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…1011131516…232

Comments

  • #362
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Sarky wrote: »
    Because it doesn't work.

    But I felt to simply write that would have been a rather short sentence .... :D


  • #363
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    But I felt to simply write that would have been a rather short sentence .... :D

    Which is what the peddlers of creationism should be serving :p


  • #364
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Irish famine 1845 to 1852, Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859. Yeah I can see how it caused that one :rolleyes:
    No. Evolution is not social Darwinism. Creationism is spreading among fundi xians because they are being deceived by liars and fools. Yes the exploitative have distorted evolution to justify their greed but before that they justified it by the divine right of kings and god's will, so what one liar is no different to another.

    Fair enough but Darwin's theories tapped into and re-enforced the (demonic) spirit of the age.

    Have you seriously studied what creationist sciencists have to say? If not the whole liars and fools judgement seems pretty bigoted.

    What are fundi Xians? Usually the term refers to the better type of Protestant- can "conservative" and Traditionalist Roman Catholics be called fundi Xians? Can the Eastern Orthodox?

    The old order with its tyranny based on blood was a lot better and more just than the new one based on gold, greed, lies and naked force. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336143/Medieval-Britons-twice-rich-poor-Third-World-today.html


  • #365
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I know several scientists. And I'm not bad-mouthing any scientist. Merely stating the facts.

    You are bad mouthing scientists.

    You are suggesting that millions of scientists across history and currently working, are either purposefully lying or willingly promoting false hoods out of fear in order to maintain in public consciousness a group of false scientific theories, theories that strangely enough only have one thing in common, they contradict your interpretation of your holy book's creation story.

    Contrast that with the alternative.

    Out of millions of scientists there are a few hundred deeply religious and very vocal people who object to these particular theories because they believe they contradict their specific religious texts. Despite trying with the religious certainty that they must be correct, they have been unable to demonstrate to the necessary scientific standards the inaccuracy of these theories or the accuracy of alternatives that are compatible with their religious books.

    They rationalize the unwillingness of the others (of multiple religions and cultures, in multiple, disciplines with multiple backgrounds, multiple funding routes, multiple associations) to accept their religiously compatible ideas not as a failing on their part and their science, but instead as the product of a massive systematic conspiracy of ignorance on the part of all significant scientific bodies and associations who all for some reason wish to promote a set of false theories, theories that just happen to align exactly with the theories these religious people believe contradict their particular interpretation of their holy book.

    Now honestly Wolfsbane, which do you really think is more likely. A massive systematic organized conspiracy operating for over 150 years taking in significant branches of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, effecting industries with billions of dollars at stake, involving people of multiple religions and creeds from different countries and different backgrounds.

    Or a small group of devoutly religious people for whom if these scientific theories were true they believe would contradict their holy books and thus destroy their religion, who used the Internet to become very vocal about their opposition to this and the truth that these theories must not be true.

    Or to put it another way, why to Young Earth Creationists only think this massive scientific conspiracy effects the specific theories they believe contradict the Bible? Surely if such a conspiracy was happening it should effect far more, huge portions of scientific knowledge should be false.

    Or is it the case that the only theories scientists have any interest in falsifying are the ones that specific relate to the YEC interpretation of the Bible? Again, what are the odds. What do you honestly think is more likely.

    (remember we are not just talking about Darwinian evolution here, YEC contradicts a whole host of scientific theories in physics and geology).


  • #366
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Have you seriously studied what creationist sciencists have to say? If not the whole liars and fools judgement seems pretty bigoted.
    Define serious study? any cursory reading of their 'theory' shows so many holes it would make a better colander than bucket. But just for you know what and giggles I'l give it a go.
    Another Daily Wail link, what is it about the DM that attracts the reactionary?
    ^rhetorical question.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Define serious study? any cursory reading of their 'theory' shows so many holes it would make a better colander than bucket. But just for you know what and giggles I'l give it a go.
    Another Daily Wail link, what is it about the DM that attracts the reactionary?
    ^rhetorical question.

    Read the article based on serious acedemic sources; people were better off in Middle Ages than they are in the countries being sucked dry at the moment. The Daily Mail is often thick and bigoted in a very British way but it is also often very much on the ball, it is worthy of much more respect than the trash that passes as a "Free Press" in Ireland.


  • #368
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    Read the article based on serious acedemic sources; people were better off in Middle Ages than they are in the countries being sucked dry at the moment.

    Er that isn't what the paper or even the article says. They say that the average wage was higher. That is significantly different to saying they were better off. The average industrial wage in Chernobyl was higher than most third world countries, doesn't mean you would have wanted to be living there in the late 1980s.


  • #369
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Right, I said I'd give it a chance and true to my word I did.
    Spent last night and most of today going through thees sites.
    http://www.creationism.org/index.htm
    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
    http://www.icr.org/
    I want my time back.
    Please please tell me this is a joke?
    Do any of the people involved in this have any clue what their talking about? I'm being generous here assuming that they are misguided fools because the alternative is so deeply evil.
    Not once did I have to think about the 'facts' or 'evidence' presented as it is so many PRATT arguments that I cant believe anyone still holds a creationist view for any reason other than stubborn defensive ignorance.
    I'm sorry if I offend the creationists here (I'm not really, you deserve all the abuse you get) but just admit that you expound this stuff just to be contrary and stop the pretense it scientific.
    Oh and stop pretending your defending God, He doesn't need charlatans and manipulators and liars on His side.
    Apart from the fact that evolution contradicts Genesis -which Genesis dose anyway- whats the problem? Genesis was dust once the time frame of earth was understood to be far in excess of biblical time! Oh no it wasn't, because no one ever took it literally until recently, why?
    Anyone?
    Otherwise dust from my liberal sandals.


  • #370
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    gkell2 wrote: »
    Don't make me laugh !,peer review is the most anti-evolutionary,anti-competitive setup you can get.I am not an empiricist so as an outsider I can describe how sterile it is.The peer reviewers only pass opinions that secure their own jobs and reputations and the proposer has no incentive to do anything other than please the reviewers.
    Total nonsense. Reputations and fortunes are made if you can overturn the orthodoxy. Name a dozen famous scientists; did they confirm the current orthodoxy, or revolutionise their fields?


  • #371
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Morbert wrote: »
    Wave functions are quantum states. They tell us what will be observed, but they are not observables themselves. For example, electron wave functions tell us we observe this pattern if we send them through slits in a wall.

    ElectronIntPattern2.gif

    Similarly, the wave function of the universe is a mathematical description of the quantum state of the universe, telling us how it evolves and what we observe, without being observable itself.


    So what you are saying is that a wave function is a mathematical concept that has no existence beyond our minds and serves soley to make probalistic predictions.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    So if human = homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis is a different species to homo sapiens (again clue is in the name) how are they human?

    I take it you have no understanding of basic biology. The clue is in the genus - homo

    Both are human, however both are different species. Different human species.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Not my fault you didn't think that through Festus.

    I'm not the one who is clueless when it comes to biology.


  • #373
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Neanderthals existed at the same time as humans.

    Neantherthals were humans that existed at the same time as humans is an awkward if true statement.

    I never said they didn't exist at the same time as homo sapiens.


  • #374
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Sound is not a thing. It is the compression of air molecules at different frequencies. The air molecules already exists, it is simply their arrangement that is altered.



    A light wave is simply an expression of energy. The energy is not created, it is simply converted from one form into another.

    Neither of those examples are things that begin to exist, they are re-arrangements of things that already exist. In fact energy can never be created, simply converted.

    So again can you provide an example for the claim that everything that begins has a cause.

    A theory.


  • #375
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Wh1stler wrote: »
    Would you evade one less than the other? It doesn't matter: if you think that Adam was the first human and that neanderthals were humans, then either Adam was a neanderthal or neanderthals came later than Adam-like humans.

    Check mate I think on this issue.

    How so. Adam was the first homo sapiens. We have no evidence that homo sapiens neanderthalensis used names for each other.


  • #376
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I could present such a case very easily, but I think you would be dissatisfied if I stated that it was 'part of my faith'.

    On the other hand, I'm just showing you the inconsistency of stating that nothing begins without a cause, and then citing a God who does just that. This clearly means that you allow the possibility that certain things/phenomena/whatever can begin without a cause, negating your own claim.

    Do you have an example of something tangible that has a causeless begining?


  • #377
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    The fact that you can make a distinction here speaks volumes about the problems you encounter taking a literal interpretation of the Bible, and the folly of trying to learn your science from the bible.

    I don't take a literal interpretation of the Bible. I learned science from science books and science teachers.
    The fact remains that science has boundaries.


  • #378
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Wh1stler wrote: »
    And in any case, the whereabouts of God would have no bearing on how the Universe develops.


    Why would it. God is everywhere so His whereabouts at the time He created the universe is redundant.


  • #379
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Wh1stler wrote: »
    Nor does prophecy effect the development of the Universe.

    Only physics can effect the development of the Universe.

