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…100101103105106…232

Comments

  • #3062
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    JC, I can present several formal pieces of evidence that I am Catholic. There are official records that testify to this. Am I Catholic? Of course not. If you want to claim to be a 'scientist', you have to act like a 'scientist'. Formal qualifications are not necessary, but nor does their existence assume that the bearer is such.

    'Stupid is as stupid does'.

    Now, you are still skirting around the questions. If a scientist wishes to identify a supernatural origin of life, how do you propose they frame that to a funding body? Remember: funding bodies fund experiments, not interpretations of experiments. I'm not asking you to come up with a research plan, I'm asking you what the gist would be.

    Despite what you say, there IS a body of funded and peer-reviewed research that could be construed as 'creationist' in motivation, and is oft-cited by your gang as nails in the coffin for evolutionary theory in its current form. What say you of this? Bizarrely, I suspect you ignore its existence - doesn't fit with your current rant against science, doesn't explicitly mention in papers that 'god dunnit' - when this is the very work you SHOULD be using to support your theory. Instead of the non-scientific, poorly-conducted rubbish that comes from the ICR.


  • #3063
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    Go ask the ID and Theistic Evolutionists what they want to do.

    Please leave me out of it.

    JC, you are the one who is going on about science spending money investigating God and creation. "Evolutionists" as you call them, are quite happy to investigate any available evidence. I am asking you to offer a suggestion about something which scientists can get their teeth into and investigate as a real possibility, which would satisfy you.
    You said about these once off Biblical manifestations, that supposedly occurred: "I don't know personally ... but I know somebody who does ... and He has said that it happened ... and I believe Him." Do you really think that any scientific organisation should spend time investigating something which someone told you was true, even though there is not one jot of evidence to support this tale? My Mother told me Santa Clause was true, and I believed her. Then I grew up!


  • #3064
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    ... and how do you think that such a search could be done at distances measured in light years ?
    I think the clue is in the title SETI ... the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.
    The search is for evidence of Intelligence ... and one way that it is pursued is by using radio-telescopes to scan the sky for intelligently produced signals/information.
    ... so SETI is searching for signals/information that an (ET) Intelligence did.
    The science developed for identifying ET Intelligent activity can also be used to identify other Intelligent activity ... such as that found in living systems and processes.

    You do know that the search for extraterrestrial intelligence does not include searching for god, right?

    And from their own FAQ page:
    SETI staffer wrote:
    SETI is an acronym for Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. It is an effort to detect evidence of technological civilizations that may exist elsewhere in the universe, particularly in our galaxy. There are potentially billions of locations outside our solar system that may host life. With our current technology, we have the ability to discover evidence of cosmic habitation where life has evolved and developed to a technological level at least as advanced as our own.

    They are looking for life like ours, maybe a bit advanced maybe a bit behind but at a similar technological level and broadly similar psychological make up (aliens psychologically significantly different from us will be less likely to develop on similar lines to us).

    At no point on that page is "god", "deity" or "creator" mentioned, thus disproving your notion that SETI is looking for god.


  • #3065
    Aquarius34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Aquarius34


    Advanced life forms would never use religion as a means to connect with creation either. The only reason religion and the likes of the Vatican now accept the existence of E.ts is because they have to merge with the modern times in order to survive.


  • #3066
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    Why so?

    Because you'd have had a sufficient groundwork in the scientific method, what constitutes as evidence (hint: it's not "whatever JC says", despite your desires), and the process for gaining funding in scientific research.

    I'm a business studies graduate and I know more about science than you do. FFS!

    As I said previously, every time you pretend to be a scientist or have received scientific qualifications, you are lying, and if you want to disprove me, post your scientific qualifications from a recognised third level institution (we'll spot fake qualifications, fake universities {like BJU} and photoshopped qualifications, so don't bother with them).


  • Advertisement
  • #3067
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    As I said previously, every time you pretend to be a scientist or have received scientific qualifications, you are lying, and if you want to disprove me, post your scientific qualifications from a recognised third level institution (we'll spot fake qualifications, fake universities {like BJU} and photoshopped qualifications, so don't bother with them).

    Mod note: No one is to post scans etc of qualifications here - if they are posted, they will be taken down and infractions/bans will follow.


  • #3068
    Aquarius34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Aquarius34


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Because you'd have had a sufficient groundwork in the scientific method, what constitutes as evidence (hint: it's not "whatever JC says", despite your desires), and the process for gaining funding in scientific research.

    I'm a business studies graduate and I know more about science than you do. FFS!

    As I said previously, every time you pretend to be a scientist or have received scientific qualifications, you are lying, and if you want to disprove me, post your scientific qualifications from a recognised third level institution (we'll spot fake qualifications, fake universities {like BJU} and photoshopped qualifications, so don't bother with them).

    Tbh, J.C just uses whatever tools and subjects that he feels are "hip" enough and "fitting" to whatever he want's talk about with regards to his own theories. I won't lie to you, I cannot understand half of what he says because he contradicts everything he has said, and avoids anything he doesn't want to discuss or debate on. The coloured and bold text just make me laugh.

    He doesn't talk science either. Science isn't all it's cracked up to be, but it is one way of looking at raelity, there are many other tools and ways to look at reality. But I will say this much, if you are going to talk science at least know what you're talking about instead of just making up stuff as you go along.

    I honestly just roll my eyes at this thread because it's just going back and forth with people trying to prove each other wrong instead of just taking a step back and try understand one another first. It seems no one understand anyone here. I don't even understand what is going on at this point.


  • #3069
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    No JC, you keep (conveniently) forgetting that you are not really a real scientist.
    How do you define a 'really real Scientist'? ... obviously, a qualified Scientist who is a practical atheist as far as 'origins' is concerned!!!:(
    ... given the fact that I am a qualified Scientist who is a practical theist as far as 'origins' is concerned!!


  • #3070
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    maguffin wrote: »
    Nonsense!! Respect and equality is earned and given to those who show by repeated experiment with repeatable, reproducable results that the hypothesis they are presenting is viable.
    When it comes to distributing public funding, respect and equality aren't earned they are rights enjoyed by all equally qualified persons of all religions and not just people of none.

    maguffin wrote: »
    An assumption is not proof!! If you want to be respected and be held as equal then you must provide proof!!
    The current situation within conventional 'origins' science is analagous to a church controlling the distribution of all public money for 'origins' research ... and making it a condition that only supernatural causes can be researched.
    Instead, we have a group with an ethos of practical atheism making it a condition that supernatural causes cannot be researched - when a supernatural cause is an equally viable explanation.
    Neither situations are defensible.

    maguffin wrote: »
    By definition the 'god hypothesis' is un-conventional
    ... only by the definition of a practical atheist ...

    maguffin wrote: »
    in that it deals with matters of faith and religion-based theories. It needs support from un-conventional science.
    Atheism also deals with matters of faith and religious theories ... its just the 'flip side' of the 'God Hypothesis'. Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist ... while Theists have faith that He does.

    The working hypothesis that God doesn't exist and didn't create life is no more valid than the hypothesis that God exists and did create life.
    ... so why should public money be devoted to exclusively favour the Atheistic hypothesis?
    ... and why should the Atheist 'origins' hypothesis be exclusively taught in schools either?

    The 'God did it' hypothesis is only 'unconventional' if you are an Atheist ... because the 'conventional' position for all Mono-theists is that 'God did it' i.e. God had some input into the 'origins' of life.

    So far most Boards have exclusively funded the Atheist 'origins' hypothesis.
    ... a good start would be to make it clear that they welcome ideas for theistic 'origins' hypotheses ... and research.


  • #3071
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Suggesting a supernatural explanation would be deemed unconventional no matter what scientific investigation is being carried out.

    What experiments could those investigating "God did it" carry out to convince a funding board to provide funds for further exploration?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #3072
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Aquarius34 wrote: »
    He doesn't talk science either. Science isn't all it's cracked up to be, but it is one way of looking at raelity, there are many other tools and ways to look at reality.

    In all honesty name one which is anywhere as near as objective, rigorous or as likely to obtain the truth as the scientific method.

    Because everything else I've encountered boils down to "because I think X is right, therefore X is right."


  • #3073
    ManMade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭ManMade


    I've been following this thread for a couple of days now out of curiosity. I've always thought evolution was the status quo until I met a Pentecostal church member recently who spoke of darwins doubt or something along that line. I'm baffled. I remember and being told of creation when I was really small. Every one said it was a metaphor or something

    Before I judge Creationists, can someone tell me exactly what it exactly means. Is it the whole Adam and Eve, 6000 years old earth, poof all animals come into existence, fossil fuels being a test of ones faith ect. Or am I mixing that up something else? Is there more or am oversimplifying it?

    I just don't understand how you insert something unproven into Science. Also what the fuag is "conventional" science. I'm doing the LC and do 3 sciences (chem,physics,ag science). Evolution is taken as fact in ag science (and in biology afaik) Am I missing something? I associate "alternative" science to homeopathic nonsense.


  • #3074
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... so why should public money be devoted to exclusively favour the Atheistic hypothesis?
    My funding proposal:
    I have presented pilot data that support my hypothesis that 'X causes Y'. Please find attached ten pages outlining my proposed experiments to 1. confirm that X causes Y; 2. determine whether X always causes Y; 3. identify conditions which are necessary for X to cause Y; 4. identify whether Y can be caused by Z; 5. investigate whether the mechanism by which X causes Y is the same as when Z causes Y; 6. And so on.

    Your funding proposal:
    We have analysed someone else's data that support the hypothesis that 'X causes Y'. We alternatively hypothesise that God did it. Please find attached ten blank pages outlining our proposed experiments to demonstrate that God did it.

    Note: the above is not a parody.


  • #3075
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    ManMade wrote: »
    I've been following this thread for a couple of days now out of curiosity. I've always thought evolution was the status quo until I met a Pentecostal church member recently who spoke of darwins doubt or something along that line. I'm baffled. I remember and being told of creation when I was really small. Every one said it was a metaphor or something

    Before I judge Creationists, can someone tell me exactly what it exactly means. Is it the whole Adam and Eve, 6000 years old earth, poof all animals come into existence, fossil fuels being a test of ones faith ect. Or am I mixing that up something else? Is there more or am oversimplifying it?

    I just don't understand how you insert something unproven into Science. Also what the fuag is "conventional" science. I'm doing the LC and do 3 sciences (chem,physics,ag science). Evolution is taken as fact in ag science (and in biology afaik) Am I missing something? I associate "alternative" science to homeopathic nonsense.

    There are probably more, but the two versions of creationism I've seen mentioned are Young Earth Creationism, which is the Adam and Eve story with it all happening about 6000 years ago.

    Then you have Old Earth Creationism, which AFAIK is evolution but with God involved at some point.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3076
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    ManMade wrote: »
    Before I judge Creationists, can someone tell me exactly what it exactly means. Is it the whole Adam and Eve, 6000 years old earth, poof all animals come into existence, fossil fuels being a test of ones faith ect. Or am I mixing that up something else? Is there more or am oversimplifying it?

    There are three strands to creationism, 1) YEC, which is the 6,000 (or so, some creationists go as far out as 10 millenia) creation story you speak of. The problem with this is that a 2,500 year old fairy story is just that.

    2) Intelligent Design, which is YEC dressed up in fancy scientific sounding language. The problem with this approach is the summation of Judge John E. Jones in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ruling.

    3) Theistic Evolution, which is basicly saying that everything happened as the scientists currently theorise (i.e. big bang, galaxy and solar formation, evolution and everything else) but that at the beginning god did it, in such a way as to ensure everything happened as it has. The problem with this is that it is defeated by William of Ockham's razor, in that a universe like this which happened without god is more parsimonious (in his words it has "less causes") than one without. It also loses out in the evidential stakes as well, nothing we've found has had supernatural intervention as a necessary cause, while everything we've found can happen naturally.


