A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Reply to topic
seve
First Post
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:14 pm  Genesis - The Beginning. Reply with quote

Energy doesn't appear physically except when it's changed into physical matter. It took scientists thousands of years before Albert Einstein confirmed God's Holy Word with his theory of relativity.

Hbr 11:3 Through faith we understand that the WorldS (multiverse) were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Einstein learned the SAME thing. He learned that matter and energy were the same. In order to make matter, it takes energy to produce matter in physical form. Then, you will have things which are seen, but made from things which do not appear to the eye.

WHERE did the energy to make 3 Universes or Multiverse come from, you might ask. Below is the answer for it tells us where God lives:

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Can any one here who believe that Genesis is only figurative and not LITERAL tells us HOW Moses or other ancient men, who lived thousands of years before science, authored the the Book of Genesis... and knew that (theory of relativity)? Of course not. It took men thousands of years before Albert Einstein discovered that Scientific Fact, correct?

It's PROOF of our Awesome God
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 81: Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:40 am
Reply
Re: Genesis - The Beginning.

Like this post
Diagoras wrote:

[Replying to post 78 by benchwarmer]

Quote:
There is more historical evidence for me than for Jesus and I'm hardly anyone of note. There are official birth records, baptism records, school records,...


To be fair to Jesus, it wouldn’t have made sense for him to get baptised, so you can hardly expect him to have had a record of that event.

Wink

True, but if you believe the claims in the Bible he actually did:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3:13&version=NIV
Quote:
Matthew 3:13 New International Version (NIV)
The Baptism of Jesus
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John


I'm unaware of any official church documents that record this other than the claims in the gospels though. Too bad, it would have been fun to see who his god parents are Smile

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 82: Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:37 pm
Reply
Re: Genesis - The Beginning.

Like this post
[Replying to post 74 by DrNoGods]

Oh this should be fun on a Friday afternoon.

Quote:
The question is not whether this person existed historically ... I'm not arguing that point. The question is whether or not this person "rose from the dead" and was the "son of God" (the Christian god, specifically, as opposed to the thousands of other gods humans have invented). There's no evidence of that at all ... it is just another religious myth that for some reason caught on in a big way.


What evidence from history would prove this to you?

The very nature of the event makes it impossible to duplicate because it is an event that happen on one time in history.

Most geologist believe that a comet killed the dinosaurs. Or that a planet size object collided with the Earth to make the moon. There is no way to prove any of these events. We can observe that there is a moon that orbits the Earth and we can observe that there are not any dinosaurs. But neither theory can ever be proved because history cannot be repeated.

We do have evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Quote:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. He was buried.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

7. The resurrection was the central message.

8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.

9. The Church was born and grew.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).


There resurrection is not without evidence. You may say that people are not raised from the dead today. People were not raised from the dead before the time of Jesus either.

Quote:
As for the existence of people living to 900+ years such as Adam, Noah, etc. that is biologically impossible and did not happen. These people supposedly existed a measly 6000-7000 (or so) years ago according to biblical chronology. That would make then anatomically modern humans in every way, and modern humans cannot live to 900+ years (or even 200+ years).


Really, you know what causes aging.

Work in animals, in particular in worms, has shown that mutating certain genes can increase lifespan about 4-fold. For humans, that would translate to about 300 years old!

Quote:
We know the world was not covered by water to levels above the highest mountains a mere 4500 years ago. This can be disproved from nearly every scientific angle, and has. Noah's flood is clearly a myth.


We do know that something happen.

Coral cannot grow more in water that is more than 300 feet deep. And yet in many places in the world we find that limestone deposits miles deep. It would be truly amazing if tectonic activity matched the growth rate of coral.

How did limestone get on comets?

N.Y. Times

Quote:
Tempel 1 contained clays and carbonates, the minerals of limestone and seashells.

Clays and carbonates both require liquid water to form.

"How do clays and carbonates form in frozen comets where there isn't liquid water?" said Carey M. Lisse, a research scientist at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University who is presenting the Spitzer data today at a meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences in Cambridge, England. "Nobody expected this."


Care to take a guess at why there is limestone on comets? Maybe there are a few fishy in space Eh?

Quote:
Many of these biblical stories can be shown to be false when taken literally. The fact that calendars may use the birth of Jesus as a reference point has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this person was a deity, or the 'son of God." It just means a lot of people adopted a religion based on that idea, and those people were able to decide the structure of a calendar system. Tying the Big Bang to the biblical creation myth is just a convenient way to try and support the creation myth because it implies a beginning.


Even your ace in the whole radioactive dating has all kinds of problems. One of the biggest is the assumption that magma is mixed uniformly. When the atoms involved have different densities floating in a liquid.

Science has been steadily marching towards all of the claims that the Bible makes. Stay tune the future looks to be really exciting for Bible believing Christians.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 83: Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:57 pm
Reply
Re: Genesis - The Beginning.

Like this post
[Replying to post 82 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
What evidence from history would prove this to you?


The same kind of evidence that proves anything else in the real world. The biblical story is far too full of holes to rely on it for such an extraordinary event (these stories told decades after it supposedly happened, by people who weren't there).

Quote:
The very nature of the event makes it impossible to duplicate because it is an event that happen on one time in history.


Of course ... can't have multiple impossible events happening as that would dilute the claims for the main event and reduce its credibility.

Quote:
Most geologist believe that a comet killed the dinosaurs.


A comet? Most geologists" I think most geologists believe that a combination of an asteroid impact (suggested by an iridium layer found all over the globe and dated to the same time frame of the Chicxulub impact crater) and the Deccan Traps, killed off the dinosaurs over tens of thousands of years. Here's a recent web article:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/02/what-actually-killed-dinosaur...

And another one referencing a comet hypothesis:

https://www.livescience.com/28127-dinosaur-extinction-caused-by-comet.html

But it appears "most geologists" aren't buying that just yet. In any case, your conclusion that "neither theory can be proved because history cannot be repeated" makes absolutely no sense. Whether history repeats itself or not has nothing at all to do with whether or not a theory can be proved. By that logic the resurrection of Jesus, which you claim is a one-time event, could never be proved. Plus, since the people who did describe that event in writing weren't actually there and wrote down their accounts decades after the fact, there is no reason to believe it is any more than a tall tale.

Quote:
We do have evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.


Good thing you aren't a prosecutor! I can see you in court explaining to the jury that the death of the victim "caused the family to despair and lose hope", and therefore the defendant is guilty. Or "the surviving family were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers." Surely that is iron clad proof of the guilt of the defendant! Seriously ... was that list supposed to be evidence of anything at all? Virtually everything in it is meaningless in terms of evidence.

Quote:
You may say that people are not raised from the dead today. People were not raised from the dead before the time of Jesus either.


Really? Of all the religions that existed before the cruxifiction of Jesus, not one of them claimed a resurrection? This Wikipedia article would beg to differ:

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

And did it become common after Jesus? What about all the people of Jerusalem rising from their graves and dancing in the streets? Or was that just a temporary party (one time, of course)?

Quote:
Really, you know what causes aging.


Yes ... the passage of time. And there are biological events during this period that are pretty well understood. No anatomically human being has ever lived more than 122 years, and even that is debated (although mid-teens (+100) is certain).

Quote:
Care to take a guess at why there is limestone on comets? Maybe there are a few fishy in space Eh?


What?

Quote:
Science has been steadily marching towards all of the claims that the Bible makes. Stay tune the future looks to be really exciting for Bible believing Christians.


Good luck with that. Given that science has thoroughly disproved the foundational creation story of Genesis, Noah's flood (another crucial event if it were actually true), people living to 900+ years, etc., I don't think the future will do anything more than what it has done in the past ... continue to show biblical stories as nothing but myth and allegory, and not anything to be taken literally or seriously.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 84: Sun Aug 25, 2019 4:47 pm
Reply
Re: Genesis - The Beginning.

Like this post (2): Clownboat, benchwarmer
[Replying to post 82 by EarthScienceguy]

I was losing track of which debate thread you were repeating a particular point in, so had a quick read through of a couple of them:

Post 47 of Genesis - the beginning
Quote:
There is, however, a problem. Those genes that control early developmental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan. Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous, and it is conceivable that they are always so”

This is an established fact. Now if people want to wish reality is not what it is and believe in fairy tales, I cannot do anything about that everyone is free to believe how they wish.

Post 42 (same thread)
Quote:
If all mutations in genes that are associated with early development are always deleterious then any change in body plans by the mechanism of evolution would be impossible.

Post 373 of Kinds and Adaptation
Quote:
Genetic Entropy is something that is an observed FACT. I am still waiting on any observation that indicates the possibility of mutation that occur in genes that control early development being beneficial.

Post 368 (same thread)
Quote:
This study says nothing about contradicting the scientific fact that all mutations that are observed in genes that control early development result in extremely deleterious mutations.

I know of no million year old study to prove this evolutionary theological proposal.

Post 366
Quote:
The problem with evolution is the belief that beneficial mutations occur in genes that control early development. There is no evidence of any mutation in these genes being beneficial. If mutations cannot be used to change body plans which is controlled in these early development genes.

Get back with me when this problem is solved and then we can move on to the next problem.

I was initially planning to respond with some easily found examples that falsify your claims, but have decided not to for the following reasons:

1. I feel your overall tone in this particular topic is rather disrespectful. When you say things like “get back to me when this problem is solved”, or “I’m still waiting”, the image I get is of someone who’s expecting others to invest time, effort and thought into the subject, but is not willing to reciprocate with such themselves. There are plenty of ways of introducing an opposing viewpoint to a discussion which acknowledge that others’ experiences and education might be worthwhile listening to. If you were genuinely interested in exploring embryological development, and its relationships with evolutionary theory, you’d be much more likely to get a response if you adopted a more conciliatory tone. E.g. “Can anyone explain how these apparently contradictory theories could be reconciled?”

2. Your approach to the problem is woefully unscientific. You choose to focus on partial quotes that support your position, often taken out of context, or sourced from non-peer-reviewed papers. Rather than then attempt to falsify your own theory, you then unreasonably ascribe to it the same validity as evidence from decades, if not centuries of properly scientific observation and experimentation across multiple fields of research. You commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality. If you were a real ‘science guy’, you’d seek out logical arguments and experiments to falsify your claims (they certainly exist), and either discard or adapt your theory if it were proved false. Should you not be able to falsify a theory, then it simply lives ‘to fight another day’. You should be asking ‘Why?’ your claim apparently flies in the face of all the evidence. True science doesn’t rest when it’s handed an ‘odd’ result. It repeats the experiment, adjusts conditions and assumptions until the result can be explained satisfactorily. I have minimal confidence (based on my observations) that you would change your approach if given the very evidence that you’ve been demanding.

3. To be frank, there’s more than a ‘whiff’ of conspiracy theory about your posts. You have been quoted as saying evolution is ‘a lie’. To back up this claim, you push a discredited theory of ‘genetic entropy’ and support it with a partial quote from Wallace Arthur. His own Wikipedia article notes (from an interview he gave) that he is a proponent of extended evolutionary synthesis, so you are grossly misrepresenting a proper scientist by implying that he in some way agrees with what you believe. You refuse to consider alternative explanations, reject all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seek only confirmatory evidence to support what you have a priori determined to be the truth.

I think I know why you do this: your religious faith demands that you subscribe to a particular belief of the origins of the human race. It would garner you far more respect and credibility if you simply stated that for you, faith in your religion is more important to your life than pursuing scientific knowledge. Attempting to veil that faith under the peddling of nonsensical pseudoscience is both mendacious and uncharitable.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 85: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:21 pm
Reply
Re: Genesis - The Beginning.

Like this post
[Replying to DrNoGods]


Quote:
The same kind of evidence that proves anything else in the real world. The biblical story is far too full of holes to rely on it for such an extraordinary event (these stories told decades after it supposedly happened, by people who weren't there).


1. If you are speaking of some sort of scientific proof, the first criteria in the scientific method is the problem for your theory then because the first criteria for the scientific method is that the problem must be testable, i.e. measurable or observable. "What killed the dinosaurs?" is not a testable question therefore it is not science, it is philosophy. Like for example in your dinosaur rebuttal you said the following.

Quote:
A comet? Most geologists" I think most geologists believe that a combination of an asteroid impact (suggested by an iridium layer found all over the globe and dated to the same time frame of the Chicxulub impact crater) and the Deccan Traps, killed off the dinosaurs over tens of thousands of years

But it appears "most geologists" aren't buying that just yet.


In any case, your conclusion that "neither theory can be proved because history cannot be repeated" makes absolutely no sense. Whether history repeats itself or not has nothing at all to do with whether or not a theory can be proved. By that logic the resurrection of Jesus, which you claim is a one-time event, could never be proved. Plus, since the people who did describe that event in writing weren't actually there and wrote down their accounts decades after the fact, there is no reason to believe it is any more than a tall tale.


The resurrection of Jesus cannot be proved scientifically just like what killed the dinosaurs can never be proved by using the scientific method. All events in history are one time events and therefore they are beyond the scope of the scientific method. The most that can be done is look at observations and make philosophical conclusions about what has happen.

Take for example the "Chicxulub impact crater". The observations that are made at this sight which make some propose this as a meteorite impact is as follows.

1. Gravitational anomaly. Gravity measures show a increase in the middle of this anomaly and a decrease as one moves away from the center. The crater is not visible because it has been covered.

2. Shocked Quartz; Usually only occur at meteorite impacts.

Most literature on the subjects use the gravitational anomaly as proof that there was a meteorite impact at this sight.

What is not at this sight?:
1. not a lot of iridium. Which is amazing if this were the impact sight of for the meteorite that caused an "iridium layer around the entire earth.

2. Not a lot of rock melt which there should be if there was a meteorite impact.

How would you test this? We could look at other crater sights and see if observations from those sights correspond to the the observations at these sights.

This has been done and the observations at this sight do not correspond to the observations at other meteorite impact sites. "So why does this theory persist?" because it cannot be tested, because this event happen in the past.

There are observations that can be made but the conclusions on events that occured in history have to be of the philosophic variety.

We can make the observation that the resurrection came from a crede. That was shown to have been written within months of the Crucifiction of Jesus. But that does not prove the resurrection scientifically. It simply means a philosophical argument can be made for the resurrection.

The same would be true for the "big bang theory", evolution and all others events in the past that are one time events or events that occur outside the time we are currently in.

Scientifically speaking you can no more say that evolution and the big bang happen, than you can say that the resurrection did not happen. You can put forward a philosophical argument but science would be silent on all of these events. Science would not have a dog in this fight because historical events are not repeatable or observable so therefore not testable.

Quote:
Of course ... can't have multiple impossible events happening as that would dilute the claims for the main event and reduce its credibility.


The same could be said of naturalistic theology.

1. The big bang theory
2. Inflation theory
3. abiogenesis
4. Evolution

All of these violate laws and observations of physical science today. People may make philosophical arguments from these events but they cannot be tested.

Quote:
Good thing you aren't a prosecutor! I can see you in court explaining to the jury that the death of the victim "caused the family to despair and lose hope", and therefore the defendant is guilty.


When prosecuting a case there first has to be a crime. The conclusion would not be the the defendant is guilty but that there is a crime or an event that happen.


Quote:
Or "the surviving family were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers."


The message that the doubters were proclaiming is that Jesus was raised from the dead. Can you think of another reason why doubters and enemies of Jesus claimed Jesus was raised from the dead?


Quote:
Surely that is iron clad proof of the guilt of the defendant! Seriously ... was that list supposed to be evidence of anything at all? Virtually everything in it is meaningless in terms of evidence.


People can try to make this philosophical argument. But even philosophical arguments need to explain observations that are made.

Quote:
Quote:
You may say that people are not raised from the dead today. People were not raised from the dead before the time of Jesus either.


Really? Of all the religions that existed before the crucifiction of Jesus, not one of them claimed a resurrection? This Wikipedia article would beg to differ:

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


Yes Really; wikipedia really?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCqaVSQkFdQ&t=17s


Quote:
And did it become common after Jesus? What about all the people of Jerusalem rising from their graves and dancing in the streets? Or was that just a temporary party (one time, of course)?


Of course it was just a temporary party. Do you see people raising from the dead today? I hope you don't but you will one day again at the end of time.

Quote:
Yes ... the passage of time. And there are biological events during this period that are pretty well understood. No anatomically human being has ever lived more than 122 years, and even that is debated (although mid-teens (+100) is certain).


Again philosophical arguments can be made about the past but certainly not scientific arguments. The most that you can say is nobody lives that long today and there is no scientific theory on how it would possible for anyone to have lived that long in the past. But no one has observed that time to know whether long life was possible in the distant past and there has been a few experiments that have shown how animal life can be extended.

Quote:
Quote:
Care to take a guess at why there is limestone on comets? Maybe there are a few fishy in space Eh?


What?


How could comets be made of limestone?

Limestone has to be made in a liquid water environment.

How about limestone that is actually miles of feet thick when coral cannot grow below 300 feet. We have some serious tectonic activity there that actually matches the growth rate of coral.


Quote:
Good luck with that. Given that science has thoroughly disproved the foundational creation story of Genesis, Noah's flood (another crucial event if it were actually true), people living to 900+ years, etc., I don't think the future will do anything more than what it has done in the past ... continue to show biblical stories as nothing but myth and allegory, and not anything to be taken literally or seriously.


Quite the contrary. Every new discovery has fallen right in line with creation theory when one examines what is actually being observed and not at the interpretation of the observation. Publications have a habit of printing the interpretation and not the observation.

Limestone on comets was predicted by creation theory almost thirty years ago. Same with salt water on Mars, the composition of comets, hot salt water in deep boreholes, water under mountain chains and the list goes on and on.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 86: Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:26 pm
Reply
Re: Genesis - The Beginning.

Like this post
[Replying to post 85 by EarthScienceguy]

You have stated (essentially multiple times across different threads):
Quote:
All events in history are one time events and therefore they are beyond the scope of the scientific method.

This is simply wrong.

For any reader interested in why it’s wrong, there’s a very informative introduction to the scientific method here:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/%3C?%20echo%20$baseURL;%20?%3E_0_0/coreofscience_03

<click on ‘contents’ to view the Science 101 course index>

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 87: Tue Aug 27, 2019 3:06 am
Reply
Re: Genesis - The Beginning.

Like this post
[Replying to post 74 by DrNoGods]

Point 1: Jesus' Resurrection
Quote:
The question is whether or not this person "rose from the dead"

Look at Jesus' historicity with an eye of reason. Let me explain:

The Historians’ History of the World observed: “The historical result of [Jesus’] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognised by the chief civilisations of the world, dates from his birth.” Calendars today are based on the year that Jesus was thought to have been born. “Dates before that year are listed as B.C., or before Christ,” explains The World Book Encyclopedia. “Dates after that year are listed as A.D., or anno Domini (in the year of our Lord).”

Focus on the statement: "A new era, recognised by the chief civilisations of the world, dates from his birth."

Would the new era, the so-called Common or Christian Era, be named after Christ if his only claim to fame is the fact that he was born - that he indeed existed? That doesn't seem logical. Why not create a calendar based on Napoleon's birth or Isaac Newton's birth or Einstein's birth. No indeed “the historical result of [Jesus’] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history." Those activities include his teachings, his miracles, his death and resurrection (Luke 24:46) to prove he was indeed the Messiah. These were so momentous indeed that the well-respected historian, Will Durant, was moved to say:

“That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels

When you read the NT, read it with the same attitude as you would other ancient historical writings. As Michael Grant, a historian and an expert on ancient classical civilization, noted: “If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.”

There are other historical evidences for Jesus' Resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-8), in the Bible and outside the biblical record. However, I've already touched on it in another post. If you're interested please refer to this link: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=973245#973245&sid=a97461b4a66641cbcda35a1203057ddc

Point 2: Jesus as the Son of God
Quote:
The question is whether or not this person ... was the "son of God"

Matthew 16:16 "Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". - KJV

The Bible often calls Jesus "the Son of God" (John 1:49) The expression "Son of God" acknowledges that God is the Creator, or Source, of all life, including that of Jesus (Psalm 36:9; Revelation 4:11). The Bible also calls the angels "sons of the true God" (Job 1:6) And the Bible says that the first human, Adam was a "son of God" (Luke 3:38) However, because Jesus was God's first creation and the only one created directly by him, the Bible describes Jesus is the foremost Son of God.

I believe, nowhere else, except in the biblical record, he is called as such. Of course it's an article of faith for all true Christians to accept the New Testament as a true account of the life of Jesus, the Son of God.

Before you go saying: "There you go - one's belief in the Bible is merely a matter of faith.". There are necessarily articles of faith in religion as there would also be in science as the following comments suggest:

From Science: Is the Bible at Odds with Science? ( https://www.biblica.com/resources/bible-faqs/is-the-bible-at-odds-with-science/ ):

"At the same time, some scientists fall into the trap of calling theories facts when they are only theories. This actually violates the scientific method. Among these enormous and unproved assumptions are those concerning the origin of life and the denial of the supernatural. For such scientists, the conclusion is that we got here by chance and will end up in nothingness. This position is fundamentally unsupportable, and the Bible provides a wonderful and totally reasonable alternative. It is an alternative that involves faith in the timeless existence of the being the Bible calls God."

"There is a very sinister idea making the rounds these days, an idea even taught in the schools as the truth. That idea is that science is grounded only in facts and religion is grounded solely in faith in the Bible. Therefore, the theory goes, when it comes to the origin of life, evolution may be taught in the schools, but not creation. The truth is that both of these views are grounded in a huge leap of faith and both claim to be reasonable. The creationist indeed places her faith in intelligent design, and finds in this faith a reasonable explanation of life and its origin. However, the evolutionist also operates by faith: faith in the inexplicable and wholly random origin of something out of nothing! Make no mistake, this is a leap of faith, an astounding assumption not based on any observable facts. For Christians, faith in intelligent design as explanation for the origin of life is far more reasonable than faith in randomness and blind chance."

From How Did the Universe and Life Originate? ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102002402 ):

"Belief that life originated by blind chance demands faith - not measurements, empirical evidence, etc. -but mere opinions. Astronomer David Block observed: “A man who does not believe in a Creator would have to have more faith than one who does. In declaring that God does not exist, a person makes a sweeping unsubstantiated statement—a postulate based on faith.” "

From Has Science Done Away With God? ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102010402?q=faith+in+science&p=par ):

"Although the new atheists like to wave the banner of science over their camp, the fact is that neither atheism nor theism rest purely on science. Both involve faith—atheism in purposeless blind chance; theism in an intelligent First Cause. The new atheists promote the notion that “all religious faith is blind faith,” writes John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, England. He adds: “We need to emphasize strongly that they are wrong.” The question, therefore, is this: Which faith stands up under test—that of the atheist or that of the religious believer? "

Pending:
Point 3: The Methuselah Conundrum
Point 4: Personal Opinions
Point 5: The Scientific Method

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 88: Tue Aug 27, 2019 11:32 am
Reply
Re: Genesis - The Beginning.

Like this post
[Replying to post 86 by Diagoras]

Sure why not you want to live by this idea it is fine with me. That means that if observations are made that falsify a theory then the theory has to be thrown out. For Example:

Quote:
Idea: The moon chipped off the old block — that is, the moon formed from debris flung up by early Earth when it was struck by another large body. This proposed event would have happened some 4.5 billion years ago; nevertheless, a little reasoning and some background knowledge easily lets us generate expectations to test this idea. For example, if the chip-off-the-old block theory were true, the moon should have a similar composition to that of the Earth's crust 4.5 billion years ago. Well-established ideas in geology and planetary science suggest that, by that time, iron and heavy elements in Earth's crust would have already sunk to its core. So we would expect the moon to be deficient in iron like the Earth's crust, and in fact, recent Apollo missions have borne out this expectation. Moon rocks are low in iron, which lends support to the chip-off-the-old-block theory.


1. the collision mechanics cause the Moon to be derived mainly from the mantle of the impactor, whereas geochemical evidence strongly indicates derivation of protolunar material mainly from the terrestrial mantle. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X89900976

2. The collision would have melted and differentiated the Earth causing geochemical signatures quite different to those actually observed;(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X89900976)

The problem with the giant-impact hypothesis is that it has difficulty accounting for why the isotopic ratios on the moon look exactly like the ones we see on Earth. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/253830-giant-impact-hypothesis-moon-formatio...

3. One of the new dynamical results is that the debris from the collision would rain back down onto Earth instead of remaining in orbit and forming the moon. Recipe for a moon, Discover 18(11):25–26, 1997


Now if we are using this criteria. Then the flood is quite easily proven.

1. Beneath major mountains are large volumes of pooled saltwater. (Recent discoveries support this prediction, first published in 1980. Supercritical saltwater appears to be below the Tibetan Plateau, which is bounded on the south by the largest mountain range on Earth.)83

2. The crystalline rock under Gibraltar, the Bosporus and Dardanelles, and the Golden Gate Bridge will be found to be eroded into V-shaped notches. (This prediction, first published in 1995, was confirmed for the Bosporus and Dardanelles in 1998103 and for Gibraltar in 2009104 and 2018.105)

3. By 2020, satellites in low-Earth orbits will predict the locations of major earthquakes several days before the quakes. The satellites will measure electrical changes in the ionosphere that are produced by piezoelectric voltages building up in stressed rock around the focus of the coming earthquake. If the focus is above the crossover depth (220 miles below Earth’s surface), upward escaping magma may also produce detectable heat around the epicenter days before the quake. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117797008806



4. Fragments of a 60-mile-thick granite layer (a hydroplate) will be found a few miles under the Pacific floor and inside the Ring of Fire.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/may/24/extra-layer-of-tectonic-plates-d...

5. Comet ice that has never melted will contain dissolved CO2.

6. Soil in “erosion” channels on Mars will contain traces of earthlike soluble compounds, such as salt, from Earth’s preflood subterranean chambers. Soil far from “erosion” channels will not. (This prediction was first published in April 2001. Salt was first discovered on Mars in March 2004.93

7. Some large, near-parabolic comets, as they fall toward the center of the solar system for the first time, will have moons. Tidal effects may strip such moons from their comets as they pass the Sun. (A moon may have been found orbiting incoming comet Hale-Bopp.)

8. A greater concentration of argon will be found in the outer portions of comets. http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/09/25/rosina-detects-argon-at-comet-67pc-g/


9. Asteroids are rock piles, often with internal ice acting as a weak glue.9 Large rocks that began the capture process are near the centers of asteroids and comets.

Four years after this prediction was published in 2001 (In the Beginning, 7th edition, page 220), measurements of the largest asteroid, Ceres, found that it does indeed have a dense, rocky core and a mantle primarily of water-ice.10

On 23 January 2014, it was announced that two jets of water vapor were discovered escaping from Ceres at a combined rate of 13 pounds per second.

10. Most of the rocks (pebble-size and larger) comprising asteroids and comets will be found to be rounded to some degree. (This rounding occurred as the rocks tumbled and were eroded in the powerful fountains of the great deep, just as rocks are tumbled and rounded in fast flowing streams.)

The European Space Administration announced on 18 December 2014 that very large, rounded boulders—1 to 3 meters in diameter—are stacked “layer upon layer” “all over” Comet 67P. [See Figure 184 on page 340.] They jokingly call them dinosaur eggs, and believe they could be the basic building blocks that clumped together to form” comets.

11. A deep, penetrating impact on a large asteroid, such as Ceres, will release huge volumes of water vapor. (This prediction has now been confirmed.

“Here we report the detection of water vapour around Ceres, with at least 10 26 molecules being produced per second, [13 pounds/sec] originating from localized sources that seem to be linked to mid-latitude regions on the surface.” Michael Kuppers et al., “Localized Sources of Water Vapour on the Dwarf Planet (1) Ceres,” Nature, Vol. 505, 23 January 2014, p. 525.

13. As has been discovered on the Moon and apparently on Mercury, frost, rich in heavy hydrogen, will be found within asteroids and in permanently shadowed craters on Mars.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22572-heavy-hydrogen-excess-hints-at-mart...

14. Many TNOs will be found with rings.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/291829-scientists-create-model-of-ring-aroun...

15. A positive correlation will be found between lineament concentrations and earthquakes.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252373434_Earthquakes_and_Lineament_Inf...

Here are 15 predictions that flood theory made before the discovery was made.

According to your article which states "The key is to remember that we are figuring out what we would expect to observe today, if a particular event had happened in the past."

That is exactly what we did, if the flood occurred then the above is proof that it happen because it fits what we would expect to observe.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 89: Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:20 pm
Reply
Re: Genesis - The Beginning.

Like this post (3): benchwarmer, Tcg, Diagoras
[Replying to post 88 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
Then the flood is quite easily proven.


The biblical Noah's flood has been conclusively disproved, and cherry-picking standard creationist website points as you always do does not change the fact that such an event could not have happened as described in the bible, at the time biblical chronology indicates (ie. ~4500 years ago).

You'd be much better off, and not have to keep trying to fight a battle that has already been convincingly lost, if you'd adopt an approach more like other Christians who understand how science works and what it has shown, and who are not so scientifically illiterate and gullible that they believe nonsense of the type that Russell Humphreys and his ilk have produced.

One example of such a person is Dr. Lorence Collins, a retired geologist who also happens to be a Christian. Here is what he has to say about Noah's flood:

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/03/twenty-one_reasons_noahs_worldwide_flood_n...

And he explains why he writes the articles he does here:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bible.htm

More of his articles are here:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/creation.html

He understands that the bible is not a science book and is not literally correct in everything it states. It tells stories such as the creation story, and Noah's flood, that are just that ... stories. Science has proven, absolutely, that these stories are not factually correct. You're wasting your time pretending these stories are compatible with modern science and trying to defend that view with creationist website pseudoscience and outright nonscience (eg. Humphreys).

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 90: Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:56 pm
Reply
Re: Genesis - The Beginning.

Like this post (4): benchwarmer, brunumb, Diagoras, bluegreenearth
[Replying to post 87 by elijahpne]

Quote:
At the same time, some scientists fall into the trap of calling theories facts when they are only theories. This actually violates the scientific method.


The scientific method does not involve anything called "facts." It involves a hypothesis which, when supported by sufficient observations, measurements and analysis transitions to a theory. You don't seem to understand how the scientific method works if you think scientists call theories facts, then you use the phrase "only theories" which suggests that a theory is only a hypothesis. This is the typical (and completely wrong) use of the word theory in context of the scientific method.

Quote:
Therefore, the theory goes, when it comes to the origin of life, evolution may be taught in the schools, but not creation.


Again, you're completely misunderstanding something here. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) says nothing, whatsoever, about HOW life came about. The origin of life has nothing to do with ToE, but this mistake is made continuously by creationists and the religious in general. ToE only applies to living forms once they came into existence in the first place. It says nothing about the mechanism. If that happened to be via "creation", out of nothing, by a god being that's fine. This is not inconsistent with ToE in any way. You're mixing up origin of life mechanisms such as abiogenesis, panspermia, etc. with ToE when they are completely unrelated subjects.

Quote:
Although the new atheists like to wave the banner of science over their camp, the fact is that neither atheism nor theism rest purely on science. Both involve faith—atheism in purposeless blind chance; theism in an intelligent First Cause.


There's so much wrong with that I'm not sure where to start. Certainly theism does not "rest purely on science." That is obvious and you could say the exact opposite (ie. theism ignores science completely). But atheism does not involve faith, and it positively does not involve purposeless blind chance. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of gods. It is not a faith and it has no relation to "blind chance" or any kind of chance. And science isn't blind chance either. Do you think the advances over the past centuries in agriculture, medicine, technology, etc. are all the result of blind chance? Are you confusing atheism and science. What do you think these two things are? What are your definitions for these two words? You seem very confused on the meanings of atheism, evolution and science.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version