Jump to content


Photo

Where Is The Evidence?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
19 replies to this topic

#1 LightHorseman

LightHorseman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Armidale, New South Wales

Posted 13 August 2006 - 07:30 AM

I keep finding threads from people saying that they have scientific evidence for Creationism, but then when I go and look at those threads and posts, there are only a string of bible verses, and straw man arguments. Can someone please show me some ACTUAL scientific evidence of God interacting with His Creation? Please?

And I DO mean scientific... something observible, or with experimentally verifiable results, or that is the simplest explanation for the observable phenomena, that DOESN'T attack evolution as part of its proof. I don't think I need to see any more arguments saying "evolution goes against common sense", what I want is hard PROOF of YEC or OEC, or even ID, rather than bible quotes and strawman attacks against competing theories.

Someone PLEASE help me out here

#2 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2471 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 13 August 2006 - 01:01 PM

I keep finding threads from people saying that they have scientific evidence for Creationism, but then when I go and look at those threads and posts, there are only a string of bible verses, and straw man arguments.


Since the vast majority of posts in the CvE section do not include a “string of Bible verses”, nor many, if any, strawman arguments, I can only conclude you are likely not interested in evidence or civil debate, but to waste people's time, so please prove me wrong.

And I DO mean scientific... something observible, or with experimentally verifiable results, or that is the simplest explanation for the observable phenomena, that DOESN'T attack evolution as part of its proof.


If you find bomb fragments at the scene of an explosion, do you ignore this evidence because it attacks a naturalistic explanation? With this reasoning, we would never solve acts of violence. I’m sorry, but evidence against naturalistic origins is by extension evidence for non-naturalistic origins (and visa versa).

There are many threads here that provide scientific evidence for creation and YEC. Here is one that is a pinned topic:

http://www.evolution...p?showtopic=283

Someone PLEASE help me out here


PLEASE, prove to me I am wrong to think you are here to waste our time.

Fred

#3 LightHorseman

LightHorseman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Armidale, New South Wales

Posted 13 August 2006 - 01:13 PM

Dear Fred,

This isn't the only forum in which I am seeking knowledge, and I DO keep coming up against people who simply quote chunks of Genesis at me in lieu of giving me scientific evidence.

What I am REALLY after... assume I have never read the Bible, and live on an island where there are no bibles. Giv me some sort of scientific explanation for creation that conforms to what I can observe on my island without resorting to some sort of "God of the Gaps" theory...

I'm sincerely interested in knowing about the actual mechanism of God's creation, and how to explain the apparent biblical paradoxes.

As for your bomb fragments bit, I'm not quite sure how that fits with anything we are discussing here. And as an interesting sidenote... I'm a former military EOD (Explosives Ordinance Disposal) Tech with the Australian Army. Just saying, since ou brought bombs up... But are you paraphrasing the "If I find a watch while out walking, I assume the existance of a watchmaker" argument?

#4 LightHorseman

LightHorseman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Armidale, New South Wales

Posted 13 August 2006 - 01:22 PM

Dear Fred,

Further, I have read your article about Helium in Zircons, although a lot of what you had written were attacks against mainstream scientific community. This isn't what I'm after.

I'll accept the Helium/zircon bit as young Earth evidence. But there still seems to be a lot of old Earth evidence out there! Is there any theory or empirical evidence, observable phenomena that will explain galactic regression, and archaeopterix for me? This sort of stuff all comes up at my university lectures.

Final note, is there a place for accusations of "time wasting" on a board for honest and civil dialogue?

#5 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 13 August 2006 - 04:47 PM

LightHorseman,

Where is the evidence? What I think you are really asking is, “Where is the proof?”

All scientists have the same evidence to work with. A young-earth creationist looks at the Grand Canyon, for example, and constructs a scientific theory that very neatly fits what God has told us about creation and the world-wide flood. A materialistic-only evolutionist sees the same evidence and tries to work a theory out of his naturalistic-only presuppositions.

The difference is that the YEC has the whole word of God as his underpinnings for his presuppositions. The evo, on the other hand, is severely limited by his self-imposed blinders because he ignores the word of God and puts all his faith in his flawed materialistic presuppositions. As a Christian, you should know that.

However, proof of the “scientific method” kind is hard to come by for things that have occurred in historical science. All we can do is interpret the evidence starting from the best presuppositions. The test is how consistently our interpretations make sense and follow one upon another without having to revert to qualifying language, such as maybe, perhaps, could have, we think, etc., and without having to rely on impossible improbables of chance, or wishful thinking for “evidence soon to be discovered,” or ever-lengthening periods of time to accommodate the need for fulfilling those impossible odds. That’s the burden of materialistic-only scientists who wait in vain for evidence or proof that will never come because it doesn’t exist and never will.

Another test would be how many gaps are left in a theory. Evos refuse to discuss origins, claiming origins is unimportant to their naturalistic theories. But if one is going to propose a completely impossible and improbable theory of naturalistic progression from molecules to man, one is being disingenuous and cowardly to run from discussion of how that began in the first place.

See, you and others would like to put the burden of “proof” on creationists, but evos are nowhere close to being able to prove their conjectures. In fact, because they operate outside the reality of the word of God, their theories truly are in the realm of fairy tales. It takes a whole lot more faith to believe in that than it does to acknowledge the God who is the creator of the heavens and the earth.

LightHorseman, if you are truly seeking the truth then you should spend a lot of time at answersingenesis.org, icr.org and creationresearch.org. You will find thousands of articles written by good scientists who present the best interpretations of the evidence.

Dave

#6 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2471 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 13 August 2006 - 06:04 PM

I'm sincerely interested in knowing about the actual mechanism of God's creation, and how to explain the apparent biblical paradoxes.

View Post


Do you truly think it is important for the Creator to tell us *how* he created life?

What Biblical paradoxes are troubling you?

As for your bomb fragments bit, I'm not quite sure how that fits with anything we are discussing here. And as an interesting sidenote... I'm a former military EOD (Explosives Ordinance Disposal) Tech with the Australian Army. Just saying, since ou brought bombs up... But are you paraphrasing the "If I find a watch while out walking, I assume the existance of a watchmaker" argument?


The watchmaker argument is as valid today as it was when Paley made it.

The bomb analogy fits because it describes a scientific process that does not rely on repeatable, empirical science to gather the knowledge necessary to make a sound judgment. Another example is SETI. Most evolutionists would agree it is valid science, Sagan certainly did. In the movie ‘Contact”, Ellie discovers a signal from outer space and exclaims “this cannot be a natural phenomenon!”. Was this determined by the traditional “scientific method”? No. Does that mean it is not scientific? No. But when creationists apply the same standard to the DNA (which most evolutionists acknowledge is a blueprint, or code), evolutionists cry foul. Do you agree this is a double-standard?

Is there any theory or empirical evidence, observable phenomena that will explain galactic regression, and archaeopterix for me? This sort of stuff all comes up at my university lectures.


If galactic regression is so compelling an argument for the big bang, why is it easy to find many evolutionist physicists who reject the current big bang theory? See www.cosmologystatement.org and take note of some of the big names who have signed it. Besides this, why is evidence of an expanding universe a problem for creation? It certainly fits the Bible: “You forget the LORD your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens…” Isaiah 51:13 (do not rail on me for using a Bible passage, it is often entirely appropriate and is not necessarily appealing to the “God of the Gaps”; if you truly are a Christian you should not be unwilling to be shown Bible passages that support the observational science).

If Archaeopteryx is so compelling as an example of dinos evolving into birds, why is it easy to find leading bird experts who are evolutionists who reject this evidence? Both the curator of birds at the Smithsonian and renowned bird expert Alan Feducia will tell you that it is simply a perching bird, and those who try to turn it into a dino are engaging in “paleobabble” (Feducia's words). If it truly is a perching bird as these evolutionist experts claim, why doesn’t this fit the Bible?

Final note, is there a place for accusations of "time wasting" on a board for honest and civil dialogue?


When you come in here and accuse us of only riddling off Bible passages instead of science and engaging in strawman arguments, you can believe my 9 years of experience in this debate is going to make me immediately suspect you are here to waste people’s time. But based on some of your other posts I was willing to be proven wrong. If we suspect someone is here just to engage in evo-babble, as occurs on far too many other forums on the internet, then they’re dislodged, simple as that. We strive for quality, not quantity.

BTW, interesting about your work in EOD (it must have been a blast :))

Fred

#7 LightHorseman

LightHorseman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Armidale, New South Wales

Posted 13 August 2006 - 07:02 PM

This will take some rumination, plus its late and I'm tired. However, two points imediately jump out at me...

QUOTE(LightHorseman @ Aug 13 2006, 02:22 PM)
I'm sincerely interested in knowing about the actual mechanism of God's creation, and how to explain the apparent biblical paradoxes.


Do you truly think it is important for the Creator to tell us *how* he created life?

Well kind of, yeah... I mean understanding "how" is what science is all about! Not to menti0on the technological ramifications... a clear understanding of the most basic biological pronciples will surely have vast implications for medicine, social planning, agriculture, and I'm sure a heap of other disciplines.

the other point, if you want to know about my EOD exp. thats probably worthy of a different thread... but I'm happy to talk about it if you like. Only got into it by accident (technically I'm a tank driver, the bomb course was just a matter of, "right place, right time") but the qualification got me to Iraq last year. Fun had by all. You should see the photos.

Oh, and you asked about biblical paradoxes... well, since I'm typing anyway...

I Kings 7:23-26, clearly states that Pi=3, and this is flawed. Thats my favourite example, but there are other flaws, or rather, basic understandings we would expect from a less technological time. Now, heres the paradox...

If the Bible is 100% accurate, then how do we explain passage like this one?
But if we accept that there are passages in the Bible that may be approximations, or alegorical, than how do we know which parts are completely accurate, and which have some leeway for enterpretation?

#8 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2471 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 13 August 2006 - 10:02 PM

Do you truly think it is important for the Creator to tell us *how* he created life?


Well kind of, yeah... I mean understanding "how" is what science is all about! Not to menti0on the technological ramifications... a clear understanding of the most basic biological pronciples will surely have vast implications for medicine, social planning, agriculture, and I'm sure a heap of other disciplines.


OK, I grant the point (and if I told you my explanation, we would go way off topic), so let me re-word. Do you believe God has not provided us sufficient evidence for his existence?

Oh, and you asked about biblical paradoxes... well, since I'm typing anyway...

I Kings 7:23-26, clearly states that Pi=3, and this is flawed. Thats my favourite example,… 
If the Bible is 100% accurate, then how do we explain passage like this one?
But if we accept that there are passages in the Bible that may be approximations, or alegorical, than how do we know which parts are completely accurate, and which have some leeway for enterpretation?


Did you know that characters in the Hebrew language also have an associated numeric value, called Gematria? In the verse of the Bible that contains a circumference and diameter (1 Kings 7:23), the Hebrew word for circumference contains an extra, a-typical character at the end that can only add value to the word by applying Gematria. Ancient scholars referred to these “anomalies” as a remez, or something deeper. When taking the ratio of the added character to the value of the original word, the value of Pi is achieved to within 4 decimal places! You can attribute this to coincidence if you like, it’s entirely up to you. If you want to go on placing more faith in man’s opinion rather than God’s word, hey, that’s what free will is all about. :)

A center verse of the Bible: “It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man.” Ps 118:8

Fred
PS. AiG also has a plausible explanation here

#9 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 14 August 2006 - 01:38 AM

LightHorseman: I think it is a misunderstanding to demand scientific evidence for creation. The basic paradigm of science is that the world follows some set of rules, and the quest of science is to discover these rules. Divine creation (and, in principle, all creation) does not follow rules, since God is the maker of rules and thus above them. God may have created a world that follows rules, but the creation itself does not follow such rules. Therefore, the idea of creation can explain anything we see.

What you might ask for, however, is evidence that any particular creation story is the correct one. Not opposed to evolution, but opposed to other creation stories.

Hans

#10 LightHorseman

LightHorseman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Armidale, New South Wales

Posted 14 August 2006 - 07:02 AM

"OK, I grant the point (and if I told you my explanation, we would go way off topic), so let me re-word. Do you believe God has not provided us sufficient evidence for his existence? "

Well Fred, thanks for your consideration, but that rather IS the topic of my question. I'm currently studying at university, and elements of my course include evolutionary theory and non theistic cosmology, and if I am going to say in an exam setting that there is a competing theory, I need to be pretty sure of my facts. Since the bulk of my course is geared towards nursing, we can pretty well guarantee that there are going to be some questions about this stuff (see also my posts regarding bacterial "evolution"), because they are going to ask me about generative mechanisms...

Now, re the whole Pi bit...

I'm always a bit suspicious of the "lost in translation" arguement, because it would rather seem to create more problems than it solves

1 Kings 7:23 (King James Version)

"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

To simplify, it states three facts,
round (circular)
C= 30 cubits
D= 10 cubits
and we simply KNOW that there is a flaw here somewhere. Either the measurement is innacurate, or it wasn't really a round vessel, or there has been a misstranslation of esoteric Judaic number theory... but whatever the cause, we are left with a passage that has a logical anomaly in it.

Now king James is supposed to be the definitive translation to English right? But what you are telling me is that the translation is flawed. So again, we come back to the whole, "if one bit is flawed, or approximated, how do we know that there arent other bits that are flawed or approximated"? I mean, within the tolerances of the technological level of the time? But thats a different issue to what I really want to know in THIS forum. Even if I accept that the Bible is flawed through human intervention, it is possible to believe in a literalist Genesis account, where the specifics have been slightly blured. So just because the Kings passage has problems, in no way suggests that everything else in the Bible is necessarily problematic.

That said,

Like I said way back at the start though, "Can someone please show me some ACTUAL scientific evidence of God interacting with His Creation"

And lastly *wince* "A center verse of the Bible: “It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man.” Ps 118:8"

My religion is based on the Bible. Really it is. But from a scientific standpoint, I have asked that we deal in the verifiable facts of observation and experiment, rather than fall back on "its true, cos the Bible SAYS" arguements. There are subtleties to this line of reasoning... "Trust God"... OK, how does God reveal himself? Through what is directly observable in the natural world, surely?
So what if there is a conflict between what God tells me, and what a man of God tells me? See? Its a WHOLE other can of worms that I'm not trying to get into here.

#11 LightHorseman

LightHorseman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Armidale, New South Wales

Posted 14 August 2006 - 07:25 AM

Dear Fred,

Sorry, I missed that bit of your post "do you not think God has provided us with enough evidence of His existance"

Well, my personal beliefs are for my own reasons, although it has a lot to do with there being "no Atheists in foxholes"

So I do not question for a moment that there is a supreme being, and that he is the Christian God.

However, your question asks has he provided us with enough EVIDENCE...
Well, lets go back to my Pacific Island thought experiment. If there is enough evidence, then, without access to a Bible, or any knowledge of Biblical teachings, enough EVIDENCE should lead me to the conclusion of the existance of the Christian God, even without the Bible. Do you think this would occur based on available evidence?

So, to answer your question honestly, I have to say, no, I don't think that He HAS provided us with enough EVIDENCE.

Indeed, this is the primary tennet of Fideistic theology

#12 LightHorseman

LightHorseman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Armidale, New South Wales

Posted 14 August 2006 - 07:49 AM

"basic paradigm of science is that the world follows some set of rules, and the quest of science is to discover these rules. Divine creation (and, in principle, all creation) does not follow rules, since God is the maker of rules and thus above them. God may have created a world that follows rules, but the creation itself does not follow such rules"

Dear Hans,

Are you advocating the abondonment of scientific method? It reads like you are saying, "just because we have observed an apparent causal link between A and B, God could change this any time, so there really is no link between A and B"?

Interesting take on science from you. I wonder if you will take anti-biotics the next time you have a life threatening illness? Cos I guarantee you that the theories on which they are based have to do with observable experimental results, rather than asking God to just take care of it in some unknowable mechanism.

I just can't iumagine God creating a universe where he has to fill in the fiddly bits with unknowable interventions. Sounds kinda sloppy, and doesn't really say much about your respect for his abilities as a designer.

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 August 2006 - 02:01 PM

PS. AiG also has a plausible explanation here

View Post


I’m with you on this one Fred, Pi=3 has never sat well with me due to the fact that the Bible is not intended to be a geometry text.
From the AiG article - Rounding up is an ‘ok’ explanation I suppose, but I particularly think the extended lip on the container is perfectly adequate explanation, i.e. someone not versed in geometry describing such a vessel.

#14 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 14 August 2006 - 02:35 PM

I’m with you on this one Fred, Pi=3 has never sat well with me due to the fact that the Bible is not intended to be a geometry text.
From the AiG article - Rounding up is an ‘ok’ explanation I suppose, but I particularly think the extended lip on the container is perfectly adequate explanation, i.e. someone not versed in geometry describing such a vessel.

View Post


Personally, I think the issue is simpler than that.

Chance, what's the distance from the tip of your finger to your elbow? Mine's about 18.25 inches. Uh, wait a minute, nope, it's more like 18.35 inches. Darn, it depends on where I decide my elbow ends.

That's today. Last year when I was thinner (ahem) it was more like 18 inches.

When we were building our house I used my personal "cubit" as a rough approximation of where to pound nails according to building code -- 12 inches spacing in the middle of the 4x8 sheet of shearply, 6 inches all around the edges. It's a good thing the building inspector never challenged my "cubit" because my 12-inches and 6-inches varied alot.

See my point? When all you have is the length of your arm to measure something, I'd say you could be forgiven for not being able to bring it to the fourth decimal place.

(All said tongue in cheek)

Dave

#15 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 15 August 2006 - 02:15 AM

"basic paradigm of science is that the world follows some set of rules, and the quest of science is to discover these rules. Divine creation (and, in principle, all creation) does not follow rules, since God is the maker of rules and thus above them. God may have created a world that follows rules, but the creation itself does not follow such rules"

Dear Hans,

Are you advocating the abondonment of scientific method? It reads like you are saying, "just because we have observed an apparent causal link between A and B, God could change this any time, so there really is no link between A and B"?

Interesting take on science from you. I wonder if you will take anti-biotics the next time you have a life threatening illness? Cos I guarantee you that the theories on which they are based have to do with observable experimental results, rather than asking God to just take care of it in some unknowable mechanism.

I just can't iumagine God creating a universe where he has to fill in the fiddly bits with unknowable interventions. Sounds kinda sloppy, and doesn't really say much about your respect for his abilities as a designer.

View Post

I am certainly not in favor of abandoning the scientific method. What I say is that it cannot be applied to a system that includes an omnipotent entity.

Now:

1) Either the universe was created to follow physical laws all the way through, in which case the scietific method applies and is, at least in principle, capable of discovering everything about the universe (very unlikely to ever actually happen, but that is another matter).

2) Or, while physical laws may apply to some extent, God is, on a regular basis, interfering with the universe, making things happen that do not follow the laws of physics (otherwise there would be no need to interfere).


If #2 is true, and this is implied by creationism, then it does not make much sense to try to apply the scientific method except in the most simple matters, since interference from God will throw us off track. This is the reason creationists are attempting to argue that evolution cannot happen within the context of the laws of physics. If successful, they will have indirectly proven that a supernatural entity exists to interfere with things.

Hans

#16 LightHorseman

LightHorseman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Armidale, New South Wales

Posted 15 August 2006 - 06:02 AM

Dear Hans,

Thank you for your deeper explanation of your POV. However...

If your scenario 2 is the correct one, there should be some direct evidence of it surely?

In a different thread, I have asked about strains of "new" pathogens...

My concern is this...

Axiom... we are aware of disease currently that we weren't aware of a few years ago
implication- said disease are caused by species of pathogen that were not in contact with humans until a few years ago

from which it is possible to draw 2 conclussions,

either, human specific protists have been living in a reservoir seperate from humans until a few years ago,

OR

these new pathogenic life forms have only been in existance for a few years.

Nw I am happy to accept that either of these sitations could arise from direct intervention of deity...

However,

It is my contention that such intervention should be observable.

#17 LightHorseman

LightHorseman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Armidale, New South Wales

Posted 15 August 2006 - 06:31 AM

And re: the whole Pi thing... come on. The Bible is either infallible, or its not. You can't have something being a LITTLE bit infallible. If you make a claim of infallibility, then you have to be prepared for scrutiny. The Pi=3 bit fails this test.

So my question stands... if there is a flaw in ONE bit, (which you all seem to accept on some level, even though you trey to make excuses for it "not a geography text book") then how do you know that OTHER bits arent flawed?

Look, I'm happy to admit that 3 is a pretty close approximation for Pi... but we arent talking about close approximations, we are talking about Bible literalism. And if the ancient Hebrew gets it even closer, well, thats all well and good... except that most bible literalists seem to run on the KJV, whish is the verse quoted in which pi=3... so even if the ancient Hebrew is correct, we still have problems in the translation, so how can we take the translation as 100% accurate in regard to other issues?

#18 odinmagick

odinmagick

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • az

Posted 15 August 2006 - 11:17 AM

"basic paradigm of science is that the world follows some set of rules, and the quest of science is to discover these rules. Divine creation (and, in principle, all creation) does not follow rules, since God is the maker of rules and thus above them. God may have created a world that follows rules, but the creation itself does not follow such rules"


This is like saying the man who created chess is above the rules of chess and does not have to follow them while playing?

#19 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 16 August 2006 - 12:44 AM

If your scenario 2 is the correct one, there should be some direct evidence of it surely?


Well, or at least indirect evidence. That is, we should see sequences of events that did not follow rules.

Axiom... we are aware of disease currently that we weren't aware of a few years ago
implication- said disease are caused by species of pathogen that were not in contact with humans until a few years ago

from which it is possible to draw 2 conclussions,

either, human specific protists have been living in a reservoir seperate from humans until a few years ago,

OR

these new pathogenic life forms have only been in existance for a few years.

Nw I am happy to accept that either of these sitations could arise from direct intervention of deity...

However,

It is my contention that such intervention should be observable.


Since they could also arise from non-intervention (evolution), no evidence of intervention can be gleaned from their mere existence. Only if we could somehow prove that they could not arise from non-intervention (and negative proofs are next to impossible to achieve), could we infer that intervention had to be the cause.

Odinmagick:

This is like saying the man who created chess is above the rules of chess and does not have to follow them while playing?


Mmm, not quite. "Man" is the keyword, here. The man who created chess is not in a different class than other players. However, the analogy can be stretched as far as saying that in the case of chess, one of the rules is that all players follow the rules. So it follows that once the creator of the game has created the rules, he is bound by them.

Now, this could also be the case of the creator of the universe; obviously, the universe has been created following certain rules. In fact, it may have been created to be entirely rule-driven. In this case, the creator is, of course, bound by those rules, for the duration of the game. AND in this case, there are two possibilities:

1) The universe is entirely deterministic. All events, down to the last quantum event, are programmed from the moment of creation. We have no free will, we are simply enacting a program.

2) The universe is less deterministic, the rules allow life to occur, evolve, and make decisions, within a certain framework.

#2 can be believed to include a divine creator, but since the creator has bound himself to play by the rules, it is in practice indistinguishable from Materialism.

There is a third possibility: The creator has decided to generally play by the rules, but reserves the option to interfere on occasion, when things do not go in the right direction. Mainstream Christianity seems to cater for this option.

Hans

#20 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:46 PM

And re: the whole Pi thing... come on. The Bible is either infallible, or its not. You can't have something being a LITTLE bit infallible. If you make a claim of infallibility, then you have to be prepared for scrutiny. The Pi=3 bit fails this test.

So my question stands... if there is a flaw in ONE bit, (which you all seem to accept on some level, even though you trey to make excuses for it "not a geography text book") then how do you know that OTHER bits arent flawed?

Look, I'm happy to admit that 3 is a pretty close approximation for Pi... but we arent talking about close approximations, we are talking about Bible literalism. And if the ancient Hebrew gets it even closer, well, thats all well and good... except that most bible literalists seem to run on the KJV, whish is the verse quoted in which pi=3... so even if the ancient Hebrew is correct, we still have problems in the translation, so how can we take the translation as 100% accurate in regard to other issues?

View Post


Look, I'm happy to admit that 3 is a pretty close approximation for Pi... but we arent talking about close approximations, we are talking about Bible literalism.



Hmmmm, there’s literalism and then there’s Literalism.

Fred Williams I cant seem to find the topic, I think it was called “it’s all true, but” in one of the bible sections, written by The Deacon, which from memory explained ‘literalism’ quite well from your perspective.

It is my opinion that YEC members here do not hold to the strictest form of the definition, like for instance that sect in America that “takes up snakes” this is the only reference I could find Holy Ghost People - a documentary by Peter Adair (1967).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users