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…152153155157158…232

Comments

  • #4622
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Wait a second, so you don't need to even define your words now?

    "a prefix meaning “above, over” (supraorbital) or “beyond the limits of, outside of” (suprasegmental)."


    Also anyone is free to suppose anything they like, that does not make what they suppose real or even credible. I can suppose fairies exist, and that they cannot be disproven because they are magical and outside of the rules of nature. How does that move along any conversation however or help decide if something actually exists at all.

    Indeed they are. And the only person they ultimately have to satisfy in order to suppose what they suppose is themselves. Only they are the judges of whether the means they use to arrive at the conclusions they arrive at are satisfactory for their purposes.

    This is true of everyone. That you draw the conclusions you do about the (likely) limits of reality stem from your satisfaction that the methodologies you rely on are sufficient for you to arrive at the conclusions you arrive at. They can't be independently proven to be capable in any absolute sense.

    The fact that many share your view doesn't in any way improve the authority of the methodology - since it is only you who decides that many agreeing with you conveys authority. And you deciding on this latter element is still something down to you, something personally held.

    Who knows, the folk who believe in fairies could very well be right, end of the day. All I have to counter their (and your) confidence is confidence in my own means of establishing what is and isn't the case.

    I am an empiricist to the extent that when facing a choice between accepting a claim or not (if 'choice' is really accurate), evidence for it or against it existing is something I look for. I don't just guess or consider if I want it to exist that justifies it existing.

    And that's perfectly fine. I do the same thing - the difference being that I don't limit evidence to that which can be measured in a test tube when it comes to evaluating claims. To another poster I exchanged out the word "evidence" for the word "information" (because evidence is a notion commandeered (and commonly understood) to refer to empirical things).

    Bear in mind, I'm not in anyway asking you to believe what I say regarding God's existence (in the sense that you should give what I say any credence). These conversations typically insist that I can't hold the position I do, personally (on the grounds that I haven't empirical evidence at my disposal). And it's that that I am countering
    I don't read all your posts to other posters so what is your problem with empiricism.

    The philosophy of empiricism holds that what we can see/hear/measure in a test tube, etc. is the extent of reality. And that anything which might occur which is currently outside the reach of science, will, if it comes to reveal itself, be measureable and comprehensible in the usual, scientific way.

    It rejects, a priori, the possibility of the non-empirical

    Which is but a belief.
    Also you cannot have something that is 'outside of the rules of nature' and be in nature without running into at least two problems.

    I would probably have said something outside the rules of nature but which is part of reality. God, for instance.
    Either you are saying the rules of nature are false, a serious claim that needs to be supported (but certainly possible as our understanding of nature matures constantly) or you are falling into a special pleading fallacy, where the rules (or laws) are suspended to allow your proposed entity or condition to exist, because otherwise it would be illogical or impossible.

    Does the above deal with this? Which is not to say that God couldn't, for example cause something in nature to act in a way that is outside the normal working of nature (say changing water into wine)
    As far as not being part of nature itself rather than simply outside of how nature normally works (so by default outside of your understanding of reality)

    I've bolded a letter I felt needed adding above.


    The pathway to how someone 'knows' this entity is outside the laws of nature also needs analysis as the person providing this claim is subject to those laws normally as is everyone else. Special knowledge, that seeks special privilege (as in being accepted by faith) is highly unreliable.

    Fair enough if I was trying to prove something to you. But I'm not. I'm, as I say, countering the notion that I necessarily can't hold the position I hold unless I conform to the rules you cover here.

    Something to consider. IF God exists THEN he can demonstrate his existence to me if he likes. And IF he does exist AND he demonstrates himself to me (in a non-empirical way), THEN I've no option but to hold he exists - irrespective of rules that may be held to have to apply, either by me (up to that point) or anyone else.

    The only question is whether the IF has indeed occurred. IF it has THEN I know God exists. IF it hasn't THEN I don't.

    I'm subject here and don't necessarily have any choice in the matter. If I reckon I know he exists then that's the position I've to hold. As it happens, there is plenty of information at my disposal to further assess the veracity of the initial conclusion that God has revealed his existence to me. It's good to have that additional because there is a need to be able to copperfasten and ground the initial conclusion (he exists!) in a framework that strikes a day-to-day, familar resonance in a human being. Life will bring travails and for someone who has no further grounding, doubt might be expected to creep in.

    One example is being able to contend with arguments such as those formed by yourself. So long as the counter-arguments, as to why I can't hold the position I hold, can't find purchase, have I little reason shift from the weight of information pointing in the other, God-exists, direction

    Another example is the structure and working and way of the humanity: it's motivations, drives, responses, relationships, good ways and bad. The Bible can be considered to detail a theory of humanity and in observing humanity at work I can't but be awed by how well this theory explains and predicts what I see going on around me. The alternative is a hotch-potch of psychological, sociological, medical, political, economical (and every other -ism and -ology) thought which hasn't a chance in hell of combining to form a coherent whole. The world is a sea of incoherance and disconnect when it comes to a theory of humanity.

    There is no contest: a wheezing, farting amalgamation of disconnected, tentitive, social theory. Or a purring, elegant, fitting explanation as to why the world is the way it is. Why (assuming for a second I am intelligent enough to be able to interrogate and evaluate both the God and the secular explanations) on earth would I be tempted to plump for the incoherent?

    It must have been one of the most significant fallouts of coming to know God exists: the world doesn't upset me in the way it used to. It is as it can only be, all that occurs is to be expected: the good, the bad, the mass shootgings, the lot. As the book of Ecclesiastes lays out: there really is nothing new (to be expected of humanity) under the Sun.

    And on a positive note: that this whole mess ( driven by selfishness, greed, anger, lust, pride (the Commander in Chief of all the rest), is to be rectified and set right. I can't wait. I really can't


  • #4623
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Your response here about stitching together a plausible story’ seems to indicate that it has no support, that it is just an interpretation that is just as plausible as anything else. This would be false as the ‘story’ has to be consistent with the data (which evolution overwhelming is) and provide predictive possibilities that further our ability to understand the phenomena (again the theory of evolution has shown for over a century that it gives accurate predictions time and again, and as it is refined, when new data comes along, that those predictions become more frequent, not less.)
    The most dangerous lie is a half truth with just about enough superficial plausibility to convince people who want to be convinced of its veracity.
    This is the case with Evolution ... it is true in the sense that it explains the survival of the fittest within kinds and between kinds on an ongoing basis ... but it is false in its claims to explain the arrival of the fittest i.e. the emergence of all species, in the first place ... for that you need the appliance of intelligence to purposefully and deliberately select from an effective infinity of useless combinatorial space, the effectively infinitesimally tiny areas of useful combinatorial space.
    Any process of Natural Selection would be statistically swamped by the ratio of useless combinatorial space to useful combinatorial space - in plain man's language ... because there is an effective infinity of ways to do something wrong ... and a tiny number ways to do it right (in most cases only one way) ... it takes intelligent oversight to ensure that it is done right.
    Nobody drives without the appliance of intelligence and nobody manufactures anything without applying intelligence for this very reason ... and selecting between non-intelligently directed products (AKA rubbish) simply won't produce anything other than more rubbish.


  • #4624
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    J C wrote: »
    The most dangerous lie is a half truth with just about enough superficial plausibility to convince people who want to be convinced of its veracity.
    This is the case with Evolution ... it is true in the sense that it explains the survival of the fittest within kinds and between kinds on an ongoing basis ... but it is false in its claims to explain the arrival of the fittest i.e. the emergence of all species, in the first place ... for that you need the appliance of intelligence to purposefully and deliberately select from an effective infinity of useless combinatorial space, the effectively infinitesimally tiny areas of useful combinatorial space.
    Any process of Natural Selection would be statistically swamped by the ratio of useless combinatorial space to useful combinatorial space - in plain man's language ... because there is an effective infinity of ways to do something wrong ... and a tiny number ways to do it right (in most cases only one way) ... it takes intelligent oversight to ensure that it is done right.
    Nobody drives without the appliance of intelligence and nobody manufactures anything without applying intelligence for this very reason ... and selecting between non-intelligently directed products (AKA rubbish) simply won't produce anything other than more rubbish.

    <Snip> Do creationists make up their own phrases entirely. What the heck is the part in bold supposed to even mean.

    " it is true in the sense that it explains the survival of the fittest within kinds and between kinds on an ongoing basis" Leaving aside the useless term 'kinds' for a minute, you just accepted evolution J.C. Its a miracle.
    If evolutionary theory explains change within 'kinds' and between them, on an ongoing basis, then you have finally grasped that that is all it is supposed to do. As long as a 'kind' exists, and diversifies, it evolves.
    Evolutionary theory does not deal with where life came from. That is abiogenesis, so if you are criticising it for not explaining how life came about, you are not being fair to the theory.

    "because there is an effective infinity of ways to do something wrong ... and a tiny number ways to do it right (in most cases only one way) ... it takes intelligent oversight to ensure that it is done right."
    Well you have a couple of errors here, one is that intelligence is required for design. That is not demonstrably true. The 2nd point is that 99.999999999% of all species that evolve DIED OUT. So yes there is ALMOST infinite ways for things to go wrong and a limited amount (not one or there would not be other species) that go right.
    If there was intelligent design it would be the worst intelligent design imaginable, with a failure rate so high that for all intents and purposes, ALL its creations die out entirely in the most painful and fearful way possible (if the species can experience pain).


  • #4625
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I still maintain the most simple thought in this whole thing: what says that a divine being, in theory, couldn't have developed evolution as the means by which life propels itself? They would have also had to create or develop the 4 fundamental forces, thermodynamics, etc.


  • #4626
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    Overheal wrote: »
    I still maintain the most simple thought in this whole thing: what says that a divine being, in theory, couldn't have developed evolution as the means by which life propels itself? They would have also had to create or develop the 4 fundamental forces, thermodynamics, etc.

    Broadly speaking, that outlook has always been the understanding of most Christians I know, and the western Church for centuries.

    Fundamentalist creationism is largely the preserve of fundamentalist atheists and some American protestant denominations, the same type of people that in future centuries will claim, that the current expression "raining cats and dogs" must mean exactly that and nothing else.

    When it comes to scripture, it seems the world has become a lot "dumber" (to use another Americanism) in many regards.

    From the writings of Saint Austine in the 5th Century :
    It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
    With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

    Scripture for centuries, has always been understood as being a spiritual library that employs many literal devices from poetry, to song, to parables to, allegory, to Gospel, and requires the correct interpretation by those with the spiritual authority, spiritual knowledge and spiritual education to do so. It's not a science book. Would anyone normally pick up a book from another literal category and try and claim it should be read as a science book ?
    Yet some Atheists and fundamentalist Christians alike equally try to do so.

    "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" - 2 Peter 3-8.


  • Advertisement
  • #4627
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Broadly speaking, that outlook has always been the understanding of most Christians I know, and the western Church for centuries.

    Fundamentalist creationism is largely the preserve of fundamentalist atheists and some American protestant denominations, the same type of people that in future centuries will claim, that the current expression "raining cats and dogs" must mean exactly that and nothing else.
    For nth time I repeat that Creationists use a plain reading of scripture reading obvious poetry as poetry, obvious allegories as allegories and obvious literal history as literal history.
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    When it comes to scripture, it seems the world has become a lot "dumber" (to use another Americanism) in many regards.
    Not dumber ... just wilfully disingenuous ... because this is the only explantion for somebody who loudly proclaims God as Creator of all things in their Creed every Sunday ... and then immediately turns around and proclaims Evolution to be how God created ... when Natural Selection is 'red in tooth and claw' ... and a result of the Fall ... and therefore nothing to do with the perfect Creation that God called 'very good'.
    BTW, even Atheists don't claim that evolution was how life arose in the first place ... they say they don't know. Creationists know ... and it was God that did it.
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    From the writings of Saint Austine in the 5th Century :
    It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
    With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.
    OK so a 5th Century man wants to 'hedge his bets' and effectivley denies the veracity of scripture ... he wasn't the first to do so ... and he won't be the last !!!
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Scripture for centuries, has always been understood as being a spiritual library that employs many literal devices from poetry, to song, to parables to, allegory, to Gospel, and requires the correct interpretation by those with the spiritual authority, spiritual knowledge and spiritual education to do so. It's not a science book. Would anyone normally pick up a book from another literal category and try and claim it should be read as a science book ?
    Yet some Atheists and fundamentalist Christians alike equally try to do so.
    Scripture is the revealed infallible Word of God that can be understood by every spirit-filled Christian i.e. every Christian.
    I agree that Scripture employs many literal devices from poetry, to song, to parables to, allegory, to Gospel, but it doesn't requires any interpretation by those with 'spiritual authority, spiritual knowledge and spiritual education' (whatever these things even mean) !!!
    That sounds like elites trying to make a job for themselves !!!:D
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" - 2 Peter 3-8.
    Yes, God is timeless (He always was and always will be). This has nothing to do with events on our time-bound Earth.:)


  • #4628
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    For nth time I repeat that Creationists use a plain reading of scripture reading obvious poetry as poetry, obvious allegories as allegories and obvious literal history as literal history.

    Not dumber ... just wilfully disingenuous ... because this is the only explantion for somebody who loudly proclaims God as Creator of all things in their Creed every Sunday ... and then immediately turns around and proclaims Evolution to be how God created.

    OK so a 5th Century man wants to 'hedge his bets' and effectivley denies the veracity of scripture ... he wasn't the first to do so ... and he won't be the last !!!

    Scripture is the revealed infallible Word of God that can be understood by every spirit-filled Christian i.e. every Christian.
    I agree that Scripture employs many literal devices from poetry, to song, to parables to, allegory, to Gospel, but it doesn't requires any interpretation by those with 'spiritual authority, spiritual knowledge and spiritual education' (whatever these things even mean) !!!
    They sound like some elites trying to make a job for themselves !!!
    Yes, God is timeless (He always was and always will be). This has nothing to do with events on our time-bound Earth.:)
    Just to re-cap JC, you believe our time-bound Earth is less than 12,000 years old and you don't believe that there are any stars which are millions of light years away, (meaning it takes light millions of years to get here).
    So your interpretation of the biblical stories and your pronouncements about God and time need to be read and understood in conjunction with your fairly fundamentalist beliefs. Would you agree?


  • #4629
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    Just to re-cap JC, you believe our time-bound Earth is less than 12,000 years old and you don't believe that there are any stars which are millions of light years away, (meaning it takes light millions of years to get here).
    So your interpretation of the biblical stories and your pronouncements about God and time need to be read and understood in conjunction with your fairly fundamentalist beliefs. Would you agree?
    You're confusing time and distance here.
    The Earth and the Universe is less than 12,000 years old ... but God Created the stars at great distances apart to demonstrate His omnipotent glory ... and He simultaneously created the light beams from the stars so that Mankind could see them all.:)


  • #4630
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    J C wrote: »
    You're confusing time and distance here.
    The Earth and the Universe is less than 12,000 years old

    This is patent rubbish JC.

    True science and true religion don't conflict, the truth is the truth, whether its regarding physical matters or spiritual, you don't have to try and twist science to suit a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of scripture.


  • #4631
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    This is patent rubbish JC.
    Please explain.
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    True science and true religion don't conflict, the truth is the truth, whether its regarding physical matters or spiritual, you don't have to try and twist science to suit a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of scripture.
    The truth is the truth allright ... and what we are all trying to do is to establish the truth of the matter.
    There are two competing theories ...
    ... one that nothing exploded billions of years ago and expanded initially at speeds billions of times greater than the speed of light (because current physical laws supposedly didn't exist at the time) ...
    ... the other postulates that an omnipotent God Created it all recently and set it in motion roughly like we now see it.
    I don't know about you, but I think the second one is somewhat more logical than the first one. For example, an omnipotent God could create everything out of nothing ... but this would be logically impossible for a physical system to do.
    Equally, it is special pleading for the 'big bangers' to maintain that the current physical laws didn't exist at times when they were needed not to exist, for the theory to work.


  • Advertisement
  • #4632
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    J C wrote: »
    Please explain.

    The truth is the truth allright ... and what we are all trying to do is to establish the truth of the matter.
    There are two competing theories ...
    ... one that nothing exploded billions of years ago and expanded initially at speeds billions of times greater than the speed of light (because current physical laws supposedly didn't exist at the time) ...
    ... the other postulates that an omnipotent God Created it all recently and set it in motion roughly like we now see it.
    I don't know about you, but I think the second one is somewhat more logical than the first one. For example, an omnipotent God could create everything out of nothing ... but this would be logically impossible for a physical system to do.
    Equally, it is special pleading for the 'big bangers' to maintain that the current physical laws didn't exist at times when they were needed not to exist, for the theory to work.

    I don't know of any Christian that claims something can come from nothing.
    I don't know any Christian who claims God is not the ultimate source of everything, including the big bang and evolution. To an infinite being the time span of a few billion years evolution is nothing. Man created the the notion of the duration of a human year, not God. Scripture is the spiritual why, it was never intended to be abused and twisted as the scientific how.

    Again, why selectively ignore scripture that explains scripture ?

    "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."


  • #4633
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    You're confusing time and distance here.
    The Earth and the Universe is less than 12,000 years old ... but God Created the stars at great distances apart to demonstrate His omnipotent glory ... and He simultaneously created the light beams from the stars so that Mankind could see them all.:)

    :confused: :rolleyes: :D So there we have it folks! All outlined quite clearly, for everyone to study in the eh...the.... Gospel according to JC, available in all good bookstores, as soon as JC publishes it. Shortly to be taught in all secondary schools, just as soon as JC is awarded the nobel prize for his outstanding contribution to science.

    See, as I see it, the only one who compares to you JC is Mary Poppins. She says never judge anything by appearances. She should have a chapter in your gospel.


  • #4634
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    J C wrote: »
    You're confusing time and distance here.
    The Earth and the Universe is less than 12,000 years old ... but God Created the stars at great distances apart to demonstrate His omnipotent glory ... and He simultaneously created the light beams from the stars so that Mankind could see them all.:)

    its amazing what brain washing will do to a mind, almost speechless.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #4635
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    I don't know of any Christian that claims something can come from nothing.
    The Big Bang so beloved of some self-styled 'liberal' Christians, is actually an attempt by Atheists to explain the origins and supposed development of the Universe without God.
    Equally, Evolution is used by Atheists as an explantion for how complex living things came to be without God.
    The attempts by Theistic Evolutionists to 'squeeze in' God into both processes result in private (and not so private) derision from the Atheists ... and in some ways I cannot blame them ... beacuse if the Big Bang and Evolution happened as the Atheists say they happened ... then there is no room (and certainly no requirement) for God in either process.
    ... the Genesis account of Creation is nothing like either the Big Bang or evolution (given the fact that it clearly says that God directly created both the Universe and life roughly like it now is).
    It could be wrong ... and if it is, the infallibility of the Bible will not be saved by claiming that it says something that it clearly doesn't say.
    However, I believe it to be right ... and I haven't seen any scientific evidence to disprove it and plenty of evidence to support it.
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    I don't know any Christian who claims God is not the ultimate source of everything, including the big bang and evolution.
    Where does Genesis (or indeed the Creeds) talk about anything remotely like either the Big Bang or Evolution?
    ... so what is the basis for any Christian claiming that God used the Big Bang and Evolution to Create the universe and life respectively?

    La Fenetre wrote: »
    To an infinite being the time span of a few billion years evolution is nothing.
    That may be true ... but again the Genesis account talks about days ... and not billions of years.
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Man created the the notion of the duration of a human year, not God.
    It all depends on whether you believe that it was God or Man who created the Earth and the Sun and set the Earth in motion relative to the Sun or not. If God did it then the year was an invention of God ... and not of Man.
    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Scripture is the spiritual why, it was never intended to be abused and twisted as the scientific how.
    Scripture was certainly never intended to provide a Theistic 'gloss' to an Atheistic premise that everything created itself.
    Genesis tries very hard to describe the 'how' of the Creation of everything ... with very little of the 'why', actually.


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Again, why selectively ignore scripture that explains scripture ?

    "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
    I didn't selectively ignore anything ... I merely pointed out that this passage is obviously and perfectly describing a God who exists outside as well as inside time ... with no implications one way or the other for our time-bound Earth.
    The fact that our week is modelled on the Creation week of seven days and that each day of Creation is described as having a morning and an evening is a pretty heavy hint that Genesis is referring to ordinary literal days ... and not aeons of time.


  • #4636
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    silverharp wrote: »
    its amazing what brain washing will do to a mind, almost speechless.
    Says the one who believes that all matter came spontaneously into existence when nothing blew up ... and pondkind evolved into Mankind through a process of selection from accumulated mistakes ... just because some Atheist or another says that's what happened !!!:)


  • #4637
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,071 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Says the one who believes that matter came into existence when nothing blew up ... and pondkind evolved into Mankind through a process of selecting from accumulated mistakes ... just because some Atheist or another says it did !!!:)

    Yes, because only atheists work in science :rolleyes:

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



  • #4638
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    <Snip> Do creationists make up their own phrases entirely. What the heck is the part in bold supposed to even mean.

    " it is true in the sense that it explains the survival of the fittest within kinds and between kinds on an ongoing basis" Leaving aside the useless term 'kinds' for a minute, you just accepted evolution J.C. Its a miracle.
    If evolutionary theory explains change within 'kinds' and between them, on an ongoing basis, then you have finally grasped that that is all it is supposed to do. As long as a 'kind' exists, and diversifies, it evolves.
    I have never denied that Evolution exists ... Natural Selection from pre-existing Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information (CFSGI) does occur.
    However, Natural Selection doesn't explain the origins of this CFSGI, in the first place.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Evolutionary theory does not deal with where life came from. That is abiogenesis, so if you are criticising it for not explaining how life came about, you are not being fair to the theory.
    Fair enough ... You guys use 'abiogenesis' and freely admit you don't know how it actually happened.
    I use 'Creation' and explain that an omnipotent God did it. You pays your money and takes your choice !!!
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    "because there is an effective infinity of ways to do something wrong ... and a tiny number ways to do it right (in most cases only one way) ... it takes intelligent oversight to ensure that it is done right."
    Well you have a couple of errors here, one is that intelligence is required for design. That is not demonstrably true. The 2nd point is that 99.999999999% of all species that evolve DIED OUT. So yes there is ALMOST infinite ways for things to go wrong and a limited amount (not one or there would not be other species) that go right.
    That proves my point actually. When left to its own devices, after the Fall, life has largely been in extinction mode ... which isn't the type of process you'd expect to explain the production of the diversity of life.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    If there was intelligent design it would be the worst intelligent design imaginable, with a failure rate so high that for all intents and purposes, ALL its creations die out entirely in the most painful and fearful way possible (if the species can experience pain).
    I agree that Evolution is 'red in tooth and claw' ... not a process of Creation that any loving God would use (or be required, as it is autonamous) ... but this is a problem for the Theistic Evolutionists to explain.
    I believe that God Created everything perfect and roughly as it is now ... except for the entry of disease and death, (which are the drivers Natural Selection), at the Fall.


  • #4639
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    Yes, because only atheists work in science :rolleyes:
    All scientists (including myself in my day to day work) use the Atheistic principles upon which modern science is founded ... so we are either Atheists or practical Atheists when we work at operative science.
    When it comes to origins science the Big Bang and Evolution are posited as explantions for the origins of the Universe and the diversity of life respectively, without any need for God in either process ... so again, these are either Atheistic or practical Atheistic concepts.


  • #4640
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    J C wrote: »
    Says the one who believes that all matter came spontaneously into existence when nothing blew up ... and pondkind evolved into Mankind through a process of selection from accumulated mistakes ... just because some Atheist or another says that's what happened !!!:)

    I didnt respond to your comments on evolution, you are claiming that the universe is less than 12,000 years old. Scientists who look at this in unrelated fields have come to vastly different conclusions, all based on observable evidence. You seem to of the if the bible said 2 + 2=5 you'd believe it and try to work out what it means school of "thought"......

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #4641
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    All scientists (including myself in my day to day work) use the Atheistic principles upon which modern science is founded ... so we are either Atheists or practical Atheists when we work at operative science.
    When it comes to origins science the Big Bang and Evolution are posited as explantions for the origins of the Universe and the diversity of life respectively, without any need for God in either process ... so again, these are either Atheistic or practical Atheistic concepts.

    JC, you keep calling yourself a scientist. It is hard to envisage a scientist who has such a poor knowledge or understanding of basic scientific facts, such as the age of the universe, the true existance of stars and galaxies which are any further than 12000 light years away, just to justify the biblical stories. Not very scientific, is it?
    I suppose anyone can call themselves a scientist, but that doesn't actually make them one.


  • Advertisement
  • #4642
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Says the one who believes that matter came into existence when nothing blew up
    Who knows for sure that there was nothing? Thats just more appeal to ignorance.


  • #4643
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    J C wrote: »
    The Big Bang so beloved of some self-styled 'liberal' Christians, is actually an attempt by Atheists to explain the origins and supposed development of the Universe without God.

    No it isn't. Science makes no claims as the the ultimate cause and source of the Big Bang, and it was actually first proposed by a Catholic Priest and professor of physics, Fr.George Lemaître. He first proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble.
    J C wrote: »
    Equally, Evolution is used by Atheists as an explantion for how complex living things came to be without God.

    No again, true Science makes no claims about the involvement or non involvement of God, or the existence or non existence of God, because true Science, as of yet, simply doesn't know any of these things one way or the other.
    J C wrote: »
    The attempts by Theistic Evolutionists to 'squeeze in' God into both processes result in private (and not so private) derision from the Atheists ... and in some ways I cannot blame them ... beacuse if the Big Bang and Evolution happened as the Atheists say they happened ... then there is no room (and certainly no requirement) for God in either process.

    Again that's rubbish, there is no dispute about how grass grows for example, but because we do know how, we still can't draw any conclusions regarding God's existence or non existence, or the ultimate source of all conditions and energy for such things, and why they exist.
    J C wrote: »
    ... the Genesis account of Creation is nothing like either the Big Bang or evolution (given the fact that it clearly says that God directly created both the Universe and life roughly like it now is).

    It could be wrong ... and if it is, the infallibility of the Bible will not be saved by claiming that it says something that it clearly doesn't say.
    However, I believe it to be right ... and I haven't seen any scientific evidence to disprove it and plenty of evidence to support it.

    Where does Genesis (or indeed the Creeds) talk about anything remotely like either the Big Bang or Evolution?
    ... so what is the basis for any Christian claiming that God used the Big Bang and Evolution to Create the universe and life respectively?

    The very first line is of scripture is "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", it says nothing about how many universes are in the heavens, nor does it need to, as it isn't designed to be a science book, never was, or never will be, or a book about everything that exists, it's a book about true spirituality and man's relationship with God on earth, not man's relationship with other galaxies, or even universes, never mind God's relationship with them.
    J C wrote: »
    That may be true ... but again the Genesis account talks about days ... and not billions of years.

    What's a God day or a God year JC ? Scripture is very clear, its not a human's day or year "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." - 2 Peter 3:8. Yet you seem to constantly forget / ignore it.
    J C wrote: »
    It all depends on whether you believe that it was God or Man who created the Earth and the Sun and set the Earth in motion relative to the Sun or not. If God did it then the year was an invention of God ... and not of Man.

    Who claimed man created the Earth and Sun ? - Tell the truth JC.

    God created billions of Sun's JC, in billions of galaxies, and for all we know, could have created billions of universes as well as this one. Are you really small minded enough to think a God day or a God year must be the same as a human year ? and, in fact, in total and utter contrast to the actual words of Scripture :

    "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends : With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." - 2 Peter 3:8.


  • #4644
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    J C wrote: »
    have never denied that Evolution exists ... Natural Selection from pre-existing Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information (CFSGI) does occur.
    However, Natural Selection doesn't explain the origins of this CFSGI, in the first place.

    Fair enough ... You guys use 'abiogenesis' and freely admit you don't know how it actually happened.
    I use 'Creation' and explain that an omnipotent God did it. You pays your money and takes your choice !!!
    Hey as long as you and I can agree that the theory of evolution cannot be criticise unfairly by attempting to lump abiogenesis into it, that is progress.
    You are right to say that it COULD be a creation event, and if it was, evolutionary theory would still not be affected by that. In fact the earlier editions of the Origin of Species did mention that possibility as Darwin was a christian. It is important to recognise that NO MATTER how life started, once the process of reproduction involves slight replication imperfections, change occurs throughout generations and what determines the success of those changes is largely enviromental.
    If you accept that part, you and I have a decent amount of common ground to discuss other topics.
    J C wrote: »
    That proves my point actually. When left to its own devices, after the Fall, life has largely been in extinction mode ... which isn't the type of process you'd expect to explain the production of the diversity of life.
    Okay, I could go into the theistic aspects but I prefer to stay on science for now.
    While the majority of life is extinct, life has existed, as far as the evidence demonstrates for a long long time (complex multicelluar life has existed for at least 600 million years and life at a more basic level billions of years before that.) so because climates change over time, life changes. Most do not make it, but some do and they diversify and become new species that diversifty more and more the longer they exist, as it is a snowball effect of accumulated changes, the longer it has to go on, the more accumulation occurs.
    J C wrote: »
    I agree that Evolution is 'red in tooth and claw' ... not a process of Creation that any loving God would use (or be required, as it is autonamous) ... but this is a problem for the Theistic Evolutionists to explain.
    I believe that God Created everything perfect and roughly as it is now ... except for the entry of disease and death, (which are the drivers Natural Selection), at the Fall.

    Ok, first I do agree that Theistic Evolutionists have a lot of problems when trying to mix a very cruel and brutal mechanism of evolution (which is not in any way a negative that takes away from its validity as a natural process) with the idea of a loving creator. I feel they have to focus on the nice aspects of nature and try to brush under the carpet the not so nice aspects to make their case.
    However it is worth mentioning (even though I am an atheist) that a god, just not one that meets the three common omnies attributes, could exist while it is going on. It does not necessarily mean no god exists, so it is not accurate to say that it is an atheistic concept or that it promotes atheism per sae.

