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…149150152154155…232

Comments

  • #4532
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Safehands wrote: »
    Seriously Mr. P, are you honestly suggesting that he used these lights before electricity was invented? How would they have worked without electricity? They are clearly not Gas powered, and gas was around before electricity, so your suggestion can't be correct.
    You need to study the book entitled "Putting Light on the Subject" by T. E. Dison.
    No, no, no. The lights worked because god. I hope that clears things up for you.

    MrP


  • #4533
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,253 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    MrPudding wrote: »
    No, no, no. The lights worked because god. I hope that clears things up for you.

    MrP

    You can't beat SamHire for last minute things like lights ;)


  • #4534
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I don't understand why you are finding this so difficult. Basically the universe was a building site. He was dependent on various contractor, stuff probably did not arrive on time, or in the right order, so he had to improvise a bit.

    Now, I don't have a biblical reference for this (not that this stops most people) but I genuinely believe that what definitely happened is god simply popped down to his local Hirestore and picked up a few of these:


    368830.jpg



    He then cracked on and once his helium supplier actually delivered the helium, which he was supposed to do on the Monday, he got the sun sorted and dropped the lights back on his way home. Job done.

    Seriously Safehands, you generally come across as fairly switched on, I don't understand how you can't work this stuff out.

    MrP
    Great to see that you have a sense of humour Mr P.:)


  • #4535
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    Yeah, I find it quite confusing. He created light, before the stars, including the sun, which were only created on the fourh day, along with that great source of night light which we now call the moon. So, what sort of light did he create on the first day, causing day and night as well as evening and morning?
    On the third day he created vegetation. I always thought that vegetation required sunlight.
    Tatranska, can you blame me for being confused? I did biology in school, so maybe my biology teachers led me astray. They obviously hadn't read the Genises account.
    Where is the scientific problem with vegetation created one day ... and the Sun created the next day?


  • #4536
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,691 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    J C wrote: »
    Where is the scientific problem with vegetation created one day ... and the Sun created the next day?
    It's in the underlined words. "Creation" is not really a concept with any scientific meaning or value.


  • Advertisement
  • #4537
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,217 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    J C wrote: »
    Where is the scientific problem with vegetation created one day ... and the Sun created the next day?

    Its not a scientific one, its just a problem in general.


  • #4538
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Where is the scientific problem with vegetation created one day ... and the Sun created the next day?

    Day 3: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
    And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

    All this without the sun????
    Try to imagine earth without the sun. You don't have to be a great scientist JC. Just go and see "The Martian", and that is with the sun's distant influence. So where is the scientific problem with vegetation grown at close to absolute zero in total darkness? You tell me JC.


  • #4539
    brian_t
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,923 ✭✭✭brian_t


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Makes far more sense.

    This is the problem with every single one of your posts.

    You take a verse or verses and put an atheist interpretation on them and tell us that your interpretation 'makes more sense'.

    From an atheist perspective it might but more importantly from a christian perspective it doesnt.


  • #4540
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    brian_t wrote: »
    This is the problem with every single one of your posts.

    You take a verse or verses and put an atheist interpretation on them and tell us that your interpretation 'makes more sense'.

    From an atheist perspective it might but more importantly from a christian perspective it doesnt.

    How is it an "atheist" perspective to actually READ the passage properly.
    More christians accept my viewpoint that it is NOT a dinosaur but either an elephant, rhino or hippo, than yours, including ANY credible theologian.
    It literally refers to the movement of the tail. I simply stated that.
    There is zero mention of giant size of that beast in the passage.
    Hence I am more faithful to the text than YEC christians who believe it refers to dinosaurs.


  • #4541
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,691 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Safehands wrote: »
    Day 3: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
    And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

    All this without the sun????
    Try to imagine earth without the sun. You don't have to be a great scientist JC. Just go and see "The Martian", and that is with the sun's distant influence. So where is the scientific problem with vegetation grown at close to absolute zero in total darkness? You tell me JC.
    If you're going to play the literal interpretation game, Safehands, you do actually have to start with a literal interpretation. And, on a literal interpretation, while the sun isn't created until day 3, there is light from day 1. Light, famously, is the very first thing created. (And there is nothing intrinsically scientifically impossible about this sequence; light certainly existed before our own sun formed.) So you can't assume that, before the sun formed, there was total darkness, or near-zero temperatures. There was light, and if there was light there was quite possibly heat.


  • Advertisement
  • #4542
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    If you're going to play the literal interpretation game, Safehands, you do actually have to start with a literal interpretation. And, on a literal interpretation, while the sun isn't created until day 3, there is light from day 1. Light, famously, is the very first thing created. (And there is nothing intrinsically scientifically impossible about this sequence; light certainly existed before our own sun formed.) So you can't assume that, before the sun formed, there was total darkness, or near-zero temperatures. There was light, and if there was light there was quite possibly heat.

    I don't believe the literal interpretation of the bible. But lots do. I, and now you, are demonstrating how mixed up it all is. That Genesis account is a parable. It makes absolutely no sense. That fact tells us an awful lot about the very start of the Bible from which we can extrapolate the veracity of the rest of that book.


  • #4543
    brian_t
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,923 ✭✭✭brian_t


    Safehands wrote: »
    I don't believe the literal interpretation of the bible. But lots do. I, and now you, are demonstrating how mixed up it all is. That Genesis account is a parable. It makes absolutely no sense. That fact tells us an awful lot about the very start of the Bible from which we can extrapolate the veracity of the rest of that book.

    As a response to the post you quoted your reply makes absolutely no sense.


  • #4544
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    brian_t wrote: »
    As a response to the post you quoted your reply makes absolutely no sense.

    Brian, I am not responding to my post, I am responding to Peregrinus.
    Genesis is demonstrably untrue. You can use the flexibility of your mind, bending facts to try to make it true, but it was clearly written as a story to try to explain how everything was created. It is not factual. It is, however, a great story. But, some people will believe anything. For example; some folk, who are slightly, no, largely deranged, still think the Earth is flat, so there is no accounting for crazy beliefs.
    Some will never be convinced that anything but the Genises account is how the universe began, despite the lack of any evidence for the story and despite all the holes in the story which may be pointed put to them.


  • #4545
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    It's in the underlined words. "Creation" is not really a concept with any scientific meaning or value.
    ... and spontaneous generation (by whatever name you want to call it) ... has neither science nor logic supporting it.
    Creation by an omnipotent God at least 'gets off the starting blocks' as something that could happen ... unlike ideas that nothing gave rise to everything ... which is basically what the Big Bang is hypothesising.


  • #4546
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,691 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Safehands wrote: »
    I don't believe the literal interpretation of the bible. But lots do. I, and now you, are demonstrating how mixed up it all is. That Genesis account is a parable. It makes absolutely no sense.
    These are two very different statements, and one doesn't follow from the other. Lots of parables make very good sense - why not?
    Safehands wrote: »
    That fact tells us an awful lot about the very start of the Bible from which we can extrapolate the veracity of the rest of that book.
    Not really. The bible is a set of texts written at widely different times, by different people, for different audiences, for different purposes, and only collected much later, by different people again, into what we call "the bible". The fact that one of these texts is a parable doesn't tell us much, one way or the other, about whether other texts are.


  • #4547
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    J C wrote: »
    ... and spontaneous generation (by whatever name you want to call it) ... has neither science nor logic supporting it.
    Creation by an omnipotent God at least 'gets off the starting blocks' as something that could happen ... unlike ideas that nothing gave rise to everything ... which is basically what the Big Bang is hypothesising.
    Spontaneous generation and the big bang are two different things. The big bang says nothing about what occurred before the expansion to cause the expansion.
    There is speculation as to that cause, but no scientist knows what happened.
    The big bang (poorly named thanks to fred hoyle) is an expansion of energy and slightly later matter that is still going on. It describes what is happening and logically what happened up to now but NOT before a certain point (beyond plank time or something like a trillionth of a second).
    The nothing that is mentioned by physicists like L. Krauss still incorporates basic laws so it is not the nothing that some modern religious philosophers like to play with. It is as close to nothing as scientists can estimate as the term 'nothing' theists often mean NOW does not exist anywhere.
    Also in the text, genesis does not refer to nothing in that sense anyway so it is a strawman in my view to pretend that there was truly nothing at one stage and then something.
    Furthermore, time and space are linked, and our physics breaks down at an infinite compression state so our comprehension of what happened is currently hindered by the fact that our laws of nature cannot currently cover that level of situation adequately.

    Spontaneous generation was indeed linked with genesis originally (where animals were apparently created ex-nihilo), the idea was that god was involved in the ongoing creation of life on earth, and that is how some complex life spontaneously appeared (e.g.: mice in grain) in certain circumstances.
    To avoid any confusion, SG is not abiogenesis either and no-one in that field of study thinks that 'complex' fully formed animals appear out of nothing.


  • #4548
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    These are two very different statements, and one doesn't follow from the other. Lots of parables make very good sense - why not?


    Not really. The bible is a set of texts written at widely different times, by different people, for different audiences, for different purposes, and only collected much later, by different people again, into what we call "the bible". The fact that one of these texts is a parable doesn't tell us much, one way or the other, about whether other texts are.

    I agree with much of what you wrote. However it does tend to damage the viewpoint held by many creationists that their god directly controlled the revelation of scripture and that all the books (amount varies depending on group) are one united plan of revelation.

    Of course many christians don't hold this absolutist viewpoint, and your point that one parable does not help distinguish another is true.
    However it also draws into question the stories of jesus as he, as an alleged first century jew, seemed to think adam was an actual person when referring to him in the NT. Of course there may be ways that get around this, like saying jesus was being metaphorical or referring to scripture to make a point, not that he actually believed it was a historical event.
    If however a creationist believes that jesus is god, and cannot lie, then it might cause a problem for them to accept that adam and eve are part of a parable.
    A lot goes into the viewpoint that without adam, jesus's sacrifice seems pointless.


  • #4549
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    I agree with much of what you wrote. However it does tend to damage the viewpoint held by many creationists that their god directly controlled the revelation of scripture and that all the books (amount varies depending on group) are one united plan of revelation.

    Of course many christians don't hold this absolutist viewpoint, and your point that one parable does not help distinguish another is true.

    I know the internet is still skewed towards the USA's world view, but Creationists are largely a US made phenomenon in the last few hundred years. I find just as many fundamentalist atheists, if not more, insist on taking the bible literally instead of distinguishing the literal style of each book, as was always intended. Western European and Eastern Christianity has always had the tradition, right back to the first centuries of Christianity, of interpreting it according to the correct allegory. Just as the Jews also have. The internet has in fact seemed to have made many people dumber about scripture . . .not smarter. It's probably only a matter of time before people start claiming that when an author writes "it was raining cats and dogs" they must mean it literally.


  • #4550
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Spontaneous generation and the big bang are two different things. The big bang says nothing about what occurred before the expansion to cause the expansion.
    Although the concept of spontaneous generation was a biological concept about how life started ... it is equally applicable to how the Universe started ... spontaneous generation states that something (like life or the Universe) arose spontaneously ... which is really the 'only game in town' if you are a materialist.

    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    There is speculation as to that cause, but no scientist knows what happened.
    ... perhaps because it never happened ... because it never could happen.

    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    The big bang (poorly named thanks to fred hoyle) is an expansion of energy and slightly later matter that is still going on. It describes what is happening and logically what happened up to now but NOT before a certain point (beyond plank time or something like a trillionth of a second).
    ... a trillionth of a second ... eh!!
    Billions of years ... and trillionths of a second ... you guys must have a thing about really, really large or really, really small (and totally implausible) numbers !!!:)
    It was actually six days.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    The nothing that is mentioned by physicists like L. Krauss still incorporates basic laws so it is not the nothing that some modern religious philosophers like to play with. It is as close to nothing as scientists can estimate as the term 'nothing' theists often mean NOW does not exist anywhere.
    Nothing ... is nothing ... everything cannot logically come from nothing.

    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Also in the text, genesis does not refer to nothing in that sense anyway so it is a strawman in my view to pretend that there was truly nothing at one stage and then something.
    Furthermore, time and space are linked, and our physics breaks down at an infinite compression state so our comprehension of what happened is currently hindered by the fact that our laws of nature cannot currently cover that level of situation adequately.
    ... You're right that our laws of nature cannot currently cover that level of situation (Creation) adequately ... only an omnipotent God fulfills that requirement.:)
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Spontaneous generation was indeed linked with genesis originally (where animals were apparently created ex-nihilo), the idea was that god was involved in the ongoing creation of life on earth, and that is how some complex life spontaneously appeared (e.g.: mice in grain) in certain circumstances.
    If they had read their Bible they would have known that God rested (from His work of Creation) on the Seventh Day ... and this rest continues right up to now.

    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    To avoid any confusion, SG is not abiogenesis either and no-one in that field of study thinks that 'complex' fully formed animals appear out of nothing.
    ... yes the current belief is that they have spontaneously evolved from pondkind to Mankind ... and this is equally un-supported by both observation and logic i.e. science.:)


  • #4551
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    J C wrote: »
    Although the concept of spontaneous generation was a biological concept about how life started ... it is equally applicable to how the Universe started ... spontaneous generation states that something (like life or the Universe) arose spontaneously ... which is really the 'only game in town' if you are a materialist.


    ... perhaps because it never happened ... because it never could happen.


    ... a trillionth of a second ... eh!!
    Billions of years ... and trillionths of a second ... you guys must have a thing about really, really large or really, really small (and totally implausible) numbers !!!:)
    It was actually six days.

    Nothing ... is nothing ... everything cannot logically come from nothing.


    ... You're right that our laws of nature cannot currently cover that level of situation (Creation) adequately ... only an omnipotent God fulfills that requirement.:)

    If they had read their Bible they would have known that God rested (from His work of Creation) on the Seventh Day ... and this rest continues right up to now.


    ... yes the current belief is that they have spontaneously evolved from pondkind to Mankind ... and this is equally un-supported by both observation and logic i.e. science.:)

    I assume this is meant to be a reply that is highly sarcastic and amusing.
    Every point you made is mired with misunderstanding.
    Here is an example: "the current belief is that they have spontaneously evolved from pondkind to Mankind" This is simply a lie. No one says that except creationists. The concept of millions of generations of slow evolutionary change cannot be described in that fashion and you, even as a creationist, should admit it, even if you don't accept the theory. There is, I believe, something in the 10 commandments about telling porkies.

    Oh on the point of 'resting' on the 7th day. There is nothing to back up the concept that he is still 'resting'. If you are prepared to believe in six literal days and one unending day, that is special pleading right there.
    Not that I accept any of it, but honestly, since your god has streams of interventions and miracles throughout the OT and even the NT, that is not exactly 'resting' and no where does it claim it is still 'resting'.
    As far as ongoing 'creation' not happening, there is again no reason to think that to be the case, by scriptural standards.
    The whole theistic evolution crowd, including catholics, require god not to be resting, for example, but actively tweaking his stuff (I was going to say twirking) every moment.


  • Advertisement
  • #4552
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    I know the internet is still skewed towards the USA's world view, but Creationists are largely a US made phenomenon in the last few hundred years. The internet has in fact seemed to have made many people dumber about scripture . . .not smarter. It's probably only a matter of time before people start claiming that when an author writes "it was raining cats and dogs" they must mean it literally.

    If Nick is to be believed, probably creationists will think like that, and find plenty of biblical support for the idea too.


  • #4553
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    The nothing that is mentioned by physicists like L. Krauss still incorporates basic laws so it is not the nothing that some modern religious philosophers like to play with. It is as close to nothing as scientists can estimate as the term 'nothing' theists often mean NOW does not exist anywhere.

    A close to nothing that manages to pull what we see around us out of it's hat is still a pretty remarkable close to nothing.


  • #4554
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    The concept of millions of generations of slow evolutionary change cannot be described in that fashion and you, even as a creationist, should admit it, even if you don't accept the theory.

    As I understand it, evolution is said to work as follows:

    1. Genetic mutation in offspring increases the variety of cards on which environmental circumstances at the time can operate

    2. Those mutations which allow an organism to better flourish in the particular environmental circumstances (compared to it's neighbours) it finds itself operating in, are carried on to the next generation. Those mutations which don't flourish die out. Beneficial mutation piled on beneficial mutation, carried on down the line, produces wholesale change.

    3. What benefits an organism now might prove detrimental / useless in some future environmental set of circumstances.

    Now the production of mutations is an ultimately random process. As are the environmental circumstances the organism finds itself in. Which means an evolved creature is the product of, ultimately, randomness.

    Which means your brain is the product of random processes (at an ultimate level)

    Whilst I understand there are philosophical arguments for supposing the product of our brains (e.g. our observations about the reality around us) can be considered sound, I've not heard how someone, who thinks their brain is the product of randomness, can be expect it to provide them with any solid ground (i.e. something not the product of randomness) on which to construct such a philosophy.

    If the foundations are thought to be unsound, how can anything built on them stand?


  • #4555
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    As I understand it, evolution is said to work as follows:

    1. Genetic mutation in offspring increases the variety of cards on which environmental circumstances at the time can operate

    2. Those mutations which allow an organism to better flourish in the particular environmental circumstances (compared to it's neighbours) it finds itself operating in, are carried on to the next generation. Those mutations which don't flourish die out. Beneficial mutation piled on beneficial mutation, carried on down the line, produces wholesale change.

    3. What benefits an organism now might prove detrimental / useless in some future environmental set of circumstances.

    Now the production of mutations is an ultimately random process. As are the environmental circumstances the organism finds itself in. Which means an evolved creature is the product of, ultimately, randomness.

    Which means your brain is the product of random processes (at an ultimate level)

    Whilst I understand there are philosophical arguments for supposing the product of our brains (e.g. our observations about the reality around us) can be considered sound, I've not heard how someone, who thinks their brain is the product of randomness, can be expect it to provide them with any solid ground (i.e. something not the product of randomness) on which to construct such a philosophy.

    It always amazes me the level of detail and the level of thought, creationists go into to disembowel the whole concept of evolution. If they went into half of that detail and a fraction of the critical thought and analysis of the creation story, it would make very interesting reading. But of course, they don't, and they never will.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If the foundations are thought to be unsound, how can anything built on them stand?

    Great question. Now lets apply that logic to some of the Biblical stories, shall we?

    God creating the universe in 7 days, sound or unsound?
    God creating night and day without the sun, sound or unsound?
    Plants flourishing in the absence of the sun, sound or unsound?
    Talking snakes, sound or unsound?
    The story that the whole Earth was flooded, Mount Everest and all, sound or unsound?
    Noah taking two of every animal on Earth onto his home-made ark, sound or unsound?
    Noah living for 900 years, sound or unsound?
    Moses being spoken to by a talking, burning bush, sound or unsound?

    If you answer "sound" to 1 or more of the above, I suggest that anything you say, by way of critical thought, about the theory of evolution, should be dismissed as the ranting of an illogical mind.


  • #4556
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    I know the internet is still skewed towards the USA's world view, but Creationists are largely a US made phenomenon in the last few hundred years.
    All mainstream churches are 'creationist' churches as they still hold to the Apostles and Nicene Creeds which proclaim God as Creator and Maker of the Universe and all things therein. Divine Creation is a doctrine of all mainstream Christian Churches in Europe and elsewhere.
    What has happened in America is that scientists who are Creationists have founded a branch of science known as Creation Science to apply the principles of conventional science to the study of the evidence for Direct Divine Creation in the physical world and in life itself ... with great success, I might add.
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    I find just as many fundamentalist atheists, if not more, insist on taking the bible literally instead of distinguishing the literal style of each book, as was always intended. Western European and Eastern Christianity has always had the tradition, right back to the first centuries of Christianity, of interpreting it according to the correct allegory. Just as the Jews also have. The internet has in fact seemed to have made many people dumber about scripture . . .not smarter. It's probably only a matter of time before people start claiming that when an author writes "it was raining cats and dogs" they must mean it literally.
    All Creationists believe in a plain reading of scripture, treating it as allegory where allegory is obviously meant ... and literally where a literal interpretation is clearly justified.
    ... so we don't expect to be hit of the head by falling felines and canines when we go outside after somebody tells us that it's "raining cats and dogs".:)


  • #4557
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    I assume this is meant to be a reply that is highly sarcastic and amusing.
    Every point you made is mired with misunderstanding.
    Here is an example: "the current belief is that they have spontaneously evolved from pondkind to Mankind" This is simply a lie. No one says that except creationists. The concept of millions of generations of slow evolutionary change cannot be described in that fashion and you, even as a creationist, should admit it, even if you don't accept the theory. There is, I believe, something in the 10 commandments about telling porkies.
    This is exactly what Evolutionists say happened ... Pondkind i.e. pondscum consisting of tiny primitive cells spontaneously organised themselves under the joint process of mutagenesis and selection and over millions of years and generations became Mankind and all of the other species we see today on the Earth.

    When this supposed process is summarised as Pondkind spontaneously evolving into Mankind many Evolutionists see it for the impossibility it undoubtedly is ... and they seek solace in saying that the reason it was possible is because it was a different process ... without ever specifying exactly what was different about the process.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Oh on the point of 'resting' on the 7th day. There is nothing to back up the concept that he is still 'resting'. If you are prepared to believe in six literal days and one unending day, that is special pleading right there.
    God rested on the 7th Day from Creating ... and nowhere in the Bible does it say that He ever started Creating again.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Not that I accept any of it, but honestly, since your god has streams of interventions and miracles throughout the OT and even the NT, that is not exactly 'resting' and no where does it claim it is still 'resting'.
    He is resting from Creating ... but not from watching over His people.

    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    As far as ongoing 'creation' not happening, there is again no reason to think that to be the case, by scriptural standards.
    The whole theistic evolution crowd, including catholics, require god not to be resting, for example, but actively tweaking his stuff (I was going to say twirking) every moment.
    There is no evidence of Creation de novo happening now ... and plenty of evidence of de-generating effects, like disease and death, deleterious mutagenesis, etc.
    ... and the lack of physical and biblical evidence for continued Creation by God is yet another problem for Theistic Evolutionists ... but it is obviously not an issue for Creationists or Creation Scientists.:)


  • #4558
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    It always amazes me the level of detail and the level of thought, creationists go into to disembowel the whole concept of evolution. If they went into half of that detail and a fraction of the critical thought and analysis of the creation story, it would make very interesting reading. But of course, they don't, and they never will.
    It is very easy to scientifically 'disembowel' Spontaneous Evolution, which is just a latter day version of Spontaneus Generation with deep time and damaging mutagenesis added to the mix for good measure and to provide a modicum of plausibility (that rapidly disappears under close examination)!!!

    Safehands wrote: »
    Great question. Now lets apply that logic to some of the Biblical stories, shall we? (my answers in red)

    God creating the universe in 7 days, sound or unsound? Very sound, if your hypotheis is an omnipotent Creator God. Very un-sound if it is anything else.

    God creating night and day without the sun, sound or unsound?
    Very sound as all that is needed is a temporary source of light ... and a global Earth.

    Plants flourishing in the absence of the sun, sound or unsound?
    Very sound that plants wouldn't suffer any ill effects over one night ... when they had been created the day before with a temporary source of light for the day.

    Talking snakes, sound or unsound?
    Satan can take any physical form.

    The story that the whole Earth was flooded, Mount Everest and all, sound or unsound?
    Firstly, the Earth was relatively smooth-surfaced prior to the Flood ... the high mountain ranges of today arose due to the tectonic processes unleashed during the Flood.
    Secondly, the whole Earth was flooded as evidence by the widespread scale of sedimentary rocks (that can only be laid down under water) which cover 75% of the Earth and the reminder is covered by igneous and metamorphic rock released mostly during the tectoninc movements that accompanied the Flood.

    Noah taking two of every animal on Earth onto his home-made ark, sound or unsound?
    Very sound, as sexual reproduction only requires two to tango !!!

    Noah living for 900 years, sound or unsound?
    Very sound, when you are dealing with an almost genetically perfect Human just 9 generations from the very first perfectly Created man, Adam. Even today, some organisms, like trees, live for thousands of years.

    Moses being spoken to by a talking, burning bush, sound or unsound?
    Very sound, when you are dealing with God talking directly to Him.

    If you answer "sound" to 1 or more of the above, I suggest that anything you say, by way of critical thought, about the theory of evolution, should be dismissed as the ranting of an illogical mind.
    I said 'very sound' ... but why not tell us exactly how evolution works to evolve Pondkind to Mankind using milllions of years and accumulated mistakes !!!


  • #4559
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    It is very easy to scientifically 'disembowel' Spontaneous Evolution, which is just a latter day version of Spontaneus Generation with deep time and damaging mutagenesis added to the mix for good measure and to provide a modicum of plausibility (that rapidly disappears under close examination)!!!
    See, there you go my old friend, cleverly pushing it back to bashinh the evolution theory without giving us a sound reason why you think that the biblical story is more believable.
    J C wrote: »
    Great question. Now lets apply that logic to some of the Biblical stories, shall we? (my answers in red)

    God creating the universe in 7 days, sound or unsound? Very sound, if your hypotheis is an omnipotent Creator God. Very un-sound if it is anything else. My hypothesis is not. That just introduces the nuclear option that with God anything is possible.

    God creating night and day without the sun, sound or unsound?
    Very sound as all that is needed is a temporary source of light ... and a global Earth. Ah, but a temporary "sun" is not mentioned anywhere. He created that light on the fourth day, remember?

    Plants flourishing in the absence of the sun, sound or unsound?
    Very sound that plants wouldn't suffer any ill effects over one night ... when they had been created the day before with a temporary source of light for the day. You must be joking. Ill effects!!! remember, the sun and its heat arrived after 24 hours, that means that there was no heat at all, so all the plants would freeze instantly, no matter how you try to twist it with The "maybe there were other heat sources". There wasn't. The Bible doesn't say it so you can't just make it up.

    Talking snakes, sound or unsound?
    Satan can take any physical form. Magical tricks or illusions have no place in scientific reasoning. Really sound logic there JC!

    The story that the whole Earth was flooded, Mount Everest and all, sound or unsound?
    Firstly, the Earth was relatively smooth-surfaced prior to the Flood ... the high mountain ranges of today arose due to the tectonic processes unleashed during the Flood. Wow, the Bible said that? Show me where it is. Totally unsound reasoning JC, with not one shread of evidence for it and libraries full of evidence against it.
    Secondly, the whole Earth was flooded as evidence by the widespread scale of sedimentary rocks (that can only be laid down under water) which cover 75% of the Earth and the reminder is covered by igneous and metamorphic rock released mostly during the tectoninc movements that accompanied the Flood. What a massively exagerated claim. These rocks can be over 100 million years old. Of course you don't accept that. Funnily you do accept the classification but nothing else. Funny that

    Noah taking two of every animal on Earth onto his home-made ark, sound or unsound?
    Very sound, as sexual reproduction only requires two to tango !!! Yeah, but feeding comes into it too and guess what tigers and lions eat? Couldn't be more unsound JC.

    Noah living for 900 years, sound or unsound?
    Very sound, when you are dealing with an almost genetically perfect Human just 9 generations from the very first perfectly Created man, Adam. Even today, some organisms, like trees, live for thousands of years.
    Trees may but humans didn't. Show us one scrap of evidence JC.
    Moses being spoken to by a talking, burning bush, sound or unsound?
    Very sound, when you are dealing with God talking directly to Him.
    Back to the Nuclear option.
    If you answer "sound" to 1 or more of the above, I suggest that anything you say, by way of critical thought, about the theory of evolution, should be dismissed as the ranting of an illogical mind.

    We were talking about believable beginnings and JC, yours are just not believable.


  • #4560
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    Saw this thread pop up and I have some questions about science and religion for JC.

    Are scientists not supposed to examine the source of their information? Your proof comes from the bible. If the facts you base your premises on are incorrect then that makes your premises wrong too. Is the legitimacy of the bible not in anyway questionable to you? I mean I believe in science but if I was given questions data or information I would have to be sceptical. Word of mouth was used in passing down bible stories etc . This is surely subject to some error?

    The whole idea of theories and experiments is that they are repeatable. Evolution can be repeated.
    The miracles and great claims made by the bible are much harder if not impossible to reproduce are they not? This is where the magic answer comes in - faith. Is it good enough to answer faith when you can't explain something? If you were a scientist and couldn't explain something would you not just say I don't know?

    Also the bible is limited. Where as science is expanding. Often when science discovers something people are quick to say god is behind the process or god allows it to happen. Do you ever think this is a lazy , almost cliche response?

    The fact you said you were a scientist before and a creationist is interesting. In my mind I see science and religion as being polar opposites almost.


  • Advertisement
  • #4561
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    Saw this thread pop up and I have some questions about science and religion for JC.

    Are scientists not supposed to examine the source of their information? Your proof comes from the bible. If the facts you base your premises on are incorrect then that makes your premises wrong too. Is the legitimacy of the bible not in anyway questionable to you? I mean I believe in science but if I was given questions data or information I would have to be sceptical. Word of mouth was used in passing down bible stories etc . This is surely subject to some error?

    The whole idea of theories and experiments is that they are repeatable. Evolution can be repeated.
    The miracles and great claims made by the bible are much harder if not impossible to reproduce are they not? This is where the magic answer comes in - faith. Is it good enough to answer faith when you can't explain something? If you were a scientist and couldn't explain something would you not just say I don't know?

    Also the bible is limited. Where as science is expanding. Often when science discovers something people are quick to say god is behind the process or god allows it to happen. Do you ever think this is a lazy , almost cliche response?

    The fact you said you were a scientist before and a creationist is interesting. In my mind I see science and religion as being polar opposites almost.
    Eoghan, when you are arguing with someone who thinks that "with God all things are possible" is a reasonable scientific argument, then they can throw any hair-brained notion at you and say "well an omnipotent God can do that".
    Logic doesn't come into it. The Bible is the greatest scientific book of all time. Did you not know that, and by the way, the Earth is flat. This Globe thing is a giant conspiracy!


Advertisement