Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What i really dont understand though, is why would a Scientist be "biased" anyway? What would he gain from it? Do they get any reward for lying to everyone?

Can and does happen Matty, but generally peer review is in place to validate theories.
The only problem is that there can be established viewpoints which reject new ideas.

However most scientists will hold that there is the possibility of new paradigms and that it is possible that current views may be superceded.
Debates rage on in the scientific community but afaik it is mostly non violent.

generalgrog wrote:warboss ---What you are talking about is "blind faith"...if you think there is no evidence for a creator I suggest you walk outside your door, look up at the night sky, look at some of the stuff the hubble telescope has seen...

That you are unable to conceive of a way in which these could have come into existence without a guiding hand is not, in , evidence of a guiding hand. It's just evidence of your lack of imagination.

and even taking this back to the beginning of the thread, the very fact that man has an intelligent spark to be able to think creatively is evidence.

It's evidence of itself, sure.

Evidence of a guiding hand? Not so much. If our bodies were created by an intelligent designer why are our eyes so badly engineered? Why are our backs so weak? Why, when starving, do we lose muscle before fat?

Not that you'll admit that this is evidence against the idea of an intelligent designer, of course.

That's just the simple basic stuff, not to mention the gene code which points to a designer or creator

No it doesn't.

Wait, no, I concede that it points to an unintelligent, lazy, designer who reuses the same basic shapes over and over and doesn't manage to get results better than would be expected by letting a bunch of one-celled organisms loose to reproduce for a billion or so years.

or even the concept of irreducible complexity.

Which has no basis at all in fact. There is no such thing as an irreducibly complex organism.

And of course the millons of people that claim to have a relationship with the crator is even more evidence.

It's evidence that there are millions of people who claim that they have a relationship with god. Throughout recorded history there were millions of people who thought that the sun revolved around the earth. Does this mean that there's strong levels of evidence for that theory?

The answer is no, by the by. The number of people that agree with a given statement does not have any influence on whether or not a given fact is true. Indeed, the only way it could serve as evidence of anything outside of itself is if we first assume your conclusion; that god exists. OF COURSE if god exists there will be people who believe in it. Truly, it would be miraculous if nobody did. However, this does absolutely nothing to advance your cause in a non-fallicious argument.

But go on believing that there is no evidence for God.

I believe that there's some evidence for a god/s. I just happen to also believe that it's utterly unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already believe in god/s.

Also as I reminded dogma, scientific belief or faith is based on a set of principles called uniformitarianism which says that the basic laws of the universe have always been the same.. never changing... always constant. That's a pretty amazing faith system if you ask me..especially seeing that modern science is really only a few 100 years old. They weren't around when the earth was created, yet we are expected to believe their 4 billlion year old earth doctrines because it "makes more sense" than a Divine Creator?

The idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being who never acts within this universe in a way that cannot be seen by reasonable people as an entirely natural event (healing amputees, for example), and whose best plan for removing "original sin" from his creations (who he knew when he created would sin, being omniscient and all) was to send himself to earth and arrange to have himself killed and then raised from the dead, instead of, say, just removing said original sin (which he could have just done, being omnipotent) CLEARLY makes more sense than the idea that events have natural causes that go back forever, or near as damnit, and that while we can't be sure that the laws under which said causes operate have never changed, it makes a lot of sense given the results we have.

Clearly.

@WARBOSS all you did was say why you didn't believe the evidence, just not believing the evidence dosn't make it untrue. I could say that I don't believe in nuclear fission but that wouldn't make it untrue.

@ Dogma..if the diamond case is a "poor understanding of the inital claim" please enlighten us all. I'm sure you will do a google search to scour the internet for an article from talkorigins or somewhere else to find an excuse they have come up with. But those papers actually make radiocarbon dating seem less acurate since they have to come up with all these other tests to "fudge" the results to get the answer they want.

Carbon 14 has a 1/2 life of 5370(approx) years, if a diamond or coal is millions of years old we shouldn't find any carbon 14, it should all be decayed away.

@Sebster..This is my opinion only.... regarding atheists in the scientifuc community comes down an excuse to not serve God. Anyway they can find to try and come up with a way to discredit God, the Bible and especially Christianity furthers their own self interest. As far as people who claim to have a faith or claim to be Christians and still hold to certain tenets of scientific doctrine I really don't have an answer, I mean there are creation scientists that are evolutionists, it's a false assumption to think that all creation scientists are young earthers. Again I don't have an answer to why they would choose to believe something that contradicts the Bible...maybe a weak faith..a poor understanding of theology?..I don't know

@matty and dogma...I have to agree with some of your asessments regarding certain creation scientists. Not all creation scientists are created equal, ther eis certainly some bad science and stuff this is just plain wrong out there. However there is some really good stuff out there as well, and I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water liek you guys seem to be willing to do.

GG

generalgrog wrote:@WARBOSS all you did was say why you didn't believe the evidence, just not believing the evidence dosn't make it untrue. I could say that I don't believe in nuclear fission but that wouldn't make it untrue.

I could say that because you are using a computer to communicate with me that this is evidence that you are a communist from 1738.

Can you see why this is ridiculous?

(in case you can't it's because it's not actually evidence of that fact.)

[just in case this is a thing where you're using a word that you don't know exactly what other people think you mean:

–noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object)
4.
to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5.
to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
—Idiom
6.
in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.]

To spell it out for you: The majority of the examples that you posted are not actually evidence of a god/s because they do not point towards the existence of a god/s as being more likely than if they (the evidences) didn't exist.


edit: Oh hey I didn't really address what you posted.

@WARBOSS all you did was say why you didn't believe the evidence, just not believing the evidence dosn't make it untrue. I could say that I don't believe in nuclear fission but that wouldn't make it untrue.

You could say that you don't believe in nuclear fission. You would then, to convince other people of the validity of your view, have to explain away nuclear weaponry and nuclear reactors, among other things.

There is no such "hard" evidence for a divine creator, and simply saying that there is doesn't make it true.

warboss... you don't have to spell anything out for me...I know exactly what you are saying. It's just I happen to disagree with you.(that it's not evidence)

GG

generalgrog wrote:warboss... you don't have to spell anything out for me...I know exactly what you are saying. It's just I happen to disagree with you.(that it's not evidence)

GG

Specifically, irreducible complexity.

How can it be evidence for anything (except for intellectual dishonesty) when as far as can be ascertained it does not exist?

I dont even bother with all the Science anymore because many normal everyday people just dont seem have a good grasp of it, indeed, i didnt either as a young man, and its taken years of reading to grasp the entirety of this argument. For example, the vast majority of the general public still seems to have a real problem with word 'theory' and many creationists rely on this ignorance when they are purposely misleading people. So i just stick with good old common sense. Why do we suck so badly?! They always hold the eye up as proof of design, even though it sucks utterly. Why do 50% of people need glasses? Why do my knees and back ache so much at such a young age? Why does my jaw not have enough space for all my teeth? If a loving god designed us all, he would have done a far better bloody job! Ive always said this, its a very simple argument, either you CAN get complexity from simplicity, or 'something from nothing' or you cant. If you can, then creationists have no argument at all. And if you cant, well then God cant be real, because 'he' is very complex by definition isnt he? Their argument just seems to defy common sense to me because it argues against itself. If everything complex needs a designer then god absolutely has to have one as well.

generalgrog wrote:
@ Dogma..if the diamond case is a "poor understanding of the inital claim" please enlighten us all. I'm sure you will do a google search to scour the internet for an article from talkorigins or somewhere else to find an excuse they have come up with. But those papers actually make radiocarbon dating seem less acurate since they have to come up with all these other tests to "fudge" the results to get the answer they want.

The accuracy of any given test is determined entirely by its agreement with other, similar tests. The fact that the accuracy of carbon dating is supported by other methods radiometric analysis is not a weakness, its a strength. Even then, why dispute the accuracy of carbon dating? If we are to assume that the presence of C-14 in substances older than 60,000 years is to be taken as evidence of creationism (though its still a long way off the young Earth model), then you should have a vested interest in bolstering its accuracy.

But anyway, I already explained this. Carbon dating is capped at 60,000 years because that is the range in which we can be reasonably certain how much C-14 will appear in an average sample. This average is a function of the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, which is itself a function of the rate of C-14 production at any given time.

You seem to believe that the presence of C-14 in a sample means it cannot be older than 60,000 years. This is incorrect. C-14 can be present in substances far older than 60,000 years, but we would not be able to use that C-14 to date the substance as we have no way of knowing with any certainty how large the original sample was.

generalgrog wrote:
Carbon 14 has a 1/2 life of 5370(approx) years, if a diamond or coal is millions of years old we shouldn't find any carbon 14, it should all be decayed away.

That depends entirely on how large the initial sample of Carbon 14 was, which is why radiocarbon dating is capped at 60,000 years. Prior to that period it becomes very difficult to approximate the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, as C-14 production has been shown to fluctuate with solar activity. And that's just solar activity, we also have to consider volcanic eruption, and other events which release large amounts of energy, plus the effect other radioactive isotopes have on carbonaceous mineral deposits.

Hell, the nuclear testing during the Cold War doubled the amount of C-14 in the northern hemisphere, and significant fluctuation (up or down) in solar radiation would produce far more variations than that.

I think at this stage anyone who has utterly made up their mind on the creationist thing is not going to be swayed too much. But GG, I always do find your reasonings as to why people might hold the opposite view to be sort of insulting. I know you probably don't mean it, but stuff like this:

@Sebster..This is my opinion only.... regarding atheists in the scientifuc community comes down an excuse to not serve God. Anyway they can find to try and come up with a way to discredit God, the Bible and especially Christianity furthers their own self interest. As far as people who claim to have a faith or claim to be Christians and still hold to certain tenets of scientific doctrine I really don't have an answer, I mean there are creation scientists that are evolutionists, it's a false assumption to think that all creation scientists are young earthers. Again I don't have an answer to why they would choose to believe something that contradicts the Bible...maybe a weak faith..a poor understanding of theology?..I don't know

really smacks of arrogance and generally not giving people the benefit of the doubt. I know for myself, I'm not desperately trying to prove god doesn't exist. I don't care too much either way.
I do think it's weird that you would ascribe these motives to such a large and diverse group of people though. Back when I worked in a University biology lab, we could hardly agree on where to eat, let alone on some vast conspiracy to delude the public.

Da Boss wrote:really smacks of arrogance and generally not giving people the benefit of the doubt. I know for myself, I'm not desperately trying to prove god doesn't exist. I don't care too much either way.
I do think it's weird that you would ascribe these motives to such a large and diverse group of people though. Back when I worked in a University biology lab, we could hardly agree on where to eat, let alone on some vast conspiracy to delude the public.

Not even that - even within the religious community there are many splits over what the bible actually says/means regards the age and method of creation of the earth. Some will say it is just a story to make it easier for people to imagine but that it happened more or less as science says it does - it was just god creating life/the universe/everything using the laws of physics. Then some will say that it is the literal truth, that god sat down at his desk and hammered out the Earth and everything on it in 6 days and then had a snooze on Sunday.

How can it be said that "science" seek to discredit god, the bible and Christianity when there are so many views within the church (and believers in general)? Some devout Christians will utterly disagree that science is working against them - that every discovery just brings us closer to understanding how god did it, as it were.

This is not even mentioning all the other religions, alive and dead, which disagree with one another, let alone whatever it is that science says. What makes any one of these more right than the others? How can one (or several) be shown to be true above the rest? If science discovered that the sun was actually being pushed across the sky by a giant beetle, would it suggest that the Egyptians (and probably others) were on the right track, and their gods were the ones active in the universe, and the Christian god is false?

Apparently there is a species of ants that keeps other ants as slaves.............

Nature is just as or more unpleasent as people..........

Farmer ants are what you are thinking of, I believe. They farm other insects.

mattyrm wrote:I dont even bother with all the Science anymore because many normal everyday people just dont seem have a good grasp of it, indeed, i didnt either as a young man, and its taken years of reading to grasp the entirety of this argument. For example, the vast majority of the general public still seems to have a real problem with word 'theory' and many creationists rely on this ignorance when they are purposely misleading people. So i just stick with good old common sense. Why do we suck so badly?! They always hold the eye up as proof of design, even though it sucks utterly. Why do 50% of people need glasses? Why do my knees and back ache so much at such a young age? Why does my jaw not have enough space for all my teeth? If a loving god designed us all, he would have done a far better bloody job! Ive always said this, its a very simple argument, either you CAN get complexity from simplicity, or 'something from nothing' or you cant. If you can, then creationists have no argument at all. And if you cant, well then God cant be real, because 'he' is very complex by definition isnt he? Their argument just seems to defy common sense to me because it argues against itself. If everything complex needs a designer then god absolutely has to have one as well.

I have heard this argument before(warboss included). Our bodies aren't perfect therefore a perfect being couldn't have created us. That's the logic of that argument.

Of course that is a philosophical/and maybe even theological argument,not a scientific one. We can get into the idea that Adam and Eve were perect specimens, but then after the fall they were cursed. This curse is possiblywhat has lead to so many problems (healthwise) in humanity. Even the Bible records many people living multiple hundreds of years and I think methusaleh was 700 years or so old before he died.

Also I'm not sure why you have a problem with people bringing up the word theory. Why is that such a problem? Macro evolution is a theory, it cannot be proven, it is not a fact or a law. What's the problem? How is that "purposely misleading people"?

GG

In layman's terms, theory and hypothesis are interchangeable, pretty much, meaning "an idea used to explain how something might work".

In science, a hypothesis is an idea used to explain how something might work, which makes observable predictions. A theory is an idea that might explain how something might work, backed up by experimental evidence. So when we say evolution is a theory, we mean, it is backed up by evidence. When some commentators of evolution say it is a theory, they use it in the layman's meaning to give it less weight than it actually has. (If someone wants to correct my terminology there, feel free, I reckon I got it mostly right though)

Boss basically answered better than i could mate. The word theory means something different to what people seem to think. The 'theory' of evolution is basically how the fact of evolution works, not that its just a random idea that someone has a hunch about. You could argue that there is more evidence for evolution than gravity, but nobody disputes gravity because it doesnt dispute anything that would accept a bible literalist. Most Christians arent creationist are they? I really dont get why some feel so strongly about every single word in there being taken literally?

SilverMK2 wrote:Farmer ants are what you are thinking of, I believe. They farm other insects.

nope slaver ants

http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/A/ANT/ant-09.html

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent525/close/SlaveAnt.html

@ matty&boss I think we said the same thing, just in a different way. Still not sure what the problem is. Most creationsists don't have an issue with the micro evolutionary side, that is to say evolution within kinds. It's the macro evolutionary form, which is to say evolution across kinds that we object to, and by the way.... the part that cannont be proven.

GG

To be clear, I have no problem with you not believing in macro or micro evolution.
I know you're generally a nice guy too, though I disagree with a lot of your views.

So you agree that small changes gradually occur over time to a particular genetic line (for example a particular type of bird) that make it more adept at surviving in its environment, yet you do not agree that if, say, a group of these birds become separated from the main flock (say in a storm - they get blown out to sea and to some remote islands for example), they can then evolve in a different direction, eventually becoming a new species, possibly even going on to become a very different life form over many, many generations?

Say this island has no predators and most of the food that exists is in the form of roots etc, things that are on or under the ground - the birds would gradually adapt to a more pedestrian way of life, spending more and more time on the ground. Perhaps they would almost give up flying, their wings would shrink since they are of no advantage, perhaps even a hindrance when digging through the undergrowth. Their feet may develop claws to dig the ground better, their beaks my get harder and sharper and change shape to break through to the nommy centre of the roots.

Over time they would become very different to their original form, they would become a unique species. Who knows, over millions of years they may resemble more of a mole like creature than a bird?

I'm not suggesting they would go down this path - it is just a thought experiment to show that the belief in any small change in a creature's genetic makeup based on external environmental pressures or internal changes such as random mutation really can't go hand in hand with the denial of macro changes and the evolution of new entire new species (this is my own personal view on the matter - I honestly can't see how it can work. I would of course be interested to see your thinking on this matter - perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick).

Macro-evolution is simply the sum of many micro-evolutionary steps.

mattyrm wrote:Most Christians arent creationist are they? I really dont get why some feel so strongly about every single word in there being taken literally?

Roman Catholics don't believe in biblical fundamentalism. Can't speak to every other denomination, but I can tell you that much.

The thing that's hard to comprehend is the incredibly large timescales involved.

SilverMK2 wrote:So you agree that small changes gradually occur over time to a particular genetic line (for example a particular type of bird) that make it more adept at surviving in its environment, yet you do not agree that if, say, a group of these birds become separated from the main flock (say in a storm - they get blown out to sea and to some remote islands for example), they can then evolve in a different direction, eventually becoming a new species, possibly even going on to become a very different life form over many, many generations?

Say this island has no predators and most of the food that exists is in the form of roots etc, things that are on or under the ground - the birds would gradually adapt to a more pedestrian way of life, spending more and more time on the ground. Perhaps they would almost give up flying, their wings would shrink since they are of no advantage, perhaps even a hindrance when digging through the undergrowth. Their feet may develop claws to dig the ground better, their beaks my get harder and sharper and change shape to break through to the nommy centre of the roots.

Over time they would become very different to their original form, they would become a unique species. Who knows, over millions of years they may resemble more of a mole like creature than a bird?

I'm not suggesting they would go down this path - it is just a thought experiment to show that the belief in any small change in a creature's genetic makeup based on external environmental pressures or internal changes such as random mutation really can't go hand in hand with the denial of macro changes and the evolution of new entire new species (this is my own personal view on the matter - I honestly can't see how it can work. I would of course be interested to see your thinking on this matter - perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick).

Believe me I know the way macro evolution is theorized to work, remember I wasn't raised up in Church and used to be a hardcore macro-evolutionist myself(as well as an atheist).
But a few things I noticed in your post, and please do not take this as me being insulting because I certainly don't intend it that way. You used a few terms like "imagine" and "possibly" and "perhaps". All of those words are philosophical words not necessarily scientific.

Also in order for macro evolution to work you need a massive amount of time, and that time void is filled very cleverly by radioisotope dating methods, which unfortunately I believe to be flawed. Not necessarily flawed from the technical aspects, but flawed from the standpoint of where the conclusions are based. If you start with a foundation that says radioactive decay rates have always been the same as they are now, then of course everything appears to make sense because we are in the now. But if you start from a foundation of saying, well we weren't around "in the beginning" so it's possible that we don't have the whole story. Then you can allow yourself the possibility that modern uniformitarianism could be wrong and maybe there is another answer, of course I believe the answer to be that The Creator created the earth the universe and all living things.

GG

GG wrote:Also in order for macro evolution to work you need a massive amount of time, and that time void is filled very cleverly by radioisotope dating methods, which unfortunately I believe to be flawed. Not necessarily flawed from the technical aspects, but flawed from the standpoint of where the conclusions are based. (i) If you start with a foundation that says radioactive decay rates have always been the same as they are now, then of course everything appears to make sense because we are in the now. But if you start from a foundation of saying, well we weren't around "in the beginning" so it's possible that we don't have the whole story. Then (ii)you can allow yourself the possibility that modern uniformitarianism could be wrong and maybe there is another answer, of course I believe the answer to be that The Creator created the earth the universe and all living things.

Just a couple of things.

i) What would be your basis for questioning the decay rates, or more specifically, positing a 'variable' rate of decay? Is there a purely scientific case for that? Or is it a case of wanting to 'stretch' the science to fit a scripture-based version of events? I want to make clear that I am not trolling you here, this is a serious question. I would be genuinely interested to look at some source material which outlines the science behind variable decay rates.

ii) Everything can be allowed. I think most people would obviously allow for an alternate explanation for absolutely anything, if the reasoning behind that explanation was sound. As I alluded to earlier, the 'stretch-to-fit' approach is a large part of creationist theory. I think that this is intellectually dangerous. Science doesn't make the facts stretch to fit it. Science isn't dogmatic, neither is it a monolithic system of belief. It's just a different method of gathering information. The difference between science and religion is somewhat akin to the difference between proof and faith. Faith doesn't require proof, proof doesn't need faith.
Scientists can hypothisize, guess and believe like the rest of us - they are human after all. But their 'truth' has to be provable, testable. It has to be rigourously examined.
But religious faith isn't subject to the same rigourous examination - in fact it shuns it. So yes, you can say 'what about the alternative explanations?', but if the basis for such conjecture is scriptural teaching then it will be rightly treated as unscientific. If you're looking for alternative theories that chime more readily with your religious beliefs, that's a dangerous approach, IMO.

mattyrm wrote:
I find it terribly amusing when creationists start listing their evidence, it really is absurd stuff they come out with, and it is made all the more amusing to me because i have sat through several of disgraced "doctor" Kent Hovinds seminars and they just parrot all the exact same stuff he came out with. It has been debunked so many times it really isnt worth bothering to type rebuttals such as yours Dogma.

Its easier to simply say that most mono-theists know that evolution is so well supported that is has to be taken as a fact, and educated theologians from the Pope down are firm in their support of evolution and the modern Science that has backed it up so firmly for 200 years since. Creationism is just a fruity little club and they dont have any credibility whatsoever. They have been beaten in the courts and they are being beaten by plain old common sense.

What i really dont understand though, is why would a Scientist be "biased" anyway? What would he gain from it? Do they get any reward for lying to everyone?

The trouble with the evolution vs creartionism argument is the 'vs'. The idea that the two have any competition is a fabrication by atheists who wish to hijack the scientific debate. It is quite acceptible to beleive the Genesis account and evolution both, as you quite rightly pointed out. Where you err is in the idea that evolution disproves creation or ihndicate that we have moced out of a mental 'stone age' as mentioned in your first post that I beleive provoked Grog into defending his faith on this thread.. It doesnt, it just shows us how life emerges, it shows no hand of the creator but then again the creator passes without trace. He only appears when He wants to.

Take for example the story of the Rainbow appearing to Noah. To a medieval mind it was holy magick, Newton worked out how a rainbow works in his seminal book Optics, however establishing the rainbow in science does not remove it from Gods toolbox.

However there is evidence to suggest God exists.

For evidence for God you have too look elsewhere, He doesn't sign recepts for his work as creator, but does as saviour. Take an old bible, you could take a Bible pruinted yestersay but just esablish in your herad that it is the same book as existed for centuries. This book in the Deuteronomy cross referencee with Isiah predicts the division and restoration of Israel. By the Hebrew calender the Jews were to be exiled from their land for a specified time. This time occured on sacking of Jersusalem by the Persians and expired TO THE DAY in 1948 at the Declaration of the State of Israel. This is a big enough event that it cannot be brushed off as having not existed. I can point out how this can be proved through Bible verses if you like.

It is interesting that I brought up this proof before, and the atheists present ignored the subject. Atheism is a faith after all and the body of science is also often less open minded than it likes to claim. But I am assuming that some atheists here have the open scientific minds they claim to have and will take up this challenge.

What will we get out of it, proof of God? No. I cannot do that, but again God doesn't leave proof just evidence. However a God that keeps his promises written in a book centuries old has to have some credibility if the promises are fulfilled on the day they are prophesied to be.

What has this to do with evolution? Nothing, but religion never really had. It was a theory to expand our scientific knowledge of how the world works, like all others before or since with the same goal. Sadly it was hijacked by atheists who goaded dumb priests in the Church of England at the time Darwin expounded his theories to rise to the bait on queue. The victory over 'creationism' was based on rehetoric rather than reason. even now in debates the wrong people are brought forward to defend a theistic poijnt of view, it is no different than in bishop Usher's day. The knowledge of the origin of life and of the universe is still beyond us and probably will remain so to some extent or other. Noone is saying dont look, least of all the church. We can think, but honest thought leaves room for faith, and faith says there is or is no God, neither has any bounding in sceince, which is how God, assuming He exists, appears to prefer it.

As a final note observe the bumblebee, apparently it is sceintific anomaly, it should fly according to our knowledge of aerodynamics the bee shopuldnt fly, but it does. This has been taken erroneously as proof of faith, but thwen without the 'vs' there never was any need to clutch at that. All I say is that it required an expansion of our knowledge of aerodynamics to account for how the bee flies. however now we know that it does this provides no evidence that God had no hand in the matter, instead it could be as easily saidf that God simply understood the physics before we did.

Albatross wrote:

GG wrote:Also in order for macro evolution to work you need a massive amount of time, and that time void is filled very cleverly by radioisotope dating methods, which unfortunately I believe to be flawed. Not necessarily flawed from the technical aspects, but flawed from the standpoint of where the conclusions are based. (i) If you start with a foundation that says radioactive decay rates have always been the same as they are now, then of course everything appears to make sense because we are in the now. But if you start from a foundation of saying, well we weren't around "in the beginning" so it's possible that we don't have the whole story. Then (ii)you can allow yourself the possibility that modern uniformitarianism could be wrong and maybe there is another answer, of course I believe the answer to be that The Creator created the earth the universe and all living things.

Just a couple of things.

i) What would be your basis for questioning the decay rates, or more specifically, positing a 'variable' rate of decay? Is there a purely scientific case for that? Or is it a case of wanting to 'stretch' the science to fit a scripture-based version of events? I want to make clear that I am not trolling you here, this is a serious question. I would be genuinely interested to look at some source material which outlines the science behind variable decay rates.

ii) Everything can be allowed. I think most people would obviously allow for an alternate explanation for absolutely anything, if the reasoning behind that explanation was sound. As I alluded to earlier, the 'stretch-to-fit' approach is a large part of creationist theory. I think that this is intellectually dangerous. Science doesn't make the facts stretch to fit it. Science isn't dogmatic, neither is it a monolithic system of belief. It's just a different method of gathering information. The difference between science and religion is somewhat akin to the difference between proof and faith. Faith doesn't require proof, proof doesn't need faith.
Scientists can hypothisize, guess and believe like the rest of us - they are human after all. But their 'truth' has to be provable, testable. It has to be rigourously examined.
But religious faith isn't subject to the same rigourous examination - in fact it shuns it. So yes, you can say 'what about the alternative explanations?', but if the basis for such conjecture is scriptural teaching then it will be rightly treated as unscientific. If you're looking for alternative theories that chime more readily with your religious beliefs, that's a dangerous approach, IMO.

In response to (i)I don't know if anyone has "proven" yet that there was an increase in decay rates. There have been some experiments to show how it could have happened. Specifically the RATE(radioisotopes and the age of the earth) project. I haven't fully digested the experiment or the project to effectively comment. Even though I hate to do this I'll post a link so you can read for yourself. http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay

In response to (ii) All I have ever said was that there are alternate explanations to the current scientific thought which is based on assumptions. And if current scientific theories are based on assumptions, I think that is intellectually dangerous.

For example I was watching the science channel the other day, and they were talking about where did the moon come from. A scientist has been postulating that the moon was once part of the earth and that an asteroid or comet hit the earth causing a large chunk of debris to break off, and over a massive amount of time the moon formed out of this debris. The program was presenting this stuff as though it were a fact, when there is no way that kind of theory can be proved. This is exactly my problem with the modern science movement, they present science fiction and imaginary scenarios as though it were fact.

GG

Orlanth wrote:It is interesting that I brought up this proof before, and the atheists present ignored the subject. Atheism is a faith after all and the body of science is also often less open minded than it likes to claim. But I am assuming that some atheists here have the open scientific minds they claim to have and will take up this challenge.

I didn't ignore it. I gave you a couple of more likely explanations - you can of course choose to ignore them because they don't square with your world-view, but that doesn't excuse you from speaking the truth.

I'll state them again, and even add to them:

1) Is it possible that Hebrew scholars were aware of these dates? Could that have been a determining factor in the choosing of that specific date for the creation of Israel?

2) It COULD just be a coincidence. Far-fetched, I know! But is it REALLY any more far-fetched than believing that the date was pre-determined by God, causing us to throw out everything we know about time, space, life, the universe and everything?

3) Nationhood and nationalism didn't exist in the way that it does today at the time the Torah was written. How then could that book predict it? Technically the Kingdom of Israel STILL doesn't exist, making the prophecy inaccurate. Also, The State of Israel didn't (and still doesn't) encompass all of biblical Israel to the best of my knowledge, making the prophecy inaccurate.

4)There were Jews living in Palestine before the creation of Israel. Does the prediction rely on the Jewish homeland being formally recognised by the international community? Was it not a Jewish homeland before that? If it doesn't count as a Jewish homeland pre-Israel, then why is this? Is it because there were Palistinians living there too? Because that's the case at the moment as well.

5) Could the data have been manipulated? Other methods of Bible 'prophecy' have been debunked. I can't imagine there'd be much glory to be had from publishing UNSUCCESSFUL attempts at deciphering biblical 'prophecy', so the person doing that would have a vested interest, apart from the obvious religious motivation.


That's just 5.


Could you post a link to the sources you're talking about? I'd be quite keen to take a look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GG wrote:For example I was watching the science channel the other day, and they were talking about where did the moon come from. A scientist has been postulating that the moon was once part of the earth and that an asteroid or comet hit the earth causing a large chunk of debris to break off, and over a massive amount of time the moon formed out of this debris. The program was presenting this stuff as though it were a fact, when there is no way that kind of theory can be proved. This is exactly my problem with the modern science movement, they present science fiction and imaginary scenarios as though it were fact.

Does it bother you when religious people present THEIR conjecture as fact?

The scenario you outlined sounds similar to how the earth probably formed. They don't just pluck theories out of the air - theories like that will be based upon what we know about asteroids, gravity - physics in general, really. There has to be some form of rationale: 'we know this, this and this, therefore it's possible that...'

Thanks for the link!

generalgrog wrote:You used a few terms like "imagine" and "possibly" and "perhaps". All of those words are philosophical words not necessarily scientific.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'philosophical' and 'scientific'. I think you mean 'of or related to philosophy' and 'of or related to science'. If that's the case, then I must point out that only the most technical language in either discipline (to the extent that 'science' is a discipline) can be considered 'of or related to the discipline'. Imagine, possibly, and perhaps are not technical terms. They are words denoting theory, and theory is central to science.

generalgrog wrote:
Also in order for macro evolution to work you need a massive amount of time, and that time void is filled very cleverly by radioisotope dating methods, which unfortunately I believe to be flawed. Not necessarily flawed from the technical aspects, but flawed from the standpoint of where the conclusions are based. If you start with a foundation that says radioactive decay rates have always been the same as they are now, then of course everything appears to make sense because we are in the now. But if you start from a foundation of saying, well we weren't around "in the beginning" so it's possible that we don't have the whole story. Then you can allow yourself the possibility that modern uniformitarianism could be wrong and maybe there is another answer, of course I believe the answer to be that The Creator created the earth the universe and all living things.

Those are not mutually incompatible positions. Uniformitarianism, in its modern form, claims only that, in the absence of significant evidence, that which can be attributed to a known cause should be attributed to a known cause. In other words, if we know how one thing works, we shouldn't suppose that a similar thing functions differently without due deference to that which we can already prove. Obviously, this view grants providence to direct observation, and will use that observation to explain everything back through history unless there is some caveat of inconsistency. Its that last part, regarding caveats, that allows uniformitarianism to accept the possibility that our observations may not fully explain the past. It simply does not presume that any such supposition can be usefully considered without a utilitarian reason; eg. in those circumstances where that which is dictated by present observation cannot explain that which was dictated by prior observation.

In contrast, the various forms of creationism work to prove that something specific happened in the distant past by working to find ways in which our present observations might be brought into consistency with a working hypothesis. The trouble here, and the reason creationism is such a contentious issue, is that no one has succeeded in doing so without the ubiquitous "God did it" hand wave. Instead, creation science has chosen to focus primarily on 'poking holes' in established theory; taking each publication as a victory due to false dichotomy I referenced earlier. The problem is that, unless someone comes forward with evidence supporting that the Earth is 5,700 to 10,000 years old, all that's truly occurring is the furthering of the scientific process by which theories are advanced to to explain ever growing amounts of data.

This is very frustrating to people like me, not because it works to advance the cause of science away from some 'world view' you seem to feel that I hold, but because very often creationists take inconsistencies within the predictions of a given scientific theory as a tacit confirmation of your theories. I'll use the diamond example to illustrate. Even if there were no reasonable mechanism by which C-14 could be present in diamonds, and even if radiometric dating was wildly inaccurate, those facts would still not be evidence for the Biblical Creation story as neither directly indicates "Yes, the Earth is 5,700 to 10,000 years old." This is also why I'm often left aghast as creationists trot out their doubt with respect to the veracity of radiometric dating. If radiometric dating is so inaccurate, and you wish to develop proof for the young Earth theory, then how do you propose to do so? Or am I misunderstanding the intent of the project by assuming the idea is to develop proof for one theory, rather than simply trying to develop some kind of equal playing field for faith and observation?

I mean, to my mind there is an obvious and significant difference between allowing for the possibility that the fundamental physical laws of the Universe were different in the past, and proposing that an unsubstantiated manifestation of faith is equivalent to belief supported by a body of evidence. I freely acknowledge the first, adding only that no available evidence suggests that, but the second strikes me as deeply misguided given that there seems to be almost no effort to prove the hypothesis.

I would have no problem with your position if you admitted that you have faith in the myth (used in the sense of 'mythic past') of Biblical Creation, and that your faith is distinct from scientific belief because your faith is not supported by evidence. Everyone is entitled to their faith, but it becomes problematic when they are allowed to consider that faith as something other than what it is.

Albatross wrote:
1) Is it possible that Hebrew scholars were aware of these dates? Could that have been a determining factor in the choosing of that specific date for the creation of Israel?

So the Hebrew scholars arranged everything. I have heard of conspiracy theories before, but this event moved nations and the United Nations. It would have to be a very big conspiracy. They even got the Arabs to play along in the timing. How long was ther conspiracty running for then. The predictions were made in circa 550BC and came to fruiting 2500 years later. At what point did the scholars say stop trying to be independent now we can manufacture a prophesy is we wait a few more months? years? decades even?
I will keep on aside the fact that this numeric calculation was as far as I know first made after the event. The prophesy stated God would restore Israel openly the actual when was not worked out until later hidden in plain text. This is the odd thing about Biblical prophesy, the evidence is often concealed until afterwards then plain to see, best example of this was the events occuring at the gime of the Crucifixion. In order for the prophesy to actually work the Sanhedrin had to play along, they did so in ignorance despite knowing the Bible themselves.

Albatross wrote:
2) It COULD just be a coincidence. Far-fetched, I know! But is it REALLY any more far-fetched than believing that the date was pre-determined by God, causing us to throw out everything we know about time, space, life, the universe and everything?

Here you are relying on the fallacy that the existance of God is at loggerheads with "everything we know about time, space, life, the universe and everything", some forms of atheist would just to prefer to assume that is so and hijack science to say something it does not. There is nothing far fetched about beleiving in God, I credit atheism with the same elementary base credibility, it's a faith choice either way. For some its blind faith, for others the evidence is there. Due to our human natures we view evidence acordingb to our paradigms.

Albatross wrote:
3) Nationhood and nationalism didn't exist in the way that it does today at the time the Torah was written. How then could that book predict it? Technically the Kingdom of Israel STILL doesn't exist, making the prophecy inaccurate. Also, The State of Israel didn't (and still doesn't) encompass all of biblical Israel to the best of my knowledge, making the prophecy inaccurate.

You are putting words into my mouth, nothing was mentioned of the 'kingdom'. Did I mention it in my post? Not. So your comments refute nothing. The restoration of Israel also occured in stages and without a formal king starting with the rebuilding of the Temple, under the Persian king Cyrus, who was moved to do so because he himself read the prophesy saying that he would written a hundred years earlier. However, now you ask, from a Christian point of view Jesus is the permenant King of Israel; not that he is openly accepted as such at the present, but that is another matter.

Albatross wrote:
4)There were Jews living in Palestine before the creation of Israel. Does the prediction rely on the Jewish homeland being formally recognised by the international community? Was it not a Jewish homeland before that? If it doesn't count as a Jewish homeland pre-Israel, then why is this? Is it because there were Palistinians living there too? Because that's the case at the moment as well.

Yes they were there, but never in a self-governing capacity in fact there was no Jewish state at all since the reign of Titus Caesar only Jewish enclaves in a land ruled by someone else. Until 1948.

Albatross wrote:
5) Could the data have been manipulated? Other methods of Bible 'prophecy' have been debunked. I can't imagine there'd be much glory to be had from publishing UNSUCCESSFUL attempts at deciphering biblical 'prophecy', so the person doing that would have a vested interest, apart from the obvious religious motivation.

I would like you to show me what debunking has gone on. I think you are being a little dismissive, the Bible holds a good standard for historicity, in fact the dating of the ancient world was askew by 300 years until scientists stopped pridefully ignoring the Biblical account and revised the dates for ancient events prior to 800BC.
If you are refering to the 'Bible Code' then I will beleive you. The Bible Code is just a media hype thingy and has little theological backing. You can grid reference all sorts of interesting things but you could probasbly do the same grid referrecning a telephone directory or other book of considerable size.
The only bible Code that has any merit is the book of Esther, the entire book that is. The book of esther is the only book that does not contain the word God, however if you grid reference it then the word God appears at regular intervals throughout the entire text making it an unsurpassed (unsurpassable?) masterpiece of literary art.

Albatross wrote:
That's just 5.

That's just 0. Your first comment is the closest to having merit I cannot prove there is no 'Jewish scholars conpiracy', though people disbeleive in 'Jewish banker conspiracies' enough though and Jewish bankers have a lot more clout than Jewish scholars.

Albatross wrote:
Could you post a link to the sources you're talking about? I'd be quite keen to take a look.

I will try and dig up a link or two the evidence I have is from a book I have not tried to find it on the net before. Got to dig out the book first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
This is very frustrating to people like me, not because it works to advance the cause of science away from some 'world view' you seem to feel that I hold, but because very often creationists take inconsistencies within the predictions of a given scientific theory as a tacit confirmation of your theories.

The real cause of your frustration is your fixation on the 'versus' in the arguement of 'evolution versus creation'. Understand that there is no arguement because there is no versus outside of human pruiide and obstinancy, one does not disprove the other. To an honest atheist evolution is simply part of ther body of scientific knowledge, to a theist it is the same and also the toolbox of God. The honest difference is solely what theology one places upon the world as one ses it, with various forms of atheism and theism open to choose from, but essentially all of them being faith choices at the core.
This understanding is as lacking in atheist fanatics who hijack evolution as a propogandas tool as much as Bible belt fanatics. The fanaticism is founded on the 'versus', remove the versus and you remove the argument but the principles remain. Because the theology and the science both remain intact then the assumed opposition between them is in fact illusory. We cannot prove there is a God, but we can say that God Himself tells us he can pass without trace. We cannot prove there is no God and for all our understanding of physics and nature we still cannot not conclusively say with any scientific integrity there is no room for God to exist. Ultimately its a faith choice and a religious preference whatever choice you make.

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:
1) Is it possible that Hebrew scholars were aware of these dates? Could that have been a determining factor in the choosing of that specific date for the creation of Israel?

So the Hebrew scholars arranged everything. I have heard of conspiracy theories before, but this event moved nations and the United Nations. It would have to be a very big conspiracy. They even got the Arabs to play along in the timing. How long was ther conspiracty running for then. The predictions were made in circa 550BC and came to fruiting 2500 years later. At what point did the scholars say stop trying to be independent now we can manufacture a prophesy is we wait a few more months? years? decades even?
I will keep on aside the fact that this numeric calculation was as far as I know first made after the event. The prophesy stated God would restore Israel openly the actual when was not worked out until later hidden in plain text. This is the odd thing about Biblical prophesy, the evidence is often concealed until afterwards then plain to see, best example of this was the events occuring at the gime of the Crucifixion. In order for the prophesy to actually work the Sanhedrin had to play along, they did so in ignorance despite knowing the Bible themselves.

I didn't say that Jewish scholars arranged everything, I asked if they had prior knowledge. If they did, it wouldn't be inconcievable that hard-core zionists might be aware of that information.

But since you mentioned that the prediction occurred AFTER the event, well you got me! I'm convinced! I mean, there is so much wrong with your argument here that I honestly don't know where to begin. Predicting an event that has already happened is not a miracle, nor is it the work of god. If you know the start date, the end date, and you have an agenda, you can manipulate the evidence to make it fit.

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:
2) It COULD just be a coincidence. Far-fetched, I know! But is it REALLY any more far-fetched than believing that the date was pre-determined by God, causing us to throw out everything we know about time, space, life, the universe and everything?

Here you are relying on the fallacy that the existance of God is at loggerheads with "everything we know about time, space, life, the universe and everything", some forms of atheist would just to prefer to assume that is so and hijack science to say something it does not. There is nothing far fetched about beleiving in God, I credit atheism with the same elementary base credibility, it's a faith choice either way. For some its blind faith, for others the evidence is there. Due to our human natures we view evidence acordingb to our paradigms.

It's less about the existence of god, and more about the ability to see what? 4000 years into the future? 2000?

Also, you didn't address the fact that I said the prediction could really have been set out by the original writers of the Torah, but could just be a coincidence. Is that really any less likely?

I'm not even going to touch the whole 'atheism is faith' nonsense. Again.

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:
3) Nationhood and nationalism didn't exist in the way that it does today at the time the Torah was written. How then could that book predict it? Technically the Kingdom of Israel STILL doesn't exist, making the prophecy inaccurate. Also, The State of Israel didn't (and still doesn't) encompass all of biblical Israel to the best of my knowledge, making the prophecy inaccurate.

You are putting words into my mouth, nothing was mentioned of the 'kingdom'. Did I mention it in my post? Not. So your comments refute nothing.

Again, nationalism didn't exist when the Torah was written, so it's likely that any reference to Israel would be calling it the Kingdom of Israel, would it not? And it isn't, is it? You can say 'Jesus is the permanent king', but Israel is not a monarchy, politically speaking. If the wording of this 'prophecy' mentions the Kingdom of Israel then it is inaccurate. Any reference to the State of Israel would scream 'fraud' to me.

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:
4)There were Jews living in Palestine before the creation of Israel. Does the prediction rely on the Jewish homeland being formally recognised by the international community? Was it not a Jewish homeland before that? If it doesn't count as a Jewish homeland pre-Israel, then why is this? Is it because there were Palistinians living there too? Because that's the case at the moment as well.

Yes they were there, but never in a self-governing capacity in fact there was no Jewish state at all since the reign of Titus Caesar only Jewish enclaves in a land ruled by someone else. Until 1948.