  • #3077
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... its only 'unconventional' if you are an Atheist ... when it comes to the 'origins' issue ... because the 'conventional' position for all Mono-theists is that 'God did it'.

    The board should be providing funding in an 'even-handed' manner ... so far they have exclusively funded the Atheist hypothesis ... but they are funded by both Theist and Atheist taxpayers.
    ... a good start would be to make it clear that they welcome ideas for theistic 'origins' hypotheses ... and research.

    Goodness, you really will go to the ends of the Earth to avoid answering the question. There is an even-handed situation currently in place. If you say there isn't you must at the very least answer the following question:

    What experiments could be carried out to provide pilot data that would satisfy a funding board?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3078
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Goodness, you really will go to the ends of the Earth to avoid answering the question. There is an even-handed situation currently in place. If you say there isn't you must at the very least answer the following question:

    What experiments could be carried out to provide pilot data that would satisfy a funding board?
    Like I have said, the details of the proposed 'origins' research is irrelevant ...
    Because the funding is provided by both Theist and Atheist taxpayers.
    ... a good start would be to make it clear that funding boards welcome ideas for theistic 'origins' hypotheses ... and research ... as well as the Atheist ones they have supported to date.


  • #3079
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    There are three strands to creationism, 1) YEC, which is the 6,000 (or so, some creationists go as far out as 10 millenia) creation story you speak of. The problem with this is that a 2,500 year old fairy story is just that.

    2) Intelligent Design, which is YEC dressed up in fancy scientific sounding language. The problem with this approach is the summation of Judge John E. Jones in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ruling.

    3) Theistic Evolution, which is basicly saying that everything happened as the scientists currently theorise (i.e. big bang, galaxy and solar formation, evolution and everything else) but that at the beginning god did it, in such a way as to ensure everything happened as it has. The problem with this is that it is defeated by William of Ockham's razor, in that a universe like this which happened without god is more parsimonious (in his words it has "less causes") than one without. It also loses out in the evidential stakes as well, nothing we've found has had supernatural intervention as a necessary cause, while everything we've found can happen naturally.
    I'm sure the Theistic Evolutionists will love you for calling them a 'strand of Creationism'.:)


  • #3080
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Like I have said, the details of the proposed research is irrelevant ...
    However, because the funding is provided by both Theist and Atheist taxpayers.
    ... a good start would be to make it clear that they welcome ideas for theistic 'origins' hypotheses ... and research ... as well as the Atheist ones they have supported to date.

    The details are not irrelevant as they are the determining factor when it comes to funding. If you can't provide any examples of pilot data/experiments that would be presented to a funding board, how can you complain about a bias?

    Ideas aren't given funding, experiments are. No experiments, no money. It's that simple.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3081
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    The details are not irrelevant as they are the determining factor when it comes to funding. If you can't provide any examples of pilot data/experiments that would be presented to a funding board, how can you complain about a bias?

    Ideas aren't given funding, experiments are. No experiments, no money. It's that simple.
    The details are irrelevant if one side is funded and the other side is never funded.


  • Advertisement
  • #3082
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    Like I have said, the details of the proposed 'origins' research is irrelevant ...
    Because the funding is provided by both Theist and Atheist taxpayers.
    ... a good start would be to make it clear that funding boards welcome ideas for theistic 'origins' hypotheses ... and research ... as well as the Atheist ones they have supported to date.
    The lack of valid scientific experimental plans is exactly what's stopping 'theistic research' being funded.

    If you are a scientist, you must surely be able to frame the type of experiment you think are being shunned (even if the details are vague).


  • #3083
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Bias is established when there is a serious imbalance in the funding of one side or the other ... especially if the funding imbalance happens to coincide with your own worldview.

    but as evidenced by our discussion so far, there is no bias as the "God did it" folk haven't got any pilot data/evidence to justify the funds.

    What your suggesting is the creation of a bias for "God did it" investigators by removing the requirements for application to receive funding.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3084
    ManMade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭ManMade


    What do believe happened JC? I'd like to know what you actually believe.


  • #3085
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    The lack of valid scientific experimental plans is exactly what's stopping 'theistic research' being funded.

    If you are a scientist, you must surely be able to frame the type of experiment you think are being shunned (even if the details are vague).
    Not at all ... the ID pioneers and the Creation Scientists of the world frame experiments every day at the very cutting edge of 'origins' research.
    ... but conventional 'origins' science had never given them a red cent in funding.


  • #3086
    Aquarius34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Aquarius34


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    In all honesty name one which is anywhere as near as objective, rigorous or as likely to obtain the truth as the scientific method.

    Because everything else I've encountered boils down to "because I think X is right, therefore X is right."

    Again, science is one aspect of looking at reality, it is not the only way or the "best" way. There is no one way about it. infact looking and percieving reality is a very dangerous and foolish act in doing. Science activates the left brain and it does not work on the right side of the brain which is the creative artistic side.. A genius brain works all parts of the brain as one. We use very little of our brains because of the conditioning and the suppression of true knowledge.. Our bodies is an amazing creation that is capable of doing more than we can possibly imagine and what we are capable of knowing.. Today, science has been actively involved in suppressing knowledge in keeping us in the dark about our existence Of course there are many great aspects to science, but the sad reality is science today is fueled on profit, greed and elitism. Therefore it is not working towards bettering mankind as it should be doing. You might disagree but I can assure you it's holding humanity back. Don't limit to yourself, if you do you are falling for the trap just as J.C is doing.


  • #3087
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ManMade wrote: »
    What do believe happened JC? I'd like to know what you actually believe.
    I used be a 'died in the wool' Evolutionist ... the whole nine yards ... then I was challenged by a Creationist ... and I spent 10 years trying to defeat their arguments ... and when I couldn't ... I eventually gave up ... and became a Creationist myself.
    When I see the various arguments put up by Evolutionists on this thread ... I see myself, when I was an Evolutionist ... its uncanny!!!

    My honest considered opinion is that God did it i.e. a personal Being of omnipotent power who is transcendent of the Universe.
    I believe that God exists primarily in another dimension ... the spiritual dimension ... and when we die our spirit lives on in that spiritual dimension.


  • #3088
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    I'm sure the Theistic Evolutionists will love you for calling them a 'strand of Creationism'.:)

    Any theory which involves a supernatural being creating the universe with his l33t powers is a strand of Creationism, whether you like it or not.


  • #3089
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    The details are irrelevant if one side is funded and the other side is never funded.

    You know JC, its beginning to look like you can't answer the questions posed by so many. What experiment would you like to see carried out? If some benevolent benefactor made as much money available as you required, to carry out any experiment you wanted, to prove your points about God, what would that experiment involve?


  • #3090
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Any theory which involves a supernatural being creating the universe with his l33t powers is a strand of Creationism, whether you like it or not.
    I like it ... and I agree with you ... but let's not tell the Theistic Evolutionists ... just yet ... sshh!!!:)


  • Advertisement
  • #3091
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    I used be a 'died in the wool' Evolutionist ... the whole nine yards ... then I was challenged by a Creationist ... and I spent 10 years trying to defeat their arguments ... and when I couldn't ... I eventually gave up ... and became a Creationist myself.
    When I see the various arguments put up by Evolutionists on this thread ... I see myself, when I was an Evolutionist ... its uncanny!!!

    My honest considered opinion is that God did it i.e. a personal Being of omnipotent power who is transcendent of the Universe.
    I believe that God exists primarily in another dimension ... the spiritual dimension ... and when we die our spirit lives on in the spiritual dimension.

    JC, I have a totally open mind on the topic of other dimensions. I can agree with you that there are probably many dimensions, which we on Earth will never be able to comprehend. I don't think scientists would disagree either. I am prepared to accept that "spirits" may exist on a different plane and that we may pass on in some way, when we die. No problem there.
    I am open minded enough to reject evolution if you can put forward a compelling, factual, scientifically sound argument for an alternative. But JC, it has to be better than "A man told me and I believe him". I'm sure it will be.

    So there it is my friend. I lie prostrate before you, waiting for your words of wisdom!


Advertisement