6 days Creation

[siegi91]

On 8/8/2017 at 6:10 PM, one.opinion said:

I'd like to bring up a model combining Tristen's belief in the Bible with Kevin's confidence in the process of scientific discovery. I believe that God created through evolution. There is a tremendous amount of evidence in astronomy, geology, and biology that point to an earth much older than 6,000 years. At the same time, I don't believe that the scientific evidence discredits Christian faith. The Christian faith is not built on Adam, but on Jesus Christ. There is sufficient evidence that even atheists routinely conclude that there was a teacher with a considerable following about 2000 years ago named Jesus. Of course, Christians go beyond that to believe He came to earth to die as a replacement for the sins of humanity and rose victoriously over death, enabling those who commit to Him to have "new life". The acceptance of the science  of evolution does not detract in the least from what Jesus has done on our behalf.

I don't think that would work:

 Siegi

 

[Kevinb]

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

The logical scope of operational science is current, natural phenomena. Claims about the past and supernatural claims are beyond that logical scop

This is bizarre to me. Of course we can use science to investigate the past. The past isn't investigatible? 

I'm sure you're aware of cosmic background radiation... my mistake wasn't Einstein.. 40s.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

Gravitational waves.

www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw.

Predictions made and supported by big bang theory. Hubbles work and more.

We can investigate here. We didn't have to find this...it didn't have to be that way. If we hadn't found it or had found something else we might have a different model now. 

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. The scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different theories, the Big Bang and theSteady State theory, but a wide range ofempirical evidence has strongly favored the Big Bang which is now universally accepted.[9]In 1929, from analysis of galactic redshifts,Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are drifting apart; this is important observational evidence consistent with the hypothesis of an expanding universe. In 1964, the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the Big Bang model,[10] since that theory predicted the existence of background radiation throughout the universe before it was discovered. More recently, measurements of the redshifts of supernovae indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, an observation attributed to dark energy's existence.[11] The known physical laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme densityand temperature.[12].

How does God fit in here... where is his involvement?  Or do you just deny this data? This is clearly not the same as the supernatural being non investigatible...as you admit. Why believe in a proposition you can't investigate?

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

“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.

The consensus supports these things because it's based on....evidence. where did i say believe consensus not based on evidence? Most people in the world...certainly usa and the middle East believe in God as you believe in God. Couldn't that be a consensus view?  Where is the evidence for me to subscribe to this? Oh wait supernatural claims can't be investigated. I'd need faith from a starting point... having all answers before I've even investigated... and from authority... that's a fallacy.

Any horizon issue well this is where inflation comes in. Science doesn't start with all knowledge and doesn't have all answers..things have to be discovered. Look how we've progressed in the last 400 years since science. If we don't know yet then we don't know.. we can't just say God. That's a argument from ignorance fallacy. Think I'm starting to understand.. you just attempt to derail any theory that contradicts biblical presupposition.. you still need to demonstrate God involvement.. I'm not seeing anything. Even in your view science can't investigate... and supernatural claims can't be investigated... your default should be... don't know not to assert the latter. You can just have faith in supernatural regardless and you must have. Then I'm left with which faith shall I pick... and based on what... where and when I happen to be born into?  I don't see the need to pick any faith...how does it help to believe supernatural claims on faith. It seems as a species we more readily went to this in the absence of scientific but we don't need to do that now.

Also faith claims require breaks in the laws of physics and biology and nature. Virgin births..people living for 800 plus years in the bible. Rising from the dead etc. Magnificent claims indeed... the evidence needs to be pretty magnificent..i don't see magnificent evidence for these claims...or any evidence. Unless anyone has some I've not seen? Doesn't your consensus fallacy apply here also? 

Edited September 10, 2017 by Kevinb

[Guest shiloh357]

10 hours ago, Kevinb said:

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.

Yet, science says they know how the universe started.  The Big Bang is considered the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and to not accept it as fact is detrimental to one's career as a scientist.   But yes, no one was there.   But as long as the explanation of origins doesn't include God, then it doesn't matter, right?   It only matters if one is asserting what doesn't support an atheistic worldview.

Quote

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

And what would that look like?   You want evidence you know I cannot provide rather than deal with the evidence that can provide.   It's an a common atheist ploy to demand that Christians provide evidence that is out of their reach and while ignoring the available evidence, and then pretending that Christians have no evidence. 

Quote

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.

You don't get to decide what is or is not evidence.   We have evidence but you are unable to be fair and objective about it, so you pretend that there is no evidence.  That is rather dishonest.;

Quote

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

Actually the idea that chemical processes brought forth living micro-organisms that, through a process of random mutations, eventually led to human beings has always been a tenet of most evolutionists.  Darwinian Evolution cannot have any kind desired goals or outcomes.   It is an unintelligent process.  Even Stephen J. Gould views our existence is purely random and if our universe were destroyed and was replaced by a new universe through the same processes that created ours, and the process of Evolution were to start all over again, the odds that humans would ever exist in the new universe are infinitesimal.   From an evolutionary standpoint, we are an accident that would never be repeated.

Quote

Evolution isn't intended to explain abiogenisis. 

But it does, when prominent evolutionists argue that resulted from a chemical reaction.

 

Quote

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. 

So where do you think like came from?
 

Quote

 

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. 

 

 

 

Actually, the evidence for God is in nature.   Again, you do not have the sovereign authority to define what is or is not evidence.

Quote

 

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.

 

Actually, it says He was born of a virgin, if you read the post a little better.

Quote

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?

Most of fulfilled prophecy is fulfilled historically and can be historically verified.   And the fulfillment is on a detailed level, not in a over-generalized, vague manner.

And a modern day example of just how accurate the Bible is, is to look at the restoration of modern Israel.   Modern Israel is a direct fulfillment of Bible prophecy in stunning detail, actually.

What's more, is that modern Israel was not founded by religious Jews.   It was founded by Atheists and Agnostics who were not reading the Bible.   They had no interest in the Bible.  Most of Israel's government is, to this day, nonreligious.   Orthodox Jews make up less than 2% of Israel's population.   And the Bible said that God would restore the Jews to Israel while they are yet in a state of unbelief in God.   And there are several prophecies that were fulfilled in a detailed manner that cannot be compared with Nostradamus and his vague quatrains.

[KiwiChristian]

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

 

THE FIRST DAY

 

THE second day

 

THE third day...

 

[Kevinb]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Yet, science says they know how the universe started.  The Big Bang is considered the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and to not accept it as fact is detrimental to one's career as a scientist.   But yes, no one was there.   But as long as the explanation of origins doesn't include God, then it doesn't matter, right?   It only matters if one is asserting what doesn't support an atheistic worldview.

I meant science doesn't show what was prior to the big bang and what caused it. I've cited..hubble..cosmic background radiation and things that support a big bang model. It's not about just dismissing God did it.. you just need to demonstrate he did and evidence he did. 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

And what would that look like?   You want evidence you know I cannot provide rather than deal with the evidence that can provide.   It's an a common atheist ploy to demand that Christians provide evidence that is out of their reach and while ignoring the available evidence, and then pretending that Christians have no evidence. 

Well you make a claim...ie God did you must need to give evidence of his involvement . So if the evidence is out of your reach... why not just not believe it until it is. The default is we have no claims let's look for evidence. The default initial stance shouldn't be there is a God..we can't investigate that.. now let's go look at evidence with that presupposition bias. I don't see that as rational.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually, it says He was born of a virgin, if you read the post a little better.

Okay... here we're breaking the laws of nature right... so we are appealing to biblical authority and faith and miracle. This is a big claim that's in the bible..i need more than the it's true coz later in the bible it says it is.  Same as people seem to be 100s of years old. The quran says Mohammed went to heaven on a winged horse. What mechanism do I reject that and accept the bible stuff? 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Most of fulfilled prophecy is fulfilled historically and can be historically verified.   And the fulfillment is on a detailed level, not in a over-generalized, vague manner.

The list given was either general and was open to interpretation or to accept others all I've got is the bible saying it's true. 

Those who like nostradamous cite him predicting conflicts with the middle East.. the 2nd world war and even the rise of Hitler.

Incidently I've still seen no response to the fall of tyre biblical prophecy that didn't happen.

[Kevinb]

1 hour ago, KiwiChristian said:

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day. And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 

[Enoch2021]

5 hours ago, Kevinb said:

This is bizarre to me. Of course we can use science to investigate the past.

What on Earth??   You'd FAIL 5th Grade General Science...

The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. 
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".
The sine qua non of Hypotheses are "Independent Variables".

A Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement; it expresses a TESTABLE proposed CAUSE and EFFECT Relationship - (The Phenomena that was Observed in Step 1) .  It's a classic:  "IF" this "THEN" that, motif.

Scientific Hypothesis - a special kind of PREDICTION that forecasts how the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE will affect the dependent variable.
http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdf

"In an experiment, the Independent Variable is the variable that is VARIED or MANIPULATED BY THE RESEARCHER, and the dependent variable is the response that is measured."
http://www2.uncp.edu/home/collierw/ivdv.htm

 

So pray tell, How in the World can the Researcher VARY AND MANIPULATE The Independent Variable of a Past Event so as to TEST IT without a TIME MACHINE ??  Inverse Telekinesis ?

 

Quote

The past isn't investigatible? 

Not by The Scientific Method it's not (SEE above); and having to tell you and illustrate this, EXPOSES you.

 

Quote

I'm sure you're aware of cosmic background radiation

Yes, Humpty Dumpty has more Veracity: I personally Bludgeoned it here (You Tube): Science vs. Scientism Episode 6 - Speed of Light and the CMB.

 

Quote

Gravitational waves.

"Gravy Waves" now, eh?  OK...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

Hubbles work and more.

Yes, Alice in Wonderland has more Veracity; I personally Bludgeoned it here (You Tube): Science vs. Scientism Episode 7 - Red Shift and the Nebular Hypothesis.

 

Quote

Predictions made and supported by big bang theory.

Here we go again,

Predictions in "Science" are Dependent Variables.  Dependent Variables are "Dependent" on Independent Variables; it's called a...

Scientific Hypothesis

Scientific Hypothesis - a special kind of PREDICTION that forecasts how the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE will affect the dependent variable.
http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdf

"The scientist applies his/her present knowledge to PREDICT the effect of the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE on the DEPENDENT VARIABLE. 
The PREDICTION is a statement of the expected results of the experiment based on the HYPOTHESIS. The prediction is often an "if/then statement ."
https://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/pred.htm

 

"Scientific Predictions" kinda DIFFER from...

1.  "POST"- dictions.
2.  Jeanne Dixon/Jimmy The Greek/Nostradamus/Carnival Tent "Predictions".
3.  Cyclic Repeat - dictions.

...Due too "The Method" used.

So place your 'big bang' Predictions in the Appropriate Category...?  

 

regards and Thanks, PRICELESS 

 

[JohnD]

On 8/1/2017 at 8:23 AM, Zoltan777 said:

I would like know people opinion about creation. Many traditional believers stating it all happened in 6 days. Some other stating it took 6000 year referring to 2. Peter 3.8.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

So what do you think, which theory is valid? And why? Or explain it if you have different thoughts.

Creation, so far as we know, took place instantaneously. We are still mapping the vastness of the universe.

Genesis 1 and 2 are local references to the remodeling / specifications that took place here on Earth in the solar system in this galaxy once the rest was put up to make Genesis 1 and 2 possible.

It could have taken less than a nanosecond. Trillions of galaxies across trillions of light years in a nanosecond.

Think not? Some process of growth required?

How old was the fully grown fully functional Adam on day one?

[siegi91]

3 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

What on Earth??   You'd FAIL 5th Grade General Science...

The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. 
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".
The sine qua non of Hypotheses are "Independent Variables".

A Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement; it expresses a TESTABLE proposed CAUSE and EFFECT Relationship - (The Phenomena that was Observed in Step 1) .  It's a classic:  "IF" this "THEN" that, motif.

Scientific Hypothesis - a special kind of PREDICTION that forecasts how the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE will affect the dependent variable.
http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdf

"In an experiment, the Independent Variable is the variable that is VARIED or MANIPULATED BY THE RESEARCHER, and the dependent variable is the response that is measured."
http://www2.uncp.edu/home/collierw/ivdv.htm

 

So pray tell, How in the World can the Researcher VARY AND MANIPULATE The Independent Variable of a Past Event so as to TEST IT without a TIME MACHINE ??  Inverse Telekinesis ?

 

Not by The Scientific Method it's not (SEE above); and having to tell you and illustrate this, EXPOSES you.

 

Yes, Humpty Dumpty has more Veracity: I personally Bludgeoned it here (You Tube): Science vs. Scientism Episode 6 - Speed of Light and the CMB.

 

"Gravy Waves" now, eh?  OK...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Yes, Alice in Wonderland has more Veracity; I personally Bludgeoned it here (You Tube): Science vs. Scientism Episode 7 - Red Shift and the Nebular Hypothesis.

 

Here we go again,

Predictions in "Science" are Dependent Variables.  Dependent Variables are "Dependent" on Independent Variables; it's called a...

Scientific Hypothesis

Scientific Hypothesis - a special kind of PREDICTION that forecasts how the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE will affect the dependent variable.
http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdf

"The scientist applies his/her present knowledge to PREDICT the effect of the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE on the DEPENDENT VARIABLE. 
The PREDICTION is a statement of the expected results of the experiment based on the HYPOTHESIS. The prediction is often an "if/then statement ."
https://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/pred.htm

 

"Scientific Predictions" kinda DIFFER from...

1.  "POST"- dictions.
2.  Jeanne Dixon/Jimmy The Greek/Nostradamus/Carnival Tent "Predictions".
3.  Cyclic Repeat - dictions.

...Due too "The Method" used.

So place your 'big bang' Predictions in the Appropriate Category...?  

 

regards and Thanks, PRICELESS 

 

If I may, aren't you the guy who believes that the earth is flat and that the moon really emits its own light (and it is not reflecting the light of the sun)?

Just to be sure...I need that information in order to tune my debating parameters right and any response to your scientific posts. If not, let me know.

siegi

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2017 by siegi91

[Kevinb]

9 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Quote

Evolution isn't intended to explain abiogenisis. 

But it does, when prominent evolutionists argue that resulted from a chemical reaction.

Evolution is about the change in species over time via natural selection in Darwinian terms. Evolutionists may hypothesis on abiogenisis but you're mistaken. This is about when and how biochemistry might have brought about the 1st replicating molecular seeds of life.