The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

PDN · 22-07-2010 6:54pm

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

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

I'm not Fanny, but it's called a Chiastic structure and occurs in other parts of Scripture.

For example, in Psalm 110:

A v.1 The Lord installs the king
B v. 2 He is sent out to conquer
C v. 3 The day of power
D v. 4 The Lord swears an oath
C1 v. 5 The day of wrath
B1 v. 6 He goes out to conquer
A1 v. 7 The Lord installs the king

Many scholars see the entire Book of Revelation as being structured as a Chiasmus.

Btw, recognising a chiasmus in literature merely means that the author followed a pattern in arranging his material - just as preachers often arrange their material in three point sermons. it does not necessarily imply that the material is inaccurate or non-historical.

Fanny Cradock · 22-07-2010 7:28pm

PDN wrote: »

Many scholars see the entire Book of Revelation as being structured as a Chiasmus.

Btw, recognising a chiasmus in literature merely means that the author followed a pattern in arranging his material - just as preachers often arrange their material in three point sermons. it does not necessarily imply that the material is inaccurate or non-historical.

Revelation was the obvious one I didn't mention. Genesis 9:6 is another example. Still, point taken with regards to the authorial intent that can be implied from a chiasmus (I learnt a new word today :pac:). I certainly don't want to say that because I believe Genesis employs certain linguistic techniques the rest of the bible should also be read the same way.

PDN · 22-07-2010 7:48pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Revelation was the obvious one I didn't mention. Genesis 9:6 is another example. Still, point taken with regards to the authorial intent that can be implied from a chiasmus (I learnt a new word today :pac:). I certainly don't want to say that because I believe Genesis employs certain linguistic techniques the rest of the bible should also be read the same way.

While we're having fun with this, check out the chiastic structure of Genesis 17

A Abram's age (1a)
B The LORD appears to Abram (1b)
C God's first speech (1b-2)
D Abram falls on his face (3)
E God's second speech
(Abram's name changed, kings; 4-8)
X God's Third Speech
(the covenant of circumcision; 9-14)
E' God's fourth speech
(Sari's name changed, kings; 15-16)
D' Abraham falls on his face (17-18)
C' God's fifth speech (19-21)
B' God "goes up" from Abraham (22)
A' Abraham's age (24-25)

The Mad Hatter · 22-07-2010 8:18pm

This is cool stuff, guys.

Genghiz Cohen · 22-07-2010 8:42pm

Who would have thought learning could be fun...
And that this thread would ever actually be interesting...

liamw · 22-07-2010 10:44pm

Why doesn't the priest talk about this! So much more interesting

Fanny Cradock · 22-07-2010 11:02pm

liamw wrote: »

Why doesn't the priest talk about this! So much more interesting

I have a feeling most people wouldn't be interested.

Anyway, I'm looking at more examples on-line and they can become quite elaborate - chiasmi contained within a larger chiasmus. For example Genesis 50:1-26

A Burial arrangements for Israel (1-3)
a Joseph weeps (1)
x Joseph's command (2-3a)
a' Egyptians weep (3b)

B Joseph's petition to Pharaoh (4-6)
a Joseph petitions Pharaoh's court (4a)
x Joseph's petition (4b-5)
a' Pharaoh grants Joseph's petition (6)

C Preparation to bury Israel (7-9)
a Joseph's entourage assent to Canaan (7-8a)
x The people who stayed behind in Egypt (8b)
a' Additional details of entourage to Canaan (9)

X Mourning For Jacob (10-11)
a Place and duration of mourning (10)
x The Canaanites observe the lamentation (11a-b)
a' Place renamed (11c)

C' Burial of Israel (12-14)
a Decent to Canaan (12-13a)
x Israel is buried in Canaan (13b-c)
a' Ascent to Egypt (14)

B' Joseph brothers' petition (15-21)
a Brothers' fear (15)"
x Brothers' petition and dream fulfilled (16-18)
a' Joseph reassures his brothers (19-21)

A' Burial arrangements and death of Joseph (22-26)
a Joseph's age (22)
x Promises remembered and made (23-25)
a' Joseph's age (26)

http://www.inthebeginning.org/chiasmus/introduction/chexamples.htm - the introduction of this site is well worth a read.

wolfsbane · 24-07-2010 9:40pm

Wicknight wrote: »

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

I appreciate that observation alone is not science. And I'm glad you are not arguing that the observed change in organisms being extrapolated backwards is science.

The theory of evolution claims such change happens indefinitely; the prediction on what will be found in the fossil record is made, and the observation of the record completes the scientific process? I can accept that as science. Mistaken science, but science nevertheless.

The theory of creation claims the universe and all of life began fully formed and functioning, but were then subjected to corruption. The prediction on what will be found in the fossil record is made and the observation completes the process. Why is that not science?

The same methodology that results in the technology that Evolutionists use every day (ie computers) results in the theories of creation.
_________________________________________________________________
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.

Sam Vimes · 25-07-2010 9:12am

wolfsbane wrote: »

The theory of creation claims the universe and all of life began fully formed and functioning, but were then subjected to corruption. The prediction on what will be found in the fossil record is made and the observation completes the process. Why is that not science?

If all animals existed simultaneously we would expect to find all different types of animals all littered randomly around the fossils record, tigers alongside tyrannosaurus rexes etc. That's not what we find. We find a steady progression from ancient animals to modern ones. One thing I've heard as an example of something that would disprove evolution (if it was verified) is a rabbit in the pre cambrian. We should expect to find this if creationism is true but not if evolution is. We do not find this

PDN · 25-07-2010 1:12pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One thing I've heard as an example of something that would disprove evolution (if it was verified) is a rabbit in the pre cambrian. We should expect to find this if creationism is true but not if evolution is. We do not find this

Ah yes, JBS Haldane's famous quote about the rabbit. So, Sam, no rabbits in the Burgess Shale then?

Galvasean · 25-07-2010 1:39pm

Sam Vimes wrote:

If all animals existed simultaneously we would expect to find all different types of animals all littered randomly around the fossils record, tigers alongside tyrannosaurus rexes etc. That's not what we find.

PDN wrote: »

Ah yes, JBS Haldane's famous quote about the rabbit. So, Sam, no rabbits in the Burgess Shale then?

Not yet. Found something that looked like a squid though.

Morbert · 25-07-2010 2:32pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

The theory of creation claims the universe and all of life began fully formed and functioning, but were then subjected to corruption. The prediction on what will be found in the fossil record is made and the observation completes the process. Why is that not science?

The same methodology that results in the technology that Evolutionists use every day (ie computers) results in the theories of creation.

Creation 'science' does not employ the scientific methodology. No ordering of fossils would 'refute' the story of creation for creationists. In fact, I cannot think of anything regarding the fossil record that would refute the story of creation. I am curious as to what you have in mind.

Zombrex · 25-07-2010 3:32pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

I appreciate that observation alone is not science. And I'm glad you are not arguing that the observed change in organisms being extrapolated backwards is science.

My point was all observation in science is after the fact.

You seem to think that if it is 5 minutes that is ok but 5 million years that is not science. That if we see it before our eyes we can assume it is accurate but not if we don't. That is not the case. Seeing is not believing in science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The theory of evolution claims such change happens indefinitely; the prediction on what will be found in the fossil record is made, and the observation of the record completes the scientific process? I can accept that as science. Mistaken science, but science nevertheless.

The theory of creation claims the universe and all of life began fully formed and functioning, but were then subjected to corruption. The prediction on what will be found in the fossil record is made and the observation completes the process. Why is that not science?

What predictions have Creationists made using models of a process of "corruption" that have been confirmed by observations of the fossil record?

And what predictions have been wrong causing a change in the model?

A scientific prediction is not something like "Oh well if we live in a fallen world then murder will happen, look murder is happening QED we live in a fallen world"

A good example of this is "kinds". Creationists don't have a model of a kind is and thus can give no prediction based on this model of what you should or should not find in biology based on the concept of kinds.

Instead you get very fuddy concepts like A horse will not give birth to a pig because they are different kinds and look that is what we get

Also before you dig out some random Creationists who strung together something in Microsoft Excel and called this a "model", you need to be doing this thousands of times a day building up a huge body of work. You need to get it reviewed, confirmed, repeated by other scientists.

It is not simply one correct prediction demonstrates the correctness of a scientific model. It is hundreds of thousands going into all the details of the model that build up over years.

Creationists simply do not do this. You can put forward what ever reason you like why they don't this (conspiracy, lack of support, no need its all the Bible) but that doesn't get around the fact that they just don't do this.

Zombrex · 25-07-2010 3:41pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If all animals existed simultaneously we would expect to find all different types of animals all littered randomly around the fossils record, tigers alongside tyrannosaurus rexes etc. That's not what we find. We find a steady progression from ancient animals to modern ones. One thing I've heard as an example of something that would disprove evolution (if it was verified) is a rabbit in the pre cambrian. We should expect to find this if creationism is true but not if evolution is. We do not find this

TBH we are sort of beyond one "smoking gun" discovery disproving all of evolution.

It would be like one discovery showing that everything we know about electricity is completely wrong, which would cause someone to wonder if that were the case how come we having been successfully using electricity based on these principles for the last 100 years, going so far as building computers based on them.

The idea that they would be completely wrong and that everything we did with them just by chance happened to work would be ridiculous.

The same is the case with neo-Darwinian biological evolution. It is very difficult see how Darwinian evolution could be completely wrong as that would every evolutionary biologists for the last 75 years has just some how got really really lucky.

Which is why such skepticism is put on claims by Creationists, not simply because they go against current understanding, not simply because they are based on pseudo-scientific claims, but because if correct they require that every evolutionary biology discovery in the last 75 years has just been some kind of cosmic fluke.

Of course anything is possible with an omnipotent God I guess.

PDN · 25-07-2010 9:21pm

Wicknight wrote: »

TBH we are sort of beyond one "smoking gun" discovery disproving all of evolution.

It would be like one discovery showing that everything we know about electricity is completely wrong, which would cause someone to wonder if that were the case how come we having been successfully using electricity based on these principles for the last 100 years, going so far as building computers based on them.

Or like someone proving Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to be wrong, causing people to wonder how other scientists had successfully used it for 250 years?

5uspect · 25-07-2010 9:41pm

PDN wrote: »

Or like someone proving Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to be wrong, causing people to wonder how other scientists had successfully used it for 250 years?

Not quite. Newton's law of universal gravitation isn't wrong.
It is simply limited and works to exceptional accuracy even today for most applications.

The same applies to the use of Newton's laws in most engineering applications. The Navier Stokes equations, a natural extension of Newton's laws, when solved properly provide us with unparalleled insight into fluid mechanics.
However we know that at low density and nano fluidic scales there are serious problems with the model of viscosity. However this is just one term in a set of equations that can be further expanded.

What Einstein did was show the Newton's work doesn't work at big scales.
However if you take relativity and eliminate the terms that approach zero (a mathematical limit) at speeds << than the speed of light you get Newton's laws.

Scientific theories begin by distilling a phenomenon down to it's basic elements in an elegant mathematical form. Following iterations take each supposed element and expose new facets to these atomic components.

Darwin didn't know about genes. Genetics has shown the building blocks of evolution in action. We're adding to and expanding the equation.

PDN · 25-07-2010 9:44pm

5uspect wrote: »

What Einstein did was show the Newton's work doesn't work at big scales.
However if you take relativity and eliminate the terms that approach zero (a mathematical limit) at speeds << than the speed of light you get Newton's laws.

So micro-Newtonianism is valid, but macro-Newtonianism is not?

So the mistake that was being made was to assume that because micro-Newtonianism could predict results successfully, then macro-Newtonianism must also, by extension, be true?

Interesting.

5uspect · 25-07-2010 9:46pm

PDN wrote: »

So micro-Newtonianism is valid, but macro-Newtonianism is not?

So the mistake that was being made was to assume that because micro-Newtonianism could predict results successfully, then macro-Newtonianism must also, by extension, be true?

Interesting.

Acting like J C does you no favours.

PDN · 25-07-2010 9:50pm

5uspect wrote: »

Acting like J C does you no favours.

OK, so is there anyone else out there that can answer my question?

5uspect · 25-07-2010 9:55pm

Are you serious?

Morbert · 25-07-2010 10:11pm

PDN wrote: »

So micro-Newtonianism is valid, but macro-Newtonianism is not?

So the mistake that was being made was to assume that because micro-Newtonianism could predict results successfully, then macro-Newtonianism must also, by extension, be true?

Interesting.

Well it would be wrong to believe that Newtonian mechanics extends to cosmology, but there is no parallel with evolution. Newtonian mechanics agrees with scientific evidence for small scales (but not too small)/low energy systems, but it is contradicted by scientific evidence for high energy systems. Evolution, on the otherhand, has been affirmed by evidence at all timescales of natural history.

The Mad Hatter · 26-07-2010 12:40am

A very good video on falsifying phylogeny. Wolfsbane, this would be worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91UAzMNUDLU

Zombrex · 26-07-2010 9:14am

PDN wrote: »

Or like someone proving Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to be wrong, causing people to wonder how other scientists had successfully used it for 250 years?

Completely wrong PDN, completely wrong

As Morbet points out Newtons laws are inaccurate when you try to apply them at a particular level of granularity or in certain circumstances.

But that is not what Creationists claim. They claim that the various theories that work in a long Earth model, from evolution to various threoies on heat and light, are completely wrong.

Fanny Cradock · 26-07-2010 1:15pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Completely wrong PDN, completely wrong

As Morbet points out Newtons laws are inaccurate when you try to apply them at a particular level of granularity or in certain circumstances.

But that is not what Creationists claim. They claim that the various theories that work in a long Earth model, from evolution to various threoies on heat and light, are completely wrong.

Didn't morbert already say this

Zombrex · 26-07-2010 1:42pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Didn't morbert already say this

PDN's comments were addressed to me, so I thought I would clarify. I don't see the issue repeating similar points as Morbert made, I even referenced him?

Is Boards.ie running out of harddrive space

JimiTime · 26-07-2010 1:49pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Didn't morbert already say this

PDN's comments were addressed to Wicknight, so he thought he would clarify. I don't see the issue repeating similar points as Morbert made, He even referenced him?

Is Boards.ie running out of harddrive space

:pac:

Sam Vimes · 26-07-2010 2:14pm

Wicknight wrote: »

PDN's comments were addressed to me, so I thought I would clarify. I don't see the issue repeating similar points as Morbert made, I even referenced him?

Is Boards.ie running out of harddrive space

JimiTime wrote: »

PDN's comments were addressed to Wicknight, so he thought he would clarify. I don't see the issue repeating similar points as Morbert made, He even referenced him?

Is Boards.ie running out of harddrive space

:pac:

What they said

The Mad Hatter · 26-07-2010 3:06pm

Bit of an echo in here.

Fanny Cradock · 26-07-2010 3:07pm

Wicknight wrote: »

PDN's comments were addressed to me, so I thought I would clarify. I don't see the issue repeating similar points as Morbert made, I even referenced him?

Is Boards.ie running out of harddrive space

Fair enough.

losthorizon · 26-07-2010 3:15pm

Can you christians stop fighting with each other. Its frightening me.:(

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments