Religion is "man-made" is like saying universe is

[paarsurrey1]

Revealed-Religion is "man-made" is like saying universe is "man-made", is it so?

Regards

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 60 by Erexsaur]

Uh! I thought I edited post 59 instead of repeating it!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 59 by Erexsaur]

Are you really sure that scientific observation and analysis properly carried out reveals knowledge that opposes knowledge of the Biblical creation model?

I see the "properly carried out" clause added there, which of course allows for challenges to any science that does contradict the biblical creation story, and is what organizations like Answers in Genesis and Creation Research Society use to push their pseudoscience. And I use "pseudo" there in a similar vein from my side because a lot of the stuff they put out is just that ... opinion driven by a literal interpretation of the bible rather than honest science according to the formal Scientific Method.

But science has disproven many aspects of the biblical creation model beyond any reasonable doubt, such as the age of the earth (~4.6 billion years vs. ~6000 years), Homo Sapiens having evolved from earlier primates rather than being "created" as fully-formed modern humans, etc. And other myths like a global flood roughly 4500 years ago have also been conclusively shown to be false. But I understand that creationists have to discount those areas of science that are used in these "proofs", such as radiometric dating, in order to maintain their position. And this is becoming more difficult for them as time goes by because there are fewer "god of the gap" arguments for them to utilize, while the scientific evidence against the ancient myths continues to mount.

I can name one famous scientist that engaged in more theology than science.

I suspect that would be Isaac Newton, but his scientific accomplishments are independent of his theology. All of his scientific and mathematical results can be verified by independent observation and measurement, by anyone capable of those tasks, and they were accepted by the scientific community exactly because they could be confirmed by experiment ... and not for any other reason. It didn't matter what his religious beliefs were.

Is it possible for evolution to be both theory and fact?

This is a common theistic argument, arising from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word "theory" means in science. If a hypothesis is given, it must be tested extensively through observations and measurements to try and find evidence against it, and confirmation for it. If these extensive measurements by independent investigators all support the hypothesis, and none falsify it, then it may reach the exalted status of "theory." This is how the theory of relativity became a theory, and many other examples. Theists very often use the phrase "evolution is only a theory", not understanding that something considered a theory is as close to scientific "fact" as it gets. The Scientific Method does not include a level called "fact" ... the determination of whether something is a "fact" or not is made outside of this formal method.

Why is controversy about the beginning of mankind necessary?

I don't think there is a controversy. Creationists believe the biblical story that humans were created by a divine being, in fully modern form complete with a developed brain and the basic intelligence capabilities of modern man. Evolution says that modern humans arose via a long (millions of years), and very "bushy" evolutionary process from a great ape ancestor. The fossil evidence and the genetic evidence support the latter explanation, while there is no scientific evidence to support the former (and a great deal of evidence against it). So I wouldn't categorize it as a controversy, but rather a disagreement on what the scientific evidence shows. I don't see any way the evidence (fossil and genetic) can be interpreted in a way that supports a creation event such at is described in the bible. It just doesn't work.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Hello DrNoGods,

May I first say that we know that our diametrically opposed views of origins cannot both be correct at the same time?

The fact that the KJV Bible mentions the word, "faith" 231 times and "believe" 131 times is a hint of great importance of these words. Would you buy from a merchant that you have no faith in? We war with each other because the objects of our faith and consequent belief is in diametrically opposed dogmas at war with each other.

You say,

a lot of the stuff they put out is just that … opinion driven by a literal interpretation of the Bible rather than honest science according to the formal Scientific Method.

But what should we say about opinion driven by the interpretation of fossil data that drives to the conclusion that the fossils and the earth are millions of years old? Why shouldn't we believe those that point out flaws in radiometric dating methods? I thought that the honest scientific mind is open for such. Is radiometric dating perfect? Is fossil analysis perfect? Do fossils have their dates stamped on them? I thought that the use of forensic science for analyzing things of the past is hard! Why does it too often sounds as if very easy? How many witnesses do we have of the events that happen through the past millions of years? Which is infallible? The word of God or words of fossil interpreters? Belief or disbelief is deliberate!

As for Newton, I only know that the quality of one's theological knowledge base affects the entire gamut of his behavior and the decisions he makes. Have you considered his correlation between science and creation truth?

How is it possible to consider Newton's scientific work independent of his theology while at the same time saying that creationists of today sour science with theology?

The fatal flaw of evolution is that if it is true, life we know today reached its present state by millions of years of death and destruction. This view makes God appear sloppy in His act of creation to him that believes God created through evolution. We learn from the creationist view on the other hand that God created all things good until man corrupted it with sin and that we are offered a way of deliverance. Why discard the reason for hope and for our dignity? This is only the will of an enemy!

Wisdom tells us that it's better for two to walk together enjoying common good than to war with each other over issues. You may correctly say, "Aha!! Religious people also war with each other over issues!" But we are familiar with the scriptural passages where the "ultra-devout" religious leaders of Jesus' day were at war with Him whom they were supposedly supporting. Jesus warned,

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad (Matthew 12:30)."

Hostile religious division thus results when some go astray from Jesus' Headship. Do you remember Paul's warnings in the scenario described in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4?

Please also read my post to Paarsurrey1.

ELD

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 44 by paarsurrey1]

Hello Paarsurrey1,

I hope you are still here and that this post will be of help.

Is all religion man-made? Is there such a thing as true religion? The mention of "false religion" implies comparison with religion that's true. The deluge of man-made religions throughout the world is consequences of deviation from God's original fellowship with man from the beginning.

One of many ways we know that the Bible is true is that in the first chapter of Genesis, we learned that God promised a man named Abraham that he (Abraham) will be the father of a nation. His grandson Jacob was renamed "Israel." Our knowledge of the land of Israel today is not from the pages of the book that told us of Bugs Bunny. We also learn that God blesses those that bless the Jews. What are you and I doing?

Judaism is the product of God's revelation to Moses on Mt. Sinai for the inhabitants of Israel and Christianity is the product of Jesus' death on the cross. Knowledge of both was meant to cover the earth for the promotion of peace. The Judeo-Christian faith thus originated from God. The wayward nature of man is what sparks false application of its vital truth and breeds consequent division.

The Bible speaks of true religion as purity of heart of an individual as he carries out his religious deeds. Thus,

"If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world (James 1:26-27)."

Jesus described true religion in terms of worship to the woman at the well:

"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24)."

How may an individual worship in spirit and truth? As for "spirit," Paul tells us:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Jesus informed Nicodemus of the necessity to be born of the "water and of the Spirit" (St. John 3:5).

As for "truth," let's paraphrase "in spirit and truth" to say instead, "in spirit and in honesty." Think of the publican that said, "God be merciful to me a sinner (Luke 18:13)." The publican confessed the truth of his fallen state as he acted on the truth that God is the Supreme Judge. Worship in truth is thus reflected in ones prayer life. Instead of the publican's having struggled to please God by making himself "good enough," he honestly confessed his shortcoming and thus opened himself up to God's forgiveness and regeneration made possible by the cross. Aren't we all wayward by nature? True religion thus manifests itself by deliverance.

As communication between the two of us serve as proof to each other of the reality of each other's presence, so does honest interaction with God and His regenerating response serve as proof of the reality of His presence and the genuineness of Biblical faith. This, in brief, is what true religion is all about.

ELD

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 63 by Erexsaur]

May I first say that we know that our diametrically opposed views of origins cannot both be correct at the same time?

Certainly true. But I would argue that mine has scientific results as a basis (observation and measurement), while yours does not (it is based solely on stories in an ancient book).

But what should we say about opinion driven by the interpretation of fossil data that drives to the conclusion that the fossils and the earth are millions of years old? Why shouldn't we believe those that point out flaws in radiometric dating methods?

It is OK to point out perceived flaws in radiometric dating methods, but none (so far) have ever stood up to scrutiny. I've linked to this Answers in Genesis article several times before:

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... eteorites/

and the table it presents of meteorite dates is remarkably consistent, with results coming from many different research groups over a long period of time using different combinations of isotopes. How could such consistency be an accident? We understand the physics of atoms well enough now (and have for 100 years or more), that dating by radiometric methods is solid and proven science, and valid for dating back to billions of years. If you or anyone else could actually show that it is flawed, then science would have to accept that. But this has never been done, and the arguments presented by organizations like AIG and CRS are simply wrong, and have been proven so over and over again.

Do you believe the U.S. dropped fission bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? How did these bombs come about? They were first shown to be possible via theoretical work based on the known physics of the atom, and then physically built using those guidelines. They would never have worked if the physics was not correct, and if the understanding of nuclear decay and interactions with neutrons was not correct. Radiometric dating is a far simpler application of the same basic physics, so why would you (assuming you do) accept that this physics was sufficiently well understood to allow the design and build of a fission bomb, but not sufficiently understood to apply to radiometric dating? I think I know the answer of course ... which is that production of fission bombs does not directly counter the young earth creation viewpoint, while radiometric dating and the results it produces does. AIG and CRS would not attack radiometric dating and claim it is flawed if it had no relation to creationism ... they only attack it because it does, and it disproves a young earth unequivocally.

Is radiometric dating perfect? Is fossil analysis perfect? Do fossils have their dates stamped on them?

No to all three questions, but something does not have to be "perfect" in order to allow conclusions to be drawn. In legal situations a "preponderance of the evidence" is often used to "prove" a case. In the case of radiometric dating, just look at the AIG article linked above for a clear example of multiple measurements from many different researchers all leading to the same result. To counter these results you would need to show that radiometric dating methods are flawed, and this has never been shown to be the case. So the results must be considered valid until someone can come along and show why radiometric dating methods are not legitimate. The AIG and CRS arguments cannot do this.

How is it possible to consider Newton's scientific work independent of his theology while at the same time saying that creationists of today sour science with theology?

Because Newton's results in mathematics and physics can be validated by experiment and analysis by other scientists, without any regard whatsoever to his religious beliefs. Creationists seem to only attack those areas of science that are at odds with their young earth and other creationists beliefs, while accepting (or at least not attacking) science that has no bearing on their beliefs, just as with the bomb example given earlier. This is cherry picking.

The fatal flaw of evolution is that if it is true, life we know today reached its present state by millions of years of death and destruction.

This is not a flaw, but a description of how life does actually work on this planet. Every living thing dies, and sometimes whole species are wiped out in destructive events. But this has no bearing on evolution as a process, which is a scientific description of how life diversifies over time. As with radiometric dating, if someone can come along and show it to be false (it is falsifiable), then science would have to abandon the theory and find a better alternative. But like radiometric dating, this has yet to be done, and the theory of evolution continues to be refined and tweaked as new data are available. The fact the the genetic results of the last 4-5 decades supports the basic conclusions from the fossil record is just more evidence that the theory is basically correct ... life did evolve over billions of year through repeated cycles of death and birth, with genetic mutations, drift, etc. creating a huge diversity of life forms.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 54 by Kenisaw]

Hello again Kenisaw,

As it relates specifically to what Bench is writing about, the percentage of agreement goes up significantly among people who verify and validate the facts themselves...

But don't those on the opposite side also verify and validate facts for themselves? Is the majority always necessarily right?

ELD

To answer the second question first, no the majority is not always right. Human history is littered with examples of this, and since I think we both agree with this there is no need to provide a list of examples at this time.

As to the first question, yes they do. There are well known paleontologists for example that have made thorough studies of the same data, and reached a different conclusion. However, I think it is important to note something about these dissenters. Their alternative solution is definitely NOT supported by evidence and data. Their solution is definitely not verified and validated. I have no issue with anyone deciding that the evidence doesn't fit the accepted scientific theory, but then they should be able to create a new theory WITH explanatory ability that fully explains the facts and data that they've studied in the first place.

"God did it" doesn't do that.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Hello DrNoGods,

If the decision on who is right is based on the analysis of facts, which have been verified and validated, then it makes no difference who is in the majority or who is in the minority. The facts will determine which side is right ... if they are indeed validated and verified (by observation, measurement, analysis, and a consensus on the results of these processes).

Thank you! But are all willing to accept the validated facts as revealed? Human nature has its bag of tricks.
Why does the Creation/evolution debate, for example, continues to rage instead of having been settled long ago?

ELD

Ignorance. Most of the people that I have conversations with simply do not understand how scientific theories work, what the data and evidences are, and often disagree with it simply because their religious book or dogma has a different story that conflicts with the findings of science.

I think you'd be amazed for instance at the number of people that come in here and think that the scientific theory of evolution is tied into the Big Bang and abiogenesis. I see that all the time at this website and at many others.

Over 50% of scientists in America consider themselves religious and/or believe in a personal god according to polling statistics. Yet most of these people find evolution to be a valid scientific theory. But those are people who have dug into the matter. A lot of those who disagree can't even discern between a theory and a scientific theory.

It's ignorance.

[Kenisaw]

But what should we say about opinion driven by the interpretation of fossil data that drives to the conclusion that the fossils and the earth are millions of years old? Why shouldn't we believe those that point out flaws in radiometric dating methods? I thought that the honest scientific mind is open for such. Is radiometric dating perfect? Is fossil analysis perfect? Do fossils have their dates stamped on them?

Pardon my jumping in on your conversation with another, but I really wanted to comment on this.

While radiometric dating is not perfect, the "flaws" in it are well known and established, and science has learned what situations to avoid when seeking opportunities to date things.

Science always looks for sources of error in everything it does. Papers are open to criticism and disagreement for just this reason.

Creationist websites, to be blunt about it, blatantly lie about scientific topics. Radiometric dating is no different. Here is an article at ICR about basalt domes at Mt St Helens: http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01/

Here's an article from a Christian site that accepts old earth science that is critical of the article: http://www.oldearth.org/dacite.htm

The creationist websites also have articles about a scientific test that was done on Hawaiian pillow lava years ago. The tests were done specifically because the age of the actual lava flow was known, and scientists wanted to see if argon dating would be accurate or not. Turns out it wasn't. That showed that argon can contaminate such lava flows and shouldn't be used for dating of such rocks.

So what did the creationist websites do? They tell their readers all that, EXCEPT for the part that this study was done on purpose to see if this dating would not work. The creationist websites claimed the testing age found was initially accepted by geologists. That was never the case.

The question you might want to ask yourself, Erex, is why creationist sites need to mislead people like that....

[nolidad]

[Replying to post 62 by DrNoGods]

Sorry to butt in, but as a former evolutionist apologist now turned young earth creationist, I would strongly disagree with your conclusions!

Radiometric dating has been empirically shown recently to be fatally flawed. We now know through experimentation, observation and repetition of many ways that can accelerate decay rates. ONe test by the Fermi lab, using low grade hydraulic cavitation increased the decay rates by 20,000% Even the physicists @ CERN said that knowing that decay rates can be accelerated can be good for waste storage! Even neutrino bombardment (a common event daily) affects decay rates.

Multiple testing method on one object have produce discordant dates by as much as 40%

We haven't even broached the subject of the untestable and unknowable assumptions built into radio dating.


As for homo sapiens rising from A. Afarensis, is there something new discovered other than bones? We have full skeletons of h.Sapien sapien and H. Sapien Neanderthal. but for all the rest of the supposed rise of man- all we have are partial skulls or partial skeletons.

But teh biggest failure of evolutionists to produce? We have no validated evidence that any thing ever changed kingdom,phyla, order, family or genre!

We have bones and deliberate forgeries to hypothesize, but no empirical evidence.

I will pose this request here. Evolutionists have declared that theropods to bird is scientific "fact" OKAY- Then show me the evolution of scales to feathers!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 69 by nolidad]

Radiometric dating has been empirically shown recently to be fatally flawed. We now know through experimentation, observation and repetition of many ways that can accelerate decay rates. ONe test by the Fermi lab, using low grade hydraulic cavitation increased the decay rates by 20,000% Even the physicists @ CERN said that knowing that decay rates can be accelerated can be good for waste storage! Even neutrino bombardment (a common event daily) affects decay rates.

Multiple testing method on one object have produce discordant dates by as much as 40%

We haven't even broached the subject of the untestable and unknowable assumptions built into radio dating.

Can you provide links to these studies? You say "one test by Fermilab", then "multiple testing method on one object" (underlines mine). These may be cases where one sample showed anomalous results, or the results were showed to be false by additional studies, etc. But without any links there is no way to investigate it. I tried some Google searches but didn't turn up anything useful on these specific experiments (ie. the original papers). However there are many counters to claims made by people like Russell Humphreys and others of his ilk from AIG, CMI and CRS. For example on the RATE project:

http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/c ... decay.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RATE_project

And here's one from Fermilab I found while searching for sources for your statements, this one on variation of decay rates with solar distance which was another claim made:

http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2008/pub/fe ... 08-534.pdf

But it would be a waste of space to try and post every creationists website article and claim, against the record of consistency in exponential decay rates for various atoms supported by the overwhelming (in comparison) number of scientific publications since about 1930 when Rutherford, Chadwick and Ellis published "Radiations from Radioactive Substances." Creationists always pick out one or two anomalies and then try to hinge an entire argument on those. If you had 1000 measurements of a property, and 997 of them were consistent with each other with just 3 anomalies, would you throw out the 997 and bet the farm on the 3 outliers? This is basically what creationists are doing in trying to refute the consistency of exponential radiometric decay rates.

The concluding paragraph from the USD link above sums up what is typical of creationists claims on this subject:

The RATE team certainly brings a new level of professional qualifications and technical detail to creationist arguments. The helium accumulation in zircon crystals and residual carbon-14 they documented are definitely interesting findings. It is, however, far from clear that they actually support the idea of accelerated decay, especially when the heat generated would have erased all the evidence they found. RATE unfortunately relies on supernatural intervention to initiate the acceleration of radioisotope decay and then further depends on miracles to overcome the daunting heat and radiation created by that acceleration. That places the RATE arguments well outside the realm of science (Vardiman et al. 2005:736). While the RATE members identified the physical constants that would need to be modified in order to shrink geologic time, it is unclear what additional credibility that adds to their argument since it is still fundamentally about divine intervention. Though accelerated decay is billed as an improvement on 'appearance of age,' the two are substantially similar in their implications.

Resort to magic and miracles when the claims do not hold up under scrutiny.

As for homo sapiens rising from A. Afarensis, is there something new discovered other than bones? We have full skeletons of h.Sapien sapien and H. Sapien Neanderthal. but for all the rest of the supposed rise of man- all we have are partial skulls or partial skeletons.

I said a "great ape ancestor", not necessarily A. Afarensis. Genetic data suggests that modern homo sapiens share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, and that it was a very "bushy" evolutionary tree from that starting point. The relatively recent Homo naledi find is more evidence of that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_naledi

...but for all the rest of the supposed rise of man- all we have are partial skulls or partial skeletons.

Are you suggesting that nothing can be learned from just partial skeletons? "Turkana Boy" is a nearly complete skeleton of Homo erectus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy

and since you mentioned Australopithecus afarensis, I assume you are familiar with the famous Lucy find:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

and there are many others of course:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils

Comparative analysis of this entire group of bones does not yield a complete picture with every detail filled in, and the human evolutionary story is being refined and improved continuously. But to suggest that we need a full and complete skeleton to draw any conclusions is simply incorrect.

We have bones and deliberate forgeries to hypothesize, but no empirical evidence.

See above Wikipedia link for some empirical evidence.

OKAY- Then show me the evolution of scales to feathers!

It is not clear that feathers did evolve from scales (see comments in the Evolution section of this article):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feather