james bond
Well-Known Member
How do you know what I did or happened to make me come to that position? Aren't you jumping to conclusions?
And you admit what you did to reach an evolution worldview in your first sentence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Verifiable evidence for creationism?
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
How do you know what I did or happened to make me come to that position? Aren't you jumping to conclusions?
And you admit what you did to reach an evolution worldview in your first sentence.
You may well think you are talking science, but, believe me, you have seriously deluded yourself but good.
gnostic
The Lost One
That's the thing, JB, you haven't been discussing science.
You have been presenting any evidence towards creationism, especially that of the creator.
The topic is about creationists presenting testable and verifiable evidences for creationism. No one (creationists) have done so including you.
Your best source so far seemed to be from kalam cosmological argument (KCM), because you wrote:
Here is the thing, JB, you said to ashkat1 that he is not presenting science but philosophy, but then you go ahead telling ashkat1 to look at KCM, which is nothing more than Christian philosophy, from a guy (William Lane Craig who wrote about KCM), who is nothing more than a Christian philosopher and apologist, with no background in science.
KCM is not science. Craig presented no science, no evidences to back his argument, just some fallacious word games, that the universe have a cause, and I am quite sure he is arguing that the cause being God.
So your source, is far from being scientific, JB.
Yes, quite right. The question of God is not a scientific question, to start with. It belongs in a different court, in the courts of theology and philosophy. Craig's Kalam (Arabic for discourse) argument is simply an extension of earlier cosmological proofs for God, which are based on the existence and order of the universe, though ithey most certainly are not the only arguments for the existence of God. It states all beings that have a beginning have to have a creator; the universe has a beginning, therefore the universe has to have a Creator. Physicists have faulted the argument, as some believe self-creation is a real possibility. The other problem is that it just says there is a God, it doesn't say what kind. It also does not say why God created. Now the latter is important. Einstein and others wanted to dump God, because it would be a mess to bring God into the picture, because if you do, you have to explain why he created, and no one in science wants to take on the additional burden of having to do that. In theology, the latter is not a problem or burden, that can be and is a central task, at least in my field, process theology, but I can see where it would be in science.
gnostic
The Lost One
I don't think scientists advocate for dumping god, just that God is not irrelevant.
Science is attempting to understand how nature and man-made things work, through testing or finding evidences, in which God played no part, because how could anyone test a god?
Science is based on investigating how the world work, and how it can be utilised (ie application of science, like like using electricity or mechanics, eg technology).
I am not saying that science is perfect in knowledge. Far from it, but they do investigate to learn more. The knowledge in science is progressive, learning through trial-and-error. Scientists do make mistake, but because there other scientists who can test anyone's papers or works, science have the ability to self-correct.
The book, like the bible, apart from narrating stories of figures, like Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus, or guide how to worship God, the bible provide most use and values in law and moral, like to how to treat someone, or punishing those who have committed crimes.
Other than that it is not instruction manuals for practical daily life, like it cannot teach people how to build houses, boats, roads, bridges, etc, or how to fish or how to farm or to irrigate, or how to use tools in carpentry, metalworking, etc. It also cannot teach maths and astronomy, or how to treat broken bones or illnesses, or how to treat people who suffer from mental or emotional illnesses.
The bible is limited in a lot of aspects of daily life, back then and now. But people, like JB, want to treat the bible as science book.
At least you and many other Christians can see the line that divide knowledge between theology and science. JB and other creationists refused to recognise the boundaries of religion and science, because they are not satisfied with just Jesus' teachings.
The problem with mixing science and the bible, is that it will expose the bible's limitations and shortcoming, like there are no evidences for 6-day creation or the flood.
Science can see that the earth is far older than the estimated age of creation, and there are no geological and archaeological evidences to support a global flood.
But neither stories of creation and flood are important. What is important in these stories are the messages, like not disobeying God (eg Genesis 3, or King Saul), and not to be wicked or sinful (like the Deluge or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah). And how God rewarded those who worship him and are good to others, eg Abraham, Moses and David.
The bible simply don't explain the HOW.
For instance, in JOB, God claimed he is the cause of all rain, snow, thunders and lightnings, and storms, but doesn't explain how. Science can explain the HOW of each of these things. God's answers to Job sounds more like superstitions than science.
All creationists are doing is put their scriptures and belief in the spotlight, when they attempted to mix it with science and history.
Last edited:
Well, to be more exact, Einstein really didn't dump God. In fact, he said he believed in God. The problem was that he and others wanted to view the universe as eternal. Otherwise, there would have to be a beginning to it and they felt it would be a big burden to have to explain why it got started and that would mean possibly bringing God into it, and all this gets really complicated and messy. So let's just assume the universe always was. Fred Hoyle was right. The BB, however, threw out that idea.
Liberal Christians, such as myself, hold that the Bible was not intended by God to be a work in science. God's primary revelations, God's great salvific revelations, occur in history, not nature. Unlike natural religions, where the deity or deities are introduced to explain the works of teh natural order, the Bible is exclusively preoccupied with history, specifically this history of the nation of Israel. The Genesis account is very brief and tells us very little, compared to the creation accounts of natural religions, which go on for pages and pages. Actually, Genesis gives two conflicting accounts back to back. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. These accounts are by two different authors from two different time periods, with 2 being the older. We know that based on a careful study of their literary structure. The biblical redactors, having no real interest in nature, couldn't decide which one was right, didn't care, and so stuck them both in together. It's interesting that Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis, said that God did not intend to give us an astronomy lesson, that God was simply speaking in the language of teh people, accommodating himself to the common man. Calvin is Reformation, a time when teh clergy are really beginning to feel heat from science on the biblical cosmology and its flat-earth, and so Calvin is thinking the Bible really isn't intended to be an accurate geophysical witness.
james bond
Well-Known Member
The creation scientists and I have done no such thing. You're the one who has deluded yourself from the Bible and science. Why did you give up the Bible so easily?
"Theistic evolution says one of two things. The first option is that there is a God, but He was not directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to atheistic evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.
The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were constant. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to special creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it."
One of the most unfortunate trends in modern Christianity is that of reinterpreting Genesis to accommodate evolutionary theories. Many well-known Bible teachers and apologists have caved in to the evolutionists and have come to believe that adhering to a literal interpretation of Genesis is somehow detrimental to the credibility of Christians. If anything, evolutionists lose respect for those whose belief in the Bible is so tenuous that they are willing to quickly compromise it. Although the number of true creationists may be dwindling in academia, several faithful organizations such as Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Society, and the Institute for Creation Research have affirmed that the Bible is not only compatible with real science, but affirm that not a single word in the Bible has ever been disproved by true science. The Bible is God’s living Word, given to us by the Creator of the universe, and His description of how He created that universe is not compatible with the theory of evolution, even a “theistic” understanding of evolution."
I think you are way, way off base here. AIG (All Intelligence Gone) is not a solid, credible scientific site and not a solid, credible theological one either. The same is true for the other groups you mention. Creation-science is simply a propaganda mill run by individuals who want to earn a dishonest living bilking the public for pure, one-hundred-per-cent, unadulterated bovine excrement. There are few, if any, creation-scientists in academia because they are all bogus and therefore can't cut it in academia. You obviously have no real background in theology. Otherwise you would have realized that Augustine, Aquinas, and also Calvin did not hold with a literal interpretation of Genesis. I and many other contemporary theologians have no trouble whatsoever reconciling God and evolution. In fact, I think God is essential for their to be evolution. Evolution is the rise of genuine novelty. Genuine requires a transcendental imagination, i.e., God. Also, I and many other theologians see God as continually interacting with creation, omnipresent and responsive in the fullest sense of the terms.
Last edited by a moderator:
gnostic
The Lost One
At that time, Lemaître (1927)/Friedmann (1922), Einstein and Hoyle (1948) were putting out three different solutions to the physical cosmology of the universe at the beginning, and all three were largely - "theoretical" and "hypothetical".
Theoretical, because at the start, they can only provide mathematical solutions, no evidences.
It is only when verifiable evidences became available that one of them emerge as most likely to be true.
The first evidence that the Big Bang theory, when Edwin Hubble was able to observe and measure galaxies moving away from one another, showing the universe is expanding. The second most important evidence for the Big Bang theory, occurred with discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) in 1964, which was first predicted by Alpher and Herman in 1948.
CMBR actually start with the Recombination epoch of the Big Bang theory, when electrons for the first time, bonded with ionized hydrogen and helium nuclei. This bonding released energy and photons. CMBR is the oldest observable light or remnant heat of the Big Bang, older than even the earliest quasars, and older than the first stars and galaxies.
The discovery of CMBR was last nail to Hoyle's cosmology.
Though Einstein did originally disagree with Lemaître's expanding universe hypothesis (later called the Big Bang theory, supposedly coined by Hoyle in a radio interview), he changed his mind, and began supporting BB.
Lemaître (BB) and Hoyle (Steady State model) had both used Einstein's General Relativity as a framework to explain their respective theories, but both observations of redshift and CMBR, debunked Hoyle's SS model.
Parts of the Big Bang theory remains theoretical even today, meaning singularity and the periods before the beginning of Recombination epoch (377,000 years AFTER the Big Bang). Everything before 377,000 years are not observable, but the explanation to earlier BB epochs are sound and logical.
No one know if the universe is eternal or not, because we cannot observe anything before the Recombination epoch, because the universe before this epoch was and it is still opaque.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I said it appears that way. Though it does seems obvious to me, in your continuous attempts to make the science fit with the creationist view.
What sentence?And you admit what you did to reach an evolution worldview in your first sentence.
Last edited:
I found your comment about Einstein quite interesting. I think science has clearly established this present universe had a beginning and so isn't truly eternal. I agree science has no idea what happened before. My theory is that God is eternally creative. Therefore, there has always been some sort of created order, or universe. Before this one, there was another, very different one, and so on, ad infinitum.
I disagree.
It is true that scientists say that often, especially when speaking to non scientists. But I believe they simplify things too much, if they really understand what relativity entails. If Einstein were alive, he would probably warn them that things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.
First off: we do not know the physics that rule at regimes close to the so-called beginning. We call it singularity, but this is just another name for ignorance.
Second: science has ascertained that time is not a metaphysical thing in which the Universe unfolds. Time IS a component of the Universe. So, it meaningless to say that the Universe began, unless we are able to make sense of what beginning means without a time context, ergo the Universe, already in place.
Third: when we consider that time IS a component of the Universe, it does not make sense to speak of an expansion of the Universe, either. What we see is an expansion of space in time, which is a far cry from an expansion of the whole space time block in...what?
Fourth: time is not even objective, in relativity. It cannot be stripped away from timespace so that we have two separate objective things (time and space). Therefore, to say that the time began 13.8 billions years ago, is as absurd as saying that space started at that location 13.8 billions light years from us. Especially if we use relativity to make that point.
Fifth: beginnings (and ends) assume a direction of time. From past to future, for instance. There is no trace of such an asymmetry in the laws of physics. For what we know, the time arrow we perceive is an emergent property of the current thermodynamic and macroscopic state of the Universe. Ergo, it is definable only in terms of a (macroscopic) Universe already in place.
Same mantra: dynamics, beginnings, expansions, or, more generally, change in time, require reference frames and states that are provided by an already existing Universe, and cannot therefore be applied so easily to the whole Universe itself.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Whether God is real or eternal, is a matter of personal faith, ashkat1, not science.
Whether the universe is eternal or not, no one knows. Not the scientists, not the Christians, not the Jews.
All the stuff I have mentioned about expanding universe model or the Big Bang - like CMBR and the Recombination epoch; these are what scientists can confirm about the Big Bang theory, because these are observable and measurable.
With our current technology, we have reached the limit of what we can observe...for now. The CMBR marked the earliest observable event of the Big Bang, and that also naked the limits of the "observable universe". Before the Recombination epoch (about 377,000 years after the Big Bang), the earlier universe is opaque, therefore unobservable.
Perhaps, future space missions, like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), due to be launched next year, may uncover more of the mysteries of the Big Bang, of earlier epochs, or it may refute some of the current hypotheses of the earlier epochs of the Big Bang. We just don't know yet.
But getting back to the point. Science cannot determine if the universe is older than what we can currently observed or measured. And without the ability to see more than the observable universe, there is no way to determine if the universe is eternal. And none of that make the existence of a god to be true (or false, for that matter).
The whole god-thing is a matter of faith, not evidences, because there have been no verifiable evidences for such existence.
Last edited:
james bond
Well-Known Member
This just goes to show you do not have the "real eyes" to see. Evos cannot explain the complexity of the eye system. Even Darwin could not explain. Yet, creationists and God know its remarkableness. Further evidence of God. Today, the vox populi of evolution should be turned around and flushed down the tubes for what it is.
From the Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI--DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY
"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
james bond
Well-Known Member
I am talking to a delusionalist. Just made up that word. So no amount of correct words will convince you that you are wrong. You're entitled to your worldview, but just know that you gave up the word of God like the cheapie you are. Disrespect.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
This is just more nonsense. How is the human eye evidence for the Christian god? Or any god(s)?This just goes to show you do not have the "real eyes" to see. Evos cannot explain the complexity of the eye system. Even Darwin could not explain. Yet, creationists and God know its remarkableness. Further evidence of God. Today, the vox populi of evolution should be turned around and flushed down the tubes for what it is.
From the Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI--DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY
"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
If you actually pick up "On the Origin of Species" and read it, you will notice that Darwin goes on to explain just how he thought the eye could have evolved. What's your point?
"Evos" have no problem explaining the complexity of the eye:
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/171.full
https://evodevojournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2041-9139-4-26
http://pec.sagepub.com/content/41/5/626.refs
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep02751
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/evolution_of_the_eye.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/
If you care about reality and using your "real eyes", you should stop getting your information from creationist websites. You're not helping yourself. This "argument" is old news that has been debunked long ago.
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Everything that person said about creationists/creationism was spot on. You should be realizing that by now.
james bond
Well-Known Member
It has not been debunked and the debate will continue on. The key word you use is COULD have evolved. More evidence that this is made up. Here is an example I just finished watching. Like most people who enjoyed the 80s, I watched Stranger Things and just now was watching what to expect for season 2. Warning: Spoilers ahead. To cut to the chase, it ends up talking about the supernatural which is what all of season 1 was about. Not only were there CIA-types and a company hiding their findings and experiments, there was this other dimensional world and the supernatural things inside it. So, what am I getting at? The evos have to make up stuff about the supernatural because they can't accept the real supernatural in our world and what has always been and what will always be. It's irony and what I would call the real Stranger Things ha ha (For real eyes people, we had Risen and The Young Messiah (Christ the Lord) in 2016).
If you haven't finished season 1, then don't watch.
STRANGER THINGS | NEW Season 2 Information
Sapiens
Polymathematician
This just goes to show you do not have the "real eyes" to see. Evos cannot explain the complexity of the eye system. Even Darwin could not explain. Yet, creationists and God know its remarkableness. Further evidence of God. Today, the vox populi of evolution should be turned around and flushed down the tubes for what it is.
From the Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI--DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY
"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
The Talk.Origins Archive has two articles on this famous and flagrantly out-of-context eye quote: Evolution of the Eye and An Old, Out of Context Quotation. This quote has been used by many creationists, for example Creation Moments: Radio: The Deceptive Eye and An Overview of Intelligent Design. The Archive has the full text of what Darwin wrote online. Alternately try The Writings of Charles Darwin on the Web for full text of what Darwin wrote about this in the first edition or the sixth edition and use your browser's "find" feature to search for "absurd." Reading what Darwin wrote following the text the creationists quote mine clearly shows that Darwin did not in any way find the evolution of the eye absurd. Also see a creationist site lists the quote as an argument not to use saying that it is "subtly out of context." - Quote Mine Project.
JB must by now realize that quote mining is a lie by omission, but a lie never-the-less.
Last edited: