Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[mzungu]

Needed God to create it.

Where on earth did you get that idea? Does the Bible specifically say that God created Gravity?

 

[Upisoft]

Where on earth did you get that idea? Does the Bible specifically say that God created Gravity?

If it has potential to kill people then God did it. Because He is so loving.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where on earth did you get that idea? Does the Bible specifically say that God created Gravity?

Ever heard of the Fall?

 

[mzungu]

Ever heard of the Fall?

The "Fall" is referring to "Falling from Grace" and not falling as in " an apple falls". The Bible does not mention God creating Gravity.

I have no problem with Biblical literalism but when one makes up something to suit his religious beliefs for the sole purpose of dismissing science, then I find that as being insincere!

I also know that the Bible specifically forbids one from interpreting the word to his liking.

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

 

[AV1611VET]

The "Fall" is referring to "Falling from Grace" and not falling as in " an apple falls". The Bible does not mention God creating Gravity.

I hope you saw the humor in my reply --

I have no problem with Biblical literalism but when one makes up something to suit his religious beliefs for the sole purpose of dismissing science, then I find that as being insincere!

I think 'insincere' is too strong a term. I believe if one 'makes up something' to subordinate science to Scripture, then that's his prerogative.

The alternative, of course, is just to pull rank and say, 'God did it' all the time, and that would be that.

As I have pointed out many times before, you guys don't ask questions covered in the Scriptures (you know better), you ask questions not specifically covered in the Scriptures, then whine when we speculate.

Even just recently here, a newbie showed up, admitted he hadn't read the Bible, then, just by coincidence (rolls eyes), asked questions that weren't expressly covered in the Scriptures.

(He later admitted he did read the Bible -- but it's been a long time since he had. You guys are as see-through as a new window pane.)

I like the faux pas, where someone comes on here, thinking he's cute, and demands to know the events at the tomb on Resurrection day, thinking the Scriptures contradict Themselves, only to find that Scofield settled that PRATT a long time ago.

 

[sandwiches]

Wrong.
Gravity existed before science.
Science did not invent gravity.
Just observed it.
Needed God to create it.

Focus. The original point of our little tangent was about 'axioms.' at no point was the axiom of a god existing useful in our deduction regarding whether we could fly or not. In other words, whether we accepted the god axiom or not, we arrived to the same conclusion.

 

[sandwiches]

The alternative, of course, is just to pull rank and say, 'God did it' all the time, and that would be that.

In your case 'pulling rank' merely means you don't know and deciding to stay ignorant, which is fine if that's your thing. Just don't expect everyone else to stagnate with you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I hope you saw the humor in my reply --

Lacking a point, humor is all there was.

lacking humor, the reply was a waste of bandwidth.

I think 'insincere' is too strong a term. I believe if one 'makes up something' to subordinate science to Scripture, then that's his prerogative.

So, lying for the Bible is ok, then?

The alternative, of course, is just to pull rank and say, 'God did it' all the time, and that would be that.

The other alternative is to show humility.

 

[lucaspa]

There's four ways to reconcile the facts:
1) The Creation account and possibly the genealogies are not literally true.

Duh! The text shows us that.

2) Just like we can design things via an evolutionary algorithm, that is the method God used to design us. He thought it all through in his mind, then poofed it into existence per the Genesis account timeline. This will match, be consistent with, and predict, all possible evidence for a theory of evolution, but could be faulted for not following Occam's Razor.

This will not be consistent. By poofing it into existence, God is using a manufacturing process not present on earth. Evolution says that the physical processes are all that is needed for a manufacturing process.

The Genesis timeline doesn't accord with the data from evolution. For instance, Genesis has whales and birds before land animals. We know from the fossil record that this is false.

Ockham's Razor cannot be used for evaluating theories. The Razor originally was for how to describe phenomenon. Ockham's example was the contemporary "objects move because of an impetus." Ockham pointed out that the "because of an impetus" was not necessary to describe "an object moves". All that was needed for that was change in position over time.

3) A global conspiracy in which the people who spend their lives searching for new knowledge, and have frequent bitter disputes over the veracity or correctness of the most trivial-looking facts, have somehow managed to put aside their differences and propagate a false theory and all of them keeping to that despite the constant questioning from creationists.

This of course ignores that there was a global conspiracy to refute the reigning scientific theory -- creationism -- in the early 1800s.

4) Scientists are really stupid and easily fooled, but luckily you are not and you know the truth and they're all dumb and mislead.

That certainly appeals to AV's vanity.

 

[lucaspa]

So, like I said, the god axiom was useless in helping us determine anything. Science helped us again.

That turns out not to be the case. It was Judeo-Christianity that got science to reject "gaps" and keep looking for an explanation. The "god axiom" led to the conclusion that God created a complete universe without gaps.

It was Judeo-Christianity that provided the essential 5 assumptions about the nature of the physical universe in order to do modern science in the first place. Those assumptions about the universe are conclusions based upon the nature of God.

Many philosophers of science say that it is impossible to look at data in the absence of a hypothesis. Inspiration from the Bible provided the initial hypothesis of creationism used to test geological, fossil, and biological data. In showing creationism to be wrong, science was able to move on to better hypotheses.

 

[lucaspa]

Please show me conclusive evidence (that means testable and repeatable) that reality other than physical exists, including methods by which we can test it and repeat its effects.

The reason that evidence does not exist is because science is unable to test for it. It's a limitation of science called methodological materialism. This limits science to looking ONLY at the "physical" or "material" or "natural".

But it also limits science in the comments it can make about the existence of the spiritual. Science can't tell you it does not exist.

Your demand is like asking me to show evidence of mitochondria but the only instrument I have is the Hubble Telescope.

 

[Hespera]

The Genesis timeline doesn't accord with the data from evolution. For instance, Genesis has whales and birds before land animals. We know from the fossil record that this is false

.

Thats one reason i dont believe much of what the bible says.

This of course ignores that there was a global conspiracy to refute the reigning scientific theory -- creationism -- in the early 1800

s.

We hear that conspiracy has never broken even all these years later.
i suspect the illuminati.

 

[lucaspa]

Based on the fact you do not know what it was like so who cares what you assume! I do not need to do a lot of assuming, I have the records.

First, as I have pointed out, we do know what the past was like, because the past leaves evidence that we can see now. The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. Unless you try to get rid of cause and effect.

"the records" you are trying to use were never meant as historical records. They are theological records.

Our world that exhibits different state qualities as soon as the spiritual is applied on a local situation. (like the loaves and fishes).

Our world does NOT exhibit different state qualities as a result of most miracles. The miracle of the loaves and fishes left no premanent evidence, did it? They picked up the leftovers and it rotted away into soil, which was then eroded or used to grow crops. No leftover loaves and fishes to our time.

So you are using an apples and oranges comparison. Yes, science neither confirms nor denies the miracle of the loaves and fishes, or the healings, or Lazarus, or the resurrection. BUT, those aren't the miracles you are talking about. You are talking about miracles that would have changed the state of the world, such as a world-wide flood. That would leave physical evidence that would persist to our time.

They all start out assuming present laws anyhow. So naturally they will be wrong in concert. Very circular and in box.

It's not circular because it is a conclusion that what we see now operated in the past. If it was very different, then the present would be different.

Isochron dating assumes nothing. What's more, the method has internal checks that would show if things were radically different in the past.

Try to get this straight, same state dating is flushed forever. Worthless. Until you FIRST prove a same state past, you can't use it.

But the same state past can be proved. Changing the state in the past leaves physical evidence today. For instance, if radioactive decay worked as fast in the past as it would have to in order to produce a 10,000 year old or less earth, then the heat released would result in a molten planet. Is the earth molten? NO! Is the heat in the earth consistent with the present rates of decay and the observed loss of heat to space? YES. There's your proof.

BTW, your quote about uniformitarianism is wrong. Uniformitarianism states that the processes we observe in action today would, if operating thru the planet's history, produce the geological features we see today.

 

[Hespera]

The reason that evidence does not exist is because science is unable to test for it. It's a limitation of science called methodological materialism. This limits science to looking ONLY at the "physical" or "material" or "natural".

But it also limits science in the comments it can make about the existence of the spiritual. Science can't tell you it does not exist.

Your demand is like asking me to show evidence of mitochondria but the only instrument I have is the Hubble Telescope.

The reason that evidence does not exist is because science is unable to test for it

And how do you know this? I think the evidence does not exist for the reason that it does not exist.

science can't tell you it does not exist.

i wish there were a rule against using the "cant prove a negative" argument.

 

[sandwiches]

That turns out not to be the case. It was Judeo-Christianity that got science to reject "gaps" and keep looking for an explanation. The "god axiom" led to the conclusion that God created a complete universe without gaps.

It was Judeo-Christianity that provided the essential 5 assumptions about the nature of the physical universe in order to do modern science in the first place. Those assumptions about the universe are conclusions based upon the nature of God.

Many philosophers of science say that it is impossible to look at data in the absence of a hypothesis. Inspiration from the Bible provided the initial hypothesis of creationism used to test geological, fossil, and biological data. In showing creationism to be wrong, science was able to move on to better hypotheses.

This is pretty interesting. I think I remember you mentioning this before. Any books or links or anything on this subject that explains this a bit more fully?

 

[AV1611VET]

In your case 'pulling rank' merely means you don't know and deciding to stay ignorant, which is fine if that's your thing. Just don't expect everyone else to stagnate with you.

You've already 'stagnated' -- remember.

You guys are the ones asking questions that aren't covered by the Scriptures -- and that means you don't know, either.

The difference is, I'm willing to take an educated guess at an answer; which probably surprises some of you guys, since you were expecting an, "I don't know".

 

[AV1611VET]

The other alternative is to show humility.

I don't really feel obligated to display humility when someone tries to force it out of me.

Asking me where I think the water from the Flood went, with the intention of getting me to say, "I don't know", so you can come back with, "Then until you do, I'll take the Flood story with a grain of salt," doesn't cut it.

If you're going to take the Flood story with a grain of salt, do it because you're an unbeliever, not because I'm ignorant.

 

[dad]

First, as I have pointed out, we do know what the past was like, because the past leaves evidence that we can see now. The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. Unless you try to get rid of cause and effect.

You may have mentioned something somewhere about your opinion on this matter. However that is absurd if one thinks about it, and not supported in any way.

"the records" you are trying to use were never meant as historical records. They are theological records.

Says you. Jesus doesn't agree, nor anyone that was anyone. Heaven and earth will pass away, at least the version you are familiar with. But His words will still be here. Always. Vague unsupported attempts to belittle it are useless.

Our world does NOT exhibit different state qualities as a result of most miracles. The miracle of the loaves and fishes left no premanent evidence, did it?

Then you mean that the present still remains the present physical only state AFTER the miracles is over. No news there! What, you thought every miracle would alter the laws of the whole universe??? Makes no sense to the thinking man.

So you are using an apples and oranges comparison. Yes, science neither confirms nor denies the miracle of the loaves and fishes, or the healings, or Lazarus, or the resurrection.

Because it can't! So?

BUT, those aren't the miracles you are talking about. You are talking about miracles that would have changed the state of the world, such as a world-wide flood. That would leave physical evidence that would persist to our time.

No, I was talking also about how miracles are real science experiments! So many, and each one demonstrating different reactions to the physical only state world, when applied locally.

In the future, when nature itself accommodates the spiritual, then you would consider everything a miracle from this temporal world vantage point. That just shows how limited present science is.

It's not circular because it is a conclusion that what we see now operated in the past. If it was very different, then the present would be different.

Circular! If you first assume a different state past, then the same thing applies.

Isochron dating assumes nothing. What's more, the method has internal checks that would show if things were radically different in the past.

If you honestly believed that wrong claim, be educated. Cheers.

"All forms of isochron dating assume that the source of the rock or rocks contained unknown amounts of both radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element, along with some amount of the parent nuclide..."

Isochron dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It doesn't get any more dyed in the woll same state belief based that that!!!

But the same state past can be proved. Changing the state in the past leaves physical evidence today. For instance, if radioactive decay worked as fast in the past as it would have to in order to produce a 10,000 year old or less earth, then the heat released would result in a molten planet.

What if there was none? Got proof there was any? If it started with our state, that would neuter your claims somethin fierce.

BTW, your quote about uniformitarianism is wrong. Uniformitarianism states that the processes we observe in action today would, if operating thru the planet's history, produce the geological features we see today.

Tomato...tomatoe

 

[AV1611VET]

In showing creationism to be wrong, science was able to move on to better hypotheses.

That's not going to happen this side of the Rapture.

 

[dad]

The Genesis timeline doesn't accord with the data from evolution. For instance, Genesis has whales and birds before land animals. We know from the fossil record that this is false.
.

False. You do not know any such thing.