The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

robdonn · 19-06-2016 08:35PM

J C wrote: »

What do you mean it is 'made up'?
Complex Specified Functional Information is the type of information objectively observed in the genomes of all living creatures ... and nowhere else ... other than with the products of applied Human Intelligence.

CSFI has never been objectively observed in anything biological as there is no scientific evidence that the concept exists in biology.

What is the definition of 'complex' in biological CSFI? What is 'specified information' in biological CSFI? The entire argument is a manipulation of probability interpretation with nothing to back said interpretation. The only examples that Dembski can ever point to with CSFI is examples of irreducible complexity that have, time and time again, been shown not to be irreducibly complex.

The CSFI hypothesis does not take into account well understood and observed factors of evolution such as scaffolding or co-option of function

robdonn · 19-06-2016 08:37PM

J C wrote: »

BTW are you serious about praising Jesus ... because I can lead you to Salvation in Him ... if you are ... please pm me

I'm not serious about praising Him, it was just a little joke. I should highlight though that I don't discount the possibility that God and Jesus and all that exists, but I require better quality evidence to support it than has ever been provided to me.

robdonn · 19-06-2016 09:09PM

Sorry, going through today's posts again. :P

J C wrote: »

You're confusing distance with time here.
Just because they are millions of light years away, doesn't mean that they are millions of years old. If God created them as an example to Mankind of His magnificence, less than 10,000 years ago, then they wouldn't be much of an example, if He also didn't simultaneously create the light beams from them to here, so that we could see them !!!:cool:

The logic that allows God to have made the universe 10,000 years ago and simply made it look older can also be applied to saying that God made the universe this morning or last week. So if God simply made the universe this morning, none of the events described in the Bible actually happened. What reason then would we have for believing that the God of the Bible was even responsible? What if it was a different God? What if it was aliens in a different universe that ours exists inside of?

So the universe is either as old as it appears and therefore you must adapt your beliefs to take this into account, or it was simply made to look as old as it does and then you have no basis to believe anything about it's creation as the evidence you base your belief on could have been created with the universe this morning to simply appear as if God did it.

Do you not see the logic problem here?

Safehands · 20-06-2016 12:17AM

robdonn wrote: »

And what is this evidence?

Let's back up the bus a bit here!
We have two categories of believers.
Category no.1 believe that God created the universe about 10,000 years ago. They believe that He made it in 6 days. He made day and night, then morning and evening, then plants and flowers. He made all these things (including morning and evening) before he made the sun and the moon as two light sources. Man lived in the Garden of Eden, until a talking snake led to them being evicted. They believe that early men lived for up to 900 years, that Noah built a boat big enough to accommodate two of every animal in the world. Noah lived for about 900 years.
The evidence for all these facts? the Bible, written about 3000 years ago, inspired by God, who neglected to inform the writers that day and night are caused by the sun and the Earth's relationship to it or that it would be very, very frosty if there was no sun. There is no other evidence for these beliefs.

Category no. 2 believe that the Universe is billions of years old. They don't know exactly how it happened and are willing to admit that. They believe that life developed and evolved into the life forms we see today. They believe that there are trillions of planets in the universe and that most of them are millions and millions of light years away from Earth. They believe that the sun is necessary for plants to grow and that without the sun Earth would be far too cold for a blade of grass to grow. They believe that Everest and other big mountains are millions of years old and that dinosaurs lived on Earth for millions of years before man ever came along. They believe that the sun is a light source but the moon is not.
The evidence for these beliefs? Scientific research, university studies, archaeologists, thousands of university professors, qualified geologists, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and David Attenborough.

I belong to Category 2, how about you?

robdonn · 20-06-2016 09:05AM

Safehands wrote: »

Let's back up the bus a bit here!
We have two categories of believers.
Category no.1 believe that God created the universe about 10,000 years ago. They believe that He made it in 6 days. He made day and night, then morning and evening, then plants and flowers. He made all these things (including morning and evening) before he made the sun and the moon as two light sources. Man lived in the Garden of Eden, until a talking snake led to them being evicted. They believe that early men lived for up to 900 years, that Noah built a boat big enough to accommodate two of every animal in the world. Noah lived for about 900 years.
The evidence for all these facts? the Bible, written about 3000 years ago, inspired by God, who neglected to inform the writers that day and night are caused by the sun and the Earth's relationship to it or that it would be very, very frosty if there was no sun. There is no other evidence for these beliefs.

Category no. 2 believe that the Universe is billions of years old. They don't know exactly how it happened and are willing to admit that. They believe that life developed and evolved into the life forms we see today. They believe that there are trillions of planets in the universe and that most of them are millions and millions of light years away from Earth. They believe that the sun is necessary for plants to grow and that without the sun Earth would be far too cold for a blade of grass to grow. They believe that Everest and other big mountains are millions of years old and that dinosaurs lived on Earth for millions of years before man ever came along. They believe that the sun is a light source but the moon is not.
The evidence for these beliefs? Scientific research, university studies, archaeologists, thousands of university professors, qualified geologists, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and David Attenborough.

I belong to Category 2, how about you?

I don't think that's a fair synopsis, from what J C has described he/she would put themselves into Category 1.5, believing that the Biblical account is true but that science supports the position. If J C was simply making the argument that the universe is about 10,000 years old because that's what the Bible says then we would be having a completely different conversation, but the argument being made is that science supports this view which, as you know as a member of Category 2, it doesn't.

I can't say how the universe began, I can't say if there is or isn't a god or gods silently and invisibly controlling the world. But I can say that the premise that science supports a young Earth hypothesis is false and that is the only point that I'm trying to argue in this thread.

Safehands · 20-06-2016 09:13AM

robdonn wrote: »

I don't think that's a fair synopsis, from what J C has described he/she would put themselves into Category 1.5, believing that the Biblical account is true but that science supports the position. If J C was simply making the argument that the universe is about 10,000 years old because that's what the Bible says then we would be having a completely different conversation, but the argument being made is that science supports this view which, as you know as a member of Category 2, it doesn't.

I can't say how the universe began, I can't say if there is or isn't a god or gods silently and invisibly controlling the world. But I can say that the premise that science supports a young Earth hypothesis is false and that is the only point that I'm trying to argue in this thread.

The fact is that science supports the belief that the sun is responsible for day and night. The Bible says that day and night, morning and afternoon, were created, by God, before the sun was created. That is the foundation for the creation story, the very first page. Science does not support that belief.
Anybody can say that science supports anything. It doesn't make it true.
I agree with you when you say that science does not support the creationist story and I know that JC claims that science supports his view, that the Earth is only 10,000 years old. But clearly it does not.

robdonn · 20-06-2016 09:26AM

Safehands wrote: »

The fact is that science supports the belief that the sun is responsible for day and night. The Bible says that day and night, morning and afternoon, were created, by God, before the sun was created. That is the foundation for the creation story, the very first page. Science does not support that belief.
Anybody can say that science supports anything. It doesn't make it true.

But instead of simply saying "you're wrong because this, this and this", I would like to listen to the argument being made. It's not going to hurt me to listen and if you don't give someone the time of day to explain why they believe what they believe then they have no reason to do the same for you.

Safehands wrote: »

I agree with you when you say that science does not support the creationist story and I know that JC claims that science supports his view, that the Earth is only 10,000 years old. But clearly it does not.

And instead of just saying that J C is wrong, I want to listen to the argument supporting J C's viewpoint and respond to it. Best case scenario, I convince J C where I believe his/her argument is incorrect. Worst case scenario, I get to walk away with a better understanding of J C's position. It's a win-win for me.

Safehands · 20-06-2016 09:49AM

robdonn wrote: »

But instead of simply saying "you're wrong because this, this and this", I would like to listen to the argument being made. It's not going to hurt me to listen and if you don't give someone the time of day to explain why they believe what they believe then they have no reason to do the same for you.

Agreed. But I have listened to the arguments and it comes back to the belief that the Bible says it, so it is true. They read the tracts and then they make up the facts to fit. Science looks at the evidence and makes a determination based on that evidence. Words written in a book do not constitute evidence unless those words can be authenticated by verifiable evidence.

steamengine · 20-06-2016 10:13AM

Is the bible really to be used for any other purpose other than giving sound moral guidelines to society in general and for would be believers pointing the way to eternal life ?

It's a bit much to expect than the writers of the Old Testament and indeed the New, would have any knowledge of the universe whatsoever outside of what could be observed with the naked eye.

It is interesting to note that in the case of Noah's ark, actual dimensions are given in cubits, but anyone interested in building a replica ark would need to know an awful lot more than that, particularly in reference to the hull shape and stability.

The study of the universe, shipbuilding, and many other matters appear to lie well outside the remit of the Bible, the hundred dollar question for some regarding the 'big bang theory' and evolution is 'Is this how God did it' ? Are science and evolution his creations too ?

robdonn · 20-06-2016 10:13AM

Safehands wrote: »

Agreed. But I have listened to the arguments and it comes back to the belief that the Bible says it, so it is true. They read the tracts and then they make up the facts to fit. Science looks at the evidence and makes a determination based on that evidence. Words written in a book do not constitute evidence unless those words can be authenticated by verifiable evidence.

Also agreed, if someone says that the Bible is true because God says it is true in the Bible, then the conversation is over. But if someone says that the Bible is true and here are things in science that prove it, then I want to give that person the opportunity to convince me.

You're completely right that the conclusion should never preclude the evidence, and I will point that out when necessary, but I also want to have an open dialog on the matter so I'm willing to be lenient on that rule at times.

But maybe we could open that up to J C and any others in the conversation - Do we all agree that a conclusion should be built via all the evidence provided, and not that evidence should be sought simply to support a decided conclusion?

Avatar MIA · 20-06-2016 10:21AM

steamengine wrote: »

It's a bit much to expect than the writers of the Old Testament and indeed the New, would have any knowledge of the universe whatsoever outside what could be observed with the naked eye.

Most if not all Christians believe the bible was God inspired. Some think it's literal, and I have (perhaps strangely) more respect for those. However, if it's to be given credence it shouldn't be limited to contemporary scientific knowledge, not when influenced by omnipotent God.

steamengine wrote: »

'Is this how God did it' ? Are science and evolution his creations too ?

That is possible, although unlikely and certainly not as literally described by any religion I have come across, imo.

Safehands · 20-06-2016 10:25AM

steamengine wrote: »

It's a bit much to expect than the writers of the Old Testament and indeed the New, would have any knowledge of the universe whatsoever outside of what could be observed with the naked eye.

Hold the horses a little bit here!!!
The whole argument for the old testament is that it is inspired by God. So it doesn't matter what the writers knew or don't know. God is informing them. It seems that he misinformed them with a lot of what they wrote. Is that likely??

steamengine · 20-06-2016 10:37AM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Most if not all Christians believe the bible was God inspired. Some think it's literal, and I have (perhaps strangely) more respect for those. However, if it's to be given credence it shouldn't be limited to contemporary scientific knowledge, not when influenced by omnipotent God.

That is possible, although unlikely and certainly not as literally described by any religion I have come across, imo.

That's not surprising as both and their proponents appear to be regarded by some churches as the enemy. It is not necessarily the case that astro-physicist, scientist or biologist = atheist.

I can't see the Bible standing up as 'literal', in fact I remember one sermon years back, where the clergyman pointed out that the six creation days, were not really days, but long long periods ??? - no doubt God felt a bit rushed perhaps.

Avatar MIA · 20-06-2016 10:40AM

steamengine wrote: »

I can't see the Bible standing up as 'literal', in fact I remember one sermon years back, where the clergyman pointed out that the six creation days, were not really days, but long long periods ??? - no doubt God felt a bit rushed perhaps.

It's not stated the days were one after the other. Alternativley the simple folk 3 or so thousand years ago would have not understand geological time so god (dumbed it down) used allegory. :cool:

steamengine · 20-06-2016 10:54AM

Safehands wrote: »

Hold the horses a little bit here!!!
The whole argument for the old testament is that it is inspired by God. So it doesn't matter what the writers knew or don't know. God is informing them. It seems that he misinformed them with a lot of what they wrote. Is that likely??

Why would God want to misinform people ? The Bible isn't generically called the Good Book for nothing. For example, do you see anything misinformed about the ten commandments which he personally handed to Moses ?

Avatar MIA · 20-06-2016 11:01AM

steamengine wrote: »

Why would God want to misinform people ?

Pretty sure, that's his point. IF it was God...

steamengine · 20-06-2016 11:18AM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Pretty sure, that's his point. IF it was God...

Maybe there are mistakes in the Bible, but would that justify discarding all of what it says and furthermore arriving at the conclusion God doesn't exist ?

For example, I have rarely ever read any technical manual that never contained factual errors. Did I continue to use it ? - Yes, because the majority of information was correct.

Avatar MIA · 20-06-2016 11:23AM

steamengine wrote: »

For example, I have rarely ever read any technical manual that never contained factual errors. Did I continue to use it ? - Yes, because the majority of information was correct.

Was it proposed that God wrote the technical manual?

There's lots to be taken from the Bible, love thy neighbour etc which makes perfectly good sense (and no religion required for that either, or promises of a perfect afterlife to make you want to do it), but there's also a load of rubbish from the far greater, in content, OT.

Leroy42 · 20-06-2016 11:39AM

steamengine wrote: »

Why would God want to misinform people ? The Bible isn't generically called the Good Book for nothing. For example, do you see anything misinformed about the ten commandments which he personally handed to Moses ?

Thou shalt not kill. Number 6 I believe, yet God is shown to kill many thousands of people in many different situations.

Leroy42 · 20-06-2016 11:42AM

steamengine wrote: »

Maybe there are mistakes in the Bible, but would that justify discarding all of what it says and furthermore arriving at the conclusion God doesn't exist ?

For example, I have rarely ever read any technical manual that never contained factual errors. Did I continue to use it ? - Yes, because the majority of information was correct.

But how do you know that the majority of the information in a technical manual is correct? You use other sources, previous experience etc.

The Bible is the only source and as such it cannot be judged against anything else. it is the only insight we have as to the what God wants. If parts are not correct, then which parts are incorrect and which parts are correct?

Is the Noah story correct? What about eating Shellfish. What about loving your father and mother, or stoning your daughter is they commit adultery?

Did Jesus actually walk on water, raise form the dead?

Avatar MIA · 20-06-2016 11:48AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Thou shalt not kill. Number 6 I believe, yet God is shown to kill many thousands of people in many different situations.

Not sure the commandments were meant to apply to God. Do as I say, don't do as I do.

Leroy42 · 20-06-2016 11:50AM

steamengine wrote: »

and furthermore arriving at the conclusion God doesn't exist ?

I think there are very few people who have reached the conclusion that God doesn't exist, that conclusion is simply not possible. What people believe is that no evidence for his existence, or at least enough evidence, is available and therefore they have failed to reach the conclusion he does exist.

Those who believe in God, have reached a conclusion. God Exists. They are not looking for proof of his existence, but demand that anyone who questions their belief prove that he doesn't exist.

Leroy42 · 20-06-2016 11:54AM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Not sure the commandments were meant to apply to God. Do as I say, don't do as I do.

Point taken, but why then does God allow people to kill others. There are plenty of examples in the Bible of major genecides in the name of God but carried out by man.

2 Chronicles 13:15-18New International Version (NIV)

15 and the men of Judah raised the battle cry. At the sound of their battle cry, God routed Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah. 16 The Israelites fled before Judah, and God delivered them into their hands. 17 Abijah and his troops inflicted heavy losses on them, so that there were five hundred thousand casualties among Israel’s able men. 18 The Israelites were subdued on that occasion, and the people of Judah were victorious because they relied on the Lord, the God of their ancestors.

Avatar MIA · 20-06-2016 12:00PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Point taken, but why then does God allow people to kill others. There are plenty of examples in the Bible of major genecides in the name of God but carried out by man.

2 Chronicles 13:15-18New International Version (NIV)

15 and the men of Judah raised the battle cry. At the sound of their battle cry, God routed Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah. 16 The Israelites fled before Judah, and God delivered them into their hands. 17 Abijah and his troops inflicted heavy losses on them, so that there were five hundred thousand casualties among Israel’s able men. 18 The Israelites were subdued on that occasion, and the people of Judah were victorious because they relied on the Lord, the God of their ancestors.

Yeah, he told others to commit slaughter if I remember correctly. Good point.

steamengine · 20-06-2016 12:14PM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Was it proposed that God wrote the technical manual?

There's lots to be taken from the Bible, love thy neighbour etc which makes perfectly good sense (and no religion required for that either, or promises of a perfect afterlife to make you want to do it), but there's also a load of rubbish from the far greater, in content, OT.

Most of it would be rubbish if you come at it from the point of not believing in God. If you do believe though, and you understand the context of the OT, then it makes more sense. Whilst a believer might find parts of the bible boring and even incomprehensible, he/she is unlikely to class it as rubbish.

Avatar MIA · 20-06-2016 12:17PM

steamengine wrote: »

Most of it would be rubbish if you come at it from the point of not believing in God. If you do believe though, and you understand the context of the OT, then it makes more sense. Whilst a believer might find parts of the bible boring and even incomprehensible, he/she is unlikely to class it as rubbish.

Would you like to give an example of something you think non believers would consider rubbish, but you can make sense out of?

steamengine · 20-06-2016 12:35PM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Would you like to give an example of something you think non believers would consider rubbish, but you can make sense out of?

I figure you'd have a better idea. Really, once posters start referring to the bible as rubbish, I'm inclined to switch off.

Avatar MIA · 20-06-2016 12:38PM

steamengine wrote: »

I figure you'd have a better idea. Really, once posters start referring to the bible as rubbish, I'm inclined to switch off.

"You must not wear clothing made of wool and linen woven together.

steamengine · 20-06-2016 01:13PM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

"You must not wear clothing made of wool and linen woven together.

The above is like jumping randomly in at page xxx of a technical manual in a subject you don't really understand but if you know where to go you can come up with something like this.

Psalm 23 King James Version (KJV)

1 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

tommy2bad · 20-06-2016 01:16PM

Safehands wrote: »

Hold the horses a little bit here!!!
The whole argument for the old testament is that it is inspired by God. So it doesn't matter what the writers knew or don't know. God is informing them. It seems that he misinformed them with a lot of what they wrote. Is that likely??

Inspiring and informing are not equivalent.
Inspired adjective
1.
aroused, animated, or imbued with the spirit to do something, by or as if by supernatural or divine influence:

Inform verb (used with object)
1.
to give or impart knowledge of a fact or circumstance to:
What they knew and didn't know is extremely important if it's inspired because the inspiration is contextual. It's exactly what we see in the bible, people inspired to do things by God but within a context they live in.
If God had informed them He would have had to either limit the information based on what they could understand or give them a crash course physics, thermodynamics and chemistry. History (past and future) sociology and politics. A quick summary of the developments in theology should cover that subject , it's not exactly a fast moving field.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments