KINDS and ADAPTATION

[Donray]

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Danmark]

1. A basic problem you are having, which makes it more difficult to defend the Bible, is your refusal to acknowledge ANY cultural issues. For example, one could acknowledge the truth of the Bible without insisting that God is masculine. Indeed, the Biblical claim is that God is spirit and thus beyond gender designation. Many devout Bible based Christians acknowledge this; therefore, God is NOT a "He."

In the Hebrew text and in the Greek text Yahweh is always referred to in the masculine without exception. People believe a lot of things about the Bible what matters is what the Bible actually says. Before you start inundating me with a bunch of questions about the Old Testament. You do need to understand that today we are under the New Covenant and not the law. It was the law that condemned men to death. Under the New Covenant men's heart can be changed when they have faith in Christ so there is no reason for all of the death sentences.



2. If the Bible represents truth, then a scientific search for truth will reveal God. One who truly seeks truth should not have to have any preconception about what the truth is; e.g. that there is a personal, masculine God who created everything.

If the Bible represents truth by special revelation from one that has watched everything that has happen across the timeline. Then the Bible is the starting point for all truth. If the Bible says that the universe an all that is in it was created in six days then that is truth. Because God is the one revealing this truth and He was there observing what happen.

If universe expanded faster than the speed of light like inflation theory implies, because of the expansion of space itself. then how could have gravity acted that on the matter that was flying apart, because gravity is limited to traveling at the speed of light.

3. Almost all religious scholars agree that the creation story in Genesis is not an attempt to provide a literal, factual description of the beginning of the world or universe. They also agree that the Biblical creation myth is taken from other, non Hebrew sources such as Sumerian mythology.

Some liberal scholars maybe.

Go Liberty University (the largest evangelical university in the world) you will find a lot of Scholars that disagree with you

Go to The Master's Seminary in California and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Bob Jones University and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Bryan College and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Calvary University and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Clark's Summit University and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Maranatha Baptist University and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Patrick Henry College and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Cedarville University and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Grace College in Indiana and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Pensacola Christian College and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Conservative Theological University and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.


These points are not even debated by serious Biblical scholars. The claims you make are only made by non scholarly fundamentalist lay persons who have ZERO standing in the academic community.

Really,

Go Liberty University (the largest evangelical university in the world) you will find a lot of Scholars that disagree with you

Go to The Master's Seminary in California and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Bob Jones University and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Bryan College and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Calvary University and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Clark's Summit University and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Maranatha Baptist University and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Patrick Henry College and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Cedarville University and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Grace College in Indiana and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Pensacola Christian College and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Go to Conservative Theological University and you will find a lot of scholars that disagree with you.

Along with pretty much all of the Christian Theologians over the last 2000 years.

Thus, I find your point of view and claims are based on both a poor understanding of science AND a poor understanding of Christian and Jewish scholarship.

I think my list above knows what they are talking about.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

1. A basic problem you are having, which makes it more difficult to defend the Bible, is your refusal to acknowledge ANY cultural issues. For example, one could acknowledge the truth of the Bible without insisting that God is masculine. Indeed, the Biblical claim is that God is spirit and thus beyond gender designation. Many devout Bible based Christians acknowledge this; therefore, God is NOT a "He."

In the Hebrew text and in the Greek text Yahweh is always referred to in the masculine without exception.

You have confirmed my critique of your lack of understanding. By blindly focusing on the literal, you completely miss the point of scripture; that God and the spiritual nature of man, is beyond gender. MEN see things from a gender based POV. God says the opposite.
A key example is the passage about Moses encountering God as a burning bush. Moses most humanly is concerned with God's name. God tells him that God is beyond naming; that God simply IS, "I AM WHAT I AM."

JW's infamously turn this on its head by turning the English translation of 'I AM' into a name, thus repudiating the core of the very concept God was telling them. You do the same by reducing God to a human level by insisting God is masculine rather than spiritual. This is blasphemous. The essence of 'Christian' fundamentalism is blasphemy, the reduction of God to human categories.

Or...
Do you think God has a penis?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 168 by EarthScienceguy]

2 Peter 3:5 "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,"

You do realize that 2nd Peter was written about 1900 years ago, don't you? No one at that time had any idea how planets were formed, or what they were formed from. Some bible quote like this ... especially when it ends with "by the word of God" ... is especially meaningless in a discussion of science. Plus, bible references do not qualify as support for any claim by the rules of this forum section.

But this is why you never get anywhere with these arguments you are putting forth. They always end up with either a bible quote as if that was some sort of justification, a switch to a different subject altogether (such as comments about string theory, or the big bang and origin of the universe, etc. when these have nothing to do with the topic), or just outright abandonment or preaching.

Continuously parroting creationist websites doesn't provide any new information. Everyone is aware of their content already, as well as their motive (ie. to try and convince people that the biblical narrative is consistent with modern science). Try focusing on one point without jumping all over the place and changing the subject.

Without referencing bible verses ... provide some actual scientific references showing why it is even remotely feasible to believe that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O. Forgot god swooping in to align all the H atom nuclear spins by magic (as Humphreys' did). Simply provide some straightforward scientific evidence to show that just one planet (Earth) started out as a ball of H2O. After all, this should be trivial for "EarthScienceguy" ... right? ... science related to planet Earth. What could be simpler?

[Danmark]

EarthScienceGuy wrote:

2Peter 3:5,
"the earth was formed out of water...."

Proof the Bible is a work of ignorance propagated by ancients who had no idea of the facts underlying the earth sciences. It is [obviously] impossible to form carbon and silicon and the rest of the elements and their compounds from Hydrogen and Oxygen (H2O).

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 173 by Danmark]

It is [obviously] impossible to form carbon and silicon and the rest of the elements and their compounds from Hydrogen and Oxygen (H2O).

It is obvious to real science, but I wouldn't be surprised if ESG hits us with the Z-pinch thing again on this one! Or possibly some completely concocted story like the AIG articles on meteorite dating where they conclude that the dates can't be right because they contradict the bible, so god must have created different substances at some point that had different decay rates.

When you have an omnipotent god handy, all of this stuff is easy to explain. I just don't understand why the creationist crowd try to make the old stories compatible with modern science. A futile waste of time.

[Danmark]

When you have an omnipotent god handy, all of this stuff is easy to explain.

Indeed! When nothing else works, they employ magic; then come up with some Rube Goldberg like scenario to explain the improbable, employing Occam's multiplier instead of his razor.

I still remember the first example of this [literally] nonsense when more than 50 years ago I heard the one about God making the Earth with material from other planets in order to explain dinosaur bones and geologic strata.
It's like arguing with a flat Earther. If they've ever been to the seashore, apparently they refused to look out to see ships 'sinking' into the horizon.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

I will get to your question. But first there are a few things that I just have to comment on.

You do realize that 2nd Peter was written about 1900 years ago, don't you? No one at that time had any idea how planets were formed, or what they were formed from. Some bible quote like this ... especially when it ends with "by the word of God" ... is especially meaningless in a discussion of science. Plus, bible references do not qualify as support for any claim by the rules of this forum section.

I was not using them as any scientific support. I was simply expressing where the idea came from.

But this is why you never get anywhere with these arguments you are putting forth. They always end up with either a bible quote as if that was some sort of justification, a switch to a different subject altogether (such as comments about string theory, or the big bang and origin of the universe, etc. when these have nothing to do with the topic), or just outright abandonment or preaching.

Yes, I do like to preach.

Continuously parroting creationist websites doesn't provide any new information. Everyone is aware of their content already, as well as their motive (ie. to try and convince people that the biblical narrative is consistent with modern science). Try focusing on one point without jumping all over the place and changing the subject.

But the Biblical narrative does not contradict science.

Without referencing bible verses ... provide some actual scientific references showing why it is even remotely feasible to believe that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O. Forgot god swooping in to align all the H atom nuclear spins by magic (as Humphreys' did). Simply provide some straightforward scientific evidence to show that just one planet (Earth) started out as a ball of H2O. After all, this should be trivial for "EarthScienceguy" ... right? ... science related to planet Earth. What could be simpler?

Matt Bradford, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. speaking of the largest reservoir of water ever found in space. "It's another demonstration that water is pervasive throughout the universe, even at the very earliest times." This mass of water was discovered 12 Billion light years away.

The origin of the magnetic fields observed in the galaxies and in the clusters of galaxies is unknown. This is an outstanding problem in modern cosmology and, historically, it was the first motivation to look for a primordial origin of magnetic fields

Even more mysterious is the origin of magnetic fields in galaxy clusters. These fields have been observed to have strength and coherence size comparable to, and in some cases larger than, galactic fields. In the standard cold dark matter (CDM) scenario of structure formation clusters form by aggregation of galaxies. It is now understood that magnetic fields in the inter-cluster medium (ICM) cannot form from ejection of the galactic fields (see Sec.1.2). Therefore, a common astrophysical origin of both types of fields seems to be excluded. Although, independent astrophysical mechanisms have been proposed for the generation of magnetic fields in galaxies and clusters, a more economical, and conceptually satisfying solution would be to look for a common cosmological origin.

http://cds.cern.ch/record/457096/files/0009061.pdf

It is understood that water is pervasive throughout the universe. And now cosmologist are looking for a primordial origin for the magnetic fields which Humphreys theory is.

In Alan Guth Paper now famous paper entitled "Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems." Alan Guth makes this statement.

"Thus, one must assume that the forces which created these initial conditions were capable of violating causality"

In other words these initial conditions have no bases in reality they are made up. The assumption they are making are the following.

The initial universe is assumed to be homogeneous, yet it consists of at least -10^83 separate regions which are causally disconnected (i. e. ,these regions have not yet had time to communicate with each other via light signals). '

Humphreys theory is simply assuming the same thing a homogeneous initial state which then breaks the homogeneity. The only thing that Humphreys theory does not lack is causality.

Guth in hs paper also assumes a universe which did not start out as homogeneous but all he does is change one assumption for another.

If Z is sufficiently large, this region can be bigger than (or much bigger than) our observed region of the universe.

So he is assuming that the universe is much larger than what we observe. And we just happen to be living on an area in which space is homogeneous. If we could go outside our observable universe then the univervese or what ever you want to call it. May not have a homogeneous temperature.

This theory does not make any predictions of magnetic field or how water and oxygen could permeate our universe when nucleic synthesis describes a universe in which lithium is the 3rd most abundant element in the universe.


Ok let's compare the two theories.

Both assume a homogeneous initial condition that then breaks homogeneity.

Creation theory has a cause
Naturalistic theory does not have a cause the energy just appeared. Wow.

Both assume an expansion.

Creation theory the cause is God adding energy to the universe to create more space.

Naturalistic theory is dark energy creating energy out of nothing to create more space.


Observations suggests that magnetic fields permeate the universe.

Creation theory predicted these fields and was waiting on the observations.

Naturalistic theories cannot explain the observed magnetic fields.

Horizon Problem

Creation theory predicts a constant temperature in the CMB of around 3 degrees Kelvin. (Humphrey's Paper on New Gravity)

Naturalistic theories assume we are in a region of a "larger" universe that is homogeneous. (although we cannot see the larger universe to confirm this.)

Stellar NucleoSynthesis

Naturalistic theories predict that Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium should have been made during the big bang. Although oxygen is third most abundant.

Creation theory predicts Hydrogen oxygen and helium were the elements that were created in highest abundance.


There are no naturalistic theories that I know of that makes accurate predictions. There is no reason why anyone should believe these made up stories.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

There are no naturalistic theories of origins of the universe or life that I know of that makes accurate predictions. There is no reason why anyone should believe these made up stories.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 177 by EarthScienceguy]

There are no naturalistic theories of origins of the universe or life that I know of that makes accurate predictions. There is no reason why anyone should believe these made up stories.

Why do you do this same thing every time you can't answer a question? It is nothing but the standard creationist tactic of changing the subject completely and bringing up some unsolved scientific problem instead as a diversion ... the favorites being origin of the universe, origin of life, or dark matter and dark energy ... none of which have anything to do with explaining how the Earth started out as a ball of H2O which was the question.

Or, as you did in post 176, find some references to their being lots of H2O in the universe (a well known fact) and implying that this supports the Earth starting out as a ball of H2O. It doesn't. There is lots of carbon in the universe. Why didn't the Earth start out as a ball of carbon? The fact that there is lots of H2O in the universe does not imply that planets started out as balls of H2O. It is irrelevant to that question.

Plus, there are naturalist hypotheses for origin of the universe (it's called the Big Bang ... surely you've heard of this) and origin of life (eg. abiogenesis, panspermia, etc.). The fact that these issues are still open scientific questions in no way means that science is wrong on everything as you suggest ("made up stories"). But instead of addressing the original question, which you clearly cannot answer, you change the subject and start rambling about origins.

So you obviously have no credible response to support Humphreys' claim that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O. Just more handwaving and changing the subject, as usual. And neither did he ... it was an empty claim that truly was a "made up story." Yet you refer to the entire body of scientific knowledge, accumulated in countless papers and textbooks and supported by countless observations and measurements, making countless correct predictions of natural processes, as nothing but "made up stories." Your chosen handle is grossly misleading.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Why do you do this same thing every time you can't answer a question? It is nothing but the standard creationist tactic of changing the subject completely and bringing up some unsolved scientific problem instead as a diversion ... the favorites being origin of the universe, origin of life, or dark matter and dark energy ... none of which have anything to do with explaining how the Earth started out as a ball of H2O which was the question.

Or, as you did in post 176, find some references to their being lots of H2O in the universe (a well known fact) and implying that this supports the Earth starting out as a ball of H2O. It doesn't. There is lots of carbon in the universe. Why didn't the Earth start out as a ball of carbon? The fact that there is lots of H2O in the universe does not imply that planets started out as balls of H2O. It is irrelevant to that question.

Plus, there are naturalist hypotheses for origin of the universe (it's called the Big Bang ... surely you've heard of this) and origin of life (eg. abiogenesis, panspermia, etc.). The fact that these issues are still open scientific questions in no way means that science is wrong on everything as you suggest ("made up stories"). But instead of addressing the original question, which you clearly cannot answer, you change the subject and start rambling about origins.

So you obviously have no credible response to support Humphreys' claim that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O. Just more hand waving and changing the subject, as usual. And neither did he ... it was an empty claim that truly was a "made up story." Yet you refer to the entire body of scientific knowledge, accumulated in countless papers and textbooks and supported by countless observations and measurements, making countless correct predictions of natural processes, as nothing but "made up stories." Your chosen handle is grossly misleading.

There are not any papers that make accurate predictions concerning the origins of the universe or life using naturalistic theories. That is my point. The only theory that makes accurate predictions is creation theory. And as new discoveries are made they fit seamlessly into the theory. That is a testimony to the strength of the theory. Since you have a "entire body of scientific knowledge, accumulated in countless papers and textbooks and supported by countless observations and measurements,." Why don't you document one of the correct predictions? I predict that each one of your "correct predictions" will be nothing more than a retrodiction if it does not also fit into creation theory.

There is not even consensus among scientist that the big bang theory is correct.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140401081 ... ement.org/

There is also no consensus on evolution.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=712

Naturalistic theories of origins and evolution add nothing to our ability to understand the world around us, because they cannot make accurate predictions of anything. Prove me wrong if you can. This should be very easy.