The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Safehands · 27-02-2017 12:18AM

J C wrote: »

No ... it was residual to the creation of the Earth.

All this from the Bible, where exactly?

Here is the thing JC, you seem to be able to ignore all of the evidence of the most reputable scientists in the world. That is your right. You can argue that the moon is made of cheese, that man never actually went there, it was all a con and that samples of the surface were never brought back. That would be your right. If I were to change to think as you do I would just need to disregard all of the actual evidence, except for one ancient book. Then I could concur with JC.

looksee · 27-02-2017 01:32PM

J C wrote: »

No ... it was residual to the creation of the Earth.

Why would there have been any heat involved in the creation of the earth? And how do you know there was?

marienbad · 27-02-2017 02:29PM

J C wrote: »

No.

how long ago did it happen ?

Safehands · 27-02-2017 02:55PM

marienbad wrote: »

how long ago did it happen ?

You won't believe what he says here. Stars which are millions of light years away mean that they are only actually a few thousand light years away, all governed by the Bible. You couldn't make it up, (well he actually does).

Absolam · 28-02-2017 04:46AM

I think that's a little unfair; JC is well able to tell us what he thinks himself.

Safehands · 28-02-2017 10:44AM

Absolam wrote: »

I think that's a little unfair; JC is well able to tell us what he thinks himself.

He has done, loads of times. I'm looking forward to the day when reality actually strikes him and he sees the error of his ways.

J C · 01-03-2017 12:36AM

Safehands wrote: »

All this from the Bible, where exactly?

Here is the thing JC, you seem to be able to ignore all of the evidence of the most reputable scientists in the world. That is your right.

... but here's the thing ... I'm not doing this ... the most reputable scientists in the world haven't a clue about how life could ever spontaneously arise.

They also freely admit that the spontaneous evolution of pondkind to mankind is equally logically (and evidentially) challenged.

They believe that life somehow spontaneously arose and developed over millions of years from pondkind to mankind ... simply because life evidently now exists ... and they confine themselves to only considering natural mechanisms for the process of producing and developing life.

... and then they have the audacity to criticise Creation Scientists who are examining the physical evidence for the creation of life by an inordinate intelligence ... based on the enormous levels of complex functional specified information that is directly observable in life !!!

J C · 01-03-2017 12:45AM

Safehands wrote: »

He has done, loads of times. I'm looking forward to the day when reality actually strikes him and he sees the error of his ways.

what reality?
... the reality that the fossil record is a record of instantaneous death an burial of billons of creatures by a water-based catastrophe all over the earth.
... the reality that life contains spectacular levels of Complex Functional Specified Information ... which always requires the appliance of intelligence to create.
... and many other realities that prove that the Bible is historically accurate and God created life.

Safehands · 01-03-2017 09:02AM

J C wrote: »

what reality?
... the reality that the fossil record is a record of instantaneous death an burial of billons of creatures by a water-based catastrophe all over the earth.

See, making it up again.
Records actually show that the fossils are millions of years old, but of course you'll try to convince us that the tests are inaccurate, but you will be wrong.

Leroy42 · 01-03-2017 10:58AM

J C wrote: »

... but here's the thing ... I'm not doing this ... the most reputable scientists in the world haven't a clue about how life could ever spontaneously arise.

They also freely admit that the spontaneous evolution of pondkind to mankind is equally logically (and evidentially) challenged.

They believe that life somehow spontaneously arose and developed over millions of years from pondkind to mankind ... simply because life evidently now exists ... and they confine themselves to only considering natural mechanisms for the process of producing and developing life.

... and then they have the audacity to criticise Creation Scientists who are examining the physical evidence for the creation of life by an inordinate intelligence ... based on the enormous levels of complex functional specified information that is directly observable in life !!!

So your argument with science is that it doesn't have all the answers. But it does provide a huge amount of evidence that can, logically, lead to the hypothesis of how life was created. They can get from the point of life existing all the way to the present. All the evidence supports evolution, and to the universe being billions of years old. This is in direct contradiction to the book on which Creationism is based.

However, you seem to not place the same burdens on creationism. It also carries no more answer to the question of how life started, but the basis is not due to the evidence but instead on a single book. A book that contains many inaccuracies and is widely open to interpretation. Despite this, you seem to think it is as valuable a source as knowledge as science.

Science - We do not know how life came into existence
Creationism - God did it.
Science - Brilliant, how did you work that out?
Creationism - It says it here in this book.
Science - Oh, so by God you actually mean I don't know.

If you take creationism as the starting point, that creates (pun intended) so many questions that the evidence simply does not support. We have already been through many of the arguments relating to Genesis but even then you have the issues with the flood, how to explain the migration of animals, the diversity of humans within the short time frame, the age of the known universe, the age of the earth itself. All of this seems to indicate that even if God created life, the book on which you are basing your assertion is incorrect, and thus the assertion itself can equally be deemed to be, at best, questionable.

Then we get onto the question of God. To consider any unnatural reason for the existence of life surely we need to first demonstrate that the unnatural even exists? Nobody has ever been able to do that. So your basis for the existence of life is a supernatural occurrence, which you can't prove, and then you assign many characteristics and limitations on this thing that you know nothing about, not even its existence.

On a scale of 1 to 100, 100 being the present, science can explain everything from 2 to 100. What it can't explain is the 1. Creationism can't even explain 2 to 100 yet deems itself worthy of explaining the 1, without any actual evidence and despite the fact that any evidence it has for the rest is questionable and does not fit with the actual reality.

So on one side we have science with evidence of 99% of everything, and an the other we have Creationism with 0%. Which one do you think is more likely to be best placed to be heading in the right direction?

marienbad · 01-03-2017 12:25PM

J C wrote: »

what reality?
... the reality that the fossil record is a record of instantaneous death an burial of billons of creatures by a water-based catastrophe all over the earth.
... the reality that life contains spectacular levels of Complex Functional Specified Information ... which always requires the appliance of intelligence to create.
... and many other realities that prove that the Bible is historically accurate and God created life.

so how long ago did this happen ?

J C · 01-03-2017 07:39PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So your argument with science is that it doesn't have all the answers.

Science doesn't have any idea how life could be spontaneously generated ... indeed the biological law of biogenesis states that life can only come from pre-existing life ... and this rules out the spontaneous generation of life.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law+of+biogenesis

Leroy42 wrote: »

But it (science) does provide a huge amount of evidence that can, logically, lead to the hypothesis of how life was created.

I agree.

J C · 01-03-2017 07:49PM

Safehands wrote: »

See, making it up again.
Records actually show that the fossils are millions of years old, but of course you'll try to convince us that the tests are inaccurate, but you will be wrong.

What records are you referring to?

Leroy42 · 01-03-2017 07:56PM

J C wrote: »

Science doesn't have any idea how life could be spontaneously generated ... indeed the biological law of biogenesis states that life can only come from pre-existing life ... and this rules out the spontaneous generation of life.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law+of+biogenesis

I agree.

1st of, as you state it is the Law of Biogenesis, not a theory. It states what has been found to happen, it does not state that it could never happen.

Science does have many ideas as the formation of the first examples of life, but as yet has not been able to provide sufficient evidence to prove them anymore than an idea. Unlike creationism though, all the evidence that science has been able to uncover points to the overwhelming probability that life occurred due to natural events.

That we haven't been able to recreate the natural events of course gives those you believe in creationism something to hold onto, despite the obvious conflict of they themselves believing in an idea based on the supernatural for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

You have yet to offer even a single, verifiable piece of evidence that a supernatural thing exists. Let alone attempt to prove that it is a God, and even further that it the God to which you profess to have faith.

Everything, ever single piece of evidence is based on the natural world yet you want to offset all that for supernatural based on nothing but a book?

J C · 02-03-2017 12:19AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

1st of, as you state it is the Law of Biogenesis, not a theory. It states what has been found to happen, it does not state that it could never happen.

A scientific law states that it always does happen ... and it ceases to be a law, if it ever doesn't happen.
The Law of Biogenesis has the exact same scientific validity as the Law of Gravity ... and please note that it also isn't the 'theory of gravity' ... no more than it is the 'theory of biogenesis'.
... and BTW a scientific Law has a much higher status of reliability than a scientific theory.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Science does have many ideas as the formation of the first examples of life, but as yet has not been able to provide sufficient evidence to prove them anymore than an idea. Unlike creationism though, all the evidence that science has been able to uncover points to the overwhelming probability that life occurred due to natural events.

An admission that science hasn't a clue about how life could spontaneously generate itself ... and a totally unfounded follow-on expression of wishful thinking does not a reasoned argument make !!!:)

Leroy42 wrote: »

That we haven't been able to recreate the natural events of course gives those you believe in creationism something to hold onto, despite the obvious conflict of they themselves believing in an idea based on the supernatural for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

You have yet to offer even a single, verifiable piece of evidence that a supernatural thing exists. Let alone attempt to prove that it is a God, and even further that it the God to which you profess to have faith.

Everything, ever single piece of evidence is based on the natural world yet you want to offset all that for supernatural based on nothing but a book?

Which can be summarised as 'science hasn't a clue about how life could spontaneously generate ... but it cannot be God (because that could cause Atheists to lose faith in His non-existence)' !!!:D

Michael OBrien · 02-03-2017 11:58AM

J C wrote: »

A scientific law states that it always does happen ... and it ceases to be a law, if it ever doesn't happen.
The Law of Biogenesis has the exact same scientific validity as the Law of Gravity ... and please note that it also isn't the 'theory of gravity' ... no more than it is the 'theory of biogenesis'.
... and BTW a scientific Law has a much higher status of reliability than a scientific theory.

An admission that science hasn't a clue about how life could spontaneously generate itself ... and a totally unfounded follow-on expression of wishful thinking does not a reasoned argument make !!!:)

Which can be summarised as 'science hasn't a clue about how life could spontaneously generate ... but it cannot be God (because that could cause Atheists to lose faith in His non-existence)' !!!:D

1st off, the Law of Biogenesis, developed by Pasteur originally, refers to current life spontaneously appearing fully formed (mice in grain, flies in meat, etc.) This concept of spontaneous generation was biblically supported and hence it took Pasteur to disprove it by sterilization of the environment of the foodstuff, and thus removing the likelihood of contamination by other factors. It does not refer, or intend to refer, to how life began ultimately.
2nd, a scientific law is not an absolute, it refers to a certain SET of circumstances where it applies up to the current time of observations. If an exception is shown to exist, provided it matches the set of circumstances included in the law, then the law is changed or abandoned.
3rd. Your claim that it CANNOT be God (as a pre-existing requirement for science OR atheists) is false. Hence why we ask for evidence for such a claim that a god, or specifically a type of God (allah, yeshua, chronos, magda, etc) was responsible. It is fallacious to claim that because we don't have a clear idea how life formed naturally yet, that means that a religious claim has merit. It is called an argument from ignorance, or as I am sure you have heard, a god of the gaps argument. There are plenty of science papers that discuss elements of abiogenesis and show remarkable progress in that area, while religious fundamentalists are finding this gap growing ever smaller and smaller.
By the same logic, the ancient egyptians were justified in claiming Ra was responsible for the apparent movement of the sun across the sky because it was the only explanation they had for that phenomenon.
4th. There is a theory of gravity, it is General Relativity.
5th. A law is far more limited in scope than a theory in science. Theories adopt the laws surrounding the phenomena it explains, not the other way around. A law cannot become a theory because it is not an explanation for the phenomena, it only contains information on one factor of it from observations. Hence Newton's laws of motion cannot become a theory but are incorporated or replaced by better laws in a theory of gravity.

Safehands · 02-03-2017 02:49PM

I see that the oldest fossil ever discovered on Earth shows that organisms were thriving 4.2 billion years ago. Boy that news will have some creationists jumping up and down, but there you are.

J C · 03-03-2017 12:15AM

Safehands wrote: »

I see that the oldest fossil ever discovered on Earth shows that organisms were thriving 4.2 billion years ago. Boy that news will have some creationists jumping up and down, but there you are.

... and the previously oldest reported microfossils, from Western Australia, were dated at 3,460 million years old.
... what's almost a billion evolutionist years among friends, after all !!!

... especially when they are only a few thousand years old in reality.:)

Pherekydes · 03-03-2017 12:23AM

J C wrote: »

... especially when they are only a few thousand years old in reality.:)

Proof?

J C · 03-03-2017 12:36AM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

1st off, the Law of Biogenesis, developed by Pasteur originally, refers to current life spontaneously appearing fully formed (mice in grain, flies in meat, etc.) This concept of spontaneous generation was biblically supported and hence it took Pasteur to disprove it by sterilization of the environment of the foodstuff, and thus removing the likelihood of contamination by other factors.

Pasteur was a Creation scientist ... and the spontaneous generation of any life isn't Biblically supported. The Bible states that all life was Created by God during 6 days ... and then He rested ... and He is still resting from any further acts of creation.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

It does not refer, or intend to refer, to how life began ultimately.

The Law of Biogenesis equally rules out the spontaneous generation of life at any time.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

2nd, a scientific law is not an absolute, it refers to a certain SET of circumstances where it applies up to the current time of observations. If an exception is shown to exist, provided it matches the set of circumstances included in the law, then the law is changed or abandoned.

That is true ... and the 156 year old Law of Biogenesis hasn't had any exception noted to date ... and it therefore continues to be scientifically valid.
http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/21169.aspx

Michael OBrien wrote: »

3rd. Your claim that it CANNOT be God (as a pre-existing requirement for science OR atheists) is false.

Conventional science a priori rules out and doesn't allow the investigation of supernatural explantions for phenomena.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Hence why we ask for evidence for such a claim that a god, or specifically a type of God (allah, yeshua, chronos, magda, etc) was responsible. It is fallacious to claim that because we don't have a clear idea how life formed naturally yet, that means that a religious claim has merit. It is called an argument from ignorance, or as I am sure you have heard, a god of the gaps argument. There are plenty of science papers that discuss elements of abiogenesis and show remarkable progress in that area, while religious fundamentalists are finding this gap growing ever smaller and smaller.
By the same logic, the ancient egyptians were justified in claiming Ra was responsible for the apparent movement of the sun across the sky because it was the only explanation they had for that phenomenon.

You may ask for evidence ... but conventional science is precluded by its own rules from evaluating supernatural explanations for phenomena.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Michael OBrien wrote: »

4th. There is a theory of gravity, it is General Relativity.

There is and the theory of gravity is somewhat speculative in comparision with the well proven observable laws of gravity.

Michael OBrien · 03-03-2017 02:28PM

J C wrote: »

Pasteur was a Creation scientist ... and the spontaneous generation of any life isn't Biblically supported. The Bible states that all life was Created by God during 6 days ... and then He rested ... and He is still resting from any further acts of creation.

That is your interpretation. IF you bother to read up about who supported SG at that time, they viewed ongoing creationism as a possible explanation. There are creationists that support such ideas. Your view of the bible is not the only one people have. You don't get to declare that because YOU don't believe that, then NO ONE would.
Obviously Pasteur did not hold to that view, hence why he disproved it. But his critics did think like that. Nor was he the first to push against SG but he was the one to best show that it was false.

J C wrote: »

The Law of Biogenesis equally rules out the spontaneous generation of life at any time.

Abiogenesis is NOT SG. SG refers to complex life spontaneously appearing like mice or flies, It does not refer to microscopic primitive cells forming via chemical interactions from organic material at a time where the conditions for life were radically different.

J C wrote: »

That is true ... and the 156 year old Law of Biogenesis hasn't had any exception noted to date ... and it therefore continues to be scientifically valid.

Which in no way refers to studies into abiogenesis.

J C wrote: »

Conventional science a priori rules out and doesn't allow the investigation of supernatural explantions for phenomena.

But gods interact with reality for all major religions, and those interactions CAN be studied IF they existed. You are playing a game where you switch between a certain definition of god (one that is outside time and space) and one that actually is referred to through religions.
Your reference was that scientists and atheists were in some form of conspiracy to keep a god out of the explanations, that anything OTHER than god was up for debate. This is a falsehood. If you are going to say that science CANNOT study gods, then it is not the fault of science, it is the fault of god (if it existed) for not making itself known clearly and unequivocally and definitely the fault of people who blame science for not accepting god as an explanation when they know that their claims cannot be scientific in the first place.

J C wrote: »

There is and the theory of gravity is somewhat speculative in comparision with the well proven observable laws of gravity.

Laws change too. Newtons laws have been improved to take into account Relativity (Special & General), and Quantum Mechanics.
However as stated the THEORY is the explanation for the phenomena and the laws are observations of factors within that phenomena. There is no possible way that the laws of motion can ever BE a theory. Please address that point.
HOW can a law graduate to being a theory if laws are not explanations for the phenomena itself but descriptions of aspects of it.

J C · 04-03-2017 07:48PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

That is your interpretation. IF you bother to read up about who supported SG at that time, they viewed ongoing creationism as a possible explanation. There are creationists that support such ideas. Your view of the bible is not the only one people have. You don't get to declare that because YOU don't believe that, then NO ONE would.
Obviously Pasteur did not hold to that view, hence why he disproved it. But his critics did think like that. Nor was he the first to push against SG but he was the one to best show that it was false.

The people who supported spontaneous generation at the time were the materialists who thought that life could generate itself spontaneously i.e. without God.
... and they still believe that it can ... only with the addition some more time.:)

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Abiogenesis is NOT SG. SG refers to complex life spontaneously appearing like mice or flies, It does not refer to microscopic primitive cells forming via chemical interactions from organic material at a time where the conditions for life were radically different.

