Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…190191193195196…232

Comments

  • #5762
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Gen 1:1-5
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

    3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

    All done without the Sun. You are a scientist so please tell me, how does day and night happen? How about morning and evening? And where does it mention a singularity?


  • #5763
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    You don't seem to understand the concept of "Proof".

    You have been asked for proof that your version of creation is real. You can't provide it! You keep deflecting the question, a tactic used by people who are unsure of their ground. You keep producing the same mantra in different forms, none of which prove the Biblical account is true.

    There is ample proof that these Biblical stories of creation are not true and that destroys ANY argument you have.
    I'm not deflecting anything ... I have provided proof for different aspects of Creation ... only to be asked what conventional science has to say about my proof ... and when I point out that conventional science cannot say anything about it because it limits itself to seeking natural explantions only ... you ask for proof of this and I provide it.

    In turn, I asked if, for the sake of argument, God really did create life ... and conventional science a priori rules out the consideration or evaluation of supernatural phenomena ... how can science ever establish the truth on this matter?
    ... and so far no answer is forthcoming to my question.


  • #5764
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    All done without the Sun. You are a scientist so please tell me, how does day and night happen? How about morning and evening? And where does it mention a singularity?
    I'd say the instant Creation of the Heavens and the Earth ex nihilo was one almighty 'Singularity' (pun intended) !!!!:)

    ... all that was needed was a source of light/energy, for day and night ... for the first three days, there was light/energy ... but not the Sun's light/energy.

    ... any chance of an answer to my question ...

    If, for the sake of argument, God really did create life ... and conventional science a priori rules out the consideration or evaluation of supernatural phenomena ... how can science ever establish the truth on this rather important matter?
    Answer ... it can't because of its self-imposed limitation ... but then it starts behaving like a 'dog in the manger' ... not evaluating the evidence for the intelligent creation of life ... and demanding that nobody else does either.

    Can you see the problem with this approach?


  • #5765
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    all that was needed was a source of light, for day and night ... for the first three days, there was light ... but not the Sun's light.

    Is that all that is needed for day and night, a source of light? And you are a scientist?
    If I asked a senior infant how does day and night occur, I have no doubt they would tell me. If I asked them to write down the story of how the world may have been made, and if they gave me an account with the same timeline as Genesis, I would ask them what is wrong with it and I have no doubt that they would see where they went wrong. The Sun causes day and night. A source of light indeed. There you have it, absolute proof that a senior infant knows more about how the world was made than the people who wrote the old testament.
    If you can't understand that JC how can you even begin to understand how life began.
    Oh I know! You'll make it up. A bit like your "source of light".


  • #5766
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    Is that all that is needed for day and night, a source of light? And you are a scientist?
    If I asked a senior infant how does day and night occur, I have no doubt they would tell me. If I asked them to write down the story of how the world may have been made, and if they gave me an account with the same timeline as Genesis, I would ask them what is wrong with it and I have no doubt that they would see where they went wrong. The Sun causes day and night. A source of light indeed. There you have it, absolute proof that a senior infant knows more about how the world was made than the people who wrote the old testament.
    If you can't understand that JC how can you even begin to understand how life began.
    Oh I know! You'll make it up. A bit like your "source of light".
    ... try telling a child about nothing blowing up in the "Big Bang" ... to produce everything ... and watch them laugh ... even louder !!! :)

    I see you've studiously avoided answering my question ... preferring to tell 'tall tales from school' instead !!!:D


  • Advertisement
  • #5767
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    ... try telling a child about nothing blowing up in the "Big Bang" ... to produce everything ... and watch them laugh ... even louder !!! :)
    I see you've studiously avoided answering my question ... preferring to tell 'tall tales from school' instead !!!:D
    I don't ever try to be definitive about how the whole thing started. I simply don't know, neither does anyone else. The best estimates right now seem to involve a singularity and a big bang. That may change. No idea about how life actually started on Earth, more speculation. It all happened billions of years ago, (>14,000000000, that is 14,000 million years ago). I wasn't even born! It's an awful long time ago.
    You, on the other hand, are definitive in your views. Views formed by the contents of a book which is proven to be wrong, you believe that the world and universe is 10,000 years old and that day and night and Photosynthesis can happen without the presence of the Sun.
    Now I ask you, how can anyone who believes in these silly, unscientific, alternative facts, be taken seriously.


  • #5768
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    I don't ever try to be definitive about how the whole thing started. I simply don't know, neither does anyone else. The best estimates right now seem to involve a singularity and a big bang. That may change. No idea about how life actually started on Earth, more speculation. It all happened billions of years ago, (>14,000000000, that is 14,000 million years ago). I wasn't even born! It's an awful long time ago.
    One of the best (true) summaries of the desperate state of conventional science ... and its complete inability to logically explain anything about the origins of the Universe and life therein.


  • #5769
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    One of the best (true) summaries of the desperate state of conventional science ... and its complete inability to logically explain anything about the origins of the Universe and life therein.

    I wouldn't call it a desperate state, but scientists don't pretend to know everything about the beginning. They are learning all the time.
    But JC, you used the term "logically explain". I'm 100% with you there. So how do you, JC, "logically explain" your interpretation of how it all began?


  • #5770
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Here are some thoughts on denial ... something that many Evolutionists have in spades ... yet they accuse Creationists of having closed minds:-

    Enjoy!!
    People resort to denial when recognizing that the truth would destroy something they hold dear. It’s motivated skepticism. You’re more skeptical of things you don’t want to believe and demand a higher level of proof.

    Denial is unconscious, or it wouldn’t work: if you know you’re closing your eyes to the truth, some part of you knows what the truth is and denial can’t perform its protective function.:)


  • #5771
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    People resort to denial when recognizing that the truth would destroy something they hold dear. It’s motivated skepticism. You’re more skeptical of things you don’t want to believe and demand a higher level of proof.
    How very honest of you JC.
    I don't need a higher level of proof about the Bible. Any proof or evidence at all will do.
    How can I even begin to talk about morning and evening, day and night without the sun?


  • Advertisement
  • #5772
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    J C wrote: »
    Here are some thoughts on denial ... something that many Evolutionists have in spades ... yet they accuse Creationists of having closed minds:-

    Enjoy!!
    People resort to denial when recognizing that the truth would destroy something they hold dear. It’s motivated skepticism. You’re more skeptical of things you don’t want to believe and demand a higher level of proof.

    Denial is unconscious, or it wouldn’t work: if you know you’re closing your eyes to the truth, some part of you knows what the truth is and denial can’t perform its protective function.:)

    Ask yourself, who are the last group of people to change their minds when faced with new evidence?

    Is it the religious, who continue to hold onto a book which has been shown to have many issues in the text itself, is known not to have been written by those that witnessed the events, and as you pointed out is not even the direct word of God but a distillation of that.

    Or people who have taken the evidence of evolution on board, studied it and come to the conclusion that it it backed up and makes sense.

    Before 1800's, nobody had even considered evolution, it was a totally new concept. Yet you seem to be suggesting that it is those that have changed their minds based on the evidence rather than those that steadfastly refuse to continence that their position may be in error, you are suggesting that it is the former group in denial!


  • #5773
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    J C wrote: »
    The UPB is the ultimate statistical impossibility ... and it effectively amounts to functional impossibilty
    Well, not to put too fine a point on it, no. Leaving aside who might have the biggest improbability as being a rather pointless venture, functional impossibility divides everything into that which has a zero probability (is functionally impossible) and that which has not. Your UPB has not a zero probability, and is therefore effectively, and actually, not functionally impossible.
    J C wrote: »
    Here's the thing ... Evolutionists are great at making all kinds of unfounded assertions ... but they are rather shy about backing them up with either logical reasoning or evidence.
    I think you'll find that evolutionists tend to found their assertions on the evidence we have found, unlike creationists who tend to base their assertions on their faith, I'm afraid.
    J C wrote: »
    That's pretty much the situation, except there is no conspiracy on behalf of science ... it comes from the official public position of conventional science that supernatural causation is ruled out a priori from consideration or evaluation by conventional science.
    I don't think you can honestly claim that conventional science has an official public position on anything; science covers rather a diverse array of disciplines and their students tend not to take authoritative positions on subjects they're not involved with. Scientists, on the other hand, do generally proceed by evidence based reasoning (a method of enquiry largely developed by Christians it must be said). If there is no evidence for the supernatural, it cannot be a basis for scientific reasoning; if there is evidence then scientists will incorporate it.


  • #5774
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    J C wrote: »
    One of the best (true) summaries of the desperate state of conventional science ... and its complete inability to logically explain anything about the origins of the Universe and life therein.

    Science works by increments, you start from the bottom up, accepting your limitations as you go but seeking to find ways to overcome them.
    Also "and its complete inability to logically explain anything about the origins of the Universe and life therein." is incorrect. The fact that they don't explain their findings in absolutes does not make their findings non existent. You are placing expectations on science that was never supported in the first place. For 99.999% of human history, man did not even know what the lights in the sky at night were, or what the sun was. We have in the last .0001% progressed amazingly and managed to travel via machine to a neighboring planet and even a passing comet. The fact that we don't know everything as of this exact time is meaningless. You can pick ANYTIME in recorded history and play that game.


  • #5775
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Science works by increments, you start from the bottom up, accepting your limitations as you go but seeking to find ways to overcome them.
    Also "and its complete inability to logically explain anything about the origins of the Universe and life therein." is incorrect. The fact that they don't explain their findings in absolutes does not make their findings non existent. You are placing expectations on science that was never supported in the first place. For 99.999% of human history, man did not even know what the lights in the sky at night were, or what the sun was. We have in the last .0001% progressed amazingly and managed to travel via machine to a neighboring planet and even a passing comet. The fact that we don't know everything as of this exact time is meaningless. You can pick ANYTIME in recorded history and play that game.

    Except that some of the resident "scientists" :p here are of the view that "science" disproves the existence of God.
    In reality, it the usual bunch of atheists/anti-theists choosing to believe in assigning every single crumb of credibility to anything which calls in to question the existence of God.

    I agree with a lot of what you've written here. In fact I would go further to say that I think that God would want humanity to better understand His creation and if science achieves better understanding of His creation then that is great.


  • #5776
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Safehands wrote: »
    I don't ever try to be definitive about how the whole thing started

    You hold double standards.

    You demand definitive proof from those who believe that God created the Universe, while having no definitive "scientific" explanation for the creation of the Universe.


  • #5777
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    hinault wrote: »
    Except that some of the resident "scientists" :p here are of the view that "science" disproves the existence of God.
    In reality, it the usual bunch of atheists/anti-theists choosing to believe in assigning every single crumb of credibility to anything which calls in to question the existence of God.
    I could be wrong, but think the only one who has claimed to be a scientist so far is J C? Who certainly isn't expressing the view that science disproves the existence of God. I think it would be hard to say that science disproves the existence of God anyways; science tends towards proving things rather than disproving them. So far science hasn't proven the existence of God, would probably be a more accurate way of putting it.


  • #5778
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    hinault wrote: »
    You hold double standards. You demand definitive proof from those who believe that God created the Universe, while having no definitive "scientific" explanation for the creation of the Universe.
    That's not really double standards though. We can accept that there is currently no definitive explanation for the creation of the universe, but there are various hypotheses. Holding competing hypotheses to the same standard of evidence is part of the scientific method, and I don't think a reasonable argument can be presented for not doing so, do you?


  • #5779
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Absolam wrote: »
    That's not really double standards though.

    Of course it is double standards, where a poster admits that they cannot definitively prove the creation of the Universe while demanding definitive proof from those who hold an opposing view.


  • #5780
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Absolam wrote: »
    I could be wrong.

    There's no could about it.


  • #5781
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    hinault wrote: »
    Of course it is double standards, where a poster admits that they cannot definitively prove the creation of the Universe while demanding definitive proof from those who hold an opposing view.
    Well no; the poster isn't putting forward a definitive cause for the creation of the Universe, only asking that any such causes put forward be supported with evidence. For it to be a double standard the poster would have to be putting forward a competing and equally unevidenced explanation. Which he is not.
    hinault wrote: »
    There's no could about it.
    In which case I'm sure you'll provide the evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • #5782
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well no; the poster isn't putting forward a definitive cause for the creation of the Universe, only demanding that any such causes put forward be supported with evidence..

    I've fixed that for you.

    Testing the opposing view the poster demands proof. Yet when asked to supply proof to support the view he holds, he can't.


  • #5783
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    hinault wrote: »
    I've fixed that for you. Testing the opposing view the poster demands proof. Yet when asked to supply proof to support the view he holds, he can't.
    I wouldn't say fixed myself, but you've obviously changed what I've said to how you feel about what Safehands is asking. If you want to ask for (or demand) proof of the view that Safehands holds, surely the proof is that he is providing no evidence? Since he has said his view is that he simply doesn't know....


  • #5784
    FISMA.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 451 ✭✭FISMA.


    Science is the study of the natural world. The Greek word for natural is phusikḗ. That is, Physics.

    As such, I would not expect Science to be a useful tool in analyzing an un-natural world (where entropy spontaneously increases) or super-natural world.

    Einstein spoke of a "world" where superluminal (faster than the speed of light) speeds were possible (for particles that had no rest mass).

    However, he believed that we would not be able to perceive nor analyze such a world/realm. Whether we could even retain its knowledge in our memory is doubtful.

    In such a world, causative relationships, common to our daily experience, would break down.

    In such a world, timelines break down: cause would precede the effect. For example, the arrow hits the target before it is shot.

    In such a world, a God that knows your future would not be mutually exclusive with free will.

    In the ultimate irony, science fails to offer us a scientific test to demonstrate that our memories are working properly.

    If science fails to offer a method by which we may test our memories, why use it to test for God?

    :confused:


  • #5785
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Absolam wrote: »
    If you want to ask for (or demand) proof of the view that Safehands holds, surely the proof is that he is providing no evidence?

    I'm aware of the view he holds.

    What he cannot provide is evidence as to why he holds the view he holds, while simultaneously demanding that those who hold other views provide evidential proof to support the view they hold.


  • #5786
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    hinault wrote: »
    I'm aware of the view he holds. What he cannot provide is evidence as to why he holds the view he holds, while simultaneously demanding that those who hold other views provide evidential proof to support the view they hold.
    What evidence do you feel is required to support a view of "I don't know"?
    Personally I have to say I think there's a lower bar for it than the view of "I do know; this is what I know" but I'm intrigued as to what you think.


  • #5787
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    FISMA. wrote: »
    Science is the study of the natural world. The Greek word for natural is phusikḗ. That is, Physics. As such, I would not expect Science to be a useful tool in analyzing an un-natural world (where entropy spontaneously increases) or super-natural world. Einstein spoke of a "world" where superluminal (faster than the speed of light) speeds were possible <...> If science fails to offer a method by which we may test our memories, why use it to test for God? :confused:
    I think the longer version of that definition is 'Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.' If there is an un-natural world, I think we'll have to find a satisfactory (and at very least objective) means of determining it's existence before we essay any notions on how to study it. If we ever discover there is one, I suspect we'll also discover just how quickly we consider it part of the natural world... entropy notwithstanding.


  • #5788
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    I'm aware of the view he holds.

    What he cannot provide is evidence as to why he holds the view he holds, while simultaneously demanding that those who hold other views provide evidential proof to support the view they hold.

    "how do you think the universe was created?"

    "Dunno."

    "Where's your evidence????"


    :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5789
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, no; the term statistical impossibilty is a term of wildly varying value used to signify low probabilities in various fields. Statisticians use the term functional impossibility when they're talking about a zero probability. They don't use the term Universal Probability Bound at all....

    Statisticians would more likely use the term statistically insignificant rather than statistically impossible. Impossible implies a zero probability whereas statistically insignificant means to have a small enough probability that we can safely discard the premise as false. This of course varies with context. If we look at creation myths for example

    - There are a massive number (say N) of potential creation myths that mankind could imagine, but neither prove nor disprove, that directly contradict one another (e.g. Christian creationist myth versus Greek myth). Of these contradictory imaginary possibilities, either one could be true, or none could be true.

    - Given none of these things has any direct supporting evidence, they have the same probability of being true. Thus the probability P of any one being true is 1/N.

    - As N tends towards infinity, P tends towards 0. So the probability of any given creation myth being true is infinitesimal until such time as some evidence has been found to support it.

    Thus we can dismiss any creation myth as statistically insignificant until such time as it has more supporting evidence than any other contradictory myth.


  • #5790
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    smacl wrote: »
    Statisticians would more likely use the term statistically insignificant rather than statistically impossible. Impossible implies a zero probability whereas statistically insignificant means to have a small enough probability that we can safely discard the premise as false. This of course varies with context.
    They might. Statistical impossibility is however a recognised term for a low probability event.


  • Advertisement
  • #5791
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    hinault wrote: »
    What he cannot provide is evidence as to why he holds the view he holds, while simultaneously demanding that those who hold other views provide evidential proof to support the view they hold.
    What I said was that I simply don't know how the whole thing started, neither does anyone else. The best estimates right now seem to involve a singularity and a big bang. That may change. I have no idea about how life actually started on Earth.
    In 100 years time, or maybe in 1000 years, scientists may have discovered something else which may completely change their understanding of how everything came about. If they do, they will be perfectly willing to say "We were wrong about the big bang because we have discovered......."
    That is the difference between science and blind faith, which does not change no matter what contra evidence is presented.

    Can you accept that?


Advertisement