The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, what?

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

I don't see anyone doing it recently on this thread.

If you want to discuss Creationism then feel free to do so. If you want to use this thread as a trojan horse in the mistaken belief that you can keep making general digs against Christians or theists that would not be tolerated elsewhere in the forum then there may be trouble ahead (but no music, moonlight, love or romance).

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

If you want to use this thread as a trojan horse in the mistaken belief that you can keep making general digs against Christians or theists that would not be tolerated elsewhere in the forum then there may be trouble ahead (but no music, moonlight, love or romance).

Fair enough. Couldn't you have just said that in the first place?

It is not a misrepresentation or mistaken belief at all, this sort of thing is said all the time on this forum and this thread. Whether you notice or not is some what irrelevant to this.

Having said that I accept it was a dig at a particular type of theist and that was pointless with regard to the topic of this thread adding nothing to the discussion, so cheerfully with-drawn.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What sort of information?

The DNA type.

wolfsbane

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

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

The first would not be consistent with a Young Earth view, as that incorporates more than just the Earth in its 'Young' concept. All of creation occurs in the 6 Days.

But thanks for the reminder that YEC has not yet settled on any one scientific model on the starlight problem.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Then we agree substantially. All I'm asking is that you do not put the inference of long ages/stretched out evolution on a par with the observed evolution of a bird's beak.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

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

I hope to get time at the week-end. Been enjoying the 12th July break. The Co. Armagh Orange demonstration was in my hometown, so plenty of flute, pipe, silver, accordian and Lambegs to keep my foot tapping.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

All I'm asking is that you do not put the inference of long ages/stretched out evolution on a par with the observed evolution of a bird's beak.

Neither of those are science. Let me say that again, neither of those are science.

You do not take an observation as the theory itself. You test prediction against observation. That is what science is. Theory => Prediction => Test.

There is no difference between scientists testing the prediction of evolutionary theory to the observation of the fossil record or scientists testing the prediction of electricity to the observation of a copper cable.

The natural process happening close to the moment of prediction is actually irrelevant to science. The process remains the same. You are always matching the end result of your theory (the prediction) to the end result of the natural system (the observation)

It doesn't matter if the natural system carried this out 5 seconds ago or 5 million years ago. What matters is that the prediction matches observation.

While you may believe scientists are all involved in a global conspiracy, scientists aren't stupid. The same methodology that results in the technology that Creationists use every day (ie computers) results in the theories of evolution.

Scientists don't simply ignore scientific standards for evolution or the big bang or decay rates that they don't ignore when figuring out how electricity.

The same methodology holds

Theory => Prediction => Test against observation

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

The DNA type.

What does that mean?

Morbert

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What does that mean?

Yes, I am also confused by this. Do you mean shannon-weaver/biological information frequently referenced and employed by evolutionary biologists?

Overheal

wolfsbane wrote: »

The first would not be consistent with a Young Earth view, as that incorporates more than just the Earth in its 'Young' concept. All of creation occurs in the 6 Days.

But thanks for the reminder that YEC has not yet settled on any one scientific model on the starlight problem.

Whats a day to God anyway? According to theists isn't our existence just a wink of his eye?

liamw

Overheal wrote: »

Whats a day to God anyway? According to theists isn't our existence just a wink of his eye?

Also, how can there be a concept of a day before the earth and the sun was created? Honestly you'd almost swear that this stuff was just made up by people in middle east a few thousand years ago..

Fanny Cradock

liamw wrote: »

Also, how can there be a concept of a day before the earth and the sun was created?

That's a good point. But I believe Origen beat you to it it some 1,800 years ago.

Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars— the first day even without a sky?

And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0412.htm

Honestly you'd almost swear that this stuff was just made up by people in middle east a few thousand years ago..

Careful now! Remember what forum you are posting on.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, I am also confused by this. Do you mean shannon-weaver/biological information frequently referenced and employed by evolutionary biologists?

On a simple level (mine), the idea that DNA encodes the information needed to build a functioning part of an organism. That is, DNA is not a random arrangement of chemicals, but a ordered arrangement.

On a scientific level, I gather shannon-weaver said something but not enough:
Chapter 3: Information Is a Fundamental Entity
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/information-fundamental-entity

Information, science and biology
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp

Lipid rafts: evidence of biosyntax and biopragmatics
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_66-70.pdf
_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

wolfsbane

liamw wrote: »

Also, how can there be a concept of a day before the earth and the sun was created? Honestly you'd almost swear that this stuff was just made up by people in middle east a few thousand years ago..

The argument centres on the idea that the 6 days of Genesis One begin at the beginning of the universe, as the rest of the Bible asserts:
Mark 10:4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”
5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

The Genesis One account specifically says that the sun, moon and stars were created in this 6 day period. The day/night period required only an exterior light source and a revolving earth - and that's what we had in Day One:
Genesis 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day...
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

wolfsbane

Overheal wrote: »

Whats a day to God anyway? According to theists isn't our existence just a wink of his eye?

The issue is not what a day is to God, but the sort of day God told us about in Genesis One. It was a day/night cycle. If one wants to make that 1000 years, million years or even a billion years one has to deal with what that means for the lifeforms during that time. 1000 years of night? Or of day? :eek:
___________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Overheal

wolfsbane wrote: »

The issue is not what a day is to God, but the sort of day God told us about in Genesis One. It was a day/night cycle. If one wants to make that 1000 years, million years or even a billion years one has to deal with what that means for the lifeforms during that time. 1000 years of night? Or of day? :eek:
___________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

a day on venus is 243 earth days....

t4k30

Creationism is stupid and so I organised religion, there is a good but the wills of man have made this world a place where normally logical people believe in silly stuff. Even the pope, John Paul I think it was said that "evolution is no longer just a theory". If he is infallible then, he has just handed the win to the evolution winners. Thanks for the win. Kthnxbai.

PDN

t4k30 wrote: »

Creationism is stupid and so I organised religion, there is a good but the wills of man have made this world a place where normally logical people believe in silly stuff. Even the pope, John Paul I think it was said that "evolution is no longer just a theory". If he is infallible then, he has just handed the win to the evolution winners. Thanks for the win. Kthnxbai.

While it's nice to know that you organised religion, please read the Charter before posting here again.

Goodnight and God bless you.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

While it's nice to know that you organised religion

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

On a simple level (mine), the idea that DNA encodes the information needed to build a functioning part of an organism. That is, DNA is not a random arrangement of chemicals, but a ordered arrangement.

On a scientific level, I gather shannon-weaver said something but not enough:
Chapter 3: Information Is a Fundamental Entity
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/information-fundamental-entity

Information, science and biology
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp

Lipid rafts: evidence of biosyntax and biopragmatics
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_66-70.pdf

Unlike the last paper, I must say that the relationship between information theory and evolution is a valid question raised by both creationists and evolutionary biologists. Where creationists unfortunately falter is effectively Theorem 3 from your second link.

"Theorem 3: Since Shannon’s definition of information relates exclusively to the statistical relationship of chains of symbols and completely ignores their semantic aspect, this concept of information is wholly unsuitable for the evaluation of chains of symbols conveying a meaning."

That is obviously not a theorem and I have no idea why they are calling it a theorem. I am feeling charitable so let's call it a conjecture. The problem with this conjecture (and it is exercised in the paper/third link you've provided) is the notion of meaning is wholly superfluous and unnecessary to evolutionary biology. It is no good saying meaning "points to" intelligent design. What must be shown is evolutionary biology is incapable of producing the genetic information we see in life today (i.e. incapable of reducing entropy in a system it operates on).This paper (Evolution of biological information) describes how evolution can and does generate such information in proteins. The salient point being:

"The results, which show the successful simulation of binding site evolution, can be used to address both scientific and pedagogical issues. R_sequence approaches and remains around R_frequency (Fig. 2b), supporting the hypothesis that the information content at binding sites will evolve to be close to the information needed to locate those binding sites in the genome, as observed in natural systems (4,6)."

Incidentally, the paper also touches on how such processes can produce "irreducible complexity."

Fanny Cradock

Interestingly enough, if you match the days of the genesis account in the following order you find an interesting relationship.

Day 1 - Separation of light and darkness *** Day 4 - Creation of lights to day and night.

Day 2 - Separation of waters to for sea and sky *** Day 5 - Creation of birds and fish to inhabit sea and sky.

Day 3 - Separation of sea and land and creation of plants *** Day 6 Creation of animals to fill the lands and eat the plants.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Interestingly enough, if you match the days of the genesis account in the following order you find an interesting relationship.

Day 1 - Separation of light and darkness *** Day 4 - Creation of lights to day and night.

Day 2 - Separation of waters to for sea and sky *** Day 5 - Creation of birds and fish to inhabit sea and sky.

Day 3 - Separation of sea and land and creation of plants *** Day 6 Creation of animals to fill the lands and eat the plants.

What's the interesting relationship Fanny?

The Mad Hatter

strobe wrote: »

What's the interesting relationship Fanny?

I think the fact that God created did three things in a certain order and then afterwards developed them in the same order. So the universe was created in sonata form.

wolfsbane

Overheal wrote: »

a day on venus is 243 earth days....

Which is why Venus is not a good place for a vacation, never mind a life.

Yep, God knows best. The 24 hour cycle is just fine.
___________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

liamw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Which is why Venus is not a good place for a vacation, never mind a life.

Yep, God knows best. The 24 hour cycle is just fine.
___________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

But now we understand that life evolved to 'fit' the environment, not the other way around. You understand that right Wolfsbane?

Fanny Cradock

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I think the fact that God created did three things in a certain order and then afterwards developed them in the same order. So the universe was created in sonata form.

Not quite!

strobe wrote: »

What's the interesting relationship Fanny?

It appears to me that there is a certain structure to the opening Genesis account - day 1 is coupled with day 4, day 2 with day 5 and day 3 with day 6. This, I propose, is indicative of a symbolic story rather than an accurate description of creation. I have heard that there is a rhythm to the account that is obvious in Hebrew (though also not totally absent from English translations) This rhythm is built around sentence structure and the numerical patterns within. Certain phrases are repeated 3, 7 or 10 times throughout the account. I'm not suggesting there is any hidden meaning in these patterns. Rather, it suggests that if Genesis bears a structure that is like what you would expect to find in poetry then it calls into question the notion that it was written with the intention of being a blow-by-blow factual account.

wolfsbane

liamw wrote: »

But now we understand that life evolved to 'fit' the environment, not the other way around. You understand that right Wolfsbane?

Of course. It's just that I think you are totally mistaken on that.
___________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It appears to me that there is a certain structure to the opening Genesis account - day 1 is coupled with day 4, day 2 with day 5 and day 3 with day 6. This, I propose, is indicative of a symbolic story rather than an accurate description of creation. I have heard that there is a rhythm to the account that is obvious in Hebrew (though also not totally absent from English translations) This rhythm is built around sentence structure and the numerical patterns within. Certain phrases are repeated 3, 7 or 10 times throughout the account. I'm not suggesting there is any hidden meaning in these patterns. Rather, it suggests that if Genesis bears a structure that is like what you would expect to find in poetry then it calls into question the notion that it was written with the intention of being a blow-by-blow factual account.

Hmm. Like the 14 generations repetitions in the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah? Maybe the liberals are right to discount the historicity of Christ?
_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.

Genghiz Cohen

wolfsbane wrote: »

the liberals are right to discount the historicity of Christ

Ooh that's a juicy one...

:pac:

Fanny, have you found this style of writing in any other parts of the Bible?

Fanny Cradock

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Fanny, have you found this style of writing in any other parts of the Bible?

I'm afraid that I don't have the education to make such a claim. Indeed, I take Wolfbane's point that if one stretches the "it's not literal" argument too far you end up like John Shelby Spong. Heaven forbid!