The spontaneous production of so-called 'microscopic primitive cells' and their becoming alive is just as preposterous (and impossible) as the spontaneous generation of flies and mice.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Which in no way refers to studies into abiogenesis.
But gods interact with reality for all major religions, and those interactions CAN be studied IF they existed. You are playing a game where you switch between a certain definition of god (one that is outside time and space) and one that actually is referred to through religions.
Your reference was that scientists and atheists were in some form of conspiracy to keep a god out of the explanations, that anything OTHER than god was up for debate. This is a falsehood. If you are going to say that science CANNOT study gods, then it is not the fault of science, it is the fault of god (if it existed) for not making itself known clearly and unequivocally and definitely the fault of people who blame science for not accepting god as an explanation when they know that their claims cannot be scientific in the first place.

... but if God has interacted with the physical world and in particular, created life ... then this interaction will have left a 'signature' which can be scientifically evaluated.
... but such investigations are specifically banned by science.

Quote:-
"Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Laws change too. Newtons laws have been improved to take into account Relativity (Special & General), and Quantum Mechanics.
However as stated the THEORY is the explanation for the phenomena and the laws are observations of factors within that phenomena. There is no possible way that the laws of motion can ever BE a theory. Please address that point.
HOW can a law graduate to being a theory if laws are not explanations for the phenomena itself but descriptions of aspects of it.

Scientific Laws place limits on valid scientific theories ... for example, the Law of Biogenesis scientifically invalidates any theory that postulates the spontaneous production of life from non-life.

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-03-2017 08:00PM

J C wrote: »

The people who supported spontaneous generation at the time were the materialists who thought that life could generate itself spontaneously i.e. without God.
... and they still believe that it can ... only with the addition some more time.:)
The spontaneous production of so-called 'microscopic primitive cells' and their becoming alive is just as preposterous (and impossible) as the spontaneous generation of flies and mice.

... but if God has interacted with the physical world and in particular, created life ... then this interaction will have left a 'signature' which can be scientifically evaluated.
... but such investigations are specifically banned by science.

Quote:-
"Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."

Scientific Laws place limits on valid scientific theories ... for example, the Law of Biogenesis scientifically invalidates any theory that postulates the spontaneous production of life from non-life.

Where does it say investigation is banned?

J C · 04-03-2017 08:07PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Where does it say investigation is banned?

Are you saying that conventional science investigates the physical evidence for God, then?

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-03-2017 08:22PM

J C wrote: »

Are you saying that conventional science investigates the physical evidence for God, then?

You said investigation was "banned" I'm asking you to back up that claim not to deflect from the question.

J C · 04-03-2017 08:29PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You said investigation was "banned" I'm asking you to back up that claim not to deflect from the question.

Well, either conventional science does investigate supernatural phenomena ... or it precludes/bans such investigation ... which is it?

Quote:-
"Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. "

... the creation of life by God would be a 'supernatural' phenomenon ... and investigation of it is ruled out by science ... even though it is possible to scientifically investigate it by examining life to see if it bears the physical 'signature' of an inordinate intelligence.

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-03-2017 08:35PM

J C wrote: »

Well, either conventional science does investigate supernatural phenomena ... or it precludes/bans such investigation ... which is it?

Quote:-
"Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. "

... the creation of life by God would be a 'supernatural' phenomenon ... and investigation of it is ruled out by science ... even though it is possible to scientifically investigate it by examining life to see if it bears the physical 'signature' of an inordinate intelligence.

So you cannot provide a single source to back up your claim that investigation is banned?

J C · 04-03-2017 09:13PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you cannot provide a single source to back up your claim that investigation is banned?

I'm finding invalid excuses for what amounts to a ban, within conventional science of supernatural phenomena.

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-03-2017 10:09PM

J C wrote: »

I'm finding invalid excuses for what amounts to a ban, within conventional science of supernatural phenomena.

So as usual you put your own spin on things? A lack of investigation suddenly becomes a "ban" in your mind.

Safehands · 05-03-2017 02:55AM

J C wrote: »

if God has interacted with the physical world and in particular, created life ... then this interaction will have left a 'signature' which can be scientifically evaluated.
... but such investigations are specifically banned by science.

You know you are making this up JC and it doesn't help your argument.
Quote:-

J C wrote: »

"Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."

Absolutely, and they are entitled to hold those beliefs. it doesn't make them true though.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments