The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Scofflaw
The mainstream churches are all OECs, you're a YEC - are you now telling me there's no difference?

My point is that all ‘mainstream churches’ are CREATIONIST – and contain both Young Earth Creationists (YECs) and Old Earth Creationists (OECs) as members.

The OECs are a relatively recent group, who have attempted to accommodate the ‘long ages’ of Evolution – while staying within the confines of the Nicene and Apostles Creeds.

The YEC position is both Biblically and Scientifically correct as well as in full compliance with the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. It is therefore the most logically coherent position as well as being the predominant historical Christian position.


Brian Calagary
If the universe is finite, where does it end and how does it end? And what is beyond?

The Universe ISN’T finite – it is infinite, reflecting the omnipotence of the God that created it.
As it is infinite, the question of what lies beyond it doesn’t arise!!


Son Goku
A sphere is finite and nowhere on its surface does it end. The Universe is similar. It is finite but unbounded.

A sphere ends AT it’s surface

It is FINITE and bounded BY it’s surface!!!

As it is finite - there are many things beyond every sphere.

Scofflaw
There are certainly Creationists who are not IDers, but who are the IDers who are not also Creationists?

I concur with Wolfsbane that ALL Creationists are Intelliugent Designers – but many Intelligent Designers aren’t Creationists.

Amongst the many Intelligent Designers who aren’t Creationists are Theistic Evolutionists.
All Theistic Evolutionists should all be Intelligent Designers – unless they actually believe that God had NO direct role in Evolution.
If they do, actually believe that God didn’t have any substantive input into Evolution then they are actually Materialistic Evolutionists.

The ‘bottom line’ is that ID is the ‘fingerprint’ of God’s intelligent input into living things.
Whether you believe that the mechanism of that input was via Direct Creation or Gradual Evolution SHOULDN’T affect your expectation that ID would be observed – and so ALL Creationists and ALL Theistic Evolutionists SHOULD be ID Proponents.


Scofflaw
As you say, the Bible is testable. It has been tested. It has been found not to match the evidence.

The evidence for the validity of the Bible is essentially what this debate is all about – and so far The Word of God is winning ‘hands down’!!! :cool:

Matthewthebig

hahahahahahaha

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
The mainstream churches are all OECs, you're a YEC - are you now telling me there's no difference?

My point is that all ‘mainstream churches’ are CREATIONIST – and contain both YEC and OEC members.

The OECs are a relatively recent group, who have attempted to accommodate the ‘long ages’ of Evolution – while staying within the confines of the Nicene and Apostles Creeds.

The YEC position is both Biblically and Scientifically correct as well as in full compliance with the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. It is therefore the more logically coherent position.

That's as maybe - but it doesn't change the fact that as a YEC, you're walking in a very small parade. If you have difficulty with that, I can only suggest you work out a new numbering system, drawing on your vast scientific knowledge.

J C wrote:

Brian Calagary
If the universe is finite, where does it end and how does it end? And what is beyond?

The Universe ISN’T finite – it is infinite, reflecting the omnipotence of the God that created it.
As it is infinite, the question of what lies beyond it doesn’t arise!!

Phew. Glad that's sorted out then.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
There are certainly Creationists who are not IDers, but who are the IDers who are not also Creationists?

I concur with Wolfsbane that ALL Creationists are IDers – but many IDers aren’t Creationists.

Sorry? There are many Creationists who reject the ID movement....oh wait, you're deliberately confusing the concept of an intelligent designer with the quasi-political movement of that name in order to claim that anyone who believes in God in fact supports ID. Of course!

So, even if someone denies that that they're an IDer, they are really. Silly of me not to spot that, of course, given that apparently all Catholics and whatnot are really YECs but don't realise it...

J C wrote:

Amongst the many IDers who aren’t Creationists are Theistic Evolutionists.
They should all be IDers – unless they actually believe that God had NO direct role in Evolution.
If they do, in fact, believe that God didn’t have any substantive input into Evolution then they are actually Materialistic Evolutionists.

The ‘bottom line’ is that ID is the ‘fingerprint’ of God’s intelligent input into living things.
Whether you believe that the mechanism of that input was via Direct Creation or Gradual Evolution SHOULDN’T affect your expectation that ID would be observed – and so ALL Creationists and ALL Theistic Evolutionists SHOULD be ID Proponents.

I'm sure they SHOULD be. On the other hand, they aren't. One is wish fulfillment, the other is reality. Of course, it's clear by now that the two are the same thing in your Book.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
As you say, the Bible is testable. It has been tested. It has been found not to match the evidence.

The evidence for the validity of the Bible is essentially what this debate is all about – and so far The Word of God is winning ‘hands down’!!! :cool:

Er, well done. You should really get out of your own head from time to time. Honestly, reality isn't that bad...

you make me laugh so much that I won't deride you this time,
Scofflaw

Diogenes

wolfsbane wrote:

Diogenes said:

Read again what I said: Modern discoveries give us grounds to suspect genetic degrading due to increased exposure to solar radiation.
Does grounds to suspect equal saying categorically that there is proof ?

No but, you've stated that modern scientific discovery supports your assertion that we used to live to 700 years of age until an increased degree of solar radiation cut it short.

Now you are saying, solar radiation is, like, really really bad.

However, if you are denying the harmful effects of cosmic radiation on humans, I'm sure NASA would like to hear from you. They could do without hauling all that lead clothing into space.

Or maybe it is only genetic damage you deny?

Few posts have been more derserving of a :rolleyes: than this.

You've stated that modern scientific discovers support that our lifespans used to be far greater than our current one, and when challenged on this you say "solar radiation is like really really bad". How does that support your assertion that our lifespans used to exceed our current ones by over 7 fold?

You're not so much jumping to conclusions, as playing a merry game of leap frog with it.

You feel that our lifespans used to be 700 years of age until solar radiation cut it short. Fine. But call it a belief. And don't pretend you've any science supporting such a belief.

robindch

> [robindch] or "What intelligent designer created English?"
> [JC] God at Babel – and further refinements through it’s usage by
> INTELLIGENT Human Beings!!.

JC, you're beginning to sound more and more like the creationist you used to be before your conversion!

Could you trace for us, please, how English moved from Babylon to England and what exactly it was doing between around 1000BC and around 1300AD?

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The YEC position is both Biblically and Scientifically correct as well as in full compliance with the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. It is therefore the more logically coherent position.

Only if you assume everything discovered by science in the last 200 years is wrong.

Which you obviously do. Not a very logical position.

J C wrote:

A sphere ends AT it’s surface

Not if you on the surface.

The universe is finite, but its like a 3D curved surface, every direction you travel you will eventually get back to where you started. So you can only travel a finite distance, but you can travel for ever.

Its kinda like the computer game Asteroids, where when you go off the screen you come back the otherside, except to the space ship the transition is seemless.

No interesting is the universe is like a balloons surface. Every point in the universe is expanding away from every other point.

No doubt you aren't going to understand this, and therefore claim that such a universe is not possible. Creationists do have a tendency to limit scientific understanding to their ignorance :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

The evidence for the validity of the Bible is essentially what this debate is all about – and so far The Word of God is winning ‘hands down’!!! :cool:

Again, only if you ignore everything discovered by science in the last 200 years.

JC I would imagine you would be much happier living in the 13th century, before things like the Renassiance or Enlightnement.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

If the universe is finite, where does it end and how does it end? And what is beyond?

"Beyond" is not really the right word to apply here. It is finite, but it doesn't end. It is not a box or ball, it is a loop.

If you were on a point on a sphere and you started walking in one direction you would eventually get back to where you started. You have walked a finite distance, and there is a finite distance you can walk from any point on the sphere. So it is finite. But that doesn't mean there is a "beyond". There is nothing beyond the distance you walked, because you begin to loop back on ground already covered.

The universe might be like this, except rather than a 2D curved surface we are talking about 3D (or more) system, but the same principles apply.

This is quite hard for the lay person on the street to understand because we are used to visualising objects in a 3D system like we find on Earth. We want to put things beside each other, and say that a straight line goes on for ever. But scaled up to the size of the universe these traditional visualiations break down. The easiest way to understand it is on a computer simulation, such as a video game. There are a number of space ship simulators games where if you travel in one direction the game world resets itself and you end up where you started, even though you have only travelled forward. This might be how the universe is.

Which brings up the very interesting questions, are the stars we see unique. If the loop theory is correct, it is possible that we are viewing the same stars in different positions, like a hall of mirrors in the sky. Though recent microwave studies have suggested that this isn't true. So the theory is rather open at the moment.

May we live in interesting times

Son Goku

J C wrote:

The Universe ISN’T finite – it is infinite, reflecting the omnipotence of the God that created it.
As it is infinite, the question of what lies beyond it doesn’t arise!!

Then you disagree with this:
The Largest Cosmological study of recent times.
Would you mind telling me what errors they made or what their assumptions were.

J C wrote:

A sphere ends AT it’s surface

It is FINITE and bounded BY it’s surface!!!

As it is finite - there are many things beyond every sphere.

:rolleyes:
A ball is bounded by its surface. A Sphere is a surface, that doesn't require embedding. To say it is bounded by its surface makes no sense and in fact contradicts an elementary result of differential topology.
So now it seems you have a problem with differential topology. Would you mind explaining what is wrong with differential topology?

More Importantly.....
It also contradicts the first postulate of differential geometry, i.e. Riemannian Geometry. The very area of maths I've been asking you to demonstrate the assumptions of. The fact that you could make such a grossly ridiculous statement as the quote above shows you have not studied the subject. You are therefore in no position to claim what its assumptions are or how they effect stellar calculations.
The fact that you stated there where assumptions when you were in no position to, shows that you have been making stuff up with regard to Riemannian Geometry the whole time.

Wicknight wrote:

The universe might be like this, except rather than a 2D curved surface we are talking about 3D (or more) system, but the same principles apply.

Wicknight wrote:

If the loop theory is correct, it is possible that we are viewing the same stars in different positions, like a hall of mirrors in the sky. Though recent microwave studies have suggested that this isn't true.

Current data suggests, (although it is still far from upper precentile confidence) that the universe loops in ten directions. What is called a genus ten surface.
Basically the 3-D version of this:

However the universe has a topology scale of ~24GPc, so light hasn't had a chance to come back around.

However the evidence for this is independant of the evidence of finiteness. The universe is probably finite. (And probably in the sense of cosmology being one of the most tentative sciences, not as in we don't know, before you jump on this JC.)

(I will respond to you Brain, next post.)

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Ah - you reckon "knowing how babies are made" is the same thing as knowing how STDs are spread. Interesting theory. Just how accurately did you really know that, I wonder - I remember all kinds of amazing theories still floating about in my teens. Also, I'm male, and I know for a fact that a lot more of the girls were somewhat more in the dark than was wise.

I did know as much about STD spread as about impregnation. The only debate that showed significant error was the one about how high the crabs could jump! :eek:

And, yes, girls were more ignorant of these things than us.

Yes, young people today are much more exposed to the facts of life -

I'm glad you agree they know the risks.

something the religious fought tooth and nail against, and lost in most countries.

Most Evangelicals I know of did not seek to keep their children ignorant of the facts of life and associated risks. I know the Roman Catholic Church has had big problems about sex, but I can not speak of it first-hand.

However, public availability in big cities, and availability within a particular family, is entirely different. Get the right (or wrong) family, and you can grow up thinking it's normal to have sex with your relatives.

There will always be the weird exceptions, but that hardly accounts for the great increase in unwanted pregnacies and STDs. The facts are available to nearly everyone, big city or not. The real factors are the willingness to take the risk and the denial of moral impropriety in unmarried sex.

Really? Unfortunately a condom is what you might call a "dual-use" item - it can be used in marriage, and outside it. It's very difficult to oppose "recommendations how to have promiscuous sex without bad consequences" without opposing all sexual education, as has been seen time and again.

I see no problem teaching those about to be married about the right way to use a condom. Single adults would have a right to such knowledge if they want it - that will be for them to decide. But school kids do not need to know; all they need to know are the facts of life and associated risks - and how best to avoid situations where sexual temptation could lead them astray. If we decide to inform them how to have sex and minimise the risks, are we not encouraging them to do so? Should primary school kids also be advised on condom use?

On the other hand, I'm no fan of any "educational campaign" that encourages casual sex.

Good on you. If the rest of society took this view, we would see a marked improvement concerning unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

We already are - longer lives, less misery, much less hypocrisy, and diseases that are endemic rather than epidemic.

Holding paedophilic pornogaphy as acceptable hardly has contributed to those. The same mindset merely leads to the paedophile case for the 'rights of children to a sex life' becoming acceptable as an argument; then for the 'right' to be granted.

As for disease, are you saying STDs are now less common than 40 years ago?

To roll out the old argument - he made the person fore-knowing what they would do, or else he is not omniscient.

He did indeed.

That the person chooses to do it is neither here nor there, because the person was not responsible for their Creation - God was, and he knew what the person would do.

The slip in logic here is from man not being responsible for his creation, to him not being responsible for his actions following that. Or from the other side, God being responsible for man's creation, therefore He must be responsible for what man does.

wolfsbane

Diogenes said:

No but, you've stated that modern scientific discovery supports your assertion that we used to live to 700 years of age until an increased degree of solar radiation cut it short.

Where did I say that?
From post 2316:
That it has increased in severity is recorded, man's lifespan dropping from the 900 mark pre-Flood to the 70 mark post-Flood. There is no explanation given (as far as I am aware) so Christians speculate it must be related to the conditions after the Flood. Modern discoveries give us grounds to suspect genetic degrading due to increased exposure to solar radiation.

Modern science indicates that increased exposure to solar radiation damages genetically and directly threatens the individual life. From that fact ( am I wrong, is this not what science indicates?), I then speculated that it was such an increase in exposure that accounts for the dramatic reduction in longevity after the Flood.

Where am I saying that modern science has shown there was such a reduction in longevity?

Few posts have been more derserving of a than this.

You've stated that modern scientific discovers support that our lifespans used to be far greater than our current one, and when challenged on this you say "solar radiation is like really really bad".

Few posts show the need for actually reading what is said, rather than jumping to conclusions, than yours.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

There will always be the weird exceptions, but that hardly accounts for the great increase in unwanted pregnacies and STDs. The facts are available to nearly everyone, big city or not. The real factors are the willingness to take the risk and the denial of moral impropriety in unmarried sex.

Er, what "great increase"? Compared to when?

wolfsbane wrote:

I see no problem teaching those about to be married about the right way to use a condom. Single adults would have a right to such knowledge if they want it - that will be for them to decide. But school kids do not need to know; all they need to know are the facts of life and associated risks - and how best to avoid situations where sexual temptation could lead them astray. If we decide to inform them how to have sex and minimise the risks, are we not encouraging them to do so? Should primary school kids also be advised on condom use?

Anyone over puberty. Actually, it's perfectly possible to combine the maximum of information with the maximum of "yuck" - certainly my school managed it by covering it in biology class (clinical). It was also covered in RE, but, my school being a little old-fashioned, that mostly consisted of a slideshow on the dangers of sex with native women.

There is no substitute for parental supervision. Again, if I wanted to point the finger at anyone with respect to the promotion of casual sex, it would be the media and advertising industries rather than schools.

wolfsbane wrote:

Holding paedophilic pornogaphy as acceptable hardly has contributed to those. The same mindset merely leads to the paedophile case for the 'rights of children to a sex life' becoming acceptable as an argument; then for the 'right' to be granted.

The erosion method. Paedophilic pornography, where real, involves child abuse. I don't think manga is going to lead to the legalisation of child sex anytime soon.

wolfsbane wrote:

As for disease, are you saying STDs are now less common than 40 years ago?

I couldn't say for sure without stats, but they're certainly more curable. Also better reported, I would think.

wolfsbane wrote:

He did indeed.

The slip in logic here is from man not being responsible for his creation, to him not being responsible for his actions following that. Or from the other side, God being responsible for man's creation, therefore He must be responsible for what man does.

No, it follows from the above. God is responsible for man's creation in full foreknowledge of man's actions, and has the choice to create or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Such as?

Have a look in:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Here's one example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/landforms.asp

If you are looking for science don't read AnswersInGenesis, it is a nonsense website.

Or maybe your warning is akin to a evolutionist Syllabus of Errors? http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

pH

wolfsbane and J C -

What about Iron (and indeed all the heavy elements)?

I ask this because iron is created by stars in processes that takes billions of years.
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/Highlights/pr20020708.html

Are what you really saying that science should stop all this nonsense once and for all, the only answer to any scientific question is simple -
"God did it" - Iron was made by God when he was making the earth.

You beliefs are your own I suppose, and believing that the earth is a few thousand years old (despite all the evidence against) is a tenet of your faith. You must accept that it is solely a faith-based position and that like for other things you believe based on your religion there is no evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html

Diogenes

wolfsbane wrote:

Diogenes said:

Where did I say that?
From post 2316:
That it has increased in severity is recorded, man's lifespan dropping from the 900 mark pre-Flood to the 70 mark post-Flood. There is no explanation given (as far as I am aware) so Christians speculate it must be related to the conditions after the Flood. Modern discoveries give us grounds to suspect genetic degrading due to increased exposure to solar radiation.

Modern science indicates that increased exposure to solar radiation damages genetically and directly threatens the individual life. From that fact ( am I wrong, is this not what science indicates?), I then speculated that it was such an increase in exposure that accounts for the dramatic reduction in longevity after the Flood.

So basically aside from the bible claiming we used to live till 700, and then some mysterious event* reduced life expectancy to present levels.

*Replace mysterious event with cosmic radiation and you have it.

All you've done is taken creationist myths, added a topical scientific discovery, and offered it as a theory. It's the wildest speculation, and the worst kind of pseudo science imaginable.

Few posts show the need for actually reading what is said, rather than jumping to conclusions, than yours.

I'm not jumping to conclusions but if you're going to post nothing but nuggets glemed from pseudo science and try to pass it off as a coherant theory don't expect not to be called on it.

Christ this is worst than the time they stuck a catalytic converter on the Enterprise in TNG....

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Like I have said already, all evidence suggests the universe is not infinite. Current Cosmological thinking is that it is finite. What are you talking about?

I see what you mean from the other posts on spheres. Where in nature do we see any such sphere that has nothing beyond it? Nowhere, obviously. So you want us to accept the unobserved as science.

And matter is not eternal. Again where does this statement come from?

OK, maybe I should have said matter in its simplest form - energy. Are you saying energy can be destroyed? Where did it come from if it was not always existing? Is belief in eternal energy Ok for science? Or is it science to say energy came into existence and one day will be gone?

19th Century physics was very linear and simple. Again, where does this come from?

From the 'previous century' being the 20th, not the 19th.

The law that states the closed integral of the quotient of the heat change during a Thermodynamic process and the final Temperture tends to infinity if and only if the system is thermodynamically isolated?
You mean that law? The law that doesn't say what you want it to say?

No, not the very narrow version you would like us to focus on. From Wikipedia: An important law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value; and so, by implication, the entropy of the universe (i.e. the system and its surroundings), assumed as an isolated system, tends to increase.

Also see:
http://www.secondlaw.com/index.html
http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

I see what you mean from the other posts on spheres. Where in nature do we see any such sphere that has nothing beyond it? Nowhere, obviously. So you want us to accept the unobserved as science.

The sphere is an analogy and you know that. Why did you even bother writing that. It is obvious that the sphere was only an analogy.
(Here is something which is not an analogy.)
All objects are embedded in spacetime, so of course what you said above is true. That doesn't however allow you to conclude anything about the global properties of spacetime.

wolfsbane wrote:

OK, maybe I should have said matter in its simplest form - energy. Are you saying energy can be destroyed? Where did it come from if it was not always existing? Is belief in eternal energy Ok for science? Or is it science to say energy came into existence and one day will be gone?

The Universe is globally acausal. The matter is neither eternal (and stop using loaded words like that) or created at some point in time.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, not the very narrow version you would like us to focus on. From Wikipedia: An important law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value; and so, by implication, the entropy of the universe (i.e. the system and its surroundings), assumed as an isolated system, tends to increase.

And entropy is defined as:
"The closed integral of the quotient of the heat change during a Thermodynamic process and the final Temperature". Which makes the above identical to what I said.
Entropy is not disorder.
Look at the word "thermodynamics". Roughly "movement of heat". Entropy is related to "The Second Law of the movement of heat". Nothing to do with disorder or chaos or randomness or degradation.
Scientific definitions are narrow. There is no other kind of entropy.

(Sorry again Brian, still trying to phrase the explanation as best I can.)

BrianCalgary

Son Goku wrote:

(Sorry again Brian, still trying to phrase the explanation as best I can.)

I'll be patient.:)

I'm away all next week, on a mountain with no electronics, just my wife, kids and a host and hostess who cook.

J C

Wicknight
The universe is finite, but its like a 3D curved surface, every direction you travel you will eventually get back to where you started. So you can only travel a finite distance, but you can travel for ever.

I once had a car like that – you could sit in it for hours, but it never went anywhere and it always left you where you started.

I eventually Scrapped it!!!


Wicknight
No doubt you aren't going to understand this, and therefore claim that such a universe is not possible. Creationists do have a tendency to limit scientific understanding to their ignorance

………….and Evolutionists have a tendency to limit their scientific understanding to their IMAGINATIONS!!!


Wicklnight
There are a number of space ship simulators games where if you travel in one direction the game world resets itself and you end up where you started, even though you have only travelled forward.

A friend once had such a game and it used to reset itself because there was something ‘rattling’ inside it!!!

He eventually got rid of it – I think that it was an Evolutionist who bought it – and now I know why this Evolutionist was so fascinated by such a totally useless yoke!!


Wicknight
are the stars we see unique. If the loop theory is correct, it is possible that we are viewing the same stars in different positions, like a hall of mirrors in the sky.

That also happened to me one night.:)
I remember I had about 10 pints and I went outside and there they were – all of the stars in different positions – or maybe it was different stars in the same positions?

My head starts to spin even now when I think about it!!!!


Wicknight
Though recent microwave studies have suggested that this isn't true.

Of course it ISN’T true, Wicknight!!! :eek:
Pull yourself together man!!!

…….You just couldn’t make this stuff up !!!


Diogenes
this is worst than the time they stuck a catalytic converter on the Enterprise in TNG....

The Enterprise crew were Evolutionists - so maybe that explains it !!!

Wicknight
the universe is like a balloons surface. Every point in the universe is expanding away from every other point

Now I know why I ‘expand’ every time I eat too much or drink too much beer!!!!


Son Goku
Current data suggests, (although it is still far from upper precentile confidence) that the universe loops in ten directions. What is called a genus ten surface.
………….However the universe has a topology scale of ~24GPc, so light hasn't had a chance to come back around.
Diogenes
It's the wildest speculation, and the worst kind of pseudo science imaginable.

You could have a point, Diogenes!!

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Wicknight said:
Have a look in:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

I have, I've read AnswersInGenesis quite a bit, which is why I explained it is a non-sense website.

Take for example the very first FAQ

What is the most compelling scientific evidence of young earth?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp

Seems like the very first question to ask, does it not? Well you won't be getting any answers from AnswersInGenesis, except for the Old Earth theories contradict the Bible argument (which isn't scientific) and go read this book, go read that book, seemingly it is all explained perfectly in them. Which you can, shock horror, buy through the AnswersInGenesis bookshop.

The main criticism against radiometeric dating (which is actually not one thing, but an entire field of different methods of dating objects) is that it is based on "anti-biblical assumptions" How is that a scientific argument, that if something is contradictory to the Bible it must, by default, be wrong?

It then proceeds to list either lies or very ignorant mistakes (depending on your point of view of the authors of AnswersInGenesis, do they know this stuff is crap, or are they just ignorant of science in general).

1 - Abstance of errosion in high altutude mountains
Mountain erosion is well documented phenomona

2 - "polystrate" fossils prove that rock formation was quick
Firstly, "polystrate" is a made up term by Creationists. Secondly that "theory" was debunked years ago, and is ignored by mainstream geology as nonsense.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossils

3 - Sediment must have been soft, (and wet??) because the rock formations have been bent.
This is got to be the stupidest YEC claim ever. Do they have any idea the pressures these rocks are submitted to. More than enough to, over long periods of time, distort solid rock. If they were "soft" they would have been completely destroyed. We know the pressure that rocks face under the ground, so claiming that they are at some point "soft" is nonsense.

4 - Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization.
That is true, but I've no idea how that supports YEC, and it isn't explained in the FAQ

5 - Geologists can't see the "screaming" evidence for a biblical flood because they have been indoctroned by anti-bible establishment
Ummm ... you know you are on to something when the other side starts claiming you don't agree because you have been brainwashed by the establishment :rolleyes:

So there you have it. Distortions, mistakes and out right lies. And the main, recuring theme, that scientists are anti-bible and can't understand the word of God.

With an argument like that, who needs facts to back you up!

wolfsbane wrote:

Or maybe your warning is akin to a evolutionist Syllabus of Errors? http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

[/quote]
No I just don't like being lied to by a group claiming to be the only ones speaking the truth.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Wicknight
The universe is finite, but its like a 3D curved surface, every direction you travel you will eventually get back to where you started. So you can only travel a finite distance, but you can travel for ever.

I once had a car like that – you could sit in it for hours, but it never went anywhere and it always left you where you started.

I eventually Scrapped it!!!

Wicknight
No doubt you aren't going to understand this, and therefore claim that such a universe is not possible. Creationists do have a tendency to limit scientific understanding to their ignorance

………….and Evolutionists have a tendency to limit their scientific understanding to their IMAGINATIONS!!!


Wicklnight
There are a number of space ship simulators games where if you travel in one direction the game world resets itself and you end up where you started, even though you have only travelled forward.

A friend once had such a game and it used to reset itself because there was something ‘rattling’ inside it!!!

He eventually got rid of it – I think that it was an Evolutionist who bought it – and now I know why the Evolutionist was so interested in such a totally useless yoke!!

I can't help but think you should have tried driving the car instead of just sitting in it. Seriously though, while I'm flattered by your imitation, you're much funnier as yourself...

Remember - the dog barks, the cat meows...each to their kind.

wiping my eyes,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I eventually Scrapped it!!!

You are suggesting we scrap the universe?

J C wrote:

My head starts to spin even now when I think about it!!!!

Thats probably because you don't have a very good head for science.

I knew you wouldn't understand this even enought to reply properly about how you believe its wrong, so you had to come up with a series of nonsensical rants in an attempt to reply.

Have a lie down, you will feel better.

J C wrote:

…….You just couldn’t make this stuff up !!!

You are right, making things up is what Creationists Science does, not proper science.

RiverDeep

I've been reading some of the exchanges in this thread with great interest and would like to make a couple of observations.

First, it occurs to me that adherents to both sides of this debate actually hold faith-based positions. The strict materialist must believe that everything that exists must have arisen without supernatural intervention. This is a faith-based belief because the origin of the universe is a non-repeatable event as far as ordinary human observation is concerned and so ideas on origins have to be conjectured and trusted in. On the other side, the theist must have faith to believe in the existence of God and therefore it is no great leap to trust the idea that an omnipotent deity can purposefully bring into existence all that we can now observe. Whatever we now observe through careful processes of operational scientific investigation will be filtered through one or other of these paradigms.

Secondly, in the process of doing science, it would seem that the theistic paradigm has a distinct advantage over the materialistic. The theist can make observations on a material system and perhaps come to an understanding of its mechanism of operation without ever causing slight to the existence of the God s/he believes in. In fact, such understanding will often give the theist cause for greater appreciation of God as originator and designer. So the theist has the potential to view things at more than one level all at once - on the ordinary material scale of things and then also in more sublime ways, seeing a divine hand at work. However, the strict materialist is restricted to a much narrower enjoyment of his/her understanding because s/he "cannot allow a divine foot in the door".

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

I see what you mean from the other posts on spheres.

The universe is not a sphere. The surface of the sphere was used as an example of how something can have a finite size yet have nothing beyond it.

In reality the exact "shape" of the universe is hard to pin down, because we are in it, and because we can only percieve the universe through the light that follows the shape of the universe.

If for example the universe is curved, it is very hard to detect this, because the light travelling through the universe is also curved along its lenght, but appears to use to be travelling in a straight line, just like a person in a mirror at 45 degrees looks like they are right in front of you, yet they are actually standing to the right or left of you. If you can't detect you are looking through a mirror you have a hard time determining where exactly the person is.

wolfsbane wrote:

So you want us to accept the unobserved as science.

A lot of this is theoretical physics, but based on rather complex and complicated observations. But it may be another 100 years before we know for certain.

wolfsbane wrote:

Where did it come from if it was not always existing?

Who knows? Admitting to not knowing something is a the corner stone of science. Saying that it is unscientific to say that because we don't know something we can just start accepting any old made up theory.

If you wish to believe that God created the universe at the Big Bang, go ahead. There is no scientific reason to believe that, but there is no theological reason not to believe that

wolfsbane wrote:

Is belief in eternal energy Ok for science?

Belief has very little to do with science. You can believe what ever you wish. Science's position is "we don't know", which is the only valid scientific position. Anything else is just a guess.

Zombrex

RiverDeep wrote:

First, it occurs to me that adherents to both sides of this debate actually hold faith-based positions. The strict materialist must believe that everything that exists must have arisen without supernatural intervention.

That isn't true. Its just nothing "supernatural" has ever been properly observed, let alone a God wielding his power on Earth.

Though I'm always confused exactly what people mean by the term "super-natural"

RiverDeep wrote:

Secondly, in the process of doing science, it would seem that the theistic paradigm has a distinct advantage over the materialistic.

Advantage in what context? Your argument seems to be that a materialist can't apprechate the work of God. That depends on if they believe in God or not, but it doesn't change the fact that the evidence shows that everything we have so far observed came about during a natural phenomona. What happened before the Big Bang? No idea, maybe we will never know. If people want ot believe that was God, go ahead. But to claim God made the Earth out of thin air, or place fully formed humans in a garden 8000 years ago? No, not supported by any evidence.

Scofflaw

RiverDeep wrote:

First, it occurs to me that adherents to both sides of this debate actually hold faith-based positions. The strict materialist must believe that everything that exists must have arisen without supernatural intervention. This is a faith-based belief because the origin of the universe is a non-repeatable event as far as ordinary human observation is concerned and so ideas on origins have to be conjectured and trusted in. On the other side, the theist must have faith to believe in the existence of God and therefore it is no great leap to trust the idea that an omnipotent deity can purposefully bring into existence all that we can now observe. Whatever we now observe through careful processes of operational scientific investigation will be filtered through one or other of these paradigms.

Hmm. You raise an interesting point. I would say myself that both positions are conjectural as you say, and that neither position is better supported by logic than the other - and to that extent both are "beliefs". However, the materialistic theory of origin is extrapolated back from interpretations of the available evidence, whereas the theistic theory of origin is extrapolated back from current belief, with evidence as a secondary concern.

However, it is perfectly possible to accept the materialistic theory of origin, but to place God as the causal agent of the Big Bang, so there is no necessary conflict between a theistic (or agnostic) theory of origin and the materialistic theory of origin.

There is of course a conflict between the YEC position and the materialistic theory of origin, because the materialistic interpretation of the evidence has to be wrong in so many particulars for the YEC theory of origin to work. This is a specific issue with Biblical inerrancy rather than theism.

Science itself, of course, is of necessity materialistic, since it specifically rules out any supernatural explanation of phenomena.

RiverDeep wrote:

Secondly, in the process of doing science, it would seem that the theistic paradigm has a distinct advantage over the materialistic. The theist can make observations on a material system and perhaps come to an understanding of its mechanism of operation without ever causing slight to the existence of the God s/he believes in. In fact, such understanding will often give the theist cause for greater appreciation of God as originator and designer. So the theist has the potential to view things at more than one level all at once - on the ordinary material scale of things and then also in more sublime ways, seeing a divine hand at work. However, the strict materialist is restricted to a much narrower enjoyment of his/her understanding because s/he "cannot allow a divine foot in the door".

That presupposes that the materialist is entirely unspiritual, or possibly that sublimity only comes from divinity. Neither are correct, unless you're thinking of those dour caricatures of atheists who clamp down on any "spiritual" impulses as hard as any puritan on a "lustful" one...

Appreciation of sublimity is a capability of the human mind, exercised by the believer and the unbeliever alike.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

RiverDeep wrote:

First, it occurs to me that adherents to both sides of this debate actually hold faith-based positions. The strict materialist must believe that everything that exists must have arisen without supernatural intervention. This is a faith-based belief because the origin of the universe is a non-repeatable event as far as ordinary human observation is concerned and so ideas on origins have to be conjectured and trusted in.

One side holds a faith-based position, the other is evidence-based. The 'strict materialist' must not believe anything. If we found compelling evidence of God, then it would still be supernatural (as we couldn't explain it or understand it using science) but everyone would accept it.

Here are some faith-based positions:

• The universe was created by God
• You are the only being existence, reality is all in your mind
• We're all part of a computer simulation.
• We were all created last week with all our memories intact.

Science at the moment doesn't provide an explanation (faith based or not) for the creation of the universe. What we do know is after the first few instants of time we understand what happened from then onwards, and no supernatural explanations are required to get us from 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang up to today.

The God of the gaps argument - "If we don't understand it then it must be God" is tired and cliched. It explains nothing, in fact it raises the much bigger question - If you what to start using God to explain causes then you must explain the cause of God. If you are prepared to accept something being 'uncaused' then why not accept an uncaused universe (all we need is a tiny uncaused spark) rather than a complete uncaused sentient being.

Also, I can't see how the non-repeatability of an event is relevant to this either. Every murder is non repeatable, but no one in their right mind would say that there are 2 equal explanations (both faith-based)
- God killed her.
- Somebody killed her - let's look for a murderer.

Just because you can't repeat an event doesn't mean you cannot investigate it or that you must accept that the 'belief that this woman was murdered' is now faith based.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Er, what "great increase"? Compared to when?

How's this for the recent decade? http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticuk.htm

Anyone over puberty. Actually, it's perfectly possible to combine the maximum of information with the maximum of "yuck" - certainly my school managed it by covering it in biology class (clinical). It was also covered in RE, but, my school being a little old-fashioned, that mostly consisted of a slideshow on the dangers of sex with native women.

There is no substitute for parental supervision. Again, if I wanted to point the finger at anyone with respect to the promotion of casual sex, it would be the media and advertising industries rather than schools.

I agree with a lot of that. The media are certainly the worst offenders.

Here's an interesting article from a pro-choice source, showing their understanding (rather, lack of) of the problem: http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/comm11.asp

The erosion method. Paedophilic pornography, where real, involves child abuse. I don't think manga is going to lead to the legalisation of child sex anytime soon.

I doubt it works like that. Establish the idea in an acceptable medium, and the reality follows. Cartoons have long been used for propaganda purposes to great effect. Animated ones should fare just as well.

I couldn't say for sure without stats, but they're certainly more curable. Also better reported, I would think.

Even the treatment is beginning to weaken, due to overuse/misuse of the drugs and the mutation of the viruses and bacteria.

No, it follows from the above. God is responsible for man's creation in full foreknowledge of man's actions, and has the choice to create or not.

The issue then is, does the choice to create someone you know will sin constitute sin? God says He is entitled to do with His creation as He wishes and that the sin remains soley man's responsibility. Some of His creatures say He is lying, or doesn't exist. Having some knowledge of His majesty and mercy, I'll stick to His view.

wolfsbane

Diogenes said:

So basically aside from the bible claiming we used to live till 700, and then some mysterious event* reduced life expectancy to present levels.

*Replace mysterious event with cosmic radiation and you have it.

All you've done is taken creationist myths, added a topical scientific discovery, and offered it as a theory. It's the wildest speculation, and the worst kind of pseudo science imaginable.

If you had carefully read the thread, you would have seen I was not offering scientific proof of anything, just reporting on the fact that the Bible tells us of the dramatic loss of longevity following the Flood, and I speculated as to a natural mechanism that could have brought that about. Nothing about science proving the Biblical account.

If no one is allowed to speculate about possible mechanisms for reported phenomena, without being accused of the worst kind of pseudo science imaginable, forensic investigations are a waste of tax-money. And a lot of historical science. How were the pyramids built? Don't speculate about the men or machines that might have been used. It is all the worst kind of pseudo science imaginable.

Or maybe you apply that only to creationists who speculate?

I'm not jumping to conclusions but if you're going to post nothing but nuggets glemed from pseudo science and try to pass it off as a coherant theory don't expect not to be called on it.

What is pseudo-scientific about suggesting increased exposure to solar radiation might explain a big decline in longevity? Will you categorically state that radiation will not mutate genes to that effect, nor cause more rapid aging?

Or do you just like shouting what the big boys say, without thinking for yourself?

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

What is pseudo-scientific about suggesting increased exposure to solar radiation might explain a big decline in longevity? Will you categorically state that radiation will not mutate genes to that effect, nor cause more rapid aging?

There isn't anything pseudo-scientific about it. At least to my mind. It's perfectly valid hypothesis based on what we know about genes and radiation.

It's just that when it comes to testing the hypothesis, it doesn't have any evidence.
It's a perfectly valid hypothesis that has been falsified.

JC wrote:

Son Goku
Current data suggests, (although it is still far from upper precentile confidence) that the universe loops in ten directions. What is called a genus ten surface.
………….However the universe has a topology scale of ~24GPc, so light hasn't had a chance to come back around.
Diogenes
It's the wildest speculation, and the worst kind of pseudo science imaginable.

You could have a point, Diogenes!!

My word! What a detailed and meticulous analysis. I particularly liked how you took the evidence and suggested an alternate explanation.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.

This is just getting stupid JC, you respond to serious four-year long cosmological surveys which suggest evidence against your hypothesis with lame jokes and you actually believe you have refuted the study.

As I said, this is why Creationism has never risen beyond the level of internet forums.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I'm glad you think so. The vast majority of scientists disagree, as I do myself.

Hmmm, I was quoting you - so you are disagreeing with yourself? I suppose that is the ultimate defence of atheistic irrationality.:D

"Bible-believing Christians" I take to be only those who believe in Biblical inerrancy and a literal interpretation, since otherwise your point is actualy against you.

Quite.

Obviously, virtually every Christian places some reliance on the Bible, so the majority of Western scientists, who are mostly Christian, would otherwise fall into the category.

If Christianity can be defined as believing bits of the Bible, then you are correct. Bible-believing means holding to it being the inerrant word of God. One may err in one's understanding of non-essential items in it, but one cannot say it is itself erroneous.

Of course, your view of Christianity is both incredibly narrow, and ahistoric.

My definition of how the Bible is to be regarded is the historic understanding of nearly all the churches who have called themselves Christrian. Their understanding of what it teaches is what has separated the orthodox from the heretic.

I assume that all who are not "Bible-believing Christians" are of necessity God-haters.

Yes - leaving out those who have been stirred by God and are earnestly seeking after Him. They are not yet 'Bible-believing Christians, but will be. The rest are still enemies of God in their hearts: Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Sure, sure. Except they're not. ID is a Creationist dummy. There are certainly Creationists who are not IDers, but who are the IDers who are not also Creationists?

This from Intelligent Design and/or Scientific Creationism (#208)
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/2708/But the ID people (creation by Intelligent Design) insist that these are two different systems and that Intelligent Design is certainly not Scientific Creationism—especially not Biblical Creationism. They feel it best to leave the Bible and the Biblical God out of the argument entirely. Some even feel that evolution is okay, provided that it is not atheistic Darwinian evolution. Thus, theistic evolution is quite compatible with Intelligent Design (Michael Behe himself admits to being an evolutionist). And some (e.g., William Dembski) say that the Designer does not necessarily have to be a deity!

Yes. It's been done, though, about 150 years ago.

Needs re-thinking, then? http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp
http://www.icr.org/article/2823/

Science does not rule out a supernatural "cause" for anything.

Let me rephase that, M'Lord. Do materialist scientists refuse to consider that the evidence may point to an earth substantially younger than what would arise from the condensing of matter in space bilions of years ago? And is that refusal based on the likelihood that in would involve a supernatural cause?

100% the wrong way round. Science can, and has, ruled out the testable history in the Bible - not because it's in the Bible (in fact, that was the only reason it was examined at all), but because the evidence does not support it.

Examples?