Big Bang and creation of the universe

04/08/2005 11:57:42 AM · #126

Originally posted by hopper:

I have searched and found no place where the Bible states that the sun revolves around the earth.

I believe RonB just did that- the church held that the Sun (along with the rest of the universe) revolved around the earth. That's why the Copernican model, and later Galileo, stirred up so much controversy. It's not that you'd find a passage quoting God as, "Let the Universe revolve around the Earth." It was the church's interpretation of Biblical passages that everything literally revolved around the Earth.

Originally posted by RonB:

...macro-evolution is NOT "known, observable science"....with macro-evolution, the "observable results" cannot be applied to the "model" without making some "assumptions". Assumptions such as 'the age of the sedimentary layer in which an object was found" - and that age being based on the assumption of the accuracy of "radio-carbon dating" of other samples found in it

Anything can be said to be based upon assumption. Belief in the Bible itself requires some HUGE assumptions, some of which defy common sense or contradict simple observation. If I drop my camera, and it shatters on a sidewalk, I ASSUME that gravity caused it to hit the sidewalk. Maybe it was actually wind shear, a freak occurence of magnetism, or devine intervention. Most people would agree that it was gravity, because that model of Newtonian physics has been proven with direct measurements and observation (i.e., we drop things, they fall at a predictable rate based upon mass, friction, etc.).

Likewise, radio isotope dating might be called an assumption, but it has been proven with direct measurement and observation. Physics predicts the rate of decay for an isotope. We measure it over a year and find that the prediction matches exactly. We measure it from a 1700's manuscript and find that it matches exactly. We measure the isotope from the Dead Sea scrolls and find that it matches exactly. We measure it from an ancient Egyptian artifact from a known period and find that it matches exactly. We compare a date determined from Carbon-14 sampling to measurements of other isotopes with known rates of decay. Surprise- they agree. There is NO division among scientists regarding the accuracy of radio isotope dating- it's a fact, proven beyond reasonable doubt through direct observation and measurement. Read all about it- Accuracy of Dating Methods

Even if there had been some uncertainty regarding this "assumption," which scenario seems more likely to explain the obvious existence of fossils not mentioned anywhere in the Bible?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/08/2005 12:03:43 PM · #127

They call it the "burden of proof," not the burden of disproof.

There seems to be quite a double-standard in this argument about who has to prove what by what means. Hundreds of years of repeatable, verifiable evidence on one side, scraps of documents written by desert nomands a few thousand years ago on the other, plus "faith." I'd just like the religious adherents to use the same standards of evidence they demand of scientists.

04/08/2005 12:11:41 PM · #128

Originally posted by GeneralE:

That seems more than fair. Absolutely.

Let's cut the crap, however, and admit what's really going on here...and I'm speaking mostly to christians here.

I think that proponents of God-faith feel very strongly that what they believe is true (of course). Then, when scientists tell them that what they've believed about creation is untrue, the religious remain convinced of their original beliefs while demanding science to close all loopholes in their argument.

As for evidence for God, he himself has provided that to me personally in a way that he decided...it certainly isn't scientific and outwardly observable (except to those that know me personally) but it is "proof" nonetheless, albeit limited and spiritual.

That is why this argument will always go round and round in circles...but GeneralE is correct in stating that there is no burden of absolute and 100% proof necessary for scientists to be confident in the results of their study.

Likewise, there is no burden of absolute and 100% undeniable proof necessary for christians to be confident in the results of their personal and spiritual experiences.

Some christians will always be convinced that scientists are trying to push God out of this very real and spiritual world.

Some scientists will always be convinced that christians are trying to push common sense out of this very real and ordered world.

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 12:14:07.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/08/2005 12:27:01 PM · #129

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

... As for evidence for God, he himself has provided that to me personally in a way that he decided...it certainly isn't scientific and outwardly observable (except to those that know me personally) but it is "proof" nonetheless, albeit limited and spiritual.

Nice summary ... and you remind of a quote from Dr. Thomas Szasz (famous psychologist):

If you talk to God, you are praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/08/2005 12:42:29 PM · #130

. . . as mathematics, a human invention
That parallels but never touches reality, gives the astronomer
Metaphors through which he may comprehend
The powers and the flow of things:
So the human sense of beauty
Is our metaphor of their excellence, their divine nature:
--- like dust in a whirlwind, making
The wild wind visible.

� Robinson Jeffers

From memory, may not be quoted perfectly...

Robt.

04/08/2005 12:51:25 PM · #131

Originally posted by Dr. Thomas Szasz:

If you talk to God, you are praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.

I looked up more of his quotes, and Dr. Thomas Szasz has some great things to say about society...

Have you read any of his books, GeneralE...which ones might you recommend?

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

04/08/2005 01:38:15 PM · #132

Originally posted by GeneralE:

They call it the "burden of proof," not the burden of disproof.

Well put, though in some ways both may be possible. For example, creationists often try to discredit the varacity of dating methods that suggest an ancient earth, but I haven't seen them argue against the existence of fossils themselves. After all, you can visit a museum or fly to South Dakota and dig them up yourself. I don't think any sane person could argue that fossils are just a hoax that scientists have somehow inserted into the rock all over the planet. That leads to the following problem... if fossils are real, and they're only a few thousand years old (as some fundamentalists would like you to believe), then why is there no mention of T-rex in the bible? Sure, there are passages about creatures and monsters in general terms, but if specific animals like lions and bears can be spelled out, don't you think something as impressive as a 100ft sauropod or a pteradactyl the size of a bus might be worthy of a mention?

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/08/2005 01:40:44 PM · #133

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
They call it the "burden of proof," not the burden of disproof.

Well put, though in some ways both may be possible. For example, creationists often try to discredit the varacity of dating methods that suggest an ancient earth, but I haven't seen them argue against the existence of fossils themselves. After all, you can visit a museum or fly to South Dakota and dig them up yourself. I don't think any sane person could argue that fossils are just a hoax that scientists have somehow inserted into the rock all over the planet. That leads to the following problem... if fossils are real, and they're only a few thousand years old (as some fundamentalists would like you to believe), then why is there no mention of T-rex in the bible? Sure, there are passages about creatures and monsters in general terms, but if specific animals like lions and bears can be spelled out, don't you think something as impressive as a 100ft sauropod or a pteradactyl the size of a bus might be worthy of a mention?

I think the party line on that is "God created the fossil record when he created the earth." In other words, we came with a firmware history already embedded.

Robt.

04/08/2005 01:45:15 PM · #134

Originally posted by bear_music:

I think the party line on that is "God created the fossil record when he created the earth."

Ah, I see, "Let there be petrified skeletons of things that never actually existed." It all makes sense now.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/08/2005 01:47:37 PM · #135

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by scalvert:
... if fossils are real, and they're only a few thousand years old (as some fundamentalists would like you to believe), then why is there no mention of T-rex in the bible? Sure, there are passages about creatures and monsters in general terms, but if specific animals like lions and bears can be spelled out, don't you think something as impressive as a 100ft sauropod or a pteradactyl the size of a bus might be worthy of a mention?

I think the party line on that is "God created the fossil record when he created the earth." In other words, we came with a firmware history already embedded.

Robt.

Well, now that we have a sample of preserved T. rex soft tissue, we may have some better answers ...

The origin of the fossil record is a good example of where the prinicple of Occam's Razor definitely favors one side ...

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 13:51:38.

04/08/2005 01:53:48 PM · #136

Originally posted by GeneralE:

...now that we have a sample of preserved T. rex soft tissue, we may have some better answers ...

We also have very well preserved tissue from more recent epochs of prominent animals like mammoths oddly absent from biblical history. Who's really making the unsupported assumptions here?

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 13:54:26.

04/08/2005 01:54:11 PM · #137

Originally posted by GeneralE:

The origin of the fossil record is a good example of where the prinicple of Occam's Razor definitely favors one side ...

Speaking of his razor (and without being facetious), don't you believe that much hoop-jumping has been done on the side of scientists supporting evolution as well?

For example, this "missing link"...again, I'm fairly ignorant on the subject, but I'd love to know why we have fossils millions of years old yet when we find one (or a few) 'missing link' fossils even then they are discovered to be hoaxes. Don't you think there have been incredibly few of these in comparison to all other fossils found?

04/08/2005 01:57:42 PM · #138

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
...now that we have a sample of preserved T. rex soft tissue, we may have some better answers ...

We also have very well preserved tissue from more recent epochs of prominent animals like mammoths oddly absent from biblical history.

I don't get it...there are a few references to dragons/leviathon in the bible but you've dismissed those. What kind of reference are you looking for?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/08/2005 02:01:49 PM · #139

Until relatively recently, hominids have not been that large a proportion of the overall fauna -- I think the number of hominid fossils found is roughly proportional to their presence in the overall population.

And they tend to not be big bony creatures like mammoths or sloths (whom they resemble in other ways, though) which congregate in large herds, and so are less likely to be preserve en masse.

We have plenty of fossils of later hominids from the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon periods which seem to clearly antedate Adam.

//www.turcantabria.com/Datos/Historia-Arte/Cuevas/Cuevas%20Altamira/altamira-fotos-i.htm

//www.vm.kemsu.ru/en/palaeolith/altamira.html

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 14:04:05.

04/08/2005 02:07:17 PM · #140

I actually find the following passage in Job fascinating...to me, it sounds like a description of a dinosaurish creature (of course, the word dinosaur is very new and wouldn't have been included in any popular english translations):

15Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!

17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.

18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.

19 He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

20 The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby.

21 Under the lotus plant he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow; the poplars by the stream surround him.

23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.

24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose?

At first, I would think that an elephant is being described (except for that monster tail)...so, my second guess is a vegetarian dinosaurs with big legs and...hey, wait a minute! I know what it could be! :0)

Edited to add:

Look, this argument has been done before...we're at the early stages of an argument that has been played out numerous times. I refuse to dismiss evolution as fable, but some of the arguments presented seem to show a dogmatic approach to science...that's just wrong.

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 14:11:09.

04/08/2005 02:09:16 PM · #141

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

...when we find one (or a few) 'missing link' fossils even then they are discovered to be hoaxes. Don't you think there have been incredibly few of these in comparison to all other fossils found?

I don't know of many "missing link" fossils that have been found to be hoaxes (outside of Creationists themselves claiming them as hoaxes), but I'm not surprised that there would be few of them. Just going by logic here... if a link represents a transition from one successful design to an even more successful design, then I would expect the transition itself to be a short period. As an hypothetical example, a tree-climbing animal that develops flaps that allow it to glide from tree to tree gains a survival advantage over similar animals who can't. Once that small mutation occurs, any offspring with larger flaps have an additional survival advantage since they can glide farther and longer, so the flaps rapidly become more prominent. Soon, the flaps become too large for efficient flight or make the animal slower (and easier prey) on the ground, so the evolutionary change stabilizes, and you have a long period where the mutation is "just right." Any increase or decrease in the flaps becomes a disadvantage. Hence, the originally successful design could have a long history and the more advanced design could have a long history, but the transition period would have fewer representatives to find.

04/08/2005 02:13:06 PM · #142

Originally posted by scalvert:

As an hypothetical example, a tree-climbing animal that develops flaps that allow it to glide from tree to tree gains a survival advantage over similar animals who can't. Once that small mutation occurs, any offspring with larger flaps have an additional survival advantage since they can glide farther and longer, so the flaps rapidly become more prominent. Soon, the flaps become too large for efficient flight or make the animal slower (and easier prey) on the ground, so the evolutionary change stabilizes, and you have a long period where the mutation is "just right." Any increase or decrease in the flaps becomes a disadvantage. Hence, the originally successful design could have a long history and the more advanced design could have a long history, but the transition period would have fewer representatives to find.

I could ridicule this as easily as I could ridicule creationist's arguments...the razor cuts both ways.

I'm not saying it doesn't "possibly work"...just opining that both 'sides' are up for ridicule if we aren't open to hearing them out and objectively considering them.

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 14:14:16.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/08/2005 02:13:32 PM · #143

I dare you to find a mythology which doesn't contain descriptions of "fantastic" creatures : )

Surely you've noticed that "scientific types" are no exception, with a long proud tradition stretching from Jules Verne to George Lucas and beyond.

04/08/2005 02:19:27 PM · #144

Originally posted by GeneralE:

So the argument goes like this:

"There are no dinosaurs mentioned in the bible." (I know you didn't say that)
"Yes there are, this sounds like one right here."
"Well, fantastic creatures are mentioned in every ancient work".

How then shall I answer?

Again, I'm not arguing "for" anything at this point. I'm showing that evolutionist argument can be every bit as dogmatic or prone to ridicule as creationist argument. This discussion seems to verify that.

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 14:21:36.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/08/2005 02:26:43 PM · #145

I didn't mean it like that. I don't think whether or not dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible matters that much.

The description you posted would apply to any large creature ... I'd want a more specific description of distintly reptilian characteristics before I'd say they were describing a dinosaur.

Even so, it sounds most like a large snapping turtle, or maybe the first recorded sighting of the Loch Ness Monster.

04/08/2005 02:31:14 PM · #146

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Well, it would be strange that a snapping turtle would be used in this speech to Job as the epitome of what "ranks first among the works of God".

There are many close-minded creationists and many close-minded evolutionists. I thank God (or perhaps the big bang) that I'm not one of them. Neither do anything to further their point.

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 14:31:47.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/08/2005 02:40:48 PM · #147

I'm not being closed-minded about this, but no one seems to be able to say "well obviously Job saw a Brachiosaurus" -- it simply could have been any great creature.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

04/08/2005 02:43:28 PM · #148

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Ah, but you seem more than willing to accept the description of a dinosaur based on a few pieces of thigh-bone or jaw-bone. Yeah - that's fair. Let's face it, scientists don't even know whether dinosarus were cold-blooded or warm-blooded, yet it seems that YOU have decided that they had 'distintly (sic) reptilian characteristics'. What characteristics might those be, and what is the evidence to support those "assumptions"?

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

04/08/2005 02:46:14 PM · #149

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I'm not being closed-minded about this, but no one seems to be able to say "well obviously Job saw a Brachiosaurus" -- it simply could have been any great creature.

thus, strengthening thatcloudthere's arguement that scalverts arguement is a weak one ... which is all he was trying to do. i'm also in the camp that the dinosaur arguement doesn't really help either side on this topic.