    Until 'Physics' and 'God' are synonymous, (and therefore 'the laws of physics' would be the same as 'the law of God'), then there is no point at all in trying to understand the Universe as 'God's creation'.

    It has to be physics' creation.

    How did physics do it?


  • #380
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Festus wrote: »
    Do you have an example of something tangible that has a causeless begining?

    What has that to do with evolution?


  • #381
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Festus wrote: »
    Do you have an example of something tangible that has a causeless begining?
    Do you have an example of anything intangible?


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Morbert wrote: »
    Not only do Creationists ignore science, they do not understand what science is. Creationism cannot be tested. It is as scientific as the belief that Thor causes lightning, and hence rightly rejected by the scientific community.

    Evolutionary biologists, on the other hand, employ rigorous methods of investigation to a wide range of evidence, and have consistently and repeatedly tested and verified Darwinian evolution.

    Research is one thing but testing and verifying evolution would required experimentation. Do you have examples?

    To the best of my knowledge new species are either created by scientists or discovered in the wild. No one has actually observed the moment a new species spontaneously comes into existence outside of germ warfare labs where again the word spontaneous is redundant as the scientists manipulate, effectively playing God.
    As for the rise of a new genus, that is outside of scientific experimentation for the moment. New genera are discovered. They are never observed coming into existence.


  • #383
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Do you have an example of anything intangible?

    A wave function.


  • #384
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Festus wrote: »
    A wave function.
    Presumably these always existed, before they were discovered?


  • #385
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Presumably these always existed, before they were discovered?

    Got a picture of one?

    I suppose you think maths always existed and was just waiting to be discovered.


  • #386
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Festus wrote: »
    Got a picture of one?

    I suppose you think maths always existed and was just waiting to be discovered.
    You don't? Can you explain that position?

    And do you have a picture of god?


  • #387
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    You don't? Can you explain that position?

    I didn't say whether I did or did not. I'm curious as to your position.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    And do you have a picture of god?

    Sorry, my camera doesn't have enought pixels. There are some images of His Son on the internet if you are interested.


  • #388
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Festus wrote: »
    I didn't say whether I did or did not. I'm curious as to your position.
    I'm touched by your curiosity.
    Festus wrote: »
    Sorry, my camera doesn't have enought pixels. There are some images of His Son on the internet if you are interested.
    Oddly enough, these images tend to depict a very European man. Not the Semitic Jewish person you might expect - it's as if Jesus was created in the artist's image. But then I'd argue that man creates his Gods in his own image too. Hence different cultures arriving at differing divinities.


  • #389
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I'm touched by your curiosity.

    I'd rather you come clean and state what you believe as regards mathematics.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Oddly enough, these images tend to depict a very European man. Not the Semitic Jewish person you might expect - it's as if Jesus was created in the artist's image. But then I'd argue that man creates his Gods in his own image too. Hence different cultures arriving at differing divinities.

    Man creates? Funny how those who would deny God seem to take great pleasure in the wonders of mans creativity. I would have thought taking pleasure in showing how wonderfully order things appear from disorder regularly and demonstrating the spontaneous creativity of randomness and probablility collapses would be more their bag. Do you not find it strange how a species that abhors and despises randomness and disorder should spend so much time, money and energy try to prove that their existence is nothing more than an unexplainable random cosmic accident?

    Anyway, I'm partial to the Turin image.


  • #390
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    Festus wrote: »
    I'd rather you come clean and state what you believe as regards mathematics.



    Man creates? Funny how those who would deny God seem to take great pleasure in the wonders of mans creativity. I would have thought taking pleasure in showing how wonderfully order things appear from disorder regularly and demonstrating the spontaneous creativity of randomness and probablility collapses would be more their bag. Do you not find it strange how a species that abhors and despises randomness and disorder should spend so much time, money and energy try to prove that their existence is nothing more than an unexplainable random cosmic accident?

    Anyway, I'm partial to the Turin image.
    You seem to think that their is some kind of conspiracy, or some such nonsense, to "prove" that their isn't a God. You clearly have no concept of these things, or even understand why atheists are atheists. Science isn't about trying to prove a pre-disposed hypothesis. It is about looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on that evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Gumbi wrote: »
    You seem to think that their is some kind of conspiracy, or some such nonsense, to "prove" that their isn't a God. You clearly have no concept of these things, or even understand why atheists are atheists. Science isn't about trying to prove a pre-disposed hypothesis. It is about looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on that evidence.


    Oh, I fully understand why atheists are atheists. Strange thing is why do they insist on trying to convince themselves that evolution made a mistake.


Advertisement