6 days Creation

[Kevinb]

6 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Then you have the hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. 1Cor 15:5-8.

The bible is true coz the bible says it is doesn't help ... that's a circular reasoning fallacy.

On prophecy..Please cite. It all looks like..a non precise claim then we go looking at history to see what fits. A prophecy must be precise and not repeating or open to interpretation. I may as well follow nostradamous right?  What about the fall of tyre biblical prophecy... want went wrong there? 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Yes I agree nature exists. Please demonstrate a God put it there. Just asserting isn't evidence that was the case. Stonehenge...yes we've evidence of humans back then...construction techniques..also stones they lost off the South coast in transporting. This is an equivocation fallacy..we don't need to assert supernatural claims.

The point is that creation and life didn't come out of nowhere.  It didn't just happen.  Nothing in our realm of reality works like that.  Creation bears the signature of its creation.   I don't know what you would accept as evidence for God, to be truthful.  It's not a profitable use of my time to search high and low for "evidence" of God only to have you summarily brush it aside.  

The point about Stonehenge is that even though we don't know who built it or even how it was built, we can tell that there is evidence of intelligent design in it.   Not having evidence of who built it, doesn't stop us from accepting that someone built it.  

I am applying the same logic to creation and to the origin of life.  The earth and all of its biological systems are far too complex for Evolution to be plausible. 

While I don't agree with him on everything, as he is an Old Earth Creationist, Dr. Hugh Ross, an astronomer, makes an excellent argument for how creation reveals God, particularly as it relates to His character:  http://www.reasons.org/articles/creation-reveals-god’s-character

Quote

Really so you started with we don't know the answer ...looked and think evidence supports the supernatural? Most will go looking after indoctrination then pick or dismiss as necessary. If you were born in the middle East..ancient Greece..india or countless others you'd still be christian? Isn't it lucky everyone seems to be born at the right time and into the right religion.

I think nature supports the existence of the God of the Bible.   An all-knowing, all-powerful, everywhere-present God is the best explanation for the created order, especially the overall order and uniformity.   Science really needs the creation mode.   Scientists need the creation model to do science. Randomness doesn't really serve science very well.

Quote

Really evidence...Demonstrate gods involvement. You realise science is science whatever religion.

God's involvement makes perfect sense when you take into account thing uber complexity of every aspect of creation.   The evidence is staring you in the face.   You can't get the overall consistent, order and uniformity that we observe through a random, unintelligent process.   The complexity of what can be see in biochemistry, physics, astronomy and especially the DNA strings that contains all of the information needed for the construction of our bodies. There is nothing about Evolution that can explain how that information was arranged so uniquely to each person through complete randomness.  

And Evolution cannot explain the origin of life.  Life begets life.  Life comes from another living thing.  Abiogenesis is a dead stick.

Quote

Another assertive statement...please demonstrably  show God did it..or anything?  As I said evolution pokes doesn't mean God... you must give evidence for a claim...as do alien origins or those who think we live in a matrix style simulation... which is growing sadly

The evidence is seen in how creation speaks to the nature of the Creator. He reveals Himself through what He has made, but you reject the only evidence that can, or will ever be given.

[Tristen]

4 hours ago, Amazing Horse said:

No , when God told Adam that if he eat fruit he will die this same day

Genesis 2:17

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

But we know that Adam did not die after he ate fruit , he lived over 900 years so God must have lied and bible is not true then , wrong !

Adam did die in that same day , he died before 1000 years which is one day for God .

 

 

Your choosing to find an alleged inconsistency or contradiction in the text does not objectively obligate a rejection of the entire account. It is fair to ask how we might reconcile these claims, but not objective to assume there can be no reconciliation of the claims. If there is a rational way to reconcile the claims, then the allegation of contradiction fails.

God initially informed Adam as to the just consequences of sin. After the event, God chose mercy over judgment (see James 2:3)- and provided a vicarious sacrifice on their behalf in the clothing He made them from skin. Something died that day in Adam's stead.

[Kevinb]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The point is that creation and life didn't come out of nowhere.  It didn't just happen.  Nothing in our realm of reality works like that.  Creation bears the signature of its creation.   I don't know what you would accept as evidence for God, to be truthful.

Do we know how the universe started ... no.  That means we don't have an explanation yet to then assert one makes no sense. Or demonstrate a God did it? All I see is assertion and analogy not evidence. No explanation then asserting one is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

What i would accept for God is evidence of gods involvement. Faith doesn't help...

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

he evidence is seen in how creation speaks to the nature of the Creator. He reveals Himself through what He has made, but you reject the only evidence that can, or will ever be given.

Again this isn't evidence... you're not demonstrating it. I could just say magic pixies did it..zues did it...Mohammed is the prophet or any position.

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

There is nothing about Evolution that can explain how that information was arranged so uniquely to each person through complete randomness.

Evolution isn't random...mutations yes but guided by natural selection.

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

And Evolution cannot explain the origin of life.  Life begets life.  Life comes from another living thing.  Abiogenesis is a dead stick

Evolution isn't intended to explain abiogenisis. 

To assert God created any initail early life then you need to demonstrate its absolutely impossible naturally with all chemistry ...variables..conditions etc with the millions of years we have to play with. At the mo it's not known as lots wasnt and now is. Again if we don't know then for now we don't know. Asserting explanation is again an argument from ignorance fallacy else demonstrate a God doing it. 

Also you seem to be saying you recognise design elsewhere.. man made so the natural looks designed. That's just an analogy. We've evidence a car is designed.. the factory..blueprints... those who build them. Cars don't occur naturally in nature and reproduce. Sadly... and i do say sadly as I want to believe but we don't have the evidence in nature the same way else you could demonstrate it without fallacy or faith. 

 

Yowm... thanks. I'll take a few and overview. 

1. Born of a woman? Erm well yeah... I'm sure people noticed that women give birth.

It all looks like circular reasoning. Stuff in the bible validated by stuff in the bible right?  How can we check this outside of faith?  Seems to me without faith and independent corriberation future passages can just be added. Even if some things might be interpreted outside how is it precise.. not open to interpretations?  Btw where is the tyre falling prophecy that didn't happen? I quite enjoy nostradamous predictions too but I don't see devine there either.

I am not being deliberatly obtuse here. I just can't factor in any faith. Links must be demonstrated.

 

 

Edited September 10, 2017 by Kevinb

[Tristen]

13 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Not the case if it's supported by evidence. 

An arguement from authority would be...ie one source.. not supported by evidence..ie the bible asserting the 6 day stuff

The consensus demonstrates gravity theory...germ theory of disease...atom theory of matter.. earth goes round the sun. You're happy with all of it it seems right up to your bible things that would be in conflict

Hey again Kevin,

“You seem to be aware of some of the science and evidence but I'm not seeing how you then add God did anything and how you demonstrate that?”

The logical scope of operational science is current, natural phenomena. Claims about the past and supernatural claims are beyond that logical scope. Therefore, a departure from the robustness of the scientific method is required to investigate such claims. The best we can do is to formulate a model around the claim, then compare current and new facts against the model. But, logically, claiming scientific confidence in the model, based on facts lining up with the model, commits the logic fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. We can choose to place confidence in a preferred model, but that confidence is based in faith, rather than generated through the scientific method.

The Bible provides the primary model for Christians (in the same way that Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry are the primary secular models). The Bible makes many temporal, historical claims for comparison to the facts. Our confidence in the model is based in establishing the reliability of the model through that comparison. No one has ever naturally observed the Big Bang (or life evolving from a common ancestor). Confidence in these claims is based consistency between the model, and current facts. I use the same logical methodology to rationalise my faith in unobservable claims contained in the Biblical model. Only, I know that faith is required, whereas those appealing to secular models incorrectly characterise their confidence as scientific.

Neither unobserved past claims nor supernatural claims can be scientifically/empirically demonstrated (without a time-machine or some kind of spirit-o-meter). That obviously doesn’t mean they can’t be true, but it does require a departure from the scientific method which should be reflected in a logical mitigation of confidence in these claims (apart from faith).

 

“In 1916 Einstein predicted gravitational waves in a big bang and inflation. You'll be aware of these waves being discovered a few years ago?”

I am happy to look at the study if you can point me to it. What I do remember, is that Big Bang was only proposed in the late 1920s and Inflation in the 1970s. So I am suspicious that your predictive claims are anachronistic.

 

“Or the cosmic background radiation discovered in the 60s?  Physics predicted this stuff and more prior”

And when vestigial organs were a popular argument for Common Ancestry, creationists predicted that functions would be found before they were – likewise with non-coding DNA. The predictive capacity of models is of limited meaning, especially when trying to apply ‘predictions’ to the past. Again, you have to Affirm the Consequent. The models themselves have also undergone massive changes over time to account for contrary facts – which essentially represent failed ‘predictions’.

 

“The science of this and evolution makes predictions and is falsifiable... as per scientific method”

No claim of the unobserved past is logically falsifiable. The “scientific method” requires observations from experimentation in order to generate mathematical confidence in claims against appropriate control conditions.  How can you perform experiments in, or make the necessary observations of, the past - required to generate legitimate scientific confidence? What is the appropriate control model?

Consistency between current facts and a particular model only means there is a possibility that the model may be a true representation of reality. It in-no-sense verifies that any particular claim of the model is true. So the confidence generated by this method is not scientific – and does not conform to the “scientific method”.

Even facts which seem to contradict the model don’t necessarily undermine any specific claim of the model. It can always be reasoned that, “we simply don’t yet know how to reconcile this fact to the model – perhaps we will figure something out later”. This response would be perfectly legitimate in a logical sense – but demonstrates why models of the past are logically unfalsifiable. Just because we can’t think of a way to reconcile the model and facts doesn’t mean there is no way to reconcile them. Such was the case with the horizon problem for Big Bang theory. No one rejected Big Bang when the facts didn’t fit the model. They simply waited till someone came up with the idea of inflation - that largely reconciled the problem. Alternatively, secular models can be tweaked to conform to any contrary facts – which has happened quite a bit for Standard Cosmology.

 

“How do you get to interpreting it a different way to mean and add God?”

Easily - I use the same logical methodology as those advocating secular models – I just start from the premise of a different model.

 

“Please demonstrate? Or please demonstrate any God involvement here?”

You appear to be requiring observations of the unobservable. If so, please point me to where the Big Bang can be, or has been, observed. I want to repeat the experiment used to generate this observation. But if all you can come up with is current facts interpreted to support the Standard Cosmology model, then you are being inconsistent in your demand, and failing to consider that the same weakness is inherent to your own preferred model.

 

I claimed “Appealing to Consensus is always a fallacy because it represents a departure from logic” to which you responded, “Not the case if it's supported by evidence”.

If an argument is “supported by evidence”, then it’s not an Appeal to Consensus. But in the absence of explicit support, consensus is utterly meaningless.

 

“The consensus demonstrates gravity theory...germ theory of disease...atom theory of matter.. earth goes round the sun. You're happy with all of it it seems right up to your bible things that would be in conflict”

Consensus "demonstrates" exactly none of these things. They can be supported by argument and evidence. I do not accept any argument based on consensus. But even if I did, it would still be fallacy.

[Tristen]

9 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Just for the record, those are Tristen's words and not mine. I am firmly of the opinion that consensus opinion among experts in a field is meaningful. I contend that it is not a logical fallacy use expert consensus opinion as reasonable support. The alternative would be to accept the validity of 1 person's opinion out of a billion with a different opinion, because siding with the billion would "only be appeal to consensus".

Another "alternative" would be to require the advocates of each position to provide their argument and evidence - rather than expecting everyone to have uncritical faith in their stated "opinion". It is logically possible that the 1 person is correct and the billion are all wrong. The only way to rationally asses for yourself is to consider the quality of their supporting arguments - without which, their opinions are all meaningless.

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Another "alternative" would be to require the advocates of each position to provide their argument and evidence - rather than expecting everyone to have uncritical faith in their stated "opinion". It is logically possible that the 1 person is correct and the billion are all wrong. The only way to rationally asses for yourself is to consider the quality of their supporting arguments - without which, their opinions are all meaningless.

So... when they do provide arguments and evidence, why does this not matter?

Yes, it is hypothetically possible that 1 in the billion is correct and the others are wrong. However, it is not illogical to assume that consensus scientific opinion is meaningful. Is it "proof"? No. Does it lend credence? Yes.

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The point about Stonehenge is that even though we don't know who built it or even how it was built, we can tell that there is evidence of intelligent design in it.   Not having evidence of who built it, doesn't stop us from accepting that someone built it.

The problem with this analogy is that there is evidence to the point of proof that people built Stonehenge, while this evidence to the point of proof is lacking in the natural world. I believe that the complexity and wonder of nature suggest that it is due to the design of God, but God intentionally leaves room for the role of faith. If God's hand were so visible that we could claim proof of His work, it would detract from the role of faith that is taught continuously throughout the Bible.

3 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Again this isn't evidence... you're not demonstrating it.

There isn't enough evidence to show that the Biblical God is the creator. In my opinion, the place to start is with Jesus Christ. There is abundant evidence that He existed - there are few scholars that claim otherwise. Expert consensus in the field of history supports His existence (again, this IS meaningful, guys!). Further, as fantastic as it might sound, it is compelling that so many followers of Jesus were convinced enough of His resurrection that they put their lives in danger (of course, many died) for the opportunity to spread this message.

[Tristen]

37 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

So... when they do provide arguments and evidence, why does this not matter?

Yes, it is hypothetically possible that 1 in the billion is correct and the others are wrong. However, it is not illogical to assume that consensus scientific opinion is meaningful. Is it "proof"? No. Does it lend credence? Yes.

It absolutely matters that anyone supporting a position does "provide arguments and evidence" - that's the point.

What is "meaningful" is how they came to their conclusions - NOT that they have reached conclusions, or how many others agree with them, or their expertise. These do not contribute any logical justification to the conclusions until supported by evidence and argument.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The problem with this analogy is that there is evidence to the point of proof that people built Stonehenge, while this evidence to the point of proof is lacking in the natural world.

And there is plenty of evidence that God created the world.  There is no evidence lacking in the world at all, that it is the product of an intelligent Creator.   Both possess  earmarks of design, which point to the fact that they did not just simply appear by any kind of random chance.  In the case of Stonehenge, those indicators of design are readily accepted, but when it comes to the earth, the obvious design indicators are shrugged off as not needing any designer.   It's internally inconsistent and irrational.

Quote

I believe that the complexity and wonder of nature suggest that it is due to the design of God, but God intentionally leaves room for the role of faith. If God's hand were so visible that we could claim proof of His work, it would detract from the role of faith that is taught continuously throughout the Bible.

Faith, by nature is evidentiary.  Faith is not a leap into the dark.   Evolutionists treat biblical faith as something akin to believing in fairy tales, that if you believe the biblical account, you are somehow naive and ignorant.  Evolution is presented  to us as the alternative to biblical faith in God as the Creator.  We are told that the earth was formed through a wholly natural process without the need of any outside intelligent Creator/Designer.   To have an evolutionary mindset requires more faith than it does to believe the Bible.

 

Quote

There isn't enough evidence to show that the Biblical God is the creator.

There is not only plenty of evidence for God as Creator, but the entire created order glorifies God as it testifies to His power, and wisdom.

From the perspective of an evolutionary mindset that needs evolution to be true, there is absolutely not enough evidence and there would NEVER be enough evidence to show that God is the Creator.   Evolution AND Creation cannot both be true at the same time.  So if a person is convinced of Evolution and sold out to that theory, it is impossible to provide them any evidence for God as Creator that they would accept.

Quote

In my opinion, the place to start is with Jesus Christ.

Glad you said that, because the Bible says that Jesus is the Creator:  John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-18 and Hebrews 2:1-2 affirm Jesus as the Creator in Genesis 1. 

 

Quote

There is abundant evidence that He existed - there are few scholars that claim otherwise. Expert consensus in the field of history supports His existence (again, this IS meaningful, guys!). Further, as fantastic as it might sound, it is compelling that so many followers of Jesus were convinced enough of His resurrection that they put their lives in danger (of course, many died) for the opportunity to spread this message.

The resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of the entire Old Testament, though.  You apparently think   Jesus and Genesis are disconnected, that the Gospel has nothing to do with Genesis and creation, but that would be incorrect.   The Gospel is directly linked to the creation account and the first 11 chapters of Genesis.