Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[AV1611VET]

I have asked av on many occasions to produce instances where the bible comes to a scientific conclusion before science does but that question is always answered with silence.

You mean silence --- as in --- the universe expanding, or Amos calling the Pleiades the "seven stars", instead of the "six stars"? Or David mentioning submarine ocean currents?

Unless you show me a theological scholar that agrees with your interpretations that these mean what you say they mean, its just you following in the footsteps of what science has already descoverd.

You conveniently left out your disclaimer in your original challenge. Maybe in the future you can tell me ahead of time what you will not accept as an answer, so we can save each other some time. HOWEVER, I have a feeling you (and others) get a kick out of turning away doctrinal answers, so I don't expect an imporovement in your style anytime soon.

 

[MoonLancer]

You conveniently left out your disclaimer in your original challenge. Maybe in the future you can tell me ahead of time what you will not accept as an answer, so we can save each other some time. HOWEVER, I have a feeling you (and others) get a kick out of turning away doctrinal answers, so I don't expect an imporovement in your style anytime soon.

I dont think i did, but maybe i was not clear enough.

2. Can you name me a person for theological reasons who predicted any specific feature of the big bang theory?

Of course said source would have have to come before the scientific source, otherwise its a case of interpreting after the fact, which is all too common.

I have asked av on many occasions to produce instances where the bible comes to a scientific conclusion before science does but that question is always answered with silence. To my knowledge no theological christian thinker has used the bible as a source for understanding the universe before a scientist using the scientific method discovered it first. anything already known to the people of long ago would not count, as this would be a case of the bible simply recording what is already known.

edit!

I think this is a case of you reading too fast and jumping the gun. I think i was very clear about the need to show that others interpret the bible in a specific way, before yourself and before said scientific discovery.

 

[Chalnoth]

1. It does not take a dominance, only existence. And, the word "light" is the best single word to represent anything and everything at the beginning of the big bang.

There was effectively zero electromagnetic radiation during inflation (i.e. it was diluted so far that you'd be unlikely to find a single photon from that era within our universe).

2. No (my ignorance). But that is not the point. Words in Gen. 1 do not need any testimony from anyone. For thousands of years, people had slightest idea on what kind of science it says. But that does not mean it is wrong.

Hey, you were the one arguing that they had something to offer our scientific understanding. If this is so, well, those words have been around for around 2500-3000 years, so why haven't they offered anything to our understanding of the natural world?

You don't have to argue on the precision of word used in Gen. 1. It is not a science book. I said, many correct scientific concepts/implications are included in Gen. 1. You want one example, you got one. There is no need to pick on its precision.

Yes there is. Because any untrue myth can be mined for some statement or other that sorta kinda accords with reality. So if we are to distinguish mere chance alignment from actual insight into reality, we have to have a modicum of reservation, and make sure that there aren't other, simpler explanations.

 

[juvenissun]

That's the point really. The bible has a lot of poetry. In order to affirm that what it says is what its intended mean is, we deffer to scholars and theologians of the past. I don't know of any instance where the bible clearly describes something about the natural world that couldn't have been known at the time.

Its important that we understand how people of the time interpreted the text, as it removes the urge to reinterpret the bible today giving passages meanings they never had.

AV is very guilty of this. That's why I ask for other sources that validate his claim. Otherwise its likely a case of him twisting the meaning improperly to win an argument.

If the Bible says: ABCD.
Earlier people understood it as XYZU (may be many versions)
Modern science read "the same words" and understand it as MNOP.

I don't see anything wrong with both interpretations of XYZU and MNOP. This is the transcendent nature of the Bible. The critical point is that the ABCD precisely describes the modern science knowledge of MNOP.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes there is. Because any untrue myth can be mined for some statement or other that sorta kinda accords with reality. So if we are to distinguish mere chance alignment from actual insight into reality, we have to have a modicum of reservation, and make sure that there aren't other, simpler explanations.

So, what's said in the Bible "happened" to be "somewhat" consistent with the modern science understanding.

If you agreed with that, then the argument is settled.

 

[Chalnoth]

So, what's said in the Bible "happened" to be "somewhat" consistent with the modern science understanding.

If you agreed with that, then the argument is settled.

It's only consistent in a horribly superficial sense, and only if you ignore the blatant inconsistencies. For example, I've already shown you where the "light first" idea is nonsense, because we can detect an imprint of the universe from before the light was produced (inflation).

Things get much, much worse when you go further in to Genesis 1, where God has creatures being created out of whole cloth, which certainly did not happen, and in a very different order from the way they actually appeared.

 

[juvenissun]

It's only consistent in a horribly superficial sense, and only if you ignore the blatant inconsistencies. For example, I've already shown you where the "light first" idea is nonsense, because we can detect an imprint of the universe from before the light was produced (inflation).

Light is described in verse 3. Could the verse 2 describe the status before the inflation? How would you describe the condition with only one common word? Are the "two" words used in verse 2 ("tohuw" and "bohuw") helpful in the description? Are these two words the best words to use? If not, what other words could be used? If more than two words are needed, could you use 10 words to make a better description?

 

[juvenissun]

It's only consistent in a horribly superficial sense, and only if you ignore the blatant inconsistencies. For example, I've already shown you where the "light first" idea is nonsense, because we can detect an imprint of the universe from before the light was produced (inflation).

Things get much, much worse when you go further in to Genesis 1, where God has creatures being created out of whole cloth, which certainly did not happen, and in a very different order from the way they actually appeared.

As a scientist, if you are truly criticizing the Bible from the scientific point of view, I am with you and am glad to talk to you.

But as I can read from many of your posts, you are quite emotional (or biased) in your criticism. I can see your purpose is not to discuss, but is trying to humiliate. You would have no chance to learn with such an attitude.

 

[Chalnoth]

Light is described in verse 3. Could the verse 2 describe the status before the inflation? How would you describe the condition with only one common word? Are the "two" words used in verse 2 ("tohuw" and "bohuw") helpful in the description? Are these two words the best words to use? If not, what other words could be used? If more than two words are needed, could you use 10 words to make a better description?

Verse 2 is talking about how the Earth was formless and empty. There simply was nothing that could be considered the Earth, in any way, shape, or form, during inflation. So absolutely not.

 

[Chalnoth]

As a scientist, if you are truly criticizing the Bible from the scientific point of view, I am with you and am glad to talk to you.

But as I can read from many of your posts, you are quite emotional (or biased) in your criticism. I can see your purpose is not to discuss, but is trying to humiliate. You would have no chance to learn with such an attitude.

I find it amusing that you think I need to "learn" about these things. I was a Christian until I was about 21 years old. I believed it all, from the young Earth, to special creation, to the many miracles in the Bible. When I realized that not only were those beliefs strongly contradicted by very simple observation (in multiple sciences), but also that the religious leaders who espoused them had no standards of evidence whatsoever, I discarded them. I realized that not only did I have no reason to believe those things, but neither did anybody else. Since then, as I've delved into the various arguments that people have for their religions, and seen quite a variety of them, I am more convinced than ever that nobody has a good reason to believe.

And my purpose is not to humiliate at all, but simply to present my arguments without compromise. If you find that humiliating, then that is only because your position has no ground to stand upon.

 

[MoonLancer]

If the Bible says: ABCD.
Earlier people understood it as XYZU (may be many versions)
Modern science read "the same words" and understand it as MNOP.

I don't see anything wrong with both interpretations of XYZU and MNOP. This is the transcendent nature of the Bible. The critical point is that the ABCD precisely describes the modern science knowledge of MNOP.

modern science has nothing to do with the bible

You dont see anything wrong with people changing the meaning of the bible and twist what what it actually says into what you want it to say for the purpose claiming the bible makes truthful claims about the universe, when it does not?

Your your supposed to show me about honesty and truth? HA!

 

[AV1611VET]

modern science has nothing to do with the bible

Except when they name things after Eve, or delve into the power of prayer, or some other such discovery or area of testing.

Once in awhile, I notice that they even mention passages in the Scriptures when making one of their have-nothing-to-do-with-the-bible discoveries.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Except when they name things after Eve,

There's a species of Florida rabbit named after Playboy founder Hugh M. Hefner.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Sylvilagus_palustris.html

or delve into the power of prayer,

Almost every pharmaceutical test is accompanied by a placebo as a control.

or some other such discovery or area of testing.

Such as?

Once in awhile, I notice that they even mention passages in the Scriptures when making one of their have-nothing-to-do-with-the-bible discoveries.

I've noticed they also mention passages from Shakespeare -- I've also noticed how many references to Greek mythology there are.

 

[MoonLancer]

Except when they name things after Eve, or delve into the power of prayer, or some other such discovery or area of testing.

Once in awhile, I notice that they even mention passages in the Scriptures when making one of their have-nothing-to-do-with-the-bible discoveries.

literature as inspiration. i don't see that as a problem

 

[juvenissun]

Verse 2 is talking about how the Earth was formless and empty. There simply was nothing that could be considered the Earth, in any way, shape, or form, during inflation. So absolutely not.

What if we assumed to replace the earth by our universe? Or, if you insist, the earth was "a part" of the universe. So the description of the universe also applied to the earth.

 

[juvenissun]

I

find it amusing that you think I need to "learn" about these things. I was a Christian until I was about 21 years old.

I am not dumber than you. But I started to consider Christianity in my 25 years old. Thirty years passed, I am still learning.

An analogy is that you had an introduction course in Christianity. And you stopped there and refused to take any higher level courses due to the mounting unanswered questions you posed in that course. If you are so smart to make the final call by just finishing a 101 course, then you are saying that all professors in all seminaries are like monkeys.

And my purpose is not to humiliate at all, but simply to present my arguments without compromise.

That is fine. Then stop using humiliating words.

 

[juvenissun]

modern science has nothing to do with the bible

You dont see anything wrong with people changing the meaning of the bible and twist what what it actually says into what you want it to say for the purpose claiming the bible makes truthful claims about the universe, when it does not?

Your your supposed to show me about honesty and truth? HA!

But, the Bible describes features discovered by modern science. A small analogy is the Mayan calendar.
Straight forward description. No twist, no distortion.
The one I am talking to Chalnoth is an example. There are better examples.

 

[Chalnoth]

What if we assumed to replace the earth by our universe? Or, if you insist, the earth was "a part" of the universe. So the description of the universe also applied to the earth.

Except the Earth did not exist at that time. The Earth didn't form until around 4.5 billion years ago, from heavier elements that had been cooking in stars for a few billion years.

Look, this creation myth makes perfect sense when you just read it simply, and accept that it was a primitive myth penned by a primitive people. Then it's obvious what it's saying: they believed that the Earth, Sun, Moon, and a few thousand stars made up the entire universe. They believed that the Earth was of primary importance among these, and so had it created first. Only later were the other objects created.

But it makes no sense whatsoever when you compare it against the history of the universe. Sure, you can take a sentence here or a phrase there out of context and see how it kinda sorta sounds like it might be talking about something that actually happened. But once you look at the context, it's immediately clear that it is talking about something else entirely.

For example, when God said, "let there be light," the context makes it quite clear that the text is talking about simple illumination. By contrast, when the early universe first became dominated by radiation, the temperature would have been well in excess of ten quadrillion Kelvin (10^16 K). No simple illumination this, but a temperature the likes of which hasn't been seen since, a temperature hot enough to cause the nuclei of atoms to evaporate.

Furthermore, the text is talking about light specifically, but the energy at that time would have been distributed across a broad range of standard model particles, such as quarks, electrons, muons, gluons, and others. The actual energy in photons would have been quite small compared to these others, but we call it "radiation dominated" because as far as how they effect the expansion of the universe, they would have acted at those high temperatures just like photons act.

I am not dumber than you. But I started to consider Christianity in my 25 years old. Thirty years passed, I am still learning.

Oh, I'm still learning too. I just don't think theology has anything of interest to offer me, so until they can actually present evidence, I see no reason to bother learning more in this particular area. I will naturally continue to pick up odds and ends here just due to discussions, but I see no reason to actively spend my time learning more when there is no reason to believe that any of it is of relevance to reality. My time is much better spent learning things relevant to my life and my work.

That is fine. Then stop using humiliating words.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

They believed that the Earth was of primary importance among these, and so had it created first. Only later were the other objects created.

Then they must have believed the whales were more important than themselves.

Oh, I'm still learning too. I just don't think theology has anything of interest to offer me, so until they can actually present evidence, I see no reason to bother learning more in this particular area. I will naturally continue to pick up odds and ends here just due to discussions, but I see no reason to actively spend my time learning more when there is no reason to believe that any of it is of relevance to reality.

None of that "Husbands, love your wifes" stuff for me, is there?

Nope --- until love can be reduced to a formula and changed into machine language, only science matters, eh?

 

[Chalnoth]

None of that "Husbands, love your wifes" stuff for me, is there?

I don't think the Bible has anything to offer of value for morality. The moral values found in the Bible are at times horrendous, at times decent. I'm much better off just relying upon my own moral compass combined with logic.