Amazing people of amazing faith, who believe so very much!

According to my Websters unabridged dictionary the definition:Empirical = 1. "founded upon experiment or experience; depending upon the observation of phenomena."2. "Depending on experience or observation alone, without due regard to science and theory."As a creationist I/we observe the phenomena of fulfilled prophecy as well as archeological evidence such as Dead Sea Scrolls, etc for verifying age of prophecy, which we believe to be empirical evidence of the supernatural. We also have some of the same geological evidence which evos have, but interpret the observed evidence differently.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buzsaw

​

As a creationist I/we observe the phenomena of fulfilled prophecy as well as archeological evidence such as Dead Sea Scrolls, etc for verifying age of prophecy . . .

---

I long hesitated to ask this here because it seemed off topic. However, your continued resort to the "fact" of fulfilled prophecy in this thread compels me to ask; where in this forum has this "fact" been demonstrated? Could you point me to the threads to which you are referring? Because every thread that I have followed which attempted to demonstrate fulfilled prophecy seems to have failed miserably in that regard.Also, either here or (more properly) in another thread, could you demonstrate in what way the Qumran documents demonstrate that any prophetic utterances have been fulfilled. (Forewarning: I can certainly present prophecies in the DSS that were not fulfilled.)Again, my apologies if this is off topic, but it seems to me that your constant resort to "fulfilled" prophecies is not only irrelevant in the context of this thread, but is also simply assuming facts not in evidence.Namaste'Amlodhi

Amlodhi, you've been around awhile. There's been threads about Israel, Jesus's Olivet Discourse prophecies and so forth. I suggest you do an archives search for yourself, as my intent is not to delve into them here and now. The Qumran scrolls verify some OT books which contain some of the prophecies were not written after the fact. Again, specifics of these are for a different topic. I mention these things up to show that creationists don't operate on blind faith and myth. I believe that mentioning these are relevant to this thread. I'm off to bed.I reckon this thread has served it's purpose and run it's course.

THere certainly HAVE been threads on fulfilled prophecy. But the only conclusion we can draw from them is that you could not find an example of fulfilled prophexy good enough to stand as evidence of the supernatureal. Every one was adequately explainable in terms of ordinary human behaviour.I also note that you listed the Dead Sea Scrolls as "empirical evidence" of the supernatural independant of any claim of fulfilled prphecy. Want to explain how how you came to that conclusion ?

Buzsaw, Neither here nor there as far as Matthew, Mark & Luke are concerned, go back to this post & address the issues I actually raise regarding the circular logic of the bible supporting the bible.The dead sea scrolls predates Jesus anyway, so why you think prophecies of Jesus are in it is beyond me, let alone corroborating evidence of the existence of Matthew, Mark, & Luke.The point remains that the bible supporting the bible is circular. The prophecies of Jesus as witnessed (allegedly) by the aforementioned are found nowhere outside of the bible. The bible can claim Jesus made accurate prophecies as much as it likes, but until there is independent evidence of them the argument remains circular, & logically invalid.I would be grateful if you would respond to the following, since it is directly relevant to the topic.

quote:

---

The FACT is that science doesn't require faith at all, with any meaning of the word. All it requires is the acceptance that there be a best explanation of the facts at any one time. Faith, as in your kind of faith, ie the meaning you use in post one, requires that you believe despite that there is a better more evidentially sound explanation.

​

You seem to be of the mind that scientists have to throw themselves at a theory & embrace it 100% no matter what, when in fact, all things being equal they "embrace" it to the level that the level of evidential support warrants & no more. Hence no faith.

​

No scientist has faith that electrons exist. They accept the overwhelming evidence for their existence, & accept that the chance that they don't exist is fairly low. This is an objective evidence based view & is utterly & completely without faith.
  —mark

---

And. Ditto.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-05-2004][This message has been edited by mark24, 01-05-2004]

Yeah, but come on. Don't be disingenuous. That's not the definition you had in mind when you made the title "Amazing people of amazing faith, who believe so very much!" By the use of the word "believe" you're clearly referring to the religious context of "faith". My ass you are. Is that what we're supposed to assume you meant when you said "Evolutionists have amazing faith and lots of belief?" Please. How, exactly? By making fun of evolutionists? By drawing into stark relief, as you have done, the light-years of difference between somebody who trusts that a theory is accurate because of evidence and somebody who has faith that a theory is accurate in spite of evidence? In my mind you've only confirmed that "fallacy" as truth.Don't act like a child, Buz. It's hardly becoming at your age. We all knew what you meant when you started this thread. Don't pretend like you can retreat now through equivocation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buzsaw

​

The Qumran scrolls verify some OT books which contain some of the prophecies were not written after the fact.

---

No, buz, they don't and this is not the first time you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge regarding texts and chronologies.1)The DSS make no prophetic mention of any of the events recorded in the gospel.2)The authors of the DSS were quite certain that the final "end of the world" war between the son's of light and the son's of darkness would soon be upon them.3)And strictly to the point, the DSS were written between c. 130 B.C. and 70 A.D. and, thus, can provide support for nothing beyond the fact that the OT books were written before c. 130 B.C., which no one has ever disputed anyway.Namaste'Amlodhi

This is how you people spin my statements so as to insult and belittle. The Dead Sea Scrolls which as you say were before the fact of Jesus and his suffering, contain the words of Isaiah which prophesied the suffering and death of messiah to come. This means his suffering and death were fulfillment of the messianic prophecies, which people like the Apostle Apollos used to convert Jews of his day to Jesus the true Messiah, and which Christians use to this day to convert Jews and others.Of course, they did not contain his own prophecies, though other OT prophecies lend much support the prophecies of Jesus. The prophecies of Jesus updated the details of those same prophecies in scriptures like Ezekiel 37 to 39, parts of Isaiah and other scriptures for the latter days of the future.

Crashy, this's pure poppycock and you know it. Do I now need to teach you that the word "believe" is used more to denote secularist connotations than religious by some examples? I've said it previously elswhere and I'll say it for the again-teenth time. I don't consider toe to be religious or a religion, period.You people are sooooo judgemental, you who so often chastize us for being thataway.

Fine, but that's clearly in contradiction with your thread title. You can hide behind your shifting definitions all you like - the fact remains that scientists trust their theories because of evidence. Creationists have faith in the Bible in spite of significant evidence against it. You'll have to point out where, at any time, I've criticized somebody for being judgemental, as I believe being judgemental against other people is a fundamental right. I mean, you wouldn't want to be putting words in my mouth, no would you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by buzsaw

​

The Dead Sea Scrolls which as you say were before the fact of Jesus and his suffering, contain the words of Isaiah which prophesied the suffering and death of messiah to come. This means his suffering and death were fulfillment of the messianic prophecies. . .

---

Since we basically cross posted, this is something we need to get straight once and for all. The existence of the DSS has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether or not the words of Isaiah were messianic prophecy. It means only that the Qumran community had copies of the book of Isaiah. They also had copies of "Jubilees", "Enoch", "the book of Noah", etc., etc. Will you claim that the possession of these works proves their veracity also?In addition, it is worth noting that though the canonical books were among the DSS, the Qumran scribes were at this time performing their own exegesis (eisegesis) on these books and interpreting these OT "prophecies" in ways that you would not recognize and in no way resembled later NT exegesis.Namaste'Amlodhi

Hi,It is interesting that some scrolls were dated to around 70 AD, approx 40 years after Jesus died. Yet no texts were found at Qumran that indicate that the messiah had already been born and had been crucified, the Essenes appear to have been oblivious to the messiah's presence.Brian.

Buzsaw, Although interestingly the Jews don't accept that the messiah ever appeared at all, & after all, it's their prophecy so they should know a messiah when they see one, no? Like Brian says, some of the scrolls date after Jesus' died & make no mention of Jesus, the messiah having appeared, or Matthew, Mark, & Luke. Strange that they missed him, isn't it?I'm afraid there is nothing here that says anything different to the modern Torah, the Jews are still are predicting the messiah & his suffering. Your claim that Jesus was that messiah is nothing more than wishful thinking. There is no independent empirical evidence that Jesus, should he have lived was the messiah. Remember the importance of independent evidence we spoke about? But we are not specifically talking about other prophesies, are we? It was you who quoted Matthew, Mark, & Luke as corroborating evidence of the prophecies of Jesus, & then offered up the Dead Sea Scrolls as independent evidence of their existence when it actually makes absolutely no mention of them!What gives, Buz?Thus far all you have told me is that a Jewish prophecy that the Jews still hold as unfulfilled existed 80 years before the alleged birth of Jesus. The scrolls that post date Jesus make no mention of the appearance of any messiah, & really you would think that that would be at the top of their list of things to write, wouldn't you? This isn't evidence of Jesus, it's evidence that a prophecy existed at least 2080 years ago. It does not provide evidence that it was actually fulfilled. There is no belittling going on, your statements require no further reduction by me. You haven't told us how the Dead Sea Scrolls support your position at all. Like I say, I'm not sure you actually what constitutes legitimate, logically valid evidence that supports a contention.I note that this statement by PaulK & seconded by myself actually went completely unanswered. And you claim I am belittling your statements? You have yet to provide any logically valid evidence in your support whatsoever, there is no need to belittle anything you say, it is already reduced to the status of unsubstantiated wishful thinking the moment you type it.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

quote:

---

And such escalating feedback loops happen so often in evolution that the process actually has a name: the biological arms race.

---

Two of my favorite evolutionary arms races:1) Human gestational diabetes:Mother-Fetus Competition"Maternal blood sugar levels typically drop during the early pregnancy and stabilize at a consistently low level throughout gestation (Haig, 1993). The early drop in blood sugar level is not a result of the fetal utilization of glucose because the demands of the fetus in these very early stages are relatively minor. The lowered glucose levels in the mother’s blood appear to be an adaptation that has resulted in her resetting her homeostatic controls during pregnancy, as if in anticipation of off-setting the future demands of the fetus. The mother initially reduces her blood sugar levels to limit fetal uptake throughout the pregnancy.Prior to the pregnancy, when the mother ingested a carbohydrate meal, her blood glucose levels would rise but then quickly return to normal levels in response to the release of insulin from the pancreas. When the mother eats the same type of meal in the advanced stages of pregnancy, her blood glucose levels and her insulin levels both go to higher levels and they remain elevated for much longer periods of time. These phenomena make sense from the perspective of an evolved arms race motivated by the conflicting genetic interests of the fetus and the genetic interests of the mother. The mother and her fetus are in competition for nutrients following every meal. The longer the mother has elevated levels of blood sugar the greater the amount of glucose that can be gained by the fetus. It appears that the maternal insulin resistance displayed in late pregnancy is caused by the placental release of human placental lactogen (hPL). Human placental lactogen is the most abundant peptide hormone produced by primates and its concentrations rise throughout the pregnancy. The human secretions of hPL are largely independent of maternal regulation or maternal levels of glucose or amino acids. Interestingly, the absence of hPL does not appear to have any effect on the pregnancy. Babies born from pregnancies where there has been a total lack of hPL fall within the normal range of expected birth weights. The placenta also produces enzymes that rapidly break down insulin and thus may counter the maternal insulin production. The pancreatic cells that produce insulin become greatly enlarged during pregnancy and women who experience impaired glucose tolerance during pregnancy have a greatly increased risk of developing gestational diabetes."2) Tall trees.

quote:

---

My point is that there's an element of the faith factor in anything that is not proven, more or less, depending on the supporting evidence or lack thereof.

---

No, that's not what your opening post implied, and you know it.Everybody knows it. You are being completely disingenuous or really dense if you expected anyone to think that you meant anything other than "scientists believe without evidence."Don't you see how your integrity is suffering by perpetuating this lie that you really meant anything other than "scientists believe without evidence?You are to be considered untrustworthy and a game-player in debate now.

quote:

---

As a creationist, I respectfully disagree with you and believe you have total disregard to what we consider to be empirical evidence for the supernatural we creationists believe we have and have furnished in various forums in the past.

---

What emperical evidence is that?I've never seen any here or anywhere. Perhaps you could link to it.Wait.Before you do that, could you explain what you mean by "emperical".