Eden & Geology

Subduction Zone said:

What makes you think that either of those are not "real science"?

Click to expand...

They are real science even if they are based on pure assumption that there is no God and have no evidence for their truth and propose magic happening and want to say it is scientific.

shunyadragon said:

No, that is not the issue here, as to whether Adam, Abraham, and Moses were manifestations of God is a different issue. This is an understanding of the human view and the influence and meaning of human issues that are reflected in ancient scripture, which of course may not reflect the reality of the Revelation from God at the time thousands of years ago. Human involvement in the compilation, redaction, and editing over time of ancient scripture is a well documented reality,

Separate issue not addressed in thread, but reflected in your post is my belief that Ancient scripture is only relevant to age and culture of the time, and the the real revelation is in the evolveing spiritual nature over time reflected in the hearts and minds of humanity. Because of this ancient tribal religions are not relevant to more universal needs of today,

Click to expand...

Good answer but a typical Baha'i answer, which seems to always say in some way that the Bible is wrong even if Jesus seemed to believe it.

Brian2 said:

They are real science even if they are based on pure assumption that there is no God and have no evidence for their truth and propose magic happening and want to say it is scientific.

Click to expand...

You claimed that abiogenesis and the Big Bang theory are not real science. By the way they do not assume that a god does not exist and they are backed by real evidence.

Subduction Zone said:

You claimed that abiogenesis and the Big Bang theory are not real science. By the way they do not assume that a god does not exist and they are backed by real evidence.

Click to expand...

The Baha'i Faith endorses science, and Natural Laws and processes as to how God Created out physical existence. I am responding to your question, which has been addressed in many other threads many times are you hard of hearing, but again you are drifting off topic.

Brian2 said:

Good answer but a typical Baha'i answer, which seems to always say in some way that the Bible is wrong even if Jesus seemed to believe it.

Click to expand...

'Seems to,' is the subjective issue. The NT was compiled, edited and redacted over `~100 years after his death. We have absolutely no written records documented within 50 years of the life of Christ.

Nonetheless the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith atr not an issue in this thread.

shunyadragon said:

The Baha'i Faith endorses science, and Natural Laws and processes as to how God Created out physical existence. I am responding to your question, which has been addressed in many other threads many times are you hard of hearing, but again you are drifting off topic.

Click to expand...

I know that the Baha'i accept science. I was responding to a Christian that implied the two topics that I mentioned were not "real science".

And how was I drifting off topic? This thread was asking questions about Christian beliefs in the OP. I never mentioned the Baha'i faith at all.

Brian2 said:

They are real science even if they are based on pure assumption that there is no God

Click to expand...

There is no such assumption in any of the sciences.
At best, there is an assumption that there is no magical undetectable tinkering with data going on during experiments and observations.

and have no evidence for their truth and propose magic happening and want to say it is scientific.

Click to expand...

I think you are confusing it with creationism mumbo jumbo.

Subduction Zone said:

You claimed that abiogenesis and the Big Bang theory are not real science. By the way they do not assume that a god does not exist and they are backed by real evidence.

Click to expand...

I did not mention the Big Bang as not being science based on evidence.
Wanting the BB to have come from nothing is the problem and also wanting the material of the universe to have existed before the BB is a problem.
What is the real evidence for abiogenesis?

Brian2 said:

I did not mention the Big Bang as not being science based on evidence.
Wanting the BB to have come from nothing is the problem and also wanting the material of the universe to have existed before the BB is a problem.
What is the real evidence for abiogenesis?

Click to expand...

And I don't think scientists make the "from nothing" claim. That is usually a misinterpretation by creationists. But then you might want to define "nothing".

There is quite a bit of evidence for abiogenesis. I could link all sorts of scientific papers for you. It is still an unanswered question. There is more to learn yet. But that does not mean that there is not any evidence for it. Aren't you aware of this?

And for the Big Bang no "material" was necessary. I hope that is understood. Energy became physical material with mass after the start of the Big Bang. That is not nothing..

shunyadragon said:

'Seems to,' is the subjective issue. The NT was compiled, edited and redacted over `~100 years after his death. We have absolutely no written records documented within 50 years of the life of Christ.

Nonetheless the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith atr not an issue in this thread.

Click to expand...

It is subjective, based on my experience.
There is internal and external evidence for the epistles and gospels to have been written in the first century and mainly before 70AD. The apostolic fathers, the ones who were familiar with apostles, quoted from gospels and epistles in their letters.
We know that the New Testament had errors after a couple of thousand years and we know scholars have been working to identify them and bring a New Testament as close to the original as possible.
Why do you say that the New Testament has been redacted apart from those things that have been identified.

TagliatelliMonster said:

There is no such assumption in any of the sciences.
At best, there is an assumption that there is no magical undetectable tinkering with data going on during experiments and observations.

I think you are confusing it with creationism mumbo jumbo.

Click to expand...

The assumption (methodological naturalism) is that God did not do it and it happened naturally.
Life from dead matter and the material of the universe from nothing is magic however and is proposed as magicless science, magic without a magician.
And all it will ever be is speculation unless humans start creating things from nothing or bringing dead matter to life.
Science can redefine "nothing" and redefine "life" to get away from the magic but it does not work really.

Subduction Zone said:

And for the Big Bang no "material" was necessary. I hope that is understood. Energy became physical material with mass after the start of the Big Bang. That is not nothing..

Click to expand...

Energy is what I was thinking of when I said "material". The energy cannot have existed forever however. Where did it come from?

Brian2 said:

It is subjective, based on my experience.
There is internal and external evidence for the epistles and gospels to have been written in the first century and mainly before 70AD. The apostolic fathers, the ones who were familiar with apostles, quoted from gospels and epistles in their letters.
We know that the New Testament had errors after a couple of thousand years and we know scholars have been working to identify them and bring a New Testament as close to the original as possible.
Why do you say that the New Testament has been redacted apart from those things that have been identified.

Click to expand...

There is evidence that the epistles of Paul were written before 70 AD. And maybe Mark. That is still a lot of time. Errors accumulate quite rapidly in oral tradition.

Brian2 said:

Energy is what I was thinking of when I said "material". The energy cannot have existed forever however. Where did it come from?

Click to expand...

You might want to talk to a physicist. But I could ask " What energy?". As close as can be measured the total energy of the universe is zero. There is both positive and negative energy. In other words that makes a universe from zero energy not a problem.

Subduction Zone said:

And I don't think scientists make the "from nothing" claim. That is usually a misinterpretation by creationists. But then you might want to define "nothing".

Click to expand...

I use "nothing" to mean "nothing".
Logically time cannot have existed forever in the past and so changing energy could not have existed.

Subduction Zone said:

There is quite a bit of evidence for abiogenesis. I could link all sorts of scientific papers for you. It is still an unanswered question. There is more to learn yet. But that does not mean that there is not any evidence for it. Aren't you aware of this?

Click to expand...

There seems to be quite a bit of chemical experimentation about how the chemistry could have come together.

Brian2 said:

I use "nothing" to mean "nothing".
Logically time cannot have existed forever in the past and so changing energy could not have existed.



There seems to be quite a bit of chemical experimentation about how the chemistry could have come together.

Click to expand...

Talk to Polymath. He can explain it far better than I will ever be able to.

I am comfortable with getting to a point and saying " We don't know yet."

That is still not evidence for a god.

Brian2 said:

It is subjective, based on my experience.
There is internal and external evidence for the epistles and gospels to have been written in the first century and mainly before 70AD. The apostolic fathers, the ones who were familiar with apostles, quoted from gospels and epistles in their letters.
We know that the New Testament had errors after a couple of thousand years and we know scholars have been working to identify them and bring a New Testament as close to the original as possible.
Why do you say that the New Testament has been redacted apart from those things that have been identified.

Click to expand...

Before 70 AD? No, the only maybe evidence for the existence of a gospel before 70 AD is the possibility of a early Q document which would mean 'redacted'' over time. The gospels themselves represent one using the other and additions 'over time' compiled from in part early oral testimony, and traditional beliefs. No internal evidence does not support external evidence, which is very sketchy.

Brian2 said:

The assumption (methodological naturalism) is that God did not do it and it happened naturally.

Click to expand...

That's not what methodological naturalism is.

Life from dead matter and the material of the universe from nothing is magic

Click to expand...

"Magic" is when natural laws are suspended and the "impossible" happens anyway.
Processes involving chemistry and physics, are the opposite of that.

however and is proposed as magicless science, magic without a magician.

Click to expand...

Natural processes are the opposite of "magic"

And all it will ever be is speculation unless humans start creating things from nothing or bringing dead matter to life.

Click to expand...

There currently is no conclusive and / or accepted answer to these questions.
So I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "speculation".

Last time I checked, it's creationists who pretend to have answers while they have none.
When there comes agreement on a scientific answer, then the processes will be demonstrable. That's kind of what science is all about......

Science can redefine "nothing" and redefine "life" to get away from the magic but it does not work really.

Click to expand...

The only one doing the redefining here, seems to be you though.............

Brian2 said:

I use "nothing" to mean "nothing".

Click to expand...

So, you want to use a juvenile / layman defintion of a word in a context where it actually has very narrow and specified scope?

"There is nothing in this box". That's a correct layman use of the word.
However, to a physicist, that simply is a wrong statement. There's LOADS of stuff in the box:
- plenty of atoms / molecules that make up the "air" in the box
- even if it is a vaccuum inside the box, there's still loads of (virtual) particles in there.
- there's space-time in the box
- there's energy in the box.

There's PLENTY of stuff in the box, and there's PLENTY of stuff going on in there as well.

A juvenile / layman / superficial approach to this subject, is only going to end up in confusion and failure.

Logically time cannot have existed forever in the past and so changing energy could not have existed.

Click to expand...

Whenever there was a universe (with energy), there was time though. And vice versa.
So, it is very correct to say that the energy of the universe has "always" existed. And that goes for the universe itself as well.

Since "always" = a period of time. All of time, to be exact.
And if you go back in time... at ANY point in time, the universe (and all energy contained therein), existed.
There is no point in time when it didn't.

There seems to be quite a bit of chemical experimentation about how the chemistry could have come together.

Click to expand...

And lots of evidence.

For example, back in the day creationists used to say that the "building blocks of life" are "too complex" to have formed naturally.

Today, we know this is not the case at all. We know that these building blocks form all the time in nature. We even find them in space rocks in abundance.