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…119120122124125…232

Comments

  • #3632
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    Hasn't happened yet ... but if s/he did they would have to face the fact that it did contradict the Bible.

    "Earth isn't 6,000 years old"


    Oh noes, already did


  • #3633
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    Hasn't happened yet ... but if s/he did they would have to face the fact that it did contradict the Bible.
    OK, LOL. Let's pretend that is the case... Imagine a creation scientist (it pains me to type that) did find such evidence, what would he do?

    MrP


  • #3634
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    MrPudding wrote: »
    OK, LOL. Let's pretend that is the case... Imagine a creation scientist (it pains me to type that) did find such evidence, what would he do?MrP

    Mr. P, these are questions which introduce a classic case of logic versus belief. Its called Cognitive dissonance. And poor JC suffers from it, big time.

    People like him, when all else fails, push the nuclear button, "God works in Mysterious ways". There is no answer, nor will they be convinced by any reality, except that which exists in their own mind.

    A "Creationist Scientist" is an oxymoron.


  • #3635
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Safehands wrote: »
    Mr. P, these are questions which introduce a classic case of logic versus belief. Its called Cognitive dissonance. And poor JC suffers from it, big time.

    People like him, when all else fails, push the nuclear button, "God works in Mysterious ways". There is no answer, nor will they be convinced by any reality, except that which exists in their own mind.

    A "Creationist Scientist" is an oxymoron.

    Never a truer word was spoken:D


  • #3636
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    OK, LOL. Let's pretend that is the case... Imagine a creation scientist (it pains me to type that) did find such evidence, what would he do?

    MrP
    He would have to 'man up' and face reality.

    You forget that I once was a committed Evolutionist ... 'the whole nine yards' ... and when I first was faced with the evidence that the Theory of Evolution could not explain how genetic information arose (because mutgenesis always destroys genetic information) ... I went into denial ... a process that was assisted by the negative comments I received from fellow Evolutionists when I expressed my doubts about its validity.
    Eventually I couldn't stand the denial and I broke away from the 'group think' and decided that irrespective of the derision I would undoubtedly have to undergo I had to face reality and proclaim the truth ... that Evolution wasn't fit for purpose (as an adequate scientific explantion for the supposed transition from 'Pondkind to Mankind'.

    Later on I began to study the findings of Creation Science and ID ... and I have yet to find anything substantively incorrect about the findings of either sciences.

    If I do ... you guys will be the first to know.


  • Advertisement
  • #3637
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    Mr. P, these are questions which introduce a classic case of logic versus belief. Its called Cognitive dissonance. And poor JC suffers from it, big time.
    I suppose I did have some Cognitive dissonance, when I was an Evolutionist and I first discovered that Evolution couldn't explain the origin of genetic information ... but I got over it and faced reality square in the face and took the inevitable derision 'on the chin' when I proclaimed the truth about Evolution.
    Safehands wrote: »
    People like him, when all else fails, push the nuclear button, "God works in Mysterious ways".
    That's one thing I never do ... Creation Science has removed the mystery about God as Creator... and it has logically and mathematically proven that He exists ... and created all life.
    Amazingly, both Atheists and a significant, but dwindling number of Christians have refused to accept the proofs ... or even to consider them seriously.
    Safehands wrote: »
    There is no answer, nor will they be convinced by any reality, except that which exists in their own mind.
    This certainly doesn't apply to any Creation Scientist that I know ... they are all eminently qualified logical people of the highest moral and intellectual calibre.

    Safehands wrote: »
    A "Creationist Scientist" is an oxymoron.
    Why should Creation Science be an oxymoron? ... when Evolutionist scientists with a lot less evidence for their theories and a lot more conflicting evidence against them aren't considered to be oxymorons.


  • #3638
    Lantus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,873 ✭✭✭Lantus


    Science does not have all the answers and we are on an on-going journey of change to discover more about the universe we live in. evolution reflects an observation of what we can see around us which is one of constant change. Our recent understanding of comets now indicates that complex amino acids and proteins could be created from and survive impact with our planet which presents some interesting questions.

    If a person does adopt a ID approach it is highly likely that this stems primarily from their belief systems in a god or religion. I don't know of any person who does not believe in god but adopts a creationist approach as they are both intertwined.

    As creationism presents a very 'complete' picture them it is understandable why some people are drawn to it over evolution which can seem bewildering with bits missing and often more questions than answers. As a society we are failing to educate ourselves on the process of science with a solid understanding of the importance of failure and not knowing every answer as part of a process towards better understanding.

    Ultimately you cannot typically 'convince' a person that creationism is incorrect if it stems from a metaphysical value system like religion no matter how solid your reasoning or logic. All we can hope to do is show that there is a better way and continue to provide information and build on the scientific work of the past to create a better understanding today.


  • #3639
    BMMachine
    Site Banned Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭BMMachine


    vyygy.jpg


  • #3640
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    BMMachine wrote: »
    vyygy.jpg
    Quote Answers in Genesis:-
    National Geographic News reports on the 13-foot (4m) conifer found in Sweden back in 2004. The tree itself (a Norway spruce) isn’t that old, but researchers allege that the root system dates back 9,550 years.

    A team at Umeå University led by Leif Kullman says the tree’s old age is due to its ability to clone itself. Each time a trunk dies off—around every 600 years, according to Kullman—the roots sprout a new trunk to replace the dead one. If it clones itself every 300 years (which is a much more likely scenario for a Norway Spruce) then it is under 5,000 years old.

    The oldest continuously standing trees (whose annual growth rings can be directly observed) are the Bristlecone Pines from the western United States, the oldest of which is about 5,000 years old—just over half the age of Kullman’s estimate for his tree."


  • #3641
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Lantus wrote: »
    evolution reflects an observation of what we can see around us which is one of constant change.

    If a person does adopt a ID approach it is highly likely that this stems primarily from their belief systems in a god or religion.

    First, there are two things we talk about when we use evolution, first is the actual process of speciation which has been observed in many species both in the wild and in the lab (e.g. the London Underground Mosquito, Drosophila Melanogaster, feck it there is a whole ton of evidence), which is well documented. So the actual process of speciation is proven to happen.

    Then we have the modern syntesis of the Theory of Evolution and Genetic Theory (plus quite a few bits a simple layman like myself hasn't come across yet), which is the theory(ies) by which we describe the actual happening process of evolution, which give us the best picture we yet know of how all life has managed to spread out as it has on this planet, and the mechanisms used to achieve this.

    Re the second paragraph I quote, ID is always a religious phenomenon, because it is a mechanism for the proving of the existence of a god. Just because it doesn't work doesn't mean many people are too stupid not to drop it.


  • Advertisement
  • #3642
    BMMachine
    Site Banned Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭BMMachine


    J C wrote: »
    Quote Answers in Genesis:-
    National Geographic News reports on the 13-foot (4m) conifer found in Sweden back in 2004. The tree itself (a Norway spruce) isn’t that old, but researchers allege that the root system dates back 9,550 years.

    A team at Umeå University led by Leif Kullman says the tree’s old age is due to its ability to clone itself. Each time a trunk dies off—around every 600 years, according to Kullman—the roots sprout a new trunk to replace the dead one. If it clones itself every 300 years (which is a much more likely scenario for a Norway Spruce) then it is under 5,000 years old.

    The oldest continuously standing trees (whose annual growth rings can be directly observed) are the Bristlecone Pines from the western United States, the oldest of which is about 5,000 years old—just over half the age of Kullman’s estimate for his tree."

    oh well then job done. i suppose there is a god and he bloody hates those homosexuals. he decided he hated them in between creating super massive black holes and quantum pulsars.

    whats his jazz on the tectonic plate system? and was it really necessary to create pluto? what about dinosaurs too? and the fossil record?


  • #3643
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Why should Creation Science be an oxymoron? ... when Evolutionist scientists with a lot less evidence for their theories and a lot more conflicting evidence against them aren't considered to be oxymorons.
    Science is defined as knowledge about, or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.

    If you were born with no knowledge of the bible, say in deepest China or some such place and you were to study the Universe, do you think you would be a creationist based on the physical evidence you can see and study. Would the Flood even enter the equation? Remember, no knowledge of God or Jesus or any biblical figures.


  • #3644
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,182 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Can I weigh in briefly on this and ask JC a question?

    How old do you believe the earth to be then?


  • #3645
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    BMMachine wrote: »
    oh well then job done. i suppose there is a god and he bloody hates those homosexuals. he decided he hated them in between creating super massive black holes and quantum pulsars.
    God loves homosexuals ... just like He loves all persons.

    ... super massive black holes and quantum pulsars are a result of the Fall ... when death and disease ... and entropy came into the Universe.
    BMMachine wrote: »
    whats his jazz on the tectonic plate system? and was it really necessary to create pluto? what about dinosaurs too? and the fossil record?
    The tectonic plates are a result of the massive tectonic break-up and rearrangement of the Earth's surface during The Flood.


  • #3646
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gintonious wrote: »
    Can I weigh in briefly on this and ask JC a question?

    How old do you believe the earth to be then?
    Less that 10,000 years.


  • #3647
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    Less that 10,000 years.

    So where do the bones of dinosaurs or Neanderthals that are MILLIONS of years old come from?


  • #3648
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Less that 10,000 years.
    Cognitive dissonance. Amazing!


  • #3649
    BMMachine
    Site Banned Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭BMMachine


    J C wrote: »
    The tectonic plates are a result of the massive tectonic break-up and rearrangement of the Earth's surface during The Flood.

    I'm Tom Cruise.

    saying things is fun


  • #3650
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    BMMachine wrote: »
    I'm Tom Cruise.

    saying things is fun

    Ah.. you could've picked someone so much better to be. 4/10


  • #3651
    BMMachine
    Site Banned Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭BMMachine


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Ah.. you could've picked someone so much better to be. 4/10

    no, I am Tom Cruise


  • Advertisement
  • #3652
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Less that 10,000 years.

    I think people are not really convinced by your arguments JC. I don't think your "evidence" holds up.


  • #3653
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,182 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    J C wrote: »
    Less that 10,000 years.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25193442

    So can you explain this then?


  • #3654
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Gintonious wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25193442

    So can you explain this then?

    He will either claim their testing is wrong or "God" done it :rolleyes:


  • #3655
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,182 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    bumper234 wrote: »
    He will either claim their testing is wrong or "God" done it :rollleyes:

    I read this thread for the laughs alone, its fantastic.


  • #3656
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Safehands wrote: »
    I think people are not really convinced by your arguments JC. I don't think your "evidence" holds up.

    Maybe he's omphalic?

    No, wait he complains we're lying and making it up when we present him with actual evidence doesn't he?


  • #3657
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Mod note: Since this thread has clawed it's way back out of the grave again, just to reiterate: the standard forum rules apply here. Read the charter if you are in any doubt, and be civil. This has been a significant timesink for moderators in the past so expect cards or bans where justified.

    For those who are new to this, the first thread is here. With roughly 28000 posts between the two threads, chances are there is nothing that can be posted here that hasn't been raised several times already!


  • #3658
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Lantus wrote: »
    Science does not have all the answers and we are on an on-going journey of change to discover more about the universe we live in. evolution reflects an observation of what we can see around us which is one of constant change. Our recent understanding of comets now indicates that complex amino acids and proteins could be created from and survive impact with our planet which presents some interesting questions.
    I agree that science is an exciting journey of discovery and one that, like yourself, I look forward to taking every day.
    Nobody questions that basic chemicals, like amino acids and indeed hydrocarbons and water exist in space ... but when it comes to life saying that we have amino acids and water is like saying that we have cement and water and therefore a house will spontaneously build itself.
    Lantus wrote: »
    If a person does adopt a ID approach it is highly likely that this stems primarily from their belief systems in a god or religion. I don't know of any person who does not believe in god but adopts a creationist approach as they are both intertwined.
    I agree with you on Creation ... it is directly linked to a worldview that believes in God ... but it isn't confined to Christians ... there are many excellent Muslim and Jewish Creation Scientists.
    In the case of ID it's not quite as clearcut ... because ID is based on the premise that life was produced by an intelligently-directed process. The process could have been by evolution through gradual or punctuated intelligent direction ... and the intelligence is unknown ... and it could even be some kind of 'alien'. On this basis even Professor Dawkins could be considered to be within the ID community, whilst he obviously wouldn't be regarded (or regard himself) as a Creation Scientist
    Quote:-
    "Ben Stein: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

    Prof. Dawkins: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. "



    Lantus wrote: »
    As creationism presents a very 'complete' picture them it is understandable why some people are drawn to it over evolution which can seem bewildering with bits missing and often more questions than answers. As a society we are failing to educate ourselves on the process of science with a solid understanding of the importance of failure and not knowing every answer as part of a process towards better understanding.
    Both Creation and Abiogenesis/Evolution are explanations for how life originated and developed on Earth.
    I agree that science isn't perfect and sometimes it raises more questions than answers ... and this can often be the most exciting parts of science.
    Lantus wrote: »
    Ultimately you cannot typically 'convince' a person that creationism is incorrect if it stems from a metaphysical value system like religion no matter how solid your reasoning or logic. All we can hope to do is show that there is a better way and continue to provide information and build on the scientific work of the past to create a better understanding today.
    Firstly, there is an enormous great 'Elephant in the Room' of Evolution and it is the fact that the mechanism supposedly providing NS with the genetic information material from which to select (Mutagenesis) is always observed to degrade and destroy genetic information.
    Secondly, Materialism also stems from a metaphysical value system (that rejects religion and God) and it therefore has its own biases, when it comes to applying reasoning and logic, in evaluating the evidence for the origin of life, as a result.


  • #3659
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    First, there are two things we talk about when we use evolution, first is the actual process of speciation which has been observed in many species both in the wild and in the lab (e.g. the London Underground Mosquito, Drosophila Melanogaster, feck it there is a whole ton of evidence), which is well documented. So the actual process of speciation is proven to happen.
    These are examples of speciation and/or Natural Selection within Kinds ... something that Creation Science accepts as happening. Indeed rapid speciation within Kinds is a significantly important explanation for Noahs Ark and how it could contain the ancestors of all current and extinct land animal species.
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Then we have the modern syntesis of the Theory of Evolution and Genetic Theory (plus quite a few bits a simple layman like myself hasn't come across yet), which is the theory(ies) by which we describe the actual happening process of evolution, which give us the best picture we yet know of how all life has managed to spread out as it has on this planet, and the mechanisms used to achieve this.
    There are serious problems with the modern synthesis ... and the biggest on is that mutagenesis isn't 'fit for purpose' ... as the supplier of the additional genetic information that NS supposedly selected during the supposed transition from 'pondkind to Mankind'.
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Re the second paragraph I quote, ID is always a religious phenomenon, because it is a mechanism for the proving of the existence of a god. Just because it doesn't work doesn't mean many people are too stupid not to drop it.
    Prof Dawkins doesn't agree with you on that ... it probably started off as some kind of Theistic Evolution idea ... but now it is even being used to evaluate whether life was 'seeded' on earth by intelligent 'aliens'.


  • #3660
    Quatermain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭Quatermain


    You're confusing mutagenesis with DNA damage, which is not a surprise. The first is a change in the sequence of standard base pairs, the second is a caused by abnormal chemical structure. Five minutes' worth of research brought this up. You also ignore the fact that mutations can be reversed, as DNA bases can change from A to G and back again. Should a mutation result in a loss of information, therefore, a gain must be established from the reversion.

    And one would imagine that the removal of religion and any sort of god from its horizons is the best way of maintaining a neutral, objective outlook. Every single little group like "Answers in Genesis" and "Creation Ministries" are by their very definition exhibiting a confirmation bias.

    Finally, the fact that the fifth dynasty of the old kingdom of Egypt demonstrably continued through 2400 BC, the year your best friends fixed the date of the Flood, is a very good argument against your flood. As is the story in your own Bible that Abraham apparently visited the same empire 400 years after said flood. Now how a small group of Israelites grew and expanded to form a civilisation with its own deities, technology, and aesthetics in 400 years is a little beyond damn near any proper scholar.


  • Advertisement
  • #3661
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Quatermain wrote: »
    the fact that the fifth dynasty of the old kingdom of Egypt demonstrably continued through 2400 BC, the year your best friends fixed the date of the Flood, is a very good argument against your flood. As is the story in your own Bible that Abraham apparently visited the same empire 400 years after said flood. Now how a small group of Israelites grew and expanded to form a civilisation with its own deities, technology, and aesthetics in 400 years is a little beyond damn near any proper scholar.
    It is also beyond any proper scholar that a man could live for 950 years (which means Noah was still around, making babies, probably drinking wine with Abraham). Very few proper scholars could live with a man and his family rounding up bears, tigers, Rhinos and anacondas to put them on a big boat living in harmony with deer, kangaroos and Koalas, discriminating against dinosaurs.
    That it is beyond most proper scientists and scholars doesn't bother good folk like JC. They will still fervently live with the idea of a man living this long, no matter what we or proper scholars say. Its in the Bible, so its true! Cognitive dissonance!


Advertisement