Creationism and life in general

[rossum]

What exactly do you mean by that???

It helps everyone if you use the “Quote” button in each post to quote whatever it is you are replying to. Otherwise it can be difficult to tell what you are asking of whom, as in this case.

The answer is 42.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Correcto. Except Meyer is being put forward as having a scientific hypothesis while Dawkins isn’t.

I haven’t read Meyer but I do know that Dawkins claims to be scientific and exceeds his brief.

 

[Jon_Leveille]

Look at the top right of my posts, it says “Buddhist”. Others have different designations, many are indeed Christian.

There is no necessary incompatibility between evolution and Christianity. Some Christians accept evolution: Francis Collins, Keith Miller and Ken Miller for example. Other Christians do not.

References please.

You cannot simulate evolution then either. Your computer would need to be the size of the Earth and run for billions of years. A computer simulation generally only simulates part of what is being simulated. Your argument fails either way. If a partial simulation of evolution implies ID then God is also designed. If only a complete simulation implies ID then there has never been a complete simulation of evolution so there is no implication of ID.

Not all interpretations of the Bible adhere to your six day timetable. Saint Augustine had creation taking place instantaneously, not as long as six days. Much closer to what we now know as the Big Bang.

Origen also disagreed with six days: “What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?”

We are agreed that just because one part of a book is shown to be true it does not mean that all other parts of that book are also true. Each part needs to be examined on its merits.

As to disproving part of the Bible, Genesis 1:6-8And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Where is this waterproof layer in the sky that separates the waters from the waters? We know from Genesis 1:17 that this firmament is in the solar system because it is associated with the sun and the moon. Where is this firmament? What is it made of?

So far all scientific investigations have disproved the existence of any waterproof layer in the sky.

rossum

1. I know that there are others besides Christians on this website, but I was only posting to those professing christians, that were trying to show evolution’s compatibility with the Bible.
   2.Many would argue that Hitler was a Christian, I do not believe so. Also, anyone can be wrong. There are thousands of christian Creation scientists.
2. Here are a few of the sources: britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/c/cylinder_of_nabonidus.aspx
   lclane2.net/chimps.html
   google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CBwQFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livescience.com%2F1411-monkey-dna-points-common-human-ancestor.html&ei=3DsCTqRWwpKBB8OtrM4N&usg=AFQjCNF2whf6acDcF4OBqMm4Si8mpQLsog&sig2=q6ogxLG_VuIrsSnJXofv0g
   wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/exploring-the-g/
   news.softpedia.com/news/How-Much-DNA-Do-We-Share-With-the-Chimps-40594.shtml
   4.The point is that you cannot create a computer program, to do something, without influencing it from your point of view, Scientists believe that science proves evolution, therefore they make a computer program that “proves” evolution. A Creationist, could make one that “proves” Creation.
3. Anyone can be wrong, the Bible states that God made the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh. It does not matter who tries to change God’s words, they still mean the same thing!
4. People, were not around before the earth was created, and therefore they cannot say for certain which way it happened, intelligent or not.
5. Very True
6. Have you ever read about the Flood, many Creation scientists believe that this canopy, was the “windows of heaven” that poured down from the sky, and that it was either completely gone after the flood, or it slowly dissipated throughout the years, which would be one explanation for the dissipating age of men throughout the Bible.

P.S. I am sorry if I was rude or offended anyone, with my posts, I had a bad week, and I just took it out on others. Will you forgive me??
May God Bless Your Day

 

[Jon_Leveille]

It helps everyone if you use the “Quote” button in each post to quote whatever it is you are replying to. Otherwise it can be difficult to tell what you are asking of whom, as in this case.

The answer is 42.

rossum

Okay!!
Sorry, I’m still lost, of what exactly are we speaking???

 

[ricmat]

Looking inside the copy on Amazon, not 100 pages of bibliography and by no means all of them peer reviewed papers.

Notes (including referenced articles) start on page 509, continues on to the bibliography which ends on page 595. So I’m off by a few pages. That’s more exact than any timeline in evolutionary theory…

Today Amazon.com announced their bestselling books of 2009 and Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne) by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer made the top ten in the science category. According to Amazon.com, books on its 2009 list of best sellers are “[r]anked according to customer orders through October. Only books published for the first time in 2009 are eligible.” - evolutionnews.org/2009/11/intelligent_design_book_cracks028321.html

“Mass market.” I thought you meant intended for non-technical types. I didn’t realize you meant best seller. Yes, it’s a best seller. No, it’s not intended for non-technical types - although there are some introductory chapters.

You mentioned Meyer’s book as containing a scientific hypothesis relating to "14 billion years is about 39,000 orders of magnitude too short" for evolution. But the world took no notice of this devastating blow to the ToE, I wonder why. And Mayer never dared put a paper up for peer review, I wonder why. At times it’s real easy to know that isn’t true.

What isn’t true is your statement above.

Here is what you said on a previous post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by inocente
I take the opposite road - imho evolution is an extraordinarily intelligent way to design. For one, our messy mix of emotional and rational thought with all its faults is breathtaking compared to any computer. If our minds were well-designed with no emergent properties we might never have been able to relate to God.

And this was my response:

I won’t argue that it couldn’t work given enough time. But the facts seem to indicate that 14 billion years is about 39,000 orders of magnitude too short…

Has nothing to do with Meyer.

 

[ricmat]

It seems that we constantly throw out terms like “creationist”, “darwinism”, etc. and quite often there is no consensus about what that really means. I came across the following on-line introduction to the book “God and Evolution”. This is a PDF download link.

Starting on page 17 there is a listing of “terms to keep straight.” Reviewing this table I think would be beneficial to us all. And if there is disagreement on exactly how the table defines things, that would also be useful to know.

I don’t expect that everybody would agree with the article, but reviewing the terms might lead to less useless argumentation. Just a suggestion

 

[edwest2]

Thomas Aquinas telling us how scripture should be understood:

"Objection 3: Further, all that was made in the six days was formed out of matter created before days began. But the firmament cannot have been formed out of pre-existing matter, for if so it would be liable to generation and corruption. Therefore the firmament was not made on the second day.

"On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 1:6): “God said: let there be a firmament,” and further on (verse 8); “And the evening and morning were the second day.”

“I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

The key words are “proved with certainty.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[inocente]

I haven’t read Meyer but I do know that Dawkins claims to be scientific and exceeds his brief.

Yes, when Dawkins is ranting against theists he’s not doing science, when he publishes papers in the Royal Society he is.

A while back lots of Christians got windy when Stephen Hawking wrote a book apparently saying God isn’t needed no more but he was speculating in the way cab drivers do, again he wasn’t doing science at the time.

Unfortunately lots of Christians get taken in by “science” books, especially “science” books that come up with answers we like, even when they’re not written by scientists. But science is about skeptically following the train of evidence, not about respecting authorities or logical sounding arguments. In science the easiest person to fool is our self.

Perhaps we should put together a Catholic Answers crib page on how to read natural science, it might put a lot of stuff to bed.

 

[inocente]

Notes (including referenced articles) start on page 509, continues on to the bibliography which ends on page 595.

But references in the notes are duplicated in the bibliography.

Has nothing to do with Meyer.

In that case could you point me at where I can find the hypothesis that “14 billion years is about 39,000 orders of magnitude too short” for evolution? Thanks.

 

[rossum]

There are thousands of christian Creation scientists.

The DI only has 800 or so on its list.

Here are a few of the sources: lclane2.net/chimps.html

You would do better to use a more recent source, the Chimp genome was sequenced by 2005. This piece appears to be around 2001 or so. Your other sources on chimps are fine as far as they go, though it is better where possible to refer to the underlying scientific paper rather than to the science press.

The point is that you cannot create a computer program, to do something, without influencing it from your point of view, Scientists believe that science proves evolution, therefore they make a computer program that “proves” evolution. A Creationist, could make one that “proves” Creation.

Which goes to support my point that a computer program about evolution does not actually “prove” anything about evolution. The existence of a designed computer program does not mean that the object being modelled is itself designed.

Anyone can be wrong, the Bible states that God made the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh. It does not matter who tries to change God’s words, they still mean the same thing!

The Bible states that there is a waterproof layer in the solar system. Genesis 1:6-8 and Genesis 1:17. Unless and until you can show me evidence of this waterproof layer then I will consider the Bible to be scientifically unreliable. There are many different interpretations of the Bible, witness the number of different Christian groups. Some of those interpretations have to be wrong. The Young Earth interpretation is very badly wrong. It is scientifically illiterate and only serves to turn people with a scientific bent away from Christianity. The evidence of the world God created is against a 6,000 year old Earth.

The Bible tells a story of an enchanted garden with two magic trees and a talking snake. I can easily interpret this as God saying, “This is a nice story but please don’t take it literally.” Jesus tells the parable of the Prodigal Son, the story loses none of its impact because the Prodigal Son himself never actually existed. The Bible is a story with a moral. The moral is more important then the details of the story.

People, were not around before the earth was created, and therefore they cannot say for certain which way it happened, intelligent or not.

So every murderer who was convicted with no actual witness of the event has to be released? There is enough forensic evidence for us to tell that the 6,000 year YEC interpretation of the Bible is an incorrect interpretation.

Have you ever read about the Flood, many Creation scientists believe that this canopy, was the “windows of heaven” that poured down from the sky, and that it was either completely gone after the flood, or it slowly dissipated throughout the years, which would be one explanation for the dissipating age of men throughout the Bible.

The worldwide flood is a complete scientific nonsense. You are being lied to massively by creationist websites. Where is your evidence of a genetic bottleneck, down to two individuals, in the genomes of every species of land animal? Every single species. The YEC interpretation of the flood stories is incorrect.

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

The Bible tells a story of an enchanted garden with two magic trees and a talking snake. I can easily interpret this as God saying, “This is a nice story but please don’t take it literally.” Jesus tells the parable of the Prodigal Son, the story loses none of its impact because the Prodigal Son himself never actually existed. The Bible is a story with a moral. The moral is more important then the details of the story.

Rossum,

I find it admirable that you as a Buddhist understand the nature of the Bible, or some essential aspects of it, so much better than many Christians do.

But then I understand naturalism, and the intellectual implications of it, much better than many atheists do (perhaps that is why I am not an atheist, which for me would be possible only if I could embrace naturalism).

 

[ricmat]

Rossum,

I find it admirable that you as a Buddhist understand the nature of the Bible, or some essential aspects of it, so much better than many Christians do.

But then I understand naturalism, and the intellectual implications of it, much better than many atheists do (perhaps that is why I am not an atheist, which for me would be possible only if I could embrace naturalism).

OK Rossum - it’s your turn again to give Al a pat on the back (I think your hint is in the second sentence above). If you guys find another person, you could do a 3 way.

 

[ricmat]

But references in the notes are duplicated in the bibliography.

I didn’t notice that. There are still many references.

In that case could you point me at where I can find the hypothesis that “14 billion years is about 39,000 orders of magnitude too short” for evolution? Thanks.

I’ll look for it. I don’t remember exactly where I saw it, but the numbers stuck in my head.

 

[inocente]

If you guys find another person, you could do a 3 way.

That would be me then I too thought rossum made a great point.

 

[rossum]

That would be me then I too thought rossum made a great point.

I’d love to join, but unfortunately at the moment my head is too big to fit through the door.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

I haven’t read Meyer but I do know that Dawkins claims to be scientific and exceeds his brief.

Once science is thought to explain scientists we can be sure something has gone sadly amiss… Can creatures account for their Creator? Or prove their Creator doesn’t exist?

 

[edwest2]

Please see Isaiah 29:16 –

bible.cc/isaiah/29-16.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Jon_Leveille]

The DI only has 800 or so on its list.

You would do better to use a more recent source, the Chimp genome was sequenced by 2005. This piece appears to be around 2001 or so. Your other sources on chimps are fine as far as they go, though it is better where possible to refer to the underlying scientific paper rather than to the science press.

Which goes to support my point that a computer program about evolution does not actually “prove” anything about evolution. The existence of a designed computer program does not mean that the object being modelled is itself designed.

The Bible states that there is a waterproof layer in the solar system. Genesis 1:6-8 and Genesis 1:17. Unless and until you can show me evidence of this waterproof layer then I will consider the Bible to be scientifically unreliable. There are many different interpretations of the Bible, witness the number of different Christian groups. Some of those interpretations have to be wrong. The Young Earth interpretation is very badly wrong. It is scientifically illiterate and only serves to turn people with a scientific bent away from Christianity. The evidence of the world God created is against a 6,000 year old Earth.

The Bible tells a story of an enchanted garden with two magic trees and a talking snake. I can easily interpret this as God saying, “This is a nice story but please don’t take it literally.” Jesus tells the parable of the Prodigal Son, the story loses none of its impact because the Prodigal Son himself never actually existed. The Bible is a story with a moral. The moral is more important then the details of the story.

So every murderer who was convicted with no actual witness of the event has to be released? There is enough forensic evidence for us to tell that the 6,000 year YEC interpretation of the Bible is an incorrect interpretation.

The worldwide flood is a complete scientific nonsense. You are being lied to massively by creationist websites. Where is your evidence of a genetic bottleneck, down to two individuals, in the genomes of every species of land animal? Every single species. The YEC interpretation of the flood stories is incorrect.

rossum

1. Yeah, I probably should have said hundreds!!! (I know that what you said is true, but you might want to post some sources)
   2.Noted.
   3.I probably shouldn’t have used the word proved, I meant provided evidence.
   4.Have you read those verses??? It seems to me that it is speaking of the atmosphere, or the sky.
2. Actually the word translates over as serpent, and the trees were not magic, magic has nothing to do with the Bible. Also God tells you in the Bible, that the Prodigal Son was a parable, he does not say that the Garden of Eden was. Also some of the things in the Bible, that people might claim are fiction, have been found to have been proved by science. Such as the part in the Bible where Jesus throws salt in the well to purify it, a man came up with a machine that purifies wells using salt!! He actually got the idea from the Bible!!
3. Actualy there is lots of evidence for a worldwide flood, that many people don’t see, the most obvious example, is the Grand Canyon. Here are a few others:
   earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
   answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/worldwide-flood-evidence
   icr.org/geological-strata/
   Also God does not say that the brought two of every animal on the ark, he says they brought two of every unclean animal, and seven of every clean animal, onto the ark.
   May God Bless Your Day!!!

 

[StrawberryJam]

Once science is thought to explain scientists we can be sure something has gone sadly amiss… Can creatures account for their Creator? Or prove their Creator doesn’t exist?

Whuh?

How? What? Who?

As to your question…

Can creatures account for their Creator?

False premise.

And, for more amusement you ask

Or prove their Creator doesn’t exist?

Which non theist has claimed to do so? Which scientist has proven such a thing?

You don’t understand science to say this.

 

[rossum]

3.I probably shouldn’t have used the word proved, I meant provided evidence.

As the saying goes, “Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.” Science looks at evidence.

4.Have you read those verses??? It seems to me that it is speaking of the atmosphere, or the sky.

The atmosphere cannot “separate” water from water. Whatever is being described is a waterproof layer. The standard model of the world in the ancient Near-East was a flat Earth with a solid dome overhead with water above the solid dome. That is what is being described here.

1. Actually the word translates over as serpent, and the trees were not magic, magic has nothing to do with the Bible. Also God tells you in the Bible, that the Prodigal Son was a parable, he does not say that the Garden of Eden was. Also some of the things in the Bible, that people might claim are fiction, have been found to have been proved by science. Such as the part in the Bible where Jesus throws salt in the well to purify it, a man came up with a machine that purifies wells using salt!! He actually got the idea from the Bible!!

You are entitled to your overly literal interpretation of the Bible. Since your interpretation of the Bible does not mesh with the actual world that you say God created then I reject your interpretation.

1. Actualy there is lots of evidence for a worldwide flood, that many people don’t see, the most obvious example, is the Grand Canyon.

False. Your creationist sources are lying to you again. Did they tell you that some of the rocks in the Grand Canyon are aeolian deposits - rocks laid down under air, not water? Did they tell you that the volcanic rocks in the Grand Canyon were erupted under air, not water? Did they show you the comparisons with known flood canyons? Those comparisons show that the Grand Canyon was not formed by flood runoff. Flood runoff does not make 108 degree turns:

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/w...t-the-grand-canyon-in-arizona-glen-canyon.jpg

Also God does not say that the brought two of every animal on the ark, he says they brought two of every unclean animal, and seven of every clean animal, onto the ark.

But Noah sacrificed some of the clean animals: Genesis 8:20. You have failed to show any evidence of a universal genetic bottleneck.

rossum