Bible and science?

[The Barbarian]

Well now you made it first person

For the 4th time.

Yes I accept the Nicene creed as biblical.

It's not in the Bible. But why did it take you so long to decide to tell us?

You: "I had an email conversation with John Woodmorrape (author of the ICR-endorsed Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study) He confirmed this to me. With which ICR scientist did you have your conversation?"

Well if you did not save that e-mkail conversation with Wodmorappe- then His publicly written declarations stand!

Show me that. Perhaps you haven't read the Ark Feasibility Study, which doesn't fit your claims.

Barbarian observes:
There are a lot of people out there who hate Christians and pretend to be Christian, while promoting extreme forms of YEC.

So you believe that YEC may not be Christians?

When anti-Christians pose as Christians, it's almost always as the most extreme YEC. Not all YEC are Christians, but those who are, are no less Christians than others.

Barbarian observes:
Junk DNA" is a layman's term for "non-coding" DNA. The creationist take was that living things have been degenerating since The Fall, and that non-coding DNA is evidence for this. But when I was an undergraduate, a half-century ago, scientists were even then discovering functions for non-coding DNA

Both those are lies!

Nope...
Creationist Mark Sanford:
Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings),Mutations Q&A;">1 bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’'

‘Selection does help. Selection gets rid of the worst mutations. This slows mutational degeneration.

It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations,2 so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate. This is exactly what we would expect in light of Scripture—with the Fall—and is consistent with the declining life expectancies after the Flood that the Bible records.’
Geneticist Evolution Impossible - creation.com

As I said, The creationist take was that genomes of living things have been degenerating since The Fall. And there you are.

Would love to see that research!

Long time ago, but let's see what's available...

Nucleic Acids Res. 1978 Dec;5(12):4625-30.
Sequence of the 3'-noncoding and adjacent coding regions of human gamma-globin mRNA.
Poon R, Kan YW, Boyer HW.
Abstract
In cloning human fetal globin cDNA in bacterial plasmids, we obtained a recombinant which contained a fragment of gammg-globin cDNA corresponding to the region from amino acid 99 to the poly A. We determined a sequence of 169 nucleotides which included the complete 3' non-coding region of the gamma-globin mRNA. The codon for amino acid 136 was GCA, indicating that this cloned fragment was derived from the Agamma-globin gene. In conjunction with the surrounding sequences, the GCA codon provides the Agamma-species with a unique CTGCAG hexanucleotide that is recognized by the restriction enzyme Pst I. The 3'-untranslated region of the gamma-globin mRNA consists of 90 nucleotides, and shares little homology with that of the human beta-globin mRNA. As in other mammalian mRNAs, a symmetrical sequence and the hexanucleotide AAUAAA are present.

Ciba Found Symp. 1979 Jun 27-29;(66):25-45.
Genes and non-coding DNA sequences.
Walker PM.
Abstract
Many new categories of DNA sequence organization in higher organisms have been discovered in the last 20 years. Most of these are not found in bacterial and each in turn is hailed as a likely candidate for those regulatory elements which are assumed to distinguish higher from lower organisms. This article stresses the similarities between their sequence organizations and the continuing lack of convincing function for any of them. It suggests that these sequences often appear after chance recombinational events and their presence then facilitates further change. Within the constraints of proper function the genome is clearly able to find many organizational solutions of apparently equal advantage to the organism. Finally, an example of rapid genome reorganization resulting from selection for resistance to the drug methotrexate is considered.

for it wasn't until the 21st Century that Junk DNA was challenged by research.

"It ain't what people don't know that get's 'em in trouble; it's what they know that ain't so."
Josh Billings

The research in the human genome project and even more so the encode project has shown that there is no junk DNA ! I believe it was 2014 and they wewre up to over 80% utility for human DNA and the scientists were saying they were absolutely confident that when they finished that would be 100%

The function of the GULO gene is well-known. It's for making vitamin C. But in primates, it's broken, and doesn't do anything. As you learned, even decades ago, scientists knew that what creationists called "junk DNA" had functions. But perhaps 20% of it is just broken genes.

So it took the smug self appointed "superiors" in evolution decades to catch up with the truth that Creation Scientists had been proclaiming all along!

As you also just learned, creationists are still arguing that what they call "junk DNA" is just degenerated material from a once "perfect genome." Sanford is just one of the many, many YECs who argue that.

Just like with the supposed absolute truth of "radio-decay constants"

It was again verified when argon/argon testing accurately called the eruption that buried Pompeii.

As you learned, any significant increase in radioisotope decay would have produced a huge blast of ionizing radiation that would have killed all living things on Earth. So that excuse won't work, either.

 

[dad]

Demons are not gods, though.

Yes they are. Anything people put before God is an idol. Some idols have spirits behind them. Some demons were gods and even known by other names, like Zeus. The seat of Satan dwells in Revelation was said to be the throne of Zeus (which Hitler had moved to Berlin, and it's still there). The platform for Obama's 2008 inauguration was thought to be modeled after this.

 

[The Barbarian]

myst33 said: ↑
Demons are not gods, though.

Yes they are.

In Christian theology, demons are corrupted angels, who fell with Satan at his rebellion against God. They are therefore not gods, being created beings themselves.

In gnosticism, there belief is a true creator God, and then numerous sub-gods, one of which is the one who spoke to Abraham, and falsely claims to be the real Creator. For gnostics, certain demons might have divine character.

Not in orthodox Christianity, though. If you follow Jesus, there is only one God, and no others.

 

[dad]

In Christian theology, demons are corrupted angels, who fell with Satan at his rebellion against God. They are therefore not gods, being created beings themselves.

In gnosticism, there belief is a true creator God, and then numerous sub-gods, one of which is the one who spoke to Abraham, and falsely claims to be the real Creator. For gnostics, certain demons might have divine character.

Not in orthodox Christianity, though. If you follow Jesus, there is only one God, and no others.

The servants of Satan are his demons. His rule on earth over the kingdoms involves them. Not sure about 'orthodox' customs or claims, and don't much care. They (orthodox) are basically part of the government in some places.

 

[The Barbarian]

The servants of Satan are his demons. His rule on earth over the kingdoms involves them.

Satan isn't a god, either. He's just an angel who separated himself from God. He's desperately suffering because of that separation. A pathetic figure, albeit a malignantly evil one.

That's the Christian take on it. No other gods. Just the One.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes they are. Anything people put before God is an idol. Some idols have spirits behind them. Some demons were gods and even known by other names, like Zeus. The seat of Satan dwells in Revelation was said to be the throne of Zeus (which Hitler had moved to Berlin, and it's still there). The platform for Obama's 2008 inauguration was thought to be modeled after this.

I don't think you've ever seen that one, have you? There is this...

Zeus, the ancient god for sky and thunder in Greek religion was, by all accounts, pretty powerful. According to Greek mythology, he was raised by a goat and a nymph, which is indeed fairly close to Trumps' own upbringing. Trump believes he has similar potency.

"Melania gave me a book on all this mythology stuff for Christmas. It was like unfolding my lineage. When I saw Zeus, I felt touched. She also gave me a calendar with sculptures. One of them is a guy called David, carved out by Michael and Angelo in Rome. I'm gonna get 'em both over here to carve out my own statue for the White House grounds. They're from Italy. That's in Europe, too, right?"
...
"I know there are tons of gods out there, like Apollo, the god of rockets and spaceships, or Poseidon, the god of films with sea monsters and Burt Lancaster, but Zeus, well, he's just an ancient Trump."
Trump claims to be descendant of Zeus

 

[trophy33]

Yes they are.

No, demons are not gods. Demons are children of angels and women from Gen 6. Desperate beings who lost bodies and travel from body to body.
Even Jesus had mercy on them and allowed them to go at least to pigs. Such beings are hardly something similar to a god.

Anything people put before God is an idol. Some idols have spirits behind them.

Still nothing close to a god.

Some demons were gods and even known by other names, like Zeus.

Zeus is not a real god.

The seat of Satan dwells in Revelation was said to be the throne of Zeus (which Hitler had moved to Berlin, and it's still there). The platform for Obama's 2008 inauguration was thought to be modeled after this.

Even this fantasy does not say why zeus should be a real god.

 

[nolidad]

Sorry, the creationist dodge "we can't know anything we weren't there to see personally" is so obviously wrong, I'm astonished anyone still tries to sell it. Would you like me to show you some counterexamples?



God disagrees with you:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.



They use symbolic language. The guys who wrote it down realized this:
Earlier geological strata of the earth’s surface show the different stages through which the earth passed and approximately how long they lasted, while fossils and remains of extinct species such as dinosaurs show that the different species of living creatures evolved slowly from a common ancestor.


These conclusions are denied by adherents of a doctrine known as "scientific creationism," who are campaigning to require that any public school which teaches evolution must also teach what they call "creation science" as a scientifically respectable alternative to evolution.


The feverish concern of the "scientific creationists" to protect a literal reading of the story in Genesis 1 reflects a conviction that devotion to the Bible requires one to interpret its words–particularly Genesis–literally and to accept it in its literal sense.


But, as Steven Katz notes…, "In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." In fact, as we shall argue below, even the compilers of the Bible do not seem to have been concerned with a literal reading of the text. They were prepared to have at least parts of it read non-literally.


Sensible Interpretation
In the Middle Ages, Saadia Gaon argued that a biblical passage should not be interpreted literally if that made a passage mean something contrary to the senses or reason (or, as we would say, science; Emunot ve-Deot, chapter 7). Maimonides applied this principle to theories about creation. He held that if the eternity of the universe (what we would call the Steady State theory) could be proven by logic (science) then the biblical passages speaking about creation at a point in time could and should be interpreted figuratively in a way that is compatible with the eternity of the universe.
Genesis As Allegory | My Jewish Learning



Jewish scholars disagree with you. But what do they know about Hebrew, um?



"Fully grown at the beginning" is your insertion. Bad idea. Why not just accept it as it is?

And your explanation for ocean basins is just a fairy tale, inconsistent with the evidence. Would you like to learn why?

Sorry but no one can empirically prove something that they or anyone ever observed! that is not a creationist dodge but reality!

I know you are so used to accepting hypothesis as dogmatic fact but it just ain't so! And it ain't science!

As for Saadia Gaon- He should remember this from proverbs:

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

or this from Isaiah 55:
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.


You :
But, as Steven Katz notes…, "In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." In fact, as we shall argue below, even the compilers of the Bible do not seem to have been concerned with a literal reading of the text. They were prepared to have at least parts of it read non-literally.

Steven Katz is a liar! I know you think that YEC scientists are either not real scientists or deceived or intentionally deceptive (your writings so far are textbook answers from those against teh Word of God or have to make it try to accomodate what they think is valid science)

I suggest you read Dr. Arnold FRuchtenbaums works called

"Messianic Christology" and "The life of Christ from a Jewish perspective" (4 volumes)
I have taught both in Bible Institute and the detailed references to rabbinic writings and quotes show Katz a liar and that the Jews through theearly middle ages believed in a literal 6 day creation (not all but most) and that even the early Jews believed the eatth was a sphere and not a disc.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry but no one can empirically prove something that they or anyone ever observed!

Of course you can. My company had me learn to do fire investigation. You can prove all sorts of things from the remains of a fire. Coroners can prove all sorts of thigns about a person's death. Did you even think about that before trying that dodge?

I know you are so used to accepting hypothesis as dogmatic fact

Just like you "knew" that it's impossible to prove anything you didn't see? Like that? It appears you don't know what "hypothesis" means. Go look it up. It might seem to you that one can't prove anything one didn't actually see...

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Steven Katz notes…, "In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." In fact, as we shall argue below, even the compilers of the Bible do not seem to have been concerned with a literal reading of the text. They were prepared to have at least parts of it read non-literally.

Steven Katz is a liar!

That word comes out of your mouth too easily. It says things about you.

I know you think that YEC scientists are either not real scientists or deceived or intentionally deceptive

I showed you an honest YEC scientist. You didn't want to hear what he had to say. C'mon.

I have taught both in Bible Institute and the detailed references to rabbinic writings and quotes show Katz a liar and that the Jews through theearly middle ages believed in a literal 6 day creation (not all but most) and that even the early Jews believed the eatth was a sphere and not a disc.

Moses ben Maimon, commonly known as Maimonides (/maɪˈmɒnɪdiːz/ my-MON-i-deez)[note 1] and also referred to by the acronym Rambam,[note 2] was a medieval Sephardic Jewish philosopher who became one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars of the Middle Ages. In his time, he was also a preeminent astronomer and physician.[8][9][10][11] Born in Córdoba, Almoravid Empire (present-day Spain) on Passover Eve, 1135 or 1138,[12][13][14][15][16] he worked as a rabbi, physician, and philosopher in Morocco and Egypt. He died in Egypt on December 12, 1204, whence his body was taken to the lower Galilee and buried in Tiberias.[17][18]

During his lifetime, most Jews greeted Maimonides' writings on Jewish law and ethics with acclaim and gratitude, even as far away as Iraq and Yemen. Yet, while Maimonides rose to become the revered head of the Jewish community in Egypt, his writings also had vociferous critics, particularly in Spain. Nonetheless, he was posthumously acknowledged as among the foremost rabbinical decisors and philosophers in Jewish history, and his copious work comprises a cornerstone of Jewish scholarship. His fourteen-volume Mishneh Torah still carries significant canonical authority as a codification of Talmudic law. He is sometimes known as "ha Nesher ha Gadol" (the great eagle) in recognition of his outstanding status as a bona fide exponent of the Oral Torah.

Aside from being revered by Jewish historians, Maimonides also figures very prominently in the history of Islamic and Arab sciences and is mentioned extensively in studies. Influenced by Al-Farabi, Avicenna, and his contemporary Averroes, he in his turn influenced other prominent Arab and Muslim philosophers and scientists. He became a prominent philosopher and polymath in both the Jewish and Islamic worlds.
Maimonides - Wikipedia

According to some Seventh-day Adventists, the only way to maintain a strong theology of the Sabbath is by way of an unbendingly literalistic account of the creation week in Genesis. Yet Orthodox Judaism has included non-literal readings of the creation, without controversy or schism, for more than a millennium. Although the Jewish faith includes provisions for anathematizing and excommunicating heretics (as in the famous trial of Spinoza on charges of pantheism or atheism), no Jew has ever been declared herem for failing to be a strict young earth creationist or literalist on the days of creation in Genesis 1. Abraham Joshua Heschel—a Hasidic Jew and the preeminent twentieth century interpreter of the Sabbath—did not subscribe to a literalistic creation week. Neither did perhaps the most highly revered and authoritative rabbinical interpreter of the Torah from the 12th century up to the present. According to a medieval Jewish saying still repeated by orthodox Jews today, “From Moses [in the Torah] to Moses [Maimonides] there was none like Moses.” Yet Rabbi Moses Maimonides taught that the six days recorded in Genesis should not be understood as literal 24-hour time periods.
Maimonides major concern in his writings on questions of origins was to demonstrate, contra both Plato and Aristotle, that the creation occurred as the Bible records it. In Plato’s Timaeus, the world is created by a Demiurge de novo (that is, at a moment in time) but not ex nihilo (that is, out of nothing). Plato imagines, in other words, a creation from pre-existing matter in the cosmos. For Aristotle, according to Maimonides’ reading, the world was meanwhile created neither de novo nor ex nihilo but is an eternal emanation of the Unmoved Mover. Although Maimonides confessed that he could not disprove the Aristotelian view through either rigorous logical or empirical proofs, he maintained that the creation occurred both de novo and ex nihilo as the language of Genesis clearly suggests.
Even as Maimonides argued for the superiority of Scripture to Greek philosophy on important questions of origins, however, he also insisted that it was a mistake to read the six days of the Genesis narrative as literal 24-hour periods. The creation in Genesis, Maimonides taught, is not primarily intended as a cosmogony (that is, as a scientific description of the way the world came to be in every particular detail) but rather as a cosmology, i.e., a description of the structure and order of God’s creation. Strictly speaking, the question of how the world first came into being is undiscoverable by scientific means and remains veiled in mystery, even within the biblical narrative itself. This means we must decide what we will believe about the most important questions of origins on non-scientific grounds, including the authority of divine revelation. But the theological meaning of Genesis is not tied, Maimonides maintained, to any kind of unbending or chronological literalism (in the modern sense of the word). The days of Genesis 1 are essentially metaphorical.
Moses Maimonides on the Literal Meaning of Genesis

Nope. I've checked for myself. And Katz is right.

 

[dad]

Satan isn't a god, either. He's just an angel who separated himself from God. He's desperately suffering because of that separation. A pathetic figure, albeit a malignantly evil one.

That's the Christian take on it. No other gods. Just the One.

You do not tell anyone what the christian position is, sorry. You are welcome to your opinion.

Obviously there was spirits behind the gods. The same spirits work today. The spirits behind child sacrifice for example. Spirits of excess, revelry, war..etc etc. No point arguing, not sure if you even believe in demons or maybe you think they are some parable!? ha.

 

[dad]

No, demons are not gods. Demons are children of angels and women from Gen 6.

Yet Satan was in the garden long before that. Prove that the fallen angels fell at the time sons of god married women?

Here is the Hebrew meaning of gods

1. rulers, judges
2. divine ones
3. angels
4. gods

Desperate beings who lost bodies and travel from body to body.
Even Jesus had mercy on them and allowed them to go at least to pigs. Such beings are hardly something similar to a god.

Yet we know that spirits are behind the rulers of the world. Your claim that demons are nothing more than 'lost bodies' is ridiculous.

Zeus is not a real god.

Says you. prove it. Some say that is another name for Satan.

 

[dad]

I don't think you've ever seen that one, have you? There is this...

Zeus, the ancient god for sky and thunder in Greek religion was, by all accounts, pretty powerful. According to Greek mythology, he was raised by a goat and a nymph, which is indeed fairly close to Trumps' own upbringing. Trump believes he has similar potency.

"Melania gave me a book on all this mythology stuff for Christmas. It was like unfolding my lineage. When I saw Zeus, I felt touched. She also gave me a calendar with sculptures. One of them is a guy called David, carved out by Michael and Angelo in Rome. I'm gonna get 'em both over here to carve out my own statue for the White House grounds. They're from Italy. That's in Europe, too, right?"
...
"I know there are tons of gods out there, like Apollo, the god of rockets and spaceships, or Poseidon, the god of films with sea monsters and Burt Lancaster, but Zeus, well, he's just an ancient Trump."
Trump claims to be descendant of Zeus

Thing is your article is a spoof, mine is real.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thing is your article is a spoof, mine is real.

Reading both, it's really not easy to say which is the spoof.

 

[The Barbarian]

Satan isn't a god, either. He's just an angel who separated himself from God. He's desperately suffering because of that separation. A pathetic figure, albeit a malignantly evil one.

That's the Christian take on it. No other gods. Just the One.

You do not tell anyone what the christian position is, sorry.

I just showed you the Christian take on it. No point in denying it. There's only one God, as the Nicene Creed makes clear.

Obviously there was spirits behind the gods.

There's only one God.

 

[trophy33]

Prove that the fallen angels fell at the time sons of god married women?

Not sure how you imagine proving such thing. There are only evidences
a) sons of God means angels in the Old Testament
b) extrabiblical writings of that era (like Enoch) talks about it in more detail
c) the desperate need of demons to inhabit some body fits together with this origin of them

Yet we know that spirits are behind the rulers of the world.

Neither spirits nor rulers are gods. Do you know what the word "god" means? It seems to me that you think it means just some kind of power or a spiritual being.

 

[trophy33]

Yet Satan was in the garden long before that.

Satan is not a demon.

 

[dad]

Reading both, it's really not easy to say which is the spoof.

For who?

 

[trophy33]

Zeus is not a real god.

Says you. prove it.

"He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other."
Dt 4:39

"See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me."
Dt 32:39

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God."
Is 45:5

"we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God except one."
1 Cor 8:6

Some say that is another name for Satan.

Satan is not a true god. He is a fallen angel.

 

[dad]

Satan is not a demon.

Fallen angel....lots of em. Satan was the ring leader of the rebellion.

 

[dad]

"He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other."
Dt 4:39

"See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me."
Dt 32:39

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God."
Is 45:5

"we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God except one."
1 Cor 8:6

No other God, lots of other little gods. (angels, divine ones etc)

Satan is not a true god. He is a fallen angel.

God is true, the gods are little evil punk leaders. All are real.