The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

If God created an old universe which looks exactly like what GR and QFT predict, then how are we to know any different?

I think we are meant to take Him at His word. He said He created Adam as fully mature. I take that also for all the plants and animals. Why should it be differnet for the heavenly bodies?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

I would like to hear why you think that god would go to the bother of creating all of these separate pieces of evidence which disagree with your interpretation of the bible? Wouldn't he be lying? Or could it be possible that your interpretation is wrong?

I don't think they do confict with a recent creation. It only conflicts if you insist such a creation must start with a year 0 apparent age.

Yes, He would be lying if they were meant to say they were old; but they only mean a fully formed and functioning universe.

My interpretation could be wrong, but in that case everything I believe about what the Bible says would be wrong; indeed I might only be imaginging I'm discussing this. My inner being assures me I'm not.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Again... This is what you claim, but I have no reason to believe what you say because you have not presented evidence for what you say.

OK, then ditto to you. Can you prove the universe is as old as you say and that it was not created fully mature as I say? Of course not. All you can produce is the same facts I can. Both our interpretations are equally possible, logically.

wolfsbane

Sapien said:

Well, apparently not.

Apparent to you, or so you say. It spoke very clearly to me.

Oh dear. Metallic ores do not result from the ageing of rocks Elements can only be formed by nuclear processes.

I'm ignorant of the physics of such things. My point was that we need the rocks and minerals we have - not one second old rock. So if God wanted to give us iron ore, you insist He should do it by forming a pile of such as a separate entity? Also, does not lead, for example, result from the aging process of other elements? To have instant lead would require apparent age, would it not?

Only nuclear processes? - what of Divine command?

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

I think we are meant to take Him at His word. He said He created Adam as fully mature. I take that also for all the plants and animals. Why should it be differnet for the heavenly bodies?

And the Qu'ran has a God saying something different and the Vedic scriptures say something else and e.t.c., e.t.c.
So as a scientist, wouldn't it just be more natural to assume the universe is as old as it looks, without making some bizarre extrapolation.

Maybe it was created on October 3rd 1896 fully formed, maybe another random date. Or maybe it's as old as it looks.

UU

Or maybe it might be practical to observe solid evidence. The universe is so unbelievably ancient and large beyond knowledge. It is estimated though that the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old - not a few thousand years like it is said in the Bible or whatever. The rocks of the Earth can truly help in the estimation of its age. The oldest rock ever found was 3.9 billion years old.

Also, why should Evolutionism conflict with Christianity? I know Christians who accept the Darwin-Wallace theory to be very valid. They say that God created the Earth and Evolution of species which is a rather good way of looking at things.

Before the theory of Evolution came about, people needed an explanation for existence and how the Universe was formed so they created the book of Genesis and other such stories as a possible explanation. I'm not ignorant - I've studied both Creationism and Evolutionism and I think Evolutionism is much more valid. Although, I like the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis for its imagery and hidden metaphorical meanings but it isn't valid in my terms.

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm ignorant of the physics of such things. My point was that we need the rocks and minerals we have - not one second old rock. So if God wanted to give us iron ore, you insist He should do it by forming a pile of such as a separate entity? Also, does not lead, for example, result from the aging process of other elements? To have instant lead would require apparent age, would it not?

Only nuclear processes? - what of Divine command?

A bit of advice, Wolf' old man. Best not to venture into the science of things. One might say it's your bane. How can you reject the theses of scientists when you are so terrifyingly ignorant?

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

And the Qu'ran has a God saying something different and the Vedic scriptures say something else and e.t.c., e.t.c.

So? How does anyone opinion invalidate anyone elses's? It is either so or it is not.

So as a scientist, wouldn't it just be more natural to assume the universe is as old as it looks, without making some bizarre extrapolation.

As a scientist you could assume either. One is a purely materialistic explanation, one is spiritually informed. Both are natural to their own presuppositions. One is bizarre to you not because you are a scientist but because you have materialistic presuppositions. Yours is bizarre to me because I do not.

Maybe it was created on October 3rd 1896 fully formed, maybe another random date. Or maybe it's as old as it looks.

We have plenty of records to the contrary. Unless you are suggesting that a 1896 creation involved implanted memories. Which of course I would have to deny due to its conflict with the Bible.

wolfsbane

Sapien said:

A bit of advice, Wolf' old man. Best not to venture into the science of things. One might say it's your bane. How can you reject the theses of scientists when you are so terrifyingly ignorant?

I can reject them on the testimony of other scientists. And some of it on what I do know of science. I would not classify myself as 'terrifyingly ignorant'. For you to do so would better be described as terrifyingly arrogant.

That is the big problem with many evolutionists - their arrogance stops them listening even to their peers in science, and certainly to non-scientists who might point out that the king has no clothes.

wolfsbane

UU said:

The rocks of the Earth can truly help in the estimation of its age. The oldest rock ever found was 3.9 billion years old.

UU, this is the thing debated. Actual maturity or apparent maturity.

Also, why should Evolutionism conflict with Christianity? I know Christians who accept the Darwin-Wallace theory to be very valid. They say that God created the Earth and Evolution of species which is a rather good way of looking at things.

Some Christians certainly do. But you will find their attempt to reconcile both very strained. In fact, the principle of interpretation they must use to embrace evolution allows fundamental Christian doctrines to be denied. The need to make what appears to be straight forward narrative in Genesis into metaphor can just as well be used to make the virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death and physical resurrection of Christ metaphor also.

Although, I like the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis for its imagery and hidden metaphorical meanings but it isn't valid in my terms.

Let me ask you, have you studied the references Jesus and the apostles made to the Genesis account? Do you think they meant us to understand they took it all metaphorically?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I can reject them on the testimony of other scientists. And some of it on what I do know of science. I would not classify myself as 'terrifyingly ignorant'. For you to do so would better be described as terrifyingly arrogant.

That is the big problem with many evolutionists - their arrogance stops them listening even to their peers in science, and certainly to non-scientists who might point out that the king has no clothes.

Wolfsbane, we've been over this. You are equating a very small number of scientists (a few hundred), mostly outside the life and earth scientists, mostly working for Creationist foundations, and who believe in Creationist 'science', with a couple of million scientists who don't. This is pretty much the same level of claim as people who claim that Elvis is alive because some scientists share that belief. You are, again, ignoring facts to suit yourself.

And while it is possible for non-scientists to point out that the king has no clothes, it is not particularly impressive for them to do it by simply pretending that the clothes don't exist, or that they 'equally well fit with nakedness'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

UU said:


UU, this is the thing debated. Actual maturity or apparent maturity.



Some Christians certainly do. But you will find their attempt to reconcile both very strained. In fact, the principle of interpretation they must use to embrace evolution allows fundamental Christian doctrines to be denied. The need to make what appears to be straight forward narrative in Genesis into metaphor can just as well be used to make the virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death and physical resurrection of Christ metaphor also.



Let me ask you, have you studied the references Jesus and the apostles made to the Genesis account? Do you think they meant us to understand they took it all metaphorically?

It seems you are consistently wrong. Everything you have said so far paints a nihilistic "apparent age" version of christianity which is far far more strained than the correct interpretation used by christians who accept evolution.

So let me put it succinctly... I do not believe anything you say Wolfsbane, nor do I believe anything BrianCalgary says, and you have not given me reason to do so. Furthermore, and I should thank you for this, you have highlighted the sheer removal from reality that creationism requires. Talk about apparent age till you're blue in the face, you're only revealing the stupidity of creationism.

You are wrong... Incredibly so. And unless you provide evidence to the contrary, that will remain so.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

So? How does anyone opinion invalidate anyone elses's? It is either so or it is not.

My point is different religous texts say many different things, why would a scientist pick one and say "this literal reading of this particular religous text is what happened".

As a scientist you could assume either. One is a purely materialistic explanation, one is spiritually informed. Both are natural to their own presuppositions. One is bizarre to you not because you are a scientist but because you have materialistic presuppositions. Yours is bizarre to me because I do not.

If by "materialistic presuppositions" you mean I think that things actually are as old as they look, then yes. I have very strong materialistic leanings in that sense.

wolfsbane wrote:

We have plenty of records to the contrary. Unless you are suggesting that a 1896 creation involved implanted memories. Which of course I would have to deny due to its conflict with the Bible.

Sure why not?
He didn't implant memories, he just created the universe with a history, as if the previous centuries has existed.
This is where I'm going with this, it's nihilism to a useless extreme.
The universe could have been created at any time for all we know.
In fact does it even matter what age it is then, since it would look the same anyway. Why even bother going with YEC or OEC or anything, it'll be the same no matter what. For all intensive purposes it is old.

As a scientist, in order to be confident that you can predict and retrodict you have to assume the observations are honest which is why it's the explanation a scientist will go with.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Elvis is alive because some scientists share that belief.

Really? Who are these scientists and what evidence do they produce to support their claim? Creationist scientists do produce the evidence, even if most scientists reject their interpretations. So I think your analogy won't stand.

it is not particularly impressive for them to do it by simply pretending that the clothes don't exist, or that they 'equally well fit with nakedness'.

And of course that is not what we do - but that is the debate.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:


Really? Who are these scientists and what evidence do they produce to support their claim? Creationist scientists do produce the evidence, even if most scientists reject their interpretations. So I think your analogy won't stand.


And of course that is not what we do - but that is the debate.

What debate? What evidence? What established contentions? There is no debate. It's been over for a long time. And if the only way you can revive the debate is by claiming reality is an illusion, then you should switch off your computer right now. It's the God of Creation that's an illusion, as has been demonstrated by the absurdities of creationist claims and the rigorous study of evolution. Give it up... It's over.

It's no longer a case of Christianity vs. Evolution.... It's a case of Christianity and Evolution vs. Creationism.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

far far more strained than the correct interpretation used by christians who accept evolution.

You didn't show how it was so strained. The 6, 24hr Day Creation I present is the historic view of the Church. A tiny minority differed, usually heretics. Now I can understand unbelievers rubbishing Creation and the Bible, but I find it poor scholarship to suggest that one is straining the Bible to make it teach a 6, 24 hr Day Creation. Better to say the Bible writers were ignorant of the facts and made up stories to account for it all. That is what any impartial reader of the Bible would conclude, that or it really did happen just as I've said.

I do not believe anything you say Wolfsbane, nor do I believe anything BrianCalgary says, and you have not given me reason to do so.

I'm sorry you remain in unbelief. One day you will believe it all - I pray that it is this side of eternity.

Furthermore, and I should thank you for this, you have highlighted the sheer removal from reality that creationism requires.

I understand how you feel. I feel exactly the same toward you and evolutionism. This whole debate has been refreshing in that it reminded me how blinkered and 'pc' modern man can be. There is great hope for the coming World Order when so many so willing fall in line with the received 'truth'.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

What debate? What evidence? What established contentions? There is no debate. It's been over for a long time.

You should check out the media for the hot contention on this throughout the world. You might like to say the opposition has no case, but it is being vigourously argued and debated daily.

Son Goku

I understand how you feel. I feel exactly the same toward you and evolutionism. This whole debate has been refreshing in that it reminded me how blinkered and 'pc' modern man can be. There is great hope for the coming World Order when so many so willing fall in line with the received 'truth'.

Blinkered and PC? The coming world order? Such extreme imagery.
Man, you said yourself the evidence would be identical, so its not being blinkered and its certainly not being "PC", I don't even understand how that applies.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert said:

You didn't show how it was so strained. The 6, 24hr Day Creation I present is the historic view of the Church. A tiny minority differed, usually heretics. Now I can understand unbelievers rubbishing Creation and the Bible, but I find it poor scholarship to suggest that one is straining the Bible to make it teach a 6, 24 hr Day Creation. Better to say the Bible writers were ignorant of the facts and made up stories to account for it all. That is what any impartial reader of the Bible would conclude, that or it really did happen just as I've said.

It seems you do not understand what it means to be a Christian. But few creationists do. The writers of the Bible, and the Church in the past, did not have the sheer amount of data at their disposal that you or I do, they have an excuse, but you, and all other modern day creationists don't. Christianity is about an acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God and saviour of mankind. So your claim that an acceptance of an old universe strains christianity reveals a misunderstanding of what it means to be Christian.

I'm sorry you remain in unbelief. One day you will believe it all - I pray that it is this side of eternity.

Stop handwaving... Stop jumping around with ambiguous statements and back up what you say.

I understand how you feel. I feel exactly the same toward you and evolutionism. This whole debate has been refreshing in that it reminded me how blinkered and 'pc' modern man can be. There is great hope for the coming World Order when so many so willing fall in line with the received 'truth'.

Again... This amounts to nothing more than false handwaving. If you want to debate creationism, then back it up with evidence. I have repeatedly asked you and others to do so. So far you have not.

Actually, keep doing what you're doing, because other people reading this will then be able to make up their own minds, as they witness the emptiness of creationism.

So, my friend, if you can't back up your claims of apparent age with evidence, then it appears you are the one who is blinkered, and it is plain for all to see.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert said:


You should check out the media for the hot contention on this throughout the world. You might like to say the opposition has no case, but it is being vigourously argued and debated daily.

Again... I say: What debate? What evidence? What established contentions? There is no debate. It's been over for a long time.

Don't make me repeat myself again. Either back up what you say or don't post.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

My point is different religous texts say many different things, why would a scientist pick one and say "this literal reading of this particular religous text is what happened".

He could come to a creationist conclusion from his scientific research, but of course that would not tell him Who had done it and in what circumstances. It takes God to convince Him of that.

Why even bother going with YEC or OEC or anything, it'll be the same no matter what. For all intensive purposes it is old.

I agree. But the reason we go with the YEC is that it is what the Bible teaches. We are called to proclaim His truth, so we teach YEC. It is not the most important doctrine of Scripture. In fact it is not fundamental - Christian may err on this and still be saved. But to deny YEC is to leave defenceless many fundamental truths because it alters the very way we interpret Scripture.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Again... I say: What debate? What evidence? What established contentions? There is no debate. It's been over for a long time.

Don't make me repeat myself again. Either back up what you say or don't post.

Are you too lazy to google? See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_vs._evolution_debate

Evolutionists say their is no debate, yet the scientists you concede are creationists continue to deny evolution and publish against it. That used to be called debate and controversy. Today's elite find it better to pretend there is no debate, that no-one questions their dogma. Would I not be a fool to make the same claim, to say because of what creationist scientists believe the debate is over, we have proved our case beyond dispute?

The arrogance of the majority is truly blinding.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert said:


Are you too lazy to google? See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_vs._evolution_debate

Evolutionists say their is no debate, yet the scientists you concede are creationists continue to deny evolution and publish against it. That used to be called debate and controversy. Today's elite find it better to pretend there is no debate, that no-one questions their dogma. Would I not be a fool to make the same claim, to say because of what creationist scientists believe the debate is over, we have proved our case beyond dispute?

The arrogance of the majority is truly blinding.

Have you actually read the article?

"Accusations of misleading formulations, incorrect or false statements, and inappropriate mixing of ideas are fundamental points of disagreement."

"The controversy is usually portrayed in the mass media as being between scientists, in particular evolutionary biologists, and creationists, but as almost all scientists do not consider the debate to have any academic legitimacy, it may be more correctly described as a conflict over a conflation of science and religion."

The article goes on to explain that it is not, in fact, a debate, but rather a convoluted battle to keep creationism out of the science classroom. The actual scientific debate ended a long time ago.

So heh... I looks like you've provided evidence *against* what you claim.

[edit]-Sidenote: heh... Anything they *publish* misdirection and misapplication of science (I can provide references if you like)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Evolutionists say their is no debate, yet the scientists you concede are creationists continue to deny evolution and publish against it. That used to be called debate and controversy.

There is no scientific controversy, just as there is no scientific controversy over Lamarckianism - there are still a tiny number of Lamarckianists, because the USSR was unable to accept Darwinian evolution (too Western), and adopted Lamarckianism instead. Nevertheless, because Lamarckianism is not scientifically credible, there is no scientific controversy, nor was there much at the time, since the USSR's denial of Darwinian evolution was clearly ideologically motivated. The position with 'creation science' is identical.

wolfsbane wrote:

Today's elite find it better to pretend there is no debate, that no-one questions their dogma. Would I not be a fool to make the same claim, to say because of what creationist scientists believe the debate is over, we have proved our case beyond dispute?

The arrogance of the majority is truly blinding.

Make up your mind - elite or majority? The words have opposite meanings.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

...

twentycentshift

nothing in the bible matters, if you don't believe in the bible.

at least science is willing to say "prove it. if i'm wrong, give me proof, and i will agree with your proof." creationists will never say " if you can show me anything different, i will change my mind."

just the closed-mindedness of bible believers makes them suspect....refusal to see other perspectives is a sure sign of insecurity.

robindch

> Evolutionists say their is no debate yet the scientists you concede
> are creationists continue to deny evolution and publish against it.

Firstly, as everywhere in this controversy, the same word means different things to different people.

To evolutionists, there is no scientific debate because there is no competing theory to the Theory of Evolution which explains the observed facts more comprehensively. You can't have a scientific debate with only one theory; you need at least two. Creationism/ID is not a theory, it is a religion.

To creationists, there is a 'debate' because the Theory of Evolution is in conflict with one specific interpretation of their specific holy book. This is not a debate based upon evidence, but based upon belief, consequently, it is not a scientific debate, but a religious one.

Secondly, to date, there have been no -- zero, zilch, nada, none -- scientific papers based upon original research published in any scientific journal which suggests that ID explains the world better than Evolution (see here). Your claim that proponents of ID "publish against" evolution is false.

> The arrogance of the majority is truly blinding.

I would be careful saying thigs like this if you're trying to insult evolutionists -- recall that in the USA, around 85% of people have creationist beliefs of one form or another.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

To creationists, there is a 'debate' because the Theory of Evolution is in conflict with one specific interpretation of their specific holy book. This is not a debate based upon evidence, but based upon belief, consequently, it is not a scientific debate, but a religious one.

Are there not two debates? There is one debate over whether creationism has enough evidentiary support, intellectual coherence, and testability to be considered scientifically - this is the one that most scientists think they are having with creationists. Creationists, on the other hand, think they are debating whether evolution or creationism is the better scientific theory - in other words, they act as if the first debate is either irrelevant, or has been concluded in their favour.


cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Blinkered and PC? The coming world order? Such extreme imagery.
Man, you said yourself the evidence would be identical, so its not being blinkered and its certainly not being "PC", I don't even understand how that applies.

The facts are the same; its the interpretation, the inferences drawn from those that differ. If one rules out a particular line of argument as 'not for debate', then blinkered is a suitable description. 'PC' applies because of the fear amongst scientists who are open to debate to publically reveal themselves lest they lose their employment.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

It seems you do not understand what it means to be a Christian. But few creationists do.

I'm happy to be called a heretic by one so evidently ignorant of the Bible.

The writers of the Bible, and the Church in the past, did not have the sheer amount of data at their disposal that you or I do, they have an excuse, but you, and all other modern day creationists don't.

Ok, so you believe they were in ignorance and so spun us a tale. You have just denied the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. That puts you outside the pale of Christianity.

Christianity is about an acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God and saviour of mankind.

And all that goes with it. One of those fundamentals is believing Him when He says Scripture cannot be broken, that it is the word of God.

Again... This amounts to nothing more than false handwaving. If you want to debate creationism, then back it up with evidence. I have repeatedly asked you and others to do so. So far you have not.

Sigh... JC has produced abundant evidence but you are in denial. I could be as dishonest and say you have produced no evidence for evolution - but I respect anyone who puts up an argument, even if I disagree ontheir conclusions. I don't pretend it doesn't exist.