- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
31 May 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritBasing a prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow on religious beliefs, is unlikely to backfire on a person. Predicting that science will keep going in the direction it is going, is pretty safe over the short to medium haul. Paradigm shifts are not very common. That covers the first 4 predictions.
recd
The last 2 predictions say there will be evidence of a great miracle -- creation -- and evidence of lesser miracles. I say that any non-naturalistic conclusion drawn from what is observed in the natural world, will not be science as we have known it in modern times. We will have to go back to pre-modern science to have non-naturalistic explanations accepted as scientific.
31 May 12
Originally posted by tim88How true. And funny too. A double threat to evolution in one little joke. But actually, the whole idea of evolution is one big joke.
Q.Why did the atheist throw her watch out of the window?
A.She wanted to see if it was designed intelligently enough to evolve into a bird.
31 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI would not put too much trust in Dr. Hugh Ross. I would put my trust only in the Lord. If the Lord does not give us a testable model, which He may have, then we don't need one just to please the Atheists.
On YouTube, put out by [b]Reasons To Believe there is a multi video lecture on a TESTABLE Creation Model presented by Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist.
He talks about predictions their model has made.
Do Christian Have a Testable Model of the Creation Event ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivf3J32WsQk
http://www.youtube. t sit through it to watch it, do not come back at me with complaints. I can't hear it for you.[/b]
P.s. Perhaps we are testing The Creation Model every day, unaware.
Originally posted by RJHindsOkay - I've read that source and here are my responses. I have to say, though, it is terribly thin.
You will find the Creation Model explained at the following Link:
http://www.usislam.org/38creat.htm
It is known that some creatures appeared at certain time, and never changed since. This persistence of life is contrary to what one would expect from the evolution model.
FALSE assertion about the theory of evolution.
In addition, this section fails to describe the vastly greater list of species that have not remained unchanged over time nor to address the process of change and transformation.
Man was created with systems that are similar to other species according to the divine Law of Repetition. When evolutionists closely examine the case of a man and other species that have similar systems to him, they develop comparative anatomy that may rest on logical, but not enough, bases. The existence of some similarity between man and apes cannot be denied. But the resemblance between man and apes was imposed upon all animal and human species because they all share the same environment with all its variations.
The close dependence of all species on their environment is not a matter of dispute - this argument fails to separate creationism from evolution. The Theory of Natural Selection sets out exactly the nature of the dependence.
The human body consists of many organs and systems. Each one of them, when studied with objectivity represents a remarkable proof of a creation by the Almighty. Take, for example, the wrist joint that rotates 360 degrees and can stop at any angle. What would it take from a biomedical engineer to design such a joint in such a space that keeps on working for so many years without external greasing?
What type of an argument is that? If a biomedical engineer could not make it then God must have made it. !!! If the organs were designed, then I agree they were not designed by a biomedical engineer. But they were not designed. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains in exquisite detail how NATURE produces each species and its various organs.
Miracles are also acts of God that defy the laws of physics.
Fair enough. So give us an example of anything that has happened in defiance of the laws of physics.
All miracles performed by prophets, with the permission of God, defy the laws of physics.
Not good enough as examples. The evidence base is pathetic.
The cosmic Big Bang challenges the laws of physics because it was a moment of Creation.
Maybe there is a challenge to the laws of physics. It depends which law of physics you have in mind. The laws of classical physics break down, the laws of Quantum physics come into their own. This also is the case when we move from large objects to the atomic level of matter. Nice try - but not a valid assertion. In any case, this type of argument only helps if you want to promote a God of the Gaps - the things we do not yet fully understand we can attribute to god, but there is an awful lot that we do understand without God.
If someone told you that all the physical laws that exist in the universe had simply happened by themselves, would you believe it? The global educational system attaches a name of a human being to every physical law, such as Newton’s law of gravity or Einstein’s theory of relativity. And somehow in the middle of this educational process, we tend to think that the discoverer of a certain law is actually the creator of that law. Well, he is not. Any discoverer is only a medium of revealing God’s spectacle, and the Almighty is the One and Only Creator of all laws.
What type of an argument is this? It defies classifying really. I am not sure anyone believes that the laws of physics are arbitrary and come from nothing. There is a credible argument that the way we describe the world is essentially arbitrary, but in the case of modern science, this implies that someone can come up with an arbitrary alternative that is just as good. Many have tried! I suppose a great example of success was non Euclidean geometry, but it does not make Euclidean geometry false or even redundant, it simply elaborates it for new applications (curved space).
However, the closing phrases seem to be capable of accepting the validity of all the laws of physics, and all of science, without requiring of necessity that we be atheists or deny that God created the universe. Newton was inspired by God to propose the theory of gravity (He would have accepted that description readily). Darwin was inspired by God to discover the theory of evolution by natural selection. It was the argument which most Christians and Muslims have accepted for generations, and still do, apart from some fundamentalists. What it is NOT is an argument against science at all.
as the story goes, the cosmic egg exploded (no atheist knows why!). The universe expanded and cooled sufficiently that the hydrogen gas and the helium gas could form. From these hydrogen and helium, somehow, evolutionists believe that:
A cosmic egg created itself somewhere and somehow for an unknown period of time.
The cosmic egg exploded with an unknown reason.
All laws of physics and chemistry created themselves, or by the scientists who discovered them.
All galaxies and stars created themselves.
Our solar system created itself.
Life created itself.
A series of facetious misrepresentations. There is a very full and clear mathematical account of the process from Big Bang to the present state of the universe. There are rival theories about the Big Bang, including the serious and mathematically valid proposals about multiple universes. There are a whole series of readable "popular science" accounts of all this so that it is not necessary to be trained in science or mathematics to grasp the essence of the account, but it is indeed essential to understand mathematics in order to engage critically with the science.
Finally from that first primordial form of life all other forms of life evolved according to Darwin’s natural selection.
Correct and the theory explains all the evidence so far.
Oh. That seems to be the end and we have yet to encounter anything serious whatever. Typical. Still at least I listened carefully, read through the stuff and considered it. Apparently that makes me a bigot (Jaywill).
By the way, refreshing to see RJJHinds recommend an Islamist web site for his argument!
31 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThe third chapter has a pretty good record of human memory of the Neolithic Revolution. Scientists are even beginning to discover a slight correlation between a diet based upon cereal grains and increased pain of women in childbirth.
I think the first chapter of Genesis in the Holy Bible in a Summary of [t]he Creation Theory.
01 Jun 12
Originally posted by jaywillbased on his 6 predictions, his creation model is not fashioned after the bible, that's for sure. i don't have his book, what is his creation model? i need to know so that i can determine if his predictions are actually in accordance with his creation model.
Testable Creation Models:
On Video P2 at 1:48 Dr. Ross begins to speak about SIX PREDICTIONS his creation model makes about future discoveries of cosmology and physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syjiDrr1luI&feature=relmfu
01 Jun 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritHe mixes a lot of evolution ideas in there in an attempt to make it more appealing to the evolutionists.
based on his 6 predictions, his creation model is not fashioned after the bible, that's for sure. i don't have his book, what is his creation model? i need to know so that i can determine if his predictions are actually in accordance with his creation model.
01 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsit seems to me that he has taken existing cosmology and evolution theories and just added a guiding intelligent designer. so his model would "predict" some of the exact same things as existing scientific theories, but with the added complication of an undetectable wizard of oz behind it all.
He mixes a lot of evolution ideas in there in an attempt to make it more appealing to the evolutionists.
but with that model, his "creator" is not a perfect being as reflected in the creation. we have many false starts and dead ends indicating a trial and error type of project, as if the creator was learning as he was going along, trying to find something that works well enough to enact.
01 Jun 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSure, he's all screwed up, just like I was telling jaywill, who seems to think he's sone kind of saint.
it seems to me that he has taken existing cosmology and evolution theories and just added a guiding intelligent designer. so his model would "predict" some of the exact same things as existing scientific theories, but with the added complication of an undetectable wizard of oz behind it all.
but with that model, his "creator" is not a perfect being a ...[text shortened]... as learning as he was going along, trying to find something that works well enough to enact.
01 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsCorrect me if I'm wrong but the designer he is talking about is your god, screwing things up as we go along, evolutionary dead ends and so forth. Fossils of human ancestors have been found and they did not make it to anywhere near modern times so they were a dead end. That kind of thing, whether you choose to believe those bones were ancestors of mankind or not, they were still a dead end.
Sure, he's all screwed up, just like I was telling jaywill, who seems to think he's sone kind of saint.
01 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseI believe in the God of Genesis, who created the heavens and the Earth in 6 literal days and not 6 ages of time. So I do not believe in the god of Hugh Ross. I believe in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Israel.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the designer he is talking about is your god, screwing things up as we go along, evolutionary dead ends and so forth. Fossils of human ancestors have been found and they did not make it to anywhere near modern times so they were a dead end. That kind of thing, whether you choose to believe those bones were ancestors of mankind or not, they were still a dead end.
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd that has something to do with evolutionary dead ends how?
I believe in the God of Genesis, who created the heavens and the Earth in 6 literal days and not 6 ages of time. So I do not believe in the god of Hugh Ross. I believe in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Israel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzu_O-KmnEU
