Print
The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
by Christadelphian.org
Steve sends us in this great little bit:
"Hi,
Just thought I should send this in. I have attached a flyer that was posted
through my letter box. It is from an odd Christian group,
Christadelphians, that take the good book literally. Sad to see these groups
actually exist, good to see they are on the defensive.
I really hope it is not from my next door neighbour! Perhaps I need to move."
Just thought I should send this in. I have attached a flyer that was posted
through my letter box. It is from an odd Christian group,
Christadelphians, that take the good book literally. Sad to see these groups
actually exist, good to see they are on the defensive.
I really hope it is not from my next door neighbour! Perhaps I need to move."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, November 19, 2006 | PermalinkComments 751 - 800 of 1749 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers752. Comment #30214 by J.C. Samuelson on April 7, 2007 at 8:16 am
@ 753. Comment #17925 by shauntheboy on January 17, 2007 at 3:04 pm "1. What do you see when you look at picture of mount Rushmore...etc...etc..."
The examples you used are misleading. While we can certainly infer design from these structures, and analogies are often useful tools of explanation, there are a few things about them which make them inadequate to the task of illustrating the design inference in nature.
First, drawing conclusions or falsifying a hypothesis based on analogies is fallacious. If A and B share some things in common (e.g., complexity), it does not automatically mean that A and B are the same, or that what is true for one must be true for the other. To use an abstract cultural example, Christianity and Islam are both religions. Both also have several like features (e.g., a liturgy, a holy book, prescribed practices, etc.). Yet they are profoundly different in other respects, and so are not the same. The same holds true - even moreso, actually - for comparisons like those you've made.
Second, to be equivalent the comparison must be between non-living, non-self-replicating, complex structures. Where do we find them? Snowflakes. These are non-living, non-self-replicating, complex structures that no one (that I know of) says are purposefully designed by some divine agent. Some of these are even irreducibly complex (the triangular flake, in particular), where the examples you give are not.
In case you object that an omnipotent God could design the snowflakes - each and every one of them - let me simply remind you that this is nothing more than pure speculation with no basis in evidence. Thus it would be incumbent upon you to demonstrate that snowflakes are, in fact, the product of purposeful engineering.
Third, as mentioned above, none of your examples is irreducibly complex. Remove the windows and doors from a building and it is still a functional building. To reduce it far enough, you'd have to first reduce it to say, a wall. Then you'd have to reduce it further, because it is still a functional wall. Basically, you'd have to reduce it to it's molecular structure before you can begin to approach an irreducible state. The same holds true for your other examples (e.g., take the hard drive out of your computer and it is still a functional computer (just not as convenient); take the elevator and stairs out of the Eiffel Tower and it is still a tower; so on and so forth ad nauseum).
@ 761. Comment #18156 by shauntheboy on January 18, 2007 at 4:20 pm
"The burden of proof...is on those who say there is no design and purpose."
Not so. Anyone seeking inroads in the scientific community must provide evidence to support their hypotheses. When someone comes along and makes a claim, particularly one that challenges a well-established theory, they better have something more than speculation and conjecture, and all their data better be verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Charles Darwin didn't just come along and say, "Hey guys! I think an unguided natural process led to all the diversity among living organisms. Just look around! The proof is everywhere!" His peers would've laughed him right into obscurity. Instead, Charles presented specific, unambiguous evidence, and fully expected other scientists to test his hypothesis, to go out and see it for themselves, to find any flaws. And so they did.
By the way, this was in the face of the overwhelmingly accepted hypothesis at the time - special creation.
Today, evolution is an overwhelmingly supported theory in spite of every attempt at disproving it. Certainly it's undergone some revisions, and there are still gaps that remain to be filled. It's latest challenger is ID, but its proponents have yet to present evidence supporting their hypothesis that stands up to scrutiny. The evidence they've presented (which was scant to begin with) was discredited. The bacterial flagellar motor, the blood clotting cascade, the mathematics of Dembski, and more - all of it has been found to be either specious or reducible by the scientific community.
So powerful is evolutionary theory that even Michael Behe - one of your favorites, as I understand it - accepts nearly everything about it except natural selection's ability to produce molecular complexity (see here and here - the latter is a very long read. Skip to Dr. Behe's testimony to get to the good parts. Even so, it will take a while).
All ID enthusiasts have to do is produce specific, unambiguous evidence that stands up to scrutiny, and they'll begin to have a case. Though it will take much more than just one or two experiments to make it qualify as a scientific theory, it would be a step in the right direction. Until that happens, their claims (and yours) are specious.
"I accept the theory of quantum mechanics, but I don't understand it."
Perhaps because it doesn't have anything to say about creation. The only reason you don't care for evolution is because it conflicts with the biblical account. Why not just admit it?
By the way, I don't reject the design hypothesis because I don't like what it says. I reject it because it has no positive evidence to support it.
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
753. Comment #30215 by J.C. Samuelson on April 7, 2007 at 8:17 am
@ 759. Comment #18150 by Theo on January 18, 2007 at 3:37 pm "Secondly it would be beneficial to review the comments concerning free will in my replies to J.C. Samuelson. It shows how Gods omniscience relates to freewill."
Theo, I don't think you answered my last post about that (click here for the comment). If you agree with my conclusions regarding omniscience vs. freewill, that's fine. If I've overlooked your answer, please let me know where to find it. I just didn't want you to miss an opporunity to rip my arguments to shreds. ;)
"These methods assume that the rock contained no daughter isotopes, and that systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added. Thus these methods are questionable when it comes to dating rocks, but are gleefully accepted by atheists."
You do realize you've opened another enormous can of worms here, don't you? There are over 40+ radiometric dating techniques, plus others that aren't based on radioactive isotopes. When applied properly, they produce profitable (and reliable) results and agree with one another. When applied improperly they don't. Read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens (a Christian himself) to learn why he believes Christians have been misled concerning radiometric dating techniques. It's a bit on the technical side, but not oppressively so. It's quite readable.
On a more personal note, it is important for Christians to realize that by tossing out the Carbon-14 dating method, they simultaneously toss out the conclusions regarding the dates ascribed to some of their more cherished theological relics. You can't have it both ways. Uncritical acceptance when it supports your beliefs and flat rejection when it doesn't is patently biased.
@ 849. Comment #25382 by Theo on March 12, 2007 at 7:49 pm
"If life is created in the lab from raw chemicals, then that would mean that life could have arisen without the need for a creator. This would destroy the primary evidence of a creator thus falsifying special creation."
Let me see if I understand you correctly: The primary evidence for a Creator is a lack of evidence against it? Theo, it is you who assumes a Creator without qualification (beyond vague arm waving). See above.
@ 856. Comment #25863 by Theo on March 15, 2007 at 1:44 pm
"Note well that atheists cannot prove that S.G. took place (they have faith for that also)"
It should be painfully obvious by now that this is a mischaracterization.
"There is no need to answer this question; it would only take away attention from the issue at hand. I will reveal that If however, rocks did form in a closed environment and if it was formed without daughter isotopes, then the earth must be about 4.5 billion years old!"
See the above note about radiometric dating.
Bottom Line
Say it with me now: E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Clear, unambiguous, specific, empirical EVIDENCE is what your hypothesis needs for support. Piling on unsupported claim after unsupported claim does absolutely nothing to help your case. As witnesses for the prosecution, it is long past time for you to present credible evidence. The jury, at present, is not persuaded. If Christians want to gain credibility, they either need to improve their case, make closing arguments, or concede. The latter is as simple as saying, "I don't know."
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
754. Comment #30216 by J.C. Samuelson on April 7, 2007 at 8:17 am
Some Miscellaneous Remarks"Are you saying that God is childish because God separates Himself from those who are rebelling against Him?"
Straw man. This is about eternal punishment for "crimes" as ludicrous as lack of belief. Whether it's eternal damnation or eternal separation, it is childish and tyrannical to impose such a penalty.
"The gift of salvation is offered to all but accepted by few."
Meaningless platitude. Tell me, was Hitler offering a "gift" to those Germans who rejected Nazi policy ca. 1939-1944 by executing, imprisoning, or exiling them? Or more recently, how about Saddam Hussein? Your God, as He's described in the Bible, does the equivalent to those who displease Him.
A proper gift is something that has no provisos. Love does not punish the object of its affections for failing to love in return.
@ 822. Comment #23528 by Theo on March 1, 2007 at 1:09 pm
"Therefore, contrary to atheistic propaganda, the burden of proof lies on the atheist himself because he has to prove that life arose without the need for a Creator, and until such evidence is produced, reason constrains me to remain a theist."
See my response to Shaun above. The burden of proof does indeed lie with the theist who posits a Creator. For it to be otherwise, the Creator must be a given, which it is not. It's not reason that constrains you. It's faith. Your faith in the existence of an unproven (and unprovable) supernatural entity, to be specific.
If you want the burden of proof to shift, you must first show that a Creator exists. Much as you don't like it, that requires more than simply asserting it or vague arm waving (as above).
@ 827. Comment #23769 by Theo on March 2, 2007 at 3:27 pm
"Infinite regress stops at an infinite being."
Or at an infinite universe. Just backing you up, Billy. ;)
"A reproducing cell that was assembled by chance is easier to believe than a cell being created by intelligence . . . you lost me there. What? So where did God come from?"
I simply have to ask, what in the blue blazes are you talking about here? "Where did God come from?" Several people have asked this very question of you, and yet you turn it around and expect one of us to answer for you?? And what does that have to do with the origin of the cell?
@ 863. Comment #26425 by Theo on March 19, 2007 at 8:43 am
"Here is a parable by Garth Wiebe: ..."
Theo, you've outdone yourself! Reductio ad absurdum and a straw man in the same argument. Or perhaps Mr. Wiebe deserves the accolades. Credit where credit is due. :/
Manuel's note as a metaphor for the Bible fails because the Bible is not remotely as specific or immediate. It is the result of thousands of years of composition, compilation, redaction, and transmission. Furthermore, the Bible wasn't "discovered" in some empty chamber(s) with no history or explanation of its origins. Moreover, the language the note was composed with is contemporary to its readers. The same cannot be said of the Bible.
As for Manuel, he fails as a metaphor for God because his actual existence is easily verifiable by anyone, even someone who is not interested in becoming Manuel's friend.
The "experiment" and its results are a pure caricature of the scientific method and the intentions of those who use it. In fact, this parable is completely worthless in terms of teaching or illustrating anything about anything. Well, with the possible exception that it is somewhat revealing of the motives, bias, and intellect of the writer.
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
755. Comment #30222 by J.C. Samuelson on April 7, 2007 at 8:27 am
This one belonged in the design argument above.@ 755. Comment #18031 by shauntheboy on January 18, 2007 at 3:01 am
"There is evidence for design and purpose. There is no evidence for abiogenesis."
As to the first part, we're still waiting for some. Got any? Once again, vague arm waving and personal incredulity don't qualify as evidence. All of Behe & Co.'s examples have been found to be reducible, by the way (for convenience, begin here and here).
As to the second part, I will again state that naturalistic abiogenesis remains unproven (and indeed untested), but that's the direction the evidence is pointing; it is a logical inference from existing knowledge and facts already in evidence. See my response to Theo further up in this post.
Want an explanation for complexity through evolution? Begin with one of the references already mentioned, plus here, and follow that up with "Climbing Mount Improbable" or any one of a number of books by Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Kenneth Miller, et. al.. Keep reading!
Those with an interest in Dawkins' "Weasel" program should also read here
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
756. Comment #30446 by LeeC on April 8, 2007 at 4:24 am
JC (Can I called you this, or should it be Prof. J.C. Samuelson or something?)You have been very busy, I personally am really glad to read your posts. I wish I could write with such conviction and knowledge on such a wide area.
I had been involved in discussing with Theo with regards to his pet subject of S.G. and tried my best to work on the argument of probability. However, this led me nowhere, but I persisted (for some reason – I guess I was enjoying it.)
However speaking with little knowledge on biology, it was hard to throw any real facts into the argument – plus Theo insisted on keeping science and bible out of the debate – so for the fun of it I agreed.
A throw-away comment during the debate though proved to me I was truly wasting my time. This related to the age of the Earth (and universe) – which Theo did not wish to discuss at first – so I started a new debate, and opened the question anyone who wanted to answer. (Comment 859.)
Theo and Mark's response was 6,000 years…
Now, this means to me that both Theo and Mark have the ability to ignore all scientific evidence. Neither seemed to want to enter into a debate on the science or where they thought it was wrong.
This is particularly interesting with Theo, since he is studying "petroleum engineering". I wonder where he thinks all the petrol comes from? I thought it took millions of years to form so If he answers "god put it there 'cos Earth is only 6,000 years old" on his final exams – does he think he will pass?
So in conclusion, I love a science Vs god debate, but there does not seem to be one on this thread – well not with the theists anyway.
Shame really. I would love to know what the proof there was for a 6,000 year old Earth, and what evidence they would accept to disprove this belief.
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
757. Comment #30573 by Mark Taunton on April 8, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Lee, ... A throw-away comment during the debate though proved to me I was truly wasting my time. This related to the age of the Earth (and universe) – which Theo did not wish to discuss at first – so I started a new debate, and opened the question anyone who wanted to answer. (Comment 859.)
Theo and Mark's response was 6,000 years…
NO. Please re-read my comment 860. I was at pains NOT to simply answer your question in that way.
Now, this means to me that both Theo and Mark have the ability to ignore all scientific evidence. Neither seemed to want to enter into a debate on the science or where they thought it was wrong.
Your comment is unfair. I did not enter into debate, because (a) I have relatively little time available to me; and (b) I have not been arguing here directly on the topic of creation vs evolution, or related areas. (As a fellow Christadelphian, Shaun's previous input has represented the general position I take pretty well.) In any case, my views about creation arise as a consequence of my understanding that the Bible is the reliable and authoritative word of God, and are not the cause of that understanding. My reasons for believing the Bible to be what it claims to be include, firstly, the fact of so much fulfilled prophecy, as I have begun to outline, but several other elements also. As I see the world, the creative powers of Yahweh are witnessed to, all around us, in so many ways; but the microscope and telescope do not reveal the details of his character and purpose - for that we need his revelation in the Bible.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
758. Comment #30623 by LeeC on April 9, 2007 at 4:07 am
RE: 911. Comment #30573 by Mark TauntonMark,
Sorry if I misunderstood your reasons for not entering into a debate on the age of the Earth/Universe. You are very busy replying to questions relating to the bible, which I personally appreciate. However, I stand by my statement, but just wish I could "tone down" how I said it so as not to offend.
I try and be open minded about god – I have been looking for him for a long time, I really have – but I (of course?) have not found him, or any reason for his existence… this does not mean though I have totally ruled him out, merely feel that his existence is unlikely and very improbable. I am happy to be proven wrong though, lets face it – if I am wrong about God, and after being given proof for him do not change my ways, what a fool I would be.
However, are you able to say something similar? If I can show you evidence of an older Earth and Universe would you think about it? I hope so… Many Christians accept an older Earth and Universe and still believe in god and the bible…
So, to your response in 860. I replied to this in 862… in which I thanked you for an honest reply, but I raised some questions to you.
My apologies if I missed your reply to this – I do not recall one?
However I was busy writing to Theo and yourself on other matters, so I could just have forgotten.
And so to my point in 910.
Unless you can show me an open mind when it comes to science, then I have to believe it is closed on the subject. (I really hope it is not, however.)
There has been a long discussion with Theo with regards to evolution, which I myself have joined in late and my point is evidence for evolution is pretty strong, but some still debate it.
Evidence for an older Earth is very strong - evidence with just physics alone is very strong, and we are able to give a date, but even without this, there are so many other observations that point to an older Earth, Sun and universe. I do not see any evidence for an age of 6,000 years. Please show me where – I have asked.
So to make a statement and to have a belief for a 6,000-year-old Earth, seems to be against all evidence and observations – but again, please tell me where I am wrong, this is my open mind working here.
Similar as you originally wished not to enter into a debate on science, I did not wish to enter a debate on the bible. Yet I am still here discussing it with you, and I am happy for this. However, the more I read and learn the more questions I have.
Regards
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
759. Comment #30714 by Mark Taunton on April 9, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Hi Lee,Thanks for not taking my (with hindsight, somewhat tetchy) last comment too hard. My frustration concerns the wording of your earlier question - about the "age" of the earth. Again I would ask you to consider the issues I raise in my response 860: I don't think you've really engaged with the key point thus far. If a creator has been at work in the way the Bible describes, then there will inevitably be a difference between the perceived age of things, when you use a set of naturalistic assumptions as your basis, and the time that has actually elapsed since his acts of creation.
If you will excuse my putting it this way, there seems to be something of a failure of imagination (such as creation advocates are often accused of – "personal incredulity" and such-like) on the part of people like yourself, in this respect. Your "puzzles and clues" (in 862) are the result of your interpretation of various data on what is, from a Biblical understanding, an entirely incorrect basis. For example, the Bible says in a number of places that God "stretched out" the heavens - indeed I think in at least one instance, that phrase can be read in the present tense - which is not at odds with observations of the universe as we see it. But I expect you presume that the expansion is constrained to (have) take(n) place at speeds compatible with physics (and c in particular) as we humans currently model it, and therefore - if everything started in a Big Bang – it must have happened over billions of years. In so doing, you rule out the very possibility that the creator of light itself, if he exists and has acted as the Bible says, might actually not be bound to operate within Einstein's strictures in the way we evidently are. Of course, I know you will assert that not to do so would be to go beyond the framework of scientific working and knowledge, such as it is today - you cannot allow yourself the freedom to explore the consequences. But that is exactly my point…
However, let me return to a more fundamental issue. My argument does not start from the world as we find it, in terms of the observations of science. Instead it starts by considering the content of the Bible, and its claim to be, not merely the invention of human beings (as a recent brief contribution exhorted theists to accept) but the work of a divine author. In support of that claim, I am but a feeble and imperfect proponent, but I find very substantial evidence in that unique book from which to reach the conclusion that it is true. One of the strongest aspects I find is the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. I have begun to present some examples of that, as Quetz requested, and hope to put more forward soon. To that end, I don't intend to engage further in the above line of discussion (as raised by you in 859), until after I have produced all the instalments I promised. I trust you can bear with me that long. In the meantime, however, I do hope to provide some brief responses to at least your comment 900.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
760. Comment #30724 by J.C. Samuelson on April 9, 2007 at 2:49 pm
@ 910. Comment #30446 by LeeC on April 8, 2007 at 4:24 am "JC (Can I called you this, or should it be Prof. J.C. Samuelson or something?)"
Call me anything you like, Lee. :) I'm nothing special, and have no titles to claim. The "I love me" wall in the office here is nearly void of credentials. I just like to stay informed, and read quite a lot.
Faith is fascinating to me, partly because I used to have nearly the same beliefs as Mark, Theo, and Shaun. You're right that evidence is mostly meaningless when it comes to faith. We humans don't like to put our beliefs to the test, and sometimes it seems like the neural pathways don't even exist to be able to make certain associations that are crucial to understanding.
No offence intended to Mark (or anyone else), but his latest post and #860 are a prime example. Mark is obviously intelligent, articulates his arguments well, is more or less friendly (textual limitations being what they are, it's sometimes hard to tell someone's actual frame of mind), and comes across as an educated person. Yet for some reason, he (like many others I've come across) is given to the same type of tortured logic as the worst "fundy" here in the U.S. when confronted with questions that demand clear, objective evidence - if such can be had. To illustrate...
"If a creator has been at work in the way the Bible describes, then there will inevitably be a difference between the perceived age of things, when you use a set of naturalistic assumptions as your basis, and the time that has actually elapsed since his acts of creation."
Translation: The Earth is really only about 6,000 years old in spite of all scientific evidence to the contrary.
How can this be so, we might ask? The answer, though Mark might give additional reasons, is that the Bible says so (based on a count of the generations listed therein, give or take a few unnamed generations).
Because of the depth of Mark's faith, he simply cannot allow for something to disagree with the Bible. If something does, it must automatically be false or somehow brought into harmony with it. Thus he'll make arguments that strain the very limits of logic and beyond simply to reconcile his faith to the results.
He'll say that this is based on his feeling that the Bible is 100% correct, because of prophecy (which is what he's been arguing for months). And it follows that if the Bible is 100% correct, something that contradicts it can't also be 100% correct. The logic is essentially sound, but the conclusion is backward. Instead of questioning a 2,000+ year old book, he prefers to say that modern science gets it wrong where the two disagree.
Sorry to talk about you in the 3rd person, Mark. I mean no offence by it.
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
761. Comment #30727 by Mark Taunton on April 9, 2007 at 3:02 pm
JCS: (If I may call you that for brevity and ease of typing - you'll notice I gave up on Quetz' full ident some time back). Yes, I try to be friendly, please do assume I'm not quietly seething under this calm exterior...
"If a creator has been at work in the way the Bible describes, then there will inevitably be a difference between the perceived age of things, when you use a set of naturalistic assumptions as your basis, and the time that has actually elapsed since his acts of creation."
Translation: The Earth is really only about 6,000 years old in spite of all scientific evidence to the contrary.
Your "translation" puzzles me. I don't see anyone having yet actually responded to the point - that I consider straightfoward - which I am making there. Please will you try?
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
762. Comment #30854 by LeeC on April 10, 2007 at 4:45 am
Hi Mark,Thanks for not taking my (with hindsight, somewhat tetchy) last comment too hard. My frustration concerns the wording of your earlier question - about the "age" of the earth.
I never take offence, I'm too thick-skinned for that (or is that just thick)
Also, I did not wish to cause you frustration, but I do not know how else to phrase the question – How old is the Earth? What is the age of the Earth? How long ago did the Earth come into existence?
Can you help you help me phrase it better?
Again I would ask you to consider the issues I raise in my response 860: I don't think you've really engaged with the key point thus far. If a creator has been at work in the way the Bible describes, then there will inevitably be a difference between the perceived age of things, when you use a set of naturalistic assumptions as your basis, and the time that has actually elapsed since his acts of creation.
I did try and take on your views in my response in 862…. But taking this view only left me with further questions.
For the sake of argument though (as you have put it) I will for the moment accept your age of the Earth (you mentioned heavens, can I take that to be the universe?)
OK… God created it all 6,000 years ago…
I take your point about Adam, if this one man was my foundation of ageing the Earth I could be wrong…
I would agree that I could be making a mistake by "guessing" his age just by looking at him (let alone if he was created or not – some people just look older or younger than others.)
However, now my question for you, Mark, is this…
Why did God leave around so many "puzzles and clues" pointing to a much older Earth and Universe?
However, I think the point of your argument is that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it just looks older…
Is this right?
If so, I bring you back to my earlier question, above - why did god leave so many puzzles pointing to an older Earth?
You say I have not "engaged with the key point thus far", could you please repeat it if I am still missing it?
Thanks
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
763. Comment #30872 by J.C. Samuelson on April 10, 2007 at 7:41 am
@ 915. Comment #30727 by Mark Taunton on April 9, 2007 at 3:02 pm "JCS: (If I may call you that for brevity and ease of typing - you'll notice I gave up on Quetz' full ident some time back)."
Sure thing.
"Your "translation" puzzles me. I don't see anyone having yet actually responded to the point - that I consider straightfoward - which I am making there. Please will you try?".
I'll be happy to. To begin with I admit to reading a bit more into your statement than was explicit. For that, I apologize. However, I think if we analyze the arguments you've made along these lines, we'll find that the translation fairly represents your position.
An in-depth discussion of the science involved in determining the age of the earth isn't something I want to really get into unless it becomes necessary (there are already multiple lines of debate happening), so I'll try to address your comments in a general way.
Let's backtrack a bit...
"...because those various *ologists (if you will excuse the contraction) don't accept creation by a supernatural creator...therefore you cannot just logically compare the timescales of the two viewpoints (mine, and the *ologists), if you pass over the fact that the underlying assumptions about the events being considered are intrinsically different, and incompatible."
I agree that overlooking these assumptions does hamper our ability to compare the two viewpoints. However, it seems to me that it's you who is overlooking them, or at least one aspect of these assumptions. I'll explain.
The basis of your argument seems to be that it is only the atheistic, scientific naturalists who argue for an old earth; those who don't subscribe to a Creator. If that is your position, it is patently false. There are a rather large number of theists (approx. 40% actually) who choose science as a profession. These people are involved in doing the same kind of science as their atheistic counterparts. Oddly, most of them come up with the same results when conducting experiments testing various ages.
I strongly recommend reading the article I linked Theo to in #907. In addition, you'll probably find the Affiliation of Christian Geologists interesting (the "Essays" page is particularly good). By the way, these are only a couple examples. Christians have always played a significant role in the development of science, so if it's assumptions you want to question, then you'll inevitably have to confront this problem.
Another problem is that you seem to be implying that it is the assumptions that shape the results. This is also false. The results occur regardless of the underlying assumptions of the tester. If assumptions shaped the results, we should see wild variations in the results all the time (remember that scientifically-minded Christians are performing these tests too). That is, examples of results that favor a young earth should be as numerous (or nearly as numerous) as those that favor an old earth. This is just not the case.
"Whereas if as I believe, there is in fact a supernatural creator, who has acted in a super-natural manner – going beyond the "natural" behaviour and characteristics of the world we experience – then our natural assumptions are by definition not sustainable in relation to his activity."
You seem to be saying that God's creation is full of evidence for an ancient age because His supernatural methods cause elements to behave in a way that makes them appear of great age. Therefore, the results we're getting are faulty because of God's supernatural activity, or because some scientists mistakenly don't assume a Creator.
In other words, "the Earth is really only about 6,000 years old in spite of all scientific evidence to the contrary." Why? Because God's supernatural activity makes it look older to the tools of science.
My questions to you are: What is your evidence for supernatural activity, or even this one characteristic of it? What is your scriptural support for such a position? Do you have anything to back this up beyond speculation?
"Partly also because there is a logic and structure to creation, that is ignored in the naturalistic approach."
It is not ignored in the least! In fact, I'm surprised that you would make such an assertion. The awe inspiring logic and structure of the universe is inextricably linked to scientific discovery, regardless of our assumptions, theistic or not. The literature of science is chock full of such references. Mark, you should know better than this.
I'm not going to address the rest of it because it's mostly a fleshing out of the idea that all there is are competing assumptions, which is just not the case. If there's something I missed that you feel is important, you will no doubt bring it to my attention.
Look, it's very simple. If creationists think the earth is very young, all they have to do is present some evidence for their hypothesis and then the debate can rage in scientific circles. Criticisms of existing evidence and techniques for gathering it is not evidence in its own right.
I'm short on time at the moment, so I'll have to end here.
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
764. Comment #30953 by Quetzalcoatl on April 10, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Re Comment 30727: MarkTaunton-"If a creator has been at work in the way the Bible describes, then there will inevitably be a difference between the perceived age of things, when you use a set of naturalistic assumptions as your basis, and the time that has actually elapsed since his acts of creation."
The key word in that quote is "If". Obviously people look at things in different ways. There is no objective reality, just billions of people walking around behaving according to what their brain tells them is reality.
So, on that basis, I concede that people with different assumptions view things very differently. But that does not make their assumptions correct.
For instance, I could "assume" that the universe was created exactly one minute ago, and that all history, and the events of all of our lives so far, are false memories implanted in our brains by God. There is absolutely no way that anybody can prove this to be false. No way at all. This is obviously a crude parody of your assertion, but the underlying principle is the same.
I used to be a Christian. From a young age I was taken to Church every Sunday. I grew up believing in the words of the New Testament. I prayed to God most nights. But now I don't. This shift didn't happen overnight, there was no thunderclap of atheistic revelation. All that fundamentally happened was that I looked at the evidence of the world around me, and what I saw did not support my beliefs. So they changed.
Assumptions are all well and good, but without evidence, that is they are. Assumptions. There is much evidence I have cited, in previous postings, that supports my view. You have the Bible. And that is essentially it.
As J C Samuelson said, there are a great many scientifically-minded Christians, who examine "God's Creation" by looking at the evidence of the world around us. And a great many of them agree that the world is older than 6,000 years. I went to school with people who believed that the Big Bang and everything that followed was God's mechanism to bring us into being. I have my objections to this, but it is still more plausible than what Genesis says.
Someone once said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Therefore, I'd like to pose the following question. Excluding the Bible (which we are obviously discussing in another thread), what evidence do you have to support your assumption that the Earth is 6,000 years old?
Let the discussion begin.
(Also, if you have the chance, I'd appreciate your comment on the point I raised in 901).
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
765. Comment #31091 by Mark Taunton on April 11, 2007 at 12:14 am
Briefly today...JCS:
"Partly also because there is a logic and structure to creation, that is ignored in the naturalistic approach."It is not ignored in the least! In fact, I'm surprised that you would make such an assertion. The awe inspiring logic and structure of the universe is inextricably linked to scientific discovery, regardless of our assumptions, theistic or not.
The critical word in what I wrote was "creation" - used in the Biblical sense. See my earlier comment (860) for the context. I stand by what I said.
Quetz:
Let the discussion begin.Actually, no. Until I've done what I promised earlier about the subject of prophecy, I'm not going to enter into any further discussion on the age of the earth. Prophecy comes first because as I said, my understanding that the Bible is true is based on such things. My position on the true age of the earth and the cosmos is consequent upon that.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
766. Comment #31093 by Mark Taunton on April 11, 2007 at 12:17 am
Quetz: (re your comment (901)):
Using a bad, unscholarly translation (like the one from which you quoted, for Daniel 2) to obtain the Bible's meaning, is like using popular TV programmes, such as the BBC's "Horizon", as the sole basis for one's understanding of science. Whilst it gives you the general gist of things, you cannot rely on it for detail. Last night, in an edition concerned with exploration and possible exploitation of the moon, we were told that rockets, to "escape the earth's gravitational field, must accelerate at a speed of 24,000 miles per hour – that's over three times the speed of sound". Will they correct that programme to put right the misleading wording? I very much doubt it…
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
767. Comment #31117 by LeeC on April 11, 2007 at 4:05 am
Hi Q,Not got the time to add much to the discussion, just wanted to add one point, that maybe you knew – maybe not.
You mentioned the Big Bang and the religion around it…
As J C Samuelson said, there are a great many scientifically-minded Christians, who examine "God's Creation" by looking at the evidence of the world around us. And a great many of them agree that the world is older than 6,000 years. I went to school with people who believed that the Big Bang and everything that followed was God's mechanism to bring us into being. I have my objections to this, but it is still more plausible than what Genesis says.
I trust you know that it was a Roman Catholic priest who first muted the idea of the "Big Bang"… I think he even read the bible once or twice. (OK – Edwin Hubble also made a similar suggestion at around the same time, but both views are thought to be independent of each other.)
So religion (and Christian religion at that) is not against an older Earth and Universe.
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
768. Comment #31134 by LeeC on April 11, 2007 at 5:24 am
920. Comment #31093 by Mark TauntonMark,
Oh dear… Oh dearie, dearie me…
I do not really have time to give a full post tonight, and I think maybe I should let Q respond himself to your comment since they were directed at him in reply to his post 901.
However, I just cannot let this one go without comment, so where to begin?
Q's post (901.) I believe, was merely to state the version of his bible, and to say:
if Christian scholars cannot agree on which translations are right, how can any of them, let alone the layman, be sure that what they are studying is correct?
Shouting down his version of the bible is stupid to say the least, since this reinforces his argument.
Using a bad, unscholarly translation (like the one from which you quoted, for Daniel 2) to obtain the Bible's meaning, is like using popular TV programmes, such as the BBC's "Horizon", as the sole basis for one's understanding of science.
Q is an atheist (I assume) so I doubt he puts much faith in the bible he owns, he is merely using it as a means of reference in these discussions. I own a bible, and as far as I am concerned they are all the same… and if they are not – then why not, why is one translation truer than another? What makes one "false" and another "true".
And now on to your point with regards to "using popular TV programmes… as the sole basis for one's understanding of science"
This would of course be stupid… to base the whole of one's knowledge and beliefs on only one source, without cross-referencing with other independent sources, this would be very narrow-minded indeed. I mean – what if that single source made a mistake, or indeed did not actually know all the answers? Could you trust a single source, what if they had an ulterior motive? What if that single source based it knowledge on a single document which they needed to translate into English from a different language?
we were told that rockets, to "escape the earth's gravitational field, must accelerate at a speed of 24,000 miles per hour – that's over three times the speed of sound". Will they correct that programme to put right the misleading wording? I very much doubt it….
Erm… firstly mistakes can happen, however the fact on the escape velocity of the Earth at 24,000 mph is correct (approximately), and this is the important part. It is just the comparison with the ratio of the speed of sound (in air, at sea level, at normal atmospheric pressures and temperature – need I go on?) that it seems to go wrong - but you knew this.
It is good that you noticed the mistake though; if this was a published book you could write to the publishers and have the next edition corrected.
Science is always reviewed, revised and re-written… Can we do that with the bible?
Yours
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
769. Comment #31160 by J.C. Samuelson on April 11, 2007 at 8:03 am
@ 711. Comment #17245 by shauntheboy on January 12, 2007 at 9:47 am As promised, here is a reply to your defense of Elpis Israel and John Thomas, though I think that by discussing Elpis Israel on specific points, we've gotten somewhat sidetracked from the main issues of prophecy, to which Dr. Thomas' writing is related but not essential. Thus I won't be referring to his interpretation any further or debating the particulars. Consider them granted, if you wish. Instead, I'm going to bring this back in focus and address the nature of prophecy itself.
Actually, I think discussing the specific points being asserted for any prophecy is secondary, and I apologize for doing my part to drag it out into a debate over particulars and losing sight of the big picture.
To Mark: In the interest of saving yourself a great deal of work addressing my last post concerning prophecy, you could address this one instead. That last post to you re: Deuteronomy was a rather obtuse (and much too complicated) way of trying to illustrate what I'm saying in this post.
The Christians here have argued that biblical prophecy is specific in its predictions. The rest of us have argued that it is sufficiently vague to allow many interpretations. I still hold to the latter position, with one qualification: the original writers were probably writing specific predictions about the world as it unfolded before them (assuming they were writing in advance in the first place). Whether they came to pass or not is a somewhat different argument.
Those of you arguing for the specificity of prophecy have erected a mighty tower of equivocation. Essentially you've been saying that the writers of these alleged prophecies meant something other than they wrote. Pronouns, dates, and timeframes are interpreted as either figurative or literal depending on convenience. Under the model you've constructed, it's possible to substitute virtually any name or time in place of what's written, so long as it comes close to matching what some believe the prophecy is saying.
And there are scriptural ramifications for this exercise as well.
First, by equivocating on names & dates the modern interpreter of prophecy is saying the original writers were unaware of what they were writing about. That is, they were thus referring to events for which they could have no direct or indirect knowledge. In fact, assuming divine inspiration or dictation, one could also argue that God deceived the writers by having them compose something that had a different meaning from what they thought. This would also mean God deceived the original audience.
Second, it obscures whatever clarity there is in scripture by making it into an irrelevant puzzle. This damages an already shaky authoritative foundation and reduces the Bible's value as an historical document. Is a puzzle book what your God intended?
Third, as long-range predictions they have no value if names & dates can regularly be substituted until something happens to fit. Many people have tried to predict the "End Times," including Dr. Thomas. What value does their work (or the prophecies themselves) have if we can't be sure if any one interpretation is correct? This has been illustrated quite well in this thread.
Finally, in a sense this equivocation acknowledges the imperfection of scripture by re-writing it. Substituting pronouns and indulging in creative mathematics to fix timelines means that Ezekiel, Daniel and others misidentified them, giving the wrong information to their original audience.
Actually, I find it a bit amusing that those arguing for the specificity of prophecy are willing to grant as much fudge room as they do to interpreters. Is prophecy specifically vague, perhaps?
To my mind, in light of other prophetic scriptures there is no internal justification for interpreting pronouns and so on as anything other than what they appear to mean. Take for example the Prophecy against Tyre in Ezekiel 26:
"1 In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, 'Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper,' 3 therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for the nations, 6 and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the LORD." (Ez. 26:1-6 NIV)
Here Ezekiel says that God will bring many nations against Tyre and destroy it completely, including the mainland villages (Tyre was an island city with villages on the mainland. It was separated from land until Alexander the Great conquered it by erecting a causeway). But the prophecy doesn't end there:
"7 "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the war horses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hoofs of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD." (Ez. 26:7-14 NIV)
In the above section, the prophecy gets even more specific. Here Ezekiel describes exactly who will destroy Tyre - Nebuchadnezzar & the Babylonian army. Also, Tyre is prophesied to never be rebuilt, following a reiteration that it will be destroyed completely.
This prophecy is a failure which I will address only briefly, because there's a different purpose I have in mind for bringing it up.
The elements of this prophecy are as follows:
1. Many nations will come against Tyre and destroy it.
2. Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians will destroy the entire city (not just the mainland villages).
3. The city will never be rebuilt.
Archaeology supports the fact that Nebuchadnezzar did lay siege to Tyre, as did Alexander and others. Yet there are problems. First, the city was never completely destroyed, and in fact remains in existence today. Second, Nebuchadnezzar failed to destroy the city following a 13 year siege. Third, when Alexander finally did succeed, he immediately set about rebuilding the parts that were destroyed.
Because of these problems, some Christians would argue that Tyre is figurative, and so is Nebuchadnezzar & Babylon, or that "rebuilt" means a re-emergence of its former glory. In other words, this prophecy's defenders engage in more equivocation (e.g., Nebuchadnezzar means Alexander, Babylon means Greece, etc.). I won't engage in a dialogue concerning these points, because again I'm not concerned primarily with whether this prophecy failed or not. What I want to know is, did Ezekiel equivocate? Did he, in fact, mean for his writing to be taken literally or figuratively? The answer is found in Chapter 29:
"17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day, the word of the LORD came to me: 18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. 20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign LORD." (Ez. 29:17-20 NIV)
History is silent on whether Egypt was ever conquered by Nebuchadnezzar (as described in the verses just prior to these), but that's beside the point. Here we have Ezekiel's frank admission that Nebuchadnezzar failed to sack Tyre as described in Chapter 26, with no reward for his trouble (which, incidentally, is also wrong - Tyre did pay taxes (read: extortion money) to Babylon, apparently as part of an agreement to end the siege).
So, did Ezekiel equivocate? It certainly doesn't look like it. Tyre seems to mean the Tyre that he was familiar with, Nebuchadnezzar means the Babylonian king, Babylon means just that, and destroyed with no rebuilding means just what they appear to mean. We could go further into the Hebrew language to verify this, but do we really need to?
The point is that those defending certain prophecies here are suggesting that the prophets meant something other than what they wrote. Yet even the Bible fails to support this notion. It is only by equivocating that defenders of prophecy have a case at all, and by so doing they create a situation in which no prophecy can ever fail, and inadvertently undermine their own scripture (and their God) in the process.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
770. Comment #31189 by BillySands on April 11, 2007 at 9:48 am
LeeI think you asked somewhere about where YECs get their (dis)information from. It appears in sites such as these: http://www.creationontheweb.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/
http://www.christiananswers.net/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
I find the content of these sites disgusting in their dishonesty and attempts to pervert the understanding of science. They make their agendas clear - that the bible is inerrant and will only interpret science in that light, and reject/deny that which contradicts the bible.
YECs should search these sites (some contributers are christian themselves)
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Other Comments by BillySands
771. Comment #31190 by BillySands on April 11, 2007 at 9:48 am
JCIt is interesting that you bring up Ezekiel 29:17-20. Just before it, there are some more specific claims Ez 29:8 " 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will bring a sword against you and kill your men and their animals. 9 Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the LORD. " 'Because you said, "The Nile is mine; I made it," 10 therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. 11 No foot of man or animal will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years. 12 I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will lie desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries. (NIV)
There is the specific mention of 40 years of desolation. This never happened.
In much the same way, Jeremiah was specific about Jerusalem being desolate for 70 years. However, The Babylonians took Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE (rewriting the bible p154) and Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 538 BCE (rtb p156). He also proclaimed that the Jews could return home in the first year of his reign (Ezr. 1:1-4). This is at most 49 years, and even if we are generous and take the start of the prophecy as 597 BCE, when the Babylonians first laid siege to Jerusalem (The bible unearthed p293), that still only totals 59 years. During that time, neither Israel nor Jerusalem lay desolate (tbu pp 305-308), and Babylon was not destroyed by Cyrus. In fact, Alexander the Great (356-321 BCE) may have considered using the city as his capital (The Babylonians An Introduction p67).
Daniel tries to reinterpret this, and some christians claim it is about the date of the coming of Jesus (although, I don't think this is a valid reading of his "prophecy") Either way, that fails too, but is a story for another day (those interested can get more details here ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html). I'm not addicted to this site - I can stop any time I want to - wibble
Other Comments by BillySands
772. Comment #31214 by Quetzalcoatl on April 11, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Re comment 31091: MarkTaunton-Let the discussion begin.
Actually, no.
Short and to the point! And fair enough. However, I reserve the right to re-ask the question at a later date.
LeeC- I did know that a Roman Catholic priest was the first to suggest the idea of a Big Bang, although I had forgotten. Thank you for reminding me. It only serves to reinforce my point that many Christians don't even believe in Creationism and a Young Earth. So there is debate over Biblical translation, debate over the contents themselves...........it's all very confusing.
Re comments 31093 MarkTaunton and 31134 LeeC-
Mark, you say that my translation of the Bible is unscholarly, but fail to say why. The KJV was first translated in the 1600s, I think. Obviously we do not speak in the same way as we did then, linguistic drift etc. Therefore, I would be surprised if certain archaic terms have not been changed in the intervening 400 years to make it more accessible to today's readers (correct me if I'm wrong).
The whole purpose of the NCV would be to make the Bible more accessible to today's youth. Why does this invalidate it? I find it hard to believe that such a "poor translation" would still be in publication if it were wrong, especially with a "sacred" book like the Bible. The undercurrent of your assertion is that my version is wrong because it does not agree with yours. But why?
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the English Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation etc back to the Ancient Hebrew. If any Bible is "true", it would be the original version. But how many translation errors have crept in over the centuries? By analogy, it could be a literary version of Chinese Whispers.
As Lee said, this only serves to further reinforce my point, that if even Christian scholars such as yourself favour one version over the other, how can they all be right?
To me, this would seem to undermine the very idea of Biblical inerrancy.
I won't comment on your "Horizon analogy", since Lee has done a heavily (to me at least) irony-laden response that pretty much covered everything.
LeeC- I am an atheist. By the way, are you in America?
BillySands- accepting that you have a problem is the first step to finding a cure.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
773. Comment #31232 by Mark Taunton on April 11, 2007 at 4:34 pm
JCS: I am entirely content that you raised issues over Ezekiel's prophecy in chapter 26. (I may also at some point respond to your attempts to deny the specificity of Deut 28:49-57, but not immediately.) Ezekiel 26 is an excellent example of the Bible's subtle qualities, and how accurate God's prophets really are. I believe that is precisely because, as they claim, they do have (humanly impossible) advance knowledge of future events, given to them by Yahweh.
Your analysis of the chapter seems powerful and effective. However, it fails to take into account one seemingly small, but quite crucial, detail: there is a change of pronouns between vv7-11 and v12. By considering that, we find that Ezekiel was in fact distinctly more precise than you give him credit for, and perfectly correct in his prediction, although writing hundreds of years before the final events.
Consider the chapter again. It opens with a preliminary summary (vv1-6) of all that is to happen to Tyre. Following that, we are given in vv7-11 a description of Nebuchadnezzar's activities. This section is characterised by repeated use of 3rd person masculine singular verbs "he will …", correctly rendered in the NIV you cite. Then, at v12, there is a shift in the description; it is now characterised by use of the plural verb forms, "they will". (The NIV, KJV and NKJV all have this change; I have no idea what the NCV says(?!) – Quetz?) This clear and definite change of pronoun exactly reflects the same change in the original Hebrew verb forms.
Furthermore, this apparently minor textual detail answers your supposed discrepancy completely, as follows.
God does not say that it is "he" (Nebuchadnezzar) who will finish off Tyre, but "they", by implication the rest of the attacking nations mentioned earlier, of which Babylon was the first, but not truly successful. Reading vv7-11, "he" is not described as taking any spoil, though he does eventually break through the walls. That is perfectly consistent with history, and with the details in chapter 28, that you erroneously claim contradict this chapter. (By the way, if it did contradict it, why didn't the later supposed "editors" "fix" the problem by changing the text?)
Tyre, including all its wealth, was effectively relocated to the island during the Babylonian siege, leaving the mainland parts in ruins once Nebuchadnezzar broke through their walls. But it was indeed not looted by Nebuchadnezzar, and Ezekiel does not imply that it would be. As you say, the island fortress was later conquered by Alexander & co, using the earlier rubble to build the causeway, and they eventually took the spoil of the city. It is those later forces (plural) of whom Ezekiel predicted "They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea." In any case, against your mistaken interpretation, just follow the logic of 28:2-5: what would be the point of prophesying that God would bring "many nations" against Tyre and they would plunder and completely destroy it, if he then implies that Babylon, the first of them, would alone do that job? In fact he predicts no such thing: it is your analysis that is at fault, not Ezekiel's prophecy.
As a final point, the present city of Tyre is on a different, though nearby, site. I believe you can still even today see the area of stones in and around the water's edge (where fishermen have indeed spread their nets, for millennia) that are the only visible remains of the Tyre whose demise Ezekiel so accurately prophesied.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
774. Comment #31247 by Mark Taunton on April 11, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Hi Billy.Despite what you said, you can't stay away, can you? :-)
Nor can I. :-(
You raise various points. As with JCS's incorrect challenge to Ezekiel 26, it is attention to detail that makes all the difference.
Right now I can't give you a specific answer about the 40 years of desolation for Egyptian cities – I would need to do some further reading into that. Do you have some specific ancient source in mind that you think specifically disproves Ezekiel, or is it just an argument from silence (i.e. we have no specific knowledge that it did happen)? When I get time (I'm way behind on earlier questions, and still have no prospect of dealing with them all, not to mention my oft-promised but never yet delivered 2nd instalment for Quetz), I may have a look at it.
On your alleged "short" 70 years…
You are correct of course that Cyrus told Jews they could go back to their land (Ezra 1). However, in that context it is significant is that the specific reason he gives is to build the house of God at Jerusalem (there are well-known likely reasons for that, which I won't elaborate). The book of Ezra relates how a number of Jews returned, and worked on the building of a replacement temple for (though sadly much smaller in scale and visual impact than) Solomon's original. But he does not describe them doing much to Jerusalem the city, itself.
Then, at least 20 years later, in the reign of a Persian king the Bible identifies by the name Artaxerxes, we find that Jerusalem was in fact still a mess, causing much distress to Nehemiah, a Jew still living in Persia, a cup-bearer to the king:
Hanani, one of my brethren, came, he and certain men of Judah; and I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem. And they said unto me, The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire (Nehemiah 1:3)
the city … [is] waste (Nehemiah 2:3)
From this it becomes apparent that the 70 year "desolations of Jerusalem", that Daniel (9:2) understood from Jeremiah's writings, were not brought to an end by the first stage of return of the Jews, at Cyrus' command. That only occured when Nehemiah later went back and set to rebuilding the city, starting with the walls and gates.
It seems the problem does not lie in the Bible, but only in how you read it.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
775. Comment #31253 by Mark Taunton on April 11, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Last posting for tonight...Lee:
I hope you don't think I'm ignoring you - it's not deliberate, honest! I will try to deal with some of your recent comments shortly.
Quetz:
I'm sorry you find the issue of differing Bible translations confusing - it can be a real problem at times - I sympathise. That and the issue of variations of belief between various "Christian" groups are somewhat related (not that that helps you as such). However, one aspect of prophecy I intend to deal with in instalment #3 concerns the Bible's clear predictions that Christianity would decay and become seriously corrupted relative to its original source. As usual with Bible prophecy, it has come true in every sad aspect, beginning a long time back.
For now, on translations, the simple point is that good source texts in the original languages, are (contrary to what you seem to imply) still available. So the direct way to judge a translation is to compare it with the sources. Obviously for that one needs knowledge of the original languages, but acquiring such is also quite achievable, even for a duffer like me!
On the specific question that provoked this discussion, the facts are these: neither the original Aramaic text of that section of Daniel 2, nor a well-known but much later translation of it into Greek, uses a word for "fourth" beyond the single instance of it early in Daniel 2:40. So a version like the NCV, that inserts "fourth" four more times in the same passage, lacking any support from the source text, is demonstrably unscholarly, misleading, and just plain bad. As I showed, it's also quite glaringly at odds with the other details in the text! You ask why it's not been corrected. That question would have to be addressed to its publishers, not me. For comparison, while I am no fan of the NIV (it is painfully biased, in doctrinal terms), at least its publishers have been known to re-issue it, correcting erroneous rendering in a later edition.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
776. Comment #31292 by Mark Taunton on April 12, 2007 at 12:00 am
Just one quick comment. JCS quotes the NIV for Ezekiel 26. Another reason why I dislike that version is that it, like the NCV, insists on providing its own layer of interpretation of the meaning, rather than simply rendering the direct sense of the original. In verse 8 it reads "He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword". But for "settlements on the mainland", the Hebrew actually uses straightforward words more directly rendered as "daughters in the field" (see KJV, NKJV). That might mean what the NIV implies, or it might not. But with the NIV you don't get opportunity to work it out for yourself (by comparing such usage with other instances in the Bible). Other Comments by Mark Taunton
777. Comment #31326 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 2:55 am
MarkIf I cant draw mysef away, I will get back to you on Ezekial (Im on a coffee break just now)
Jeremiah 25: 9 I will gather together all the armies of the north under King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, whom I have appointed as my deputy. I will bring them all against this land and its people and against the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy you and make you an object of horror and contempt and a ruin forever. 10 I will take away your happy singing and laughter. The joyful voices of bridegrooms and brides will no longer be heard. Your millstones will fall silent, and the lights in your homes will go out. 11 This entire land will become a desolate wasteland. Israel and her neighboring lands will serve the king of Babylon for seventy years.
12 "Then, after the seventy years of captivity are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his people for their sins," says the Lord. "I will make the country of the Babylonians[e] a wasteland forever.
It is claear that It is clear that isreal will remain desolate for the time span. It is clear from archaeological evidence, that this is not so, and even Jerusalem had a significant population at this time - the number of captives taken was very small. See the books I referenced above.
It is clear that they are to serve the king of babylon for 70 years (verse 11). There really is no other way to read this. The king was removed long before the seventy years were up.
Just to re-iterate, I do appreciate your efforts here, but at best, all you have done is shown that prophecy is not specific enough, and that plenty of doubt remains.
All the best
Billy
Other Comments by BillySands
778. Comment #31331 by LeeC on April 12, 2007 at 3:29 am
RE: 924. Comment #31189 by BillySandsThanks Billy for the links… I will follow them shortly.
I am always interested in knowing the argument of the "other side" – some time ago when I was at college (and way before the internet became the norm) I got my hands on a Watch tower's publication called "Reasoning from the Scriptures" – very useful for when the Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking at your door when you are a kid since it has ALL their answers – indexed and in alphabetical order, pointing to pages in the bible.
Basically the book contains likely questions they may be asked and how they should respond. It is particularly funny when you see them reach into their bag and pull out their copy in answering a question…
Oh, and before I forget… May I suggest sticking two pencils up your nose and to start wearing your underpants on your head – wibble!!
Glad you cannot stay away though… I just wish we could get some more theists, I feel sorry for Mark being on his own, but we will try and make him feel as welcome as possible.
RE: 926. Comment #31214 by Quetzalcoatl
I won't comment on your "Horizon analogy", since Lee has done a heavily (to me at least) irony-laden response that pretty much covered everything.
Thanks… I was in that kind of mood last night… you can say what you like about me and my beliefs, but I will not have a word said against Horizon and the BBC.
By the way, are you in America?
With my views??
No I'm not. I did work in America a couple of years ago – not for me, it can be a scary place. One time I was getting drunk in a bar and at around 1am another drinker started talking to me (no problem there) but he made it his quest to try and convert me to Roman Catholicism?? It's not safe to even go to a pub in America anymore…
I assume you ask because of the funny hours that I am posting… I'm English, but in Australia at the mo – and with the winter nights closing in it will be a depressing time.
RE: 929. Comment #31253 by Mark Taunton
I hope you don't think I'm ignoring you - it's not deliberate, honest! I will try to deal with some of your recent comments shortly.
No worries (damn – I've been "down-under" for too long)
You have a lot of posts to reply to, and I have raised a lot of points and so I am interested in your reply to them…
Time to go
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
779. Comment #31334 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 4:05 am
Hi Lee,The problem with literature like that is that it assumes the bible to be true and that there must be a god, which is the point of contention between believers and non believers. A colleague once gave me a christian science pamphlet (this guy believed men and women have a different number of ribs because of genesis 2). The only arguements it had were the bible. I think the difference between believers and non believers is that we tend to give the otherside more consideration than they do. Basically, if it disagrees with the bible, it must be false. I read some creationist stuff on 14 C levels in Diamonds by mass spec. This was used as an arguement for a young earth, so I looked into it some more, and it turns out that 14C can be created de novo by decay of uranium in surrounding rocks. A creationist generally stops looking at the bit that suits him.
Maybe they need a visit from the baby eating bishop of Barthenwells, or to paraphrase Captain B. some more "To you Mr fundie, the age of reason was something that happened to someone else" :-)
Other Comments by BillySands
780. Comment #31337 by LeeC on April 12, 2007 at 4:13 am
RE: 924. Comment #31189 by BillySandsThanks again Billy,
I just followed one of the links and came across all the answers in Astronomy my degree missed out on… this will be fun …
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/menu-astronomy.html
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
781. Comment #31338 by LeeC on April 12, 2007 at 4:26 am
RE: 924. Comment #31189 by BillySandsThanks again Billy,
I just followed one of the links and came across all the answers in Astronomy my degree missed out on… this will be fun…
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/menu-astronomy.html
No… I have to stop… the last comment I just read from this web-site (which is suppose to be an "argument" against the "Big Bang") just made me laugh too much.
Missing Time: Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the big bang theory to unfold. A short time span will not allow for the gradual evolution of the stars or life on Earth.
I missed this experiment… I wonder why they do not tell me any details of the experiments?
Have to go now…
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
782. Comment #31340 by Stevie B on April 12, 2007 at 4:34 am
"Every one knew he could foretell wars and famines, though that was not so hard, for there was always a war and generally a famine somewhere."- Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger
Although most of the obvious (and not so obvious) arguements have already been made far more eloquently that I could, I felt I had to contribute as I am really enjoying this thread. Its far more interesting than the ones where everyone is in total agreement.
My position, like most here, is one of extreme scepticism when it comes to accepting the Biblical 'prophecies' (if thats what they actually were) as having come true. My two'penneth worth is as follows.
Firstly, Mark, I would ask you to follow the link where the quotation comes from, 'prophecy for dummies.' http://www.skepticreport.com/lighterside/prophecydummies.htm
I think it sums up my position better than ever i could. I think the most relevant section is the first, 'Retroactive Shoehorning: a prophets best friend.' The title says it all.
Secondly, if having prophecies that come true is a mark (sorry no pun intended) of divine inspiration, what are we to make of the Aztec prophecy that in the year 1519, their god would return from the east in the shape of a white man. This proved to be spectacularly precise, even down to the year, far more precise than anything in the bible. By your logic, you should accept that this proves the correctness of the Aztecs faith, and should start worshipping Queztlcoatl immediately. If not, why not?
The other problem I have with these prophecies is the 'Oolon Coluphid' problem - if you are right, then we have cast iron, rock solid proof of Gods existence. What then is the need for faith? And if God is demonstrating himself so clearly and unambigously, what about free will? A common response as to why God fails to intervene today is that this would remove the need for faith and render free will meaningless. You cant have it both ways - either God is happy to prove his existence clearly and unambigously or he is not.
Lastly, and slightly off topic, I presume that you believe God made the world for mans benefit. My minor addition to the mass of evidence against this is this - the best way man has to tell time is marking the passage of the sun. Vital for farmers (as most of Gods early creations would have been presumably.) So does he make a system that is perfect for mans needs? Does he make the earth go around the sun in a nice, easy whole number of days? 365? 366? Errr, no. 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds. Making any attempt to create a meaningful calender fraught with problems. Adding a day every four years help, but becuase the year isnt even a decent fraction, being slightly short of 365 and 1/4 days, even this means any calender will degenerate. So much for the anthropic principle. Surely a nice, human brain friendly number would have been better evidence of Gods existence than a few vague prophecies?
And I cant believe nobodys pointed out yet that atheism is a non-prophet organisation?
Other Comments by Stevie B
783. Comment #31342 by Quetzalcoatl on April 12, 2007 at 4:46 am
Re comment 31340: StevieB-By your logic, you should accept that this proves the correctness of the Aztecs faith, and should start worshipping Queztlcoatl immediately.
This is an excellent idea. I'm currently proof-reading the first draft of my Holy Book (title to be determined), so watch this space.....
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
784. Comment #31343 by Stevie B on April 12, 2007 at 4:50 am
Put me down for a copy!Pity about all those mesoamericans though, generation after generation condemned to hell for the crime of not recognising Christ as their saviour - becuase of a poor excuse that they didnt even know he existed...thank God the Christians turned up to save them.
Other Comments by Stevie B
785. Comment #31344 by Quetzalcoatl on April 12, 2007 at 4:57 am
Re comment 31343: StevieB-Worry not for the mesoamericans- those that believed in me were saved.
Thank you for your support. I am a god who appreciates such things.
My book contains numerous prophecies, the first is as follows:
"Some people will not believe in me, and some will".
I think you will agree that this prophecy is very clear, and also quite profound.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
786. Comment #31347 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 5:07 am
Stevie Nice point about the calender. I haven't come across that before.Quetzalcoatl That's me convinced. How would you like do be worshiped? Can you fix it for me to hook up with Jessica Alba? :-)
Lee
That site really is bad. My former church had a link to it, and I pointed out that it is full of lies and crap. It was then that I discovered that the minister wasn't really interested in the truth
Other Comments by BillySands
751. Comment #30212 by J.C. Samuelson on April 7, 2007 at 8:16 am
@ 723. Comment #17269 by Theo on January 12, 2007 at 2:26 pm
To begin with, it may come as a shock to you but abiogenesis as a viable area of scientific inquiry is very young (hasn't this been said before?). I hope you would agree that such an inquiry must be incremental in the sense that it involves the convergence of several lines of evidence from multiple disciplines that are themselves supported by several lines of evidence from multiple disciplines. A few of these are:
1. Biological evolution
2. Cosmological/planetary evolution.
3. Chemical evolution/chemosynthesis.
4. Molecular evolution.
5. Information theory.
In addition, the technology must exist to enable scientists to actually perform tests. Furthermore, the above must themselves be subject to revision. All of it is subject to peer-review and falsification in each particular. When tests are repeated again and again to show that such-and-such is valid, it is accepted as provisionally true, but still subject to falsification. It's an ongoing process. To borrow some humor from the movies, "It's like sex: it's a painstaking, arduous task that seems to go on forever and just when you think things are going your way, nothing happens."
It wasn't until the 20th century that we acquired enough of an understanding of these theories to correctly infer that the origins of life might be amenable to study. Yet science does not work by fiat. Thus, many tests need to be undertaken to build a solid foundation upon which to construct an accurate picture of what might have happened billions of years ago.
The Miller-Urey experiment was an important first step, but studies in other areas were still ongoing, and it was determined that the experiment was flawed because it did not accurately reproduce the primeval environment. When it was re-attempted by Miller in 1983 allowing for new insights at that time, it failed. However, it wasn't until yet further insights allowed scientists to again visit the original experiment in this century (see here), resulting in success.
Meanwhile, molecular evolution also was just beginning to emerge as a scientific field (ca. 1960), and further research into chemosynthesis is still ongoing, as is research into those other areas I mentioned. To demonstrate, the human genome was just recently mapped this century. All previous maps were obviously incomplete, preventing accurate models from being constructed.
The overriding point is that while I would agree that Aristotlian SG has been falsified, modern SG has not. It hasn't even been properly tested! The simple fact is that we don't know what happened. As scientists learn more they will continue to conduct experiments, find errors, correct them, test some more, subject their findings for peer-review, and continue testing. Eventually, a plausible description of the formation of life may emerge. Along the way, if evidence is found that simply cannot have a natural explanation, then perhaps creationists will have a leg to stand on. At this point, there is no such evidence (discussed in more detail below).
Scientists are therefore working from scientific inference, not pure naturalistic assumption. If you would agree that nature is subject to examination, then it stands to reason that we should also be able to examine the origins of nature; the mechanisms - whether the product of divine creative fiat or natural processes - should be detectable.
The most we can reasonably say is that we don't know (i.e., remain technically agnostic). Inserting a divine creative agent is not a logical inference. It is an assumption with no basis in science. Vague arm waving and personal incredulity do not qualify as evidence. Specific, unambiguous, credible, empirical evidence that addresses each line of inquiry above must be introduced, or you are not arguing science.
Like you, I do not believe that any theory should be granted "special priveleges" either. This is technical agnosticism, which is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Yet you've taken this much further by positively stating there is definitely a Creator, that SG is definitely false, and that the whole of creation testifies to this one "truth," with no possibility it could be refuted. You've done this by stating that science cannot study claims concerning God, asking rhetorical questions such as "Can you describe to me exactly how S.G. can be tested and proven wrong," implying that it too can't be tested, yet you also to state that you "...can safely say that upon such evidence, it would have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that life did not need a creator to originate but arose from natural causes." In other words, you're willing to change the rules as it suits you.
This metalogical gerrymandering has got to stop, Theo!
Just to be perfectly clear about this, falsified does not mean simply unproven. It means disproven (see here). The example you provided is inadequate and misleading. The Celsius scale is an arbitrary set of numbers that assigns zero degrees as the freezing point of water. We observe water to freeze and base the Celsius scale on that, not the other way around. If someone hypothesizes that water freezes at say, 3 degrees Celsius, the problem is with the hypothesis in that the very scale used to support the hypothesis is rendered meaningless! Thus you are correct that the hypothesis is falsified, but not just temporarily. Rather, it is permanently falsified.
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson