lives in every area of their lives when the statement was never meant to be applied as such, and the conversation becomes about the notable exceptions that both participants acknowledge the existence of rather than the significant number of people that the statement was originallly meant to address.

Btw, of the two people I can think of who openly admitted their arguments were fallacious but made them anyway, neither is a young earth creationist afaik. Examples of non-YEC specific extremely poor arguments that I can't understand how people keep making without noticing the gaping holes are the cosmological and teleological arguments and the multitude of arguments from ignorance, the ones where people say "how do you explain this!?!?" and if you can't they think it's reasonable to stick a god in that gap in our knowledge. The "I don't know so it must be god" arguments. Not to mention all those arguments for why the bible is true that almost invariably argue for one part of it being true based on the assumption of another part of it being true.


Also, arrogant? LOL, hello pot, have you met kettle?



*Note that "often see people in general do" does not mean that I am applying this to every argument ever made by the whole of humanity

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also, arrogant? LOL, hello pot, have you met kettle?

The top scientific minds across the globe have yet to understand the origins of the Big Bang. Perhaps humanity will never know. But I know for absolute fact, out of the infinity of possibilities, that it was the FSM. I hope I don't sound arrogant at all.

Galvasean

liamw wrote: »

The top scientific minds across the globe have yet to understand the origins of the Big Bang. Perhaps humanity will never know. But I know for absolute fact, out of the infinity of possibilities, that it was the FSM. I hope I don't sound arrogant at all.

Nah, just sensible.

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

The top scientific minds across the globe have yet to understand the origins of the Big Bang. Perhaps humanity will never know. But I know for absolute fact, out of the infinity of possibilities, that it was the FSM. I hope I don't sound arrogant at all.

Science lacks the ability to tell me to 100% accuracy the thing I know for absolute certainty isn't true :pac:

I love it when theists use the uncertainty of science to support their absolute conviction. Talk about missing the point

gosplan

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Honestly, I have this nagging idea that if you speak clearly and logically enough to someone and make the facts absolutely clear they will realise their error and correct their position.

I have no problem with belief in a creator, it's the attempt to dress it up as a 'science' that bothers me. I don't care if people are right or wrong but it's an insult to humanity to falsify science to meet a theological/political agenda.

Creationist Science came in on the back of the exclusion of religion from schools in America. There were a couple of kooks before but that's when the movement gathered pace ... and I can understand why (all for religion class btw).

What worries me is that people took it seriously. We're even validating it as an argument by discussing it now. These people should have been laughed at and told to stop trying to bring faith into scientific matters, instead they were talked to as scientists.

Trying to prove people like this wrong is impossible because their whole interpretation of 'science' and what qualifies as science is basically whatever can be shown to agree with their faith.

The Mad Hatter

Do you guys think maybe we should wait for a response from wolfsbane?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Science lacks the ability to tell me to 100% accuracy the thing I know for absolute certainty isn't true :pac:

I love it when theists use the uncertainty of science to support their absolute conviction. Talk about missing the point

This misrepresentation is so inaccurate on so many levels.

If posters want to discuss Creationism then there is a slight chance this thread might remain open.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

This misrepresentation is so inaccurate on so many levels.

Er, what?

Explain who I'm misrepresenting? Are you saying no theist has ever in the history of theism, done this?