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…198199201203204…232

Comments

  • #6002
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    so JC can you give me give me an answer about the massive scientific/journalistic/politicial/ conspiracy encompassing all sorts of faiths and regimes and spread over decades to fool the people into believing we have rocks and fossils over 6000 years old


  • #6003
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    so JC can you give me give me an answer about the massive scientific/journalistic/politicial/ conspiracy encompassing all sorts of faiths and regimes and spread over decades to fool the people into believing we have rocks and fossils over 6000 years old
    Once again, its not a conspiracy, its done in plain sight for everyone to see.

    The idea of deep time was introduced to make the impossible (that non-life gave rise to life ... and that life spontaneously evolved from pondkind into mankind - over milions of years) ... somewhat plausible.
    ... and these ideas have been embellished with all kinds of 'just so' stories, without any logical or evidential under-pinnings ever since.

    ... and making the impossible somewhat plausible, doesn't make it possible.

    ... so all of the efforts of the 'materialistic persuaders' come to naught (in relation to the origins of life) ... in the end.


  • #6004
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So as usual you put your own spin on things? A lack of investigation suddenly becomes a "ban" in your mind.
    It isn't merely a 'lack of investigation' ... investigations of phenomena hypothesised to be caused by the supernatural are specifically ruled out within conventional science ... or 'banned' in plain English.

    When you guys can't even accept what is objectively true about conventional science ... (that it rules out the investigation of supernatural causes for phenomena) and something that is accepted by all scientists ... then you're not exactly improving your credibility, when you speak about more contested and controversial issues ... like the origins of life, for example.


  • #6005
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Once again, its not a conspiracy, its done in plain sight for everyone to see.

    The idea of deep time was introduced to make the impossible (that non-life gave rise to life ... and that life spontaneously evolved from pondkind to mankind) ... somewhat plausible.
    ... and these ideas have been embellished with all kinds of 'just so' stories, without any logical or evidential under-pinnings ever since.

    I don't care what you call it , my question is why would science/journalism/politics incorporating every kind of regime from the far left to the far right , every kind of belief system all agree to sing from the same hymn-sheet for years and years , spending billions in the process just to propagate a lie ?

    Why , what motive could there be ?


  • #6006
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,888 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    Once again, its not a conspiracy, its done in plain sight for everyone to see.

    The idea of deep time was introduced to make the impossible (that non-life gave rise to life ... and that life spontaneously evolved from pondkind to mankind) ... somewhat plausible.
    ... and these ideas have been embellished with all kinds of 'just so' stories, without any logical or evidential under-pinnings ever since.

    And on the opposite side we have people like yourself who reply with "god did it"


  • Advertisement
  • #6007
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,888 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    It isn't merely a 'lack of investigation' ... investigations of phenomena hypothesised to be caused by the supernatural are specifically ruled out within conventional science ... or 'banned' in plain English.

    When you guys can't even accept what is objectively true about conventional science ... (that it rules out the investigation of supernatural causes for phenomena) and accepted by all scientists ... then you're not exactly improving your credibility, when you speak about more contested and controversial issues ... like the origins of life, for example.

    Conventional scientists don't investigate or search for Unicorns, dragons, or pots of gold at the end of rainbows, Does this mean that these subjects are "banned" from conventional science?


  • #6008
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Conventional scientists don't investigate or search for Unicorns, dragons, or pots of gold at the end of rainbows, Does this mean that these subjects are "banned" from conventional science?
    Whatever about these clear myths ... investigations of phenomena hypothesised to be caused by the supernatural are specifically ruled out within conventional science ... or 'banned' in plain English.
    This has the practical effect of preventing conventional science ever properly investigating near death experiences and the hypothesis that God directly created life.


  • #6009
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    And on the opposite side we have people like yourself who reply with "god did it"
    ... but we don't just stop there ... we proceed to use the scientific method to evaluate the repeatably observable physical evidence that 'God did it' ... with considerable success, I might add.


  • #6010
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    I don't care what you call it , my question is why would science/journalism/politics incorporating every kind of regime from the far left to the far right , every kind of belief system all agree to sing from the same hymn-sheet for years and years , spending billions in the process just to propagate a lie ?

    Why , what motive could there be ?
    One possible motive would be to prevent science discovering that God exists and that there is a continuity of existence after death.
    ... thereby allowing the current predominant materialistic attitude to life to continue relatively unopposed by logic and reason.


  • #6011
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    ...the hypothesis that God directly created life.

    How would you test that hypothesis?


  • Advertisement
  • #6012
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    One possible motive would be to prevent science discovering that God exists and there is a continuity of existence after death.
    ... thereby allowing the current predominant materialistic attitude to life to continue relatively unopposed by logic and reason.

    And why would such a broad swathe of professions , power systems , belief systems , that can't agree on anything else agree on this and spent billions propagating it ?

    Why ?


  • #6013
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    And why would such a broad swathe of professions , power systems , belief systems , that can't agree on anything else agree on this and spent billions propagating it ?

    Why ?
    They may give the impression that they can't agree on anything ... but they do agree that science shouldn't investigate phenomena hypothesised to be caused by the supernatural.


  • #6014
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,888 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    Whatever about these clear myths ... investigations of phenomena hypothesised to be caused by the supernatural are specifically ruled out within conventional science ... or 'banned' in plain English.
    This has the practical effect of preventing conventional science ever properly investigating near death experiences and the hypothesis that God directly created life.

    Ruled out does not = banned it's just you (yet again) making up things to suit your own agenda.


  • #6015
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,888 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    ... but we don't just stop there ... we proceed to use the scientific method to evaluate the repeatably observable physical evidence that 'God did it' ... with considerable success I might add.

    Care to show this physical evidence and proof that "god" did it?


  • #6016
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    They may give the impression that they can't agree on anything ... but they do agree that science shouldn't investigate of phenomena hypothesised to be caused by the supernatural.

    I am asking you why JC , what is the motive , what is in it for them ?


  • #6017
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    I am asking you why JC , what is the motive , what is in it for them ?
    Like I have already said, one possible motive would be to prevent science discovering that God exists and that there is a continuity of existence after death.
    ... thereby allowing the current predominant materialistic attitude to life to continue relatively unopposed by logic and reason.


  • #6018
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Ruled out does not = banned it's just you (yet again) making up things to suit your own agenda.
    If an investigation is ruled out it is effectively banned ... why would you not say that it is banned?
    You're not doing yourselves any favours by engaging in pedantic sophistry on this one ... if you guys can't even accept what is objectively true about conventional science ... (that it rules out the investigation of supernatural causes for phenomena) and something that is accepted by all scientists ... then you're not exactly improving your credibility, when you come to speak about more contested and controversial issues ... like the origins of life, for example.


  • #6019
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,888 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    If an investigation is ruled out it is effectively banned ... why would you not say that it is banned?
    You're not doing yourselves any favours by engaging in pedantic sophistry on this one ... if you guys can't even accept what is objectively true about conventional science ... (that it rules out the investigation of supernatural causes for phenomena) and something that is accepted by all scientists ... then you're not exactly improving your credibility, when you come to speak about more contested and controversial issues ... like the origins of life, for example.

    If scientists wish to investigate supernatural phenomena then no one is stopping them hence they are not "banned" from investigation.

    Investigation is ruled out in relation to "god"/supernatural phenomena simply because there is no evidence to support "god"

    If there was evidence to support "god" then I'm sure there would be more investigation going on.


  • #6020
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Like I have already said, one possible motive would be to prevent science discovering that God exists and that there is a continuity of existence after death.
    ... thereby allowing the current predominant materialistic attitude to life to continue relatively unopposed by logic and reason.

    '' one possible motive '' you say - have you any others ?

    And how would a worldwide enterprise be coordinated across such diverse groups and over such a time span ? And all done and none of us aware of it ?

    And you still haven't explained their motives or even who 'they' are .


  • #6021
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    J C wrote: »
    ...the hypothesis that God directly created life.

    How would you test that hypothesis?

    Bump?


  • Advertisement
  • #6022
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,911 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    J C wrote: »
    Like I have already said, one possible motive would be to prevent science discovering that God exists and that there is a continuity of existence after death.
    ... thereby allowing the current predominant materialistic attitude to life to continue relatively unopposed by logic and reason.

    logic and reason? lol.

    And as for materialistic attitudes - can you show any evidence that non-religious or scientific people are any more materialistic than religious people? The Catholic church isn't exactly a shining example of non-materialism, is it? Are you suggesting that the people who go to mass each week are not interested in the things that money can buy? They don't buy new cars, get their houses redecorated, buy fashionable clothes? Really?


  • #6023
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    looksee wrote: »
    logic and reason? lol.

    And as for materialistic attitudes - can you show any evidence that non-religious or scientific people are any more materialistic than religious people? The Catholic church isn't exactly a shining example of non-materialism, is it? Are you suggesting that the people who go to mass each week are not interested in the things that money can buy? They don't buy new cars, get their houses redecorated, buy fashionable clothes? Really?
    I meant materialistic in the sense of believing that all phenomena has a materialistic cause (as distinct from an immaterial one).


  • #6024
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    How would you test that hypothesis?
    Before answering your question, I want to know ... if it can be done, do you think it should be done?


  • #6025
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Before answering your question, I want to know ... if it can be done, do you think it should be done?

    100% yes.


  • #6026
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    If scientists wish to investigate supernatural phenomena then no one is stopping them hence they are not "banned" from investigation.

    Investigation is ruled out in relation to "god"/supernatural phenomena simply because there is no evidence to support "god"
    As investigation is ruled out, any scientist who decides to investigate supernatural causes will be stopped from doing so within the realm of conventional science.
    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    If there was evidence to support "god" then I'm sure there would be more investigation going on.
    There is plenty of evidence that God created life ... but investigating it is ruled out within conventional science ... but it is pursued within Creation Science.


  • #6027
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    100% yes.
    Your enthusiasm isn't shared by conventional science ... where the investigation of any hypothesis involving God is specifically ruled out ... why do you think this is?


  • #6028
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    J C wrote: »
    Whatever about these clear myths ... investigations of phenomena hypothesised to be caused by the supernatural are specifically ruled out within conventional science ... or 'banned' in plain English.
    This has the practical effect of preventing conventional science ever properly investigating near death experiences and the hypothesis that God directly created life.
    That doesn't strike me as being at all true. Scientists investigate supposedly supernatural phenomena quite often, generally they just turn out to be natural phenomena upon investigation. They're not ruled out or banned, they're investigated and understood, by and large. I think you're just confusing the fact that when they're not understood scientists don't just claim they are explainable as being supernatural; they stick to the facts and say they don't know the explanation. Yet.


  • #6029
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    '' one possible motive '' you say - have you any others ?

    And how would a worldwide enterprise be coordinated across such diverse groups and over such a time span ? And all done and none of us aware of it ?

    And you still haven't explained their motives or even who 'they' are .
    If people have a common worldview that God doesn't exist, or if He does, He should be ignored ... this could lead to them believing that science shouldn't investigate whether He exists and created life.
    There would be no co-ordiation needed ... it would simply develop and be sustained 'organically' by such a shared worldview.


  • #6030
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Absolam wrote: »
    That doesn't strike me as being at all true. Scientists investigate supposedly supernatural phenomena quite often, generally they just turn out to be natural phenomena upon investigation. They're not ruled out or banned, they're investigated and understood, by and large. I think you're just confusing the fact that when they're not understood scientists don't just claim they are explainable as being supernatural; they stick to the facts and say they don't know the explanation. Yet.
    I think that when they investigate such phenomena their primary objective is to produce naturalistic explantions for these phenomena ... and if they fail to do so ... or even more devastatingly (for their worldview) begin to see that a God-like being may have done it (as in the origins of life) ... they quickly back off ... and tell every other scientist to back off as well.

    Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology wrote this very revealing comment which illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against the divine creation hypotesis within conventional science that I'm talking about ... regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

    ‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.


  • Advertisement
  • #6031
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    J C wrote: »
    Your enthusiasm isn't shared by conventional science ... where the investigation of any hypothesis involving God is specifically ruled out ... why do you think this is?
    I'd say it's because a hypothesis involving God isn't a hypothesis, it's a fabrication. A hypothesis is founded on knowledge and observation, and there is no knowledge or observation of God's involvement in anything; any attribution of deitical influence is purely speculative. If there was demonstrable evidence of God's involvement then I don't think scientists would hesitate to include it in a hypothesis; I imagine it would be something of a coup. Conversely, including a cause for which there is no evidence in a hypothesis would be a poor choice credibility wise.


Advertisement