The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

J C wrote:

River Deep's calculations are CORRECT, as indeed is the Wikipedia graph which shows the Human Population starting from zero 7,000 years ago and rising to over 6 billion at present!!!

What graph are you looking at JC?

The one I posted doesn't start a zero, it starts at approx 100,000

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

I am forced, once again, to deride any claim to scientific qualifications you may think you have

You MAY deride my obvious scientific qualifications - although what benefit such derision will bring to your case escapes me.

Your Ad Hominem derision of me is merely a device to avoid addressing the devastating evidence in favour of the recent creation of Mankind which the Wikipedia Graph provides!!!

Wicknight
Its not actually physically possible that 6 people in 4000 BCE could grow to approx 200 million in 1 CE.

Get thee to a Spreadsheet QUICK!!

Using a very conservative growth rate of 2.5 surviving children per couple (i.e. 0.5 children above replacement) and an average generation length of 33 years, a population of 2 Humans could reach 6 Billion in only 3,234 years.
Obviously wars, famines and pestilences would take their toll – but what the figures are saying is that it is not only possible, but it is certain that our current Human population could be achieved with ease in the approximately 5,000 years that have passed since Noah’s Flood!!!

RiverDeep

Wicknight wrote:

You are getting a bit muddled there.

With respect, I'm not the one getting muddled. Rather, I was stating the materialist's perspective in classic terms.

Firstly, if God(s) exist, that is a physical phenomenon.

Perhaps you mean to say that a transcendent God may also be immanent and thus we humans may be able to recognise his handiwork in the physical realm. However, it is not a part of any orthodox Christian thought to say that God is merely a physical phenomenon.

Secondly materialists "reject" the existence of a deity only because a deity has never been shown to exist. If tomorrow science showed that God does exist this would be accepted by materialists.

Are you sure about that? Not according to Richard Lewontin:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Lewontin_on_materialism#Source
Materialists reject the notion of extant deity on the basis of a priori commitment.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "matter is the only reality" ... not sure how matter is a reality.

Again, I was defining terms. If you are not sure that matter is real then perhaps we are not really engaging in this thread. Do I hear the Twilight Zone theme tune in the background.....?

But that is a paradox. The "natural realm" includes everything, so how can something lie outside of everything.
An example I used on another threat is a number bigger than infinity. That doesn't make sense, because infinity includes all numbers.

Wheres the paradox. I think you are operating outside of Christian orthodoxy, confusing it with pantheism.

It would if you consider supernatural to be limited to our understanding at the present time. But then the definition of supernatural becomes rather meaningless.

If God exists, and if Jesus rose from the dead using Gods power, that was a perfectly natural event, since God if he exists is a natural force of nature. Though it may not fit into our current understanding of how the universe works.

The Christian God is necessarily greater than and outside of all of his creation - he created it not the other way round and we can know him only as our limited understsanding will allow but nonetheless, he is knowable by us.

There is evidence of phenomena that matches those described in book of Genesis.

So you agree with us YECs then?

Why would you start with 1 million years when the first homosapeins appear 150,000 years ago, and why would you fix a consistent 0.01% growth rate when growth rate of species is never constant, especially over a period of 100,000 years.

The reality is that for most of human history the population growth has been very very small. Natural forces, such as diease, stablised population growth at almost 0%.

My illustration of population growth was just that - an illustration. It's validity with respect to the 0.48% rate is drawn from known history, as stated. I used this rate as a constant in my calculations for the sake of simplicity. Of course, I don't subscribe to uniformitarian principles and I know that the actual rate would have varied over the course of human history but even the very low rate of growth that I choose for an assumed evolutionary scale of the homo genus shows how ridiculous the long age argument is. If you take a rate of 0.05% for 150,000 years you still get an enormous population of 7.3E+32!

J C

Wicknight wrote:

Prove to me God exists and I'll accept God exists. So would the scientific community. The community doesn't except God exists because so far no one has been able to prove He does.

More progress - so the 'scientific community' is therefore prepared to accept the bona fides of Creation Science and to seriously evaluate it's research - and to go wherever the OBJECTIVE evidence leads without any a priori exclusions.

That is all that Creation Science has ever asked for !!!!

John Doe
Once you don't propose anything that isn't backed up by science you won't be ostracised by scientists

A recipe to stop any new scientific ideas 'dead in their tracks' if ever I saw one!!!


John Doe
The Creation scientists (I'm getting sick of my inverted commas) are attempting to explain God scientifically: what arrogance!

It would be complete arrogance and indeed folly to even attempt to EXPLAIN God using any Human means.

However, that is NOT what Creation Science is about – it is focussed on PROVING the existence of God using the things that He has made.
This is fully consistent with God’s own words which tell us that we CAN know beyond all doubt that He exists using repeatably observable (i.e. scientific) means:-
”Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SEEN, being understood from what has been made, SO THAT MEN ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE.” Rom 1:19-20 (NIV).

Could I also point out that Wicknight has also only asked for PROOF that God exists - and not an EXPLANATION of God.

I can confirm that Creation Science can do the former - but not the latter!!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Yes, Thomas Malthus got it completly WRONG.

But then Malthus was the Evolutionist whose Essay on the Principle of Population suggested the idea of 'survival of the fittest' to one Charles Darwin.
So your point is suggesting (correctly) that Darwin based his theory (in part) on the ERRONEOUS mathematics of Thomas Malthus!!!!

Oh dear - did you spot a word you were familiar with? Did I say Malthus made these calculations? Malthus did not - had I meant Malthus, I would have said Malthus. "Victorian Malthusians" were those who, like yourself, were incapable of understanding a scientific theory, and used back of envelope calculations to promote silly ideas.

J C wrote:

River Deep's calculations are CORRECT, as indeed is the Wikipedia graph which shows the Human Population starting from zero 7,000 years ago and rising to over 6 billion at present!!!

RiverDeep's calculations are drivel.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

You MAY deride my obvious scientific qualifications - although what benefit such derision will bring to your case escapes me.

Your Ad Hominem derision of me is merely a device to avoid addressing the devastating evidence in favour of the recent creation of Mankind which the Wikipedia Graph provides!!!

I deride them because you claim them...because you use your "obvious scientific qualifications" in an attempt to make your unbelievably silly claims more "respectable". Yet you've never even stated what scientific qualifications you actually claim to have! Perhaps they should simply be obvious to me...

If you did not try to use these claimed "qualifications" to make yourself look big, I would not bother deriding them. They are part of your argument, such as it is, and as such, they are there to be challenged.

JC, I know nothing about you - you're a pseudonymous poster on a forum. It is simply not possible for me to engage in an ad hominem against you.

cordially,
yet derisively,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

RiverDeep wrote:

With respect, I'm not the one getting muddled. Rather, I was stating the materialist's perspective in classic terms.

You were, but in a bit of a muddled way.

RiverDeep wrote:

Perhaps you mean to say that a transcendent God may also be immanent and thus we humans may be able to recognise his handiwork in the physical realm.

No, I mean concepts like "transcedent" and "immanent" are actuallly quite illogically, as they frame the universe simply by what we, as humans, can understand. That was fine 500 years ago, when the universe was what we could observe and understand. But we know now that there is so much beyond our little existence, that defining the natural world within our own bounderies is illogical.

Just because we cannot understand, observer, or be aware of something like a god, does not mean he lies beyond or above the natural world. He is as part of the natural world as anything else, if He exists.

RiverDeep wrote:

However, it is not a part of any orthodox Christian thought to say that God is merely a physical phenomenon.

Well the orthodox christian thought has every little to do with science, so that isn't surprising.

RiverDeep wrote:

Are you sure about that? Not according to Richard Lewontin:
Materialists reject the notion of extant deity on the basis of a priori commitment.

I'm not sure you quite understand what he is saying there.

He is saying that if you see something happening, if the evidence shows you something, that doesn't make sense you don't apply your own "common sense" to the problem, you go where the evidence it.

Which is why materialist reject concepts like ID. Creationists claim life is too complex to have formed naturally, so common sense dictates that an intelligent entity must have made it. This logic, this "common sense", is then used as proof of such an intellgience.

Lewontin would say that that position is scientific nonsense. You don't know life is too complex to have formed naturally, and even if it was you don't know an intelligence therefore must have created it.

The only arguments ever put forward for God are the "common sense" ones. Someone must have created us. Someone must control our lives. SOmeone must have made the universe. While Creationists use these assumptions as "proof" these are all rejected by materialists as being baseless assumptions.

RiverDeep wrote:

Again, I was defining terms. If you are not sure that matter is real then perhaps we are not really engaging in this thread. Do I hear the Twilight Zone theme tune in the background.....?

Matter exists in a reality. It is not a reality in of itself.

RiverDeep wrote:

Wheres the paradox. I think you are operating outside of Christian orthodoxy, confusing it with pantheism.

The paradox is how can something exist outside of the natural world if the natural world includes everything that exists.

And I am operating outside the Christian orthodoxy, which has very little to do with science, or logic for that matter.

RiverDeep wrote:

The Christian God is necessarily greater than and outside of all of his creation

Why is the set of natural world confined to just His creation?

If He is outside of that set, and He exists, then is He not part of the over all set?

The only way God can be outside the set of "natural" is if you limit that set. And that would be illogical, just as limiting the concept of infinity would be.

RiverDeep wrote:

So you agree with us YECs then?

Sorry, obviously that should have been "There is no evidence ..."

RiverDeep wrote:

My illustration of population growth was just that - an illustration. It's validity with respect to the 0.48% rate is drawn from known history, as stated.

Its not though, the 0.48% growth rate would have produced wildly different population patterns than are known by history.

RiverDeep wrote:

I used this rate as a constant in my calculations for the sake of simplicity.

If you do so you will get very incorrect results, so it seems rather illogical to draw conclusions from this.

RiverDeep wrote:

Of course, I don't subscribe to uniformitarian principles and I know that the actual rate would have varied over the course of human history but even the very low rate of growth that I choose for an assumed evolutionary scale of the homo genus shows how ridiculous the long age argument is. If you take a rate of 0.05% for 150,000 years you still get an enormous population of 7.3E+32!

You are getting it the wrong way around. You are shortening the length of time, when you should really be lowering the growth rate.

We know from other animals that a growth rate of 0.05% is actually quite high, and was certainly not at this level for the majority of human history.

Historical estimates based on proper evidence have shown that for most of the lenght of the human species the growth rate was [/b]largely static[/b], and when it did change significantly it normally went down into negative figures. For example about 100,000 years ago the human population nose dived. The reasons for this are not clear, some believe it was due to an extintion level event such as a super volcano errupting (btw it is possible to tell from genetics if significant extinction events have happened in species going back tens of thousands of years. There has never been any evidence found in genetics for a massive extinction event 6000 years ago)

The evidence simply does not support a growth rate of 0.05%, or any significant growth rate for that matter, for nearly 150,000 years. Human growth rate probably only rose close to that figure about 10,000 years ago, with the development of farming.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

More progress - so the 'scientific community' is therefore prepared to accept the bona fides of Creation Science

No, because Creation Science doesn't have any "bona fides"

It ignores the most important principle of science, that being you follow the evidence, not come up with a God based on religious beliefs and then distort the evidence to fit that pre-concieved idea.

J C wrote:

and to seriously evaluate it's research

It has, and it has been found to be baseless and unscientific.

JC the modern scientific community don't ignore Creation Science's claims because they don't like Creation Scientists. They ignore them because they are baseless and unscientific.

J C wrote:

That is all that Creation Science has ever asked for !!!!

No, Creation Science asks that the existence of a God (normal a Christian one) be assumed to be true, despite no evidence to support this claim

J C wrote:

However, that is NOT what Creation Science is about – it is focussed on PROVING the existence of God using the things that He has made.

Which they have utterly failed to do.

If they had it would be quite simple for you to show me the proof of God .....

.. when ever you are ready JC ....

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Get thee to a Spreadsheet QUICK!!

Using a very conservative growth rate of 2.5 surviving children per couple (i.e. 0.5 children above replacement) and an average generation length of 33 years, a population of 2 Humans could reach 6 Billion in only 3,234 years.
Obviously wars, famines and pestilences would take their toll – but what the figures are saying is that it is not only possible, but it is certain that our current Human population could be achieved with ease in the approximately 5,000 years that have passed since Noah’s Flood!!!

The same is true of every animal species that came out of the Ark, though. Where are our 6 billion lions - or other sizeable animal of your choice?

Scofflaw

RiverDeep

Scofflaw wrote:

RiverDeep's calculations are drivel.

How so, Scofflaw? This "back of the envelope" approach that I adopted for the sake of simplicity serves to show just how unrealistic the timeframe of evolutionary history is.

The Bible is not a science textbook - it was never intended to teach trigonometry or advanced statistical science for that matter. However, it does claim to be an accurate account of human history and if it is true it should not be in direct contradiction with observed scientific data. Again, it must be noted that raw data is just that, raw. Data requires interpretation. Interpretation will never be free from bias.

It is not unreasonable for Bible-believing Christians to be in accord with the one they follow, Jesus, in adopting a young Earth position as he did according to the Gospel accounts. Neither is it unreasonable for those of us who hold to Jesus' teaching to look for evidence that supports the Biblical accounts from Genesis onwards. Creation science works towards this aim.

In latin, the term "science" originally denoted knowledge gained from experience. Most Christians will assert an experience of God in their lives as I do. I therefore have a Christian worldview which includes a creationist standpoint because I take a plain reading of the Bible to be accurate. You obviously don't but then I don't find the evolutionary explanation very convincing either. I can acknowledge God's hand in creation because I believe in God incarnate, Jesus Christ.

Scofflaw

RiverDeep wrote:

How so, Scofflaw? This "back of the envelope" approach that I adopted for the sake of simplicity serves to show just how unrealistic the timeframe of evolutionary history is.

The approach you have adopted is so simplistic as to be meaningless. It is generally accepted (amongst evolutionists) that humans reached a stable population under hunter-gatherer conditions - a population estimated as being maybe 100,000-1,000,000 worldwide, a not unreasonable number for a large predator/omnivore. This population fluctuated but remained in the same ballpark (except for a couple of bottlenecks) for virtually all of human prehistory. The invention of agriculture (c. 10,000 yrs BP) allowed for the support of greater populations, but agriculture spread very slowly (and unevenly) around the world. The next phase, roughly, kicks in with the Agricultural Revolution and the European colonisation of the Americas in the 1700's, raising the supportable population maximums again. After that, fairly steady improvement, with a huge kick from the mechanisation of agriculture, plus a huge investment in public hygeine, in the late 1800's.

Nothing whatsoever in your single-figure calculation even addresses any of these complexities. In no way whatsoever is your calculation able to rule out the above. Your calculations are entirely without meaning.

RiverDeep wrote:

The Bible is not a science textbook - it was never intended to teach trigonometry or advanced statistical science for that matter. However, it does claim to be an accurate account of human history and if it is true it should not be in direct contradiction with observed scientific data. Again, it must be noted that raw data is just that, raw. Data requires interpretation. Interpretation will never be free from bias.

I know, I know. A favourite line - "all data is interpreted". For example, the ice core records from the Poles need to be interpreted to show a 160,000 year alternation of summer and winter, as do varves from glacial lakes. Fortunately, the same laydown of winter and summer layers can be observed today (amazingly, people go off and study these things to check they really work!). To interpret the alternation of summer-winter varves or summer-winter ice bands, or tree rings, as something completely different from their present-day versions, takes rather a lot of "interpretation", particularly when, for YEC purposes, every single one of these has to be "interpreted" as absolutely not being what it would be if it formed today.

Tree rings, and varves, and ice layers, are very simple things. It takes an absolutely amazing amount of special pleading to "refute" 11,000 years of tree rings, 160,000 years of ice layers, possibly 20,000,000 years worth of varves.

RiverDeep wrote:

It is not unreasonable for Bible-believing Christians to be in accord with the one they follow, Jesus, in adopting a young Earth position as he did according to the Gospel accounts. Neither is it unreasonable for those of us who hold to Jesus' teaching to look for evidence that supports the Biblical accounts from Genesis onwards. Creation science works towards this aim.

Of course that is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is to expect to have accepted as scientific things that are simply not done in a scientific way. A coffee-table calculation simply doesn't have any scientific meaning (outside the use of specific equations, anyway). It doesn't "blow holes" in anything. It doesn't "prove" anything. It may indicate an interesting puzzle to follow up, but Creation "Science" never seems to do the follow-up, so it remains firmly on the coffee-table.

RiverDeep wrote:

In latin, the term "science" originally denoted knowledge gained from experience. Most Christians will assert an experience of God in their lives as I do. I therefore have a Christian worldview which includes a creationist standpoint because I take a plain reading of the Bible to be accurate. You obviously don't but then I don't find the evolutionary explanation very convincing either. I can acknowledge God's hand in creation because I believe in God incarnate, Jesus Christ.

Science is not the same as "common sense", or "experience". The Latin is the Latin, but the Romans did not do science.

Most Christians do indeed assert an experience of God in their lives, and I accept that this is, within the ordinary "common sense" frame of reference, evidence for God's hand in the world. I can see why a Biblical literalist and inerrantist has to assert that God's presence must be manifested in physical terms within his Creation. However, as I never tire of pointing out, the literal-and-inerrant position is a minority one within Christianity, for the good and sufficient reason that it doesn't actually work.

cordially,
Scofflaw

babyvaio

The most unbelievable thread ever!

Although it's in Christianity section, I just have to support the fact that The Creator of The Heaven and The Earth from the Bible has also revealed Himself herein:


An-Naba : The Event


In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

Whereof do they question one another?

78:1


(It is) of the awful tidings,

78:2


Concerning which they are in disagreement.

78:3


Nay, but they will come to know!

78:4


Nay, again, but they will come to know!

78:5


Have We not made the earth an expanse,

78:6


And the high hills bulwarks?

78:7


And We have created you in pairs,

78:8


And have appointed your sleep for repose,

78:9


And have appointed the night as a cloak,

78:10


And have appointed the day for livelihood.

78:11


And We have built above you seven strong (heavens),

78:12


And have appointed a dazzling lamp,

78:13


And have sent down from the rainy clouds abundant Water,

78:14


Thereby to produce grain and plant,

78:15


And gardens of thick foliage.

78:16


Lo! the Day of Decision is a fixed time,

78:17


A day when the trumpet is blown, and ye come in multitudes,

78:18


And the heaven is opened and becometh as gates,

78:19


And the hills are set in motion and become as a mirage.

78:20


Lo! hell lurketh in ambush,

78:21


A home for the rebellious.

78:22


They will abide therein for ages.

78:23


Therein taste they neither coolness nor (any) drink

78:24


Save boiling water and a paralyzing cold:

78:25


Reward proportioned (to their evil deeds).

78:26


For lo! they looked not for a reckoning;

78:27


They called Our revelations false with strong denial.

78:28


Everything have We recorded in a Book.

78:29


So taste (of that which ye have earned). No increase do We give you save of torment.

78:30


Lo! for the duteous is achievement

78:31


Gardens enclosed and vineyards,

78:32


And maidens for companions,

78:33


And a full cup.

78:34


There hear they never vain discourse, nor lying

78:35


Requital from thy Lord a gift in payment

78:36


Lord of the heavens and the earth, and (all) that is between them, the Beneficent; with Whom none can converse.

78:37


On the day when the angels and the Spirit stand arrayed, they speak not, saving him whom the Beneficent alloweth and who speaketh right.

78:38


That is the True Day. So whoso will should seek recourse unto his Lord.

78:39


Lo! We warn you of a doom at hand, a day whereon a man will look on that which his own hands have sent before, and the disbeliever will cry: "Would that I were dust!"

78:40

5uspect

Hmmm, proselytizing without any discussion... useful

How does this support a 7 day creation, adam and eve, a world flood and all the christian/jewish belief? This brings us back to the question of what is truth. You say the creator is revealed here. Its just a story that you believe is true without evidence. It is no more truth than a befief in a flat earth or that the world sits on the back of 4 elephants on the back of... etc

(Sorry, i've been away for a few days and I will try to catch up without too much disruption)

babyvaio

5uspect wrote:

Hmmm, proselytizing without any discussion... useful

How does this support a 7 day creation, adam and eve, a world flood and all the christian/jewish belief? This brings us back to the question of what is truth. You say the creator is revealed here. Its just a story that you believe is true without evidence. It is no more truth than a befief in a flat earth or that the world sits on the back of 4 elephants on the back of... etc

(Sorry, i've been away for a few days and I will try to catch up without too much disruption)

You're saying: it's just a story...etc.

Well, you could say that for the whole Bible too, couldn't you?
And for all other books that claim to be from the Creator?

The same way one can prove (or not) that the Bible is from God, the same way one can prove (or not) that the Qur'an is from God.

So you either believe in it or not, however if you believe in the Bible, why wouldn't you believe in the Qur'an?


Surah/Chapter 007 - Al-A'râf. Verse 54.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in SIX DAYS, then mounted He the Throne. He covereth the night with the day, which is in haste to follow it, and hath made the sun and the moon and the stars subservient by His command. His verily is all creation and commandment Blessed be Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!

Surah/Chapter 010 - Yûnus. Verse 3.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in SIX DAYS, then He established Himself upon the Throne, directing all things. There is no intercessor (with Him) save after His permission. That is Allah, your Lord, so worship Him. Oh, will ye not remind?

Surah/Chapter 011 - Hûd. Verse 7.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in SIX DAYS and His Throne was upon the water that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. Yet if thou (O Muhammad) sayest: Lo! ye will be raised again after death ! those who disbelieve will surely say : This is naught but mere magic.

Surah/Chapter 025 - Al-Furqân. Verse 59.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
Who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in SIX DAYS, then He mounted the Throne. The Beneficent! Ask any one informed concerning Him!

Surah/Chapter 032 - As*Sajdah. Verse 4.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
Allah it is Who created the heavens and the earth, and that which is between them, in SIX DAYS. Then He mounted the throne. Ye have not, beside Him, a protecting friend or mediator. Will ye not then remember?

Surah/Chapter 050 - Qâf. Verse 38.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
And verily We created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in SIX DAYS, and naught of weariness touched Us.

It was 6 days (translated as 6 days however scholars agree that arabic word used here does not mean a 24 hour day, but a much longer time period) and by my knowledge, the 6 time period creation of The Heavens and The Earth is mentioned exactly 6 times in the Qur'an. Interesting...

And of course, obviously, He did not have to rest after creating them - as claimed by some.

And of course, He is the very same Creator Who created Jesus and gave him The Gospel.


Surah/Chapter 005 - Al-Mâ'idah. Verse 46.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him, and We bestowed on him the GOSPEL wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).

Surah/Chapter 005 - Al-Mâ'idah. Verse 110.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favor unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit (angel Gabriel), so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the GOSPEL; and how thou didst shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and didst blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and thou didst heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and how thou didst raise the dead, by My permission and how I restrained the Children of Israel from (harming) thee when thou camest unto them with clear proofs, and those of them who disbelieved exclaimed: This is naught else than mere magic;

5uspect

The bible and qur'an are both abrahamic texts they are based on the same bronze age sky god islam being the most recent version. But all three abrahamic religions differ greatly in their dogma for example the importance of jesus. You could even so far as to argue that islam and christinaity both evolved from judaism in a memetic sense. But does any of this make one on these religions or all of them true? There is as much evidence for religion than there is for Bertrand Russell's china tea pot in orbit around the sun. If you want me to accpet that your "reveiled" truth from the qur'an is truth then you must accept that the china tea pot is true, the flying spaghetti monster is true and flying pink elephants are true. Can you not see this?

The creationists here are trying to justify their blind faith by backing it up with evidence that supports their view. By doing this they try to give weight to their pink elephants. However their use of evidence is severely lacking, ignores difficult facts such as an old earth and pretends to have the air of science to it when it is nothing of the sort.

J C

Wicknight
The only arguments ever put forward for God are the "common sense" ones.

I’ll choose “common sense” over “nonsense” any day – but the EVIDENCE for God is ALSO overwhelming!!!


Wicknight
Someone must have created us. Someone must control our lives. Someone must have made the universe.

Creationists DON’T engage in wishful thinking as implied in your comment that “someone MUST have created us”.
Creation Scientists KNOW from the overwhelming EVIDENCE that an infinite mind DID indeed create us!!!


Wicknight
For example about 100,000 years ago the human population nose dived. The reasons for this are not clear, some believe it was due to an extinction level event

You are correct that it was due to “an extinction level event” AKA Noah’s Flood but you are wrong (by one order of magnitude) about the date!!!

Wicknight
The evidence simply does not support a growth rate of 0.05%, or any significant growth rate for that matter, for nearly 150,000 years. Human growth rate probably only rose close to that figure about 10,000 years ago, with the development of farming.

The reason that the evidence does not support “any significant growth rate, for nearly 150,000 years” is because Humans were only Created less than 10,000 years ago – and “the development of farming” COINCIDED with this event!!


Wicknight
The same is true of every animal species that came out of the Ark, though. Where are our 6 billion lions - or other sizeable animal of your choice?

Our God-given, superior brainpower and technology harnessing abilities has given us a ‘competitive edge’ over all other macro-fauna.
This has allowed Humans to ‘go forth and multiply’ while other less well-endowed ‘sizeable animals’ reached (relatively low) peak populations very quickly.


Scofflaw
It is generally accepted (amongst evolutionists) that humans reached a stable population under hunter-gatherer conditions - a population estimated as being maybe 100,000-1,000,000 worldwide, a not unreasonable number for a large predator/omnivore.

But it is an unreasonably SMALL number for a creature with the brain power and socio-technological abilities of a Human Being – and BTW this brain power has demonstrably existed from the very FIRST appearance of Homo Sapiens Sapiens (whether that was 10,000 or 150,000 years ago)!!!!

Yes, our present ‘advanced’ technologies may have allowed us to reach 6 Billion – but it is estimated that the Earth could sustainably support in excess of 2 billion people even on a 'low technology' basis.
However, the bad news for the ‘long ages’ brigade is that the bodies simply aren’t out there in the graves of the World to support the idea that billions of Humans roamed the Earth over hundreds of thousands of years!!!


Scofflaw
It takes an absolutely amazing amount of special pleading to "refute" 11,000 years of tree rings, 160,000 years of ice layers, possibly 20,000,000 years worth of varves.

It doesn’t take ANY special pleading – just the application of common sense to the following OBSERVATIONS :-
1. The oldest tree on the basis of dendrochronology was a Bristlecone Pine aged 4,867 years when it was cut down in 1963 – thereby giving a germination date of 2,904 BC. This is currently the maximum age established by Dendrochronology - and interestingly it coincides with the approximate date of the immediate aftermath of Noah’s Flood!
2. Ice layers are the result of individual weather events – and they are NOT a measure of years/seasons.
3. Thousands of varve micro-layers were observed to be laid down over a period of only 3 HOURS during the Mount Saint Helen’s eruption in 1980 – and so varves do NOT measure year/seasons either!!!


Scofflaw
Science is not the same as "common sense", or "experience".

I always thought that science WAS based upon the application of common sense to repeatable experience!!


Babyvaio
Although it's in Christianity section, I just have to support the fact that The Creator of The Heaven and The Earth from the Bible has also revealed Himself herein:


An-Naba : The Event


In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

Whereof do they question one another?

Yes indeed, Creation Science contains within it’s ranks people from all of the various Christian denominations as well as Muslims and Jews – and they all agree on the EVIDENCE for the Creator God of the Old Testament.

You are very welcome to the Christianity Forum, Babyvaio.

You are also very welcome to contribute to the progress of Creation Science, if you have the qualifications and inclination to do so.
Either way, you are very welcome to partake in the fruits of it’s research.


Babyvaio
It was 6 days (translated as 6 days however scholars agree that arabic word used here does not mean a 24 hour day, but a much longer time period) and by my knowledge, the 6 time period creation of The Heavens and The Earth is mentioned exactly 6 times in the Qur'an. Interesting...

And of course, obviously, He did not have to rest after creating them - as claimed by some.

And of course, He is the very same Creator Who created Jesus and gave him The Gospel.

These are faith-based opinions held by some Creation Scientists which do not lend themselves to testing by Creation Science.

Actually, your ‘timing’ belief is technically an OEC position.

Young Earth Creationists don’t believe that God HAD to rest on the Seventh day because He is omnipotent – but they do believe that He VOLUNTARILY did so in order to provide the basis for a 7 day week.

Bible believing Christians believe that Jesus Christ was truly God made man – and that He loved you and me so much that He become a man and died on the cross because this was the only way that Mankind could be reconciled to Him after the introduction of sin and death at the Fall.

By becoming incarnated as Jesus Christ, God chose to restore the PERSONAL relationship with Mankind which He once enjoyed with Adam and Eve.

Christians also beleve that Jesus wasn't Created by God - but that He was truly God and truly Man Himself.

Scofflaw

babyvaio wrote:

You're saying: it's just a story...etc.

Well, you could say that for the whole Bible too, couldn't you?
And for all other books that claim to be from the Creator?

The same way one can prove (or not) that the Bible is from God, the same way one can prove (or not) that the Qur'an is from God.

So you either believe in it or not, however if you believe in the Bible, why wouldn't you believe in the Qur'an?

Well, if they don't make contradictory statements on Creation, then certainly if "Creation Science" has evidence that supports the Genesis account, it has evidence that supports the Qur'an account.

Funnily enough, I don't think you'll get our "Creation Scientists" to accept that (although now JC has to, of course, just to prove me wrong!).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Wicknight
The only arguments ever put forward for God are the "common sense" ones.

I’ll choose “common sense” over “nonsense” any day – but the EVIDENCE for God is ALSO overwhelming!!!

The scientific evidence for God is non-existent. Your other assertion is even less well supported.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Someone must have created us. Someone must control our lives. Someone must have made the universe.

Creationists DON’T engage in wishful thinking as implied in your comment that “someone MUST have created us”.
Creation Scientists KNOW from the overwhelming EVIDENCE that an infinite mind DID indeed create us!!!

Gosh. Are you denying that the Bible is the authoritative source for faith?

J C wrote:

Wicknight
The evidence simply does not support a growth rate of 0.05%, or any significant growth rate for that matter, for nearly 150,000 years. Human growth rate probably only rose close to that figure about 10,000 years ago, with the development of farming.

The reason that the evidence does not support “any significant growth rate, for nearly 150,000 years” is because Humans were only Created less than 10,000 years – and “the development of farming” COINCIDED with this event!!

The sad thing is that your made-up story is actually less interesting than the real one.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
The same is true of every animal species that came out of the Ark, though. Where are our 6 billion lions - or other sizeable animal of your choice?

Our God-given, superior brainpower and technology harnessing abilities has given us a ‘competitive edge’ over all other macro-fauna.
This has allowed Humans to ‘go forth and multiply’ while other less well-endowed ‘sizeable animals’ reached their (relatively low) peak populations very quickly.

Scofflaw
It is generally accepted (amongst evolutionists) that humans reached a stable population under hunter-gatherer conditions - a population estimated as being maybe 100,000-1,000,000 worldwide, a not unreasonable number for a large predator/omnivore.

But it is a very UNREASONABLE number for a creature with the demonstrable brain power and socio-technological harnessing abilities of a Human Being – and BTW this brain power has demonstrably existed from the very FIRST appearance of Homo Sapiens Sapiens (whether that was 10,000 or 150,000 years ago)!!!!

Ho ho ho. Australia.

J C wrote:

Yes, our present ‘advanced’ technologies may have allowed us to reach 6 Billion – but it is estimated that the Earth could sustainably support in excess of 2 billion people even on a 'low technology' basis.
However, bad news for the ‘long ages’ brigade is that the bodies simply aren’t out there in the graves of the World to support the idea that billions of Humans roamed the Earth over hundreds of thousands of years!!!

Hmm. Might one ask where the figure of 2 billion comes from? Who calculated it, and how did they reach that number? Why would an evolutionist try to support a figure like that?

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
It takes an absolutely amazing amount of special pleading to "refute" 11,000 years of tree rings, 160,000 years of ice layers, possibly 20,000,000 years worth of varves.

It doesn’t take ANY special pleading – just the application of common sense based upon the following OBSERVATIONS :-
1. The oldest tree on the basis of dendrochronology was a Bristlecone Pine aged 4,867 years when it was cut down in 1963 – thereby giving a germination date of 2,904 BC. This is currently the maximum age established by Dendrology and interestingly it coincides with the approximate date of the immediate aftermath of Noah’s Flood!
2. Ice layers are the result of individual weather events – and are NOT a measure of years/seasons.
3. Thousands of varve micro-layers were observed to be laid down over a period of only 3 HOURS during the Mount Saint Helen’s eruption in 1980 – and so varves do NOT measure year/seasons either!!!

1. Wrong. Read up on dendrochronology, and tree-to-tree correlation.
2. Wrong. As I said, seasonal layers are a repeatable modern observation.
3. Wrong. Volcanic laminae are not the same as glacial varves - they are a separate and well-understood deposit.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Science is not the same as "common sense", or "experience".

I always though that it WAS based upon common sense and repeatable experience!!

Yes, but then you've "repeatably proved" that you don't understand science.

J C wrote:

Yes indeed, Creation Science contains within it’s ranks people from all of the Christian Churches as well as Muslims and Jews – and they all agree on the EVIDENCE for the actions of the Creator God of the Old Testament.

Sigh. One Muslim doth not a summer make.

Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I’ll choose “common sense” over “nonsense” any day

Why?

"Common sense" is largely defined by a persons ignorance. An idiot or a child has a perfect "common sense" view of the world, that is largely completely incorrect.

Your view point is why Creationism is often termed the "science of ignorance".

J C wrote:

– but the EVIDENCE for God is ALSO overwhelming!!!

There is no EVIDENCE for God.

There are only phenomona that you don't understand that you wish assume are due to a deity's actions. That is not evidence.

Your religious teaching makes you assume these phenomona are down to your God, but another could equally assume they are down to a completely different set of gods or entities, or the tooth fairy for that matter, and that assumption would be just as valid (ie, not valid).

J C wrote:

Creationists DON’T engage in wishful thinking as implied in your comment that “someone MUST have created us”.

That is exactly what they do.

They start from the position that God must have created us. This opinion is formed from a religous point of view. They then attempt to fit the evidence around this.

There is no evidence for intelligent design. The only argument is that Creationists don't understand how it could happen naturally so they come to the conclusion that God must have done it, since they have already accepted God exists and that he created us.

If Creationists didn't start from the pre-concieved stand point that God must have created us there would be no logical reason to even consider that the idea that God did create us over anything else creating us.

J C wrote:

Creation Scientists KNOW from the overwhelming EVIDENCE that an infinite mind DID indeed create us!!!

There is no EVIDENCE that an infinite mind created us. It is a guess based on the fact that you don't understand how it could have happened naturally.

But even if an infinite mind DID indeed create us there is no evidence or logical reason to believe it was God. That conclusion is only drawn by Creationists because they are coming from the starting position that God must have created us.

If something created us that something could be ANYTHING.

J C wrote:

You are correct that it was due to “an extinction level event” AKA Noah’s Flood but you are wrong (by one order of magnitude) about the date!!!

The extinction level event happened 100,000 years ago. That is easy to tell.

So if it was Noah's Flood that must have happened 100,000 years ago. If it happened 6000 year ago that would trivial to detect in human genetic statistics. Its not there because it didn't happen

J C wrote:

The reason that the evidence does not support “any significant growth rate, for nearly 150,000 years” is because Humans were only Created less than 10,000 years ago – and “the development of farming” COINCIDED with this event!!

Lets examine this for a second....

The date of Noah's flood is approx 4100 BCE. The estimated human population in 1 CE was approx 300 million.

Someone want to work out the growth rate needed to get from 6 people to 300 million in 4100 years?

But the little fact of Asia and African is where this nonsense really breaks down.

We know from accurate Chinese historical documents that the Shang dynasty formed in about 1600 BCE, that in 15th Century BCE China had a vast population and system of government and organistation. We also know that this had been around for a long time. No record of a biblical flood, no record of settlers re-populating China, Japan, Korea or anything like that. But we will assume that some time after 4100 BCE millions of people moved from the Middle East into Eastern Asia.

So in the space of 2500 years not only did the population increase significantly from 6 people, but settlers moved into China, established an entire governmental system and culture.

But it gets even better. Young Earth Creationists theory expect us to believe not only massive migration and population increase in about 2000 years, but they also physically adapted to enviornment? Through evolution? Nope, because that doesn't exist.

Actually much less time, because a population had to re-establish itself in the Middle East first before settlers could move to Asia, Africa and America, develop destinctive traits, and develp and entire seperate culture, in what?

600 years? 1000 years?

So in a 1000 years humans managed to move down through Africa, lose their entire culture, language and history from Middle East and develop entire new language culture and history, while also turing black.

And here is the really kicker. They picked up where they started? They some how managed to re-discover ALL their ancient culture, and continue on like nothing had happened. No record of a global flood. No record of a mass migration from the Middle East. No record of discovering ancient history or culture.

Completely ridiculous. :rolleyes:

[EDIT]
This is even MORE ridiculous since I found out the date for the Biblical flood is not 6000 years ago, but 4000. 2300BCE! There were hundreds of civilisations with writing, culture, societis in 2300 BCE, none of them were destroyed by a flood, none of them record a flood. The Eyptian culture was up and running from approx 3200 BCE, the Chinese from approx 2500 BCE. The Eyptians have a time line of kings and dynasties, none of which were stopped for hundreds of years by a Biblical flood.

Gosh damn it I can't believe I spend so much time arguing against this NONSENSE
[/EDIT]

J C wrote:

This has allowed Humans to ‘go forth and multiply’ while other less well-endowed ‘sizeable animals’ reached (relatively low) peak populations very quickly.

Did it also allow ancient man to genetically alter himself and will, or re-discover culture language and history destroyed by a world wide flood at a whim?

J C wrote:

But it is an unreasonably SMALL number for a creature with the brain power and socio-technological abilities of a Human Being

Another baseless assumption JC that ignores the evidence ... ?

Classic Creationism. We don't understand this, we are going to apply nonsense to it, and come up with an answer.

What do you base the assumption that our "brain power" should have allowed us to grow to 2 billion before the invention of modern medice, farming and refriguration?

J C wrote:

Yes, our present ‘advanced’ technologies may have allowed us to reach 6 Billion – but it is estimated that the Earth could sustainably support in excess of 2 billion people even on a 'low technology' basis.

Estimated by whom?

J C wrote:

However, the bad news for the ‘long ages’ brigade is that the bodies simply aren’t out there in the graves of the World to support the idea that billions of Humans roamed the Earth over hundreds of thousands of years!!!

Thats because there wasn't billions of humans roaming the Earth in 10,000 BCE. Who ever estimated that their should have been 2 billion humans roaming the Earth is an idiot.

By the way, where are the bodies from the Flood?

J C wrote:

I always thought that science WAS based upon the application of common sense to repeatable experience!!

You were thought wrong.

Thought that could explain why you are a Creationist :rolleyes:

Zombrex

RiverDeep wrote:

How so, Scofflaw? This "back of the envelope" approach that I adopted for the sake of simplicity serves to show just how unrealistic the timeframe of evolutionary history is.

You made something up to show this though.

The growth rate of the human species wasn't 0.48% over 150,000 years. It wasn't 0.05% over 150,000 years.

John Doe

Excellent post there, Wicknight.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Using a very conservative growth rate of 2.5 surviving children per couple (i.e. 0.5 children above replacement)

"Very conservative" ... ?

That is a growth rate of 50% (every 2 generations there is 1+ person, or for ever person that dies he is replaced by 1.5 new humans), which is an huge growth rate!

We don't see growth rates like that in modern societies, let alone 5000 years ago

What nonsense. You are RiverDeep are just making numbers up :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

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

THAT is worth saving! It epitomises the madness of atheism trying to be rational. It wasn't always there and it didn't begin, but it is here now. Is this the 'scientific' equivalent of one hand clapping?

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.

What about all events leading to the heat-death of the universe? To nothing working. Sounds like degradation of a functioning system to me.

Scofflaw

By the way, do you realise that if you start off with 2 people in 4004 BC, and place the Flood, as per AiG, at 2304 BC, then applying RiverDeep's calculations gives us 6894 people alive at the time of the Flood.

It then gives us a grand total of 369,428 people at 1 BC, so presumably the Roman Empire's estimate of its army strength at 400,000 has to be a rather serious error.

In 1900, there were, according to RiverDeep's calculations, already 3.3 billion people alive.

I'm sure there are some more bloopers in there, but that's all I can be bothered to highlight for the moment.

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:

THAT is worth saving! It epitomises the madness of atheism trying to be rational. It wasn't always there and it didn't begin, but it is here now. Is this the 'scientific' equivalent of one hand clapping?

Only in the sense that the unenlightened will fail to understand it! I'm sure you dislike the idea of causality starting with the Universe, but I'm afraid it does make scientific sense.

wolfsbane wrote:

What about all events leading to the heat-death of the universe? To nothing working. Sounds like degradation of a functioning system to me.

What was the functioning system in question? The Universe? Do you have any suggestions for a non-theological way in which the Universe is a "functioning system"? What does degradation mean in this context?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

By the way, do you realise that if you start off with 2 people in 4004 BC, and place the Flood, as per AiG, at 2304 BC, then applying RiverDeep's calculations gives us 6894 people alive at the time of the Flood.

Just double checked and the flood is estimated to have been approx 2300 BCE

So the flood theory is even MORE RIDICULOUS.

The 6 survivors would have had to repopulate the Middle East, those settlers spread to Asia in time for the Shang dynasty to have been formed in 1600 BCE.

Just over 700 years. To go from 6 people in the Middle East, to an entire Chinese empire. 700 years to adapt significantly to the surroundings. 700 years to develop and entirely different culture, laugage and system of laws, while amazingingly forgetting all those of the Middle East and re-discovering the dead culture from the region before the flood. The Chinese writting is the same after the flood as it is before the flood. Did they just happen to develop the same writing again, by chance. Did they discover the entire culture after it had been destroyed by the Flood.

700 years!!

If we work on JCs idea of the 2.5 kids over a 33 year generational cycle, you have 1016 people populating the Earth 700 years after the Biblical Flood!

This is ignoring the fact that we have some records of Chinese dynasties from 2000 BCE, only 300 years after the flood!!!

So can we please put the nonsense of the Flood to rest now.

There was not a Biblical flood that destroyed all land creatures 4000 years ago.

pH

Wicknight wrote:

Just double checked and the flood is estimated to have been approx 2300 BCE

So the flood theory is even MORE RIDICULOUS.

...

There was not a Biblical flood that destroyed all land creatures 4000 years ago.

Not to mention the entire civilization of Ancient Egypt seems to continued pretty much unperturbed by this 'flood'. Have the floodists spent any time looking for a high-water mark on the Great Pyramid of Giza(2560BC)?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

What was the functioning system in question? The Universe? Do you have any suggestions for a non-theological way in which the Universe is a "functioning system"? What does degradation mean in this context?

Last time I looked, the universe included the sun and its planets, of which one is Earth. The solar system is held together by gravity and heat is exchanged by radiation. Earth is just at the right location to benefit from all this so as to sustain all the life we see. That is a functioning system. There is a lot of energy being used. The degradation is entropy moving the univere from what we see to one that has less and less energy available. Life ceases, then light and heat themselves cease. Or is the heat-death of the universe an urban myth?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

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

Amazing that you then go on to rubbish their arguments about dating methods, including high altitude erosion, polystrate fossils, bent sediments, etc. Those arguments - whether correct or not - are not Old Earth theories contradict the Bible argument

Your problem may be in focussing one this one article, which is dealing with OldEarth/Young Earth queries from a Christian. The the authority of the Bible then naturally has a big part of the argument.

Try this instead:Evidence for a Young World
by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., ICR associate professor of physics

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

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).

Your contempt is evident. Your warrant for it is not. The scientists who hold to YEC are every bit as qualified as those who do not. And their moral character is, from my personal knowledge, excellent.

So there you have it. Distortions, mistakes and out right lies.

In your opinion, with your understanding, with your bias and insecurities. My scientific friends beg to differ, and observing the desire to suppress debate amonsgt the evolutionist camp, I reckon they I'll stick to them.

But here's an article that might give you some perspective: http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs102.html

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

Yes, I know how you feel.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

THAT is worth saving! It epitomises the madness of atheism trying to be rational. It wasn't always there and it didn't begin, but it is here now. Is this the 'scientific' equivalent of one hand clapping?

Another fantastic argument. Instead of saying what is wrong with the point, you just made a jab at atheists.
Also the arguement isn't even atheistic. Again you didn't even bother to try to understand.
All the statement says is that matter wasn't created (i.e. it has existed for all time, there wasn't a time when there was no matter), but time doesn't regress infinitely, there is only a finite amount of it back into the past to the point where time began. Matter's "creation", must have been atemporal therefore.
Infact it doesn't even go against Creationism, so I really don't understand what you're saying here.