    "I believe that God Created everything perfect and roughly as it is now ... except for the entry of disease and death,"
    How roughly? The fossil record shows extreme change in morphology of organisms. The further you go back the more extreme it becomes. Even if you don't accept deep time, the fossils do exist and many do not match any organism alive today or any time in recorded history.
    Also why would your god not create potentially disease causing bacteria or viruses? What about non disease animals that are dangerous, parasitical or very very strange. He is supposedly the creator of ALL things. If he did not create them, what caused them to exist in your time period (which is what exactly, 12k or 10k or 6k, creationists differ a lot so please tell me your time frame).
    Death itself is vital for life, it would make little sense for an organism to be created, given the ability to reproduce and also be immortal. Population mechanics would quickly become nightmarish. We would not be able to move and that would be just if HUMANS were immortal, let alone ALL other species. Many parasitical species cross host to complete their lifecycle too, which in some cases, requires DEATH of the host by the ingestion of the next host. These are not disease, and such a complex relationship requires a long time to develop, if not intelligently designed. So it is a bit of a catch 22.


  • #4645
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    Says the one who believes that all matter came spontaneously into existence when nothing blew up ... and pondkind evolved into Mankind through a process of selection from accumulated mistakes ... just because some Atheist or another says that's what happened !!!:)

    Leaving aside from whence the start came (as evolutionists do) could you explain to me where the fundamental error (papered over by godless worldview) in their thinking is:

    - you refer to mistakes, but that presuppose faithful copying is 'right'. Evolutionists don't suppose faithful copying 'right' or mutations 'mistakes'. Mutations are simply part of the observed reality. Cards being added to the deck from which all sorts of hands are drawn.

    - the universe gives the appearance of great age and great size. Although the chances of arriving where we have arrived are tiny, the number of dice being thrown are very large. If you do the lotto often enough, it's not too surprising that you might win.

    - a plausible mechanism is posed for why complexity arises from simplicity. Survival is a great test of what works.


  • #4646
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Leaving aside from whence the start came (as evolutionists do)...
    This is not true.
    People who accept the theory of evolution as the current best explanation for the diversity of species object to people lumping the origin of life into the evolutionary theory as a form of criticism because that is dishonest. It is like criticising Atomic theory because it does not explain where energy comes from or criticising the theory of plate tectonics because that theory does not include how planets form.
    Each natural phenomena has its own theory to explain all the data currently available related to that phenomena. To try to push issues with a different phenomena, even if linked in some way, is something that is considered a red herring.
    Those that do accept science, also look into how life itself started, hence the various abiogenesis hypotheses currently being researched.
    You seem to think that unless everyone includes a god (particularly yours) in every answer then they have an agenda to keep it out. This is conspiracy level thinking on the level of 911 truthers.
    That is not what happens, in fact claims about 'super' natural things are investigated, if at all possible, and the results are always poor, contaminated or inconclusive.
    Asking a scientist to use a scientific method on a god that is, by definition, untestable, is setting up situations that are doomed to failure.
    So the only two alternatives are to look for testable solutions or give up.
    Our society would still be living in caves if we chose the latter option.


  • #4647
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    This is not true.
    People who accept the theory of evolution as the current best explanation for the diversity of species object to people lumping the origin of life into the evolutionary theory as a form of criticism because that is dishonest. It is like criticising Atomic theory because it does not explain where energy comes from or criticising the theory of plate tectonics because that theory does not include how planets form.
    Each natural phenomena has its own theory to explain all the data currently available related to that phenomena. To try to push issues with a different phenomena, even if linked in some way, is something that is considered a red herring.

    Which is more or less what I was trying to say: evolutionists of course have a view on that which stands outside evolution but want to contain the discussion on evolution to that which is pertinent to evolution - which isn't origins.
    Those that do accept science, also look into how life itself started, hence the various abiogenesis hypotheses currently being researched.
    You seem to think that unless everyone includes a god (particularly yours) in every answer then they have an agenda to keep it out. This is conspiracy level thinking on the level of 911 truthers.

    Not so much an agenda but a starting point that supposes all will be explained naturalistically. How often is it heard that that which isn't yet known surely will become known?

    Failing a sound theory, such folk are ordained to accept the best hypothesis they have as the best answer thus far available, kicking whatever gaps exist down the road on the basis of "someday we'll get there with a naturalistic solution"

    That is not what happens, in fact claims about 'super' natural things are investigated, if at all possible, and the results are always poor, contaminated or inconclusive.

    Like those 'experiments' which measure the effect of prayer (vs. no prayer) on outcomes? I mean, utterly laughable science that! How do they measure whether the person has a 'line to God' (in the case God exists) such as to make their prayer heard? Self-declaration? And by which means do they suppose God would answer prayer motivated thus?

    In order to begin to measure something you have to have an understanding of that which you are measuring. What qualifies a scientist thus?

    Asking a scientist to use a scientific method on a god that is, by definition, untestable,

    Don't you mean scientifically untestable (which is not the same thing). Or perhaps even scientifically testable if only the scientist had enough understanding of God such as to devise a test able to provide results?

    I could envisage a believing scientist devising a means whereby he examined the effectiveness of prayer - given that understanding of what prayer is and how to pray effectively is not a subject covered much in the church, leading folk down all kinds of possibly unfruitful paths (I'm reminded of Rosary babbling). I'd imagine qualitative research might prove useful here.

    But prove God exists scientifically? I don't suppose God is particularly interested in that.
    So the only two alternatives are to look for testable solutions or give up. Our society would still be living in caves if we chose the latter option.

    Spoken like one who has no reason but to limit his horizons to empirical means of dealing with his reality. It's understandable that you do - surely you have to go in the direction the information leads you.

    As do I. It's not my problem that you can't detect what I can detect. For that can be the case: you not being able to detect (the problem lying with you thus), as opposed to me thinking I detect what isn't actually there (the problem would lie with me).

    -
    You presuppose the consumptive, wasteful, capable-of-destroying-ourselves-in-an-instant, massively imbalanced society we live in today beats all comers hand's down. Sure, I'd like an antibiotic when infected with disease, but I would do without lots which our scientific endeavors have made possible.

    Let's not get into a "all the wonderful benefits.." science has provided. For every up I can point to a down til subjective stalemate is reached.

    Not that I think that material comfort and happiness is the purpose or measure of a life. Our purpose here is other, a precursor to the main event and in that, everyone experiences life the same essential way: good and evil shapes the world we live in. They stem from us and they are experienced by us. What matter whether the good helps a neighbour chisel a new stone wheel or the bad exterminates millions at the push of a button? Good is good and evil, evil, right down through the ages - a constant currency of sorts.

    There really isn't anything new under the Sun.


  • #4648
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Hey J C, did you know it's been just over 7 years since I first posted my list of questions about creationism/evolution, which you still haven't actually answered? You countered with some questions of your own, naturally, which I answered in detail and requested your rebuttals. Sadly not forthcoming. And after I went to such trouble. Oh well.

    Remember how, being such a royal pain, I kept on asking? Oddly prompting you to begin posting random quotes from random scientists in a nauseating green font for pages and pages (and pages) until you were asked to stop by the moderators. After this you went on an unannounced holiday for several weeks. Previously, you had been so prolific that the sudden silence quite worried many of us. I noted some purplish visual disturbances which I later concluded were an after-image, a reaction to the absence of vast walls nauseating green text in front of my eyes.

    I'm not looking for your answers now (you don't have them to give). In a way, I post this as a warning to those engaging with you today, that your game is evasion and misdirection, and not debate in good faith. That when answers are insisted upon, you will sooner walk away entirely than answer. Still, it is amusing for a time, if you have the time to spare.


  • #4649
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Still, it is amusing for a time..

    In a seal-clubbing kind of way.

    I'm not sure that the evasive and somewhat prescriptive authoritarian manner of JC's approach (which isn't untypical of the YEC view) actually serves a master whose approach is truth. Even when that truth is inconvenient to him.

    I'm waiting for an answer from someone, who supposes no need for interpretation of the Bible, to explain how he overcomes the problem of the Bible translation he uses (I assume he isn't a very well qualified multi-linguist in languages ancient) being an interpretation.


  • #4650
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    In a seal-clubbing kind of way.

    I gather J C views himself as more of a Road-Runner type character. You can keep on trying to take him down with more and more elaborate arguments (which he often perceives as sort-of logical Rube Goldberg devices), but he can always escape, ready to pull a funny face and stick out his tongue in signature fashion.

    Your analogy is probably better, but I think I can go one better again.



    "Tis but a scratch".
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm not sure that the evasive and somewhat prescriptive authoritarian manner of JC's approach (which isn't untypical of the YEC view) actually serves a master whose approach is truth. Even when that truth is inconvenient to him.

    I'm waiting for an answer from someone, who supposes no need for interpretation of the Bible, to explain how he overcomes the problem of the Bible translation he uses (I assume he isn't a very well qualified multi-linguist in languages ancient) being an interpretation.

    Actually, I'd say the approach described is pretty much his only shot at success. I can't speak to the matter of translations, but J C knows his book and knows quite well how his particular English version came into being. He also knows that once you reject the intra-textual indications of what parts are allegorical or literal, and start into the business of gauging that from external cues, or worse, from empirical evidence, you're basically sunk. Your interpretation becomes entirely fluid, and all meaning is lost.

    The bible is supposed to be a guide book to life, morality and death. Imbued with the authority of the ultimate master. Perfect for a slave culture to maintain its cohesion and order. Without such a guide book, life, morality and death are frightening, complex and difficult to navigate. This is true even if you have good philosophies and lots of nice science. If your guide-book becomes, not an authority transcending such things, but instead subject to them... well then it's simply not useful anymore. It goes from simplifying complex things, to being an added complication.

    If you must hold to a guide book, then it's better to draw your line in the sand. The sects- like J C's- that have taken this hard line will long outlive the Catholic church, despite their smaller numbers.


  • Advertisement
  • #4651
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I gather J C views himself as more of a Road-Runner type character. You can keep on trying to take him down with more and more elaborate arguments (which he often perceives as sort-of logical Rube Goldberg devices), but he can always escape, ready to pull a funny face and stick out his tongue in signature fashion.

    Your analogy is probably better, but I think I can go one better again.



    "Tis but a scratch".

    Brilliant analogy! But the Black Knight has nothing on JC.
    I think he sees himself more like that guy in Terminator 2. He gets destroyed, blown to pieces but comes back without a scratch, as if the argument never happened.


Advertisement