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…7273757778…232

Comments

  • #2222
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    J C wrote: »
    God Created the Earth as well as a source of light (that wasn't the Sun) on the First Day.
    This source of light continued until the stars and the Sun was created on the Fourth Day.

    Why would he do that? Why would he make the earth periodically go dark (as if there were stars and a spinning planet) until he created the stars on what sounds like the 4th day?


  • #2223
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    J C wrote: »
    God Created the Earth as well as a source of light (that wasn't the Sun) on the First Day.
    This source of light continued until the stars and the Sun was created on the Fourth Day.
    How do you know that? That's an assertion, JC, on you can't back up. It flies in the face of Occam's Razor, too.


  • #2224
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    *cough*troll*cough* ... *cough*not-real-scientist*cough* ... *cough*not-actually-Christian*cough* ... sorry, terrible cough these days :P
    Is this some kind of confession on your part? ... cough!!!:)


  • #2225
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Why would he do that? Why would he make the earth periodically go dark (as if there were stars and a spinning planet) until he created the stars on what sounds like the 4th day?
    Perhaps to show that the Sun isn't required to produce night and day ... thereby putting the nature worshippers 'Sun God' firmly in it's place.


  • #2226
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gumbi wrote: »
    How do you know that? That's an assertion, JC, on you can't back up. It flies in the face of Occam's Razor, too.
    How so?


  • Advertisement
  • #2227
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    J C wrote: »
    How so?

    You assumed that God "made" another light source until such a time as the sun was created. That is nothing other than conjecture.

    The more reasonable conclusion would be that the writers of that time did not necessarily know that light on Earth was provided by the Sun, and so made a mistake in their writings.


  • #2228
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    My quote was from the Smithsonian Institute ... and they put the origins of life at 3,500 million Evolutionist years ago ... and you say it was 500 million Evolutionist years ago ... either way ... it roughly translates into about 10,000 Sideral Years.:)

    Please let Mr. Attenborough know this. He seems to be making a fool of himself with all these nonsensical programmes about the Earth at a time when God was actually planning ways to fool future generations into thinking that they could make such TV programmes. If only Mr. Attenborough knew that there were so many people watching his utterings, shaking their heads saying "what an eejit". How could an international, globally respected documentary maker get it so wrong. We should petition the BBC to make some documentaries about how the Earth really started. Why has that never happened? Why does the Discovery channel, The Science channel, the BBC and National Geographic never present us with the truth. Why do you think they are trying to mislead us all by offering the opinions of their so called Scientists. Why do you, JC, the man with all the answers, allow this to happen?


  • #2229
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    Please let Mr. Attenborough know this. He seems to be making a fool of himself with all these nonsensical programmes about the Earth at a time when God was actually planning ways to fool future generations into thinking that they could make such TV programmes. If only Mr. Attenborough knew that there were so many people watching his utterings, shaking their heads saying "what an eejit". How could an international, globally respected documentary maker get it so wrong. We should petition the BBC to make some documentaries about how the Earth really started. Why has that never happened? Why does the Discovery channel, The Science channel, the BBC and National Geographic never present us with the truth. Why do you think they are trying to mislead us all by offering the opinions of their so called Scientists. Why do you, JC, the man with all the answers, allow this to happen?
    David is an amazing man ... who has brought the wonders of God's Creation into all of our living rooms ... and I often watch his excellent programmes and I have the height of admiration for him ... but I don't agree with everything he says ... but c'est la vie!!

    Some very eminent scientists are 'long age' Evolutionists ... while other eminent scientists are 'young earth' Creationists.
    Everybody is entitled to their opinion on these matters.
    No need for disparaging comments about either side.
    Just get on with examining the evidence and the logic of both sides in a respecful manner.


  • #2230
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gumbi wrote: »
    You assumed that God "made" another light source until such a time as the sun was created. That is nothing other than conjecture.

    The more reasonable conclusion would be that the writers of that time did not necessarily know that light on Earth was provided by the Sun, and so made a mistake in their writings.
    The Sun is pretty obviously the current source of daylight on Earth ... so the obvious thing to say (if they were making up the Bible themselves) would be that God made the Sun and the Earth simultaneously ... but Genesis counter-intuitively says that the Earth was Created first ... and day and night pre-dated the Sun.


  • #2231
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    J C wrote: »
    CFSI is self-explanatory ... just like a spherical planet is self-explanatory.

    Like I have said, you're starting to sound like an increasingly desperate 'flat earther' trying to deny the existence of a spherical planet by saying that a 'Spherical Planet' lacks a scientific defintion ... when it is staring you in the face.

    I have given a definition of 'spherical planet'. I am not trying to deny the existence of CFSI, because I don't know what it is. I am asking you to define it, but it seems that you can't. The Emperor has no clothes.

    Scientist? I remain to be convinced.


  • Advertisement
  • #2232
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Pauldla, it's almost like, I don't know, once you give a decent definition and/or working hypothesis, other people can begin to investigate your claims. Imagine that! ;)

    That way is madness, doctoremma. They'd know it is all codology, and then we'd be truly dished. Better to keep obscuring, stalling, lying and playing word-games until the Good Lord returns (just like He'd want us to). He'll put everything straight. :)


  • #2233
    maguffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭maguffin


    Here is a link for ALL to read regarding work at the Smithsonian Institute:

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

    have fun!!....and JC....watch out!!


  • #2234
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    My quote was from the Smithsonian Institute ... and they put the origins of life at 3,500 million Evolutionist years ago ... and you say it was 500 million Evolutionist years ago ... either way ... it roughly translates into about 10,000 Sideral Years.:)
    Please define 'sidereal year' and how it differs from an 'evolutionist year'. I think this will help you to understand how abjectly incorrect your statement is.


  • #2235
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    CFSI is self-explanatory ... just like a spherical planet is self-explanatory

    JC, the identification 'spherical planet' is manifestly not self-explanatory unless one has definitions for the terms 'spherical' and 'planet'.

    Please define the following terms in the context of CSFI:
    Complex
    Specified
    Functional
    Information

    It would be very helpful if you could include a note about how we detect each of those properties as well.


  • #2236
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    doctoremma wrote: »
    JC, the identification 'spherical planet' is manifestly not self-explanatory unless one has definitions for the terms 'spherical' and 'planet'.

    Please define the following terms in the context of CSFI:
    Complex
    Specified
    Functional
    Information

    It would be very helpful if you could include a note about how we detect each of those properties as well.

    Doctoremma, it will take ages for him to Google an explanation which is suitably vague and riddled with technical jargon which satisfies his poor understanding of all things scientific. I'm looking forward to reading his reply.


  • #2237
    K_user
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,041 ✭✭✭K_user


    Famous quote time:

    “when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.”

    This sentence pretty much sums up creationism and explains why there can be no true open conversation that leads to a better understanding.

    Creationist's believe that everyone else is wrong, and that they already have the answer, because someone wrote it down two thousand years ago. The fact that what was written has been adapted, translated and refined, has no bearing on anything.

    Scientific data is wrong...because they say it is...no other reason...no counter proofs needed...no other theories required...its wrong...

    Throw as much facts, figures, proof, examples, theories, maths, timelines, geological information, as you can at them, it doesn't matter.

    Ask for as many explanations off a creationist, or reasons, as you can, but you won't get anything, because they don't need to provide them, they are right, because the bible tells them that they are.


    Its like trying to explain to a child that the shapes thrown on their curtains at night, are just the shadows of the leaves moving in the street light. Show them the tree, show them the light, make shapes with you hand, have them make shapes with their hands. But they won't believe you, because they know that the shapes on their curtains are monsters that only they can see... :D


  • #2238
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    Old Testament Law is confined to Old Testament times ... whch were under law.
    We are now in the Church Era of God's mercy ... and Jesus has told us that there are only two Commandments[/B] to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

    Mt 22:34-40
    Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

    37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    Right JC. Before Jesus was born and gave new commandments, was it right to stone women to death for adultery or to kill your child if they did certain things to offend you?


  • #2239
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    maguffin wrote: »
    Here is a link for ALL to read regarding work at the Smithsonian Institute:

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

    have fun!!....and JC....watch out!!

    Surely not!! Another well respected institution, just like Mr. Attenborough, who believes the Earth is millions of years old. What is JC going to do?


  • #2240
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    maguffin wrote: »
    Here is a link for ALL to read regarding work at the Smithsonian Institute:

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

    have fun!!....and JC....watch out!!
    I looked at it ... and I had fun!!!

    ... anyway have ye agreed on when life supposedly started ... was it 500 million Evolutionist years ago ... or 3,500 million Evolutionist years ago?

    ... I need to know ... to work out how many Evolutionist Years equal a Sideral Year.

    If life started 500 million Evolutionist years ago then a Sideral Year equals approximately 50,000 Evolutionist Years ... but if it was 3,500 million Evolutionist years ago then a Sideral Year equals approximately 350,000 Evolutionist Years?


  • #2241
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    Right JC. Before Jesus was born and gave new commandments, was it right to stone women to death for adultery or to kill your child if they did certain things to offend you?
    I personally don't think it was right ... but it was the law that the Israelites gave themselves on the instigation of Moses.
    Law can only condemn ... but grace forgives.


  • Advertisement
  • #2242
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... I need to know ... to work out how many Evolutionist Years equal a Sideral Year.?
    Clue: they are equal length.

    It's only in the bible that days can equal years can equal millenia.


  • #2243
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    J C wrote: »
    I looked at it ... and I had fun!!!

    ... anyway have ye agreed on when life supposedly started ... was it 500 million Evolutionist years ago ... or 3,500 million Evolutionist years ago?

    ... I need to know ... to work out how many Evolutionist Years equal a Sideral Year.

    If life started 500 million Evolutionist years ago then a Sideral Year equals approximately 50,000 Evolutionist Years ... but if it was 3,500 million Evolutionist years ago then a Sideral Year equals approximately 350,000 Evolutionist Years?

    I'm almost afraid to ask, but what do you mean by "evolutionist year" exactly?


  • #2244
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    I'm almost afraid to ask, but what do you mean by "evolutionist year" exactly?
    It appears to be a year that is shorter by a factor of 10,000, compared to a sidereal year, such that there are 10,000* "evolutionist" years in 1 sidereal year. This puts the "evolutionist" year at approx. 52 minutes in length.

    *I assume this correction ratio is achieved by biblical methods.


  • #2245
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    JC, the identification 'spherical planet' is manifestly not self-explanatory unless one has definitions for the terms 'spherical' and 'planet'.
    ... so are you saying that you don't know what the words 'spherical' and 'planet' means ... unless somebody tells you what they mean, every time you encounter these words.
    You must have very interesting conversations, if every word that is used has to be explained and defined for you.:)
    doctoremma wrote: »
    Please define the following terms in the context of CSFI:
    Complex
    Specified
    Functional
    Information

    It would be very helpful if you could include a note about how we detect each of those properties as well.
    The words are self-explanatory ... the breakthrough in our scientific understanding is the fact that Information that is Complex Specified and Functional is observed to always have an intelligent source, where that source can be identified.
    The combinatorial space occupied by CFSI is so enormous, that random or non-intelligently directed processes would be mathematically defeated long before even small amounts of CFSI (like even a few signal characters) are produced.


  • #2246
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    It appears to be a year that is shorter by a factor of 10,000, compared to a sidereal year, such that there are 10,000* "evolutionist" years in 1 sidereal year. This puts the "evolutionist" year at approx. 52 minutes in length.

    *I assume this correction ratio is achieved by biblical methods.
    An Evolutionist Year seems to be somewhere between 90 Sideral Seconds and about 11 Sideral Minutes ... but the Evolutionists haven't decided exactly how long it is.:)


  • #2247
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... so are you saying that you don't know what the words 'spherical' and 'planet' means ... unless somebody tells you what they mean, every time you encounter these words..
    *sigh*
    I am saying, as well you have to know, that if I didn't know what the words "spherical" nor "planet" meant, I would be none the wiser if someone told me that we occupied a spherical planet, amidst a grouping of other spherical planets, orbiting the sun.

    Once someone gives me a definition of "spherical" and a definition of "planet", I have something to work with.
    J C wrote: »
    The words are self-explanatory
    No they aren't. I know the dictionary definition of "complex" and I am happy to describe certain things as "complex". However, "complex" is relative - a bicycle is complex compared to a scooter, but not when compared to a space shuttle. Furthermore, things that are apparently "complex" to me may be "simple" to others.

    And that's just quibbling over a few features of the first part of your CSFI acronym.

    Perhaps we could start (even more) gently?

    Define "complex" in terms of CSFI.


  • #2248
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    I'm almost afraid to ask, but what do you mean by "evolutionist year" exactly?
    ... as Father Jack might say ... that's an eucuminical question!!!:):D


  • #2249
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    *sigh*
    I am saying, as well you have to know, that if I didn't know what the words "spherical" nor "planet" meant, I would be none the wiser if someone told me that we occupied a spherical planet, amidst a grouping of other spherical planets, orbiting the sun.

    Once someone gives me a definition of "spherical" and a definition of "planet", I have something to work with.


    No they aren't. I know the dictionary definition of "complex" and I am happy to describe certain things as "complex". However, "complex" is relative - a bicycle is complex compared to a scooter, but not when compared to a space shuttle. Furthermore, things that are apparently "complex" to me may be "simple" to others.

    And that's just quibbling over a few features of the first part of your CSFI acronym.

    Perhaps we could start (even more) gently?

    Define "complex" in terms of CSFI.
    Why are you *sighing*???

    Complex information is information that isn't simple ... like a repetitive cypher.


  • #2250
    maguffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭maguffin


    There is no such thing as 'Sideral Year'.......JC is misquoting.

    A 'Sidereal Year' is defined here....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_year

    and the use of 'Sidereal Time' is outlined here....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

    JC has no foundation, no substance and really no credability in any of this whole debate.


  • Advertisement
  • #2251
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    Why are you *sighing*???
    Because your continual dodging on this thread is tiresome. I wish you were able to talk normally, discuss points, you know, rational discourse and all that. Sometimes, you come up with some interesting observations, scientific oddities that are worthy of discussion. But it just gets lost in this mire of obtuse buffoonery and emoticon hellishness.
    J C wrote: »
    Complex information is information that isn't simple ... like a repetitive cypher.
    So anything not repetitive is 'complex' and anything repetitive cannot be 'complex'? If that's what your definition is, why couldn't you just supply it without all the crap beforehand?

    Is 'information' contained in the genomic sequence or in an output of the genomic sequence?


Advertisement