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…199200202204205…232

Comments

  • #6032
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    J C wrote: »
    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.
    I think their objective is to produce demonstrably substantive explanations for the phenomena; not producing one would be far less devastating to a scientists worldview than claiming there's a definite but unevidenced and unsubstantiable explanation, because that would mean they were literally making it up.
    J C wrote: »
    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.
    I'm not convinced there are many scientific facts that are at odds with 'common sense', nor do I think that 'common sense' is any sort of reasonable yardstick for scientific endeavour. Indeed, I suspect that when facts appear absurd through the lens of 'common sense' it's not the facts that are at fault. I think, rather than relying on 'common sense', I'd like to see what these supposedly 'unsubstantiated just-so stories' actually are, and what foundation has been provided for them before I leap to any conclusions.
    J C wrote: »
    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.
    Mmm. I think substituting 'materialist' for 'evidenced' is more than a bit disingenuous. We have an a priori adherance to demonstrable causes, sure, but the reason that those causes are material is not because we only look for material causes, it's because there is, so far, only evidence for material causes.


  • #6033
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,888 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    So now you have moved on from making things up to just telling plain absurd lies.

    Again I'm sure you have evidence to support this ridiculous claim?


  • #6034
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,098 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    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.

    Why do you class dragons, fairies etc are clear myths? There are books about them, second/third hand accounts. There appears to be as much evidence for them as there is for God.

    How can you dismiss them so quickly?

    The only things banned in science are banned because of mainly religious beliefs. Work on human embryos etc. You can set up an experiment now if you so wish to prove God. Nobody is going to stop you. And if you have sufficient evidence it will be accepted.

    The catholic church for example always investigate potential miracles. Isn't that trying to verify God? The creationism museum has access to millions of $ and have scientists working on trying to prove all sorts of things.


  • #6035
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


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

    Do I think the hypothesis should be tested? Of course. Now, how would you test it?


  • #6036
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    ‘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.
    We have millions of highly qualified scientists, Doctors and professors, all of whom examine the evidence which supports the fact that the universe is billions of years old. What is patently absurd, is the fact that despite all of the evidence, people with no formal training, no qualifications, other than the fact that they have read the bible, disregard all that evidence, all the professors and doctors and declare that all of these learned people are wrong and the bible is right, while offering not one scrap of evidence to support their position.


  • Advertisement
  • #6037
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    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.

    But where did this common world view come from and when did it start ?


  • #6038
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    We have millions of highly qualified scientists, Doctors and professors, all of whom examine the evidence which supports the fact that the universe is billions of years old. What is patently absurd, is the fact that despite all of the evidence, people with no formal training, no qualifications, other than the fact that they have read the bible, disregard all that evidence, all the professors and doctors and declare that all of these learned people are wrong and the bible is right, while offering not one scrap of evidence to support their position.
    I'm sure that a similar paternalistic argument was made by the heirarchy of the medieval church to keep ordinary people in awe and ignorance ... with them being the beneficiaries of this awe.

    As has been pointed out ad nauseum ... Creation Scientists are eminently qualified conventional scientists ... and they are not "people with no formal training, no qualifications, other than the fact that they have read the bible", like you erroneously claim.

    They equally don't disregard evidence ... but instead provide substantial evidential and scientifically valid support for their hypotheses.


  • #6039
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    But where did this common world view come from and when did it start ?
    It goes right back to the Garden of Eden ... and the decision of Adam and Eve to reject God for the knowledge of good and evil.


  • #6040
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    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.

    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.

    Timberrrrrrrr
    So now you have moved on from making things up to just telling plain absurd lies.

    Again I'm sure you have evidence to support this ridiculous claim?
    Most of the time the policing of scientific papers prevents any paper with even with a hint of 'creationism' from ever being published ... but when one does get accidentially published ... 'all hell breaks loose' ... with the inevitable withdrawal of the paper.
    Just look at the emotion that this paper caused ... and the reference to a 'creator' in it was only a mis-translation.
    It just shows how Professor Richard Lewontin wasn't exaggerating when he said that modern science has a commitment so absolute to materialism that they cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. In this case, it wasn't even a Divine toe nail ... but even the perception that God got any 'look in' caused an immediate overwheming reaction with calls for boycotts and resignations !!!
    It turns out that the authors meant Nature instead of Creator!!!

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/07/hand-of-god-scientific-plos-one-anatomy-paper-citing-a-creator-retracted-after-furore

    ... and here is another example of one that 'got away' ... but was very swiftly put back in it's box.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

    Unfortunately its all true ... and I'm not a liar ... but the fact that I'm routinely called all the offensive names some posters can think of and they obviously believe that it is acceptable to do so, tells any objective observer of this thread, all they need to know about the bad-mouthing of Christians (and their beliefs) that is occurring in plain sight in our society.


  • #6041
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    It goes right back to the Garden of Eden ... and the decision of Adam and Eve to reject God for the knowledge of good and evil.

    But when did the world wide co-ordination of this whole business start ?


  • Advertisement
  • #6042
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    But when did the world wide co-ordination of this whole business start ?
    I don't think it is co-ordinated ... there are just so many people with an anti-theist and anti-christian outlook now, that it apparently occurs spontaneously.


  • #6043
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    They equally don't disregard evidence ... but instead provide substantial evidential and scientifically valid support for their hypotheses.
    Great, then please share some of this substantial evidential and scientifically valid support for their hypothses with us.


  • #6044
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    I don't think it is co-ordinated ... there are just so many people with an anti-theist and anti-christian outlook now, that it apparently occurs spontaneously.

    But this is the whole thing in a nutshell JC - for millennia religious believers controlled the means of dissemination of information so when did the balance tip ?

    And a practical question - you are a scientist yes ? You are familiar with carbon dating I take it . Now I am just a lay person so I only know of the technique and not how it works .

    So my question is if the earth is only 6000 years old are all those tests faked and if so how ?


  • #6045
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    But this is the whole thing in a nutshell JC - for millennia religious believers controlled the means of dissemination of information so when did the balance tip ?

    And a practical question - you are a scientist yes ? You are familiar with carbon dating I take it . Now I am just a lay person so I only know of the technique and not how it works .

    So my question is if the earth is only 6000 years old are all those tests faked and if so how ?
    Carbon Dating can only be used to date organic material that is theoretically less than 50,000 years because C14 has a half life of only 5,730 years.
    ... radio-carbon dating cannot even theoretically date inorganic rocks that are supposedly millions of years old ... and that is just one of the issues with such 'dating'.


  • #6046
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    But this is the whole thing in a nutshell JC - for millennia religious believers controlled the means of dissemination of information so when did the balance tip ?
    Religions never exclusively controlled the dissemination of information ... the various secret societies also controlled vast amounts of esoteric information ... that they have been deliberately 'leaking' and manipulating in a highly controlled manner ... down the millenia.


  • #6047
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Carbon Dating can only be used to date organic material that is theoretically less than 50,000 years because C14 has a half life of only 5,730 years.
    ... radio-carbon dating cannot even theoretically date inorganic rocks that are supposedly millions of years old ... and that is just one of the issues with such 'dating'.

    Yeah I understand that , but for you anything over 6000 years is a problem . So are you saying that these tests showing over that are wrong faked what ?


  • #6048
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Yeah I understand that , but for you anything over 6000 years is a problem . So are you saying that these tests showing over that are wrong faked what ?
    Contamination is an ever-present issue with this form of dating ... and wide-ranging/conflicting 'ages' are often determined for specific items.
    Reliability rapidly declines past a few thousand years.:)


  • #6049
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Religions never exclusively controlled the dissemination of information ... the various secret societies also controlled vast amounts of esoteric information ... that they have been deliberately 'leaking' and manipulating in a highly controlled manner ... down the millenia.

    Of course religions never exclusively controlled everything but they did to a greater or lesser extend and had the power and the willingness to use on anyone that deviated from their views .

    So when did this critical shift of information control happen ?


  • #6050
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Of course religions never exclusively controlled everything but they did to a greater or lesser extend and had the power and the willingness to use on anyone that deviated from their views .

    So when did this critical shift of information control happen ?
    In private there was always a balance of information between the church and the secret societies who were linked but also in competition with each other ... in any event, at the lower degrees.

    This continues to largely be the case ... but the start of the seizure of science as a critical vehicle to balance religion, and to exclude God, probably dates to the Enlightment.


  • #6051
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Carbon Dating can only be used to date organic material that is theoretically less than 50,000 years because C14 has a half life of only 5,730 years.
    ... radio-carbon dating cannot even theoretically date inorganic rocks that are supposedly millions of years old ... and that is just one of the issues with such 'dating'.

    Ohhh, very good JC, you sound so convincing. You are correct, of course, with your very, very limited explanation of the carbon dating method. Why would they use that for rocks?
    Now, tell us about the other methods of radio metric dating, which can be carried out, with something like a tolerance of 4% inaccuracy, on a nonogram of material.

    This is your way JC, selective choices and half truths to make it look like something is completely worthless, when it is, in fact, your explanation which is the problem.


  • Advertisement
  • #6052
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    In private there was always a balance of information between the church and the secret societies who were linked but also in competition with each other ... in any event, at the lower degrees.

    This continues to largely be the case ... but the start of the seizure of science as a critical vehicle to balance religion, and to exclude God, probably dates to the Enlightment.

    Ok now we have a starting point - the Enlightenment . Now we have to answer the next question - which is how could such disparate elements across the world and over a timespan of centuries co-ordinate their efforts and agree on the same hymn sheet despite being in competing systems and often at war with each other to the bitter end ?


  • #6053
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Contamination is an ever-present issue with this form of dating ... and wide-ranging/conflicting 'ages' are often determined for specific items.
    Reliability rapidly declines past a few thousand years.:)

    That may well be so J C but as in the oft quoted case of British Civil servant scoffing at the incompetent IRA landing a rocket in the garden of Downing St . to which the IRA guy replied 'we only have to be right once '

    Similarly with this dating process it only has to be right once for your argument to fall down . So I ask you is every test ever undertaken wrong ?


  • #6054
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I'm still waiting to hear how we test the hypothesis that God directly created life.


  • #6055
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Ok now we have a starting point - the Enlightenment . Now we have to answer the next question - which is how could such disparate elements across the world and over a timespan of centuries co-ordinate their efforts and agree on the same hymn sheet despite being in competing systems and often at war with each other to the bitter end ?
    They may well seem disparate and in competition ... but they all are co-ordinated nontheless.
    ... and 'softer' control by propagandising mega-ideas (like spontaneous Evolution, the Big Bang, etc.) also helps this co-ordination.

    It's basically copying what religion formerly did using the infallible Word of God ... anti-religion now does this, using the fallible word of man.


  • #6056
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    That may well be so J C but as in the oft quoted case of British Civil servant scoffing at the incompetent IRA landing a rocket in the garden of Downing St . to which the IRA guy replied 'we only have to be right once '

    Similarly with this dating process it only has to be right once for your argument to fall down . So I ask you is every test ever undertaken wrong ?
    Your logic on this evades me ... in the case of radiometric dating, how does a series of dates, only one of which can be right, do anything for it other than prove it to be unreliable?


  • #6057
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm still waiting to hear how we test the hypothesis that God directly created life.
    Your enthusiasm for Creation Science is commendable ... but first I need to establish definitively and for the avoidance of doubt, that conventional science explicitly rules out the investigation of supernatural causes for physical phenomena.
    When we all agree on this, we can then move on to the really exciting stuff that you are asking about.


  • #6058
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    Ohhh, very good JC, you sound so convincing. You are correct, of course, with your very, very limited explanation of the carbon dating method. Why would they use that for rocks?
    Now, tell us about the other methods of radio metric dating, which can be carried out, with something like a tolerance of 4% inaccuracy, on a nonogram of material.
    Its true that we can measure isotope concentrations and ratios with extraordinary levels of accuracy ... it's when we come to interpreting what these numbers mean, that the (dating) 'wheels come off'.
    Safehands wrote: »
    This is your way JC, selective choices and half truths to make it look like something is completely worthless, when it is, in fact, your explanation which is the problem.
    You must be confusing me with some Evolutionists of your aquaintance !!!:)


  • #6059
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    Your enthusiasm for Creation Science is commendable ... but first I need to establish definitively and for the avoidance of doubt, that conventional science explicitly rules out the investigation of supernatural causes for physical phenomena.
    When we all agree on this, we can then move on to the really exciting stuff that you are asking about.

    That looks suspiciously like avoiding the question.


  • #6060
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Your logic on this evades me ... in the case of radiometric dating, how does a series of dates, only one of which can be right, do anything for it other than prove it to be unreliable?

    If any methodology shows a date over 6000 years your thesis is in trouble . Unless you are contending all those dating mechanisms are false ?


  • Advertisement
  • #6061
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    They may well seem disparate and in competition ... but they all are co-ordinated nontheless.
    ... and 'softer' control by propagandising mega-ideas (like spontaneous Evolution, the Big Bang, etc.) also helps this co-ordination.

    It's basically copying what religion formerly did using the infallible Word of God ... anti-religion now does this, using the fallible word of man.

    How are they co-ordinated ?


Advertisement