Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[JohnR7]

And you obviously don't understand what the word "day" means.

Genesis 1:5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Day seems to be the time from sunrise to sunset. Becasue God calls the darkness night.

Genesis 1:16
Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

It would seem that there is a greater and a lesser light, the greater light rules over the day, and the lesser light rules over the night.

I have noticed that they do not seem to be consistant. When the days get longer, then the nights get shorter and when the nights get longer then it seems like the days get shorter.

 

[Nathan Poe]

All except one: it leaves God out of the picture,

You'll find that magnetism also leaves God out of the picture -- or is it the angels who make the needle on the compass point north?

and thus invalidates itself as a viable method of explaining the first six days of earth.

With billions of years to deal with, what's the deal about 6 days?

Speaking of that --- what DOES evolution say about the first 6 days of earth? What happened, say, on Day 4?

Most likely the same things that were happening on day 3 -- evolution is a slow process.

Incidentally, did you know the Earth existed before the Sun did?

According to...?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Genesis 1:16
Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

I have noticed that they do not seem to be consistant. When the days get longer, then the nights get shorter and when the nights get longer then it seems like the days get shorter.

You might also notice that there is no "light" ruling over the night. The Moon is not a light source, but reflects the Sun.

Primative people living 5,000 years ago wouldn't have known that -- you'd think God would have.

 

[JohnR7]

You shouldn't. But since science arguably has more answers than any other form of human learning, those who push it away in faovr of a book filled with ideas from 2,000 years ago are simply not in a position to claim superior knowledge to those familiar with the basics of science.

Do you feel as if there is some kind of a conflict or a disagreement between science and the Bible? Do you feel that in some way science contradicts the Bible or that the Bible is some way contradicts science?

I could help you with your understanding of the Bible. But the problem is that you do not have adaquate understanding of science. People on here point out just about every day, that I am not as qualified to help people with their science as I am to help them understand their Bible. Because I never thought I would have to teach science, so I only prepared myself to be able to teach on the Bible.

Now are you going try to tell me that your science teachers are inadequate to get the job done and they need me to do their work for them? Because your problem seems to be more in your understanding of science then in your understanding of the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

You'll find that magnetism also leaves God out of the picture -- or is it the angels who make the needle on the compass point north?

Magnetism does not attempt to explain how the earth got to its present stage.

With billions of years to deal with, what's the deal about 6 days?

When applied to Creation --- it short-circuits it.

Most likely the same things that were happening on day 3 -- evolution is a slow process.

In other words you don't know.

According to...?

Ya --- that explains it right there. Like Beastt said, "Blind, unsupportable assertion". He hit the nail right on the head --- getting the cause-and-effect in the proper sequence:

"Blind", therefore "unsupportable assertion".

Or, to put it Biblically, "the blind leading the blind".

 

[Beastt]

There is a lot of "evidence" for evolution. But it all still falls into two main groups. The evidence that has been falsifed and the evidence that has not yet been falsified.

There is a lot of "evidence" for the existence of God. But it still falls into two main groups; the evidence that has been falsified and the evidence that has not yet been falsified.

Far to often in practice evos do not make a distinction. They use the "evidence" if it has been falsifed or not.

Far too often in practice, creationists do not make a distinction. They use the "evidence" whether it has been falsified or not. And so far, all evidence presented in support for creationism has been falsified. That's why instead of attempting to support creationism, all we ever see are attacks on evolution. You can't make one thing true by showing another to be false. It's not a binary world. There are more than two from which to choose.

This makes some people angry when they come to realize that they have been lied to and given a lot of evidence that is simply not true.

This makes some people angry when they come to realize that they have been lied to and given a lot of evidence which simply isn't true. They're told that scientist "admit", that they can't "prove" evolution is a "fact". (Two words true science never uses; "prove" and "fact".) In making such a statement, scientists are being purely honest about what science is and what it isn't. But it's not a strike against evolution. It's simply used that way by people who wish to endorse creationism, but realize it has no real evidence by which to be supported. So instead they launch ridiculous attacks against evolution in the hope that somehow, if they can make evolution look less stable than it is, they might, by the same action, provide creationism with the credibility it lacks.

They're told that "many" scientists openly "admit" that evolution is in trouble. They're told that evolution isn't real and are never told of the dozens of fully and properly documented cases of observed and utilized evolution.

For every "evidence" you have there is a rebutal that will show your evidence does not support evolution.

For every "evidence" you have against evolution, there is a well-documented, tested and demonstrated rebutal which shows these PRATTs to be exactly that -- PRATTs. And you know this as well as anyone, John, and that's the reason you keep spouting about non-specific hoaxes and frauds concerning evolution. You know from experience that if you name them specifically, you'll be quickly and soundly refuted just as has happened to you and others like you so many times in the past.

There is a whole lot of people out there that have doubts and they are waiting for that one peice of evidence that will show them one way or the other that evolution is true.

If one can believe based upon close, tested and repeated observation, then they've had their "one piece of evidence" offered up repeatedly. Evolution is true, John. We're not waiting for anything. Medicine uses the predictions of evolution with the expected results. Biology uses evolution with the expected results. The Galapagos Islands offer many hands-on examples of evolution and dozens of properly and fully documented cases of observed speciation also verify it to be true.

Meanwhile, you're taking the same stance the church held up to the mid-1,600s in defending geocentrism, despite all of the evidence for heliocentrism, simply because you have a copy of an old book which makes claims which can't be supported on any credible basis. The church lost so badly in its defense of geocentrism that today, most Christians are unaware that the church ever defended such a position. Of course there are always stragglers who will dig their heels into the sand and refuse to actually look at the evidence. There were then with geocentrism and there are today with creationism. But you'll never win, John. The battle ended a long, long time ago.

Not that it would make all that much differenct to them in their lives. But just like in a who done it mystery,they would like to have the solution to the riddle of is evolution true or not.

You have the solution. The problem is that too many people are taking advantage of the common misconceptions about the proper use of the word "theory". They think as long as it's still called a "theory", that it means it hasn't been established as true yet. But it has, John. It is true. It's in use today because it's true and it works.

And it does make a difference in our lives. If having the proper medications to fight disease makes a difference in your life, then evolution matters. If you subscribe to "harvesting" parts of animals to replace damaged parts of human bodies and having those organs matters to you, then the truth in the Theory of Evolution matters to you.

I think there is a lot of people who would like to know one way or the other. People who otherwise do not even care one way or the other if it's true or not.

Then listen, look and learn. The argument was settled a long, long time ago. The only ones dissatisfied with the outcome are those who stand on religious grounds in their attempts to defeat what has been shown to be reality.

It's over. It's been over for a long, long time. Evolution is as much a "fact" as anything can ever be proclaimed to be "fact". It's more solidly founded that the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Relativity and many other theories with which you take no exception. The only reason you attempt to refute evolution is because it interferes with what you wish to believe about an old book of cultural tales, false claims and ancient traditional beliefs.

 

[JohnR7]

You might also notice that there is no "light" ruling over the night. The Moon is not a light source, but reflects the Sun.

Primative people living 5,000 years ago wouldn't have known that -- you'd think God would have.

Genesis 1:15
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

I do not think the question is what God knows, I think the question is what you know. The Bible is clear that we are talking about "the lights in the firmament". I assume you know what the firmament is.

Yes, we know the greater light is refracted light and the lesser light is reflected light. Jesus is the light of the world and in Him is no darkness. Even though man maybe in the darkness, we are to reflect the light of Jesus.

John 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

There are 152 passages in the Bible that talks about darkness. So you can not really base what you know about darkness on just one passage.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, we know the greater light is refracted light and the lesser light is reflected light. Jesus is the light of the world and in Him is no darkness. Even though man maybe in the darkness, we are to reflect the light of Jesus.

Good point, John.

I wonder what evolution has to say about "sin".

Is there any wonder why people hold so tenaciously to evolution, John?

 

[JohnR7]

There is a lot of "evidence" for the existence of God. But it still falls into two main groups; the evidence that has been falsified and the evidence that has not yet been falsified.

There is a difference though. With God and the Bible there are things that are trustworthy that we know are true. They have been tested, tried and found to be true. There are things that have been accepted as true from the very beginning of the Bible 3500 years ago.

Evolution is not a 3500 year old document. They come up with new ideas all of the time, that have not been proven or established. Yet evos expect us to give the same amount of credit to the unknown and the unsubstantiated as we do everything else.

This is not even sound science to trust in something that has not been tested and found to be true. If your going to build a bridge, then you had better be sure that it's going to work because their are lives that depend on you getting it right.

 

[AV1611VET]

John, would you explain your picture, please?

Is that the Moon in the background, and are you giving a "thumbs up" to Creation?

Is that the camera that took your picture?

 

[JohnR7]

Is there any wonder why people hold so tenaciously to evolution, John?

They cling to it like they would a security blanket. I suppose if you do not believe in God, then you have to believe in something. I do not want to take someones security away from them. But we all need to walk in the truth more than what we do. Yet I think a lot of people here are seeking to know the truth. Why else would they be here if they were not wanting to learn something new?

Perhaps even some of the in your face atheists do not really want to take someone's security away from them. But if they see something that they feel is hindering them, then they want to remove the hinderance.

 

[Beastt]

Do you feel as if there is some kind of a conflict or a disagreement between science and the Bible? Do you feel that in some way science contradicts the Bible or that the Bible is some way contradicts science?

I feel that it's obvious that the Bible makes unsupportable claims. It claims the moon and sun reside in the Earth's atmosphere. It claims the Earth was covered with water before it had an atmosphere. It claims that plants were growing without the sun as a source of heat and light. It claims that water was flowing when the Earth had no relevant source of heat to keep the water above its freezing point. It makes all of those claims on the very first page of the first chapter of Genesis.

So yes, John. The Bible doesn't agree with science because science shows us the temperature of space, it shows us that without a source of thermal energy, the Earth would be roughly the same temperature of space, (2.73°K) and that water, at that temperature, would be well beyond frozen. Science shows us the instrumental affect of an atmosphere in the gathering and retention of water. Science shows us that plants require photosynthesis and photosynthesis requires light.

I could help you with your understanding of the Bible. But the problem is that you do not have adaquate understanding of science.

Someday that will be as funny to me as it likely is to the majority of members on this thread.

People on here point out just about every day, that I am not as qualified to help people with their science as I am to help them understand their Bible. Because I never thought I would have to teach science, so I only prepared myself to be able to teach on the Bible.

And yet you feel you're qualified to rate my understanding of science as lacking. And you do this despite the fact that you continually show yourself to lag far behind most of the people on the forum when it comes to an understanding of even the science basics.

Now are you going try to tell me that your science teachers are inadequate to get the job done and they need me to do their work for them?

Sure, John. Only I've been out of school for a number of decades now. I don't have science teachers in the usual sense of the word. So I rely upon the ideas of such inadequate persons as Einstein, Hawkings, Thorn, Milgrom, Newton, Szostak, Schweitzer, and many others to stay current. I read such newstand rags as Discover and Scientific American montly. So of course I would lag far behind you on scientific topics, despite the fact that I have illustrated for you things of which you have such a limited understanding as to proclaim that they you think of them as a "waste of time".

Because your problem seems to be more in your understanding of science then in your understanding of the Bible.

One might think that after being put in your place on scientific matters more times than I care to count, you might discontinue with this kind of bluffing. The fact is, you've proclaimed many realms of science to be a waste of your time because you think love is more important and that you're going to somehow find love by reading a book, many parts of which focus on the promotion of hatred, vengeance, racism, sexism, killing, rape and anger.

 

[JohnR7]

John, would you explain your picture, please?

It is just a picture my wife took of me. It is over by a little wooden bridge in a small park by the river here. She had my new camera and I was holding my old camera. For some reason I was resting it on my thumb. I do not usually do that, and I do not know why I was doing that here in the photo.

Is that the Moon in the background, and are you giving a "thumbs up" to Creation?

Is that the moon? I can not remember, but I was doing a huge amount of work or some people call it play, in adobe photoshop. I was blending photos together and got into a competition with some people where we would blend up to five or six photos into one photo. In this case I was just blending two photos, one from the hubble camera and one from my camera.

If your interested in my photos I have some at
http://community.webshots.com/user/expojohnr7

Here is one from when I was blending my photos together with old paintings.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is one from when I was blending my photos together with old paintings.

Interesting --- good work!

No offense, she's better looking than you are --- LOL.

 

[Beastt]

All except one: it leaves God out of the picture,

If you can find credible evidence of God, then you have a valid complaint. But if you could, you'd be the first. You can't ask science to explore a concept for which there is no evidence. Science utilizes evidence to proceed. Without evidence there isn't anyplace to go -- nothing to explore. You're only assuming there is a God and yet, you attempt to fault a sound scientific proposition simply because it doesn't support your blind assumption.

Any Muslim could make the same claim about your Bible because it denies Allah as the Creator of the universe. If they're wrong because they can't support that assertion, then you're equally wrong because you can't support yours. They're both blind assumptions.

and thus invalidates itself as a viable method of explaining the first six days of earth.

Evolution doesn't say anything about the first six days of Earth because evolution addresses only the mechanism which lead to the diversity of life on Earth. It would be no more appropriate for it to say anything about the first six days of Earth than to include claims about zoology in a theory of radioactive decay rates.

You should really learn the difference between the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Abiogenesis and theories of planetary creation.

Speaking of that --- what DOES evolution say about the first 6 days of earth? What happened, say, on Day 4?

Again, planetary formation is not the realm of evolution. And how would you define "day 4" in the formation of the Earth? Where do you start the timer? Is it when a gas cloud first begins to form? Is it when that gas cloud draws together into solid matter? Is it when the solid matter begins to take on a spherical shape? At what time do you start the countdown on the formation of a planet?

Incidentally, did you know the Earth existed before the Sun did?

No, and you don't "know" this either. You might believe it because your 2,000 year old book makes such a claim(1). But that claim is part of what exposes the book as a fraud. It claims not only that the Earth existed before the sun, but that plants were growing on Earth before the sun existed(2). And then, when it finally gets around to proclaiming the creation of the sun, it wrongfully places it and the moon within Earth's atmosphere(3).

1 - Genesis 1:1 / Genesis 1:14-16

2 - Genesis 1:11 / Genesis 1:14-16

3 - Genesis 1:14-15

 

[AV1611VET]

...many parts of which focus on the promotion of hatred, vengeance, racism, sexism, killing and anger.

Actually that reads like an Evolutionary Novel.

• Prologue: The Big Explosion
  
  Chapter 1 --- Survival of the Fittest
  
  Chapter 2 --- Dog Eat Dog
  
  Chapter 3 --- Mutations
  
  Chapter 4 --- Our Sun Supernovas
  
  Chapter 5 --- Extinction
  
  Chapter 6 --- Heat Death
  
  Epilogue: What's Next?

 

[Beastt]

Is there any wonder why people hold so tenaciously to evolution, John?

They cling to it like they would a security blanket. I suppose if you do not believe in God, then you have to believe in something. I do not want to take someones security away from them. But we all need to walk in the truth more than what we do. Yet I think a lot of people here are seeking to know the truth. Why else would they be here if they were not wanting to learn something new?

Perhaps even some of the in your face atheists do not really want to take someone's security away from them. But if they see something that they feel is hindering them, then they want to remove the hinderance.

An example of peer-bonding; another evolutionary adaptation and a way to gain security by finding another who shares pertinent beliefs. It's most beneficial when you find your beliefs are being shot down faster than you can attempt to support them, as it provides some level of comfort in the feeling that your arguments don't appear to be failing in the eyes of at least one other person. It helps to buffer the self-esteem and make one feel less dissatisfied about who they are, what they believe and their ability to support those beliefs. It works for all sides of any debate.

It's also a good example of the charcoal calling he snowdrift, "black".

 

[JohnR7]

I feel that it's obvious that the Bible makes unsupportable claims. It claims the moon and sun reside in the Earth's atmosphere.

That is not the claim that the Bible is making. You opinion of the Bible is way to low and so your understanding of the Bible is going to be tainted by that. God created the universe we live in. God created you and He created me. If it were not for God, then we would not be here. Moses spent a lot of time with God. Moses use to go on 40 day fasts and he would go off by himself to a place he had in the mountains. In fact they talk about when Moses was 100 he could still climb the mountain. I do not know exactly what sort of a place he had set up for himself. But he would go off and get alone with God. You and I could do the same thing, if we were willing to make the sacrifices that Moses made. But I am not sure if I am willing to sacrifice myself the way Moses sacrificed himself to be used by God in the way that Moses was used by God.

The information that Moses gives us here. Even though it is 3500 years old, still it comes from God. So it is trustworthy and dependable. The question is, what message does God have in it for us today. When you say that "the moon and sun reside in the Earth's atmosphere" that shows a lack of understanding of science on your part. I was a technical theater major and so I studied the physics of lighting in college. Also I have done photography so I have studied lighting for that. What we photograph is the light. When you make statements like "the moon and sun reside in the Earth's atmosphere" the only thing that does is demonstrate to us your lack of knowledge in this area. The question is, how does the earths atmosphere effect the direct light from the sun, or the reflected light from the moon. I am sure you could find something on the internet that will explain this to you. The bottom line is that the problem is not with the Bible, it is trustworthy and true. Generation after generation of people will testify to that. The problem here is your inadaquate understanding of the Bible. You do not need man to teach you. You can pray and God will teach you though His Holy Spirit, He will open the eyes of your understanding. There is never a end to learning with God. We just go right on learning for the rest of the time we are here. We could never come anywhere close to learning all there is to learn in the Bible. No one can say that for any other book. Most books you read it once and you get all your going to get out of it. But the Bible you could read it 100 times and you still would only just be beginning to understand it's message for us today. The pastor is in his 80's and he says he is just getting started, even though he has been a pastor and a evangelist for over 50 years now.

 

[Beastt]

Actually that reads like an Evolutionary Novel.

• Prologue: The Big Explosion
  
  Chapter 1 --- Survival of the Fittest
  
  Chapter 2 --- Dog Eat Dog
  
  Chapter 3 --- Mutations
  
  Chapter 4 --- Our Sun Supernovas
  
  Chapter 5 --- Extinction
  
  Chapter 6 --- Heat Death
  
  Epilogue: What's Next?

It's all in the Bible, AV1611VET, and you should know that because I've already posted the pertinent scripture to you. So I can only assume that you're saying that an "Evolutionary Novel" and the Bible read the same way. But then we run into problems because you've already claimed they don't. In fact, you said;

Well you'll have to excuse us Christians then, Beastt, because these are NOT Christian principles. All this fighting and inbreeding and struggling to survive goes against God's creation.

The God of the Bible is NOT the God of Evolution --- He never would have sanctioned it.

So which is it? In your opinion, do the Bible and Evolution agree or do they disagree? You seem to be standing on both sides of the fence.

And as far as your chapter list goes, you fumbled right out of the gate by writing, "Chapter 1 --- Survival of the Fittest". It would appear that you're just posting and not reading responses, perhaps in fear that you'll learn something you don't wish to know. I covered this in post #167, directly above your post where you state that God would never have sanctioned evolution.

Let me start with the last part; "survival of the fittest". That's probably the most wide-spread of the misconceptions concerning evolution. Darwin never said that nor does the theory endorse that. What Darwin said was, "In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment."

It seems you have two choices. Either God did sanction Evolution or he didn't. But since Evolution is a part of reality, if he didn't, it's only because he doesn't exist. And if you believe he exists, then welcome to theistic evolution.

 

[JohnR7]

And example of peer-bonding;

I have no problem with people staying in their comfort zone, but I wonder. What about the really great men of science. Darwin for example. Were his ideas new and radical and not accepted at first?

I remember reading a story about a man who proposed that doctors should wash their hands before an operation. This was a new idea that was not accepted at first and he even got fired from his job because of it.

He lectured publicly about his results in 1850, however, the reception by the medical community was cold, if not hostile. http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blantisceptics.htm