Creation Muesum

[TheRocketSurgeon]

But that's the point, dude. You DIDN'T address point #2. Animals mimicking speech without understanding it is not "talking animals", even if they know that "this sound gets that result". We're talking about a story in which a serpent (and another, with a donkey) had a conversation.

The verse you cited does indeed mean that God, as a concept, is considered to be outside of time-and-space; however, that has no bearing on it being a veiled prediction for either the Special or the General Theories of Relativity... especially since the concept of timelessness has nothing to do with either of those. As a cryptic messages go, that one fails on every level.

The verse in fact implies that God is not connected to the dimensional causality of Einsteinian Relativity, where space-time "bends" in response to a connection between speed and to mass. No reasonable person would have read that verse and concluded that it referenced a scientific principle, before that principle was discovered; you are just reading it in-reverse and making whatever you like fit the data.

[Ravenshire]

Still waiting for that example of a serpent that isn't commonly referred to as a snake.

Not that I'm holding my breath...

[RoadRunner79]

If interested you may want to check out Reasons to Believe.  I also like the Uncommon Descent Blog (some may consider this creationist, some may not).  Both look to science for explanation quite a bit.  I don't really use AIG, and agree with you in that case quite a bit, although I would not categorically label everything there as pseudo science.

Same shit, different salad. Starting out with an unassailable conclusion. This, by definition, right of the bat, cannot be science:

Scripture
We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses.

Creation
We believe that the physical universe, the realm of nature, is the visible creation of God. It declares God's existence and gives a trustworthy revelation of God's character and purpose. In Scripture, God declares that through His creation all humanity recognizes His existence, power, glory, and wisdom. An honest study of nature - its physical, biological, and social aspects - can prove useful in a person's search for truth. Properly understood, God's Word (Scripture) and God's world (nature), as two revelations (one verbal, one physical) from the same God, will never contradict each other. (bold mine)
http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission

RTB's mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature.

They do say, that their primary mission is to spread the Gospel, but they also say that they have a high view of science; which I believe is demonstrated.  Their team consist of an Dr. Hugh Ross (astronomer), Dr. Fuzule Rana (Bio-Chemist), Ken Samples (philosopher), and Dr. Jeff Zweerink (astrophysicist).  The primary reason for the organization is not science and not everything there qualifies as such, but they do utilize science which supports the creation account, and do so without denying evidence against them.
It does appear that by the part that you put in bold, that we are regressing; back away from science that supports creation, to simply ruling it out by definition.  What issue do you take with believing and attempting to show that God's word and God's work are not contradictory?  Are you denying any science which may point to the account of creation?

[Esquilax]

It does appear that by the part that you put in bold, that we are regressing; back away from science that supports creation, to simply ruling it out by definition.  What issue do you take with believing and attempting to show that God's word and God's work are not contradictory?  Are you denying any science which may point to the account of creation?

Do you agree that for a conclusion to be scientifically viable, it first has to be possible?

[Crossless2.0]

It does appear that by the part that you put in bold, that we are regressing; back away from science that supports creation, to simply ruling it out by definition.  What issue do you take with believing and attempting to show that God's word and God's work are not contradictory?  Are you denying any science which may point to the account of creation?

Do you agree that for a conclusion to be scientifically viable, it first has to be possible?

My question is different than Esquilax's: Do you agree that for a conclusion to be scientifically viable, it first has to be falsifiable?

If so, how is a "god hypothesis" falsifiable?

[RoadRunner79]

It does appear that by the part that you put in bold, that we are regressing; back away from science that supports creation, to simply ruling it out by definition.  What issue do you take with believing and attempting to show that God's word and God's work are not contradictory?  Are you denying any science which may point to the account of creation?

Do you agree that for a conclusion to be scientifically viable, it first has to be possible?

Yes, I think I would agree with that.  However I think it begs the question of how you are defining what is possible.

---

Do you agree that for a conclusion to be scientifically viable, it first has to be possible?

My question is different than Esquilax's: Do you agree that for a conclusion to be scientifically viable, it first has to be falsifiable?

If so, how is a "god hypothesis" falsifiable?

I agree, to an extent.  There is some debate within the philosophy of science on this and I could find myself leaning towards some arguments against falsifiability . But generally yes I would agree. 

I do believe that there are scientific claims which are consistent with the Bible are falsifiable.  However I find this is often confused with some claims based on the bible, which are historical and revelationary in nature.  Not everything in the bible is falsifiable.  I would also add, that science is not the only method for truth.

I also think that this is an interesting question, on a forum filled with people who believe that the "god hypothesis" is false.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Kudos given. A thoughtful response (disagree in places, of course, but agreement is no requirement for admiration), and a tone of respect for your opponents.

Thanks, RoadRunner!

[RoadRunner79]

Kudos given. A thoughtful response (disagree in places, of course, but agreement is no requirement for admiration), and a tone of respect for your opponents.

Thanks, RoadRunner!

Thanks, I do strive to do so. I am willing to admit that I am wrong, and believe it is possible and better to admit difficulties, and still maintain a position, than to simply ignore them. I also try to be straight forward and honest in discussions. Anyway thanks for the recognition! I'm content with achieving part of the goal, and keeping a civil discussion going.

[Huggy Bear]

But that's the point, dude. You DIDN'T address point #2. Animals mimicking speech without understanding it is not "talking animals", even if they know that "this sound gets that result". We're talking about a story in which a serpent (and another, with a donkey) had a conversation.

As I stated before, the serpent was not a "snake" in the beginning, more on that later.

I suppose you're familiar with the phenomena of speaking in tongues? Where the spirit of God causes a person to speak in a language that they don't understand?

Acts 2
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

In the case of Balaam the Bible clearly states that God caused the donkey to speak, there is no indication that It comprehended what it was saying or that it ever spoke human language again after that one incident.

Numbers 22:28
And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

Now on the subject of the serpent, the Bible doesn't spell everything out for you, sometimes you have to use common sense and read between the lines. For instance when God promised Abraham a son, Abraham and Sarah were well past 90 years old.

Genesis 17
16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

Sarah was a very beautiful woman in her younger days, so much so that Abraham would have her pose as his sister so that he wouldn't be killed for his wife. This happened back in chapter 12 of Genesis with the Pharaoh (this was before their names were changed)

Genesis 12
11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:
12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.
13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.
14 And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.
15 The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.
16 And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.
17 And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.
18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?
19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.
20 And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.

At this point Abraham and Sarah are 100 and 90 years old respectively and In order for them to bear children, God made them young again. The Bible doesn't explicitly state this, but later on in the 20th chapter we see the same situation arise with the king of Gerar.

Genesis 20
2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.
3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.
4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.

Are you telling king Abimelech is attracted to some 90 year old lady?

The serpent was human like, so much so that it's seed was able to mix with the human race, which is why God told the serpent that he would put enmity between HIS SEED and the WOMANS SEED. Women don't have "seed" but she was given a seed which was Jesus Christ, who was virgin born.

Cain is not mentioned anywhere in the bible as being Adams son. The Bible is good at recording genealogies and Cain is not included in the genealogy of Adam. The Bible does state however that Cain "was of that wicked one".

1 John 3:12
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

God never intended for us to reproduce sexually, or else he would of made Adam and Eve at the same time. Adam was a minor god if you will, he had the power and authority to form people from the dust just like God had done. The mixing of the serpent seed with humans is what brought death. This is why God hates perversion so much. Remember the natural types the spiritual, A hybridized seed is dead (sterile) it cannot reproduce. What do you think the tree of good and evil is? It's a hybrid which brings death. That's why Jesus (also referred to as the second Adam) had to be virgin born, and when he returns, he'll call his people up from the dust (in the ressurection) like it should of been done in the first place.

Jesus Christ, the woman's seed hung on a cross to restore us back to eternal life, therefore he is the tree of life.

1 Peter 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Judas who was the son of perdition (Which is hell, in other words he was of the serpents seed) who was an hypocrite (good and evil) also hung on a tree.

Now you see the tree of life and the tree of good and evil being made manifest, and the enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman.

I'll just leave it at that, I've already gone into this in detail in other threads.

The verse you cited does indeed mean that God, as a concept, is considered to be outside of time-and-space; however, that has no bearing on it being a veiled prediction for either the Special or the General Theories of Relativity... especially since the concept of timelessness has nothing to do with either of those. As a cryptic messages go, that one fails on every level.

The verse in fact implies that God is not connected to the dimensional causality of Einsteinian Relativity, where space-time "bends" in response to a connection between speed and to mass. No reasonable person would have read that verse and concluded that it referenced a scientific principle, before that principle was discovered; you are just reading it in-reverse and making whatever you like fit the data.

I just simply stated that particular verse in the bible show that time is relative, that is all, nothing more nothing less, and none of you can deny that.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/Twins

In Einstein's special theory of relativity, there is no such thing as "time" in the singular. Time passes differently for different observers, depending on the observers' motion.

that's exactly what the Bible stated, long before Einstein.

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Another example of science agreeing with the Bible is faith based healing AKA placebo effect.

Luke 8
50 But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole.

Article from the scientific american

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...-the-mind/
Free version
http://web.as.uky.edu/statistics/users/r...oStudy.pdf

Belief is powerful medicine, even if the treatment itself is a sham.

A man whom his doctors referred to as “Mr. Wright” was dying from cancer of the lymph nodes. Orange-size tumors had invaded his neck, groin, chest and abdomen, and his doctors had exhausted all available treatments. Nevertheless, Mr. Wright was confident that a new anticancer drug called Krebiozen would cure him, according to a 1957 report by psychologist Bruno Klopfer of the University of California, Los Angeles, entitled “Psychological Variables in Human Cancer.”

Mr. Wright was bedridden and fighting for each breath when he received his first injection. But three days later he was cheerfully ambling around the unit, joking with the nurses. Mr. Wright’s tumors had shrunk by half, and after 10 more days of treatment he was discharged from the hospital. And yet the other patients in the hospital who had received Krebiozen showed no improvement.

Over the next two months, however, Mr. Wright became troubled by press reports questioning the efficacy of Krebiozen and suffered a relapse. His doctors decided to lie to him: an improved, doubly effective version of the drug was due to arrive the next day, they told him. Mr. Wright was ecstatic. The doctors then gave him an injection that contained not one molecule of the drug—and he improved even more than he had the last time. Soon he walked out of the hospital symptom-free. He remained healthy until two months later, when, after reading reports that exposed Krebiozen as worthless, he died within days.

As you can see by this article, as long as "Mr. Wright had faith in the treatment, his health improved when he began to doubt, his health suffered.

This is also stated in the bible, in this parable Jesus is explaining what happens when an disease/evil spirit is cast out. The "strong man" in this parable represents faith.

Luke 11
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:
22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
25 And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

To summarize, Faith (The strong man) casts out the disease, and as long as the strong man is in the house, the disease cannot return, but as soon as the strong man (faith) is found to be no longer guarding the house, the disease returns worse than before.

As you can see in the Scientific American article, this is exactly what happened to "Mr. Wright", or am I also reading that in-reverse too in an attempt to make it fit the data?

[Crossless2.0]

My question is different than Esquilax's: Do you agree that for a conclusion to be scientifically viable, it first has to be falsifiable?

If so, how is a "god hypothesis" falsifiable?

I agree, to an extent.  There is some debate within the philosophy of science on this and I could find myself leaning towards some arguments against falsifiability . But generally yes I would agree. 

I do believe that there are scientific claims which are consistent with the Bible are falsifiable.  However I find this is often confused with some claims based on the bible, which are historical and revelationary in nature.  Not everything in the bible is falsifiable.  I would also add, that science is not the only method for truth.

I also think that this is an interesting question, on a forum filled with people who believe that the "god hypothesis" is false.

I appreciate the response and am curious to know, in a nutshell if you wish, which arguments against falsifiability you lean toward. Ordinarily, this would represent something of a derail of this thread, but considering that it's devolved into another of Huggy's grandstanding attempts to avoid admitting he could be wrong about anything, I don't consider it much of a loss.

I agree that science is not the only way to attain truth. As for my remark about whether the "god hypothesis" on questions relating to science and its purview is falsifiable, my position isn't that it's false; my position is that it's completely beside the point and has no place in a serious discussion concerning scientific matters.