PDA

View Full Version : Old Testament Creationism


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


aiki-jujutsuka
12-24-2013, 10:14 PM
Much of the "cosmology" that Ueshiba claimed knowledge of, was directly taken from his Omoto Kyo religion which is/was a very peculiar combination of Jewish Old Testament creationism ( an utterly and verifiable false myth) along with native Shinto creation mythologies (also utterly and verifiable false). As a result, you get a very peculiar, completely ridiculous and utterly fictitious story indeed.



Please could you provide evidence that Old Testament Creationism is an utterly and verifiably false myth. If it`s as verifiably false as you claim then this should not be a problem.

lbb
12-25-2013, 10:28 AM
Please could you provide evidence that Old Testament Creationism is an utterly and verifiably false myth. If it`s as verifiably false as you claim then this should not be a problem.

This wasn't my claim, but do you not accept the evidence of carbon-dating and the fossil record as having more weight than the legend that the earth (or the universe, depending on your view) was created 4000 years ago?

aiki-jujutsuka
12-25-2013, 09:26 PM
This wasn't my claim, but do you not accept the evidence of carbon-dating and the fossil record as having more weight than the legend that the earth (or the universe, depending on your view) was created 4000 years ago?

Carbon-dating doesn`t give accurate readings of the age of the earth because of the rapidity of the rate of decay in Carbon 14. Due to the rate of the half-life (5,736 years) there would be no C-14 after about 50,000 years. Also plants discriminate against C-14 and do not absorb as much of it thus plant fossils do not give accurate readings and then there is the fact that the levels of C-14 in the atmosphere has not been constant, the Industrial Revolution for example produced a massive amount of C-12 through the burning of fossil fuels, which depleted the amount of C-14. Due to the fact that the earth`s magnetic field is weakening, more C-14 is being produced now. These all have effects on the measurement of C-14 in things.

The fossil record has not proven evolution or long age theories of the earth either. The horse and whale evolutionary fossil chain was falsified and are not accurate. There have been no "fossil chains" found showing the gradual evolutionary development of different animal species. In fact there are many anomalies that are evidence against the millions of years evolutionary time frame such as the fact that dinosaur fossils have been found with DNA, red blood cells and soft tissue still intact, which should have decayed long ago if they were millions of years old. Animals and birds have been found alongside dinosaur fossils in the geological strata even though they are meant to have evolved millions of years after the dinosaurs and then there are so-called "living fossils" - animals that are alive today that bear a strong similarity (i.e. no anatomical variations or mutations) with fossils found of the same type of creature, such as the salamander, duck-billed platypus, crocodiles and squirrels. The Cambrien Explosion is also evidence that the millions of years, evolutionary time frame is incorrect. No primitive fossil forms of the animals have been found in the layers below and no advanced fossil forms have been found in the layers above. The Cambrian Explosion shows fully formed, complex fossil forms - where did they come from? Some evolutionists have even invented the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" to try and explain how fossil forms could be found fully developed without the evolutionary chain. But this is complete conjecture and a "rescuing device" used by evolutionary scientists to preserve their world view.

Then there is the nature of fossilization itself - fossilization requires a rapid, catastrophic process in order for the body to be preserved - a slow process would not preserve everything such as feathers, skin, webbing, scales etc. Fossilization can also occur incredibly rapidly, depending on the size and porosity of the object. The Flood as recorded in Genesis is a much better explanation for the Fossil Record as it was indeed a rapid and catestrophic event and would explain why mammels and birds are found alongside dinosaurs, why fossils are found ontop of mountains, the Cambrian Explosion and why we have fossils in the first place.

The problem with the whole "legend" of Genesis is that this is based on your worldview. Evolution and Deep time is completely coherent in an atheistic worldview, because atheism needs to explain the origin of life naturalistically without divine intervention or supernatural processes. No science is done with neutrality. Everybody has presuppositions. Once you accept that science should be done within a naturalistic (atheistic) paradigm then you begin to interpret the data as supporting evolution and deep time. When evidence is presented against the theory of evolution or deep time, that evidence is dismissed through "rescuing devices", where you apply conjecture to rationalize away the evidence in order to preserve your worldview. Thus when someone claims to be a creationist or to practice creationist science they are rejected and dismissed as "religious zealots or fundamentalists" not scientists or are criticized for not doing "true science" because they practice science within a Christian worldview.

One of the biggest misconceptions about the creation account in Genesis is that it is myth. There are many Christians who now accept this as well. But, the genre of literature Genesis falls under is historical narrative not myth. Some claim that the creation account in the Bible is a refutation of Babylonian myths, which the Israelites came across centuries later while in exile in Babylon. But this theory is fallacious. The style of Genesis 1 & 2 is historical narrative, not Hebrew poetry like the Psalms (which has specific generic structures that Genesis 1 & 2 lack). The chronological markers of the days and nights are written in Hebraic historical narrative much like others places in the Bible which use the same generic structures such as Numbers. Secondly, the Babylonian creation myth is not so much a creation myth as it is a myth about their gods. The emphasis is on the war for supremacy between their many deities and gods, not how the earth and humanity was formed. It bears no similarity to Genesis 1 & 2.

Hope my answers have been clear and thought-provoking :) .

aiki-jujutsuka
12-26-2013, 06:59 PM
I just want to add, I did not intentionally hijack the former discussion in the spiritual section, but if anyone would like to continue discussing this topic then I would be more than happy to oblige. :)

RonRagusa
12-26-2013, 09:29 PM
Carbon-dating doesn`t give accurate readings of the age of the earth because of the rapidity of the rate of decay in Carbon 14. Due to the rate of the half-life (5,736 years) there would be no C-14 after about 50,000 years. Also plants discriminate against C-14 and do not absorb as much of it thus plant fossils do not give accurate readings and then there is the fact that the levels of C-14 in the atmosphere has not been constant, the Industrial Revolution for example produced a massive amount of C-12 through the burning of fossil fuels, which depleted the amount of C-14. Due to the fact that the earth`s magnetic field is weakening, more C-14 is being produced now. These all have effects on the measurement of C-14 in things.

Radiometric dating has long since added other isotopes with much longer half lives than C-14. An introduction to radiometric dating can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating).

Ron

aiki-jujutsuka
12-26-2013, 10:58 PM
Radiometric dating has long since added other isotopes with much longer half lives than C-14. An introduction to radiometric dating can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating).

Ron

Thank you Ron, I was aware of other radiometric dating methods, however, I was responding to Mary`s question regarding carbon-dating specifically. Different isotopes give different ages and there is inconsistency between the results depending on whether you are using potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium etc. There are also examples where they have been known to be wrong, such as at Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. Isotope concentrations are not dates, they are just used to derive dates from. However, even this requires several assumptions such as the rate of decay is constant and the systems were closed and isolated so no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added. They are not irrefutable proof of millions of years.

Demetrio Cereijo
12-27-2013, 07:43 AM
Ewen,

You taking exception to the claim of Old Testament Creationism being an utterly and verifiably false myth but letting pass similar statement regarding Shinto creation tale seems weird to me.

aiki-jujutsuka
12-27-2013, 08:01 AM
Ewen,

You taking exception to the claim of Old Testament Creationism being an utterly and verifiably false myth but letting pass similar statement regarding Shinto creation tale seems weird to me.

I am not a believer of Shinto and so it is not my place to defend it. As a Christian I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and His special revelation to us. However, I did not want to openly criticise another`s religion.

Carsten Möllering
12-27-2013, 08:52 AM
... the genre of literature Genesis falls under is historical narrative not myth. An etiological text is neither a myth nor is it historiogaphy in a modern, post-Enlightenment sense.
Hermeneutically it is important to recognize the context of a certain text: Historical, linguistic, religio-historical. If you don't explore into that you won't hear, what the text was meant to say, but you will only confirm your preunderstanding.

lbb
12-27-2013, 09:01 AM
I am not a believer of Shinto and so it is not my place to defend it. As a Christian I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and His special revelation to us. However, I did not want to openly criticise another`s religion.

Well, that was really my question, which you didn't need twenty paragraphs to answer. When the Christian bible tells you the world was created 4000 years ago, and the evidence of the physical world around you contradicts that, which do you consider to be the truth? You've answered that, and there is no basis for further discussion, as you will not be persuaded by scientific evidence or logic. You will merely claim that it doesn't exist.

"They write books that contradict the rocks, then claim that I created the books and the rocks are lies."

Demetrio Cereijo
12-27-2013, 09:18 AM
As a Christian I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and His special revelation to us.

How this is related to what really happened regarding the developement of the universe or the origins and evolution on life in this planet escapes me. Maybe is my Roman Catholic upbringing that allows me to find scientific knowledge and religious belief as compatible.

Carsten Möllering
12-27-2013, 01:04 PM
Maybe is my Roman Catholic upbringing that allows me ...
Works also fine for me, being Lutheran. ;)

As a Christian I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and His special revelation to us.
Sharing this same belief nevertheless we Christians often don't share the same understanding of certain texts of the bible. So I would appreciate very much if you would make clear, that you are speaking only for yourself, giving your own personal opinions, which do not represent a common Christian view.

mathewjgano
12-27-2013, 04:29 PM
Carbon-dating doesn`t give accurate readings of the age of the earth because of the rapidity of the rate of decay in Carbon 14. Due to the rate of the half-life (5,736 years) there would be no C-14 after about 50,000 years.
How do you rationalize the application of radiometric dating?
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
•Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

The Flood as recorded in Genesis is a much better explanation for the Fossil Record as it was indeed a rapid and catestrophic event and would explain why mammels and birds are found alongside dinosaurs, why fossils are found ontop of mountains, the Cambrian Explosion and why we have fossils in the first place.
Not all dinosaurs went extinct; and this might seem to explain why at least birds are found along side other dinosaurs. http://www.amnh.org/explore/science-topics/birds-are-dinosaurs

The problem with the whole "legend" of Genesis is that this is based on your worldview. Evolution and Deep time is completely coherent in an atheistic worldview, because atheism needs to explain the origin of life naturalistically without divine intervention or supernatural processes. One of the biggest misconceptions about the creation account in Genesis is that it is myth.
The biggest misconception about myth is that it isn't historical in nature. When I took classical history, this was one of the first lessons I was taught. This isn't to say anything about the accuracy of any given history/myth.

aiki-jujutsuka
12-27-2013, 08:48 PM
An etiological text is neither a myth nor is it historiogaphy in a modern, post-Enlightenment sense.
Hermeneutically it is important to recognize the context of a certain text: Historical, linguistic, religio-historical. If you don't explore into that you won't hear, what the text was meant to say, but you will only confirm your preunderstanding.

Carsten, you make a very good point, it is important hermeneutically to put the passage/chapter into context. How then does the rest of Scripture interpret Genesis 1? It interprets it factually with a straight forward understanding of six literal days.

Well, that was really my question, which you didn't need twenty paragraphs to answer. When the Christian bible tells you the world was created 4000 years ago, and the evidence of the physical world around you contradicts that, which do you consider to be the truth? You've answered that, and there is no basis for further discussion, as you will not be persuaded by scientific evidence or logic. You will merely claim that it doesn't exist.

I find this a rather strange thing to say, considering I asked in the first place for the evidence that Genesis 1`s creation account was a verifiable myth. If I just ignore science then why did I ask for evidence? Both Creationists and Evolutionists accept there is a fossil record, natural selection within species, the fields of geology, microbiology etc. It is how they interpret the data that creates the distinction, not that one believes the evidence and the other does not.

How this is related to what really happened regarding the developement of the universe or the origins and evolution on life in this planet escapes me. Maybe is my Roman Catholic upbringing that allows me to find scientific knowledge and religious belief as compatible.

Genesis 1 teaches God made the earth and all life on it in 6 days. Evolutionary science teaches life evolved on earth over millions of years. They both make claims about the origin of life. However, evolution is origins science, not empirical science. Empirical science is where you make observations and test hypothesese through experimentation. You cannot observe macro-evolution taking place because it takes millions of years as the theory goes. Basically it comes down to your beliefs - did God create the world as written in the Bible or not? If not you must find another explanation. Evolutionary science`s starting point is not neutrality, it`s naturalism/atheism. As a Christian I have no problem with the compatibility of scientific knowledge and religious belief. Just because I do not believe in evolution does not make me anti-science.

Sharing this same belief nevertheless we Christians often don't share the same understanding of certain texts of the bible. So I would appreciate very much if you would make clear, that you are speaking only for yourself, giving your own personal opinions, which do not represent a common Christian view.

Yes Christians have different interpretations of some passages and I speak for myself here...or rather Christian creationists. Please feel free to state your particular understanding of Genesis 1 and why you have chosen this particular interpretation. :)

Not all dinosaurs went extinct; and this might seem to explain why at least birds are found along side other dinosaurs.

There have been dinosaur fossils found with the remains of birds within their stomachs that were only partially digested, allowing researchers to identify the species of bird within them. Birds are thought to have descended from the Theropod family of dinosaurs, however, their biotype could not sustain flight anatomically even given millions of years of evolution. Then there is the fact that Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx (feathered dinosaur ancestors of birds) are “dated” at 125 million years old, while Confuciusornis (a beaked bird) is "dated" at 135 million years old - 10 million years older than its supposed ancestors.

Tore Eriksson
12-27-2013, 10:16 PM
In fact there are many anomalies that are evidence against the millions of years evolutionary time frame such as the fact that dinosaur fossils have been found with DNA, red blood cells and soft tissue still intact, which should have decayed long ago if they were millions of years old.

I saw that movie to. I hate to break it to you, but it wasn't a documentary... ;)

Sure, there are reports of people detecting traces of collagen in T. rex fossils. Now scientists are faced with anomalous data - either T. rex went extinct much later than previously thought (theory A), or collagen in fossilized bones is degraded more slowly than expected (theory B).

These theories can be compared to other scientific evidence. Fossil records shows strong evidence that T. rex did get extinct quite a long time ago, putting a dent in theory A. However, there is not much data on the decay rate of million-year old collagen in fossilized bones that can be used to falsify theory B. Ergo, theory B is considered to be more plausible.

Here is a quote from the scientific paper (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5822/280.abstract) where the collagen is described (emphasis added):

A BLAST alignment and similarity search (23) of the five T. rex peptides from collagen α1t1 as a group against the all-taxa protein database showed 58% sequence identity to chicken, followed by frog (51% identity) and newt (51% identity). The small group of peptide sequence data reported here support phylogenetic hypotheses suggesting that T. rex is most closely related to birds among living organisms whose collagen sequence is present in protein databases (24--26).

Happy new year!

aiki-jujutsuka
12-28-2013, 12:29 AM
I saw that movie to. I hate to break it to you, but it wasn't a documentary... ;)

Sure, there are reports of people detecting traces of collagen in T. rex fossils. Now scientists are faced with anomalous data - either T. rex went extinct much later than previously thought (theory A), or collagen in fossilized bones is degraded more slowly than expected (theory B).

These theories can be compared to other scientific evidence. Fossil records shows strong evidence that T. rex did get extinct quite a long time ago, putting a dent in theory A. However, there is not much data on the decay rate of million-year old collagen in fossilized bones that can be used to falsify theory B. Ergo, theory B is considered to be more plausible.

Here is a quote from the scientific paper (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5822/280.abstract) where the collagen is described (emphasis added):

Happy new year!

But it is not just collagen it is also DNA, which cannot have survived tens of millions of years;

However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80–85 Myr old Cretaceous bone.

Allentoft, M.E. et al., The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils, Proc. Royal Society

Even if the Theory B hypothesis of collagen decay rates is correct, the decay rate may still be much shorter than needed for the evolutionary time frame. As for T-Rexs evolving into birds, mutation does not add the type of information necessary to create entirely new species.

Aikibu
12-28-2013, 02:09 AM
Please could you provide evidence that Old Testament Creationism is an utterly and verifiably false myth. If it`s as verifiably false as you claim then this should not be a problem.

A classic case of Petitio Principii aka "Begging the Question"

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

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Example (Quote)-

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

Any attempt to refute Scientific Theory is not by itself proof of the validity of ones own argument.

William Hazen

Demetrio Cereijo
12-28-2013, 04:55 AM
Genesis 1 teaches God made the earth and all life on it in 6 days. Evolutionary science teaches life evolved on earth over millions of years. They both make claims about the origin of life.
No. Evolution Theory is about especiation mechanisms, not about biopoesis.

As a Christian I have no problem with the compatibility of scientific knowledge and religious belief. Just because I do not believe in evolution does not make me anti-science.
Let's see: Do you believe the Earth stopped on its tracks as told in Joshua 10, 12-14?

Yes Christians have different interpretations of some passages and I speak for myself here...or rather Christian creationists. Please feel free to state your particular understanding of Genesis 1

Gen. 1: A tale primitive cattle herders could understand.

aiki-jujutsuka
12-28-2013, 07:20 AM
No. Evolution Theory is about especiation mechanisms, not about biopoesis.

Let's see: Do you believe the Earth stopped on its tracks as told in Joshua 10, 12-14?

Gen. 1: A tale primitive cattle herders could understand.

Darwin`s famous work published in 1859 was the "Origin of Species". So yes evolution does make claims about the origins of life, particularly human life, even if it cannot explain how life formed in the first place. Genesis says God made Man in His image, Darwinian biology says humanity evolved from apes. Thus both the Bible and Evolution make claims about the origin of human life.

But thank you for confirming that evolution is a theory and not fact, and for implicitly recognising evolution`s limitations as an explanatory framework for life. If we cannot explain naturalistically how life first formed and as we now have far more information about the complexity of even a single cell and how incredibly improbable abiogenesis is, then surely consideration of alternative explanations is not unreasonable?

Did the earth stop as in Joshua? Let me reply with a question of my own, where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?

As for your low opinion of Genesis 1, if that is your worldview then that`s fine, just don`t state it as fact.

Walter Martindale
12-28-2013, 07:55 AM
I'm not sufficiently schooled in logical argument but ...

If one god exists, then any number of gods must also be possible. If there are no other gods than "my" (and I don't have the delusion that there are any gods, hence the quotation marks) god, then which "my" god is it? That of the ancient Greeks? Ancient Romans? Viking gods? Raven (native American)? Ancient Egyptians? Judaeo Christian? Muslim? et cetera...

My understanding of all this "god" stuff is that it's human beings, trying to explain things that they don't understand yet, so instead of actually trying to find out about "things" (e.g., scientific study), they wave their arms around and say "it must have been (the/a/my) god(s)"

However, there's no arguing with the fully indoctrinated, as they're thoroughly trained at countering with "here's where that evidence is wrong and is refuted by this passage in that religious tract"

Fun to read, though.

Demetrio Cereijo
12-28-2013, 09:16 AM
Darwin`s famous work published in 1859 was the "Origin of Species". So yes evolution does make claims about the origins of life, particularly human life, even if it cannot explain how life formed in the first place. Genesis says God made Man in His image, Darwinian biology says humanity evolved from apes. Thus both the Bible and Evolution make claims about the origin of human life.
Changing the goalposts?

But thank you for confirming that evolution is a theory
Of course is a theory... do you need a dictionary?

If we cannot explain naturalistically how life first formed and as we now have far more information about the complexity of even a single cell and how incredibly improbable abiogenesis is, then surely consideration of alternative explanations is not unreasonable?
Therefore aliens

Let me reply with a question of my own, where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?
Irrelevant. Ask to the question I made to you: Do you believe the Earth stopped on its tracks as told in Joshua 10, 12-14?

As for your low opinion of Genesis 1, if that is your worldview then that`s fine, just don`t state it as fact.
It is a hypothesis.

Demetrio Cereijo
12-28-2013, 09:32 AM
I saw that movie to. I hate to break it to you, but it wasn't a documentary... ;)

What about 'The Flintstones'?

Keith Larman
12-28-2013, 10:02 AM
Actually I'd say the argument offered is more along the lines of argumentum ad ignorantiam. This usually leads to attempts to shift the burden of proof. Unfortunately, it is still a fallacious form of argumentation and does little to advance any particular idea. Unless, of course, you have taken a "leap of faith" and believe even in face of the absence of any sort of rigorous evidence.

As a guy who managed to get a degree in religious studies as an atheist, let me point out that these arguments have gone on for all time. Starting with whether the sun god really exists and whether the spirits of the crops are truly happy with the sacrifice. At this point one normally has to bring up Russell's teapot argument and recognize that some will believe what they believe. They are entitled to that but logic and proof are simply outside the discussion. We're talking about things outside of reality (and I mean that sincerely as supernatural beings) and as such are simply immune to proof but also immune to criticism by their very definition.

Carry on...

Demetrio Cereijo
12-28-2013, 02:02 PM
Edit.
Irrelevant. Ask to the question I made to you: Do you believe the Earth stopped on its tracks as told in Joshua 10, 12-14?
Where I wrote 'ask to' should be 'answer'.

Bernd Lehnen
12-28-2013, 02:04 PM
Oh My:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/monsters_and_dragons_and_dinosaurs_oh_my_creationist_interpretations_of_beo

mathewjgano
12-28-2013, 02:49 PM
How do you rationalize the application of radiometric dating?

Oops, should read as, "...of other radiometric dating?" (apart from carbon)

Aikibu
12-28-2013, 09:37 PM
I posted this on my Facebook page a couple weeks back. Enjoy. :)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/22/vatican-science-on-christmas-and-creationism.html

WIlliam Hazen

Carsten Möllering
12-29-2013, 05:53 AM
...why you have chosen this particular interpretation.
Many years of academical scholarship and studies.
Many years of trying to live a spirituality orientated life.
Many years of learning, living, and teaching.

It is my opinion and experience, that fundamentalism is just a way to simplify the life we live, the world we live in and the god who gift's our - and everybodies - live. It is a way to better get along. - But a superficial one, a manmade one.

Life - and spirituality - is much more complicated after giving up fundamentalism. But it becomes deeper, more natural, closer to god - and closer to the world and the people who share our life. It is really impressive to let go protection measures.

Well, you asked me: "Why?" This is just my - very short - answer. Just my way and experience. It's not meant to "proselyte" you or to argue. It's just me.

Demetrio Cereijo
12-29-2013, 04:49 PM
It is my opinion and experience, that fundamentalism is just a way to simplify the life we live, the world we live in and the god who gift's our - and everybodies - live. It is a way to better get along. - But a superficial one, a manmade one.
I think it is more a political stance than a spiritual/religious one.

aiki-jujutsuka
12-29-2013, 06:53 PM
Changing the goalposts?

Of course is a theory... do you need a dictionary?

Therefore aliens

Irrelevant. Ask to the question I made to you: Do you believe the Earth stopped on its tracks as told in Joshua 10, 12-14?

It is a hypothesis.

How have I changed the goalposts? You asked what believing the Bible to be the Word of God had to do with the development of the universe and the origins and evolution of life. I responded by saying Genesis 1 teaches that God created in six days as opposed to millions of years. Both Darwinian evolutionary theory and the Bible make claims about how life came to be. You then took exception to this statement saying evolution is not about bioepoesis. So how have I changed the goalposts?

I`m not sure whether you are being facetious with your aliens comment or not? But that does not solve the problem of how life began because it just pushes it back to another world and another planet.

No my question was not irrelevant. Can God stop the earth from rotating on its axis? Yes. But you deliberately asked a loaded question - if I say yes, you reject the reasons I give for doubting evolution and feel a sense of intellectual superiority because of your prejudice. So answer my question - where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?

aiki-jujutsuka
12-29-2013, 07:00 PM
Many years of academical scholarship and studies.
Many years of trying to live a spirituality orientated life.
Many years of learning, living, and teaching.

It is my opinion and experience, that fundamentalism is just a way to simplify the life we live, the world we live in and the god who gift's our - and everybodies - live. It is a way to better get along. - But a superficial one, a manmade one.

Life - and spirituality - is much more complicated after giving up fundamentalism. But it becomes deeper, more natural, closer to god - and closer to the world and the people who share our life. It is really impressive to let go protection measures.

Well, you asked me: "Why?" This is just my - very short - answer. Just my way and experience. It's not meant to "proselyte" you or to argue. It's just me.

Carsten thank you for explaining more your views on fundamentalism, may I ask then how you interpret other areas of Scripture, for example Christ`s resurrection? :)

aiki-jujutsuka
12-29-2013, 07:12 PM
Oops, should read as, "...of other radiometric dating?" (apart from carbon)

That isotope decay rates are fairly constant since we began measuring them does not prove they were always at the same rate of decay. There have been examples such as Mt St. Helens in America and Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand that both errupted during the 20th century but when the new rock was tested gave readings that were millions of years old due to excess radiogenic argon from the magma. Clearly then isotope readings are not infallible ways of measuring the age of the earth.

Lorien Lowe
12-30-2013, 03:14 AM
Well, shoot.
I just spent an hour taking down these claims from a scientific perspective, complete with documentation, and my computer logged me out in the interim and deleted all of my work.
I don't have the energy to repeat it.
Suffice it to say, the OP has a problem not only with the biological theory of evolution, but with physics and plate tectonics, too.
a couple of sources from the top of my head:
talkorigins.org
http://ncse.com/evolution
Also, the wikipedia pages on horse evolution, whale evolution, and the cambrian explosion are worth visiting for the curious.

edit: isotope decay rates are, in fact, pretty constant; isotopic dating shows some errors, but not errors on the level of 'this rock is somewhere between 13 billion and 5 thousand years old.' Showing a few exceptions (like extrusive volcanic rocks) does not alter the reliability of radiometric dating.

Lorien Lowe
12-30-2013, 05:25 AM
Worth reading for the faithful and the faithless alike:
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna#.UsExJ5Hnn8s

lbb
12-30-2013, 06:52 AM
http://freethoughtblogs.com/yemmynisting/files/2013/08/5eff246e7ac4ba2c7785bed9d0214848.jpg

Demetrio Cereijo
12-30-2013, 07:22 AM
How have I changed the goalposts? You asked what believing the Bible to be the Word of God had to do with the development of the universe and the origins and evolution of life. I responded by saying Genesis 1 teaches that God created in six days as opposed to millions of years. Both Darwinian evolutionary theory and the Bible make claims about how life came to be. You then took exception to this statement saying evolution is not about bioepoesis. So how have I changed the goalposts?
'Origin of Species' is about the origin of species, not about the origins of life nor about what makes humans humans.

I`m not sure whether you are being facetious with your aliens comment or not? But that does not solve the problem of how life began because it just pushes it back to another world and another planet.
You said something about consideration of alternative explanations is not unreasonable... therefore aliens is not unreasonable

No my question was not irrelevant. Can God stop the earth from rotating on its axis? Yes
Did it?

But you deliberately asked a loaded question - if I say yes, you reject the reasons I give for doubting evolution and feel a sense of intellectual superiority because of your prejudice.
How so?

You said 'I have no problem with the compatibility of scientific knowledge and religious belief'. I do not believe you.

So answer my question - where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?
They came with the universe itself.

Keith Larman
12-30-2013, 10:25 AM
Worth reading for the faithful and the faithless alike:
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna#.UsExJ5Hnn8s

And a nice follow up.

http://phys.org/news160320581.html#nRlv

RonRagusa
12-30-2013, 02:31 PM
Clearly then isotope readings are not infallible ways of measuring the age of the earth.

The straw man argument is used yet again to disprove a point that was never raised. No one has made the claim that radiometric dating (or any other scientific theory for that matter) is infallible.

Ron

aiki-jujutsuka
12-30-2013, 07:51 PM
The straw man argument is used yet again to disprove a point that was never raised. No one has made the claim that radiometric dating (or any other scientific theory for that matter) is infallible.

Ron

I`m sorry you see it as such, I used the word infallible because this whole discussion began by my questioning whether Genesis 1 was an "utterly and verifible false myth". I asked for evidence. I have not received any evidence that conclusively proves this. My point is that radioactive decay rates of isotopes are not conclusive proof of an old earth.

aiki-jujutsuka
12-30-2013, 08:07 PM
'Origin of Species' is about the origin of species, not about the origins of life nor about what makes humans humans.

You said something about consideration of alternative explanations is not unreasonable... therefore aliens is not unreasonable

Did it?

How so?

You said 'I have no problem with the compatibility of scientific knowledge and religious belief'. I do not believe you.

They came with the universe itself.

How do you define scientific knowledge?

Have you any proof of alien life or is it just conjecture?

So intelligible laws were created with the universe? How was the universe created? If laws exist they point to a law maker. We see this in every human society - where there is law there are law givers. It points to intelligence.

mathewjgano
12-30-2013, 09:54 PM
That isotope decay rates are fairly constant since we began measuring them does not prove they were always at the same rate of decay. There have been examples such as Mt St. Helens in America and Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand that both errupted during the 20th century but when the new rock was tested gave readings that were millions of years old due to excess radiogenic argon from the magma. Clearly then isotope readings are not infallible ways of measuring the age of the earth.

For all we do know we still know very little and small distinctions can probably carry radical implications. That said, for me the current scientific lines of reason seem more probable than a history written thousands of years ago. I put a lot of stock in the intuitive powers of people and see a lot of value in ancient intuitions and traditions and practices, but I would be shocked to find out the Biblical history is literally and exactly true in this regard.

Lorien Lowe
12-31-2013, 12:08 AM
And a nice follow up.

http://phys.org/news160320581.html#nRlv

Beautiful!

Lorien Lowe
12-31-2013, 12:11 AM
I`m sorry you see it as such, I used the word infallible because this whole discussion began by my questioning whether Genesis 1 was an "utterly and verifible false myth". I asked for evidence. I have not received any evidence that conclusively proves this. My point is that radioactive decay rates of isotopes are not conclusive proof of an old earth.
No one can prove a negative. We can't, as Russell noted, 'utterly and verifiably' prove that there is not a teapot in orbit around the sun in the asteroid belt.

What we can say, however, is that the data absolutely do not support that postulation.

aiki-jujutsuka
12-31-2013, 01:55 AM
No one can prove a negative. We can't, as Russell noted, 'utterly and verifiably' prove that there is not a teapot in orbit around the sun in the asteroid belt.

What we can say, however, is that the data absolutely do not support that postulation.

Under the current evolutionary model and using methodological naturalism perhaps, but under alternative models such as the young earth creationist model the scientific data can be interpreted very differently. Methodological naturalism is biased against any supernatural causation and therefore limits the freedom of scientific inquiry.

aiki-jujutsuka
12-31-2013, 01:57 AM
For all we do know we still know very little and small distinctions can probably carry radical implications. That said, for me the current scientific lines of reason seem more probable than a history written thousands of years ago. I put a lot of stock in the intuitive powers of people and see a lot of value in ancient intuitions and traditions and practices, but I would be shocked to find out the Biblical history is literally and exactly true in this regard.

People sadly are not perfect and are fallible - human error etc. Scientists are no exceptions. There is much evidence that the Bible is historically accurate.

Sacha Cloetens
12-31-2013, 04:26 AM
There is much evidence that the Bible is historically accurate.

"The Bible"?

What Bible exactly ? :D

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

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/

enjoy :)

Mary Eastland
12-31-2013, 06:39 AM
People sadly are not perfect and are fallible - human error etc. Scientists are no exceptions. There is much evidence that the Bible is historically accurate.

That being said, the "bible" was written by humans.

Carsten Möllering
12-31-2013, 07:47 AM
I think it is more a political stance than a spiritual/religious one.I think in the first place fundamentalism is about psychology: About gaining a sustainable stability in a life* which is overcharging because of it's complexity. The political stance then is the shape of this on a sociological level.

* Which everyone of us actually needs to get along. It's only that our answer to this challenge are different, I think.

... may I ask then how you interpret other areas of Scripture, for example Christ`s resurrection? :)I am very thankfull to those who handed down their experiences*, so I can know of them and can share their experience in my life. That those experiences lived on and found their way from then and there to here and now is a wonder in itself.
What I do is not so much "interpreting" or "expaining" the texts, but more trying to "get in contact" with the texts and with the experience they transmit. This "getting in contact" has many different layers.

* To them: That being said, the "bible" was written by humans.

lbb
12-31-2013, 10:26 AM
Under the current evolutionary model and using methodological naturalism perhaps, but under alternative models such as the young earth creationist model the scientific data can be interpreted very differently.

As has been said many times already in this thread, anything "can be interpreted very differently" by someone who is unwilling to question his premise because of his belief that it comes from a book written by God. And if your mother had wheels instead of legs, she'd be a bicycle. This is a pointless exercise in repeated nonsense and I'm done with it.

Carsten Möllering
01-01-2014, 05:32 AM
This is a pointless exercise ...
The certain way to argue which fundamentalism uses, seems indeed pointless or even nonsens from "outside". It has to.

This is because this way of reasoning is different from the way we usually use in our life: It is never in the first way a discussion about the certain point we seem to discuss. But it is allways a meta-disussion about the base of our worldview and about how we originate the points we are making. While we usually have agreements about the premises which base our reasoning, fundamentalism does not share these premises. And, what's more, will watch out that there are no premesis that could be shared.

This certain structure of reasoning actually is a constituent element of fundmentalism.
First because you saying it to be a pointless exercise shows that you are "outside". This "outside" is needed by the fundamentalist worldview. It is this model of outside/inside or rigth/wrong which is the crucial element of every certain discussion. Whether it is actually about how the world came into being, mothers having wheels or about the weather is completely unimportant: Fundamentalism lives from the dualism itself. Not from the certain content of the contradiction.

So, second, fundamentalism reasoning is allways structured in a way so that whatever argument you give will confirm the fundamentalist positionl.There is simply no way to put a fundamentalist position into question. Because putting it in question means, that you are "outside", which means, that you are "wrong".

You will neverever "win" a debate or convince someone by the contents of your arguments. You simply can't.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-01-2014, 06:59 AM
As has been said many times already in this thread, anything "can be interpreted very differently" by someone who is unwilling to question his premise because of his belief that it comes from a book written by God. And if your mother had wheels instead of legs, she'd be a bicycle. This is a pointless exercise in repeated nonsense and I'm done with it.

Forgive me but I don't think this is the first time you've said you're done with this thread. No one is forcing you to contribute, I said I was happy to discuss this with anyone who was interested. If you would like to stay and discuss your viewpoints you are more than welcome to.:)

We all have fundamental positions - let's not pretend I'm the only one. Take Richard Dawkins for example, he is fundamentally committed to evolution and methodological naturalism. He is unwilling to question his premise based on his belief that evolution is true science. Now I don't know you personally to know your own position, but considering your hostility towards religious positions, I would hazard a guess that you are either an atheist or agnostic?

Happy New Year everyone, I hope it was a good one!

aiki-jujutsuka
01-01-2014, 07:12 AM
That being said, the "bible" was written by humans.

Yes this is true, however, the authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit as they wrote it. There are several ways we can judge the Bible's accuracy - external sources such as Josephus and Tacitus affirming the historical existence of Jesus, archeology proving the reliability of Old and New Testament places and people, the fact that New Testament was compiled and written during the era of the apostles to guarantee authenticity, prophecy, the phenomenon of the early church, and the scientific evidence that points to a global flood.

Mary Eastland
01-01-2014, 08:19 AM
I think human inspiration can come from divine sources however once it is written it is no longer in the present which leads to interpretation and distortion.

Carsten Möllering
01-01-2014, 09:15 AM
We all have fundamental positions ...Having a fundament and having fundamental positions is fundamentally different from what is meant with "religious fundamenlism".

lbb
01-01-2014, 01:43 PM
So, second, fundamentalism reasoning is allways structured in a way so that whatever argument you give will confirm the fundamentalist positionl.There is simply no way to put a fundamentalist position into question. Because putting it in question means, that you are "outside", which means, that you are "wrong".

You will neverever "win" a debate or convince someone by the contents of your arguments. You simply can't.

Thanks, Carsten -- I think that's the most succinct description of fundamentalist reasoning I've ever read.

My sister (who is a nun) once said to me, "You know, Mary, some people read the newspaper with more intelligence than they use to read the Bible. When you read the newspaper, do you consider the comic page the same as the front-page news? Do you read the sports page the same as the op-ed page?" She's a deeply committed Christian, my sis -- and very, very far from being a fundamentalist.

mathewjgano
01-01-2014, 01:56 PM
People sadly are not perfect and are fallible - human error etc. Scientists are no exceptions. There is much evidence that the Bible is historically accurate.

I agree there are historical accuracies within the Bible, but that is different than saying it's all accurate. The Adventures of D'Artagnan are pretty historically accurate, but that isn't to say they're entirely right. Here's to knowing the truth when we see it and the humility to keep our eyes open.
Happy new Year!

Demetrio Cereijo
01-01-2014, 03:02 PM
How do you define scientific knowledge?
The one obtained following the scientific method.

Have you any proof of alien life or is it just conjecture?
Is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

So intelligible laws were created with the universe?
They came with it.

How was the universe created?
No one knows for sure.

If laws exist they point to a law maker.
Not really.

We see this in every human society - where there is law there are law givers. It points to intelligence.
Human law givers and 'intelligence' in the same phrase... oh my.

RonRagusa
01-01-2014, 09:01 PM
So intelligible laws were created with the universe?

Not really. Physical laws were in no way created. They are patterns in the fabric of the universe that are discover-able. The universe and the laws that describe its behavior are one, even though they are often spoken about separately.

If laws exist they point to a law maker.

Physical laws exist because the universe exists and exhibits predictable behavior. A law maker isn't required.

Ron

Keith Larman
01-01-2014, 09:36 PM
"Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end... but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature ... And to found that edifice on its unavenged tears: would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell me the truth!"
- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

The watchmaker...

aiki-jujutsuka
01-02-2014, 06:03 AM
Not really. Physical laws were in no way created. They are patterns in the fabric of the universe that are discover-able. The universe and the laws that describe its behavior are one, even though they are often spoken about separately.

Physical laws exist because the universe exists and exhibits predictable behavior. A law maker isn't required.

Ron

So how do we go from nothing to something? The physical laws of the universe have no causal effect - you have conceded that yourself, so where did the universe come from? Everything that has a beginning needs a creator.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-02-2014, 06:19 AM
The one obtained following the scientific method.

Is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

They came with it.

No one knows for sure.

Not really.

Human law givers and 'intelligence' in the same phrase... oh my.

Demetrio, I think we are past disputing the point of the OP so why don't we, in a spirit of friendly discussion discuss our different world-views?

So far you have acknowledged that the "scientific method" (which I take to mean methodological naturalism as you have described it) can neither explain where the universe came from or how life first came into existence here on earth and that evolution is still only a theory. You have postulated that aliens seeding life is not an unreasonable hypothesis despite lack of evidence in extraterrestrial life.

My belief based on the Bible explains how the universe was created and how life began here on earth - that they were the result of God, who created purposefully - humanity is made in His image and is assigned the responsibility of steward over God's creation. As God is omnipotent He chose to create not over billions of years but over a matter of days.

Now I acknowledge that this requires faith to believe, I have never denied that; however I do believe it is reasonable given the evidence. :)

RonRagusa
01-02-2014, 08:53 AM
...evolution is still only a theory.

Creationists use the word "theory" as though it's equitable to mere guesswork and thus try to diminish theorizing as a legitimate tool for research. Fair enough. But then why, pray tell, are creation "scientists" working so hard to raise their creation myth to the level of a legitimate scientific theory?

Ron

RonRagusa
01-02-2014, 09:04 AM
So how do we go from nothing to something?

There is a lot of theoretical research going on to show how that is possible, some of it quite promising.

The physical laws of the universe have no causal effect - you have conceded that yourself, so where did the universe come from?

That is on of the unanswered questions of physics. But because it's unanswered doesn't mean that it can't be answered.

Everything that has a beginning needs a creator.

Everything that has a beginning needs to have begun. That doesn't imply the necessity of an intelligent creator ( i.e. God). The mechanism that sparked the creation of the universe has not yet been discovered, eventually it will be.

Ron

Demetrio Cereijo
01-02-2014, 09:29 AM
Demetrio, I think we are past disputing the point of the OP so why don't we, in a spirit of friendly discussion discuss our different world-views?
Why not.

So far you have acknowledged that the "scientific method" (which I take to mean methodological naturalism as you have described it) can neither explain where the universe came from or how life first came into existence here on earth
I have not acknowledged that. 'has not' is not the same as 'can not'

and that evolution is still only a theory.
Seems you still need a dictionary.

You have postulated that aliens seeding life is not an unreasonable hypothesis despite lack of evidence in extraterrestrial life.
Lack of evidence is what makes it an hypothesis.

My belief based on the Bible explains how the universe was created and how life began here on earth - that they were the result of God, who created purposefully - humanity is made in His image and is assigned the responsibility of steward over God's creation. As God is omnipotent He chose to create not over billions of years but over a matter of days.
And, of course, you are free* to believe that.

Now I acknowledge that this requires faith to believe, I have never denied that; however I do believe it is reasonable given the evidence. :)
IMO, who looks for evidence has a feeble faith.

*for the sake of debate, I'll concede free will exists

Tore Eriksson
01-02-2014, 06:22 PM
But it is not just collagen it is also DNA, which cannot have survived tens of millions of years;

You got my interest piqued. I have not seen any evidence of DNA extracted from dinosaurs, and this is a field I try to follow. Do you have a reference?

As for T-Rexs evolving into birds, mutation does not add the type of information necessary to create entirely new species.

Birds are baby dinosaurs:
Birds have paedomorphic dinosaur skulls (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7406/full/nature11146.html)

aiki-jujutsuka
01-03-2014, 03:05 AM
There is a lot of theoretical research going on to show how that is possible, some of it quite promising.

That is on of the unanswered questions of physics. But because it's unanswered doesn't mean that it can't be answered.

Everything that has a beginning needs to have begun. That doesn't imply the necessity of an intelligent creator ( i.e. God). The mechanism that sparked the creation of the universe has not yet been discovered, eventually it will be.

Ron

Forgive me but this strikes me as a "science-of-the-gap" argument - rather than question the paradigm you choose to place your trust i.e. faith that one day methodological naturalism will be able to explain it.

The beginning of the universe implies a Creator because the cause of the universe must be immaterial - an infinite regression of material causes is a logical impossibility.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-03-2014, 03:08 AM
Why not.

I have not acknowledged that. 'has not' is not the same as 'can not'

Seems you still need a dictionary.

Lack of evidence is what makes it an hypothesis.

And, of course, you are free* to believe that.

IMO, who looks for evidence has a feeble faith.

*for the sake of debate, I'll concede free will exists

Interesting - if science made a pronouncement about life and the universe would you not ask for the evidence? Anything that makes truth statements requires evidence - "blind faith" is a popular definition of religious faith by the new atheists but it is not the Biblical definition. Christianity is based upon the resurrection of Jesus: no resurrection, no Christianity.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-03-2014, 03:18 AM
You got my interest piqued. I have not seen any evidence of DNA extracted from dinosaurs, and this is a field I try to follow. Do you have a reference?

Birds are baby dinosaurs:
Birds have paedomorphic dinosaur skulls (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7406/full/nature11146.html)

Yes, http://creation.com/double-decade-dinosaur-disquiet :)

aiki-jujutsuka
01-03-2014, 03:21 AM
Creationists use the word "theory" as though it's equitable to mere guesswork and thus try to diminish theorizing as a legitimate tool for research. Fair enough. But then why, pray tell, are creation "scientists" working so hard to raise their creation myth to the level of a legitimate scientific theory?

Ron

It`s not about raising a creation myth to the level of a legitimate scientific theory, rather it is examining the world from a Biblical perspective. Genesis speaks of a young earth and a global flood. So we should be able to find evidence for this if Genesis is true. That is the approach. :)

Sojourner
01-03-2014, 07:45 AM
Just a small point, what we know from pure science is that in science there is always a first cause for everything. My thoughts are that its reasonable that this includes the creation process also.

Another observation that I have on the whole creation debate is this, many creationists appear to be very dedicated to their views until the last day is discussed where God then rested and it is written that He consecrated the Sabbath day to all of creation for all of time. Yet many of those that argue for creation seem to have no interest in the Sabbath rest part of creation?

I am not a Seventh Day Adventist, but it would seem to me that of all the denominations that believe in creation, they are one of the few that seem to actually follow it fully?

RonRagusa
01-03-2014, 07:47 AM
Forgive me but this strikes me as a "science-of-the-gap" argument - rather than question the paradigm you choose to place your trust i.e. faith that one day methodological naturalism will be able to explain it.

Progress in science is a series of steps toward ever finer approximations of the natural world. Scientific theories make predictions which can then be tested and verified or rejected. The Bible does none of these things. Looking for correlations between selections of scripture and bits and pieces the natural world amounts to pretty much the same thing as what the ancient astronaut crowd does. In the end it amounts to nothing substantive and adds nothing to our understanding of the universe we are part of. There will always be gaps in scientific knowledge; science provides answers but it also opens up new areas of exploration because it raises questions.

The beginning of the universe implies a Creator because the cause of the universe must be immaterial - an infinite regression of material causes is a logical impossibility.

Who said anything about an "infinite regression of material causes"? The only thing the beginning of the universe logically implies is that the universe began. It says nothing about how it began.

Ron

Demetrio Cereijo
01-03-2014, 08:12 AM
Interesting - if science made a pronouncement about life and the universe would you not ask for the evidence?
I would ask for evidence for scientific statements need to be based on evidence.

Anything that makes truth statements requires evidence
Or belief.

- "blind faith" is a popular definition of religious faith by the new atheists but it is not the Biblical definition.
Who is talking about "blind faith"? I was talking about 'motiva credibilitatis' which is different from scientific evidence. So, IMO, the ones for who the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability are not sufficient signs of divine Revelation and look into science (or what is worse) pseudoscience are not real believers.

Christianity is based upon the resurrection of Jesus: no resurrection, no Christianity.
And?

mathewjgano
01-03-2014, 03:21 PM
Yes, http://creation.com/double-decade-dinosaur-disquiet :)

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
Ultimate truth is rather beyond people to grasp. Who knows who is more right about what? Hopefully time will tell.

Carsten Möllering
01-03-2014, 04:37 PM
Christianity is based upon the resurrection of Jesus: no resurrection, no Christianity.:confused:

It is based on the report of the ressurection of Jesus.
No resurrection? Never mind.
No decision to trust in the testimony: No christianity.

I think this crucial role of confidence is not a bug, it's a feature.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-03-2014, 07:35 PM
Progress in science is a series of steps toward ever finer approximations of the natural world. Scientific theories make predictions which can then be tested and verified or rejected. The Bible does none of these things. Looking for correlations between selections of scripture and bits and pieces the natural world amounts to pretty much the same thing as what the ancient astronaut crowd does. In the end it amounts to nothing substantive and adds nothing to our understanding of the universe we are part of. There will always be gaps in scientific knowledge; science provides answers but it also opens up new areas of exploration because it raises questions.

Ron

As long as the questions are vetted by methodological naturalism? I am not convinced science is as open as you think it is. I think there are many scientists who are driven by an anti-religion/God agenda.

This documentary highlights the bias in academia and the censorship within the scientific community of any research or teaching that could be construed as giving credence to ID or Creationism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

It is over an hour long but well worth making the time to watch.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-03-2014, 07:41 PM
Who is talking about "blind faith"? I was talking about 'motiva credibilitatis' which is different from scientific evidence. So, IMO, the ones for who the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability are not sufficient signs of divine Revelation and look into science (or what is worse) pseudoscience are not real believers.



So in your opinion science and religion are completely separate spheres that don`t ever...or should never overlap?

How do you separate the two? We filter everything in life through one ideology or another.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-03-2014, 07:47 PM
:confused:

It is based on the report of the ressurection of Jesus.
No resurrection? Never mind.
No decision to trust in the testimony: No christianity.

I think this crucial role of confidence is not a bug, it's a feature.

Respectfully I disagree. Yes the New Testament contains reports of the resurrection and as people living thousands of years after the events we either choose to trust in the testimony of the apostles or not. However, the apostles - who were eye witnesses - understood that without a literal, bodily resurrection then Jesus was not the messiah and that the faith of Christians would be in vain. Reports of a resurrection also would make no sense without a resurrection to report. To claim a resurrection where non had occurred is easily verifible and refutable. The Romans only needed to open the tomb and reveal the body to disprove the apostles reports.

RonRagusa
01-03-2014, 09:28 PM
As long as the questions are vetted by methodological naturalism?

Well... yes, the application of the scientific method is what moves science forward.

I am not convinced science is as open as you think it is. I think there are many scientists who are driven by an anti-religion/God agenda.

The above is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do you want to drag intolerance of opposing viewpoints into the discussion... really? Suffice it to say that individuals on both sides of the divide harbor bias and leave it at that.

This documentary highlights the bias in academia and the censorship within the scientific community of any research or teaching that could be construed as giving credence to ID or Creationism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

It is over an hour long but well worth making the time to watch.

See above.

Ron

aiki-jujutsuka
01-04-2014, 04:30 AM
Well... yes, the application of the scientific method is what moves science forward.

The above is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do you want to drag intolerance of opposing viewpoints into the discussion... really? Suffice it to say that individuals on both sides of the divide harbor bias and leave it at that.

See above.

Ron

I am not dragging intolerance into the discussion - intolerance is a running theme throughout the discussion. Science is increasingly conducted within an atheistic framework. Methodological naturalism rules out supernatural intervention as a causal agent in the creation of the universe and of life on earth. Yet historically this hasn`t been the case. Take Sir Isaac Newton for example, one of the most important figures of the Scientific Revolution whose work in Mathematics and Science were groundbreaking and important in developing our understanding of the world today. And yet Newton also believed in God and in the creation account of Genesis 1. To argue we can`t make any progress under a theistic scientific model is just not born out by history. History demonstrates that modern science has its roots in Christianity and a Biblical framework.

Demetrio Cereijo
01-04-2014, 05:40 AM
So in your opinion science and religion are completely separate spheres that don`t ever...or should never overlap?
Well, one is about the physical and the other about the metaphysical. There is no need for them to overlap.

Of course there is, and has been, conflicts between people when they stepped outside their respective fields of expertise, tried to impose their viewpoints on others or/and had a political agenda.

How do you separate the two? We filter everything in life through one ideology or another.
Being conscious about science and religion being about different things.

Mary Eastland
01-04-2014, 07:19 AM
A book that is a beautiful mix of science and spirituality is "The View from the Center of the Universe." by
Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams. Their next book proposes a creation story that is very inclusive. "The new Universe and the Human Future."

RonRagusa
01-04-2014, 07:27 AM
I am not dragging intolerance into the discussion - intolerance is a running theme throughout the discussion. Science is increasingly conducted within an atheistic framework. Methodological naturalism rules out supernatural intervention as a causal agent in the creation of the universe and of life on earth. Yet historically this hasn`t been the case. Take Sir Isaac Newton for example, one of the most important figures of the Scientific Revolution whose work in Mathematics and Science were groundbreaking and important in developing our understanding of the world today. And yet Newton also believed in God and in the creation account of Genesis 1. To argue we can`t make any progress under a theistic scientific model is just not born out by history. History demonstrates that modern science has its roots in Christianity and a Biblical framework.

Institutional intolerance and persecution of individuals who deviate from accepted doctrine is a hallmark of organized religion. And since I'm not interested in playing the "who displays the most intolerance towards the other side" game I'll take this opportunity to say thanks for the back and forth and bow out.

Ron

Tore Eriksson
01-04-2014, 08:32 AM
Yes, http://creation.com/double-decade-dinosaur-disquiet :)

Thanks! Only secondary evidence, but still interesting. But, as I said before and as the authors also writes in the paper, the presence of DNA in the bone would primarily suggest that the current model of DNA decay in fossilized bones is incorrect. The reason for this is that there are geological and radiological data that corroborates that the bones are 26 million years old (apparently four different decay series, none of which is C14). I hope you can agree that using the model of DNA decay as an argument for the bones being more recent than this is quite a stretch.

hughrbeyer
01-04-2014, 10:49 AM
FWIW, saying "It's only a theory" is a great big red flag indicating you don't know what you're talking about and don't have the background to take part in the conversation. It shows that you don't understand how science proceeds or how the words are even used.

A theory, in science, explains why something works the way it does. No theory can ever be proved. Saying evolution is a theory says something about what role "evolution" plays in science, but nothing about how valid or trustworthy it is. The best you can do with a theory is make predictions based on it and see if the predictions hold up. If they do, so far so good--but there's no guarantee that tomorrow someone won't find a prediction that doesn't hold up, showing that the theory is wrong or incomplete. That's how science progresses.

Often, what people say is, "It's a theory, not a law"--as though laws were more accurate than theories. They're not. They're a different kind of animal. Laws tell how to make predictions. Newton's laws of motion give rules for how bodies move in space. The law of natural selection gives rules for which individuals are most likely to survive and reproduce in a given context. Laws can be inaccurate and still be useful--Newton's laws being a case in point.

Theories are useful when they are shown to have predictive power. E.g., based on evolutionary theory, scientists predicted there should be intermediate forms showing how species evolved one to another. Enough intermediate forms have been found at this point that the prediction has been supported. You'll likely say, because Creationists do, that they aren't in the direct line of descent, but that's irrelevant to the argument. Unless you found the one exact individual that was the ancestor to a new species, you'll never have the direct line of descent. The point is to show that viable intermediate forms exist, which is the prediction of evolution. At this point, enough of evolution's predictions have been confirmed that no scientist seriously doubts it.

What you really want to say is that any theory is as good as any other in science, and therefore your theory of a Prime Mover is just as good as physicists' theories of multiple universes with different natural laws. But a theory that says "let's just stop doing science"--let's stop trying to understand the world around us--is not as good as any other. And that's what Creationism does. Whenever there's an anomaly, instead of reacting like a scientist ("Look! A flaw! Cool! Let's figure out how to explain it and maybe get a Nobel Prize!") they react like theologians--"Look! A mystery! Let's all venerate God!". That's not science, and all the wishing in the world won't make it so.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-05-2014, 01:28 AM
Institutional intolerance and persecution of individuals who deviate from accepted doctrine is a hallmark of organized religion. And since I'm not interested in playing the "who displays the most intolerance towards the other side" game I'll take this opportunity to say thanks for the back and forth and bow out.

Ron

Thank you for your time Ron, I have appreciated our exchanges. :)

aiki-jujutsuka
01-05-2014, 01:31 AM
Well, one is about the physical and the other about the metaphysical. There is no need for them to overlap.

Of course there is, and has been, conflicts between people when they stepped outside their respective fields of expertise, tried to impose their viewpoints on others or/and had a political agenda.

Being conscious about science and religion being about different things.

But what happens when a religion, such as Christianity, makes statements of a physical nature? What then? What about the miracles of Jesus? What about Israel's exile? The Bible purports to be real history. It is not just a philosophical book.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-05-2014, 01:45 AM
Thanks! Only secondary evidence, but still interesting. But, as I said before and as the authors also writes in the paper, the presence of DNA in the bone would primarily suggest that the current model of DNA decay in fossilized bones is incorrect. The reason for this is that there are geological and radiological data that corroborates that the bones are 26 million years old (apparently four different decay series, none of which is C14). I hope you can agree that using the model of DNA decay as an argument for the bones being more recent than this is quite a stretch.

The geological and radiological data is debatable - Flood By Design by Mike Oard explains how the landscapes we see today and the geological strata are a result of the global Flood recorded in Genesis. Even secular geology accepts that fossilisation requires catastrophic, rapid processes and concedes that local floods could have caused this. Oard's flood paradigm is a powerful hypothesis, well worth reading.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-05-2014, 02:01 AM
FWIW, saying "It's only a theory" is a great big red flag indicating you don't know what you're talking about and don't have the background to take part in the conversation. It shows that you don't understand how science proceeds or how the words are even used.

A theory, in science, explains why something works the way it does. No theory can ever be proved. Saying evolution is a theory says something about what role "evolution" plays in science, but nothing about how valid or trustworthy it is. The best you can do with a theory is make predictions based on it and see if the predictions hold up. If they do, so far so good--but there's no guarantee that tomorrow someone won't find a prediction that doesn't hold up, showing that the theory is wrong or incomplete. That's how science progresses.

Often, what people say is, "It's a theory, not a law"--as though laws were more accurate than theories. They're not. They're a different kind of animal. Laws tell how to make predictions. Newton's laws of motion give rules for how bodies move in space. The law of natural selection gives rules for which individuals are most likely to survive and reproduce in a given context. Laws can be inaccurate and still be useful--Newton's laws being a case in point.

Theories are useful when they are shown to have predictive power. E.g., based on evolutionary theory, scientists predicted there should be intermediate forms showing how species evolved one to another. Enough intermediate forms have been found at this point that the prediction has been supported. You'll likely say, because Creationists do, that they aren't in the direct line of descent, but that's irrelevant to the argument. Unless you found the one exact individual that was the ancestor to a new species, you'll never have the direct line of descent. The point is to show that viable intermediate forms exist, which is the prediction of evolution. At this point, enough of evolution's predictions have been confirmed that no scientist seriously doubts it.

.

Yes there are scientists who doubt it, Michael Behe for example who wrote Darwin's Black Box, as a microbiologist has serious concerns about evolution at the genetic level, in what he calls 'irreducible complexity'. Evolution is dependent on those intermediate stages but some things such as the ATP processor, the body's smallest motor, are irreducibly complex - remove any part of it and it will not work. Darwin had no knowledge of microbiology, so how does the theory of evolution respond to these discoveries?

Carsten Möllering
01-05-2014, 05:59 AM
Respectfully I disagree. ...That would not hinder a discussion as far as I am concerned. But I will not continue this discussion because of the kind of hermeneutics you apply.

To me it is important to give historical texts and historical facts there own right. To try to understand their actual meaning - for me - has to be the first step. And only after this I compare to my own understanding what I have come to find in the texts. So there is a chance that the texts may affect and maybe even change me and my understanding.

As long as one's own worldview, understanding and personal interests are the base of exegesis instead of the texts itself, I don't see how a discussion could be productive. Before we could compare our results we would have to discuss our approach. But I'm not interested in such discussions. If your methodology works for you and your life that's fine!

Demetrio Cereijo
01-05-2014, 06:30 AM
But what happens when a religion, such as Christianity, makes statements of a physical nature? What then? What about the miracles of Jesus? What about Israel's exile? The Bible purports to be real history. It is not just a philosophical book.
Religion does not make statements. People does.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-05-2014, 06:40 AM
Religion does not make statements. People does.

I`m sorry can you please explain this comment, it doesn`t make much sense to me.

That would not hinder a discussion as far as I am concerned. But I will not continue this discussion because of the kind of hermeneutics you apply.

To me it is important to give historical texts and historical facts there own right. To try to understand their actual meaning - for me - has to be the first step. And only after this I compare to my own understanding what I have come to find in the texts. So there is a chance that the texts may affect and maybe even change me and my understanding.

As long as one's own worldview, understanding and personal interests are the base of exegesis instead of the texts itself, I don't see how a discussion could be productive. Before we could compare our results we would have to discuss our approach. But I'm not interested in such discussions. If your methodology works for you and your life that's fine!

Carsten, I too agree that it is important to understand historical texts in context, so I don`t see any disagreement there. I also strive to avoid eisegesis: reading into the text your own interpretation; the opposite of exegesis, so again there`s no disagreement there. Please then can you clarify how we differ in our understanding of Scripture?

sorokod
01-05-2014, 08:02 AM
FWIW, saying "It's only a theory" is a great big red flag indicating you don't know what you're talking about and don't have the background to take part in the conversation. It shows that you don't understand how science proceeds or how the words are even used.

A theory, in science, explains why something works the way it does. No theory can ever be proved. Saying evolution is a theory says something about what role "evolution" plays in science, but nothing about how valid or trustworthy it is. The best you can do with a theory is make predictions based on it and see if the predictions hold up. If they do, so far so good--but there's no guarantee that tomorrow someone won't find a prediction that doesn't hold up, showing that the theory is wrong or incomplete. That's how science progresses.

Often, what people say is, "It's a theory, not a law"--as though laws were more accurate than theories. They're not. They're a different kind of animal. Laws tell how to make predictions. Newton's laws of motion give rules for how bodies move in space. The law of natural selection gives rules for which individuals are most likely to survive and reproduce in a given context. Laws can be inaccurate and still be useful--Newton's laws being a case in point.

Theories are useful when they are shown to have predictive power. E.g., based on evolutionary theory, scientists predicted there should be intermediate forms showing how species evolved one to another. Enough intermediate forms have been found at this point that the prediction has been supported. You'll likely say, because Creationists do, that they aren't in the direct line of descent, but that's irrelevant to the argument. Unless you found the one exact individual that was the ancestor to a new species, you'll never have the direct line of descent. The point is to show that viable intermediate forms exist, which is the prediction of evolution. At this point, enough of evolution's predictions have been confirmed that no scientist seriously doubts it.

What you really want to say is that any theory is as good as any other in science, and therefore your theory of a Prime Mover is just as good as physicists' theories of multiple universes with different natural laws. But a theory that says "let's just stop doing science"--let's stop trying to understand the world around us--is not as good as any other. And that's what Creationism does. Whenever there's an anomaly, instead of reacting like a scientist ("Look! A flaw! Cool! Let's figure out how to explain it and maybe get a Nobel Prize!") they react like theologians--"Look! A mystery! Let's all venerate God!". That's not science, and all the wishing in the world won't make it so.

I mathematics "theory" has a special meaning as described here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(mathematical_logic)), one can not get more logically watertight then this. Here is a list of some mathematical theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_theories).

Dave de Vos
01-05-2014, 09:08 AM
So in your opinion science and religion are completely separate spheres that don`t ever...or should never overlap?

How do you separate the two? We filter everything in life through one ideology or another.

I think there is overlap in the sense that they both offer answers to fundamental questions about the origin, the history and causation of everything.

In this case one ideology (creationism) believes that the ultimate truth can be found by investigating the bible, while the other ideology (science) believes that the ultimate truth can be found by investigating the world and trying to make sense of what is found.

There is much overlap in the subject of these ideologies, but the basic beliefs are too far apart. Neither can be convinced by their opponent's arguments, because they don't fit into their basic belief. There is no overlap in arguments that both ideologies accept as valid and decisive arguments.

So I think a duscussion between people adhering to either ideology is mostly pointless.

sorokod
01-05-2014, 11:36 AM
By the principle of falsification, for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

Consequently, a belief system that allows deities to play fast and loose with the laws of nature (e.g. stopping the sun) , can't have scientific credence. It could be an ideology I suppose.

hughrbeyer
01-05-2014, 11:43 AM
David, that kind of formal math theory is a different animal again.

ATP and irreducible complexity: So many examples of "irreducible" complexity have been shown to be quite reducible that any such claim is suspect. And look how you respond: "Irreducible complexity! Divine intervention! No need to look further!" That's not a scientific response. If you want to do theology then do theology--though frankly I find this sort of "god of the gaps" to be poor theology too.

As for the bible as history--I agree with you, though many experts would not, that much of the OT, the Gospels, and Acts are written as history. But what other first-century historical text gets the same kind of uncritical acceptance you're giving the Bible? They're full of miracles, monsters, and divine intervention, but that doesn't mean every word is accepted as fact. If the bible is history, we would expect a certain amount of misinformation and fable in it. But with the bible, that's not allowed. So your problem is really that you're not reading it enough like history.

Janet Rosen
01-05-2014, 12:02 PM
... Their next book proposes a creation story that is very inclusive. "The new Universe and the Human Future."

I have to admit my funny bone was tickled, in line with the old joke about Unitarians beginning prayers "to whom it may concern," and my nomination for an inclusive creation story is:
"Out of what was probably a void, He/She/It, who was there all along, created everything, but maybe not all at once." :)

sorokod
01-05-2014, 12:04 PM
David, that kind of formal math theory is a different animal again.


Sure it is. Creationists like to hang on to logic similar to the following

1. "Theory is something that remains to be proven"
2 ."Evolution and whatever-its-is-we-are-selling-today are theories"
3. "It follows that both have the same validity"

My point is that the word theory has different meaning in the english language so that you can have "Set theory" on one end of spectrum, followed by "Quantum theory" and finally the "Spaghetti Monster" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) theory.

Janet Rosen
01-05-2014, 03:09 PM
Dang! My creation theory didn't include kimchi. Whatever was I thinking?!

sorokod
01-05-2014, 03:44 PM
Please could you provide evidence that Old Testament Creationism is an utterly and verifiably false myth. If it`s as verifiably false as you claim then this should not be a problem.

People tend to pussyfoot around the talking snake:

"And the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."


I am not sure what attack vector will be convincing to the OP, lack of speech producing machinery, small neural apparatus, etc...

One could argue that this is not to be taken literally - but

1. A deity that created the world in seven days surly is capable of producing a talking reptile
2. On the other hand, if this part is not to be taken literally, why take literally the other parts?

Finally, the expulsion from the garden of eden is the starting point for the humanity as we know it (according to the bible), so I choose to see it as creationist as anything else

aiki-jujutsuka
01-05-2014, 05:03 PM
David, that kind of formal math theory is a different animal again.

ATP and irreducible complexity: So many examples of "irreducible" complexity have been shown to be quite reducible that any such claim is suspect. And look how you respond: "Irreducible complexity! Divine intervention! No need to look further!" That's not a scientific response. If you want to do theology then do theology--though frankly I find this sort of "god of the gaps" to be poor theology too.

As for the bible as history--I agree with you, though many experts would not, that much of the OT, the Gospels, and Acts are written as history. But what other first-century historical text gets the same kind of uncritical acceptance you're giving the Bible? They're full of miracles, monsters, and divine intervention, but that doesn't mean every word is accepted as fact. If the bible is history, we would expect a certain amount of misinformation and fable in it. But with the bible, that's not allowed. So your problem is really that you're not reading it enough like history.

Can you give me an example of an irreducibly complex system that has been proven to be reducible without loss of function?

Creation Science is not a god-of-the-gaps science or theology. It deals with real data.

There has been much scholarly work done into the Bible - there are sceptical scholars and conservative scholars. Some accept the historicity of the Bible more than others. Some scholars point to so-called contradictions in Scripture. There are responses to those objections too. So yes the Bible is open to scrutiny.

David Partington
01-05-2014, 06:31 PM
Can you give me an example of an irreducibly complex system that has been proven to be reducible without loss of function?


There are some examples in the following YouTube clip. It's only 11 minutes long but basically explains that :

1. Complex natural systems CAN evolve gradually through the accumulation of many small useful steps;
2. Systems claimed to be "irreducibly complex" are often NOT;
3. Even systems that ARE irreducibly complex can have functional precursors and evolve gradually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU

Sacha Cloetens
01-06-2014, 04:46 AM
I History demonstrates that modern science has its roots in Christianity and a Biblical framework.

So Algebra has its roots in Christianity & a Biblical Framework? :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra#History

.......or isn't algebra science? :confused:

:freaky:

aiki-jujutsuka
01-06-2014, 08:01 AM
There are some examples in the following YouTube clip. It's only 11 minutes long but basically explains that :

1. Complex natural systems CAN evolve gradually through the accumulation of many small useful steps;
2. Systems claimed to be "irreducibly complex" are often NOT;
3. Even systems that ARE irreducibly complex can have functional precursors and evolve gradually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU

Thank you for the link - i watched it with interest but felt it failed to actually address Behe's argument at its strongest point: that being at a molecular biological level there are certain parts that are irreducibly complex. The video gave very clear diagrams for the so called intermediary stages of the development of the eye, but it was ultimately conjecture. It also attacks Behe's mousetrap analogy but no analogy is perfect it is just an aid. It also contradicts itself - it claims evolution does not happen with design in mind yet uses the counter analogy of a bridge to dismantle Behe's argument. But bridges are built by humans intentionally, by design! The last part I found perplexing, the narrator calls ID pseudoscience and appeals to a court case Behe was involved with, stating he admitted ID is not found in scientific peer review papers and thus the courts have proven ID is not real science. But since when has the legal system defined what science is? That is not a scientific way of proving whether something is scientific or not, and thus was complete propaganda.

hughrbeyer
01-06-2014, 04:37 PM
Can you give me an example of an irreducibly complex system that has been proven to be reducible without loss of function?

Obviously not, since once proven to be reducible, it's not longer irreducibly complex. I can give you examples of systems that were claimed to be irreducibly complex until shown otherwise. Blood clotting is once such.

Creation Science is not a god-of-the-gaps science or theology. It deals with real data.

I'm not sure you know what "god of the gaps" means. If I show you how the ATP cycle could have evolved through descent with modification, your god has just gotten a little bit smaller. My God doesn't require science to be broken.

There has been much scholarly work done into the Bible - there are sceptical scholars and conservative scholars. Some accept the historicity of the Bible more than others. Some scholars point to so-called contradictions in Scripture. There are responses to those objections too. So yes the Bible is open to scrutiny.

But the end result always has to be that the bible is right, no matter how complex the scenario you have to create to make it so. The Gospellers can't even agree on the date of the Last Supper relative to Passover, or what kind of a meal it was. (The special pleading to resolve that one is a sight to behold.) To my mind this is in fact exactly one message of the bible--it is what it says it is--personal recollections, mostly second-hand, written long after the facts described. Errors, personal bias, and a little bit of fable are to be expected. Absolute Truth is not. But that shouldn't be a surprise--Jesus said the same, after all.

Cady Goldfield
01-06-2014, 04:52 PM
Wow. This thread is getting more play than an IP/Aiki thread of bygone days.
Maybe it's a substitute outlet for all that repressed energy...?

:)

David Partington
01-06-2014, 06:29 PM
Ewen Ebsworth wrote:
it failed to actually address Behe's argument at its strongest point: that being at a molecular biological level there are certain parts that are irreducibly complex.

I assume you are talking about Behe's bacterial flagellum example and if so, not being a cellular and molecular biologist, I am currently unable to fully appreciate the argument put forward in defence of Ken Miller's criticism so can't comment.

Ewen Ebsworth wrote:
The video gave very clear diagrams for the so called intermediary stages of the development of the eye, but it was ultimately conjecture.

It is a fact that those different types of "eye" are found in nature. The theory of evolution is our current best explanation of how the differences "could" have come about. That's what scientific theories do - explain how "facts" could have arisen based on the available evidence. I think it was Carl Sagan who first? said "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence." The evidence for the theory of evolution really is exceptional.

Having said that, if it is one day accepted by science that certain bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex, that won't make the whole of the theory of evolution redundant -- just incomplete. A bit like Aeronautical Theory which, until recently, was unable to explain how bumblebees fly.

Ewen Ebsworth wrote:
It also contradicts itself - it claims evolution does not happen with design in mind yet uses the counter analogy of a bridge to dismantle Behe's argument. But bridges are built by humans intentionally, by design!

The narrator admits that analogies using arches and mousetraps are unsatisfactory when talking about evolution hence the example of the venus fly trap which makes exactly the same point about precursors as the bridge example did.

Ewen Ebsworth wrote:
thus the courts have proven ID is not real science. But since when has the legal system defined what science is?

Actually I thought the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District trial showed that the theory of intelligent design was simply a re-packaging of the Creationist Act, which was struck down by the US Supreme Court back in 1987 as being unconstitutional.

tlk52
01-06-2014, 09:30 PM
I love this thread!

aiki-jujutsuka
01-06-2014, 10:47 PM
Obviously not, since once proven to be reducible, it's not longer irreducibly complex. I can give you examples of systems that were claimed to be irreducibly complex until shown otherwise. Blood clotting is once such.

I'm not sure you know what "god of the gaps" means. If I show you how the ATP cycle could have evolved through descent with modification, your god has just gotten a little bit smaller. My God doesn't require science to be broken.

But the end result always has to be that the bible is right, no matter how complex the scenario you have to create to make it so. The Gospellers can't even agree on the date of the Last Supper relative to Passover, or what kind of a meal it was. (The special pleading to resolve that one is a sight to behold.) To my mind this is in fact exactly one message of the bible--it is what it says it is--personal recollections, mostly second-hand, written long after the facts described. Errors, personal bias, and a little bit of fable are to be expected. Absolute Truth is not. But that shouldn't be a surprise--Jesus said the same, after all.

I`m well aware of what god of the gaps means, and my God doesn`t require science to be broken either, but what God do you believe in? If its the Biblical God then how do you theologically reconcile Him with evolutionary theory that - as you have been arguing - is a natural process?

The "Gospellers" as you call them wrote for different audiences and different purposes. Using the Last Supper as an example of Biblical inaccuracy (and therefore fallibility) is weak. They all agree on Jesus` death and resurrection and in Jesus` teachings - teachings that are contrary to evolutionary theory.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-07-2014, 12:42 AM
Having said that, if it is one day accepted by science that certain bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex, that won't make the whole of the theory of evolution redundant -- just incomplete. A bit like Aeronautical Theory which, until recently, was unable to explain .

So what would make you doubt evolution?

lbb
01-07-2014, 07:27 AM
"the Biblical God"? So God is defined by a book? He better not get uppity and step outside what the book says he can do, then.

Said it before and I'll say it again: "They write books that contradict the books, then say that I wrote the books and the rocks are lies."

sorokod
01-07-2014, 10:24 AM
Even the biblical god may be actually more then one, According to Karen Armstrong there may have been two.

The complete "A History of God" is available here (may be illegal) (http://www.faithfuleye.com/simp/files/pdf/Karen.Armstrong.-.A.History.Of.God.(Religion.-.Theology.-.Judaism.-.Chritianity.-.Islam).pdf)

The relevant paragraph:


But who is Yahweh? Did Abraham worship the same God as Moses or did he know him by a different name? This would be a matter of prime
importance to us today but the Bible seems curiously vague on the subject and gives conflicting answers to this question, J says that men had
worshipped Yahweh ever since the time of Adam's grandson but in the sixth century, 'P' seems to suggest that the Israelites had never heard of
Yahweh until he appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush. P makes Yahweh explain that he really was the same God as the God of Abraham, as
though this were a rather controversial notion: he tells Moses that Abraham had called him 'El Shaddai' and did not know the divine name
Yahweh. {7} The discrepancy does not seem to worry either the biblical writers or their editors unduly. J calls his god 'Yahweh' throughout: by
the time he was writing, Yahweh was the God of Israel and that was all that mattered. Israelite religion was pragmatic and less concerned with
the kind of speculative detail that would worry us. Yet we should not assume that either Abraham or Moses believed in their God as we do
today. We are so familiar with the Bible story and the subsequent history of Israel that we tend to project our knowledge of later Jewish religion
back on to these early historical personages. Accordingly, we assume that the three patriarchs of Israel - Abraham, his son Isaac and grandson
Jacob - were monotheists who believed in only one God. This does not seem to have been the case. Indeed, it is probably more accurate to call
these early Hebrews pagans who shared many of the religious beliefs of their neighbours in Canaan. They would certainly have believed in the
existence of such deities as Marduk, Baal and Anat. They may not all have worshipped the same deity: it is possible that the God of Abraham,
the 'Fear' or 'Kinsman' of Isaac and the 'Mighty One' of Jacob were three separate gods. {8}

We can go further. It is highly likely that Abraham's God was El, the High God of Canaan. The deity introduces himself to Abraham as El
Shaddai (El of the Mountain), which was one of El's traditional tides. {9} Elsewhere he is called El Elyon (The Most High God) or El of
Bethel. The name of the Canaanite High God is preserved in such Hebrew names as Isra-El or Ishma-El. They experienced him in ways that
would not have been unfamiliar to the pagans of the Middle East. We shall see that centuries later Israelites found the mana or 'holiness' of
Yahweh a terrifying experience. On Mount Sinai, for example, he would appear to Moses in the midst of an awe-inspiring volcanic eruption
and the Israelites had to keep their distance. In comparison, Abraham's god El is a very mild deity. He appears to Abraham as a friend and
sometimes even assumes human form. This type of divine apparition, known as an epiphany, was quite common in the pagan world of
antiquity. Even though in general the gods were not expected to intervene directly in the lives of mortal men and women, certain privileged
individuals in mythical times had encountered their gods face to face. The Iliad is full of such epiphanies. The gods and goddesses appear to
both Greeks and Trojans in dreams, when the boundary between the human and divine worlds was believed to be lowered. At the very end of
the Iliad, Priam is guided to the Greek ships by a charming young man who finally reveals himself as Hermes. {10} When the Greeks looked
back to the golden age of their heroes, they felt that they had been closely in touch with the gods, who were, after all, of the same nature as
human beings. These stories of epiphanies expressed the holistic pagan vision: when the divine was not essentially distinct from either nature or
humanity, it could be experienced without a great fanfare. The world was full of gods, who could be perceived unexpectedly at any time,
around any corner or in the person of a passing stranger. It seems that ordinary folk may have believed that such divine encounters were
possible in their own lives: this may explain the strange story in the Acts of the Apostles when, as late as the first century CE, the apostle Paul
and his disciple Barnabas were mistaken for Zeus and Hermes by the people of Lystra in what is now Turkey."


Karen.Armstrong.-.A.History.Of.God.

hughrbeyer
01-07-2014, 10:29 AM
I`m well aware of what god of the gaps means, and my God doesn`t require science to be broken either, but what God do you believe in? If its the Biblical God then how do you theologically reconcile Him with evolutionary theory that - as you have been arguing - is a natural process?

The "Gospellers" as you call them wrote for different audiences and different purposes. Using the Last Supper as an example of Biblical inaccuracy (and therefore fallibility) is weak. They all agree on Jesus` death and resurrection and in Jesus` teachings - teachings that are contrary to evolutionary theory.

OK, you're mostly not responding to my arguments at this point, but I'm interested in your last claim. What teaching of Jesus is contradictory to evolutionary theory?

sorokod
01-07-2014, 11:34 AM
BTW, on of these gods was definitely into taijitsu:

And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.
When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him.
Then he said, "Let me go, for the day has broken." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."
And he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob."
Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed."
Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him.
So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered."
The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip.
Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh.


Genesis 32:22-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+32%3A22-32&version=ESV)

Nicholas Eschenbruch
01-07-2014, 12:27 PM
"the Biblical God"? So God is defined by a book? He better not get uppity and step outside what the book says he can do, then.

Said it before and I'll say it again: "They write books that contradict the rocks, then say that I wrote the books and the rocks are lies."

Very small beings... :)

Lorien Lowe
01-07-2014, 02:21 PM
I am not dragging intolerance into the discussion - intolerance is a running theme throughout the discussion. Science is increasingly conducted within an atheistic framework. Methodological naturalism rules out supernatural intervention as a causal agent in the creation of the universe and of life on earth. Yet historically this hasn`t been the case. Take Sir Isaac Newton for example, one of the most important figures of the Scientific Revolution whose work in Mathematics and Science were groundbreaking and important in developing our understanding of the world today. And yet Newton also believed in God and in the creation account of Genesis 1. To argue we can`t make any progress under a theistic scientific model is just not born out by history. History demonstrates that modern science has its roots in Christianity and a Biblical framework.
Eben, you haven't been reading (or are selectively disregarding) some of the posts here. The Dr. who discovered collagen in T. rex bones is a very devoted Christian... and is NOT a young-earth creationist, and is disappointed in young-earth creationists who distort her research. Saying 'UR ATHEIST' is just a way to avoid having to deal with the evidence presented by scientists you disagree with.

As for naturalism: yes, science presupposes naturalism, because science is about testing hypotheses. There is no way to question the hypothesis, 'goddidit,' and so the whole inquiry necessarily stops once that is invoked as an answer.
The geological and radiological data is debatable - Flood By Design by Mike Oard explains how the landscapes we see today and the geological strata are a result of the global Flood recorded in Genesis. Even secular geology accepts that fossilisation requires catastrophic, rapid processes and concedes that local floods could have caused this. Oard's flood paradigm is a powerful hypothesis, well worth reading.
The radiologic data do have variations, yes, but not to the degree of several orders of magnitude. Not to the degree of mistaking thousands of years for billions of years - more to the degree of mistaking 4.5 billion for 4.6 billion. As for floods: yes, floods happen, and yes, floods do sometimes coincide with fossilization events... sometimes. Drowning and subsequent sedimentary burial are *one* way that organisms can fossilize. Some of the richest fossil beds on earth, though, do not come from flood events; for example, the recent discoveries of late dinosaurs and early birds in China come from a region that experienced multiple volcanic eruptions where animals were killed and buried in volcanic ash.

In addition, many of the 'flood' columns that creationists point to are obviously not single, catastrophic floods, but repeated, smaller, periodic flood events, or a combination of flood events and gradualistic wear (for example, the Grand Canyon). It's not hard to tell the difference; even I, with one semester of geology 101, could show you the difference between the two.

Lorien Lowe
01-07-2014, 02:40 PM
Can you give me an example of an irreducibly complex system that has been proven to be reducible without loss of function?
The format of the question betrays a misunderstanding of what evolution does. Of course the less-derived versions aren't going to function as well, or in the same way; if they did, the new mutation would not have become fixed in the population.
Creation Science is not a god-of-the-gaps science or theology. It deals with real data.

But it ignores the 90% of the data that do not fit its paradigm.

Demetrio Cereijo
01-07-2014, 03:15 PM
When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him.

Like O Sensei... 'the man' had aiki

:)

David Partington
01-07-2014, 08:14 PM
So what would make you doubt evolution?

Within the context of our little exchange, I can honestly say I can interpret what you wrote in at least a couple of different ways.

Of course I could be completely wrong and the question you are actually asking isn't any of the ones I am thinking of. I am fortunate however that we are both still alive, we are both native English speakers (I assume) and I can ask you to clarify what you are actually asking?

There is a forum elsewhere on Aikiweb regarding the different translations of some Japanese text attributed to Morihei Ueshiba's undertaken by Chris Li and John Stevens. Is it "opening the feet at a 60 degree angle" or "open the feet in six directions"? Perhaps you know it?

Both translators had the same Japanese text, but their knowledge of the language and experience of the culture etc. led both men to make different translations. O'sensei died in 1969 so neither of them could ask the source to clarify the actual meaning of the text. So in less than 44 years, no one can be sure what the actual meaning of all the words attributed to O'sensei are. Additionally, if the words came via another person -- how can we be sure, word for word, everything O'sensei is supposed to have said was actually spoken by O'sensei? Have you played Chinese Whispers or seen two reporters accounts of the same incident?

With that in mind, if you had asked me your question in Greek, 2000 years ago, I definitely wouldn't know what you were asking because I can't speak Greek. My two choices would be to either learn Greek and obtain knowledge of the culture during the time your question was asked and translate your words directly or ask someone else to translate your words for me. Just as with O'sensei's text, it is likely that multiple translators will give me more than one possible translation in English. If I teach myself Greek and am able to read the original text then I can at least interpret my own meaning. If I want to use the words of a translator, the information comes to me second hand and I only have the translators' word that it is accurate. Perhaps that is why there are over 50 versions of the Bible in English.

How many Christians do you know have read the New Testament in its original Greek format? In my opinion, those who haven't need a lot more faith than those who have.

Anyway, going back to my being able to interpret what you wrote in number of different ways; you could say that I am just being awkward or I have a specific agenda or reason for interpreting you words in the way that I can. And you may be correct, but that wouldn't make either of the ways I can interpret the message behind your words wrong - unless you could clarify them.

But to answer your question in one way I can think of that would really make me doubt (the theory of) evolution would be thus:-

If the theory stated that, approximately 2000 years ago, some people had said they had seen millions of different varieties of flora and fauna upon the Earth but these were no longer evident and that the theory was written in a language I couldn't understand but hey, not to worry, there were more than 50 versions of this theory available in a language I could understand and if I was feeling especially lazy I could get someone else to give me their interpretation of the translated theory for me. Yes, I think that would make me doubt (the theory of) evolution.

Or to put it another way: "Αυτό που νομίζω ότι η θεωρία που ήθελε να πει ήταν…"

(Thank God for Google translate!)

aiki-jujutsuka
01-07-2014, 11:12 PM
"the Biblical God"? So God is defined by a book? He better not get uppity and step outside what the book says he can do, then.

Said it before and I'll say it again: "They write books that contradict the books, then say that I wrote the books and the rocks are lies."

God is not defined by a book, but He is the author of a book...the Bible. Tell me Mary, is it faith that is so anathema to you or just what you perceive to be fundamentalism?


Eben, you haven't been reading (or are selectively disregarding) some of the posts here. The Dr. who discovered collagen in T. rex bones is a very devoted Christian... and is NOT a young-earth creationist, and is disappointed in young-earth creationists who distort her research. Saying 'UR ATHEIST' is just a way to avoid having to deal with the evidence presented by scientists you disagree with.

As for naturalism: yes, science presupposes naturalism, because science is about testing hypotheses. There is no way to question the hypothesis, 'goddidit,' and so the whole inquiry necessarily stops once that is invoked as an answer.



I never claimed the scientist who made the discovery was an atheist and I am well aware there are Christians of different persuasions - theistic evolutionists, old earth creationists, intelligent designers etc. Just because they do not hold to a young-earth does not mean we cannot interpret the data for ourselves.

The second point I think is a straw man argument - history shows us this is not true. I already gave Sir Isaac Newton as an example, but others would include Robert Boyle and his work in chemistry, who played an important role in disproving the Aristotelian 4 humors theory. Then there is Kepler, the Wright Brothers, James Clark Maxwell pioneer of the electromagnetic radiation theory, Pastuer and his work on germ theory of disease. These mens beliefs in a Creator did not prevent them from moving science forward.


It's not hard to tell the difference; even I, with one semester of geology 101, could show you the difference between the two.


Did your geology 101 class happen to work under the principle of uniformitarianism?


OK, you're mostly not responding to my arguments at this point, but I'm interested in your last claim. What teaching of Jesus is contradictory to evolutionary theory?


Which arguments would those be? However, regarding Jesus` teachings see Mark 10:6-7 and Matthew 24:37-39.

"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.' ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,"

If evolution is true then human beings were not created from the beginning of creation because humanity came very late in the evolutionary time scale of the world. So either Jesus was lying or was ignorant (bearing in mind He is the Son of God - so He is neither capable of lying nor is ignorant of the origin of life). Also Jesus appeals to creation not naturalism, and then even more explicitly refers to God making them male and female - God made humanity. It does not say God made apes into human beings. Nor does He say God set the universe in motion and then allow it to evolve gradually through blind naturalistic processes.

"For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

Here Jesus affirms that Noah`s Flood was a real historical event as recorded in Genesis. Secular science rejects Noah`s Flood as historically factual.


Even the biblical god may be actually more then one, According to Karen Armstrong there may have been two.



This person commits the logical fallacy of false cause - just because there are epiphanies in pagan religions this does not mean that Abraham and Moses merely borrowed from pagan religion. Abraham in his early life most probably believed in a pagan deity of some kind because he was called out of the city of Ur, which had a temple in it to the moon god Nanna. El Shaddai as creator God revealed Himself in contradistinction to the polytheism of the pagan gods of the Near East.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-08-2014, 03:56 AM
Within the context of our little exchange, I can honestly say I can interpret what you wrote in at least a couple of different ways.

Of course I could be completely wrong and the question you are actually asking isn't any of the ones I am thinking of. I am fortunate however that we are both still alive, we are both native English speakers (I assume) and I can ask you to clarify what you are actually asking?

There is a forum elsewhere on Aikiweb regarding the different translations of some Japanese text attributed to Morihei Ueshiba's undertaken by Chris Li and John Stevens. Is it "opening the feet at a 60 degree angle" or "open the feet in six directions"? Perhaps you know it?

Both translators had the same Japanese text, but their knowledge of the language and experience of the culture etc. led both men to make different translations. O'sensei died in 1969 so neither of them could ask the source to clarify the actual meaning of the text. So in less than 44 years, no one can be sure what the actual meaning of all the words attributed to O'sensei are. Additionally, if the words came via another person -- how can we be sure, word for word, everything O'sensei is supposed to have said was actually spoken by O'sensei? Have you played Chinese Whispers or seen two reporters accounts of the same incident?

With that in mind, if you had asked me your question in Greek, 2000 years ago, I definitely wouldn't know what you were asking because I can't speak Greek. My two choices would be to either learn Greek and obtain knowledge of the culture during the time your question was asked and translate your words directly or ask someone else to translate your words for me. Just as with O'sensei's text, it is likely that multiple translators will give me more than one possible translation in English. If I teach myself Greek and am able to read the original text then I can at least interpret my own meaning. If I want to use the words of a translator, the information comes to me second hand and I only have the translators' word that it is accurate. Perhaps that is why there are over 50 versions of the Bible in English.

How many Christians do you know have read the New Testament in its original Greek format? In my opinion, those who haven't need a lot more faith than those who have.

Anyway, going back to my being able to interpret what you wrote in number of different ways; you could say that I am just being awkward or I have a specific agenda or reason for interpreting you words in the way that I can. And you may be correct, but that wouldn't make either of the ways I can interpret the message behind your words wrong - unless you could clarify them.

But to answer your question in one way I can think of that would really make me doubt (the theory of) evolution would be thus:-

If the theory stated that, approximately 2000 years ago, some people had said they had seen millions of different varieties of flora and fauna upon the Earth but these were no longer evident and that the theory was written in a language I couldn't understand but hey, not to worry, there were more than 50 versions of this theory available in a language I could understand and if I was feeling especially lazy I could get someone else to give me their interpretation of the translated theory for me. Yes, I think that would make me doubt (the theory of) evolution.

Or to put it another way: "Αυτό που νομίζω ότι η θεωρία που ήθελε να πει ήταν…"

(Thank God for Google translate!)

David, we were discussing scientific objections to evolution, the particular example was irreducible complexity. You made a statement in which you said even if science conceded that some things were irreducibly complex it wouldn`t make evolution redundant but reveal that its understanding of evolution was incomplete. This struck me as odd that you could supposedly still interpret contradictory evidence as being in support of evolution, which led to my question.

Your example of O`Sensei`s teachings being interpreted differently and thus being a more contemporary example of literature whose meaning is obscured by time and distance from original context, I don`t think is necessarily relevant to the point about scientific objections to evolution. However, regarding the objection that I think you are making to the Bible being a source of truth (or authority in this matter perhaps), Bible translators work from thousands of ancient manuscripts: in fact there are more manuscripts for the New Testament than any other in ancient literature. The translations are not just one translators arbitrary work; translation is guided by evaluating the entire body of manuscript evidence to ensure accuracy by groups of Greek and Hebrew experts. But it seems here like you`re throwing stones while living in a glass house. So Bible translators can`t be trusted, even though they are experts in their field, yet scientists can be, precisely because they are experts in their respective fields?

I find it ironic that evolutionists use the argument about methodological naturalism being about testing hypotheses and thus furthering science, when their answer is always evolution it seems! Looks like you begin with the answer to me and fit the evidence around it.

Carsten Möllering
01-08-2014, 06:33 AM
... is it faith that is so anathema to you or just what you perceive to be fundamentalism?
We have an official statement of the "Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD)", i.e. Evangelical (in the sens of protestant) Church of Germany which is the organization of all protestant churches in Germany that creationism is to be regarded as hindering Christian faith. Creationism is said to be incompatible to the testimony of the bible and to lead people away from Jesus Christ.
Which was also announced as the official line of the Roman Catholic Church here.

;)

sorokod
01-08-2014, 09:58 AM
When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him.

Like O Sensei... 'the man' had aiki

:)

Yea! The father did have aiki!

sorokod
01-08-2014, 10:01 AM
This person commits the logical fallacy of false cause - just because there are epiphanies in pagan religions this does not mean that Abraham and Moses merely borrowed from pagan religion. Abraham in his early life most probably believed in a pagan deity of some kind because he was called out of the city of Ur, which had a temple in it to the moon god Nanna. El Shaddai as creator God revealed Himself in contradistinction to the polytheism of the pagan gods of the Near East.

I think you should reread the quoted paragraph, you missed 90% of the content.

hughrbeyer
01-08-2014, 10:37 AM
...regarding Jesus` teachings see Mark 10:6-7 and Matthew 24:37-39.

"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.' ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,"

If evolution is true then human beings were not created from the beginning of creation because humanity came very late in the evolutionary time scale of the world. So either Jesus was lying or was ignorant (bearing in mind He is the Son of God - so He is neither capable of lying nor is ignorant of the origin of life). Also Jesus appeals to creation not naturalism, and then even more explicitly refers to God making them male and female - God made humanity. It does not say God made apes into human beings. Nor does He say God set the universe in motion and then allow it to evolve gradually through blind naturalistic processes.

Oy. Well, thanks for answering my question (which was "What did Jesus ever say that contradicts the theory of evolution", btw). But your answer demonstrates the issues I have with the way you approach the bible. First, you've taken an off-the-cuff, introductory remark as a core point of the saying. I don't believe you can hang a cosmology from an off-hand remark quoted second-hand 2000 years ago.

Second, you choose to allow Jesus to be precise and imprecise according to your preference. Jesus' remark contradicts Genesis just as much as it does evolution. Man was not created on the first day but on the sixth; so man was not created male and female "from the beginning of creation" but from the sixth day of creation. OMG, Jesus lied or was mistaken. My faith crumbles.

Finally, you make a big deal about how Jesus just said "made" and nothing about how he made them, e.g. by evolving them over millenia. But why would he? That's not the point of what he was saying.

Evolution doesn't prove God doesn't exist, any more than hammers prove carpenters don't exist. Quit making the atheists' arguments for them, please.

David Partington
01-08-2014, 08:09 PM
Hi Ewen. Thanks for replying to my nonsense. I think I must have had a funny turn following my recent birthday. You know what they say…Another year older -- Another year wider! (at least in my case anyway.)

we were discussing scientific objections to evolution, the particular example was irreducible complexity.

I would have to assert that Behe's "theory" was not scientific. His observation about irreducible complexity as it would relate to the theory of evolution I thought, was actually quite insightful but his assertion that "it therefore must have been designed" cannot be tested so isn't science.

Now to answer the question I knew you were asking… So what would make you doubt evolution?

A theory has to fit the facts, not the other way around. If facts contradict the theory then either 1) the theory is wrong, 2) the theory is incomplete, 3) the facts are wrong.

The number of facts that currently support the theory of evolution are so numerous that I doubt enough contradictions could ever be found that would prove the theory was just plain wrong. I think it more plausible that if enough contradictions were ever found then the theory would have to be deemed incomplete and would therefore need to be re-defined to take the new facts into consideration. I have no idea how many contradictions would be required but I have yet to hear of any scientific facts that do contradict the theory.

I find it ironic that evolutionists use the argument about methodological naturalism being about testing hypotheses and thus furthering science, when their answer is always evolution it seems!

If you can propose a theory that explains the past, present and any future facts better than the theory of evolution, provided it was based on science and not the supernatural, then scientists would use that theory instead. Actually, the theory wouldn't necessarily need to be better to be useful -- it could simply be a different explanation such as how light can be explained in both terms of waves as well as packets of energy.

David Partington
01-08-2014, 08:30 PM
So Bible translators can`t be trusted, even though they are experts in their field, yet scientists can be, precisely because they are experts in their respective fields?
Actually what I was trying to say was that only experts in both fields should be permitted to have a say. i.e. if anyone hasn't read the New Testament in the original Greek (I definitely haven't) and only rely on the translated version(s) (me again!), should not, in my view, be allowed to argue/preach anything about the New Testament from authority because, for one thing, which one of the 50 different versions of the Bible is the source of truth?

How many preachers just in the US for example do you think this would apply to?

The translations are not just one translator's arbitrary work; translation is guided by evaluating the entire body of manuscript evidence to ensure accuracy by groups of Greek and Hebrew experts.

The problem I have with this is, just through observing contemporary goings on, both individuals and groups of humans can't seem to do anything "selflessly" i.e. there always seems to be an underlying agenda whether political, religious or money motivated. It's not that Bible translators can`t be trusted, I mean all humans cannot be trusted to be truely objective. Why would you suppose humans were any different 2000 years ago?

Looks like you begin with the answer to me and fit the evidence around it

I agree, just not in the context you were using it.

Bible translators work from thousands of ancient manuscripts: in fact there are more manuscripts for the New Testament than any other in ancient literature.

I know, but how many of these were written in Aramaic and languages other than Greek and English and therefore come complete with all the translation problems I alluded to previously.

Irrespective of the message or source, I find it ludicrous to accept that all events and teachings associated with and/or attributed to anyone is likely to be a true and factual account once you consider, the person is no longer alive to provide any clarification, if the account was written by those who didn't witness the events, if the account is written years after the events occurred, if parts of the text shows signs of tampering (additions) (who knows what may have been deleted), if the account had been agreed upon by a group of humans (with an agenda), in a different language from that spoken today, and therefore requiring yet another translation whereby the meaning is again agreed upon by a group of humans (with an agenda), resulting in over 50 different versions…bearing in mind O`Sensei`s teachings can't be easily interpreted within 44 years of his death. I'm not saying it is impossible - just implausible.

lbb
01-09-2014, 07:32 AM
God is not defined by a book, but He is the author of a book...the Bible. Tell me Mary, is it faith that is so anathema to you or just what you perceive to be fundamentalism?

That's an offensive way to phrase a question, but I'll try to answer it. I find fundamentalism to be foolish and inescapably erroneous -- ANY fundamentalism, not merely Christian fundamentalism. I have no problem with "faith" by some definitions, and find other forms of "faith" to be an exercise in willful stupidity. Believing that something is the literal truth because it comes with the stamp of your religion on it makes no more sense than believing food is healthy because you bought it at a "health food store". Your religion -- any religion -- is the product of human beings who seek to represent, in their inevitably flawed way, their understanding of the divine or the spirit. Some do so earnestly, some do so honestly, some do so cynically and with an eye out to their own opportunity. Even the most well-intentioned are flawed, and what they produce (with their religion's brand name stamped on it) is likewise flawed. Some of it is produced by charlatans and self-serving demagogues. None of it is perfect. Buyer beware...or, well, don't. Up to you.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-10-2014, 11:49 PM
Oy. Well, thanks for answering my question (which was "What did Jesus ever say that contradicts the theory of evolution", btw). But your answer demonstrates the issues I have with the way you approach the bible. First, you've taken an off-the-cuff, introductory remark as a core point of the saying. I don't believe you can hang a cosmology from an off-hand remark quoted second-hand 2000 years ago.

Second, you choose to allow Jesus to be precise and imprecise according to your preference. Jesus' remark contradicts Genesis just as much as it does evolution. Man was not created on the first day but on the sixth; so man was not created male and female "from the beginning of creation" but from the sixth day of creation. OMG, Jesus lied or was mistaken. My faith crumbles.

Finally, you make a big deal about how Jesus just said "made" and nothing about how he made them, e.g. by evolving them over millenia. But why would he? That's not the point of what he was saying.

Evolution doesn't prove God doesn't exist, any more than hammers prove carpenters don't exist. Quit making the atheists' arguments for them, please.

Hugh, it shouldn`t surprise either of us that we disagree on certain things (within the context of this discussion). You have an issue with "my" approach to the Bible, but from your response I too see issues with yours. You have also shown your preference in choosing Jesus` words to allow for evolution because he said "in the beginning" not "on the sixth day". Jesus is alluding to creation when he says "in the beginning" as these are the first words in Genesis 1. Genesis 1 records God creating over six days (as you have pointed out Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day), not millions of years.

The context of Jesus` statement also makes it clear what Jesus meant by "in the beginning" because he is discussing the issue of divorce with the Pharisees. Jesus is asked whether it is lawful to permit divorce and Jesus responds by quoting from Genesis 1 & 2, before the Fall in Genesis 3. Jesus` point is that divorce was a concession given to Moses because of man`s fallen sinful nature; but God`s intention was always - from the beginning of its institution i.e. when he made Adam and Eve - that marriage was for life. So Jesus is not wrong about when God created Adam and Eve.

There are many serious theological problems with evolution (depending on your view of course), however, as a Christian I have found that theistic evolutionists have not satisfactorily dealt with the theological problems their beliefs in evolution cause.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-11-2014, 12:19 AM
That's an offensive way to phrase a question, but I'll try to answer it. I find fundamentalism to be foolish and inescapably erroneous -- ANY fundamentalism, not merely Christian fundamentalism. I have no problem with "faith" by some definitions, and find other forms of "faith" to be an exercise in willful stupidity. Believing that something is the literal truth because it comes with the stamp of your religion on it makes no more sense than believing food is healthy because you bought it at a "health food store". Your religion -- any religion -- is the product of human beings who seek to represent, in their inevitably flawed way, their understanding of the divine or the spirit. Some do so earnestly, some do so honestly, some do so cynically and with an eye out to their own opportunity. Even the most well-intentioned are flawed, and what they produce (with their religion's brand name stamped on it) is likewise flawed. Some of it is produced by charlatans and self-serving demagogues. None of it is perfect. Buyer beware...or, well, don't. Up to you.

Thank you for your honesty, I apologize for any offence caused, however reading your comments they have hardly been exactly "polite". Neither of us are perfect and maybe its the nature of this kind of internet discussion that brings out the worst in us ;) .

I like your health food store analogy, if I may I would like to continue using it in my response...

We human beings are inherently sinful (in other words imperfect). Sin is like a sickness in many ways. Now say we go into the health food store to buy some food recognising our need for a healthier diet. We browse the isles looking for healthy alternatives to our favourite foods. Imagine we come across a package which has the nutritional value of the product as well as an official stamp or logo of a well known, trusted quality control organisation. With the information we have we draw an inference that this food is indeed healthy and so we buy it, eager to get home and start making the necessary changes to our lifestyle. There is nothing illogical or foolish about that. We have looked at the evidence and drawn sensible conclusions. Now there may be some counterfeit products in that health store, which contain no health benefits and deceive us. That is a possibility. But where there are counterfeit products there are always real ones from which the counterfeit has been copied. Familiarity with the real brand and product will help us detect and identity the fake.

This is what the Christian faith is like. The Bible is not just a man-made book about God which we must take at face-value regarding its truth claims. The Bible gives us a diagnosis for our condition (sin) and perscribes the remedy (faith in Jesus). The "stamp" of authority does not come from the religion (Christianity) it comes from God Himself. God created the universe so naturally He is omnipotent and because He is eternal and not confined to the dimensions of space-time that are part of our universe He is omniscient. Knowing that humanity would use its free-will irresponsibly (like those bad eating habits and laziness) He created the means of our salvation knowing we could never achieve it by ourselves and inspired the creation of the Bible through His Holy Spirit so that people of all generations after its completion could know this truth. Salvation is an act of God`s grace. God began it and God will bring it to completion.

Now I understand you will probably object to my use of your analogy, but the point is we as imperfect, flawed people how can we say what God is and is not capable of doing? It is because of our finiteness that we struggle to comprehend the truth. I would encourage you not to disregard the Bible because of your (justifible) view of the flaws in human nature. Yes we are flawed, but God by very His very nature is able to overcome them. :)

aiki-jujutsuka
01-11-2014, 07:02 PM
Hi Ewen. Thanks for replying to my nonsense. I think I must have had a funny turn following my recent birthday. You know what they say…Another year older -- Another year wider! (at least in my case anyway.)

I would have to assert that Behe's "theory" was not scientific. His observation about irreducible complexity as it would relate to the theory of evolution I thought, was actually quite insightful but his assertion that "it therefore must have been designed" cannot be tested so isn't science.

Now to answer the question I knew you were asking…

A theory has to fit the facts, not the other way around. If facts contradict the theory then either 1) the theory is wrong, 2) the theory is incomplete, 3) the facts are wrong.

The number of facts that currently support the theory of evolution are so numerous that I doubt enough contradictions could ever be found that would prove the theory was just plain wrong. I think it more plausible that if enough contradictions were ever found then the theory would have to be deemed incomplete and would therefore need to be re-defined to take the new facts into consideration. I have no idea how many contradictions would be required but I have yet to hear of any scientific facts that do contradict the theory.

If you can propose a theory that explains the past, present and any future facts better than the theory of evolution, provided it was based on science and not the supernatural, then scientists would use that theory instead. Actually, the theory wouldn't necessarily need to be better to be useful -- it could simply be a different explanation such as how light can be explained in both terms of waves as well as packets of energy.

Hi David, thank you for your responses, they are very helpful. :)

I would like to add that evolution is not empirically testable either - it supposedly happened millions of years ago before human beings existed and so no-one was around to observe it. Yes we have the fossil record, but fossils needn`t take millions of years to form, they can form very quickly depending on the conditions. Yes there is radiometric dating, but again it applies the principle of uniformitarianism that is untestable because no-one was alive millions of years ago to verify whether the decay rates were constant. Yes there is the field of genetics and biochemistry, but again similarity doesn`t prove common ancestry either (and in fact as work in the this field continues to make new discoveries a lot that was once thought of as "proof" of evolution has had to be abandoned, such as so-called "junk dna".

I would also add your conditions for an alternative theory to evolution uses circular reasoning - scientific theories must be naturalistic in order to be science, evolution is naturalistic therefore evolution is science.


Actually what I was trying to say was that only experts in both fields should be permitted to have a say. i.e. if anyone hasn't read the New Testament in the original Greek (I definitely haven't) and only rely on the translated version(s) (me again!), should not, in my view, be allowed to argue/preach anything about the New Testament from authority because, for one thing, which one of the 50 different versions of the Bible is the source of truth?



I think you are mistaken when you think that one of the 50 versions is, or has to be, the correct "version". There are many versions of the Bible translated into English because they have different purposes. Some translations use paraphrases rather than word by word translation to make it easier to understand, some use more contemporary language (particularly to help new or young Christians), some use more accurate word by word translations with more technical vernacular. What all of them have in common is the fact that they keep to the spirit of the text - what is the text saying? You can compare the different versions and you will find there are no differences in meaning, just expression. This is important for the journey of the Christian, as they grow in spiritual maturity, different versions may be more appropriate for them.


Irrespective of the message or source, I find it ludicrous to accept that all events and teachings associated with and/or attributed to anyone is likely to be a true and factual account once you consider, the person is no longer alive to provide any clarification, if the account was written by those who didn't witness the events, if the account is written years after the events occurred, if parts of the text shows signs of tampering (additions) (who knows what may have been deleted), if the account had been agreed upon by a group of humans (with an agenda), in a different language from that spoken today, and therefore requiring yet another translation whereby the meaning is again agreed upon by a group of humans (with an agenda), resulting in over 50 different versions…bearing in mind O`Sensei`s teachings can't be easily interpreted within 44 years of his death. I'm not saying it is impossible - just implausible.



I would say that you need to apply this skepticism to science just as much as history or religion. Evolutionary scientists have an agenda - they are well documented in places, such as the video I posted a link to earlier in the thread. Richard Dawkins is perhaps the most famous and obvious example. Dawkins fervently promotes an atheistic, secular form of science and has tried his hardest to ruin the credibility of Christianity and destroy the integrity of the God of the Bible. Now I`m not accusing all secular scientists of doing the same, just that there are many who have an anti-religion agenda. So scientists aren`t totally objective either.

Aikibu
01-12-2014, 12:47 AM
Hi David, thank you for your responses, they are very helpful. :)
I would say that you need to apply this skepticism to science just as much as history or religion. Evolutionary scientists have an agenda - they are well documented in places, such as the video I posted a link to earlier in the thread. Richard Dawkins is perhaps the most famous and obvious example. Dawkins fervently promotes an atheistic, secular form of science and has tried his hardest to ruin the credibility of Christianity and destroy the integrity of the God of the Bible. Now I`m not accusing all secular scientists of doing the same, just that there are many who have an anti-religion agenda. So scientists aren`t totally objective either.

I guess this means to that two wrongs somehow make a right? Again, I don't find many scientists who have an anti-religion agenda in fact most seem to practice some form of religion. I posted a link earlier in the thread about the Vatican's pursuit of the sciences and it's compatibility with the Catholic doctrine.

I have enjoyed reading about your point of view however I won't make the mistake of trying to debate with you since you now appear to be running around in circles fending off all attempts at reason with these pre-conceived notions of yours. Good Luck. :)

WIlliam Hazen

lbb
01-12-2014, 01:21 PM
We human beings are inherently sinful (in other words imperfect). Sin is like a sickness in many ways. Now say we go into the health food store to buy some food recognising our need for a healthier diet. We browse the isles looking for healthy alternatives to our favourite foods. Imagine we come across a package which has the nutritional value of the product as well as an official stamp or logo of a well known, trusted quality control organisation. With the information we have we draw an inference that this food is indeed healthy and so we buy it, eager to get home and start making the necessary changes to our lifestyle. There is nothing illogical or foolish about that. We have looked at the evidence and drawn sensible conclusions.

Sensible, if we indeed had reason to believe that the quality control organization was indeed trustworthy. That is where we may differ. You seem to feel that the Christian church and Christian religion are worthy of trust such that there's no need to question anything that comes out of them. I look at history and draw other conclusions.

Now there may be some counterfeit products in that health store, which contain no health benefits and deceive us. That is a possibility. But where there are counterfeit products there are always real ones from which the counterfeit has been copied. Familiarity with the real brand and product will help us detect and identity the fake.

Er, well, yes, and what is one to do when you've got multiple mutually contradictory self-proclaimed representatives of the "real brand"?

This is what the Christian faith is like. The Bible is not just a man-made book about God which we must take at face-value regarding its truth claims. The Bible gives us a diagnosis for our condition (sin) and perscribes the remedy (faith in Jesus). The "stamp" of authority does not come from the religion (Christianity) it comes from God Himself.

...from God Himself, who wrote THAT book, and no other book, and all the other books whose believers say, "No, THIS one comes from God Himself" are false and their believers are liars? But you're saying the same thing that they are, i.e., MY book is right and all other books are wrong, because I say that God says so. Why would I believe one proclamation of "they're wrong and I'm right" over another?


Now I understand you will probably object to my use of your analogy, but the point is we as imperfect, flawed people how can we say what God is and is not capable of doing?

But that's exactly what you just did -- not only said what God is capable of, but what God actually did.

Lorien Lowe
01-17-2014, 03:10 AM
I would like to add that evolution is not empirically testable either - it supposedly happened millions of years ago before human beings existed and so no-one was around to observe it.
So, do you think that the truth of a crime can never be found out if there are no living witnesses? We convict people every day based on evidence, rather than eye-witness testimony (and, indeed, more and more psychology suggests that eye-witness testimony isn't actually all that reliable as compared to hard evidence).
The data support the theory of evolution. They do not support the conjecture of creationism.
Yes we have the fossil record, but fossils needn`t take millions of years to form, they can form very quickly depending on the conditions.
evidence, please, that even a significant minority of fossils formed over short time periods?
Yes there is radiometric dating, but again it applies the principle of uniformitarianism...
This is incorrect. Radiometric dating is based on radionucleotide decay rates, not on geology; if you have a problem with it, you have a problem with physics. Uniformitarianism is a geological theory.
...no-one was alive millions of years ago to verify whether the decay rates were constant.
Uhhh, yeah. See above. You have a problem with freshmen-level basic physics, not just evolution and geology. Is there a field of science you *do* respect?
Yes there is the field of genetics and biochemistry, but again similarity doesn`t prove common ancestry either
Nesting hierarchies of relatedness completely support evolution from a common ancestor, and do not support individual creation. ERVs pretty much prove common ancestry, unless you think that the devil put those viruses in the genes to fool us all...?
and in fact as work in the this field continues to make new discoveries a lot that was once thought of as "proof" of evolution has had to be abandoned, such as so-called "junk dna".

There's still a lot of DNA that can be messed with pretty much willy-nilly from one generation to the next, with no impact on the phenotype of the organism. Ever heard of SNPs? They're how individuals are identified with DNA testing... because they mutate in non-coding DNA so much that no two people have the same pattern of mutations. With no ill effect, nor any benefit.
I would also add your conditions for an alternative theory to evolution uses circular reasoning - scientific theories must be naturalistic in order to be science, evolution is naturalistic therefore evolution is science.

That's not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is more like, 'I know god exists because the bible says so, and I know that the bible is true because it's the word of god.'
The fact that both evolution and any scientific alternative to evolution must be testable, and therefore naturalistic, is based on the definition of science and empiricism. It might or might not be true, but it's had the best track record of miracles of any mode of thought humans have thus far come up with.
So scientists aren`t totally objective either.
This is very true, but unlike religion or politics, science rewards those who overthrow old paradigms the most completely and effectively. Scientists routinely tear each other's ideas to shreds, in order to see how durable they are. It's a slow process, and a jerky one that sometimes moves in the wrong direction for a generation until the old guard dies off, but it has produced better results and improved our understanding of the universe better than any other method of thought out there.

Lorien Lowe
01-17-2014, 03:26 AM
Eben, I missed this response to me on my first read because you quoted it under Mary's name. Please be careful to track whom you're responding to.
I never claimed the scientist who made the discovery was an atheist...

Yeah, you kind of did. And you did it again just within the last few posts, by implying that evolutionary researchers only support evolution because they want to discredit Christianity. As for 'interpreting the data for yourselves,' that would require you to actually look at the data firsthand, rather than regurgitated by the ICR.
The second point I think is a straw man argument - history shows us this is not true. I already gave Sir Isaac Newton as an example, but others would include Robert Boyle and his work in chemistry, who played an important role in disproving the Aristotelian 4 humors theory. Then there is Kepler, the Wright Brothers, James Clark Maxwell pioneer of the electromagnetic radiation theory, Pastuer and his work on germ theory of disease. These mens beliefs in a Creator did not prevent them from moving science forward.

No one ever said that Christians can't be scientists or mathematicians... just that different fields have different proportions of Christians and atheists.
You can look at this timeline and draw your own conclusions, though, based on the clustering of discoveries and of believers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries
Did your geology 101 class happen to work under the principle of uniformitarianism?

It covered both unitarianism and catastrophism, and suggested that some geological formations are the result of one, and some of the other; it also showed us (with lab) how to tell the difference between the two. Like I said, it's not hard once you know the signs.

David Partington
01-17-2014, 06:38 PM
I would like to add that evolution is not empirically testable either - it supposedly happened millions of years ago before human beings existed and so no-one was around to observe it... Yes there is radiometric dating, but again it applies the principle of uniformitarianism that is untestable because no-one was alive millions of years ago to verify whether the decay rates were constant.

Thanks for undermining your own argument, i.e. before human beings existed so no-one was around to observe/verify it.

As you have already confirmed you believe that humans didn't arrive on Earth until day six, you can no longer argue your god created the heavens, the earth, light, darkness, sky, dry land, the seas, vegetation, the sun, the moon, the stars, living creatures in the water and birds in the air…when no human was around to observe/verify it. Can you? :confused:

In addition to radiometric dating I would have offered other corroborative methods of dating however I knew you would simply refute them. I have looked at a few of these rebuttals -- and to be honest they didn't seem to be wholly scientific.

I thought we agreed that only experts in their field were allowed to argue from a position of authority! :D

aiki-jujutsuka
01-18-2014, 12:50 AM
evidence, please, that even a significant minority of fossils formed over short time periods?

The majority of fossils are found in sedimentary layers of rock and around 95% of the fossil record is made up of marine invertebrates. One of the major methods of fossilization is permineralization, which involves water. The environment is crucial for fossils to form, as scavengers and predators as well as natural elements all play a factor in the degradation of the body.


This is incorrect. Radiometric dating is based on radionucleotide decay rates, not on geology; if you have a problem with it, you have a problem with physics. Uniformitarianism is a geological theory.


I apologize for not making myself clear. You are correct in that I did seem to misuse the term uniformitarianism, however what I meant was that radiometric dating is used along side other geological principles to date rocks, which use uniformitarianism. Radiometric dating is used in conjunction with other geological principles.

Uhhh, yeah. See above. You have a problem with freshmen-level basic physics, not just evolution and geology. Is there a field of science you *do* respect?

I`m not questioning the physics of radiometric dating, only pointing out certain assumptions are necessary as pre-conditions.

Nesting hierarchies of relatedness completely support evolution from a common ancestor, and do not support individual creation. ERVs pretty much prove common ancestry, unless you think that the devil put those viruses in the genes to fool us all...?


Or common designer? Nesting hierarchies focus primarily on morphology, but this is sometimes contradicted by the fossil record when supposed ancestors are actually "younger" than their descendants.

That's not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is more like, 'I know god exists because the bible says so, and I know that the bible is true because it's the word of god.'
The fact that both evolution and any scientific alternative to evolution must be testable, and therefore naturalistic, is based on the definition of science and empiricism. It might or might not be true, but it's had the best track record of miracles of any mode of thought humans have thus far come up with.


And I am not arguing from that position either.

This is very true, but unlike religion or politics, science rewards those who overthrow old paradigms the most completely and effectively. Scientists routinely tear each other's ideas to shreds, in order to see how durable they are. It's a slow process, and a jerky one that sometimes moves in the wrong direction for a generation until the old guard dies off, but it has produced better results and improved our understanding of the universe better than any other method of thought out there.

This is an ironic statement. So unlike religion or politics science rewards those who overthrow old paradigms yet creationist science and intelligent design are both derided as "religious" paradigms and not science and thus discredited and evolution is so firmly entrenched that the paradigm is untouchable.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-18-2014, 01:06 AM
Eben, I missed this response to me on my first read because you quoted it under Mary's name. Please be careful to track whom you're responding to.

Sorry for the confusion, and in return would you mind spelling my name correctly.;)

Yeah, you kind of did. And you did it again just within the last few posts, by implying that evolutionary researchers only support evolution because they want to discredit Christianity. As for 'interpreting the data for yourselves,' that would require you to actually look at the data firsthand, rather than regurgitated by the ICR.

No I didn`t, I referenced the research that had been done into dinosaur fossils and how they have found evidence that contradicts the evolutionary timescale. I said nothing of the scientists beliefs. The point was raised that the scientist in question is not a creationist thus invalidating the argument, which I disagreed with. As for my comments regarding the agenda of some evolutionary scientists, I was making the point that skepticism should be applied fairly and not just arbitrarily.

aiki-jujutsuka
01-18-2014, 01:20 AM
Sensible, if we indeed had reason to believe that the quality control organization was indeed trustworthy. That is where we may differ. You seem to feel that the Christian church and Christian religion are worthy of trust such that there's no need to question anything that comes out of them. I look at history and draw other conclusions.

Er, well, yes, and what is one to do when you've got multiple mutually contradictory self-proclaimed representatives of the "real brand"?

...from God Himself, who wrote THAT book, and no other book, and all the other books whose believers say, "No, THIS one comes from God Himself" are false and their believers are liars? But you're saying the same thing that they are, i.e., MY book is right and all other books are wrong, because I say that God says so. Why would I believe one proclamation of "they're wrong and I'm right" over another?

But that's exactly what you just did -- not only said what God is capable of, but what God actually did.

Granted it is a tricky course to navigate, idolatry was a major problem in ancient Israel and still is in the Church today (depending on your definition of idolatry).

I think Christianity has made many mistakes as an institutionalized religion and yes, sadly, there are black marks on its history. It is not that I implicitly trust the Church or the Christian religion, but the empty tomb and the phenomenon of the early apostolic church convince me that Jesus genuinely rose from the dead. This is why I believe.

:)

aiki-jujutsuka
01-18-2014, 02:26 AM
Thanks for undermining your own argument, i.e. before human beings existed so no-one was around to observe/verify it.

As you have already confirmed you believe that humans didn't arrive on Earth until day six, you can no longer argue your god created the heavens, the earth, light, darkness, sky, dry land, the seas, vegetation, the sun, the moon, the stars, living creatures in the water and birds in the air…when no human was around to observe/verify it. Can you? :confused:

In addition to radiometric dating I would have offered other corroborative methods of dating however I knew you would simply refute them. I have looked at a few of these rebuttals -- and to be honest they didn't seem to be wholly scientific.

I thought we agreed that only experts in their field were allowed to argue from a position of authority! :D

How can a human verify its very own Creator creating before He even created us? Of course not. The argument from Genesis 1 is not empirical by nature so I have not contradicted my own argument.

Lorien Lowe
01-19-2014, 02:38 AM
The majority of fossils are found in sedimentary layers of rock and around 95% of the fossil record is made up of marine invertebrates. One of the major methods of fossilization is permineralization, which involves water. The environment is crucial for fossils to form, as scavengers and predators as well as natural elements all play a factor in the degradation of the body.
Suppose I grant all of that: it does not suggest rapid fossilization.
I apologize for not making myself clear. You are correct in that I did seem to misuse the term uniformitarianism, however what I meant was that radiometric dating is used along side other geological principles to date rocks, which use uniformitarianism. Radiometric dating is used in conjunction with other geological principles.
...I`m not questioning the physics of radiometric dating, only pointing out certain assumptions are necessary as pre-conditions.
Yes, certain assumptions are necessary for any endeavor. We 'assume' that the sun will rise tomorrow, just the same as it has every other day of our lives. We 'assume' that the physics of radioactive decay are constant, and just like the sun rising, we are validated in this assumption by the functioning of our clocks. Thousands or millions of human hours have been spent researching nuclear physics, and not once has there been cause to question this assumption.
Or common designer? Nesting hierarchies focus primarily on morphology, but this is sometimes contradicted by the fossil record when supposed ancestors are actually "younger" than their descendants.

If everything was uniquely created, that suggests starting from scratch each time. Why would whales have the same bone structure in their forelimbs as a bat, if a designer was making each one de novo? Also, it hasn't been based purely on morphology for a few decades now; Linnaeus went by morphology, and that was a good start, but first molecular similarity and then DNA similarity and ERVs took precedence. Which, by the way: you ignored the ERVs. How do you explain them? Also, evolution isn't linear any more than your own family is linear. There are aunts, uncles, cousins, cousins several times removed, etc. and looking only at morphology won't necessarily give a correct lineage.
This is an ironic statement. So unlike religion or politics science rewards those who overthrow old paradigms yet creationist science and intelligent design are both derided as "religious" paradigms and not science and thus discredited and evolution is so firmly entrenched that the paradigm is untouchable.
What you seem to be missing is that, in order for a new theory to overthrow the old, it must have better explanatory and predictive power and fit the data more closely. That is why evolution overthrew creationism, and why the reverse has not happened. The reason that evolution is so thoroughly 'entrenched' is because it has high explanatory power, high predictive power (fossils continue to be discovered, in appropriate strata, that fit predictions of when various features should have started appearing), and fits the data very tightly.
A single fossilized rabbit in the carboniferous strata would be a serious blow to evolution. Is there anything that would disprove creationism for you?
Sorry for the confusion, and in return would you mind spelling my name correctly.;)
My apologies. Ewen.
No I didn`t, I referenced the research that had been done into dinosaur fossils and how they have found evidence that contradicts the evolutionary timescale. I said nothing of the scientists beliefs. The point was raised that the scientist in question is not a creationist thus invalidating the argument, which I disagreed with. As for my comments regarding the agenda of some evolutionary scientists, I was making the point that skepticism should be applied fairly and not just arbitrarily.
You have strongly implied that evolutionary scientists, like Dawkins, only accept evolution because it satisfies their prejudices and ulterior motives, as opposed to accepting evolution because that's where the evidence points.

RonRagusa
01-22-2014, 06:33 PM
Some food for thought over at Quanta Magazine (https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/).

Ron

OwlMatt
01-27-2014, 06:09 PM
Granted it is a tricky course to navigate, idolatry was a major problem in ancient Israel and still is in the Church today (depending on your definition of idolatry).

I think Christianity has made many mistakes as an institutionalized religion and yes, sadly, there are black marks on its history. It is not that I implicitly trust the Church or the Christian religion, but the empty tomb and the phenomenon of the early apostolic church convince me that Jesus genuinely rose from the dead. This is why I believe.

:)

Isn't believing that there was an empty tomb implicitly trusting the Christian religion?

Carsten Möllering
01-28-2014, 01:23 AM
Isn't believing that there was an empty tomb implicitly trusting the Christian religion?
;)

Keith Larman
01-28-2014, 01:02 PM
FWIW.

http://summerchild.com/commandment.jpg

Creation "science" attempts to create an explanation to account for what is written in a book. So you start with what you already believe and look for evidence to confirm it, ignoring all the rest. So hope rests on exceptions and the "1%" to be the rule. Hope. Faith. It is not science. It is cherry picking data in the worst possible of ways. It is insulting to scientists the world over to call it science. All it does is give some means of reassurance to those who wish to believe and for whatever reason need their religion to be absolutely and literally accurate. As contrasted to all the other mere "mythologies" those other deluded folk want to believe. Hubris.

Real science, on the other hand, starts with what you observe in the world, what you measure, what you find. Then you try to develop a theory that accounts for what you see and also what you do not. It is also open to change over time as new means of testing the theory are devised to push the limits in new ways.

Here I am an atheist who managed to get degrees in philosophy, religious studies and political science (you should have seen the look on the chair of the Religious Studies department when I pointed out that I had all the credits necessary). And I come from a purely scientific family (my father was quite literally a rocket scientist and most of my upbringing was surrounded by JPL and CalTech scientists and engineers). But I still think there is room for faith. I still fully respect those who have religious convictions. I am just at a loss as to why there is such an insistence in this country in particular for such a literal interpretation of a works that were themselves translated multiple times (with all the problems that creates) and then based on the writings sometimes many times removed from the actual events. And don't get me started on the various books not included in what we today call the bible. "Naw, don't like this one because it's not what we want to believe now 3 centuries later."

Me, if I was to follow a God it would be Thor. He has a hammer. Hammers are cool.

Argh, I wasn't going to post on this thread again. Sorry. Carry on, I feel better now...

Keith Larman
01-28-2014, 01:06 PM
Oops, sorry... Should add...

The semi-joking graphic above I think cuts to the point. There is a difference between trying to figure something out and trying to find a post-hoc explanation of something. Not trying to prove what you want to believe. But trying to understand what you observe. There is a *huge* difference.

OwlMatt
01-29-2014, 05:24 PM
Creation "science" attempts to create an explanation to account for what is written in a book. So you start with what you already believe and look for evidence to confirm it

Bingo. This is why creationism, no matter how sophisticated it gets, will never be science. As long as you are starting with your conclusion and then searching for evidence to support it, you aren't doing science, period. Creationists complain that they're being blown off by the scientific community; this is why.

Carsten Möllering
01-30-2014, 02:33 AM
It is insulting to scientists the world over ...It is also insulting for Christians all over the world.
It is important to realize that creationism is not a natural expression neither of Christian faith nor Christian theology. It simply is the outcome of a certain form of political and social conservatism coupled with a certain psychological condition.

As I said before: The Roman Catholic Church aswell as the Union of the Protestant Churches over here have officially stated different times, that creationism is not corresponding to teaching of Christian theology, but is hindering Christian faith.
In my own church there is even a "decree" of that tells me as a Lutheran pastor that I shall not ban creationists form my parish - but try to lead them back to faith ...

This may sound hard in the US where there is a totally different understanding of what Church is, what Christian faith means and what Theology has to say.
But for me it is important that people know that creationism is not the same as Christian faith or Christian Theology. At least not in very big parts of the churches all over the world.

There remain enough existentially issues which can be discussed between science and faith or between believers and atheists. And we may not arrive to an aggreement in a lot of points. But regarding creationism we do.

lbb
01-30-2014, 08:05 AM
This may sound hard in the US where there is a totally different understanding of what Church is, what Christian faith means and what Theology has to say.

Although it may not seem so from elsewhere, the United States is a diverse place with many different understandings and beliefs, including among Christians. My sister, whom I mentioned earlier, is a US Christian. Fred Phelps claims to be one as well,

Keith Larman
01-30-2014, 08:42 AM
It is also insulting for Christians all over the world.

Oh, I agree as well, I just didn't feel it necessary to speak to that issue.

James Sawers
01-30-2014, 07:36 PM
It is also insulting for Christians all over the world.
It is important to realize that creationism is not a natural expression neither of Christian faith nor Christian theology. It simply is the outcome of a certain form of political and social conservatism coupled with a certain psychological condition.


Ouch.....!!!: :uch:

mathewjgano
02-05-2014, 10:55 AM
Here's a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Hamm on the subject. I'm in the middle of watching it still, but so far the opening statements have Ken suggesting secularists have used a sloppy application of the term "science," confusing the science of history (his focus) with the science of experimentation. He also seems to suggest naturalism (i.e. rejection of the supernatural) has been forced on people in science class. Bill opens by pointing to the millions of Faithful who assert literal interpretations of Biblical history aren't accurate (I take as meaning to show that people can believe in the science without a crisis of faith, contrary to Ken's opening remarks about secularists imposing their denial of the supernatural in science). Bill also points to the Grand Canyon's very discrete organization of species according to strata as a major point against the World Flood idea.
At any rate, hope this adds in some useful way.
Take care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI