Another End of World Prophecy Comes to Pass...

AnEmpiricalAgnostic · Oct 21, 2011

While C&E isn't the venue for such things... it did get me thinking.

Apparently, it's really really hard to figure out dates and time spans using biblical literature. It's interesting because so much of the creation belief stems from a time span derived from biblical literature.

I mean, evolution takes so much longer than the 6000 years creationists figure from biblical literature... it must be false right? It's so easy to ignore all the details when evolution is so far off on the age of the world. Most creationists would be fine to leave it alone. They will get what they deserve in the afterlife. But here they are teaching our kids this stuff. This has got to stop. It's just not right... I get it.

What's the alternative really? In order to reconcile both and be able to hold on to established belief, a creationist would have to come up with reasons for all the contradictions. That would require painting God as a trickster or some really crazy theories supported by neither science or biblical literature. What a sad state that would be.

Or maybe these texts were made for a different reason than to act as a science book. Maybe somewhere along the way the focus was lost and the message got distorted.

When biblical texts were used as evidence of a geocentric universe it wasn't a small miscalculation. It's as big an error as the universe itself. Being wrong about the age of our planet, and how it came to be like it is today, is also huge. Maybe not as big as the geocentric model but I can understand the resistance to that big of a change. We've all seen it play out before.

I just wonder how many generations it's going to take this time.

Cheers to the lurkers. I wish you better luck.

Blayz · Oct 21, 2011

The difference is the geo centric model was in fact a model. It could be used to predict things like the path of the planets or which stars would be in the sky when.

Creationism models nothing and predicts nothing. On any scale it is a worse blunder than geocentricsm, which at least can serve a purpose.

Jazer · Oct 22, 2011

AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
Or maybe these texts were made for a different reason than to act as a science book.

GAP is a perfect fit with the Science text book. The exact same dates we use are the dates Science uses for the Holocene Extinction and the Neolithic Revolution just to name a few.

All of the research in the last 10 years on Founder Effect and Population Genetics shows that the geneologys in the Bible are accurate and true. Of course the DNA does not record Eve's name. Only Science can tell us where Bible Eve lived and When Bible Eve lived. This again confirms the Bible is true and Bible Eve lived in the last 6,000 years so this at least in part confirms some of the YEC beliefs are accurate and true.

In fact anytime we can look at Bishop Usshers book to determine how much of his book is accurate and true and confirmed by Science. So your wild claim that we are wrong in not backed up with anything of any substance. Your handwaving does not really prove anything when you have nothing to back up what your saying.

Jazer · Oct 22, 2011

Blayz said:
Creationism models nothing and predicts nothing.

The Creation model is a history text book and predicts everything. We can predict when the Holocene Extinction took place. We can predict when the Neolithic revolution took place and Science confirms those predictions. Just to name a few. We can predict when the Jewish people began based on the Founder effect much more accurate then Science. When it comes to clay tablets you have nothing that goes back more then 6,000 years as the Bible would predict. The list just continues to go on and on. Science in a lot of area depends on the accuracy of the Bible.

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 22, 2011

Another End of World Prophecy Comes to Pass...

As far as I know, Jesus spoke of only 1 end of the world

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

KJV)Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

AnEmpiricalAgnostic · Oct 23, 2011

Jazer said:
GAP is a perfect fit with the Science text book.

GAP is one of those hybrid ideas I spoke about earlier.

GAP is a good example of how biblical interpretations will be reworked when scientific knowledge can no longer be ignored. It's a transitional form that falls just before theistic evolution. It's a step in the historical process I've been talking about. Geocentric models -> YEC -> GAP -> TE ...

It is also interesting evidence that leveraging ignorance goes both ways. Just like gods are placed in gaps of scientific knowledge, it seems that science will be placed in theistic gaps as well.

Jazer said:
The Creation model is a history text book and predicts everything.

Click to expand...

Science in a lot of area depends on the accuracy of the Bible.

Click to expand...

I see this misunderstanding of cause and effect a lot. You can only pretend that there is any accuracy or predictive capability found in biblical texts after science has given you new knowledge to reinterpret your biblical text with, not the other way around. The theory of evolution doesn't rely on biblical texts for anything.

twob4me · Oct 26, 2011

~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread has gone through a clean up. If you notice a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up. Please stay on topic and remember the Board Rules when posting.

Documentation of thread clean up is HERE for staff only!

~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jazer · Oct 26, 2011

AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
GAP is a good example of how biblical interpretations will be reworked when scientific knowledge can no longer be ignored.

Actually GAP was developed by Pastors that did not want to have to study science to answer a lot of questions. Everyone seems to pretty much come up with all their own conclusions anyways.

The theory of evolution doesn't rely on biblical texts for anything.

Actually the theory relys on the Bible a lot more then you would ever imagine. Not to establish what is true, but to point out what is clearly not true. The Bible was designed to show us how to separate truth from error.

AnEmpiricalAgnostic · Oct 27, 2011

Jazer said:
Actually GAP was developed by Pastors that did not want to have to study science to answer a lot of questions. Everyone seems to pretty much come up with all their own conclusions anyways.

This sounds entirely plausible. The question then becomes which conclusions do we lean toward when they are in conflict. Like geocentric vs heliocentric, when deciding between biblical creation and evolution I'll take the side of science. Evidence trumps supernatural assertions.

Jazer said:
Actually the theory relys on the Bible a lot more then you would ever imagine. Not to establish what is true, but to point out what is clearly not true. The Bible was designed to show us how to separate truth from error.

If theism was wiped out of existence the theory of evolution would still stand. If we used the various biblical texts as benchmarks for science then we would still believe the earth was the center of the universe.

Jazer · Oct 27, 2011

AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
it must be false right?

You are just as guilty as the people you accuse. For me there is no conflict between religion and science. It is people like you that try and mix up our kids by saying there is a conflict. You have already announced your own reward for your efforts of confusing our young people.

Jazer · Oct 27, 2011

AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
I'll take the side of science.

I am willing to bet your a traitor and will be quick to turn your back on science when science supports the GAP creationism. Not that I know anything about you personal. I just know a lot of so call science people that are quick to reject science. In fact I do not even bring a lot of science up for discussion anymore. The evos fight among themselves to much over what they think they believe. One big areas is that evolution is suppose to be a long slow process. Yet evolution works off of extinctions and explosions. That would seem to be more consistent with creationism. But then you have evos that argue among themselves for Gradualism Vs Punctuated Equilibrium. I do not want to go into a long list of all the contradictions and inconsistencies, but evolution leaves a lot to be desired to say the least. A second area of contention where evos do not agree is if you were to go back to the beginning and do it all over again. Some evos believe everything would be totally different, others believe you will always end up with pretty much the same results no matter where you go in the universe. The laws and the elements remain consistant and the same. So if they can not resolve issues like this among themselves then how do you expect us to go along with their unsubstantiated theorys.

Wiccan_Child · Oct 27, 2011

Jazer said:
I am willing to bet your a traitor and will be quick to turn your back on science when science supports the GAP creationism. Not that I know anything about you personal. I just know a lot of so call science people that are quick to reject science.

That's not exactly right. You assert something is science, we correct you, and you spin 180° and huff that we 'reject science - no, Jazer, we reject your claims to science.

Jazer said:
In fact I do not even bring a lot of science up for discussion anymore. The evos fight among themselves to much over what they think they believe. One big areas is that evolution is suppose to be a long slow process. Yet evolution works off of extinctions and explosions. That would seem to be more consistent with creationism. But then you have evos that argue among themselves for Gradualism Vs Punctuated Equilibrium.

Not really. Punctuated Equilibrium is the standard model for how long-term evolution operates. And even if evolutionists were divided between Equilibriumists and Gradualismists, so what? Science hasn't solved everything, and it progresses by discussion and debate. Scientists debate Graudalism and Punctuated Equilibrium, and a consensus is formed. It works. The fringe details are still discussed, but the meat of evolution has long been established - whether it progresses in fits and bursts or gradual continuity, it has long been established that it happens. So Lord only knows why you think scientific progress somehow denigrates evolution.

Jazer said:
I do not want to go into a long list of all the contradictions and inconsistencies, but evolution leaves a lot to be desired to say the least. A second area of contention where evos do not agree is if you were to go back to the beginning and do it all over again. Some evos believe everything would be totally different, others believe you will always end up with pretty much the same results no matter where you go in the universe. The laws and the elements remain consistant and the same. So if they can not resolve issues like this among themselves then how do you expect us to go along with their unsubstantiated theorys.

Because those details have no bearing on the theory. It's a question that uses evolution as an example, not a core question that determines the veracity of evolution itself. If these are the two best examples of why you should be dubious of evolution, we've got nothing to worry about.

Jazer · Oct 27, 2011

Wiccan_Child said:
That's not exactly right. You assert something is science, we correct you, and you spin 180° and huff that we 'reject science - no, Jazer, we reject your claims to science.

Your on your run away horse again. Let me give you an example of the nonsense. I was reading a very highly rated book on evolution. The basic concept of the book is that cooking food has something to do with evolution. I was amazed at all the people who attacked the book. It has absolutely nothing to with me being in a "huff". It had to do with all the evolutionists that take a stand against evolutionary theory. Esp theory that is universally accepted. I just stand back and observe. In fact for a while I just played evos against each other. I would put something out there and people would be so quick to attack what I said. Then I would tell them that it was Charles Darwin or some well known evo they really said it. All of a sudden they changed there position and agreed with the statement. You must remember because you got caught a few times. The point being why should I be in a "Huff" if evos are attacking each other and fighting like cats and dogs? It just shows how unsubstantiated their theory is. Ok, go ahead give me all your reasons on why is is "healthy" that they fight and disagree with each other so much. Maybe creos should be honored that the evos allow them in on all their family squabbles.

Because those details have no bearing on the theory.

You keep telling yourself that because deception is a part of the game. But for those of us that know the truth you will never get us to believe it.

Wiccan_Child · Oct 27, 2011

Jazer said:
Your on your run away horse again. Let me give you an example of the nonsense. I was reading a very highly rated book on evolution.

What's the title?

Jazer said:
The basic concept of the book is that cooking food has something to do with evolution. I was amazed at all the people who attacked the book. It has absolutely nothing to with me being in a "huff". It had to do with all the evolutionists that take a stand against evolutionary theory. Esp theory that is universally accepted. I just stand back and observe. In fact for a while I just played evos against each other. I would put something out there and people would be so quick to attack what I said. Then I would tell them that it was Charles Darwin or some well known evo they really said it. All of a sudden they changed there position and agreed with the statement. You must remember because you got caught a few times.

I remember you tried that trick once, but I don't remember being caught.

Jazer said:
The point being why should I be in a "Huff" if evos are attacking each other and fighting like cats and dogs? It just shows how unsubstantiated their theory is. Ok, go ahead give me all your reasons on why is is "healthy" that they fight and disagree with each other so much. Maybe creos should be honored that the evos allow them in on all their family squabbles.

I already have. Science progresses by discussion of the evidence, by pitting conflicting ideas against one another. Evolution itself is well established, but that doesn't means its details - whether its goes slow and gradual or in fits and bursts - aren't up for debate. And besides, this is the Internet, do you really expect to get an accurate cross-section of the scientific community, on an online forum?

By your logic, the sheer fact that there are thousands of squabbling denominations of Christian constitutes proof positive that Christianity is false. After all, disagreement amongst the ranks demonstrates the underlying idea is false, right?

Jazer said:
You keep telling yourself that because deception is a part of the game. But for those of us that know the truth you will never get us to believe it.

"You will never get us to believe it". And that, dear lurkers, is what we call 'blind faith'.

Jazer · Oct 27, 2011

Wiccan_Child said:
What's the title?

"Catching Fire How Cooking Made us Human". This is a very highly recommended book by people like: Discovery Magazine, Harvard Brain, NY Times, Washington Post and so on. So if the people here want to argue against them about evolution and what part fire and cooking is a part of evolution. Then I figure I have no business to get involved in the discussion because there is to much disagreement between evolutionists. They just do not get along among themselves. The Atheists discouraged me from learning and doing serious study on Evolution. I did not want to end up where they are at. Even though I otherwise find the subject interesting.

I remember you tried that trick once, but I don't remember being caught.

Is this a challange? Do you not think I can get you even if you know it is coming?

By your logic, the sheer fact that there are thousands of squabbling denominations of Christian constitutes proof positive that Christianity is false.

Swing and a miss, nice try though. People either agree or disagree with the theory or school of thought. YEC's agree with each other. Even though most YEC's are a part of a independant church and may not even be a part of a denomination. Your either YEC or your not. Dispensationists agree with each other. You either agree with the theory or not. But they do not fight among themselves like evos do. Actually I find it more scary just how much they agree with each other and do not question the teaching. There are so many people teaching the left behind concept. Rapture, tribulation, second coming and so on. There are pre, mid and post tribers, but they agree with each other in the theory they endorse. Still for the most part they teach a pre trib rapture and they tend to all agree with each other.

I remember President Reagan talked once about how he was a Christian but he was NOT a fundalmentalist or even a born again christian. He said that he did not endorse that doctorine. Before that I did not see fundalmentalism as a doctorine, but then I began to understand what the President was saying. He was not saying that he was not born again. He was saying he did not accept the born again teaching and the born again doctorine. Perhaps that was a group he did not want to be associated with. Maybe he did not feel that it helped Jimmy Carter any to endorse the born again beliefs. Or to proclaim himself as a born again christian.

Wiccan_Child · Oct 28, 2011

Jazer said:
"Catching Fire How Cooking Made us Human". This is a very highly recommended book by people like: Discovery Magazine, Harvard Brain, NY Times, Washington Post and so on. So if the people here want to argue against them about evolution and what part fire and cooking is a part of evolution. Then I figure I have no business to get involved in the discussion because there is to much disagreement between evolutionists. They just do not get along among themselves. The Atheists discouraged me from learning and doing serious study on Evolution. I did not want to end up where they are at. Even though I otherwise find the subject interesting.

I have no idea what you're on about.

Jazer said:
Is this a challange? Do you not think I can get you even if you know it is coming?

What would you prove if you could?

Jazer said:
Swing and a miss, nice try though. People either agree or disagree with the theory or school of thought. YEC's agree with each other. Even though most YEC's are a part of a independant church and may not even be a part of a denomination. Your either YEC or your not. Dispensationists agree with each other. You either agree with the theory or not.

Inasmuch as they are part of the same group, yes. YECs fight with each other when one adheres to the Christian Young Earth Creationism, and the other with Islamic Young Earth Creationism. 'YEC' is not a single set of beliefs, it's many sets typified by a belief in a young Earth. The same can be said of evolution: the core beliefs are not disputed, merely the fringe unknowns (such as gradualism v punctuated equilibrium, though that's pretty much settled now). YECists bicker over the core details, as do various Christian denominations. That's the difference.

Jazer said:
But they do not fight among themselves like evos do. Actually I find it more scary just how much they agree with each other and do not question the teaching. There are so many people teaching the left behind concept. Rapture, tribulation, second coming and so on. There are pre, mid and post tribers, but they agree with each other in the theory they endorse. Still for the most part they teach a pre trib rapture and they tend to all agree with each other.

So? There are more Christians than just Dispensationalists, and they certainly do disagree on the core issues. This is the main difference between science and religion: in science, different views lead to the formation of hypotheses and experiments, culminating in a consensus-changing demonstration - science progresses from scientists disagreeing with one another. In religion, different views lead to schisms and jealously-held dogmas - nothing of value is achieved.

So moaning about evolutionists barking at each other is erroneous: the only disagreements among evolutionists are the fringe, as-yet-unestablished areas of evolution. The main bulk has long been established. Compare this to Christianity, where every facet and detail is furiously disagreed upon.

Gracchus · Oct 29, 2011

Wiccan_Child said:
In religion, different views lead to schisms and jealously-held dogmas - nothing of value is achieved.

That is not so. It demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of religion, and that is very valuable information, though admittedly, to the "faithful" it is pearls before swine.

AnEmpiricalAgnostic · Nov 3, 2011

Jazer said:
...there is no conflict between religion and science.

Welcome to the debate. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but, if you stick around awhile, you'll find this is only the tip of tip of the iceberg.

AnEmpiricalAgnostic · Nov 3, 2011

Jazer said:
I am willing to bet your a traitor and will be quick to turn your back on science when science supports the GAP creationism.

Biblical Creationism, by definition, involves magic. It is based on supernatural assertions. As such, science can not ever support it. Keep your money... it's a sucker's bet

No Time · Nov 6, 2011

AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
Biblical Creationism, by definition, involves magic. It is based on supernatural assertions. As such, science can not ever support it. Keep your money... it's a sucker's bet

Luckily for the leaders [and their banks] of creationism creationists [of all colours] continue to bet on everything to do with creationism.

Another End of World Prophecy Comes to Pass...

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

Well-Known Member

Jazer

Guest

Jazer

Guest

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

Shark bait hoo ha ha

Jazer

Guest

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

Jazer

Guest

Jazer

Guest

Contributor

Jazer

Guest

Contributor

Jazer

Guest

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

No Time

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency